@Charles - Re: your post in the last thread. I am up around Stuttgart and the Black Forest (lots of driving!), so can't make a drink in Munich tonight, I'm afraid.
As for the Mittelstand and comparisons with the UK, read the following and weep. It's the Daily Mail, I know, but it rings so true:
Selling British businesses and assets for short term shareholder value and calling it “Inward Investment” is not the answer. Mergers and acquisitions are no match for organic growth strategies; neither is paying the largest dividends as a percentage of profits of all developed economies. The UK has an abundance of entrepreneurs but cannot emulate the Mittelstand – the small and medium businesses that are the backbone of the German economy. All too often starved of adequate bank finance, those that make it over the first hurdles are soon driven into the arms of private equity or the stock market and too many are swallowed up and disappear. Lord Bamford, who chairs JCB, his family firm, said to me not long ago: ‘If my Dad or I had gone to the stock market for money, we would not be here any more.’ His words should haunt British politicians. If the UK wants to reduce its dependence on the City and get properly into the international race and not with an arm tied behind its back, it should do something about growing more SMEs into JCBs. It’s the real economy, stupid!
Your family firm is the exception not the rule. We need a lot more like yours, but the way things work in the UK does not encourage it.
I think in blaming private equity / the stock market, the Mail is missing the target: they are identifying a mechanism not the cause.
Fundamentally, the problem is cultural rather than anything else. Commerce, and especially industry, is still seen as somehow 'grubby' with the desire to redeploy capital into land. There are a surprising small number of multi-generational family companies (one stat I saw, but can't verify, is that there is only an 8% chance of a company making it to the third generation).
NickP:Since there is only one Parliament, you can't just switch jobs as you might from Oracle to Microsoft - you need to change to a new career.
This is where the whole thing is excessively parochial. If you've got experience as an MP in the UK, you should be way ahead of the competition when it comes to getting a job as an MP in Switzerland or Denmark.
What's really amazing is that large countries appoint completely inexperienced people to top jobs, like Prime Minister. If you think you might be good at running a large country, you should be expected to prove yourself with a successful stint as Prime Minister of a smaller country first.
Nick - There are other parliaments in the UK. That was the whole basis of my piece a few weeks ago that parties were now well behind the curve in being excessively Westminster-focussed in terms of leadership contests. Party leaders in the devolved assemblies, especially when First Ministers, should be considered the equivalents of cabinet ministers, as should the Mayor of London, and all successful ones could make the leap from those jobs to party leader, though most likely in opposition rather than government. It's the sort of career path common in federal countries.
I think in blaming private equity / the stock market, the Mail is missing the target: they are identifying a mechanism not the cause.
Fundamentally, the problem is cultural rather than anything else. Commerce, and especially industry, is still seen as somehow 'grubby' with the desire to redeploy capital into land. There are a surprising small number of multi-generational family companies (one stat I saw, but can't verify, is that there is only an 8% chance of a company making it to the third generation).
I think you're absolutely right. Too many people build a business, not as a way of building something that will last for many generations, but as their route to owning a large house in the country complete with a small shoot.
It's not clear to me how to change that culture. And it's clear that political instability makes the problem worse: owning a business is risky - owning a large house without a mortgage is not. And if your business is one of those that exports, and there is a potential changing of the winds that might make it less tenable in future, then why invest in capacity? Why not simply sell it on?
I haven't commented anywhere on this as I haven't had the stomach but a couple of thoughts:
1-the threat to Clegg's leadership would have been if he'd gone outside the rules and dismissed Rennard, suspended him personally, or taken legal action. Clegg has followed LD rules however daft and that's why he is safe.
2-Rennard would resign if he had a shred of common sense; there is no way back and it's best for him now let alone anyone else. CR will be persona non grata in local parties across the country.
3-in my view Tim Farron has had a bad war this time. As president he's the link between the leadership and membership, and he's failed to prevent civil war this week. First email to members was yesterday, far far too late. I'm less likely to vote for him as leader now.
4-Norman Lamb could well be the choice of grey suits, but a revolting party won't listen to the suits at the moment and there would be a contested leadership if it came to it. Not sure Norman would do very well there, probably because he'd actually make a good leader.
Thanks for your thoughts, and appreciate that it can't be particularly pleasant for ordinary members either way with all this dirty linen being washed in public. What are your thoughts on the impact on activists / members? Likely to be less involved / not renew membership in due course or water off a ducks back 'all parties have issues - it is now past us'?
Hi Lennon. Remaining Lib Dem members are tough, and very tribal. So I don't see many members going over this. Where it hurts is that the party which prides itself on equality and dealing with sexism has been shown to be absolutely useless when it really comes to it. Talking the talk but not living it out. I think it will affect some swing voters but won't overplay it; it takes a genuinely big scandal to change voting behaviour en masse as discussed in this thread, and it's more about denting morale and stopping any campaigning going on; no-one is discussing mental health which was the plan for this week.
Finally thanks for the invite to the Pirate Party the other day. I may not be a very good Lib Dem but I'm sure I'd make a lousy pirate
Agree about the impact on voters - it might confirm slightly the reduction of Lib Dem votes for 'None of the Above' as you appear the same as all the others, but other than that the voting impact is likely minimal. Interesting what you say about morale and campaigning not happening - if that continues into the Election campaigns then it could prove self-perpetuating (less campaigning => less local election votes => less councillers => less activists and funds for 2015). Not sure how you break that cycle if it is likely.
And glad that you took the invite in the spirit in which it was intended - if you ever change your mind... :-)
Mark Field follows Douglas Carswell in criticizing government economic strategy:
"The Coalition’s primary stated objective on taking office was the elimination of the UK’s structural deficit within a five-year term. In this it has palpably failed. Collectively, we are set to borrow £190bn more during the course of this parliament than planned at the time of the June 2010 emergency Budget."
"This tying up of capital and labour in non-productive activity has engendered a false sense of security and boosted short-term employment levels, but it augurs ill in the teeth of fierce global competition in the decades ahead."
"A sustainable household recovery cannot feasibly emerge from a diet of never-ending cheap credit and a new housing boom. Whilst it may be politically canny to shower more future public spending on pensioners in preference to investing in younger voters, it is not the route towards a more competitive economy. Indeed it has been a long-held fear of mine that the most talented of our younger generation will react to their raw deal simply by leaving these shores, probably never to return."
If the MP for the City and Westminster can see the problems it suggests the Osborne cheerleaders are being willfully blind.
It's basically the difference between going cold turkey and trying a Reduce-to-Quit strategy.
The UK economy was so high on an artificial stimulus that it is possible that complete withdrawal of that stimulus would have caused massive economic dislocation. As it is, Osborne came darn close to pushing the economy back into recession (although personally I don't think the excessive focus on GDP is helpful).
Yes it would have been great if the deficit could have been reduced faster. But we are still in a better place than we were 4 years ago, and we have still made substantial progress.
On topic: It seems to me that many people are looking at this with too narrow a focus. To me the most striking feature of the whole debacle is not so much the issue of Lord Rennard personally and the rights and wrongs of how the various people involved have been treated, nor the apparent impotence of Nick Clegg in dealing with it (he lacks the necesssary dictatorial powers, and, even if he did have them, it would still be a very tricky dilemma). Instead, what strikes me as most surprising is the readiness, or perhaps eagerness, of LibDems at all levels to engage in civil war over what is, in the overall scheme of things, a relatively minor issue, and one which in any case relates to events of years ago involving someone no longer holding senior office in the party.
This looks symptomatic of a much wider malaise in the party. For that reason, I wonder if perhaps Mike is underestimating the probability of the row escalating into something which could topple Nick Clegg. In general, the best bet is to assume that leaders will survive, but I'm beginning to wonder whether perhaps this might be one of those cases where things spiral out of control,
Dave will be upset by this LD sex scandal. He needs the Yellows to rediscover their mojo and resplit the left. If the LDs die then Labour will hoover up the entire lefty vote, leaving Dave out of options and out of luck.
Miliblob will just be laughing. Agent Rennard has completed his mission to perfection.
I think in blaming private equity / the stock market, the Mail is missing the target: they are identifying a mechanism not the cause.
Fundamentally, the problem is cultural rather than anything else. Commerce, and especially industry, is still seen as somehow 'grubby' with the desire to redeploy capital into land. There are a surprising small number of multi-generational family companies (one stat I saw, but can't verify, is that there is only an 8% chance of a company making it to the third generation).
I'm not sure that the generational issue is valid. There are big problems with passing companies down the generations, and trying to be fair to kids. One relatively fair route is to give each child equal shares in the company, but that leads to one or two doing the work whilst the others get the dividends. It gets much worse in the next generation.
In one case, this led to well over seventy shareholders, with two family members doing the work, and decisions that were sometimes almost impossible to make. It needs maturity to work, and sadly sometimes families interrelationships are anything but mature.
The alternative: giving the business to one child, is blatantly unfair.
This experience was why my dad made it clear that when he retired, none of us would take over the business, which would be sold. We knew this from when were were kids, and it was fine with us.
Since there is only one Parliament, you can't just switch jobs as you might from Oracle to Microsoft - you need to change to a new career.
This is where the whole thing is excessively parochial. If you've got experience as an MP in the UK, you should be way ahead of the competition when it comes to getting a job as an MP in Switzerland or Denmark.
What's really amazing is that large countries appoint completely inexperienced people to top jobs, like Prime Minister. If you think you might be good at running a large country, you should be expected to prove yourself with a successful stint as Prime Minister of a smaller country first.
Start in Luxemburg and work your way up...
Exactly. Speaking of which I rate Ed Miliband quite a lot higher than the consensus, but everyone must agree Labour would be better off with Helle Thorning-Schmidt.
Well, as she is a Kinnock, I guess she would tick the nepotism box at least ;-)
Perhaps. They say Ed is a lucky general. But I don't think the scandal will make much of a difference to VI beyond the very short term (and maybe not even that).
"An independent Scotland faces “many hurdles” before it can join the EU, the UK’s secretary of state for Scotland warned during an official visit in Brussels.
Alistair Carmichael said the Scottish government’s claims it could start EU accession talks during the transition phase towards independence from the UK were fatally flawed.
“One man’s obsession to deliver independence not just to a specific timetable but to a specific day of the week . . . would not just undermine Alex Salmond’s hand in negotiations, but Scotland’s future in Europe,” he said at the Centre for European Policy Studies."
I think in blaming private equity / the stock market, the Mail is missing the target: they are identifying a mechanism not the cause.
Fundamentally, the problem is cultural rather than anything else. Commerce, and especially industry, is still seen as somehow 'grubby' with the desire to redeploy capital into land. There are a surprising small number of multi-generational family companies (one stat I saw, but can't verify, is that there is only an 8% chance of a company making it to the third generation).
I'm not sure that the generational issue is valid. There are big problems with passing companies down the generations, and trying to be fair to kids. One relatively fair route is to give each child equal shares in the company, but that leads to one or two doing the work whilst the others get the dividends. It gets much worse in the next generation.
In one case, this led to well over seventy shareholders, with two family members doing the work, and decisions that were sometimes almost impossible to make. It needs maturity to work, and sadly sometimes families interrelationships are anything but mature.
The alternative: giving the business to one child, is blatantly unfair.
This experience was why my dad made it clear that when he retired, none of us would take over the business, which would be sold. We knew this from when were were kids, and it was fine with us.
Interestingly - the ones which do this best are those which treat the long-term employees as the real beneficiaries - they are the ones which have grown with the business from early days and know the culture and how it works best perhaps. They have already demonstrated that they can work together well. The 'only' difficulty is the finance - how do you get them to pony up the amount of money that an outside buyer would pay and where do they get it from?
I think in blaming private equity / the stock market, the Mail is missing the target: they are identifying a mechanism not the cause.
Fundamentally, the problem is cultural rather than anything else. Commerce, and especially industry, is still seen as somehow 'grubby' with the desire to redeploy capital into land. There are a surprising small number of multi-generational family companies (one stat I saw, but can't verify, is that there is only an 8% chance of a company making it to the third generation).
I'm not sure that the generational issue is valid. There are big problems with passing companies down the generations, and trying to be fair to kids. One relatively fair route is to give each child equal shares in the company, but that leads to one or two doing the work whilst the others get the dividends. It gets much worse in the next generation.
In one case, this led to well over seventy shareholders, with two family members doing the work, and decisions that were sometimes almost impossible to make. It needs maturity to work, and sadly sometimes families interrelationships are anything but mature.
The alternative: giving the business to one child, is blatantly unfair.
This experience was why my dad made it clear that when he retired, none of us would take over the business, which would be sold. We knew this from when were were kids, and it was fine with us.
Our approach was to make the shares essentially valueless through moral suasion. Shareholders have to work in the business, for which they get paid a wage, but their key role is to ensure that the values of the family and the culture of the business are preserved. Dividends are kept low and virtually all profits are either reinvested in the business or given away.
The problem with splitting the shares as per your comment is that it inevitably leads to a sale unless there is some form of control mechanism so that the family votes as one block.
The Lib Dems used to be the party that gained seats through by elections. But, the last time is now approaching 8 years ago (Feb 2006 Dunfermline). A party that used to have a unique capability at by elections is now reduced to being pleased with itself when it scrapes a hold in Eastleigh. The Rennard machinations will have only further damaged the activists enthusiasm for campaigning. Could we actually see no LD by election gains before 2020 or even 2026?
It's basically the difference between going cold turkey and trying a Reduce-to-Quit strategy.
The UK economy was so high on an artificial stimulus that it is possible that complete withdrawal of that stimulus would have caused massive economic dislocation. As it is, Osborne came darn close to pushing the economy back into recession (although personally I don't think the excessive focus on GDP is helpful).
Yes it would have been great if the deficit could have been reduced faster. But we are still in a better place than we were 4 years ago, and we have still made substantial progress.
I call this the Augustine Doctrine.
Yes. If you want to see what happens when you cut government spending drastically in absolute terms, look at Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Greece, etc. Of course, these countries *may* come out the other side as fit and firing on all cylinders (and certainly, Ireland is getting there...), but UK consumers were dangerously over-levered going into the crisis, so going 'cold turkey' would have certainly seen much higher levels of mortgage defaults, and commensurate damage to the banks.
Since 2009, exports as a percentage of GDP have risen from 28% to 32%. A greater portion of our GDP is now accounted for by exports than China's. Private sector debt-to-GDP has fallen by more than 30%, and is now below the level of the US (and may be below China's, if that country's shadow banking system is taken into account). Government spending as a percentage of GDP was 50% *before* the crisis in 2007. It will be perhaps 44% next year.
Now, it is fair to say that the benefits of these improvements are not apparent to most consumers: but that's because in the halcyon days of 2007, we were living beyond our means. Our economy was (and still is, although to a lesser extent) over-dependent on financial services. We were running a budget deficit, private sector debt was increasing, and we were importing much. much more than we were importing.
Paying back each of these falls most hard on the consumer - because consumption was too high a percentage of GDP, and too much of that spending was going straight out the door to China. (Who were then lending the money back to us by buying up UK government debt.)
You can say "oh, we could have done better". But actually, we've done OK. And as our economy becomes fundamentally more balanced, we can expect the benefits to flow through to consumers in the future. I know this is scant comfort now - but we are in fundamentally better shape than we were in 2007.
The next General Election is between Labour Majority and No Overall Majority I think. I did a seat projection a while back, can't find it but I'm sticking to that. Think it was for Labour Most seats, NOM.
If the coalition can get their act together an improving economy may well mean a continuation of the coalition. That must surely be Dave's goal - I think he likes working with Nick too despite all the ups and downs. Labour must surely aim for an outright win
The Lib Dems used to be the party that gained seats through by elections. But, the last time is now approaching 8 years ago (Feb 2006 Dunfermline). A party that used to have a unique capability at by elections is now reduced to being pleased with itself when it scrapes a hold in Eastleigh. The Rennard machinations will have only further damaged the activists enthusiasm for campaigning. Could we actually see no LD by election gains before 2020 or even 2026?
Parties in governments win very few byelections. Parties in government, who've lost more than half their support win even fewer.
The LibDems will soon become a party of opposition again. And that probably means they will - in some circumstances - become the party of 'none of the above' again.
The Lib Dems used to be the party that gained seats through by elections. But, the last time is now approaching 8 years ago (Feb 2006 Dunfermline). A party that used to have a unique capability at by elections is now reduced to being pleased with itself when it scrapes a hold in Eastleigh. The Rennard machinations will have only further damaged the activists enthusiasm for campaigning. Could we actually see no LD by election gains before 2020 or even 2026?
Parties in governments win very few byelections. Parties in government, who've lost more than half their support win even fewer.
The LibDems will soon become a party of opposition again. And that probably means they will - in some circumstances - become the party of 'none of the above' again.
It is also somewhat to do with which seats happen to have come up this parliament. Oxford West and Abingdon? Not a definite by any means, but certainly more chance than those which have occurred.
Isn't a small West Ham win more likely than a hammering by City? Man City have no need to exert themselves and West Ham will be playing for pride.
Possibly, taken a slice of the 13/2 on West Ham, but Man City just look irresistible going forward, whereas you get the feeling even my Mum could score against West Ham.
I've worked out the odds of West Ham qualifying - It is at the very least 12,000-1 !
The Lib Dems used to be the party that gained seats through by elections. But, the last time is now approaching 8 years ago (Feb 2006 Dunfermline). A party that used to have a unique capability at by elections is now reduced to being pleased with itself when it scrapes a hold in Eastleigh. The Rennard machinations will have only further damaged the activists enthusiasm for campaigning. Could we actually see no LD by election gains before 2020 or even 2026?
The Lib Dems will have a much better chance next parliament, if they're back in opposition and if they lose a fair number of seats in 2015 (though the chances of any of those losses coming up have to be quite low, given the demographic profile of the candidates likely to replace them). On the other hand, if Labour's in government, the LD's will find it harder gaining seats from them than they would were it the Tories.
I think the longest period without a Liberal / Lib Dem gain is 29 years, from Holland With Boston in March 1929 to Torrington in March 1958. I would expect the Lib Dems to gain something, somewhere, before 2035.
The women's accusations didn't come up to the standard of proof, not even on the balance of probabilities. [the test that the rules and guidelines mandate the Prosecutor to apply]
But saying that straight would of course unleash the harpies of hell down on our heads.
Yes, women who complain about being treated in this way are just harpies. The complaints were found to be broadly credible. So we can conclude that the investigator believes the incidents probably happened. The issue surrounding standard of proof appears to be around intent to cause distress. You keep on repeating that this was failed on the balance of probabilities but the only public statement we have implies otherwise (though you have claimed to have read the report itself in the past so maybe you got it straight from there). In any case someone behaving in the way complained about deserves to lose a job or get kicked out of a parliamentary party regardless of whether intent to cause distress can be proven. The only thing that appears to have saved him from getting kicked out of the parliamentary party is that a majority of his colleagues there dont view the incidents complained about very seriously.
Lennon [10.43 am] I remember asking a friend of my father's what decided him to go into the line of business he had done. His reply? "Because there's a law against robbing banks." Back in history, Sir Francis Drake, who used to be seen as a hero, was merely a pirate - the same mentality as my father's friend. And psychologists have long ago found out that entrepreneurs and criminals have the same mind-set. I would go further and say that anyone who wants power has a morally vicious streak in them somewhere. Either it comes out or they die first.
As to the "cold turkey" question I would say it's a matter of time - sooner rather than later if the latest round if EU-US trade talks conclude as they seem likely to. We have never paid our way since the introduction of universal suffrage (or for some time previously) and it is universal suffrage, more than any single political party, that prevents us from doing so now. Restrict the franchise to those in full-time employment and you stand a chance. But how to get there?
Is Rennard reluctant to apologise because to do so would open him up to litigation?
It's a sad world that we live in that someone can't just apologise - yes, it probably does though. The Lib Dems want an admission of guilt, quite frankly I think they've handled the whole situation disgracefully from the point of view of all parties concerned and now they are in a mess entirely of their own making.
First not investigating the complaints properly, now a Kangaroo court that is leaving Rennard hanging out to dry. A total mess.
The Lib Dems used to be the party that gained seats through by elections. But, the last time is now approaching 8 years ago (Feb 2006 Dunfermline). A party that used to have a unique capability at by elections is now reduced to being pleased with itself when it scrapes a hold in Eastleigh. The Rennard machinations will have only further damaged the activists enthusiasm for campaigning. Could we actually see no LD by election gains before 2020 or even 2026?
The Lib Dems will have a much better chance next parliament, if they're back in opposition and if they lose a fair number of seats in 2015 (though the chances of any of those losses coming up have to be quite low, given the demographic profile of the candidates likely to replace them). On the other hand, if Labour's in government, the LD's will find it harder gaining seats from them than they would were it the Tories.
I think the longest period without a Liberal / Lib Dem gain is 29 years, from Holland With Boston in March 1929 to Torrington in March 1958. I would expect the Lib Dems to gain something, somewhere, before 2035.
The 1957/58 period was an interesting one in terms of Liberal family by-elections.
Mark Bonham Carter the Liberal victor of the 1958 Torrington by-election was the grandson of Asquith and the previous year Megan Lloyd George, daughter of David Lloyd George, had won the Carmarthen by-election for Labour from the Liberals. She had previously been Deputy Leader of the Liberals but had defected in 1955
Matthew Goodwin (@GoodwinMJ) 21/01/2014 11:28 Who Labour voters back on immigration. Those who reject all almost level with those who back Labour. Ed work harder? pic.twitter.com/9chv8JjWwP
Isn't a small West Ham win more likely than a hammering by City? Man City have no need to exert themselves and West Ham will be playing for pride.
Possibly, taken a slice of the 13/2 on West Ham, but Man City just look irresistible going forward, whereas you get the feeling even my Mum could score against West Ham.
I'm still officially fearful for West Ham's chances in the League itself...
Isn't a small West Ham win more likely than a hammering by City? Man City have no need to exert themselves and West Ham will be playing for pride.
Possibly, taken a slice of the 13/2 on West Ham, but Man City just look irresistible going forward, whereas you get the feeling even my Mum could score against West Ham.
I'm still officially fearful for West Ham's chances in the League itself...
You'll be fine, you've got Andy Carroll, he's the most expensive English football in history (thanks Damian Comolli)
The Lib Dems used to be the party that gained seats through by elections. But, the last time is now approaching 8 years ago (Feb 2006 Dunfermline). A party that used to have a unique capability at by elections is now reduced to being pleased with itself when it scrapes a hold in Eastleigh. The Rennard machinations will have only further damaged the activists enthusiasm for campaigning. Could we actually see no LD by election gains before 2020 or even 2026?
The Lib Dems will have a much better chance next parliament, if they're back in opposition and if they lose a fair number of seats in 2015 (though the chances of any of those losses coming up have to be quite low, given the demographic profile of the candidates likely to replace them). On the other hand, if Labour's in government, the LD's will find it harder gaining seats from them than they would were it the Tories.
I think the longest period without a Liberal / Lib Dem gain is 29 years, from Holland With Boston in March 1929 to Torrington in March 1958. I would expect the Lib Dems to gain something, somewhere, before 2035.
The 1957/58 period was an interesting one in terms of Liberal family by-elections.
Mark Bonham Carter the Liberal victor of the 1958 Torrington by-election was the grandson of Asquith and the previous year Megan Lloyd George, daughter of David Lloyd George, had won the Carmarthen by-election for Labour from the Liberals. She had previously been Deputy Leader of the Liberals but had defected in 1955
And Major Lloyd-George took the Conservative whip, as a National Liberal.
It's a sad world that we live in that someone can't just apologise - yes, it probably does though.
He should come to Japan, where a typical denial-type response to a political scandal is, "These accusations are ridiculous, I've done absolutely nothing wrong, I apologise deeply to the voters for worrying them".
The Lib Dems used to be the party that gained seats through by elections. But, the last time is now approaching 8 years ago (Feb 2006 Dunfermline). A party that used to have a unique capability at by elections is now reduced to being pleased with itself when it scrapes a hold in Eastleigh. The Rennard machinations will have only further damaged the activists enthusiasm for campaigning. Could we actually see no LD by election gains before 2020 or even 2026?
The Lib Dems will have a much better chance next parliament, if they're back in opposition and if they lose a fair number of seats in 2015 (though the chances of any of those losses coming up have to be quite low, given the demographic profile of the candidates likely to replace them). On the other hand, if Labour's in government, the LD's will find it harder gaining seats from them than they would were it the Tories.
I think the longest period without a Liberal / Lib Dem gain is 29 years, from Holland With Boston in March 1929 to Torrington in March 1958. I would expect the Lib Dems to gain something, somewhere, before 2035.
The 1957/58 period was an interesting one in terms of Liberal family by-elections.
Mark Bonham Carter the Liberal victor of the 1958 Torrington by-election was the grandson of Asquith and the previous year Megan Lloyd George, daughter of David Lloyd George, had won the Carmarthen by-election for Labour from the Liberals. She had previously been Deputy Leader of the Liberals but had defected in 1955
And Major Lloyd-George took the Conservative whip, as a National Liberal.
Indeed so and Conservative Home Secretary too. Later elevated in 1957 as Viscount Tenby. His sister Megan was made Companion of Honour gazetted five days after she died in 1966.
"I believe that Clegg has an extraordinary level of resilience and if he wants to carry on then he will do so – any observations I make here on the leadership have to be seen in that context."
Resilience or a complete inability to comprehend just how toxic he is and a stubbornness (that is ironically the equal of Rennard) in trying to get his own way and stay as leader?
Of all the peculiar things Rennard said in his statement none was more curious and completely out of left field than his cryptic reference to helping Clegg with Boundary Changes.
Why?
Because Rennard was a very senior figure in the lib dems and he helped Clegg not just become leader but become an MP in the first place. If all this gets even uglier then Rennard will suddenly become a lot less cryptic and a great deal more direct when his supporters feed their 'tell all' stories to the papers.
Regardless, this just highlights what a complete and utter shambles calamity Clegg has made of all this and it sure isn't Lamb that's having to eat Clegg and Rennard's mess for the lib dems on the media day after day. It's Farron.
Lamb is directly involved in this anyway so he can't possibly benefit as some kind of compromise figure while all this swirls about. Not that there are any top level lib dems who can. Rennard was too powerful in the party for way too long for that.
The only way Lamb was getting anywhere near the leaders job was in a John Major type scenario and that looks ever more unlikely by the day. Whatever else the lib dems will need after Clegg has finished with them it's leadership and Lamb is hardly brimming over with that.
Nor is it particularly likely the lib dems will be placing all their trust in party grandees after Rennard, for rather obvious reasons. So I'm afraid Paddy and Williams might as well return to trying to talk Rennard down as they have been doing so far with a self-evident lack of success.
With this set to rumble on for months Clegg will be fervently praying that he won't be the only party leader mired in scandal come the EU elections.
It's a sad world that we live in that someone can't just apologise - yes, it probably does though.
He should come to Japan, where a typical denial-type response to a political scandal is, "These accusations are ridiculous, I've done absolutely nothing wrong, I apologise deeply to the voters for worrying them".
"The war Rennard situation has developed not necessarily to the LibDems' advantage"
shareholder value and easy hostile takeovers i.e. banksters
Don't be silly. rcs1000 has identified a serious weakness in the UK economy and a trite bullsh1t conspiracy response doesn't do anything but waste pixels and time
It might excite political geeks, particularly Tories by the look of it, but to most it's probably a bit of a Falkirk style non-scandal, rightly or wrongly.
In the unlikely even that Clegg does go before the election, surely Cable would be the obvious caretaker leader.
The conditions necessary for a forced leadership change:
1. General background - is there a mood of disquiet in the party? (tick - electoral losses and polling etc) 2. Specific trigger - is there some event of sufficient magnitude to prompt people to act (question mark - the handling of Rennardgate isn't there yet but could be depending on developments. 3. Available alternative - is there are least one credible candidate who could take over and would be likely to do the job at least as well? (tick - Cable, Farron, Davey, Lamb etc) 4. Mechanism - is there an effective way to carry out the act? (question mark - as with Charles Kennedy, it would probably have to come down to pressure, which is messy). 5. Aftermath - would the deposed leader and / or their followers behave or would they cause so much trouble as to negate any positives that would otherwise accrue? (tick - if Clegg is forced to go, I can't see him kicking off in the way that, say, Brown probably would have).
So, three ticks and two question marks. It's not a full house but it's not far off and the amber lights should be flashing.
And yes, Cable is IMO favourite to succeed Clegg in any pre-2015 leadership change.
Is it me or does the lib dems disciplinary machinery look like it was set up on the assumption it would probably never be used...??
After all, liberal democrats are such highly moral people that perhaps it was thought circumstances such as the current ones could never arise.
The civil service and most UK companies I believe, judge sexual harassment cases using the 'balance of probabilities' test for evidence and if found guilty, you can be dismissed for gross misconduct.
The Lib Dems require a much higher standard of proof and use the 'beyond reasonable doubt' test of proof as though these cases were held in a court of law.
It is not that the event was never expected to arise, merely that the world has moved on wrt what is acceptable behaviour in the work place and the standards by which such behaviour is judged – I fear the case of Lord Rennard may well have exposed the Lib Dem’s disconnect between ‘worthy’ but flawed disciplinary criteria and public perception of what is appropriate.
"I believe that Clegg has an extraordinary level of resilience and if he wants to carry on then he will do so – any observations I make here on the leadership have to be seen in that context."
Resilience or a complete inability to comprehend just how toxic he is and a stubbornness (that is ironically the equal of Rennard) in trying to get his own way and stay as leader?
Of all the peculiar things Rennard said in his statement none was more curious and completely out of left field than his cryptic reference to helping Clegg with Boundary Changes.
Why?
Because Rennard was a very senior figure in the lib dems and he helped Clegg not just become leader but become an MP in the first place. If all this gets even uglier then Rennard will suddenly become a lot less cryptic and a great deal more direct when his supporters feed their 'tell all' stories to the papers.
Regardless, this just highlights what a complete and utter shambles calamity Clegg has made of all this and it sure isn't Lamb that's having to eat Clegg and Rennard's mess for the lib dems on the media day after day. It's Farron.
Lamb is directly involved in this anyway so he can't possibly benefit as some kind of compromise figure while all this swirls about. Not that there are any top level lib dems who can. Rennard was too powerful in the party for way too long for that.
The only way Lamb was getting anywhere near the leaders job was in a John Major type scenario and that looks ever more unlikely by the day. Whatever else the lib dems will need after Clegg has finished with them it's leadership and Lamb is hardly brimming over with that.
Nor is it particularly likely the lib dems will be placing all their trust in party grandees after Rennard, for rather obvious reasons. So I'm afraid Paddy and Williams might as well return to trying to talk Rennard down as they have been doing so far with a self-evident lack of success.
With this set to rumble on for months Clegg will be fervently praying that he won't be the only party leader mired in scandal come the EU elections.
Why so angry on behalf of the LDs? Can't you just be like the rest of us: sit back and enjoy the schaden?
Surely you don't misunderstand his nuanced position as head of the junior member of a coaltion government? That would be crazy. And unlike you.
I don't pretend to understand the LDs (save to wonder why, for such a progressive party, they are woefully under-represented amongst certain demographics) but they've achieved plenty under the circs; I'm sure NC has maximised whatever policy concessions he was able to extract on most issues with Cam.
He has played a good hand and all this talk of him being replaced is ludicrous. Not to say of course it won't happen because as we all know you really can't trust or enlighten the bulk of the LibDems; they are too new at the being-in-power game to understand those nuances.
shareholder value and easy hostile takeovers i.e. banksters
Don't be silly. rcs1000 has identified a serious weakness in the UK economy and a trite bullsh1t conspiracy response doesn't do anything but waste pixels and time
Thank you.
It's a particularly silly response, as I can't think of many (any) hostile takeovers of privately owned family firms.
Isn't a small West Ham win more likely than a hammering by City? Man City have no need to exert themselves and West Ham will be playing for pride.
Possibly, taken a slice of the 13/2 on West Ham, but Man City just look irresistible going forward, whereas you get the feeling even my Mum could score against West Ham.
I've worked out the odds of West Ham qualifying - It is at the very least 12,000-1 !
Out of curiosity, roughly how did you get that figure? I find it hard to tell the difference between a 1000/1 longshot and a 10000/1 longshot.
Would the loss of every LD MEP at these May elections be the scale of dramatic crisis that could force Clegg out? Is the bar lower such as being reduced to 1 MEP or is 0 LD MEPs not enough to force Clegg out?
4. Mechanism - is there an effective way to carry out the act? (question mark - as with Charles Kennedy, it would probably have to come down to pressure, which is messy).
On the contrary. That is usually a very effective mechanism as Clegg knows all too well. Clegg was one of those doing the briefing to the press that 'helped' Ming Campbell quit after all.
Rennard was appointed Director of Campaigns for the national Liberal Democrats in 1989. At that point the amalgamated LDs had achieved 22 MPs in the previous GE. At his first GE in 1991 Rennard supervised 20 MP victories. If this Rennard affair carries on much longer then his "achievements" may all be wiped out with the LDs back to their level of 20/22 MPs. Unlikely? Yes. But, do the Rennard "supporters" understand where they all may end up?
It might excite political geeks, particularly Tories by the look of it, but to most it's probably a bit of a Falkirk style non-scandal, rightly or wrongly.
In the unlikely even that Clegg does go before the election, surely Cable would be the obvious caretaker leader.
The conditions necessary for a forced leadership change:
1. General background - is there a mood of disquiet in the party? (tick - electoral losses and polling etc) 2. Specific trigger - is there some event of sufficient magnitude to prompt people to act (question mark - the handling of Rennardgate isn't there yet but could be depending on developments. 3. Available alternative - is there are least one credible candidate who could take over and would be likely to do the job at least as well? (tick - Cable, Farron, Davey, Lamb etc) 4. Mechanism - is there an effective way to carry out the act? (question mark - as with Charles Kennedy, it would probably have to come down to pressure, which is messy). 5. Aftermath - would the deposed leader and / or their followers behave or would they cause so much trouble as to negate any positives that would otherwise accrue? (tick - if Clegg is forced to go, I can't see him kicking off in the way that, say, Brown probably would have).
So, three ticks and two question marks. It's not a full house but it's not far off and the amber lights should be flashing.
And yes, Cable is IMO favourite to succeed Clegg in any pre-2015 leadership change.
Assessing Cameron on the same basis , I make it 4 ticks and 1 question mark .
Isn't a small West Ham win more likely than a hammering by City? Man City have no need to exert themselves and West Ham will be playing for pride.
Possibly, taken a slice of the 13/2 on West Ham, but Man City just look irresistible going forward, whereas you get the feeling even my Mum could score against West Ham.
I've worked out the odds of West Ham qualifying - It is at the very least 12,000-1 !
Out of curiosity, roughly how did you get that figure? I find it hard to tell the difference between a 1000/1 longshot and a 10000/1 longshot.
I took Spreadex's odds back that TSE gave to arrive at a mean Man City goal expectation of 2.7 (Their away record is worse, but their record vs West Ham is better ~4?).
Then used West Ham's home expectancy of 13 goals from 11 games to calculate their mean (You might argue their expectancy vs the rampant Man City is lower !) 1.18 goals/game. Created poisson functions of both - Put one side in the rows, the other in the columns and summed the definite qualifications for West Ham (7-0, 8-1 etc) and the overall draw 6-0, 7-1 (These send to extra time I think), halved the overall draw and added it back to the definite wins.
If anything it probably overestimates the chances of West Ham, although Man City are away and could be playing a weakened team.
I think the odds are certainly longer than 1000-1 though.
Tied test matches at 1.01 are always a buy too because the 10th wicket needs to fall on the last ball of the test, and scores level. Which is ~ 1000-1+
It might excite political geeks, particularly Tories by the look of it, but to most it's probably a bit of a Falkirk style non-scandal, rightly or wrongly.
In the unlikely even that Clegg does go before the election, surely Cable would be the obvious caretaker leader.
The conditions necessary for a forced leadership change:
1. General background - is there a mood of disquiet in the party? (tick - electoral losses and polling etc) 2. Specific trigger - is there some event of sufficient magnitude to prompt people to act (question mark - the handling of Rennardgate isn't there yet but could be depending on developments. 3. Available alternative - is there are least one credible candidate who could take over and would be likely to do the job at least as well? (tick - Cable, Farron, Davey, Lamb etc) 4. Mechanism - is there an effective way to carry out the act? (question mark - as with Charles Kennedy, it would probably have to come down to pressure, which is messy). 5. Aftermath - would the deposed leader and / or their followers behave or would they cause so much trouble as to negate any positives that would otherwise accrue? (tick - if Clegg is forced to go, I can't see him kicking off in the way that, say, Brown probably would have).
So, three ticks and two question marks. It's not a full house but it's not far off and the amber lights should be flashing.
And yes, Cable is IMO favourite to succeed Clegg in any pre-2015 leadership change.
Oddly, taking plausible Euro results as the trigger, the idea of deposing Cameron, which nobody really seems to talk about much even though procedurally it can be brought about by a small number of people forming a subset of known parliamentary Conservative crazy people, would get five ticks.
Would the loss of every LD MEP at these May elections be the scale of dramatic crisis that could force Clegg out? Is the bar lower such as being reduced to 1 MEP or is 0 LD MEPs not enough to force Clegg out?
So long as they avoid 0 I reckon it's all priced in. Literally 0 may have the shock factor necessary. Generally speaking though Nick Clegg has remarkable support, I still reckon the party has essentially decided to suspend leadership mutterings until 2015, they know unity is valuable and have just decided to choose Clegg and keep Clegg come what may.
Isn't a small West Ham win more likely than a hammering by City? Man City have no need to exert themselves and West Ham will be playing for pride.
Possibly, taken a slice of the 13/2 on West Ham, but Man City just look irresistible going forward, whereas you get the feeling even my Mum could score against West Ham.
I've worked out the odds of West Ham qualifying - It is at the very least 12,000-1 !
Out of curiosity, roughly how did you get that figure? I find it hard to tell the difference between a 1000/1 longshot and a 10000/1 longshot.
William Hill are 80/1
I can barely believe I have just seen that, staggering
Would the loss of every LD MEP at these May elections be the scale of dramatic crisis that could force Clegg out? Is the bar lower such as being reduced to 1 MEP or is 0 LD MEPs not enough to force Clegg out?
So long as they avoid 0 I reckon it's all priced in. Literally 0 may have the shock factor necessary. Generally speaking though Nick Clegg has remarkable support, I still reckon the party has essentially decided to suspend leadership mutterings until 2015, they know unity is valuable and have just decided to choose Clegg and keep Clegg come what may.
The other possibility here - although admittedly it doesn't seem to be taken very seriously by people like OGH who know their LibDems - is that there's already an agreed plan to get rid of Clegg before the election, which all the grandees are already in on, so there's no point in them rocking the boat.
shareholder value and easy hostile takeovers i.e. banksters
Don't be silly. rcs1000 has identified a serious weakness in the UK economy and a trite bullsh1t conspiracy response doesn't do anything but waste pixels and time
Thank you.
It's a particularly silly response, as I can't think of many (any) hostile takeovers of privately owned family firms.
There are a couple (mainly where you have a fragmented shareholder base), and certainly more in publicly quoted but family influenced companies (say Caledonia or arguably Wellcome).
Be that as it is, from recollection, hostile take overs are only about 10-12% of total M&A anyway
Isn't a small West Ham win more likely than a hammering by City? Man City have no need to exert themselves and West Ham will be playing for pride.
Possibly, taken a slice of the 13/2 on West Ham, but Man City just look irresistible going forward, whereas you get the feeling even my Mum could score against West Ham.
I've worked out the odds of West Ham qualifying - It is at the very least 12,000-1 !
Out of curiosity, roughly how did you get that figure? I find it hard to tell the difference between a 1000/1 longshot and a 10000/1 longshot.
I took Spreadex's odds back that TSE gave to arrive at a mean Man City goal expectation of 2.7 (Their away record is worse, but their record vs West Ham is better ~4?).
Then used West Ham's home expectancy of 13 goals from 11 games to calculate their mean (You might argue their expectancy vs the rampant Man City is lower !) 1.18 goals/game. Created poisson functions of both - Put one side in the rows, the other in the columns and summed the definite qualifications for West Ham (7-0, 8-1 etc) and the overall draw 6-0, 7-1 (These send to extra time I think), halved the overall draw and added it back to the definite wins.
If anything it probably overestimates the chances of West Ham, although Man City are away and could be playing a weakened team.
I think the odds are certainly longer than 1000-1 though.
Tied test matches at 1.01 are always a buy too because the 10th wicket needs to fall on the last ball of the test, and scores level. Which is ~ 1000-1+
Isn't a small West Ham win more likely than a hammering by City? Man City have no need to exert themselves and West Ham will be playing for pride.
Possibly, taken a slice of the 13/2 on West Ham, but Man City just look irresistible going forward, whereas you get the feeling even my Mum could score against West Ham.
I've worked out the odds of West Ham qualifying - It is at the very least 12,000-1 !
Out of curiosity, roughly how did you get that figure? I find it hard to tell the difference between a 1000/1 longshot and a 10000/1 longshot.
William Hill are 80/1
I can barely believe I have just seen that, staggering
I bet they'll have takers too ! Anyone backing that should stick to the FOBTs - much better odds
You'd be poor very quickly if you backed YES tied test at 1.01.
I was thinking you meant lay not buy, but don't really get cricket so decided to leave it. So you're saying that you can get 1/100 on a tied test regularly, and a tied test means a perfect tie with the last wicket going on the last ball? Interesting...
EDIT: Well, the Wiki article says there have only been 2 tied tests ever. So maybe that's all I need to know!
Surely you don't misunderstand his nuanced position as head of the junior member of a coaltion government? That would be crazy. And unlike you.
Your blustering about 'crazy' comes from which facts precisely ? I'm certainly not seeing any. Either tell us how this supposed 'nuance' you speak of has forced Clegg to make such a mess of things or perhaps drop it as the pathetic excuse it so resembles.
I don't pretend to understand the LDs (save to wonder why, for such a progressive party, they are woefully under-represented amongst certain demographics) but they've achieved plenty under the circs; I'm sure NC has maximised whatever policy concessions he was able to extract on most issues with Cam.
Whatever they have achieved in the past is now being systematically destroyed year on year by constant hammerings at the hands of the electorate of their base, councillors and membership. If power was all Clegg wanted then well done Cleggy. He has a nice ministerial car and gets to feel important. But concrete achievements while in power? What would they be exactly? Lords Reform? A fairer voting system? Nope.
He has played a good hand and all this talk of him being replaced is ludicrous. Not to say of course it won't happen because as we all know you really can't trust or enlighten the bulk of the LibDems; they are too new at the being-in-power game to understand those nuances.
Clegg's toxic. He personal ratings are utterly dire. I can sort of understand the Cleggite ostrich faction of spinners pretending everything is fine when reality disagrees, but it's less easy to understand why any tories would entertain such a farcical pretence. Will Clegg will go just over this? It's a possibility if things get totally out of hand but is it likely? I'd say it's still unlikely since Rennard and Clegg have far too much to lose since if one goes down they'll almost certainly take the other one with them.
However, Clegg was always going to face maximum pressure after the EU elections and in the run up to 2015 since it is blatantly obvious that none of the lib dem leadership hopefuls want to become another coalition sh*t magnet like Clegg for any great length of time and thus be unable to capitalise on a honeymoon period in the run up to the election.
Clegg has utterly failed to develop any 'nuance' in how the public at large and voters view the lib dems. He's in charge so I'm afraid just like with the Rennard debacle it is quite clearly a problem of his own making.
You'd be poor very quickly if you backed YES tied test at 1.01.
I was thinking you meant lay not buy, but don't really get cricket so decided to leave it. So you're saying that you can get 1/100 on a tied test regularly, and a tied test means a perfect tie with the last wicket going on the last ball? Interesting...
A tied test means the match being concluded (the side batting in the fourth innings being all out), with each having scored the same number of runs.
It's happened twice in test history in over 2000 tests (IIRC), so the raw odds are about 1000/1 but obviously this reduces when two teams are closely matched. I think one of the ties did occur on the last ball of the match as well, though I stand to be corrected on that?!
You'd be poor very quickly if you backed YES tied test at 1.01.
I was thinking you meant lay not buy, but don't really get cricket so decided to leave it. So you're saying that you can get 1/100 on a tied test regularly, and a tied test means a perfect tie with the last wicket going on the last ball? Interesting...
A tied test means the match being concluded (the side batting in the fourth innings being all out), with each having scored the same number of runs.
It's happened twice in test history in over 2000 tests (IIRC), so the raw odds are about 1000/1 but obviously this reduces when two teams are closely matched. I think one of the ties did occur on the last ball of the match as well, though I stand to be corrected on that?!
Maybe I am just being thick , but how can you have a tied test match without a wicket going on the last ball (iotherwise its a draw?)
Isn't a small West Ham win more likely than a hammering by City? Man City have no need to exert themselves and West Ham will be playing for pride.
Possibly, taken a slice of the 13/2 on West Ham, but Man City just look irresistible going forward, whereas you get the feeling even my Mum could score against West Ham.
I've worked out the odds of West Ham qualifying - It is at the very least 12,000-1 !
Out of curiosity, roughly how did you get that figure? I find it hard to tell the difference between a 1000/1 longshot and a 10000/1 longshot.
I took Spreadex's odds back that TSE gave to arrive at a mean Man City goal expectation of 2.7 (Their away record is worse, but their record vs West Ham is better ~4?).
Then used West Ham's home expectancy of 13 goals from 11 games to calculate their mean (You might argue their expectancy vs the rampant Man City is lower !) 1.18 goals/game. Created poisson functions of both - Put one side in the rows, the other in the columns and summed the definite qualifications for West Ham (7-0, 8-1 etc) and the overall draw 6-0, 7-1 (These send to extra time I think), halved the overall draw and added it back to the definite wins.
If anything it probably overestimates the chances of West Ham, although Man City are away and could be playing a weakened team.
I think the odds are certainly longer than 1000-1 though.
Tied test matches at 1.01 are always a buy too because the 10th wicket needs to fall on the last ball of the test, and scores level. Which is ~ 1000-1+
You'd be poor very quickly if you backed YES tied test at 1.01.
I was thinking you meant lay not buy, but don't really get cricket so decided to leave it. So you're saying that you can get 1/100 on a tied test regularly, and a tied test means a perfect tie with the last wicket going on the last ball? Interesting...
A tied test means the match being concluded (the side batting in the fourth innings being all out), with each having scored the same number of runs.
It's happened twice in test history in over 2000 tests (IIRC), so the raw odds are about 1000/1 but obviously this reduces when two teams are closely matched. I think one of the ties did occur on the last ball of the match as well, though I stand to be corrected on that?!
Maybe I am just being thick , but how can you have a tied test match without a wicket going on the last ball (iotherwise its a draw?)
The last ball of a match does not have to be the last possible scheduled ball though
Would the loss of every LD MEP at these May elections be the scale of dramatic crisis that could force Clegg out? Is the bar lower such as being reduced to 1 MEP or is 0 LD MEPs not enough to force Clegg out?
So long as they avoid 0 I reckon it's all priced in. Literally 0 may have the shock factor necessary. Generally speaking though Nick Clegg has remarkable support, I still reckon the party has essentially decided to suspend leadership mutterings until 2015, they know unity is valuable and have just decided to choose Clegg and keep Clegg come what may.
Zero really would be a disaster and perhaps prompt second thoughts about Clegg and/or staying in coalition.
It would mean polling no better than around 7-8% in the South East - an area of relative strength, and no better than about 10-11% in the South West. Nationally, we'd probably be looking at around 5% and an almost-certain fifth place. Combined with what would probably be disastrous local results a couple of days earlier (the Euro-count isn't until Sunday), the prospects looming for 2015 would surely focus the minds of members and MPs alike.
Isn't a small West Ham win more likely than a hammering by City? Man City have no need to exert themselves and West Ham will be playing for pride.
Possibly, taken a slice of the 13/2 on West Ham, but Man City just look irresistible going forward, whereas you get the feeling even my Mum could score against West Ham.
I've worked out the odds of West Ham qualifying - It is at the very least 12,000-1 !
Out of curiosity, roughly how did you get that figure? I find it hard to tell the difference between a 1000/1 longshot and a 10000/1 longshot.
I took Spreadex's odds back that TSE gave to arrive at a mean Man City goal expectation of 2.7 (Their away record is worse, but their record vs West Ham is better ~4?).
Then used West Ham's home expectancy of 13 goals from 11 games to calculate their mean (You might argue their expectancy vs the rampant Man City is lower !) 1.18 goals/game. Created poisson functions of both - Put one side in the rows, the other in the columns and summed the definite qualifications for West Ham (7-0, 8-1 etc) and the overall draw 6-0, 7-1 (These send to extra time I think), halved the overall draw and added it back to the definite wins.
If anything it probably overestimates the chances of West Ham, although Man City are away and could be playing a weakened team.
I think the odds are certainly longer than 1000-1 though.
Tied test matches at 1.01 are always a buy too because the 10th wicket needs to fall on the last ball of the test, and scores level. Which is ~ 1000-1+
I can barely believe I have just seen that, staggering
Don't think they'd be willing to accept laying bets at 1/100? Probably not, sadly.
I think that is the biggest liberty I have ever seen by a bookie
Not really -the percentage chance of an 80/1 as opposed to a million to one is not huge in difference and bookies generally don't want to have a potential liability (however remote) of millions of pounds run up for little stake money
You are evidently a format god. I, alas, am not and hence can't do the he-said-she-said thing you did.
So I'll keep it short.
Clegg was head of the NOTA party. The LDs advocated all kinds of bonkers policies, hypothecating taxes as I remember, plus other loony left fantasy couldn't-make-it-up wishlists which, because they were safely unelectable, didn't matter too much.
The electorate of their base, councillors and membership of course lapped it up and, by means of often toxic and vicious local campaigning, they secured some council seats.
But then they only went and got elected to national govt.
And pretty quickly they had to re-assess. Clegg got this instantly. He knew he was caught between a rock and a hard place but as much his worst fears as his greatest hope.
And so it has turned out. Shortsighted LibDems are castigating him for his u-turns and lack of achievement but, and I'm amazed I find myself spelling this out every few days, he is the junior member of a coalition government. It wasn't a triumph of the left in 2010 (despite the Lab=>LD switchers' fervent hopes), it was a just not big enough victory for the right. And Clegg has had to cut the LD's cloth as a result.
Mark Field follows Douglas Carswell in criticizing government economic strategy:
"The Coalition’s primary stated objective on taking office was the elimination of the UK’s structural deficit within a five-year term. In this it has palpably failed. Collectively, we are set to borrow £190bn more during the course of this parliament than planned at the time of the June 2010 emergency Budget."
"This tying up of capital and labour in non-productive activity has engendered a false sense of security and boosted short-term employment levels, but it augurs ill in the teeth of fierce global competition in the decades ahead."
"A sustainable household recovery cannot feasibly emerge from a diet of never-ending cheap credit and a new housing boom. Whilst it may be politically canny to shower more future public spending on pensioners in preference to investing in younger voters, it is not the route towards a more competitive economy. Indeed it has been a long-held fear of mine that the most talented of our younger generation will react to their raw deal simply by leaving these shores, probably never to return."
If the MP for the City and Westminster can see the problems it suggests the Osborne cheerleaders are being willfully blind.
It's basically the difference between going cold turkey and trying a Reduce-to-Quit strategy.
The UK economy was so high on an artificial stimulus that it is possible that complete withdrawal of that stimulus would have caused massive economic dislocation. As it is, Osborne came darn close to pushing the economy back into recession (although personally I don't think the excessive focus on GDP is helpful).
Yes it would have been great if the deficit could have been reduced faster. But we are still in a better place than we were 4 years ago, and we have still made substantial progress.
I call this the Augustine Doctrine.
Are we and have we ?
Debt up by nearly £500bn Trade deficit becoming perpetual No increase in productivty (it may actually be lower but I haven't time to check) Industrial production lower Retail sales higher House price rising again Inequality steadily rising Social mobility steadily falling
The UK is still high on artifical stimulus and ever more addicted.
And another problem is that people think the government is 'paying down the debt', the mindset change hasn't happened so the pain when reality arrives will be much worse.
Is it me or does the lib dems disciplinary machinery look like it was set up on the assumption it would probably never be used...??
After all, liberal democrats are such highly moral people that perhaps it was thought circumstances such as the current ones could never arise.
The civil service and most UK companies I believe, judge sexual harassment cases using the 'balance of probabilities' test for evidence and if found guilty, you can be dismissed for gross misconduct.
The Lib Dems require a much higher standard of proof and use the 'beyond reasonable doubt' test of proof as though these cases were held in a court of law.
It is not that the event was never expected to arise, merely that the world has moved on wrt what is acceptable behaviour in the work place and the standards by which such behaviour is judged – I fear the case of Lord Rennard may well have exposed the Lib Dem’s disconnect between ‘worthy’ but flawed disciplinary criteria and public perception of what is appropriate.
Those are for a case of employment, (the dog's breakfast that was made of the situation when Rennard was an employee was down to the age-old political desire to avoid a scandal and deal with things quietly, alongside the lack of proper structure to prevent that happening).
For the case of Lib Dem membership, that ties into the traditions that the Lib Dem membership retains a lot of power and rights, far more than Labour or the Conservatives do. Which is built into the party's dna really, see policy making etc. Nick Clegg had his microphone cut off in a debate at conference last year because he went over the allotted time for a speaker.
And some of it is ceremony etc, but what you're seeing with Rennard is that the party structures are essentially designed to protect the average member and prevent the leadership from running roughshod over the rest of the party.
Rennard's long been very influential through the corridors of the party, with a lot of connections, support bases etc. But a good chunk of the party is very willing to kick off if he's let back in without an apology (at a minimum) for his behaviour (even if you judge it unintentional). It having dragged on this long, and his refusal to apologise and general "I'm the victim here" stance is eroding what support Rennard had left.
I think Clegg (and Farron, who are cleary on the same page on this) see him off.
You'd be poor very quickly if you backed YES tied test at 1.01.
I was thinking you meant lay not buy, but don't really get cricket so decided to leave it. So you're saying that you can get 1/100 on a tied test regularly, and a tied test means a perfect tie with the last wicket going on the last ball? Interesting...
A tied test means the match being concluded (the side batting in the fourth innings being all out), with each having scored the same number of runs.
It's happened twice in test history in over 2000 tests (IIRC), so the raw odds are about 1000/1 but obviously this reduces when two teams are closely matched. I think one of the ties did occur on the last ball of the match as well, though I stand to be corrected on that?!
Maybe I am just being thick , but how can you have a tied test match without a wicket going on the last ball (iotherwise its a draw?)
Sorry, I should have said last scheduled ball i.e. play would have ended after its delivery even had it been a dot.
In any case, I was wrong: both tied tests finished with one ball to spare:
You'd be poor very quickly if you backed YES tied test at 1.01.
I was thinking you meant lay not buy, but don't really get cricket so decided to leave it. So you're saying that you can get 1/100 on a tied test regularly, and a tied test means a perfect tie with the last wicket going on the last ball? Interesting...
A tied test means the match being concluded (the side batting in the fourth innings being all out), with each having scored the same number of runs.
It's happened twice in test history in over 2000 tests (IIRC), so the raw odds are about 1000/1 but obviously this reduces when two teams are closely matched. I think one of the ties did occur on the last ball of the match as well, though I stand to be corrected on that?!
Maybe I am just being thick , but how can you have a tied test match without a wicket going on the last ball (iotherwise its a draw?)
Sorry, I should have said last scheduled ball i.e. play would have ended after its delivery even had it been a dot.
In any case, I was wrong: both tied tests finished with one ball to spare:
The tied test match is one of those semi mythical things in sport like a break over 147 in snooker and a true hat trick in football (left foot,right foot and header)
The LibDems getting wiped out would be a catastrophe for the country. It would ensure that we get PM Redward and 5 years of Hollandaise shite squitted over the country and its recovering economy.
Isn't a small West Ham win more likely than a hammering by City? Man City have no need to exert themselves and West Ham will be playing for pride.
Possibly, taken a slice of the 13/2 on West Ham, but Man City just look irresistible going forward, whereas you get the feeling even my Mum could score against West Ham.
I've worked out the odds of West Ham qualifying - It is at the very least 12,000-1 !
Out of curiosity, roughly how did you get that figure? I find it hard to tell the difference between a 1000/1 longshot and a 10000/1 longshot.
I took Spreadex's odds back that TSE gave to arrive at a mean Man City goal expectation of 2.7 (Their away record is worse, but their record vs West Ham is better ~4?).
Then used West Ham's home expectancy of 13 goals from 11 games to calculate their mean (You might argue their expectancy vs the rampant Man City is lower !) 1.18 goals/game. Created poisson functions of both - Put one side in the rows, the other in the columns and summed the definite qualifications for West Ham (7-0, 8-1 etc) and the overall draw 6-0, 7-1 (These send to extra time I think), halved the overall draw and added it back to the definite wins.
If anything it probably overestimates the chances of West Ham, although Man City are away and could be playing a weakened team.
I think the odds are certainly longer than 1000-1 though.
Tied test matches at 1.01 are always a buy too because the 10th wicket needs to fall on the last ball of the test, and scores level. Which is ~ 1000-1+
I can barely believe I have just seen that, staggering
Don't think they'd be willing to accept laying bets at 1/100? Probably not, sadly.
I think that is the biggest liberty I have ever seen by a bookie
Not really -the percentage chance of an 80/1 as opposed to a million to one is not huge in difference and bookies generally don't want to have a potential liability (however remote) of millions of pounds run up for little stake money
Ladbrokes are 500/1, Betfair is 920/1.
Lazy odds compiling, literally taking the p*ss out of their punters
The LibDems getting wiped out would be a catastrophe for the country. It would ensure that we get PM Redward and 5 years of Hollandaise shite squitted over the country and its recovering economy.
LOL , you obviously think more of the lib dems than I do
The LibDems getting wiped out would be a catastrophe for the country. It would ensure that we get PM Redward and 5 years of Hollandaise shite squitted over the country and its recovering economy.
Cons might do better with one less party attacking them 24/7...
You are evidently a format god. I, alas, am not and hence can't do the he-said-she-said thing you did.
So I'll keep it short.
Clegg was head of the NOTA party. The LDs advocated all kinds of bonkers policies, hypothecating taxes as I remember, plus other loony left fantasy couldn't-make-it-up wishlists which, because they were safely unelectable, didn't matter too much.
This just doesn't stack up tbh. If they were the NOTA party that why have far more of 2010LD voters that left the party gone to Labour rather than one of the small parties or Not voting? Surely if they were protest voters they wouldn't go to a regular party of government.
It's just a large exaggeration usually resorted to out of laziness or desire to delegitimise votes cast for parties other than Labour or Conservative.
Comments
Fundamentally, the problem is cultural rather than anything else. Commerce, and especially industry, is still seen as somehow 'grubby' with the desire to redeploy capital into land. There are a surprising small number of multi-generational family companies (one stat I saw, but can't verify, is that there is only an 8% chance of a company making it to the third generation).
It's not clear to me how to change that culture. And it's clear that political instability makes the problem worse: owning a business is risky - owning a large house without a mortgage is not. And if your business is one of those that exports, and there is a potential changing of the winds that might make it less tenable in future, then why invest in capacity? Why not simply sell it on?
And glad that you took the invite in the spirit in which it was intended - if you ever change your mind... :-)
http://labourlist.org/2014/01/8-reasons-labour-has-a-good-chance-of-an-overall-majority/
Some of the points are good, some are less good.
The UK economy was so high on an artificial stimulus that it is possible that complete withdrawal of that stimulus would have caused massive economic dislocation. As it is, Osborne came darn close to pushing the economy back into recession (although personally I don't think the excessive focus on GDP is helpful).
Yes it would have been great if the deficit could have been reduced faster. But we are still in a better place than we were 4 years ago, and we have still made substantial progress.
I call this the Augustine Doctrine.
This looks symptomatic of a much wider malaise in the party. For that reason, I wonder if perhaps Mike is underestimating the probability of the row escalating into something which could topple Nick Clegg. In general, the best bet is to assume that leaders will survive, but I'm beginning to wonder whether perhaps this might be one of those cases where things spiral out of control,
Will he be the first LibDem to open his gob without spewing kerosene onto the bonfire?
1) Running for leader
2) Winning any leadership election
Miliblob will just be laughing. Agent Rennard has completed his mission to perfection.
In one case, this led to well over seventy shareholders, with two family members doing the work, and decisions that were sometimes almost impossible to make. It needs maturity to work, and sadly sometimes families interrelationships are anything but mature.
The alternative: giving the business to one child, is blatantly unfair.
This experience was why my dad made it clear that when he retired, none of us would take over the business, which would be sold. We knew this from when were were kids, and it was fine with us.
Perhaps. They say Ed is a lucky general. But I don't think the scandal will make much of a difference to VI beyond the very short term (and maybe not even that).
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8c1812da-81cb-11e3-a600-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=uk#axzz2qvjEYM00
"An independent Scotland faces “many hurdles” before it can join the EU, the UK’s secretary of state for Scotland warned during an official visit in Brussels.
Alistair Carmichael said the Scottish government’s claims it could start EU accession talks during the transition phase towards independence from the UK were fatally flawed.
“One man’s obsession to deliver independence not just to a specific timetable but to a specific day of the week . . . would not just undermine Alex Salmond’s hand in negotiations, but Scotland’s future in Europe,” he said at the Centre for European Policy Studies."
The problem with splitting the shares as per your comment is that it inevitably leads to a sale unless there is some form of control mechanism so that the family votes as one block.
Since 2009, exports as a percentage of GDP have risen from 28% to 32%. A greater portion of our GDP is now accounted for by exports than China's. Private sector debt-to-GDP has fallen by more than 30%, and is now below the level of the US (and may be below China's, if that country's shadow banking system is taken into account). Government spending as a percentage of GDP was 50% *before* the crisis in 2007. It will be perhaps 44% next year.
Now, it is fair to say that the benefits of these improvements are not apparent to most consumers: but that's because in the halcyon days of 2007, we were living beyond our means. Our economy was (and still is, although to a lesser extent) over-dependent on financial services. We were running a budget deficit, private sector debt was increasing, and we were importing much. much more than we were importing.
Paying back each of these falls most hard on the consumer - because consumption was too high a percentage of GDP, and too much of that spending was going straight out the door to China. (Who were then lending the money back to us by buying up UK government debt.)
You can say "oh, we could have done better". But actually, we've done OK. And as our economy becomes fundamentally more balanced, we can expect the benefits to flow through to consumers in the future. I know this is scant comfort now - but we are in fundamentally better shape than we were in 2007.
If the coalition can get their act together an improving economy may well mean a continuation of the coalition. That must surely be Dave's goal - I think he likes working with Nick too despite all the ups and downs. Labour must surely aim for an outright win
Parties in government, who've lost more than half their support win even fewer.
The LibDems will soon become a party of opposition again. And that probably means they will - in some circumstances - become the party of 'none of the above' again.
I think the longest period without a Liberal / Lib Dem gain is 29 years, from Holland With Boston in March 1929 to Torrington in March 1958. I would expect the Lib Dems to gain something, somewhere, before 2035.
Great match.
If anyone wants it there is some cash to lay West Ham to qualify at 1000 on Betfair. If anyone has the float for it the true odds are somewhat higher.
As to the "cold turkey" question I would say it's a matter of time - sooner rather than later if the latest round if EU-US trade talks conclude as they seem likely to. We have never paid our way since the introduction of universal suffrage (or for some time previously) and it is universal suffrage, more than any single political party, that prevents us from doing so now. Restrict the franchise to those in full-time employment and you stand a chance. But how to get there?
LAB 45.5
UKIP 26.5
CON 12.5
LD 9.5
5/6 under or over... No bet too small!
First not investigating the complaints properly, now a Kangaroo court that is leaving Rennard hanging out to dry. A total mess.
Mark Bonham Carter the Liberal victor of the 1958 Torrington by-election was the grandson of Asquith and the previous year Megan Lloyd George, daughter of David Lloyd George, had won the Carmarthen by-election for Labour from the Liberals. She had previously been Deputy Leader of the Liberals but had defected in 1955
http://www.oddschecker.com/football/football-specials/luis-suarez/to-outscore-england-at-world-cup
21/01/2014 11:28
Who Labour voters back on immigration. Those who reject all almost level with those who back Labour. Ed work harder? pic.twitter.com/9chv8JjWwP
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/25826869
Ericsson's a Swedish chap. Nice to see Kobayashi back, shame it's not with a more competitive outfit.
Wawrinka serving against Djokovic, 6-6.
Resilience or a complete inability to comprehend just how toxic he is and a stubbornness (that is ironically the equal of Rennard) in trying to get his own way and stay as leader?
Of all the peculiar things Rennard said in his statement none was more curious and completely out of left field than his cryptic reference to helping Clegg with Boundary Changes.
Why?
Because Rennard was a very senior figure in the lib dems and he helped Clegg not just become leader but become an MP in the first place. If all this gets even uglier then Rennard will suddenly become a lot less cryptic and a great deal more direct when his supporters feed their 'tell all' stories to the papers.
Regardless, this just highlights what a complete and utter shambles calamity Clegg has made of all this and it sure isn't Lamb that's having to eat Clegg and Rennard's mess for the lib dems on the media day after day. It's Farron.
Lamb is directly involved in this anyway so he can't possibly benefit as some kind of compromise figure while all this swirls about. Not that there are any top level lib dems who can. Rennard was too powerful in the party for way too long for that.
The only way Lamb was getting anywhere near the leaders job was in a John Major type scenario and that looks ever more unlikely by the day. Whatever else the lib dems will need after Clegg has finished with them it's leadership and Lamb is hardly brimming over with that.
Nor is it particularly likely the lib dems will be placing all their trust in party grandees after Rennard, for rather obvious reasons. So I'm afraid Paddy and Williams might as well return to trying to talk Rennard down as they have been doing so far with a self-evident lack of success.
With this set to rumble on for months Clegg will be fervently praying that he won't be the only party leader mired in scandal come the EU elections.
vs
Media and political class comment on the 1000s of gang related rapes within five miles of Westminster and Broadcasting House.
shareholder value and easy hostile takeovers i.e. banksters
After all, liberal democrats are such highly moral people that perhaps it was thought circumstances such as the current ones could never arise.
1. General background - is there a mood of disquiet in the party? (tick - electoral losses and polling etc)
2. Specific trigger - is there some event of sufficient magnitude to prompt people to act (question mark - the handling of Rennardgate isn't there yet but could be depending on developments.
3. Available alternative - is there are least one credible candidate who could take over and would be likely to do the job at least as well? (tick - Cable, Farron, Davey, Lamb etc)
4. Mechanism - is there an effective way to carry out the act? (question mark - as with Charles Kennedy, it would probably have to come down to pressure, which is messy).
5. Aftermath - would the deposed leader and / or their followers behave or would they cause so much trouble as to negate any positives that would otherwise accrue? (tick - if Clegg is forced to go, I can't see him kicking off in the way that, say, Brown probably would have).
So, three ticks and two question marks. It's not a full house but it's not far off and the amber lights should be flashing.
And yes, Cable is IMO favourite to succeed Clegg in any pre-2015 leadership change.
Well done Stanislaw, bookies and layers of Djokovic.
The Lib Dems require a much higher standard of proof and use the 'beyond reasonable doubt' test of proof as though these cases were held in a court of law.
It is not that the event was never expected to arise, merely that the world has moved on wrt what is acceptable behaviour in the work place and the standards by which such behaviour is judged – I fear the case of Lord Rennard may well have exposed the Lib Dem’s disconnect between ‘worthy’ but flawed disciplinary criteria and public perception of what is appropriate.
Surely you don't misunderstand his nuanced position as head of the junior member of a coaltion government? That would be crazy. And unlike you.
I don't pretend to understand the LDs (save to wonder why, for such a progressive party, they are woefully under-represented amongst certain demographics) but they've achieved plenty under the circs; I'm sure NC has maximised whatever policy concessions he was able to extract on most issues with Cam.
He has played a good hand and all this talk of him being replaced is ludicrous. Not to say of course it won't happen because as we all know you really can't trust or enlighten the bulk of the LibDems; they are too new at the being-in-power game to understand those nuances.
It's a particularly silly response, as I can't think of many (any) hostile takeovers of privately owned family firms.
This time it was used improperly.
Then used West Ham's home expectancy of 13 goals from 11 games to calculate their mean (You might argue their expectancy vs the rampant Man City is lower !) 1.18 goals/game. Created poisson functions of both - Put one side in the rows, the other in the columns and summed the definite qualifications for West Ham (7-0, 8-1 etc) and the overall draw 6-0, 7-1 (These send to extra time I think), halved the overall draw and added it back to the definite wins.
If anything it probably overestimates the chances of West Ham, although Man City are away and could be playing a weakened team.
I think the odds are certainly longer than 1000-1 though.
Tied test matches at 1.01 are always a buy too because the 10th wicket needs to fall on the last ball of the test, and scores level. Which is ~ 1000-1+
I can barely believe I have just seen that, staggering
Be that as it is, from recollection, hostile take overs are only about 10-12% of total M&A anyway
You'd be poor very quickly if you backed YES tied test at 1.01.
EDIT: Well, the Wiki article says there have only been 2 tied tests ever. So maybe that's all I need to know!
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100255786/six-reasons-why-the-lib-dems-are-the-real-nasty-party/
However, Clegg was always going to face maximum pressure after the EU elections and in the run up to 2015 since it is blatantly obvious that none of the lib dem leadership hopefuls want to become another coalition sh*t magnet like Clegg for any great length of time and thus be unable to capitalise on a honeymoon period in the run up to the election.
Clegg has utterly failed to develop any 'nuance' in how the public at large and voters view the lib dems. He's in charge so I'm afraid just like with the Rennard debacle it is quite clearly a problem of his own making.
It's happened twice in test history in over 2000 tests (IIRC), so the raw odds are about 1000/1 but obviously this reduces when two teams are closely matched. I think one of the ties did occur on the last ball of the match as well, though I stand to be corrected on that?!
It would mean polling no better than around 7-8% in the South East - an area of relative strength, and no better than about 10-11% in the South West. Nationally, we'd probably be looking at around 5% and an almost-certain fifth place. Combined with what would probably be disastrous local results a couple of days earlier (the Euro-count isn't until Sunday), the prospects looming for 2015 would surely focus the minds of members and MPs alike.
You are evidently a format god. I, alas, am not and hence can't do the he-said-she-said thing you did.
So I'll keep it short.
Clegg was head of the NOTA party. The LDs advocated all kinds of bonkers policies, hypothecating taxes as I remember, plus other loony left fantasy couldn't-make-it-up wishlists which, because they were safely unelectable, didn't matter too much.
The electorate of their base, councillors and membership of course lapped it up and, by means of often toxic and vicious local campaigning, they secured some council seats.
But then they only went and got elected to national govt.
And pretty quickly they had to re-assess. Clegg got this instantly. He knew he was caught between a rock and a hard place but as much his worst fears as his greatest hope.
And so it has turned out. Shortsighted LibDems are castigating him for his u-turns and lack of achievement but, and I'm amazed I find myself spelling this out every few days, he is the junior member of a coalition government. It wasn't a triumph of the left in 2010 (despite the Lab=>LD switchers' fervent hopes), it was a just not big enough victory for the right. And Clegg has had to cut the LD's cloth as a result.
And he has been blamed for it ever since.
Debt up by nearly £500bn
Trade deficit becoming perpetual
No increase in productivty (it may actually be lower but I haven't time to check)
Industrial production lower
Retail sales higher
House price rising again
Inequality steadily rising
Social mobility steadily falling
The UK is still high on artifical stimulus and ever more addicted.
And another problem is that people think the government is 'paying down the debt', the mindset change hasn't happened so the pain when reality arrives will be much worse.
For the case of Lib Dem membership, that ties into the traditions that the Lib Dem membership retains a lot of power and rights, far more than Labour or the Conservatives do. Which is built into the party's dna really, see policy making etc. Nick Clegg had his microphone cut off in a debate at conference last year because he went over the allotted time for a speaker.
And some of it is ceremony etc, but what you're seeing with Rennard is that the party structures are essentially designed to protect the average member and prevent the leadership from running roughshod over the rest of the party.
Rennard's long been very influential through the corridors of the party, with a lot of connections, support bases etc. But a good chunk of the party is very willing to kick off if he's let back in without an apology (at a minimum) for his behaviour (even if you judge it unintentional). It having dragged on this long, and his refusal to apologise and general "I'm the victim here" stance is eroding what support Rennard had left.
I think Clegg (and Farron, who are cleary on the same page on this) see him off.
In any case, I was wrong: both tied tests finished with one ball to spare:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tied_Test
Lazy odds compiling, literally taking the p*ss out of their punters
there is a far bigger mickey take in in offering evens about a 6/4 chance in percentage terms than offering 80/1 as opposed to 500/1
It's just a large exaggeration usually resorted to out of laziness or desire to delegitimise votes cast for parties other than Labour or Conservative.