Considering Labour supporters are very keen to go back as far as Thatcher - and earlier - to show Conservative mistakes, I'm not sure you're on firm ground with this 'it's all in the past' argument.
But it was 'ages ago', wasn't it? Which in your mind is seven weeks. ;-)
And your comment does nothing to answer the questions above.
Hey, you appear to treat Labour supporters as a hivemind when it suits your argument - I can't remember the last time *I* referred to Mrs Thatcher, but it was, to coin a phrase, ages ago. I expect there are Labour supporters who are jolly interested in Mrs Thatcher and gold sales and Kinnock vs Militant, and perhaps Keir Hardie and Lloyd George, and there's no reason why you shouldn't share their hobby. Happy delving!
The only people who talk about Mrs T more than Labour supporters are the Tories, who - of course - would never dream of referring to the winter of discontent, back to the 1970s or the return of militant unions!!!
I think the Tories have been given a second chance in Cannock Chase, provided they choose a fairly popular local candidate. There will be a swing to Labour but if they can keep it to 2-3% they'll hold the seat narrowly.
FWIW - and this is a sort of anecdotal focus group, my impression is this. UKIP ex-DNVs are generally detached from the political process as they think we're all crap. They feel "At last there's a sensible party out there with a chance, I'll vote for them". These people are not going to switch to any other party. However, if UKIP started to deflate they might well say "Oh, looks like they haven't got a chance after all, I won't bother". A good or bad Euro showing will make a lot of difference. If half of those don't vote, it'll knock just over 1 point off the UKIP score.
...
I don't think that whether UKIP 'stands a chance' will make a great deal of difference with their current voters. It might make a difference if they thought their vote mattered and one of Con/Lab was a wholly unacceptable option and the other wasn't, but by and large that's not the case (i.e. two-horse-racing won't make much difference as things stand).
As you say, these are people disillusioned with all the other parties. What will hit UKIP's support is not UKIP failing to look like it'll challenge for seats - these are 'send a message' voters - it's UKIP sounding like just another party (or not sounding like the sort of party they thought it was).
Yes, I see what you mean. In that case, perhaps Farage shouldn't be trying to discourage his fruitloops so much?
It's a delicate balancing act. I've no doubt that people like Bloom and that bloke who got into trouble for his comments re Islam do speak for some UKIP supporters and silencing them will go down badly specifically with those who do, and in a more general sense with those who just want UKIP to be not so slick and professional (for which, read not-so-establishment).
On the other hand, while that group want UKIP to be more normal, they also don't want them to be obviously fruitcakes and nutcases, some of the maverick views may put off other parts of their diverse electoral coaltion (especially if they become seen as representative of the party at large), and - perhaps critically - such individuals may prevent UKIP from picking up new support that is more inclined to the existing parties: those who do care about who's elected, and the group into which UKIP need to break if they are really to become a force in their own right.
Considering Labour supporters are very keen to go back as far as Thatcher - and earlier - to show Conservative mistakes, I'm not sure you're on firm ground with this 'it's all in the past' argument.
But it was 'ages ago', wasn't it? Which in your mind is seven weeks. ;-)
And your comment does nothing to answer the questions above.
Hey, you appear to treat Labour supporters as a hivemind when it suits your argument - I can't remember the last time *I* referred to Mrs Thatcher, but it was, to coin a phrase, ages ago. I expect there are Labour supporters who are jolly interested in Mrs Thatcher and gold sales and Kinnock vs Militant, and perhaps Keir Hardie and Lloyd George, and there's no reason why you shouldn't share their hobby. Happy delving!
Maybe as a PPC you could give us a steer on Labour Policy.
Labour policy can be summed up by their approach to HS2: make positive noises to Labourites who support the project (e.g. northern councils), and negative noises to others. And all the time, threaten to escalate costs by delaying things.
In other words, they are pathetically sitting on the fence. Oh, for conviction politicians with guts, who believe in something.
Milibandism is increasingly aimed at those who want to order yet more beer yet refuse to pay for a round themselves.
Which is a real threat if Miliband comes to power. The demands from McCluskey and company will be immense, signs so far show Ed will cave in, returning his favours.
For the rest of us the cosequenses of McCLUSKEY holding the levers of power as in days gone by don't bear thinking about. Militant is fair comment.
Considering Labour supporters are very keen to go back as far as Thatcher - and earlier - to show Conservative mistakes, I'm not sure you're on firm ground with this 'it's all in the past' argument.
But it was 'ages ago', wasn't it? Which in your mind is seven weeks. ;-)
And your comment does nothing to answer the questions above.
Hey, you appear to treat Labour supporters as a hivemind when it suits your argument - I can't remember the last time *I* referred to Mrs Thatcher, but it was, to coin a phrase, ages ago. I expect there are Labour supporters who are jolly interested in Mrs Thatcher and gold sales and Kinnock vs Militant, and perhaps Keir Hardie and Lloyd George, and there's no reason why you shouldn't share their hobby. Happy delving!
The only people who talk about Mrs T more than Labour supporters are the Tories, who - of course - would never dream of referring to the winter of discontent, back to the 1970s or the return of militant unions!!!
Tories probably talk about Thatcher more because many of that ilk see her as having done a reasonably good job in poor circumstances. Unlike Blair and Brown, who it could be argued did a middling job in good circumstances.
It's a shame that so many in Labour are routinely ignoring arguably their biggest winner - Blair, whereas the Conservatives embrace theirs.
And you make my point for me: the politics of the present is firmly rooted in the politics of the past, especially when the characters are still around. Saying 'that's a bit dusty' on something that disadvantages your own side is rather silly, especially when there are lessons to be learnt.
If the behaviour of UKIP MEPs are anything to go by, there are no shortage of mavericks in UKIP.
It will be hard to be taken seriously as a party of government (local or national) without addressing the fruitcake tendency, but they are a party led by a saloon bar bore, so may be happy to keep the mavericks on board. UKIP will do well in the Euros, but implode again after they fail to gain a seat in 2015.
FWIW - and this is a sort of anecdotal focus group, my impression is this. UKIP ex-DNVs are generally detached from the political process as they think we're all crap. They feel "At last there's a sensible party out there with a chance, I'll vote for them". These people are not going to switch to any other party. However, if UKIP started to deflate they might well say "Oh, looks like they haven't got a chance after all, I won't bother". A good or bad Euro showing will make a lot of difference. If half of those don't vote, it'll knock just over 1 point off the UKIP score.
...
I don't think that whether UKIP 'stands a chance' will make a great deal of difference with their current voters. It might make a difference if they thought their vote mattered and one of Con/Lab was a wholly unacceptable option and the other wasn't, but by and large that's not the case (i.e. two-horse-racing won't make much difference as things stand).
As you say, these are people disillusioned with all the other parties. What will hit UKIP's support is not UKIP failing to look like it'll challenge for seats - these are 'send a message' voters - it's UKIP sounding like just another party (or not sounding like the sort of party they thought it was).
Yes, I see what you mean. In that case, perhaps Farage shouldn't be trying to discourage his fruitloops so much?
It's a delicate balancing act. I've no doubt that people like Bloom and that bloke who got into trouble for his comments re Islam do speak for some UKIP supporters and silencing them will go down badly specifically with those who do, and in a more general sense with those who just want UKIP to be not so slick and professional (for which, read not-so-establishment).
On the other hand, while that group want UKIP to be more normal, they also don't want them to be obviously fruitcakes and nutcases, some of the maverick views may put off other parts of their diverse electoral coaltion (especially if they become seen as representative of the party at large), and - perhaps critically - such individuals may prevent UKIP from picking up new support that is more inclined to the existing parties: those who do care about who's elected, and the group into which UKIP need to break if they are really to become a force in their own right.
I don't understand who so many liberals are so keen to defend Islam from insults. It's pretty clear to me that the one thing Islam in the West needs to do is to learn how to deal with healthy disrespect in the context of a liberal democracy.
Considering Labour supporters are very keen to go back as far as Thatcher - and earlier - to show Conservative mistakes, I'm not sure you're on firm ground with this 'it's all in the past' argument.
But it was 'ages ago', wasn't it? Which in your mind is seven weeks. ;-)
And your comment does nothing to answer the questions above.
Hey, you appear to treat Labour supporters as a hivemind when it suits your argument - I can't remember the last time *I* referred to Mrs Thatcher, but it was, to coin a phrase, ages ago. I expect there are Labour supporters who are jolly interested in Mrs Thatcher and gold sales and Kinnock vs Militant, and perhaps Keir Hardie and Lloyd George, and there's no reason why you shouldn't share their hobby. Happy delving!
The only people who talk about Mrs T more than Labour supporters are the Tories, who - of course - would never dream of referring to the winter of discontent, back to the 1970s or the return of militant unions!!!
Tories probably talk about Thatcher more because many of that ilk see her as having done a reasonably good job in poor circumstances. Unlike Blair and Brown, who it could be argued did a middling job in good circumstances.
It's a shame that so many in Labour are routinely ignoring arguably their biggest winner - Blair, whereas the Conservatives embrace theirs.
And you make my point for me: the politics of the present is firmly rooted in the politics of the past, especially when the characters are still around. Saying 'that's a bit dusty' on something that disadvantages your own side is rather silly, especially when there are lessons to be learnt.
It was ever thus. In the 1980s the Labour left was obsessed about being true to the legacy of Nye Bevan; the Tories seemed to spend much of their time discussing Rab Butler. Most politicians seem to be very focused on history and legacy - for pretty understandable reasons, I suppose. And the best way of warning about what their opponents might do in the future is to talk (and to spin) about what they did in the past.
I've drawn Germany and got 2 service centres with England taking 0 and Russia 1 (France 2 but not Belgium) AND a fleet in the North sea in the first Fall turn !
I feel like I'm learning with the masters in the PB game - quite proud of that start :O)
I don't understand who so many liberals are so keen to defend Islam from insults. It's pretty clear to me that the one thing Islam in the West needs to do is to learn how to deal with healthy disrespect in the context of a liberal democracy.
Fully agree - personally I don't see how it is liberal to stifle free speech.
The main Flemish nationalist party - which won more votes than any other at the last Belgian general election - has decided to drop independence from its manifesto for the next general election in May. Instead, it will campaign on a one country, two state platform. So, they are proposing that Belgium become a confederacy - there would be no national PM, no national diplomatic corps and no national social security. But Flanders and Wallonia would still be in a country called Belgium whose capital would be Brussels.
I don't understand who so many liberals are so keen to defend Islam from insults. It's pretty clear to me that the one thing Islam in the West needs to do is to learn how to deal with healthy disrespect in the context of a liberal democracy.
Does anyone really think the UK population is more notably 'left wing' than in 1992?
Quite a bit of talk about natural left-wing constituency, and so forth, but as far as I can tell the answer is no: attitudes have shifted even further against welfare, the population is more euro sceptic and is less (I think) unionised.
Given Ed's platform is starting to look decidedly 'Kinnockesque', and the Tory counter-campaign to match, what price a late surge to Cameron when with 10-15 days to go folks suddenly become terrified at the prospect of him actually running the country?
I hope he holds a rally in Shefield in the final week.
Considering Labour supporters are very keen to go back as far as Thatcher - and earlier - to show Conservative mistakes, I'm not sure you're on firm ground with this 'it's all in the past' argument.
But it was 'ages ago', wasn't it? Which in your mind is seven weeks. ;-)
And your comment does nothing to answer the questions above.
Hey, you appear to treat Labour supporters as a hivemind when it suits your argument - I can't remember the last time *I* referred to Mrs Thatcher, but it was, to coin a phrase, ages ago. I expect there are Labour supporters who are jolly interested in Mrs Thatcher and gold sales and Kinnock vs Militant, and perhaps Keir Hardie and Lloyd George, and there's no reason why you shouldn't share their hobby. Happy delving!
The only people who talk about Mrs T more than Labour supporters are the Tories, who - of course - would never dream of referring to the winter of discontent, back to the 1970s or the return of militant unions!!!
Tories probably talk about Thatcher more because many of that ilk see her as having done a reasonably good job in poor circumstances. Unlike Blair and Brown, who it could be argued did a middling job in good circumstances.
It's a shame that so many in Labour are routinely ignoring arguably their biggest winner - Blair, whereas the Conservatives embrace theirs.
And you make my point for me: the politics of the present is firmly rooted in the politics of the past, especially when the characters are still around. Saying 'that's a bit dusty' on something that disadvantages your own side is rather silly, especially when there are lessons to be learnt.
It was ever thus. In the 1980s the Labour left was obsessed about being true to the legacy of Nye Bevan; the Tories seemed to spend much of their time discussing Rab Butler. Most politicians seem to be very focused on history and legacy - for pretty understandable reasons, I suppose. And the best way of warning about what their opponents might do in the future is to talk (and to spin) about what they did in the past.
Which is why Nick's comment that the argument is dusty is rather silly - the effects of Brown's decision are still with us to this day, and it would be wise to learn the lessons well. What those lessons are may depend on which side of the fence you are sitting. ;-)
All parties have problems with admitting past mistakes, and learning from them. And lord knows, they all make enough mistakes, as is inevitable when you have to make such grand decisions.
Does anyone really think the UK population is more notably 'left wing' than in 1992?
Quite a bit of talk about natural left-wing constituency, and so forth, but as far as I can tell the answer is no: attitudes have shifted even further against welfare, the population is more euro sceptic and is less (I think) unionised.
Given Ed's platform is starting to look decidedly 'Kinnockesque', and the Tory counter-campaign to match, what price a late surge to Cameron when with 10-15 days to go folks suddenly become terrified at the prospect of him actually running the country?
I hope he holds a rally in Shefield in the final week.
Don't know about the population being more left wing but the politics of envy and constant whingeing plays well. It stems from a lack of self confidence among a large section of society.
Also, and I know it's playing with the facts a little bit as you could say the same about Major/Cameron and 1992: Labour have not won a general election without Blair as leader since Oct 1974. If we're talking a working majority, you have to go back to Wilson in 1966.
We know Miliband is no Blair (a man several of my left-wing friends are still convinced was a closet Tory, and they sure think differently with Miliband) and when you think of if like that, it will be a very big achievement of his if UK voters put him into no.10, any which way.
Does anyone really think the UK population is more notably 'left wing' than in 1992?
Quite a bit of talk about natural left-wing constituency, and so forth, but as far as I can tell the answer is no: attitudes have shifted even further against welfare, the population is more euro sceptic and is less (I think) unionised.
Depends on the definition of 'left-wing' - part of the issue at the moment is that there is probably more (obvious) divergence of opinion on the social axis than the economic one - and people are not seeing the Conservatives as socially conservative - hence the increase in support for UKIP.
Well, day two of the Great Tube Strike Saga of February 2014 and another trip to convey Mrs Stodge to the railway station early this morning.
I popped in to my local tube station on my way to the surgery (via the paper shop to get my RP). Three observations about the dispute which I've not seen widely mentioned:
1) East Ham station was open (with a 12-minute service westbound into London) but no staff to be seen at all and the gate line open. One can but speculate how many people might have decided waiting for a free ride was better than waiting for the bus. I'm left to wonder how many other stations have been opened but left unstaffed.
2) It's not been mentioned but ticket office staff will have to take a pay cut (up to £6k in some cases) to apply for jobs either on platform or manning the gate line. There may indeed be no compulsory redundancies but perhaps the large number of those seeking voluntary redundancy from LU is related to the likelihood of a pay cut and the impact on future pension.
3) LU are claiming a 35% operational service. I find that hard to believe and both LU and RMT are adept at playing the propaganda/misinformation card when it suits them. If instead of our normal 3-4 minute service we have a 12-minute service then it's more like 30% and of course nothing ran before 7am or will post 11pm.
I was listening to Sir Peter Hendy on LBC yesterday and the crux seems to be that the form HR1, the notice of intention to close ticket offices, is the problem. LU are prepared to talk about it but won't withdraw it, the RMT won't talk until it is withdrawn. Crow has offered to talk if LU suspend the implementation pending negotiation but LU have refused.
Does anyone really think the UK population is more notably 'left wing' than in 1992?
Quite a bit of talk about natural left-wing constituency, and so forth, but as far as I can tell the answer is no: attitudes have shifted even further against welfare, the population is more euro sceptic and is less (I think) unionised.
Given Ed's platform is starting to look decidedly 'Kinnockesque', and the Tory counter-campaign to match, what price a late surge to Cameron when with 10-15 days to go folks suddenly become terrified at the prospect of him actually running the country?
I hope he holds a rally in Shefield in the final week.
Don't know about the population being more left wing but the politics of envy and constant whingeing plays well. It stems from a lack of self confidence among a large section of society.
Yes, and was it any different in the 1980s? The key differences I can see (quickly) are that: (1) Thatcher was not seen as a 'toff' (2) Her council house sales anchored a large aspirational working class vote to her (3) She explained her views in a way people could understand, picked fights, and won them. People were in no doubt she was a strong leader, whether feared or loathed, she was respected (4) Prosperity was generally on the increase (5) Tories seemed professional and Labour was unelectable
There are loads more we could find, or argue over those. However, my point is that in the 1980s the politics of envy and whingeing was just as strong, as was the problem with lack of self-confidence.
The bigger challenge for Cameron is that he isn't (1) can't do (3) and hasn't yet delivered (4) - although it may come in the next term. That leaves (2) he's tried to pump-prime the house market, but it's hardly a mass extension of home ownership and (5) his strongest card.
It feels like it's less a left-wing/right-wing, thing, and more a 'I don't respect any of them/they're all useless' thing. Question is, how will that play out in votes & seats next year?
I'm not sure that publicity from Ukip directly drives their vote share. It may be publicity about the EU, which is often negative, or news of silly decisions by councils/other parties that cements their percentage.
Anyway, I've gone for a majority of just over 4,100 for Labour in Wythenshawe, but I suspect Ukip will nick second.
I've drawn Germany and got 2 service centres with England taking 0 and Russia 1 (France 2 but not Belgium) AND a fleet in the North sea in the first Fall turn !
I feel like I'm learning with the masters in the PB game - quite proud of that start :O)
That is a very good start and that fleet in the North Sea is worth a centre on its own. Be careful though. If the other players feel you are getting too powerful they are likely to gang up on your. It is the nail that sticks up that gets hammered down.
Whilst on the subject of Diplomacy there are still vacancies in the two new games:
PB Diplomacy Novice Hurdles
PB Diplmacy 2014 Death Match (Andy Cooke is a confirmed runner)
Anyone interested please email me on HurstLlama at gmail dot com for details.
@Josias - In retrospect Brown clearly made a major mistake in selling the gold when he did, but the gold price had been falling for years and, no doubt, the (bad) advice he got was that it was unlikely to rise significantly. He should have listened to other people and investigated further himself. But he didn't. That said, having tonnes of gold sitting in a vault is no great shakes in and of itself. France and Italy both have huge stashes, but it does not seem to have done them much good.
@HurstLlama I'm interested in the Diplomacy game, but I really am a novice, knowing nothing about the game. Is it possible to watch the game rather than play, given that I doubt anyone would want to waste time while I get up to speed with the rules and concepts?
I've drawn Germany and got 2 service centres with England taking 0 and Russia 1 (France 2 but not Belgium) AND a fleet in the North sea in the first Fall turn !
I feel like I'm learning with the masters in the PB game - quite proud of that start :O)
That is a very good start and that fleet in the North Sea is worth a centre on its own. Be careful though. If the other players feel you are getting too powerful they are likely to gang up on your. It is the nail that sticks up that gets hammered down.
Whilst on the subject of Diplomacy there are still vacancies in the two new games:
PB Diplomacy Novice Hurdles
PB Diplmacy 2014 Death Match (Andy Cooke is a confirmed runner)
Anyone interested please email me on HurstLlama at gmail dot com for details.
Unfortunately I've just rechecked the position - its not as good as I first thought.
There is a collosal Belgium sized problem (England can retreat there...) in the north and Austria is getting cream crackered in the south.
@HurstLlama I'm interested in the Diplomacy game, but I really am a novice, knowing nothing about the game. Is it possible to watch the game rather than play, given that I doubt anyone would want to waste time while I get up to speed with the rules and concepts?
The rules are incredibly simple !
The strategy and treachery is as complex as you want to make it...
@HurstLlama I'm interested in the Diplomacy game, but I really am a novice, knowing nothing about the game. Is it possible to watch the game rather than play, given that I doubt anyone would want to waste time while I get up to speed with the rules and concepts?
The rules are incredibly simple !
The strategy and treachery is as complex as you want to make it...
For a potential Diplomacy novice - how much time would a single game take up on a per week or per day basis?
Yes, and was it any different in the 1980s? The key differences I can see (quickly) are that: (1) Thatcher was not seen as a 'toff' (2) Her council house sales anchored a large aspirational working class vote to her (3) She explained her views in a way people could understand, picked fights, and won them. People were in no doubt she was a strong leader, whether feared or loathed, she was respected (4) Prosperity was generally on the increase (5) Tories seemed professional and Labour was unelectable
There are loads more we could find, or argue over those. However, my point is that in the 1980s the politics of envy and whingeing was just as strong, as was the problem with lack of self-confidence.
The bigger challenge for Cameron is that he isn't (1) can't do (3) and hasn't yet delivered (4) - although it may come in the next term. That leaves (2) he's tried to pump-prime the house market, but it's hardly a mass extension of home ownership and (5) his strongest card.
It feels like it's less a left-wing/right-wing, thing, and more a 'I don't respect any of them/they're all useless' thing. Question is, how will that play out in votes & seats next year?
I'm not sure I agree. I think "left wing" isn't a helpful term. Apart from 1945 and they were exceptional circumstances, Britain has never elected a left-wing Government. Tony Blair, aided by the political self-destruction of the Conservatives from 1990 and especially 1992 onwards, was able to convince millions of disillusioned Conservatives that the Labour party was a non-socialist party of the centre-left and he won three elections on that basis.
By today's ideological standards, Britain elected centre-left Governments throughout the 1950s and 1960s (Butskellism) and arguably even Thatcher's 1979 Manifesto was more centrist than Heath's 1970 document. Thatcher in 1983-87, unlike Blair in 2001-05 (arguably because of the events of Sept 11th) was able to be a radical Prime Minister - the most radical since Attlee.
To be more controversial, I would argue that Margaret Thatcher not only benefitted from the split opposition but also worked a policy programme aimed at keeping the 40-42% Conservative core (post 1979) on side and she could afford to forget the rest. Cameron doesn't have that luxury as 36% wins him nothing. Ed Miliband can work a policy platform to his 37-39% base in the knowledge that he's unlikely to lose and very likely to win.
At present, the anti-Labour vote is hopelessly split between Conservatives, UKIP and the Liberal Democrats. As long as that remains the case, Labour are in a strong position.
@Josias - In retrospect Brown clearly made a major mistake in selling the gold when he did, but the gold price had been falling for years and, no doubt, the (bad) advice he got was that it was unlikely to rise significantly. He should have listened to other people and investigated further himself. But he didn't. That said, having tonnes of gold sitting in a vault is no great shakes in and of itself. France and Italy both have huge stashes, but it does not seem to have done them much good.
'It wasn't Gordon's fault, the bad boys made him do it'. Laughable.
Brown micro managed everything - he knew full well what the deal was, and any consequences.
If the newspaper article linked to down thread is in any way correct, the man should be standing in the dock in a court of law. Surely selling UK gold to manipulate the market price and bail out a US bank ranks as a criminal act?
@Josias - In retrospect Brown clearly made a major mistake in selling the gold when he did, but the gold price had been falling for years and, no doubt, the (bad) advice he got was that it was unlikely to rise significantly. He should have listened to other people and investigated further himself. But he didn't. That said, having tonnes of gold sitting in a vault is no great shakes in and of itself. France and Italy both have huge stashes, but it does not seem to have done them much good.
'It wasn't Gordon's fault, the bad boys made him do it'. Laughable.
Brown micro managed everything - he knew full well what the deal was, and any consequences.
If the newspaper article linked to down thread is in any way correct, the man should be standing in the dock in a court of law. Surely selling UK gold to manipulate the market price and bail out a US bank ranks as a criminal act?
I'm not sure whether such an action could be considered criminal - though the Misconduct in a Public Office offence seems to be getting popular these days, so who knows - but it's the sort of thing that might have been considered impeachable at one time.
@Josias - In retrospect Brown clearly made a major mistake in selling the gold when he did, but the gold price had been falling for years and, no doubt, the (bad) advice he got was that it was unlikely to rise significantly. He should have listened to other people and investigated further himself. But he didn't. That said, having tonnes of gold sitting in a vault is no great shakes in and of itself. France and Italy both have huge stashes, but it does not seem to have done them much good.
'It wasn't Gordon's fault, the bad boys made him do it'. Laughable.
Brown micro managed everything - he knew full well what the deal was, and any consequences.
If the newspaper article linked to down thread is in any way correct, the man should be standing in the dock in a court of law. Surely selling UK gold to manipulate the market price and bail out a US bank ranks as a criminal act?
Clearly you did not read what I said. Which was:
"In retrospect Brown clearly made a major mistake in selling the gold when he did, but the gold price had been falling for years and, no doubt, the (bad) advice he got was that it was unlikely to rise significantly. He should have listened to other people and investigated further himself."
@HurstLlama I'm interested in the Diplomacy game, but I really am a novice, knowing nothing about the game. Is it possible to watch the game rather than play, given that I doubt anyone would want to waste time while I get up to speed with the rules and concepts?
The rules are incredibly simple !
The strategy and treachery is as complex as you want to make it...
For a potential Diplomacy novice - how much time would a single game take up on a per week or per day basis?
Understanding the rules probably takes an hour or two, especially without the game to look at. Following the games on the website is easy, see e.g.
for the first game. A reasonable novice strategy is to tell people you're a novice, offer to be a good ally if someone gives you fair advice, and wait for offers. Then go along with the most reasonable-looking one for a few turns while you get the hang of it, but reserve the right to peel off at some point (since simply acting as a permanent sock-puppet for someone is boring and irritating for other players too). You can get by with a few minutes most days, just glancing at the messages and writing orders now and then, though to enjoy it you should probably spend 15 minutes a day on it most days.
The classic, entertaining, book on the subject is readable online:
The one-page introduction gives you the inimitable flavour of the book - Richard would have been a good UKIP candidate, the ultimate no-nonsense bloke, but nice and witty all the same. He makes the game sound more difficult than it is, but if you draw a country it's worth reading his chapter about it.
The February Ipsos MORI Political Monitor records the public’s economic optimism at its highest since May 1997 when Tony Blair and New Labour had just moved into Downing Street. Half (50%) of Britons believe the state of the economy will improve in the next year. One in four (24%) think the economy will get worse, giving an Economic Optimism Index score (% satisfied minus % dissatisfied) of +26 the highest since 1997.
"Four in ten (42%) now trust Mr Cameron more than the other party leaders to deal with managing the economy, compared to 20% trusting Mr Miliband, 5% Mr Clegg and 3% Mr Farage. This increases his lead over Mr Miliband to 22 points from 14 points in May last year."
After a number of weeks of negative stories about Liberal Democrat and UKIP politicians this poll finds that Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage are less trusted than David Cameron and Ed Miliband to look after the interests of women and handle disagreements within their party. Just 12% trust Nick Clegg the most to look after the interests of women and 3% trust Nigel Farage the most. Ed Miliband is seen as the most trustworthy on this issue with 28% and 21% chose David Cameron. Women are much more likely to say none of the above (21% compared to 9% of men).
Probably already been said, but the current Labour polling is a bit too reliant on switchers, whereas the Tories only have to convince some of the UKIP flirters to come back. The problem for the Tories as highlighted on Newsnight is the lack of people on the ground to do the election campaigning. The Tories under Shapps chairmanship are relying too much on using online and telephone campaigning.
There are some odd findings in that MORI poll, notably:
"When it comes to tax policy, Labour’s 50p tax appears to be the most popular rate of taxing those earning over £150,000 a year in a choice between 50p, 45p and 40p (although it does not have majority support). Four in ten (41%) believe the higher rate of tax should be 50p, 27% believe it should be 45p and 24% believe it should be 40p."
The Conservatives will be happy with that, but I wonder whether that's a result of bias towards the status quo and bias towards the middle. Certainly it seems out of line with other polls taken recently.
Pickles tells the Commons: "We will work to defend both town and country"
By my reckoning we only need another two or three storms after the one forecast for Saturday (and there's one forecast for Tuesday now), for rainfall this winter to have set a new record across wide areas of southern England.
Where does Pickles imagine all that rain is going to go?
It's the worst sort of political cowardice, pretending that we can magic a problem away with a bit of government spending.
So, UKIP retained none of their 2010 support. Or are UKIP included in 'OTH & DNV' in the pie chart ?
There is no separate UKIP 2010 data in the poll detail. They got, it will be recalled, 3.1%
Mike, I suspect that page 11 (Table 5) has this data. Otherwise the matrix on that page makes no sense. Across the top we have the 2010 election vote; down the side the current intentions.
If so, UKIP have retained 83% of their 2010 vote (with 4% going Con, 3% Lab, 1% LD, 2% BNP, 6% D/K). I think that this is a useful table - but I don't like how it's been turnout weighted (given that D/K and Did not Vote are in it).
Another useful table is Table 55/Q17 (page 141). Lib Dems and Conservatives should be looking hard at those who voted for them last time and haven't jumped ship but aren't voting for anyone/don't know. If they haven't swung behind Labour or UKIP by now, in the late mid-term, they're still potential restorees to the fold. Lib Dems could boost their numbers by 40%; Tories by 10% and Labour by only 4.5% (of their current support levels) by drawing from this pool of disillusioned but not defectors. That's with no defecting voters re-assessing their choice to switch, as well.
In terms of the potential effect of differentially mobilising the disaffected (but not defecting) 2010 voters on the overall poll scores, it means that Con could be between 2.1% better off (only they motivate them) to 1.6% worse off (only they fail to motivate them), Lab between 1.1% better off and 2.5% worse off, and the Lib Dems between 3.2% better off and 0.4% worse off. If all parties were to successfully motivate those who had voted last time and were disaffected now, Con would be 0.5% better off, Lab 1.5% worse off and LDs 2.7% better off.
I'm not sure I agree. I think "left wing" isn't a helpful term. Apart from 1945 and they were exceptional circumstances, Britain has never elected a left-wing Government. Tony Blair, aided by the political self-destruction of the Conservatives from 1990 and especially 1992 onwards, was able to convince millions of disillusioned Conservatives that the Labour party was a non-socialist party of the centre-left and he won three elections on that basis.
By today's ideological standards, Britain elected centre-left Governments throughout the 1950s and 1960s (Butskellism) and arguably even Thatcher's 1979 Manifesto was more centrist than Heath's 1970 document. Thatcher in 1983-87, unlike Blair in 2001-05 (arguably because of the events of Sept 11th) was able to be a radical Prime Minister - the most radical since Attlee.
To be more controversial, I would argue that Margaret Thatcher not only benefitted from the split opposition but also worked a policy programme aimed at keeping the 40-42% Conservative core (post 1979) on side and she could afford to forget the rest. Cameron doesn't have that luxury as 36% wins him nothing. Ed Miliband can work a policy platform to his 37-39% base in the knowledge that he's unlikely to lose and very likely to win.
At present, the anti-Labour vote is hopelessly split between Conservatives, UKIP and the Liberal Democrats. As long as that remains the case, Labour are in a strong position.
Stodge: I'm not sure you and I are disagreeing that much, I certainly agree with almost all of that. By 'left-wing' I meant: public spending, over tax cuts; big business, investors, banks, energy companies are all the enemy, pro-nationalisation of utilities/railways, sympathy with strikes and appetite for a strong welfare state. We can debate manifestos of the 50s, 60s and 70s but it was more a simplistic tag for sympathies and attitudes in order to make my point.
My point was that much of this was 'popular' in the 1980s; I don't think privatisation ever caught the public imagination, even then; and that I don't think there's much evidence to say the UK population is any more 'left-wing' today.
Therefore, if a 1992-like campaign happens again (which it feels like it's gearing up to be, to me) surely there's a chance that plenty of floating voters (be they fence-sitters, UKIP or Lib Dem) may flock to the Conservative banner out of fear of Miliband as PM?
The only bits I disagree with are some of the polling numbers. I think Labour will almost certainly cap out at 35%, and get no higher. The question is whether Cameron can push it up to 38-39% - I'm saying that perhaps there is a chance of that happening through a late swing/surge, that perhaps we're overlooking.
I've drawn Germany and got 2 service centres with England taking 0 and Russia 1 (France 2 but not Belgium) AND a fleet in the North sea in the first Fall turn !
I feel like I'm learning with the masters in the PB game - quite proud of that start :O)
That is a very good start and that fleet in the North Sea is worth a centre on its own. Be careful though. If the other players feel you are getting too powerful they are likely to gang up on your. It is the nail that sticks up that gets hammered down.
Whilst on the subject of Diplomacy there are still vacancies in the two new games:
PB Diplomacy Novice Hurdles
PB Diplmacy 2014 Death Match (Andy Cooke is a confirmed runner)
Anyone interested please email me on HurstLlama at gmail dot com for details.
Did you receive my email mr Llama, thought I got the address right but never hurts to check
@Josias - In retrospect Brown clearly made a major mistake in selling the gold when he did, but the gold price had been falling for years and, no doubt, the (bad) advice he got was that it was unlikely to rise significantly. He should have listened to other people and investigated further himself. But he didn't.
I disagree, it's not the job of the government to speculate in the metals markets. They should just assume efficient markets and sell of any assets the government doesn't need at the going rate.
Once you accept this (I think fairly obvious) proposition the main thing left to complain about is that he let the markets know he was going to do it in advance, as if you could have shifted that stuff without anybody noticing, and as if the markets would have responded positively to a load of it mysteriously appearing for sale from provenance unknown.
That said, any need for spending cuts or tax increases by the government or a future one will be the fault of George Osborne for failing to sell the government's remaining gold stocks for bitcoins immediately on taking office.
There are some odd findings in that MORI poll, notably:
"When it comes to tax policy, Labour’s 50p tax appears to be the most popular rate of taxing those earning over £150,000 a year in a choice between 50p, 45p and 40p (although it does not have majority support). Four in ten (41%) believe the higher rate of tax should be 50p, 27% believe it should be 45p and 24% believe it should be 40p."
The Conservatives will be happy with that, but I wonder whether that's a result of bias towards the status quo and bias towards the middle. Certainly it seems out of line with other polls taken recently.
Peter Kellner has a hypothesis on why 50p may not be the 'magic bullet' Labour might hope:
1. The policy must be credible. Voters must think it can be done, will do some good and have no serious side-effects.
2. The people putting forward the policy must also be credible. Choosing which party to support is a bit like choosing a surgeon or a plumber – what matters is not just their ability to diagnose what is wrong, but their ability to put it right.
3. The policy must not look like the thin end of a threatening wedge. Voters need to be sure that there is no hidden agenda of unpalatable policies yet to be unveiled.
4. The policy and its advocates must be able to survive sustained examination over a period of time. A policy that sounds good at first blush might end up losing votes if its dangers start to become apparent.
On 1-3 Kellner thinks Labour are already in trouble - 4, too soon to say....
There are some odd findings in that MORI poll, notably:
"When it comes to tax policy, Labour’s 50p tax appears to be the most popular rate of taxing those earning over £150,000 a year in a choice between 50p, 45p and 40p (although it does not have majority support). Four in ten (41%) believe the higher rate of tax should be 50p, 27% believe it should be 45p and 24% believe it should be 40p."
The Conservatives will be happy with that, but I wonder whether that's a result of bias towards the status quo and bias towards the middle. Certainly it seems out of line with other polls taken recently.
Yes, it'd be interesting to see the results if they'd put the same question at 40, 45, 50, 60 and 75p to fully test it.
Generally, I think I'm on the same page as Sean Fear on this: it's popular to put up other peoples taxes, particularly the rich. However, when it comes to electing a goverment that might actually do it, not a few voters will hesistate before putting their cross in the box.
It's actually a minor miracle that the ten year drought in the south-east is finally over. I seem to remember reading a lot of articles in which experts said it would probably be a permanent feature.
UK Govt pressure on companies must be disclosed Thu, 06/02/2014 - 11:28
The Scottish National Party announced today (Thursday) that it is tabling a series of Freedom of Information requests and Parliamentary Questions at Westminster to demand "full disclosure" of UK government activities to pressurise business people to speak out on behalf of the No campaign.
This follows the report in the today's Financial Times that 'several senior defence executives' told the newspaper that they 'were being pressed' to oppose a Yes vote in the referendum - one senior defence executive said that UK officials were making “deft use of the dark arts” and that ministers have been doing this "energetically".
The newspaper reports that: 'The government's decision to put pressure on companies to speak out against independence suggests anxiety about the referendum result in September.'
This reflects reports in the Sunday Herald newspaper that UK diplomatic resources are being used abroad to support a No vote and brief against an independent Scotland.
SNP Westminster leader and defence spokesperson Mr Angus Robertson MP said:
"These damning revelations expose the fact that UK Government Ministers are attempting to pressure companies which depend on MoD orders and contracts to speak out on behalf of the No campaign. We need to know which ministers and officials are involved, and what exactly they are doing and saying to exert this pressure. One senior defence company executive has accused the UK Government of making 'deft use of the dark arts'.
"We also need to know the extent to which this is happening across other sectors of the economy, and the SNP will be tabling a series of Freedom of Information requests and Parliamentary Questions at Westminster to get full disclosure of this secret and underhand activity.
“The No campaign have been hoist by their own petard on this issue, given that they have now been exposed for indulging in exactly the kind of activity that they have falsely accused the Scottish Government of.
"We now have clear evidence of a furtive whispering campaign both at home and abroad in support of the No campaign, utilising public money, by a UK Government whose Prime Minister is too frightened to debate First Minister Alex Salmond face to face. It is clear that the No campaign is badly rattled.
“Independence will offer great opportunities for companies in all sectors – and it is to the credit of the companies involved here that they appear to have resisted the pressure they were put under by Westminster Ministers.”
@HurstLlama I'm interested in the Diplomacy game, but I really am a novice, knowing nothing about the game. Is it possible to watch the game rather than play, given that I doubt anyone would want to waste time while I get up to speed with the rules and concepts?
The rules are incredibly simple !
The strategy and treachery is as complex as you want to make it...
For a potential Diplomacy novice - how much time would a single game take up on a per week or per day basis?
Understanding the rules probably takes an hour or two, especially without the game to look at. Following the games on the website is easy, see e.g.
for the first game. A reasonable novice strategy is to tell people you're a novice, offer to be a good ally if someone gives you fair advice, and wait for offers. Then go along with the most reasonable-looking one for a few turns while you get the hang of it, but reserve the right to peel off at some point (since simply acting as a permanent sock-puppet for someone is boring and irritating for other players too). You can get by with a few minutes most days, just glancing at the messages and writing orders now and then, though to enjoy it you should probably spend 15 minutes a day on it most days.
The classic, entertaining, book on the subject is readable online:
The one-page introduction gives you the inimitable flavour of the book - Richard would have been a good UKIP candidate, the ultimate no-nonsense bloke, but nice and witty all the same. He makes the game sound more difficult than it is, but if you draw a country it's worth reading his chapter about it.
The rules are very simple, in principle, but the game is very complex. It requires you to have good interpersonal skills, at the same time as acting like a complete sociopath.
The non-partisan website, where you have to be a Labour fan to survive. You have to look at Wells analysis outside the prism of his barely concealed bias.
@HurstLlama I'm interested in the Diplomacy game, but I really am a novice, knowing nothing about the game. Is it possible to watch the game rather than play, given that I doubt anyone would want to waste time while I get up to speed with the rules and concepts?
The rules are incredibly simple !
The strategy and treachery is as complex as you want to make it...
For a potential Diplomacy novice - how much time would a single game take up on a per week or per day basis?
Understanding the rules probably takes an hour or two, especially without the game to look at. Following the games on the website is easy, see e.g.
for the first game. A reasonable novice strategy is to tell people you're a novice, offer to be a good ally if someone gives you fair advice, and wait for offers. Then go along with the most reasonable-looking one for a few turns while you get the hang of it, but reserve the right to peel off at some point (since simply acting as a permanent sock-puppet for someone is boring and irritating for other players too). You can get by with a few minutes most days, just glancing at the messages and writing orders now and then, though to enjoy it you should probably spend 15 minutes a day on it most days.
The classic, entertaining, book on the subject is readable online:
The one-page introduction gives you the inimitable flavour of the book - Richard would have been a good UKIP candidate, the ultimate no-nonsense bloke, but nice and witty all the same. He makes the game sound more difficult than it is, but if you draw a country it's worth reading his chapter about it.
The rules are very simple, in principle, but the game is very complex. It requires you to have good interpersonal skills, at the same time as acting like a complete sociopath.
Mr. F, don't psychopaths/sociopaths* tend to have excellent interpersonal skills?
*Despite taking a psychology degree the difference between the two is still somewhat unclear. I've read that some consider the 'problem' to be a social ilnness (hence the change to 'sociopath'), and others that a psychopath is a heartless bastard who can for certain people (say, friends and family) have genuine feelings, whereas as a sociopath is a more straightforward heartless bastard.
On that note, I actually score relatively** highly on the old symptom checklist [by a third party, not self-reported].
There are some odd findings in that MORI poll, notably:
"When it comes to tax policy, Labour’s 50p tax appears to be the most popular rate of taxing those earning over £150,000 a year in a choice between 50p, 45p and 40p (although it does not have majority support). Four in ten (41%) believe the higher rate of tax should be 50p, 27% believe it should be 45p and 24% believe it should be 40p."
The Conservatives will be happy with that, but I wonder whether that's a result of bias towards the status quo and bias towards the middle. Certainly it seems out of line with other polls taken recently.
Very dangerous to base policy based on Public Opinion on a subject as in UK Taxation so few actually know much about. Poll experts with day to day dealings on Tax and the answers would be pretty much unanimously against any increase, it just won't raise much coin there are so many ways of avoiding it, all totally legally.
Interesting. I'd say your biggest problem is going to be Russia in the medium term. Austria is going down like an Essex girl (seriously - what in hell was he thinking?), and the Austria/Turkey/Russia triangle is going to be resolved pretty quickly. Russia could be sitting pretty: he can propose a "juggernaut" alliance to Turkey (Russia+Turkey) and Turkey would get bogged down by an energetic Italy while he steamrollers through, well, you. However, Italy seems to be in a better place with Turkey than Russia is, which is a useful fact to note. If you can get Russia and Turkey at daggers drawn, you'll be well placed.
You and France seem to be doing fairly well at the moment, but England's a tough nut to crack. Some discreet diplomacy with Italy might be useful- if he can be convinced to help you in Austria's place, you can buy time to take down England and hopefully hold out against Russia in a 2-front war in case things go Pete Tong with the Russia/Turkey situation.
Mr. Royale, the most astounding and interesting thing I learnt at university was that women ogle men probably even more than the reverse.
Yes. Totally NSFW but I was also not surprised to read (in a recent 'scientific' study) that womens bodies physically 'react' as much, if not more so, than men to a range of audiovisual entertainment of an adult nature.
@AndyJS Women judge other women far more than men in my experience...
I've certainly had barristers saying to me that women on juries are generally more sympathetic to men accused of rape than male jurors are.
I don't know much about law but I find it surprising that a jury can sometimes comprise 8 members of the same sex. You'd think having 6/6 would be usual.
@HurstLlama I'm interested in the Diplomacy game, but I really am a novice, knowing nothing about the game. Is it possible to watch the game rather than play, given that I doubt anyone would want to waste time while I get up to speed with the rules and concepts?
It genuinely is easy to pick up the rules and ins and outs. And anyone can do well - in my first pb.com Diplomacy game, I had only played briefly at school, quarter of a century previously (and our few games at school never got past the third game year because we ran out of time or interest). Please note that my reputation in this game is seriously overstated.
There are some odd findings in that MORI poll, notably:
"When it comes to tax policy, Labour’s 50p tax appears to be the most popular rate of taxing those earning over £150,000 a year in a choice between 50p, 45p and 40p (although it does not have majority support). Four in ten (41%) believe the higher rate of tax should be 50p, 27% believe it should be 45p and 24% believe it should be 40p."
The Conservatives will be happy with that, but I wonder whether that's a result of bias towards the status quo and bias towards the middle. Certainly it seems out of line with other polls taken recently.
Peter Kellner has a hypothesis on why 50p may not be the 'magic bullet' Labour might hope:
1. The policy must be credible. Voters must think it can be done, will do some good and have no serious side-effects.
2. The people putting forward the policy must also be credible. Choosing which party to support is a bit like choosing a surgeon or a plumber – what matters is not just their ability to diagnose what is wrong, but their ability to put it right.
3. The policy must not look like the thin end of a threatening wedge. Voters need to be sure that there is no hidden agenda of unpalatable policies yet to be unveiled.
4. The policy and its advocates must be able to survive sustained examination over a period of time. A policy that sounds good at first blush might end up losing votes if its dangers start to become apparent.
On 1-3 Kellner thinks Labour are already in trouble - 4, too soon to say....
That's very interesting and sort of supports the arguments I've been making about the similarities that next year will have to 1992.
The non-partisan website, where you have to be a Labour fan to survive. You have to look at Wells analysis outside the prism of his barely concealed bias.
This would be the Anthony Wells who used to work for William Hague and was a Tory councillor in Dartford?
Fgm victim now on daily politics... Surely the most barbaric, medieval practice in modern world? Is there any other practice that goes against so many of the progressive moves of. The last century?
But seeing as it is done to pre pubescent girls, how can anything be done by govt? V tricky
BTW I hope PBers were able to snatch at least a few moments of a diverting televisual delight earlier this morning.
I refer not to such frivolities as the "Bridge" "Benefits Street" or "Bargain Hunt" but to the Parliament Channel and the "Questions to the Commons Commission" featuring answers by Viscount Thurso.
A man who on top form was dealing with vital questions of the day such as composting of uneaten HoC meals and the provision of rescue cats to tackle a resurgent threat of mice in the corridors of power.
Huzzah for Scottish nobles providing a televisual treat for the nation
Stodge: I'm not sure you and I are disagreeing that much, I certainly agree with almost all of that. By 'left-wing' I meant: public spending, over tax cuts; big business, investors, banks, energy companies are all the enemy, pro-nationalisation of utilities/railways, sympathy with strikes and appetite for a strong welfare state. We can debate manifestos of the 50s, 60s and 70s but it was more a simplistic tag for sympathies and attitudes in order to make my point.
My point was that much of this was 'popular' in the 1980s; I don't think privatisation ever caught the public imagination, even then; and that I don't think there's much evidence to say the UK population is any more 'left-wing' today.
Therefore, if a 1992-like campaign happens again (which it feels like it's gearing up to be, to me) surely there's a chance that plenty of floating voters (be they fence-sitters, UKIP or Lib Dem) may flock to the Conservative banner out of fear of Miliband as PM?
The only bits I disagree with are some of the polling numbers. I think Labour will almost certainly cap out at 35%, and get no higher. The question is whether Cameron can push it up to 38-39% - I'm saying that perhaps there is a chance of that happening through a late swing/surge, that perhaps we're overlooking.
I don't share your confidence (which seems to exist among many on here) that Labour will fall significantly from its current number. Judging the future through the prism of the past is the quickest way to the poorhouse.
I'm also not convinced about the popularity of the "left wing" ideals by the 80s. There was a considerable sense that by 1979 the Butskellite post-war consensus had failed and that something new was needed to manage the changing society. Oddly enough, it's easy to argue on that basis not how much Thatcher changed but how little in some areas.
Technological innovation along with economic liberalisation and the end of the Cold War were the three major developments of the 80s and it was perhaps Labour's failure to recognise these developments for what they were which cost it the 1992 election. A British equivalent of Clinton from the centre-left would, I argue, have won in 1992 against John Major.
As to the differences between the two main parties, both are, I would contend, as we all are, the sum of our contradictions. In some areas, the Coalition is being very radical, in others it has accepted the Major/Blair post-Cold War Social Democratic model. It may well be that apart from one or two areas, the differences between the Conservative and Labour Manifestos in 2015 will be more symbolic and semantic than actual and meaningful.
The non-partisan website, where you have to be a Labour fan to survive. You have to look at Wells analysis outside the prism of his barely concealed bias.
This would be the Anthony Wells who used to work for William Hague and was a Tory councillor in Dartford?
It seems that he may have changed horse then because that site is full of intellectual lefties.
Basically, works teams (Ferrari and Mercedes) have a big advantage over customer teams. This was part of the reason for me backing Rosberg at 17 for the title. (Down to 10 now).
Comments
The only people who talk about Mrs T more than Labour supporters are the Tories, who - of course - would never dream of referring to the winter of discontent, back to the 1970s or the return of militant unions!!!
Is available here for anyone that would like to play, entries close 7pm next Wed:
http://www.electiongame.co.uk/wythenshawe/
Many thanks,
DC
On the other hand, while that group want UKIP to be more normal, they also don't want them to be obviously fruitcakes and nutcases, some of the maverick views may put off other parts of their diverse electoral coaltion (especially if they become seen as representative of the party at large), and - perhaps critically - such individuals may prevent UKIP from picking up new support that is more inclined to the existing parties: those who do care about who's elected, and the group into which UKIP need to break if they are really to become a force in their own right.
Which is a real threat if Miliband comes to power. The demands from McCluskey and company will be immense, signs so far show Ed will cave in, returning his favours.
For the rest of us the cosequenses of McCLUSKEY holding the levers of power as in days gone by don't bear thinking about. Militant is fair comment.
It's a shame that so many in Labour are routinely ignoring arguably their biggest winner - Blair, whereas the Conservatives embrace theirs.
And you make my point for me: the politics of the present is firmly rooted in the politics of the past, especially when the characters are still around. Saying 'that's a bit dusty' on something that disadvantages your own side is rather silly, especially when there are lessons to be learnt.
It will be hard to be taken seriously as a party of government (local or national) without addressing the fruitcake tendency, but they are a party led by a saloon bar bore, so may be happy to keep the mavericks on board. UKIP will do well in the Euros, but implode again after they fail to gain a seat in 2015.
Not inconceivable that the Lab vote could fall but yet maj increase as Cons > Kip.
Diplomacy - Not the PB2013 game...
I've drawn Germany and got 2 service centres with England taking 0 and Russia 1 (France 2 but not Belgium) AND a fleet in the North sea in the first Fall turn !
I feel like I'm learning with the masters in the PB game - quite proud of that start :O)
The main Flemish nationalist party - which won more votes than any other at the last Belgian general election - has decided to drop independence from its manifesto for the next general election in May. Instead, it will campaign on a one country, two state platform. So, they are proposing that Belgium become a confederacy - there would be no national PM, no national diplomatic corps and no national social security. But Flanders and Wallonia would still be in a country called Belgium whose capital would be Brussels.
For those who can read Spanish, it is all here:
http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2014/02/05/actualidad/1391630481_279158.html
Quite a bit of talk about natural left-wing constituency, and so forth, but as far as I can tell the answer is no: attitudes have shifted even further against welfare, the population is more euro sceptic and is less (I think) unionised.
Given Ed's platform is starting to look decidedly 'Kinnockesque', and the Tory counter-campaign to match, what price a late surge to Cameron when with 10-15 days to go folks suddenly become terrified at the prospect of him actually running the country?
I hope he holds a rally in Shefield in the final week.
All parties have problems with admitting past mistakes, and learning from them. And lord knows, they all make enough mistakes, as is inevitable when you have to make such grand decisions.
We know Miliband is no Blair (a man several of my left-wing friends are still convinced was a closet Tory, and they sure think differently with Miliband) and when you think of if like that, it will be a very big achievement of his if UK voters put him into no.10, any which way.
Well, day two of the Great Tube Strike Saga of February 2014 and another trip to convey Mrs Stodge to the railway station early this morning.
I popped in to my local tube station on my way to the surgery (via the paper shop to get my RP). Three observations about the dispute which I've not seen widely mentioned:
1) East Ham station was open (with a 12-minute service westbound into London) but no staff to be seen at all and the gate line open. One can but speculate how many people might have decided waiting for a free ride was better than waiting for the bus. I'm left to wonder how many other stations have been opened but left unstaffed.
2) It's not been mentioned but ticket office staff will have to take a pay cut (up to £6k in some cases) to apply for jobs either on platform or manning the gate line. There may indeed be no compulsory redundancies but perhaps the large number of those seeking voluntary redundancy from LU is related to the likelihood of a pay cut and the impact on future pension.
3) LU are claiming a 35% operational service. I find that hard to believe and both LU and RMT are adept at playing the propaganda/misinformation card when it suits them. If instead of our normal 3-4 minute service we have a 12-minute service then it's more like 30% and of course nothing ran before 7am or will post 11pm.
I was listening to Sir Peter Hendy on LBC yesterday and the crux seems to be that the form HR1, the notice of intention to close ticket offices, is the problem. LU are prepared to talk about it but won't withdraw it, the RMT won't talk until it is withdrawn. Crow has offered to talk if LU suspend the implementation pending negotiation but LU have refused.
There are loads more we could find, or argue over those. However, my point is that in the 1980s the politics of envy and whingeing was just as strong, as was the problem with lack of self-confidence.
The bigger challenge for Cameron is that he isn't (1) can't do (3) and hasn't yet delivered (4) - although it may come in the next term. That leaves (2) he's tried to pump-prime the house market, but it's hardly a mass extension of home ownership and (5) his strongest card.
It feels like it's less a left-wing/right-wing, thing, and more a 'I don't respect any of them/they're all useless' thing. Question is, how will that play out in votes & seats next year?
Anyway, I've gone for a majority of just over 4,100 for Labour in Wythenshawe, but I suspect Ukip will nick second.
Let's say UKIPs score in the poll is 14%
Of that 14%, 32% is others or did not vote.... So that is 4.5 out of the 14
that includes UKIPs 2010 score (3% assuming they keep all their 2010s)
So others and DNV is 1.5 of the 14 of UKIPs current score (10.7% of it)
Is that right?
Whilst on the subject of Diplomacy there are still vacancies in the two new games:
PB Diplomacy Novice Hurdles
PB Diplmacy 2014 Death Match (Andy Cooke is a confirmed runner)
Anyone interested please email me on HurstLlama at gmail dot com for details.
http://www.relbanks.com/rankings/world-gold-reserves
There is a collosal Belgium sized problem (England can retreat there...) in the north and Austria is getting cream crackered in the south.
Italy is probably winning !
The strategy and treachery is as complex as you want to make it...
By today's ideological standards, Britain elected centre-left Governments throughout the 1950s and 1960s (Butskellism) and arguably even Thatcher's 1979 Manifesto was more centrist than Heath's 1970 document. Thatcher in 1983-87, unlike Blair in 2001-05 (arguably because of the events of Sept 11th) was able to be a radical Prime Minister - the most radical since Attlee.
To be more controversial, I would argue that Margaret Thatcher not only benefitted from the split opposition but also worked a policy programme aimed at keeping the 40-42% Conservative core (post 1979) on side and she could afford to forget the rest. Cameron doesn't have that luxury as 36% wins him nothing. Ed Miliband can work a policy platform to his 37-39% base in the knowledge that he's unlikely to lose and very likely to win.
At present, the anti-Labour vote is hopelessly split between Conservatives, UKIP and the Liberal Democrats. As long as that remains the case, Labour are in a strong position.
Brown micro managed everything - he knew full well what the deal was, and any consequences.
If the newspaper article linked to down thread is in any way correct, the man should be standing in the dock in a court of law. Surely selling UK gold to manipulate the market price and bail out a US bank ranks as a criminal act?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26068034
William Roache found not guilty of rape and indecent assault.
Perhaps these money grabbing women and the police who believe them will pause for decency's sake.
Results soon.
"In retrospect Brown clearly made a major mistake in selling the gold when he did, but the gold price had been falling for years and, no doubt, the (bad) advice he got was that it was unlikely to rise significantly. He should have listened to other people and investigated further himself."
http://www.playdiplomacy.com/game_play_details.php?game_id=74363
for the first game. A reasonable novice strategy is to tell people you're a novice, offer to be a good ally if someone gives you fair advice, and wait for offers. Then go along with the most reasonable-looking one for a few turns while you get the hang of it, but reserve the right to peel off at some point (since simply acting as a permanent sock-puppet for someone is boring and irritating for other players too). You can get by with a few minutes most days, just glancing at the messages and writing orders now and then, though to enjoy it you should probably spend 15 minutes a day on it most days.
The classic, entertaining, book on the subject is readable online:
http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/god.htm
The one-page introduction gives you the inimitable flavour of the book - Richard would have been a good UKIP candidate, the ultimate no-nonsense bloke, but nice and witty all the same. He makes the game sound more difficult than it is, but if you draw a country it's worth reading his chapter about it.
The February Ipsos MORI Political Monitor records the public’s economic optimism at its highest since May 1997 when Tony Blair and New Labour had just moved into Downing Street. Half (50%) of Britons believe the state of the economy will improve in the next year. One in four (24%) think the economy will get worse, giving an Economic Optimism Index score (% satisfied minus % dissatisfied) of +26 the highest since 1997.
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3339/Economic-optimism-at-highest-since-1997-as-Cameron-opens-up-lead-over-Miliband-on-dealing-with-the-economy-and-unemployment.aspx
http://news.sky.com/story/1207537/william-roache-trial-verdict-not-guilty
"Four in ten (42%) now trust Mr Cameron more than the other party leaders to deal with managing the economy, compared to 20% trusting Mr Miliband, 5% Mr Clegg and 3% Mr Farage. This increases his lead over Mr Miliband to 22 points from 14 points in May last year."
MOE ?
http://www.whiterskin.info/history-lesson-lead-mercury-and-leeches-were-used-to-whiten-complexions-in-the-1400s/
After a number of weeks of negative stories about Liberal Democrat and UKIP politicians this poll finds that Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage are less trusted than David Cameron and Ed Miliband to look after the interests of women and handle disagreements within their party. Just 12% trust Nick Clegg the most to look after the interests of women and 3% trust Nigel Farage the most. Ed Miliband is seen as the most trustworthy on this issue with 28% and 21% chose David Cameron. Women are much more likely to say none of the above (21% compared to 9% of men).
IM
"When it comes to tax policy, Labour’s 50p tax appears to be the most popular rate of taxing those earning over £150,000 a year in a choice between 50p, 45p and 40p (although it does not have majority support). Four in ten (41%) believe the higher rate of tax should be 50p, 27% believe it should be 45p and 24% believe it should be 40p."
The Conservatives will be happy with that, but I wonder whether that's a result of bias towards the status quo and bias towards the middle. Certainly it seems out of line with other polls taken recently.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03td84h
By my reckoning we only need another two or three storms after the one forecast for Saturday (and there's one forecast for Tuesday now), for rainfall this winter to have set a new record across wide areas of southern England.
Where does Pickles imagine all that rain is going to go?
It's the worst sort of political cowardice, pretending that we can magic a problem away with a bit of government spending.
Thanks, Miss Vance
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8611
Across the top we have the 2010 election vote; down the side the current intentions.
If so, UKIP have retained 83% of their 2010 vote (with 4% going Con, 3% Lab, 1% LD, 2% BNP, 6% D/K).
I think that this is a useful table - but I don't like how it's been turnout weighted (given that D/K and Did not Vote are in it).
Another useful table is Table 55/Q17 (page 141). Lib Dems and Conservatives should be looking hard at those who voted for them last time and haven't jumped ship but aren't voting for anyone/don't know. If they haven't swung behind Labour or UKIP by now, in the late mid-term, they're still potential restorees to the fold. Lib Dems could boost their numbers by 40%; Tories by 10% and Labour by only 4.5% (of their current support levels) by drawing from this pool of disillusioned but not defectors. That's with no defecting voters re-assessing their choice to switch, as well.
In terms of the potential effect of differentially mobilising the disaffected (but not defecting) 2010 voters on the overall poll scores, it means that Con could be between 2.1% better off (only they motivate them) to 1.6% worse off (only they fail to motivate them), Lab between 1.1% better off and 2.5% worse off, and the Lib Dems between 3.2% better off and 0.4% worse off. If all parties were to successfully motivate those who had voted last time and were disaffected now, Con would be 0.5% better off, Lab 1.5% worse off and LDs 2.7% better off.
Stodge: I'm not sure you and I are disagreeing that much, I certainly agree with almost all of that. By 'left-wing' I meant: public spending, over tax cuts; big business, investors, banks, energy companies are all the enemy, pro-nationalisation of utilities/railways, sympathy with strikes and appetite for a strong welfare state. We can debate manifestos of the 50s, 60s and 70s but it was more a simplistic tag for sympathies and attitudes in order to make my point.
My point was that much of this was 'popular' in the 1980s; I don't think privatisation ever caught the public imagination, even then; and that I don't think there's much evidence to say the UK population is any more 'left-wing' today.
Therefore, if a 1992-like campaign happens again (which it feels like it's gearing up to be, to me) surely there's a chance that plenty of floating voters (be they fence-sitters, UKIP or Lib Dem) may flock to the Conservative banner out of fear of Miliband as PM?
The only bits I disagree with are some of the polling numbers. I think Labour will almost certainly cap out at 35%, and get no higher. The question is whether Cameron can push it up to 38-39% - I'm saying that perhaps there is a chance of that happening through a late swing/surge, that perhaps we're overlooking.
Once you accept this (I think fairly obvious) proposition the main thing left to complain about is that he let the markets know he was going to do it in advance, as if you could have shifted that stuff without anybody noticing, and as if the markets would have responded positively to a load of it mysteriously appearing for sale from provenance unknown.
That said, any need for spending cuts or tax increases by the government or a future one will be the fault of George Osborne for failing to sell the government's remaining gold stocks for bitcoins immediately on taking office.
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/02/03/why-labours-popular-tax-policy-backfired/
1. The policy must be credible. Voters must think it can be done, will do some good and have no serious side-effects.
2. The people putting forward the policy must also be credible. Choosing which party to support is a bit like choosing a surgeon or a plumber – what matters is not just their ability to diagnose what is wrong, but their ability to put it right.
3. The policy must not look like the thin end of a threatening wedge. Voters need to be sure that there is no hidden agenda of unpalatable policies yet to be unveiled.
4. The policy and its advocates must be able to survive sustained examination over a period of time. A policy that sounds good at first blush might end up losing votes if its dangers start to become apparent.
On 1-3 Kellner thinks Labour are already in trouble - 4, too soon to say....
Generally, I think I'm on the same page as Sean Fear on this: it's popular to put up other peoples taxes, particularly the rich. However, when it comes to electing a goverment that might actually do it, not a few voters will hesistate before putting their cross in the box.
UK Govt pressure on companies must be disclosed
Thu, 06/02/2014 - 11:28
The Scottish National Party announced today (Thursday) that it is tabling a series of Freedom of Information requests and Parliamentary Questions at Westminster to demand "full disclosure" of UK government activities to pressurise business people to speak out on behalf of the No campaign.
This follows the report in the today's Financial Times that 'several senior defence executives' told the newspaper that they 'were being pressed' to oppose a Yes vote in the referendum - one senior defence executive said that UK officials were making “deft use of the dark arts” and that ministers have been doing this "energetically".
The newspaper reports that: 'The government's decision to put pressure on companies to speak out against independence suggests anxiety about the referendum result in September.'
This reflects reports in the Sunday Herald newspaper that UK diplomatic resources are being used abroad to support a No vote and brief against an independent Scotland.
SNP Westminster leader and defence spokesperson Mr Angus Robertson MP said:
"These damning revelations expose the fact that UK Government Ministers are attempting to pressure companies which depend on MoD orders and contracts to speak out on behalf of the No campaign. We need to know which ministers and officials are involved, and what exactly they are doing and saying to exert this pressure. One senior defence company executive has accused the UK Government of making 'deft use of the dark arts'.
"We also need to know the extent to which this is happening across other sectors of the economy, and the SNP will be tabling a series of Freedom of Information requests and Parliamentary Questions at Westminster to get full disclosure of this secret and underhand activity.
“The No campaign have been hoist by their own petard on this issue, given that they have now been exposed for indulging in exactly the kind of activity that they have falsely accused the Scottish Government of.
"We now have clear evidence of a furtive whispering campaign both at home and abroad in support of the No campaign, utilising public money, by a UK Government whose Prime Minister is too frightened to debate First Minister Alex Salmond face to face. It is clear that the No campaign is badly rattled.
“Independence will offer great opportunities for companies in all sectors – and it is to the credit of the companies involved here that they appear to have resisted the pressure they were put under by Westminster Ministers.”
Notes:
The Financial Times story can be accessed here: http://www.ft.com/world/uk/politics
Revealed: the Foreign Office Devo unit's drive to kill off independence: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/revealed-the-foreign-office-devo-units-drive-to-kill-off-independence.23269484
*Despite taking a psychology degree the difference between the two is still somewhat unclear. I've read that some consider the 'problem' to be a social ilnness (hence the change to 'sociopath'), and others that a psychopath is a heartless bastard who can for certain people (say, friends and family) have genuine feelings, whereas as a sociopath is a more straightforward heartless bastard.
On that note, I actually score relatively** highly on the old symptom checklist [by a third party, not self-reported].
**Relatively = very
You and France seem to be doing fairly well at the moment, but England's a tough nut to crack. Some discreet diplomacy with Italy might be useful- if he can be convinced to help you in Austria's place, you can buy time to take down England and hopefully hold out against Russia in a 2-front war in case things go Pete Tong with the Russia/Turkey situation.
(Apologies for putting my oar in, actually)
I judged Mrs JackW as the catch of the century and I've been proved correct all these long years as Mrs JackW advises me on a consistent basis !!
Are the BNP even fielding a candidate ?
But seeing as it is done to pre pubescent girls, how can anything be done by govt? V tricky
I refer not to such frivolities as the "Bridge" "Benefits Street" or "Bargain Hunt" but to the Parliament Channel and the "Questions to the Commons Commission" featuring answers by Viscount Thurso.
A man who on top form was dealing with vital questions of the day such as composting of uneaten HoC meals and the provision of rescue cats to tackle a resurgent threat of mice in the corridors of power.
Huzzah for Scottish nobles providing a televisual treat for the nation
I'm also not convinced about the popularity of the "left wing" ideals by the 80s. There was a considerable sense that by 1979 the Butskellite post-war consensus had failed and that something new was needed to manage the changing society. Oddly enough, it's easy to argue on that basis not how much Thatcher changed but how little in some areas.
Technological innovation along with economic liberalisation and the end of the Cold War were the three major developments of the 80s and it was perhaps Labour's failure to recognise these developments for what they were which cost it the 1992 election. A British equivalent of Clinton from the centre-left would, I argue, have won in 1992 against John Major.
As to the differences between the two main parties, both are, I would contend, as we all are, the sum of our contradictions. In some areas, the Coalition is being very radical, in others it has accepted the Major/Blair post-Cold War Social Democratic model. It may well be that apart from one or two areas, the differences between the Conservative and Labour Manifestos in 2015 will be more symbolic and semantic than actual and meaningful.
http://www.espn.co.uk/mercedes/motorsport/story/144609.html
Basically, works teams (Ferrari and Mercedes) have a big advantage over customer teams. This was part of the reason for me backing Rosberg at 17 for the title. (Down to 10 now).