I don't know why so many people think a Labour majority is nailed on, when they lead the Conservatives by 5% or so, with 14 months to go to the election. This far out, in the last Parliament, the Conservatives were ahead by 15%, and didn't get a majority in the end.
It's a good point, the Labour lead is too small to be counted on on polling day.
But on the other hand. Unlike 2005-10 we are in a hung parliament. The Tory position in parliament is very weak. It would take very little for Labour to become the largest party and a majority is a much smaller ask than it was for Cameron in 2010.
I think the thing OGH and the Left overlook in their nailed on Labour majority fantasies is the scene across the Channel a few scores of miles from where I live in Kent. On these very boards I said in the week that Hollande assumed office that he will prove to be a disaster within a year. You Jonathan haughtily brushed my comments off and yet what do we see - Paris property prices crashing and their brightest and best working in London. As the GE draws nearer you can be assured minds will become more concentrated and people will treasure their cheap mortgages and council tax freezes and fear that Labour will simply as they always do lead to higher taxes, regulation and over-spending. As Sean F observed below these are the last things our faltering economy needs
"On Wednesday 26th March at 7pm, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg, will go head-to-head with UKIP leader Nigel Farage in a live hour-long programme."
So the Lib Dems (Britain's third largest party in terms of seats and votes ) get to participate in both the general election debates and this one . A honour not afforded Labour or Conservative? How is this correct?
That was Camerons problem in 2010 also. Overturning 100+ seat majorities is historically rare, they tend to be eroded over a series of elections. Those who scorn his not winning a majority in 2010 are not being realistic, the incumbency effect is quite significant.
I have always spoken up for Milliband on this board, I think his biggest weakness is his team around him who are lacklustre. Kremlin politics are such that some are difficult to move, but I think that he will move agaunst some of them in the summer.
The weak one is Cameron who has caved into to his right wing on just about every issue thus making his party even more unelectable.
Election night on here will be fantastic. I love it when posters say "Ed will never be PM", though quite a few who have made this statement have found the reverse gear recently.
Well that's it - they have plenty of time to reverse their view if and when the "facts change". Remember that Rod Crosby forecast crossover for May 1 - he'll make sure he revises his forecast mid-April if there is no sign of it.
The weak one is Cameron who has caved into to his right wing on just about every issue thus making his party even more unelectable.
Election night on here will be fantastic. I love it when posters say "Ed will never be PM", though quite a few who have made this statement have found the reverse gear recently.
Well that's it - they have plenty of time to reverse their view if and when the "facts change". Remember that Rod Crosby forecast crossover for May 1 - he'll make sure he revises his forecast mid-April if there is no sign of it.
I also have a Fitalass crossover within the next two months. Avery LP, well he has given up after three failed predictions and has hidden his latest one behind one of his yellow boxes.
I too am looking forward to General Election night ....
And if you really want to soften the blow further think of Basildon 1992 when all the dreams of a Kinnock premiership turned to dust as we scanned the faces of the candidates before the Returning Officer even uttered a single phrase.
The Right take solace in 1992. In 1992 Labour had to overcome a Tory majority of 100+ IIRC...
"On Wednesday 26th March at 7pm, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg, will go head-to-head with UKIP leader Nigel Farage in a live hour-long programme."
*cough* Didn't someone predict just that as well as the likelyhood of testbedding formats like audience questions?
Imagine the joy from Cammie, Osbrowne and CCHQ in knowing that the kippers are being given an hour of huge prime-time publicity for free with coalition policies on Europe and immigration being defended by Clegg?
"On Wednesday 26th March at 7pm, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg, will go head-to-head with UKIP leader Nigel Farage in a live hour-long programme."
So the Lib Dems (Britain's third largest party in terms of seats and votes ) get to participate in both the general election debates and this one . A honour not afforded Labour or Conservative? How is this correct?
I'm fairly sure that both Ed and Dave declined offers to take part...
These debates are going to be like the Rumble in the jungle.
Or like a comic book crossover if Loki took on Batman.
You must be fuming or foaming at the mouth, TSE, that These debates are taking place at all. The fact that that I don't like Clegg, doesn't mean that he is not a good debater. He is. But Nigel will squash him like the EU maggot he is.
Indeed they are going hammer and tongs about it this morning:
"In a speech to the Centre for European Reform thinktank today, the Deputy Prime Minister will say the UKIP leader and his deputy Paul Nuttall "rarely turn up to vote" and "refuse to roll up their sleeves and get down to work".
However, Mr Farage has hit back over Mr Clegg’s “hypocritical” attack, contrasting his own voting record with that of the Liberal Democrat leader.
“I’m very surprised Nick Clegg has chosen this line of attack. He attacks me and Paul Nuttall for not turning up enough to vote,” he told the Today programme.
“Well, both our voting records are about 50% but we are leader and deputy leader of a national party in the United Kingdom; Nick Clegg himself, who actually lives in London, has only himself voted in 22% of votes in this parliament. So I think it’s a rather hypocritical line of attack.” " (politicshome.com)
These debates are going to be like the Rumble in the jungle.
Or like a comic book crossover if Loki took on Batman.
You must be fuming or foaming at the mouth, TSE, that These debates are taking place at all. The fact that that I don't like Clegg, doesn't mean that he is not a good debater. He is. But Nigel will squash him like the EU maggot he is.
Indeed they are going hammer and tongs about it this morning:
"In a speech to the Centre for European Reform thinktank today, the Deputy Prime Minister will say the UKIP leader and his deputy Paul Nuttall "rarely turn up to vote" and "refuse to roll up their sleeves and get down to work".
However, Mr Farage has hit back over Mr Clegg’s “hypocritical” attack, contrasting his own voting record with that of the Liberal Democrat leader.
“I’m very surprised Nick Clegg has chosen this line of attack. He attacks me and Paul Nuttall for not turning up enough to vote,” he told the Today programme.
“Well, both our voting records are about 50% but we are leader and deputy leader of a national party in the United Kingdom; Nick Clegg himself, who actually lives in London, has only himself voted in 22% of votes in this parliament. So I think it’s a rather hypocritical line of attack.” " (politicshome.com)
I'm not foaming at the mouth, I thought that was the default Kipper position when discussing topics as diverse as Gay marriage to Immigration.
I'm really looking forward to these debates on several levels.
Re the question about Millibands assumed strengths, when is he going to explain how he intends to stop Global Warming/Climate Change .. and how much will it cost the average Brit..
"On Wednesday 26th March at 7pm, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg, will go head-to-head with UKIP leader Nigel Farage in a live hour-long programme."
So the Lib Dems (Britain's third largest party in terms of seats and votes ) get to participate in both the general election debates and this one . A honour not afforded Labour or Conservative? How is this correct?
Labour and Conservative were asked and refused to be involved
Elections in India.Looks like cricket being a major issue.
"Early casualties of this year’s election could be India’s premier league (IPL) and its millions of cricket-mad fans. India’s home ministry has told the country’s cricket board that it cannot guarantee security for IPL matches during the polls and that part of the tournament may have to be hosted in Sri Lanka or South Africa.
That news prompted spoof messages asking India’s election commission to get its priorities straight and consider hosting part of the general election abroad instead.
The polling dates - which will be held in several phases in some states - have been announced as 7 April, 9 April, 10 April, 12 April, 17 April, 24 April, 30 April, 7 May and 12 May."
The Farage v Clegg debate is dreadful for the Tories over the short term.
Good for Clegg. Great for Farage. Awful for Cameron. Great for Miliband.
Farage will perform well, and go down a storm among right and right-of-centre voters with his blokey populism; he'll convert more voters. Clegg will probably make a very good case for remaining in the EU and speak of its benefits (something UK politicians never do, which makes voters wonder what the benefits are) and will shore up the Europhiles on the Lib Dem side. Cameron will lose voters to UKIP and the Tory MP agitators will agitate for a move rightwards. Miliband will be revelling in the Tory/UkIP deepening vote-split.
It remains to be seen whether or not the UKIP VI solidifies in the run-up to the GE and completely splits the vote on the right.
If it does, it augurs well for Miliband winning a majority with a record-low vote-share. He could get in with as little as 33%.
A voteless recovery isn't the biggest threat to the Tories. UKIP are.
Backing the status quo Backing the "middle" in a choice of under/over/between Laying an unproven favourite Laying a big swing from one team to another
To me, NOM seems to fit all these scenarios without looking at the polls.
Anecdotally I quite like Ed Miliband and find myself cheering him on at PMQs, although that could be because Cameron never answers a question, but I do fear that the general public will be put off voting for Labour when he appears on tv a lot in the lead up to GE2015
Pb at its best this morning - some particularly excellent posts from SO.
Whether you're on the left or right, surely one must accept that redistribution is an attempt to manage the symptoms, and isn't the cure?
The problem is that both left/right are stuck in a 20th century political debate - and the world has moved on, The fundamental problem is that there are no more reasonably paid low-skilled jobs and (at the same time) the cost of living has gone through the roof and people feel nervous and insecure about their identities. Some of this is down to technology, some of it is down to mass immigration (keeping wages low and competition for jobs high) and also globalisation driving more cross-border economic interdependency, but also a cultural and social challenge.
The solution must lie in *broadly* equalising nations relative wealth (so, say, Africa, South America and Asia become approximately 'developed' economies) and stabilising global population growth, matched with new technology to more efficiently use/produce energy/food resources. The global economy may also reorientate then to become human-centric - i.e. even more based upon services/leisure rather than manufacturing. If that happens, it might also remove some of the huge international low-skilled mass migrationary pressures we currently see - although high skilled immigration may increase. On an aside, ultimately, house prices only keep increasing and increasing because there are people who want to live in them in certain areas - perhaps further technological advances might break the back of that too, allowing very (occasional) long-distance commuting, or routine remote working.
I think there is a fair chance of all that happening, but it's on a 30-50 year horizon (at least) and it's a question of whether 'The World' can get there in one piece in the meantime.
I have never before offered to bet with anyone on this Board, but there's a first time for everything.
I offer even money that the Clegg/Kipper debate (I forget the fellow's name for the moment) won't change the mind of anyone who has posted on here more than ten times. Any takers?
I don't know why so many people think a Labour majority is nailed on, when they lead the Conservatives by 5% or so, with 14 months to go to the election. This far out, in the last Parliament, the Conservatives were ahead by 15%, and didn't get a majority in the end.
Sean Fear, may I ask you, as a fellow ex-member who's also resigned his membership (but has never made the whole jump to UKIP): what was it that finally flipped you out of the Conservative and into the UKIP camp?
Question - why did the global financial system collapse in 2008? Why is it not firmly fixed and in growth all these years later?
If the answer is "Gordon Brown" as so many seem to think, its no wonder you don't understand voter intentions as you haven't understood the issue. To be fair I don't think most politicians have got a proper grasp so we can all give examples of mad politicians - Osborne, Hollande, Obama, Abe - reverting to type and getting it wrong.
Whilst the political establishment struggles for ideas people aren't willing to be the fall guy. "We're all in this together" was an extremely clever piece of positioning which worked at first, destroyed by the top rate tax cut and the wall of stories of big business paying no tax. Its patently clear that we aren't all in this together, and thats why voters aren't rushing to give thanks to the Tories. Again, I don't think Labour are proposing long term answers either, but what the Tories are doing clearly isn't working for people who are increasingly fed up/worried/desperate, and thats why they will vote for the other, whatever that happens to be. Would have been the LibDems before they contracted the yellow pox, so now its Labour and UKIP.
Be happy we don't have a clown party or a pirate party - people would be voting for that. Perhaps @JohnLoony could be positioned right, in a crazy world a loony vote is the sane choice....
I think these debates are going to be as one sided as the hiding Scipio Africanus gave Hannibal.
One of them thinks because a minor overrated victory in the past makes them unassailable.
But the other one is much more experienced and tactically astute.
I just haven't worked out if Farage is Hannibal or Scipio.
So were the OFCOM rules for Euro elections re written to allow UKIP into a national debate?
If so it means the 9/4 for Farage to appear in the 2015 debates could be worth a bet, as the argument against it, that it would breach electoral law, is apparently easily overcome
I have never before offered to bet with anyone on this Board, but there's a first time for everything.
I offer even money that the Clegg/Kipper debate (I forget the fellow's name for the moment) won't change the mind of anyone who has posted on here more than ten times. Any takers?
I_A - I don't think anything would change the mind of anyone who has posted on here more than ten times. Ever. About anything.
Just as an aside - and don't take it as a criticism - but I think you are at risk of creating an echothat could end up reinforcing your views even though there is no new evidence.
- OGH publishes a thread analysising voteless recovery - Market moves in favour of Labour - OGH publishes a thread saying that punters are backing Labour
In fact, the only conclusion we can (tenatively) draw is that OGH's threads move markets, rather than any conlusion about underlying dynamics
Wonder if he does a thread on Rod's prediction of a polling crossover by May 1st, throws a few graphs together and then shows Rods accuracy with previous predictions, will the markets move back?
I doubt it. OGH has a niche public profile - Rod is a tipster on a blogsite.
Respect's support was limited to a minority of the Muslim population. UKIP's support is far greater.
It wasn't just Respect, but the LDs too who spent most the noughties trying to outflank Labour on the left picking up anti-war support. Blair didn't give a toss and ploughed on. And regardless of whether you think that right, it was quite effective electorally.
Had Cameron been more determinedly left-wing, then UKIP's support would be even greater than it now is.
Cameron has essentially let UKIP set his agenda and that is never good. He has spent less time talking about the economy as a result. If the focus had been on the economy and demonstrable domestic progress, he would have kept more kippers like yourself on board.
Cameron lets everyone set his agenda, which is why he is never particularly good. First, pre-election, it was Hilton. Then it was Hilton/Osborne, then it was Hilton/Osborne/Coulson (without picking one - resulting in Losing It In January) and since the election, it has been anyone who looks like they're both in-vogue and gaining momentum: Nick Cleggology, alcohol pricing, Tory backbenchers, kids-smoking-n'cars, the identity rights movement, Syria.. UKIP and the 'little black book'. He says little until the wind has starting blowing, then positions himself with phrases such as, "I have quite a bit of sympathy with.." or, "I can understand why..." - before making weighing it up, and making a belated move.
The one thing he was genuinely passionate about is becoming Prime Minister. It sort of works because he just arbitrates between all the various views/factions - without massively caring too much what the outcome is. But it's why I have so much trouble respecting him.
It's Gove, Osborne and IDS who are doing the real Conservative things in this government - plus Theresa May having a crack now and again - which is why I um and err about whether to support them.
Question - why did the global financial system collapse in 2008? Why is it not firmly fixed and in growth all these years later?
If the answer is "Gordon Brown" as so many seem to think, its no wonder you don't understand voter intentions as you haven't understood the issue. To be fair I don't think most politicians have got a proper grasp so we can all give examples of mad politicians - Osborne, Hollande, Obama, Abe - reverting to type and getting it wrong.
Whilst the political establishment struggles for ideas people aren't willing to be the fall guy. "We're all in this together" was an extremely clever piece of positioning which worked at first, destroyed by the top rate tax cut and the wall of stories of big business paying no tax. Its patently clear that we aren't all in this together, and thats why voters aren't rushing to give thanks to the Tories. Again, I don't think Labour are proposing long term answers either, but what the Tories are doing clearly isn't working for people who are increasingly fed up/worried/desperate, and thats why they will vote for the other, whatever that happens to be. Would have been the LibDems before they contracted the yellow pox, so now its Labour and UKIP.
Be happy we don't have a clown party or a pirate party - people would be voting for that. Perhaps @JohnLoony could be positioned right, in a crazy world a loony vote is the sane choice....
Nobody blames the entire meldown on Gordon - where he was clearly culpable was putting us in a dire position to react.
We had a rickety shanty with no insurance and a big mortgage outstanding built in an earthquake zone - then a 8,2 magnitude quake hit.
If we had a proper structure, with decent building regs, paid off the loans and a buffer we would have ridden it out far better - for that - Gordon "worst PM ever" Brown is to blame.
Just as an aside - and don't take it as a criticism - but I think you are at risk of creating an echothat could end up reinforcing your views even though there is no new evidence.
- OGH publishes a thread analysising voteless recovery - Market moves in favour of Labour - OGH publishes a thread saying that punters are backing Labour
In fact, the only conclusion we can (tenatively) draw is that OGH's threads move markets, rather than any conlusion about underlying dynamics
But why does OGH move markets? It's because he tends to be right and people make money backing his predictions.
Yes, I'd agree with that. It's the second thread that I think is misleading / at risk of reinforcing views in an unwarranted way.
Personally I still believe that, when it comes down to it, many people with think about EdM as PM and haver, with the result that Labour is the largest party in a hung parliament.
Backing the status quo Backing the "middle" in a choice of under/over/between Laying an unproven favourite Laying a big swing from one team to another
To me, NOM seems to fit all these scenarios without looking at the polls.
Anecdotally I quite like Ed Miliband and find myself cheering him on at PMQs, although that could be because Cameron never answers a question, but I do fear that the general public will be put off voting for Labour when he appears on tv a lot in the lead up to GE2015
I have never before offered to bet with anyone on this Board, but there's a first time for everything.
I offer even money that the Clegg/Kipper debate (I forget the fellow's name for the moment) won't change the mind of anyone who has posted on here more than ten times. Any takers?
I_A - I don't think anything would change the mind of anyone who has posted on here more than ten times. Ever. About anything.
Nick Palmer made an eloquent post a while back about how the public sector/state apparatus (roads, medicine, security etc etc) is a key component of a successful private sector and it certainly changed my mind about how I view 'public sector expenditure'. So well done him.
And Tapestry convinced me that George W Bush is a lizard.
I have never before offered to bet with anyone on this Board, but there's a first time for everything.
I offer even money that the Clegg/Kipper debate (I forget the fellow's name for the moment) won't change the mind of anyone who has posted on here more than ten times. Any takers?
I think you're right
Also would offer even money that it was easier to scan two or three posts for Farages name rather than explain that you couldn't remember it!
Question - why did the global financial system collapse in 2008? Why is it not firmly fixed and in growth all these years later?
If the answer is "Gordon Brown" as so many seem to think, its no wonder you don't understand voter intentions as you haven't understood the issue. To be fair I don't think most politicians have got a proper grasp so we can all give examples of mad politicians - Osborne, Hollande, Obama, Abe - reverting to type and getting it wrong.
Whilst the political establishment struggles for ideas people aren't willing to be the fall guy. "We're all in this together" was an extremely clever piece of positioning which worked at first, destroyed by the top rate tax cut and the wall of stories of big business paying no tax. Its patently clear that we aren't all in this together, and thats why voters aren't rushing to give thanks to the Tories. Again, I don't think Labour are proposing long term answers either, but what the Tories are doing clearly isn't working for people who are increasingly fed up/worried/desperate, and thats why they will vote for the other, whatever that happens to be. Would have been the LibDems before they contracted the yellow pox, so now its Labour and UKIP.
Be happy we don't have a clown party or a pirate party - people would be voting for that. Perhaps @JohnLoony could be positioned right, in a crazy world a loony vote is the sane choice....
Nobody blames the entire meldown on Gordon - where he was clearly culpable was putting us in a dire position to react.
We had a rickety shanty with no insurance and a big mortgage outstanding built in an earthquake zone - then a 8,2 magnitude quake hit.
If we had a proper structure, with decent building regs, paid off the loans and a buffer we would have ridden it out far better - for that - Gordon "worst PM ever" Brown is to blame.
I have never before offered to bet with anyone on this Board, but there's a first time for everything.
I offer even money that the Clegg/Kipper debate (I forget the fellow's name for the moment) won't change the mind of anyone who has posted on here more than ten times. Any takers?
I_A - I don't think anything would change the mind of anyone who has posted on here more than ten times. Ever. About anything.
Nick Palmer made an eloquent post a while back about how the public sector/state apparatus (roads, medicine, security etc etc) is a key component of a successful private sector and it certainly changed my mind about how I view 'public sector expenditure'. So well done him.
And Tapestry convinced me that George W Bush is a lizard.
Backing the status quo Backing the "middle" in a choice of under/over/between Laying an unproven favourite Laying a big swing from one team to another
To me, NOM seems to fit all these scenarios without looking at the polls.
Anecdotally I quite like Ed Miliband and find myself cheering him on at PMQs, although that could be because Cameron never answers a question, but I do fear that the general public will be put off voting for Labour when he appears on tv a lot in the lead up to GE2015
"NOM" is also the word used to describe eating something tasty by people online now I believe
Mike, you should know better than anyone else that "crossover" has a special meaning in PB. Ask Compouter and Avery. And it is different from the scenario you have describe above.
I don't know why so many people think a Labour majority is nailed on, when they lead the Conservatives by 5% or so, with 14 months to go to the election. This far out, in the last Parliament, the Conservatives were ahead by 15%, and didn't get a majority in the end.
Sean Fear, may I ask you, as a fellow ex-member who's also resigned his membership (but has never made the whole jump to UKIP): what was it that finally flipped you out of the Conservative and into the UKIP camp?
I have never before offered to bet with anyone on this Board, but there's a first time for everything.
I offer even money that the Clegg/Kipper debate (I forget the fellow's name for the moment) won't change the mind of anyone who has posted on here more than ten times. Any takers?
I_A - I don't think anything would change the mind of anyone who has posted on here more than ten times. Ever. About anything.
Nick Palmer made an eloquent post a while back about how the public sector/state apparatus (roads, medicine, security etc etc) is a key component of a successful private sector and it certainly changed my mind about how I view 'public sector expenditure'. So well done him.
And Tapestry convinced me that George W Bush is a lizard.
I wasn't being entirely serious, though it's good to hear still.
(Though I'm unimpressed that you hadn't already realised that about G.W.)
Question - why did the global financial system collapse in 2008? Why is it not firmly fixed and in growth all these years later?
If the answer is "Gordon Brown" as so many seem to think, its no wonder you don't understand voter intentions as you haven't understood the issue. To be fair I don't think most politicians have got a proper grasp so we can all give examples of mad politicians - Osborne, Hollande, Obama, Abe - reverting to type and getting it wrong.
Whilst the political establishment struggles for ideas people aren't willing to be the fall guy. "We're all in this together" was an extremely clever piece of positioning which worked at first, destroyed by the top rate tax cut and the wall of stories of big business paying no tax. Its patently clear that we aren't all in this together, and thats why voters aren't rushing to give thanks to the Tories. Again, I don't think Labour are proposing long term answers either, but what the Tories are doing clearly isn't working for people who are increasingly fed up/worried/desperate, and thats why they will vote for the other, whatever that happens to be. Would have been the LibDems before they contracted the yellow pox, so now its Labour and UKIP.
Be happy we don't have a clown party or a pirate party - people would be voting for that. Perhaps @JohnLoony could be positioned right, in a crazy world a loony vote is the sane choice....
Nobody blames the entire meldown on Gordon - where he was clearly culpable was putting us in a dire position to react.
We had a rickety shanty with no insurance and a big mortgage outstanding built in an earthquake zone - then a 8,2 magnitude quake hit.
If we had a proper structure, with decent building regs, paid off the loans and a buffer we would have ridden it out far better - for that - Gordon "worst PM ever" Brown is to blame.
"We had a rickety shanty with no insurance and a big mortgage outstanding built in an earthquake zone - then a 8,2 magnitude quake hit."
Our debt to GDP ratio until June 2008 was 40%, far lower than most industrialised countries including frugal Germany !
In fact, debt / GDP ratio was lower in those 11 Labour years than in Thatcher's 11 years !
I don't know why so many people think a Labour majority is nailed on, when they lead the Conservatives by 5% or so, with 14 months to go to the election. This far out, in the last Parliament, the Conservatives were ahead by 15%, and didn't get a majority in the end.
Sean Fear, may I ask you, as a fellow ex-member who's also resigned his membership (but has never made the whole jump to UKIP): what was it that finally flipped you out of the Conservative and into the UKIP camp?
There was push factor, and a pull factor. The push factor was Andrew Feldman's reported remarks about Conservative members. The pull factor was that UKIP's success in the local elections indicated I might not be wasting my time.
Andrew Feldman was the last straw. Prior to that, I was alienated by Cameron's two-faced attitude towards the EU, the green agenda, overseas aid, gay marriage, the Strategic Defence shambles, retention of the various speech crimes brought in by the last government, surveillance etc. etc.
I have never before offered to bet with anyone on this Board, but there's a first time for everything.
I offer even money that the Clegg/Kipper debate (I forget the fellow's name for the moment) won't change the mind of anyone who has posted on here more than ten times. Any takers?
I_A - I don't think anything would change the mind of anyone who has posted on here more than ten times. Ever. About anything.
Nick Palmer made an eloquent post a while back about how the public sector/state apparatus (roads, medicine, security etc etc) is a key component of a successful private sector and it certainly changed my mind about how I view 'public sector expenditure'. So well done him.
And Tapestry convinced me that George W Bush is a lizard.
I wasn't being entirely serious, though it's good to hear still.
(Though I'm unimpressed that you hadn't already realised that about G.W.)
I know you weren't. I was just making the point, as backed up by Daemon Barber below, that this site is very good for thoughtful debate.
I susceptible to being won over on a lot of issues. Trouble is, my vote doesn't count for toffee. I'm based in one of Labour's safest seats.
I have never before offered to bet with anyone on this Board, but there's a first time for everything.
I offer even money that the Clegg/Kipper debate (I forget the fellow's name for the moment) won't change the mind of anyone who has posted on here more than ten times. Any takers?
I_A - I don't think anything would change the mind of anyone who has posted on here more than ten times. Ever. About anything.
Nick Palmer made an eloquent post a while back about how the public sector/state apparatus (roads, medicine, security etc etc) is a key component of a successful private sector and it certainly changed my mind about how I view 'public sector expenditure'. So well done him.
And Tapestry convinced me that George W Bush is a lizard.
I wasn't being entirely serious, though it's good to hear still.
(Though I'm unimpressed that you hadn't already realised that about G.W.)
I know you weren't. I was just making the point, as backed up by Daemon Barber below, that this site is very good for thoughtful debate.
I susceptible to being won over on a lot of issues. Trouble is, my vote doesn't count for toffee. I'm based in one of Labour's safest seats.
Could be worse; you could be a Tory in Scotland...
I have never before offered to bet with anyone on this Board, but there's a first time for everything.
I offer even money that the Clegg/Kipper debate (I forget the fellow's name for the moment) won't change the mind of anyone who has posted on here more than ten times. Any takers?
I_A - I don't think anything would change the mind of anyone who has posted on here more than ten times. Ever. About anything.
Nick Palmer made an eloquent post a while back about how the public sector/state apparatus (roads, medicine, security etc etc) is a key component of a successful private sector and it certainly changed my mind about how I view 'public sector expenditure'. So well done him.
And Tapestry convinced me that George W Bush is a lizard.
That's very kind of you. I've often said that I only recall two occasions in 45 years of persuasion where anyone actually said to me "I used to disagree with you but you have now persuaded me to change my mind". I shall now make that three.
The others were a bloke in a pub who wanted to withdraw from Europe and a constituent who wanted to expel all immigrants ("what, even NHS staff?" worked for him). You're higher-quality!
Conversely I'm often persuaded to rethink by discussions on pb (JJ is keeping me just about in the open-minded camp over HS2), though almost always when it's put as an issue discussion rather than a "Labour sucks because..." line, which just triggers a defence mechanism.
I don't know why so many people think a Labour majority is nailed on, when they lead the Conservatives by 5% or so, with 14 months to go to the election. This far out, in the last Parliament, the Conservatives were ahead by 15%, and didn't get a majority in the end.
Sean Fear, may I ask you, as a fellow ex-member who's also resigned his membership (but has never made the whole jump to UKIP): what was it that finally flipped you out of the Conservative and into the UKIP camp?
There was push factor, and a pull factor. The push factor was Andrew Feldman's reported remarks about Conservative members. The pull factor was that UKIP's success in the local elections indicated I might not be wasting my time.
Andrew Feldman was the last straw. Prior to that, I was alienated by Cameron's two-faced attitude towards the EU, the green agenda, overseas aid, gay marriage, the Strategic Defence shambles, retention of the various speech crimes brought in by the last government, surveillance etc. etc.
Thanks Sean - I appreciate that, and I understand all of it. Needless to say, I know very much how you feel. It's depressing as (I imagine) neither of us really wanted to be in this position.
I have never before offered to bet with anyone on this Board, but there's a first time for everything.
I offer even money that the Clegg/Kipper debate (I forget the fellow's name for the moment) won't change the mind of anyone who has posted on here more than ten times. Any takers?
I_A - I don't think anything would change the mind of anyone who has posted on here more than ten times. Ever. About anything.
Nick Palmer made an eloquent post a while back about how the public sector/state apparatus (roads, medicine, security etc etc) is a key component of a successful private sector and it certainly changed my mind about how I view 'public sector expenditure'. So well done him.
And Tapestry convinced me that George W Bush is a lizard.
That's very kind of you. I've often said that I only recall two occasions in 45 years of persuasion where anyone actually said to me "I used to disagree with you but you have now persuaded me to change my mind". I shall now make that three.
The others were a bloke in a pub who wanted to withdraw from Europe and a constituent who wanted to expel all immigrants ("what, even NHS staff?" worked for him). You're higher-quality!
Conversely I'm often persuaded to rethink by discussions on pb (JJ is keeping me just about in the open-minded camp over HS2), though almost always when it's put as an issue discussion rather than a "Labour sucks because..." line, which just triggers a defence mechanism.
You've persuaded me on medical testing on animals.
Not that I've changed my position but that's more nuance and consistency in the position of those opposed to that.
< Cameron lets everyone set his agenda, which is why he is never particularly good. First, pre-election, it was Hilton. Then it was Hilton/Osborne, then it was Hilton/Osborne/Coulson (without picking one - resulting in Losing It In January) and since the election, it has been anyone who looks like they're both in-vogue and gaining momentum: Nick Cleggology, alcohol pricing, Tory backbenchers, kids-smoking-n'cars, the identity rights movement, Syria.. UKIP and the 'little black book'. He says little until the wind has starting blowing, then positions himself with phrases such as, "I have quite a bit of sympathy with.." or, "I can understand why..." - before making weighing it up, and making a belated move.
The one thing he was genuinely passionate about is becoming Prime Minister. It sort of works because he just arbitrates between all the various views/factions - without massively caring too much what the outcome is. But it's why I have so much trouble respecting him.
It's Gove, Osborne and IDS who are doing the real Conservative things in this government - plus Theresa May having a crack now and again - which is why I um and err about whether to support them.
Yes, from time to time I tried to get myself or others worked up about the evil Tory government, but the problem is always that at heart I don't think the government really has any particular agenda. That's why Parliament is almost devoid of action at the moment - I'm told that typically there is currently an average of one day a week when MPs are expected by the whips on both sides to be around; the rest of the time they're expected to be working in the marginals. There is clearly a possibility (IMO a likelihood) that the government will end in a year, so anyone with an agenda would be rushing to get it through. I know the argument that less legislation is good, but a government motivated by that would be rushing through repeals and deregulation, and they're not really doing that either.
The sense that Cameron is basically just passing the time makes me less hostile than I'd otherwise be, but I can see it looks different from your perspective.
Question - why did the global financial system collapse in 2008? Why is it not firmly fixed and in growth all these years later?
If the answer is "Gordon Brown" as so many seem to think, its no wonder you don't understand voter intentions as you haven't understood the issue. To be fair I don't think most politicians have got a proper grasp so we can all give examples of mad politicians - Osborne, Hollande, Obama, Abe - reverting to type and getting it wrong.
Whilst the political establishment struggles for ideas people aren't willing to be the fall guy. "We're all in this together" was an extremely clever piece of positioning which worked at first, destroyed by the top rate tax cut and the wall of stories of big business paying no tax. Its patently clear that we aren't all in this together, and thats why voters aren't rushing to give thanks to the Tories. Again, I don't think Labour are proposing long term answers either, but what the Tories are doing clearly isn't working for people who are increasingly fed up/worried/desperate, and thats why they will vote for the other, whatever that happens to be. Would have been the LibDems before they contracted the yellow pox, so now its Labour and UKIP.
Be happy we don't have a clown party or a pirate party - people would be voting for that. Perhaps @JohnLoony could be positioned right, in a crazy world a loony vote is the sane choice....
Nobody blames the entire meldown on Gordon - where he was clearly culpable was putting us in a dire position to react.
We had a rickety shanty with no insurance and a big mortgage outstanding built in an earthquake zone - then a 8,2 magnitude quake hit.
If we had a proper structure, with decent building regs, paid off the loans and a buffer we would have ridden it out far better - for that - Gordon "worst PM ever" Brown is to blame.
"We had a rickety shanty with no insurance and a big mortgage outstanding built in an earthquake zone - then a 8,2 magnitude quake hit."
Our debt to GDP ratio until June 2008 was 40%, far lower than most industrialised countries including frugal Germany !
In fact, debt / GDP ratio was lower in those 11 Labour years than in Thatcher's 11 years !
Don't forget the sun was shining. Very brightly. And we were wearing olive oil rather than SPF40.
It wasn't public debt that was the issue as much as private debt.
We had had unprecedented asset price inflation as interest rates were kept artificially low (via the RPI/CPI swap in 2003); we had a dysfunctional financial services regulator which Tory MPs had warned, when it was created, was a recipe for disaster; and of course we had abolished boom and bust so the thought that any of this was likely to change was not included in Gordo's forecasts.
"We had a rickety shanty with no insurance and a big mortgage outstanding built in an earthquake zone - then a 8,2 magnitude quake hit."
Our debt to GDP ratio until June 2008 was 40%, far lower than most industrialised countries including frugal Germany !
In fact, debt / GDP ratio was lower in those 11 Labour years than in Thatcher's 11 years !
Outrageous. next thing you'll be doing is pointing out that the economy the "rickety, shanty with no insurance" was doing so well that Osborne could not only pledge to match Labour spending pound for pound but promise to blow up the bubble even faster so that we could al "share in the proceeds of growth" through a big tax cut as an alternative to mending a roof which was so clearly broken.
That's very kind of you. I've often said that I only recall two occasions in 45 years of persuasion where anyone actually said to me "I used to disagree with you but you have now persuaded me to change my mind". I shall now make that three.
The others were a bloke in a pub who wanted to withdraw from Europe and a constituent who wanted to expel all immigrants ("what, even NHS staff?" worked for him).
Well done, you.
I have myself changed several people's view on foreign aid. Most people who object to it imagine that it's disbursed in the form of largesse handed unauditedly to various kleptocracies whose corrupt officials instantly either squander or nick it.
I point out that a lot of it is in effect a voucher to be spent by the receiving country on services purchased in the UK, with that as a specific condition. So UK foreign aid to Malawi may consist of paying for McKinsey UK to consult on setting up their power generation industry, or on UK engineers designing hardware.
Such foreign aid money is thus not nicked at all. It is largely spent in the UK, the skills and the credentials to do more such work accrue to UK workers in UK firms, and while it may or may not generate that much good will, it';s not going to generate ill will.
Quite a lot of foreign aid work done by UK private companies is thus funded by public money.
When you explain that it's like giving the unemployed food stamps rather than cash, even diehard UKIPpers alter their view a bit.
I have never before offered to bet with anyone on this Board, but there's a first time for everything.
I offer even money that the Clegg/Kipper debate (I forget the fellow's name for the moment) won't change the mind of anyone who has posted on here more than ten times. Any takers?
I_A - I don't think anything would change the mind of anyone who has posted on here more than ten times. Ever. About anything.
Nick Palmer made an eloquent post a while back about how the public sector/state apparatus (roads, medicine, security etc etc) is a key component of a successful private sector and it certainly changed my mind about how I view 'public sector expenditure'. So well done him.
And Tapestry convinced me that George W Bush is a lizard.
That's very kind of you. I've often said that I only recall two occasions in 45 years of persuasion where anyone actually said to me "I used to disagree with you but you have now persuaded me to change my mind". I shall now make that three.
The others were a bloke in a pub who wanted to withdraw from Europe and a constituent who wanted to expel all immigrants ("what, even NHS staff?" worked for him). You're higher-quality!
Conversely I'm often persuaded to rethink by discussions on pb (JJ is keeping me just about in the open-minded camp over HS2), though almost always when it's put as an issue discussion rather than a "Labour sucks because..." line, which just triggers a defence mechanism.
You've persuaded me on medical testing on animals.
Not that I've changed my position but that's more nuance and consistency in the position of those opposed to that.
On topic: how much predictive power do the betting markets have this far out?
Sporting Index 16th Feb 2009 (the nearest equivalent date where I've got a note of the prices):
Con 350-356 Lab 224-230 LD 44-47
The problem with political betting markets is that the punters are disproportionately Tory - whether because Labour voters haven't any dosh, or there's still a nonconformist anti-gambling sentiment amongst them (or both).
Obviously, this distorts them. And provides others, notably OGH, with opportunity...
The problem with political betting markets is that the punters are disproportionately Tory - whether because Labour voters haven't any dosh, or there's still a nonconformist anti-gambling sentiment amongst them (or both).
Obviously, this distorts them. And provides others, notably OGH, with opportunity...
Often said, but where is the evidence? If anything, the markets were remarkably cautious about Tory prospects (compared with what the polls were showing) in 2009.
Actually, just refreshing myself on Andrew Feldman a little, this tickled me about his failure to vote for Catherine Faulks as a councillor in a Kensington & Chelsea by-election in 2011:
“Being a peer is no excuse,” says Catherine, the wife of Lord Faulks of Donnington. “My husband is one, too, and he managed to get to the poll.”
On topic: how much predictive power do the betting markets have this far out?
Sporting Index 16th Feb 2009 (the nearest equivalent date where I've got a note of the prices):
Con 350-356 Lab 224-230 LD 44-47
The problem with political betting markets is that the punters are disproportionately Tory - whether because Labour voters haven't any dosh, or there's still a nonconformist anti-gambling sentiment amongst them (or both).
Obviously, this distorts them. And provides others, notably OGH, with opportunity...
How on earth would you know that? I have worked in gambling trading rooms my whole working life and in my experience they are quite evenly split between left and right, with a bias to the left if anything
Ok that betting employees, but 100% of those people are serious punters too! many very successful and very left wing
I went out for dinner last week with four hugely successful gamblers, and the editor of the racing post, and when they started saying Stuart Wheeler, our old boss, had lost it by donating to ukip I kept my mouth firmly shut!
Some really good stuff on here this morning, the better side of PB showing for a nice change. A couple of points:
Several posters have mentioned future world population growth as a big issue. As Mr. Dancer mentioned there was a discussion on here a few weeks ago after someone posted a link to the world of Hans Rosling, the Swedish Statistician. Rosling presents some very persuasive arguments that the number of children in the world has already peaked and that the total human population is set to stabilise at about 13 billion. Rumage around on Utube and you'll find several videos of talks he has given. For anyone interetedted in the subject I particulalry recommend they spend an hour watching this lecture, entitled "Don't Panic - The Truth about Population:
Aside from anything else he makes some very telling points about the ignorance of the educated English.
On a separate note, Mr. Observer has made some interesting, and, to my mind, valid, points about effect of super rich global corporations. Whilst I would not go as far as to agree with Dr. Palmer in describing their conduct as a protection racket, I have no doubt that the way they are run is parasitic on rather than beneficial to our population as a whole. I wonder if at least part of the solution would be a fundamental reform of the way companies are taxed.
Companies were originally a legal construct to enable non-individuals to sign contracts, own property and so on. So why not tax them as individuals are taxed, abolish the fantastically complicated corporation tax and institute a corporate income tax? How about a flat rate, no allowances at all, tax on the income every company that does business here. Set at the right level, maybe 10%, it would increase the revenue and level the playing field.
Companies like Starbucks and Amazon would be forced to pay their fair share for the facilities they use (transport infrastructure, the legal system etc.) and companies like Thames Water would no longer be able to send dividends overseas whilst claiming losses against tax. Simple to administer, hard to evade (I'd also add in some spectacular penalties against the directors of any companies found guilty of evasion - mandatory gaol terms and disqualification for life), fair goes all round and increased revenue. What is not to like?
I might add that this is not a new idea until, if memory serves, 1964 companies were taxed on the same basis as individuals then the Labour government introduced an additional profits tax, which finally morphed into the corporation tax we now have.
< Cameron lets everyone set his agenda, which is why he is never particularly good. First, pre-election, it was Hilton.
It's Gove, Osborne and IDS who are doing the real Conservative things in this government - plus Theresa May having a crack now and again - which is why I um and err about whether to support them.
Yes, from time to time I tried to get myself or others worked up about the evil Tory government, but the problem is always that at heart I don't think the government really has any particular agenda. That's why Parliament is almost devoid of action at the moment - I'm told that typically there is currently an average of one day a week when MPs are expected by the whips on both sides to be around; the rest of the time they're expected to be working in the marginals. There is clearly a possibility (IMO a likelihood) that the government will end in a year, so anyone with an agenda would be rushing to get it through. I know the argument that less legislation is good, but a government motivated by that would be rushing through repeals and deregulation, and they're not really doing that either.
The sense that Cameron is basically just passing the time makes me less hostile than I'd otherwise be, but I can see it looks different from your perspective.
Thanks for the insight Nick. Well, that's just it. I don't respect him and he inspires very little loyalty in me. You're not that bothered and not sure you care that much.
So, why should anyone vote for him? If you stand for nothing, you can fall for anything. If course, that's different from saying I won't vote Conservative, over Labour, but you see the conundrum.
I sometimes wonder: had Cameron been more radical, consistent and bold, got in the papers, TV, radio explaining his vision for Britain, regularly arguing his principles, arguing his case for change - showing some real leadership - where he'd be now. If he'd married that with a big-tent approach (not just his mates and out of his comfort zone) even better.
I suspect, a higher Labour mid-term lead (with some extra Con-Lab switchers) but with very few extra defections to UKIP, and now the tide would be coming in pretty quickly (with the Conservative vote recovering) as Cameron was vindicated and all the waverers lined up on his side.
I even think he might have got to 40% and a majority with that.
"You've persuaded me on medical testing on animals."
Then very well done by NP, and I assume it was against (I must have missed the argument). Although after twenty years of doing exactly that sort of work (in the past), I expect I'd be argument-proof.
I remember visiting Huntingdon Research Centre and being impressed by their facilities and attitudes (similar to our own). Having braved the Sparts outside, I asked why they didn't open the place up to schools and make the arguments.
The answer ... We did. Ninety nine percent of people who came round were open to persuasion, but that one percent ignored everything and made up lies about about the place, saying - "We know because we've seen it for ourselves." Guess who got all the publicity?
There are faults on both sides, but reasoned arguments (as from NP) are always welcome.
But a very few with almost psychotic zeal, will always see exactly what they want to see, and if they don't see it, they'll make it up anyway.
We were accused of stealing pet cats from the street on one occasion. As NP will confirm, you need generations of "well bred" test animals to get consistent rather than erroneous results. Background pathology from mongrel animals could kill a life-saving drug.
If our lab animals had been human, they'd have been too posh to talk to PBers. Now Cameron or Harman ... perhaps?
"You've persuaded me on medical testing on animals."
Then very well done by NP, and I assume it was against (I must have missed the argument). Although after twenty years of doing exactly that sort of work (in the past), I expect I'd be argument-proof.
I remember visiting Huntingdon Research Centre and being impressed by their facilities and attitudes (similar to our own). Having braved the Sparts outside, I asked why they didn't open the place up to schools and make the arguments.
The answer ... We did. Ninety nine percent of people who came round were open to persuasion, but that one percent ignored everything and made up lies about about the place, saying - "We know because we've seen it for ourselves." Guess who got all the publicity?
There are faults on both sides, but reasoned arguments (as from NP) are always welcome.
But a very few with almost psychotic zeal, will always see exactly what they want to see, and if they don't see it, they'll make it up anyway.
We were accused of stealing pet cats from the street on one occasion. As NP will confirm, you need generations of "well bred" test animals to get consistent rather than erroneous results. Background pathology from mongrel animals could kill a life-saving drug.
If our lab animals had been human, they'd have been too posh to talk to PBers. Now Cameron or Harman ... perhaps?
I'm still in favour of testing on animals, but on a more restricted level.
Prior to the exchange I was of the opinion that most of the people opposed to medical testing on animals were soap dodging Spartists who had no background in medical sciences.
Nick provided evidence to the contrary, and very eloquently.
Companies like Starbucks and Amazon would be forced to pay their fair share for the facilities they use (transport infrastructure, the legal system etc.) and companies like Thames Water would no longer be able to send dividends overseas whilst claiming losses against tax. Simple to administer, hard to evade (I'd also add in some spectacular penalties against the directors of any companies found guilty of evasion - mandatory gaol terms and disqualification for life), fair goes all round and increased revenue. What is not to like?
I might add that this is not a new idea until, if memory serves, 1964 companies were taxed on the same basis as individuals then the Labour government introduced an additional profits tax, which finally morphed into the corporation tax we now have.
We certainly need to do something. The lost tax revenue and cost of supporting their business through infrastructure is a drain on the economy. Politically of course every time the Tories defend these parasites its another example of "We're not all in this together". Again, Ed may not have all the answers but in standing up to these things which so infuriate people he attracts their attention.
I sometimes wonder: had Cameron been more radical, consistent and bold, got in the papers, TV, radio explaining his vision for Britain, regularly arguing his principles, arguing his case for change - showing some real leadership - where he'd be now. If he'd married that with a big-tent approach (not just his mates and out of his comfort zone) even better.
He's done exactly that - on international aid, on gay marriage, on the EU, on the public finances, on Libya, on Syria, on education, on welfare, on his support for retaining Scotland in the UK. It's just that some at least of the views he holds and argues for (which are the modern equivalents of traditional one-nation Tory principles in a direct line from politicians like R A Butler and Harold Macmillan) are ones you don't agree with, if I've understood your position correctly. In a mirror image, OGH thinks Cameron kow-tows to the Right, which will be news to all those Tories vehemently hostile to gay marriage, international aid, and the EU.
Tories with mixed messages. One minute permanent austerity and then recent talk of tax cuts for some. Austerity means cuts to state spending on local services, some of which are used by working class and pensioner Tories who cannot afford any private sector alternative. This will push some of these people towards Labour. In regard to tax cuts, unless this is another substantial uplift of the lower tax threshold to remove more people from tax, it is unlikely to help. The change to a £10k lower tax threshold does not so far look like a vote winner for Tories or Lib Dems.
People may not believe any economic recovery is sustainable, because the UK will struggle to compete in the globalised world we are in. With a long running economic downturn, people are looking for more interventionist government. If people believe that Labour will deliver positive new policies that will help their families, they may take the chance.
I sometimes wonder: had Cameron been more radical, consistent and bold, got in the papers, TV, radio explaining his vision for Britain, regularly arguing his principles, arguing his case for change - showing some real leadership - where he'd be now. If he'd married that with a big-tent approach (not just his mates and out of his comfort zone) even better.
He's done exactly that - on international aid, on gay marriage, on the EU, on the public finances, on Libya, on Syria, on education, on welfare, on his support for retaining Scotland in the UK. It's just that some at least of the views he holds and argues for (which are the modern equivalents of traditional one-nation Tory principles in a direct line from politicians like R A Butler and Harold Macmillan) are ones you don't agree with, if I've understood your position correctly. In a mirror image, OGH thinks Cameron kow-tows to the Right, which will be news to all those Tories vehemently hostile to gay marriage, international aid, and the EU.
Isn't that the point though? He tries to be all things to all people with no conviction behind any of it, and leaves many on both sides feeling let down
I have never before offered to bet with anyone on this Board, but there's a first time for everything.
I offer even money that the Clegg/Kipper debate (I forget the fellow's name for the moment) won't change the mind of anyone who has posted on here more than ten times. Any takers?
I_A - I don't think anything would change the mind of anyone who has posted on here more than ten times. Ever. About anything.
Nick Palmer made an eloquent post a while back about how the public sector/state apparatus (roads, medicine, security etc etc) is a key component of a successful private sector and it certainly changed my mind about how I view 'public sector expenditure'. So well done him.
And Tapestry convinced me that George W Bush is a lizard.
I wasn't being entirely serious, though it's good to hear still.
(Though I'm unimpressed that you hadn't already realised that about G.W.)
I know you weren't. I was just making the point, as backed up by Daemon Barber below, that this site is very good for thoughtful debate.
I susceptible to being won over on a lot of issues. Trouble is, my vote doesn't count for toffee. I'm based in one of Labour's safest seats.
Could be worse; you could be a Tory in Scotland...
The voting system, at least for the Scottish Parliament, gives them a fair bash - perhaps even almost too much so - given the way Labour fiddled it. Ironic really given the Tories' views on such things. And here we are talking about FPTP giving a majority victory to a party with about 35% of the vote ...
"... had Cameron been more radical, consistent and bold, got in the papers, TV, radio explaining his vision for Britain, regularly arguing his principles, arguing his case for change - showing some real leadership - where he'd be now...."
Exactly, Mr. Royale, but he didn't. I wonder why. Could it be that Cameron has no principles, no values, no vision for Britain? Could it be that the reason is hasn't shown "real leadership" is that he couldn't lead a squad of ducklings across a fire bucket?
Some years ago Cameron declared himself the, "Heir to Blair". I am prepared to take him at his word.
Isn't that the point though? He tries to be all things to all people with no conviction behind any of it, and leaves many on both sides feeling let down
No, not at all. On gay marriage, did he try to be all things to all people? He could have just let it lie. Maybe he should have done, in pure electoral calculation terms, but he did quite the opposite. Similarly on international aid - he could have fudged it.
Isn't that the point though? He tries to be all things to all people with no conviction behind any of it, and leaves many on both sides feeling let down
No, not at all. On gay marriage, did he try to be all things to all people? He could have just let it lie. Maybe he should have done, in pure electoral calculation terms, but he did quite the opposite. Similarly on international aid - he could have fudged it.
Spot on.
Cameron is best when he allows his liberal instincts to come to the fore. .
Isn't that the point though? He tries to be all things to all people with no conviction behind any of it, and leaves many on both sides feeling let down
No, not at all. On gay marriage, did he try to be all things to all people? He could have just let it lie. Maybe he should have done, in pure electoral calculation terms, but he did quite the opposite. Similarly on international aid - he could have fudged it.
On gay marriage my feeling is he doesn't really care about it at all, but thought he would win centre left votes by promoting it, thinking social conservatives had nowhere else to go. You could say that he tried to be all things to all people in allowing churches to refuse to carry them out
Companies like Starbucks and Amazon would be forced to pay their fair share for the facilities they use (transport infrastructure, the legal system etc.) and companies like Thames Water would no longer be able to send dividends overseas whilst claiming losses against tax. Simple to administer, hard to evade (I'd also add in some spectacular penalties against the directors of any companies found guilty of evasion - mandatory gaol terms and disqualification for life), fair goes all round and increased revenue. What is not to like?
I might add that this is not a new idea until, if memory serves, 1964 companies were taxed on the same basis as individuals then the Labour government introduced an additional profits tax, which finally morphed into the corporation tax we now have.
We certainly need to do something. The lost tax revenue and cost of supporting their business through infrastructure is a drain on the economy. Politically of course every time the Tories defend these parasites its another example of "We're not all in this together". Again, Ed may not have all the answers but in standing up to these things which so infuriate people he attracts their attention.
Indeed, Mr. Pioneers, but one might wish that Ed would put forward some honest, workable solutions. He ain't yet. If he ever does he will win a landslide. Regrettably, but unsurprisingly given their similar backgrounds, I think he has the same leadership potential as Cameron. To quote Rowan Atkinson, "He is the sort of chap we used to describe at school as an utter spastic"
I sometimes wonder: had Cameron been more radical, consistent and bold, got in the papers, TV, radio explaining his vision for Britain, regularly arguing his principles, arguing his case for change - showing some real leadership - where he'd be now. If he'd married that with a big-tent approach (not just his mates and out of his comfort zone) even better.
He's done exactly that - on international aid, on gay marriage, on the EU, on the public finances, on Libya, on Syria, on education, on welfare, on his support for retaining Scotland in the UK. It's just that some at least of the views he holds and argues for (which are the modern equivalents of traditional one-nation Tory principles in a direct line from politicians like R A Butler and Harold Macmillan) are ones you don't agree with, if I've understood your position correctly. In a mirror image, OGH thinks Cameron kow-tows to the Right, which will be news to all those Tories vehemently hostile to gay marriage, international aid, and the EU.
Richard - bang on cue. I predicted you'd write that response almost as soon as I posted that - almost word-for-word. I'm afraid it doesn't convince me.
On three of the points you mention, public finances/welfare/education, I don't think the Conservative position is down to him and, on the others, his stance has been dictated either by the prevailing domestic/international mainstream orthodoxy, or when he's been pushed, by circumstance, to change his position due to real politik. I wish I could believe differently, but I made up my mind (finally) on this around 18 months ago.
I think Cameron's family and friends mean a lot to him - and his ambition. Outside of that - apart from slick presentation, being articulate and having a fair amount of natural intelligence - I don't think there's much to him.
Isn't that the point though? He tries to be all things to all people with no conviction behind any of it, and leaves many on both sides feeling let down
No, not at all. On gay marriage, did he try to be all things to all people? He could have just let it lie. Maybe he should have done, in pure electoral calculation terms, but he did quite the opposite. Similarly on international aid - he could have fudged it.
Spot on.
Cameron is best when he allows his liberal instincts to come to the fore. .
Oh, he is instinctively liberal is he?
I thought he u turned as and when in order to get votes
On gay marriage my feeling is he doesn't really care about it at all, but thought he would win centre left votes by promoting it, thinking social conservatives had nowhere else to go.
We cant know what's going on inside someone else's head but it's certainly difficult to believe that someone who previously strongly supported Section 28 caring that much about gay rights now. He may have genuinely held both positions at different times or either of them may have been base political posturing (or even both!).
On gay marriage my feeling is he doesn't really care about it at all, but thought he would win centre left votes by promoting it, thinking social conservatives had nowhere else to go.
We cant know what's going on inside someone else's head but it's certainly difficult to believe that someone who previously strongly supported Section 28 caring that much about gay rights now. He may have genuinely held both positions at different times or either of them may have been base political posturing (or even both!).
Isn't that the point though? He tries to be all things to all people with no conviction behind any of it, and leaves many on both sides feeling let down
No, not at all. On gay marriage, did he try to be all things to all people? He could have just let it lie. Maybe he should have done, in pure electoral calculation terms, but he did quite the opposite. Similarly on international aid - he could have fudged it.
Spot on.
Cameron is best when he allows his liberal instincts to come to the fore. .
Oh, he is instinctively liberal is he?
I thought he u turned as and when in order to get votes
Isn't that the point though? He tries to be all things to all people with no conviction behind any of it, and leaves many on both sides feeling let down
No, not at all. On gay marriage, did he try to be all things to all people? He could have just let it lie. Maybe he should have done, in pure electoral calculation terms, but he did quite the opposite. Similarly on international aid - he could have fudged it.
Spot on.
Cameron is best when he allows his liberal instincts to come to the fore. .
Oh, he is instinctively liberal is he?
I thought he u turned as and when in order to get votes
I like politicians to have very few ideas. It's the ones with ideas who cause the real damage.
Having no ideas just means doing nothing - coasting along in government, being idle - and going with whatever bureaucratic mainstream fashion, or orthodoxy, is in vogue at the time. No matter how damaging or silly it is.
I like politicians who recognise they don't have all the answers and stop interfering in others lives. But that, in and of itself, is an idea. And it needs a leader to present it and, possibly, to legislate for it as well.
Comments
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/internet-argument-resolved-2014030584268
I think the thing OGH and the Left overlook in their nailed on Labour majority fantasies is the scene across the Channel a few scores of miles from where I live in Kent. On these very boards I said in the week that Hollande assumed office that he will prove to be a disaster within a year. You Jonathan haughtily brushed my comments off and yet what do we see - Paris property prices crashing and their brightest and best working in London. As the GE draws nearer you can be assured minds will become more concentrated and people will treasure their cheap mortgages and council tax freezes and fear that Labour will simply as they always do lead to higher taxes, regulation and over-spending. As Sean F observed below these are the last things our faltering economy needs
So the Lib Dems (Britain's third largest party in terms of seats and votes ) get to participate in both the general election debates and this one . A honour not afforded Labour or Conservative? How is this correct?
I have always spoken up for Milliband on this board, I think his biggest weakness is his team around him who are lacklustre. Kremlin politics are such that some are difficult to move, but I think that he will move agaunst some of them in the summer.
Imagine the joy from Cammie, Osbrowne and CCHQ in knowing that the kippers are being given an hour of huge prime-time publicity for free with coalition policies on Europe and immigration being defended by Clegg?
*chortle*
“I hope it can teach others that arguing on the internet is completely worthwhile, as long as you never give up. Never"
LOL
The fact that that I don't like Clegg, doesn't mean that he is not a good debater. He is. But Nigel will squash him like the EU maggot he is.
Indeed they are going hammer and tongs about it this morning:
"In a speech to the Centre for European Reform thinktank today, the Deputy Prime Minister will say the UKIP leader and his deputy Paul Nuttall "rarely turn up to vote" and "refuse to roll up their sleeves and get down to work".
However, Mr Farage has hit back over Mr Clegg’s “hypocritical” attack, contrasting his own voting record with that of the Liberal Democrat leader.
“I’m very surprised Nick Clegg has chosen this line of attack. He attacks me and Paul Nuttall for not turning up enough to vote,” he told the Today programme.
“Well, both our voting records are about 50% but we are leader and deputy leader of a national party in the United Kingdom; Nick Clegg himself, who actually lives in London, has only himself voted in 22% of votes in this parliament. So I think it’s a rather hypocritical line of attack.” "
(politicshome.com)
I'm really looking forward to these debates on several levels.
I'm not foaming at the mouth, I thought that was the default Kipper position when discussing topics as diverse as Gay marriage to Immigration.
I'm really looking forward to these debates on several levels.
----------
He,he. Bridle on!
"Early casualties of this year’s election could be India’s premier league (IPL) and its millions of cricket-mad fans. India’s home ministry has told the country’s cricket board that it cannot guarantee security for IPL matches during the polls and that part of the tournament may have to be hosted in Sri Lanka or South Africa.
That news prompted spoof messages asking India’s election commission to get its priorities straight and consider hosting part of the general election abroad instead.
The polling dates - which will be held in several phases in some states - have been announced as 7 April, 9 April, 10 April, 12 April, 17 April, 24 April, 30 April, 7 May and 12 May."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/05/indian-elections-to-begin-on-7-april
One of them thinks because a minor overrated victory in the past makes them unassailable.
But the other one is much more experienced and tactically astute.
I just haven't worked out if Farage is Hannibal or Scipio.
Good for Clegg.
Great for Farage.
Awful for Cameron.
Great for Miliband.
Farage will perform well, and go down a storm among right and right-of-centre voters with his blokey populism; he'll convert more voters. Clegg will probably make a very good case for remaining in the EU and speak of its benefits (something UK politicians never do, which makes voters wonder what the benefits are) and will shore up the Europhiles on the Lib Dem side. Cameron will lose voters to UKIP and the Tory MP agitators will agitate for a move rightwards. Miliband will be revelling in the Tory/UkIP deepening vote-split.
It remains to be seen whether or not the UKIP VI solidifies in the run-up to the GE and completely splits the vote on the right.
If it does, it augurs well for Miliband winning a majority with a record-low vote-share. He could get in with as little as 33%.
A voteless recovery isn't the biggest threat to the Tories. UKIP are.
Backing the status quo
Backing the "middle" in a choice of under/over/between
Laying an unproven favourite
Laying a big swing from one team to another
To me, NOM seems to fit all these scenarios without looking at the polls.
Anecdotally I quite like Ed Miliband and find myself cheering him on at PMQs, although that could be because Cameron never answers a question, but I do fear that the general public will be put off voting for Labour when he appears on tv a lot in the lead up to GE2015
Whether you're on the left or right, surely one must accept that redistribution is an attempt to manage the symptoms, and isn't the cure?
The problem is that both left/right are stuck in a 20th century political debate - and the world has moved on, The fundamental problem is that there are no more reasonably paid low-skilled jobs and (at the same time) the cost of living has gone through the roof and people feel nervous and insecure about their identities. Some of this is down to technology, some of it is down to mass immigration (keeping wages low and competition for jobs high) and also globalisation driving more cross-border economic interdependency, but also a cultural and social challenge.
The solution must lie in *broadly* equalising nations relative wealth (so, say, Africa, South America and Asia become approximately 'developed' economies) and stabilising global population growth, matched with new technology to more efficiently use/produce energy/food resources. The global economy may also reorientate then to become human-centric - i.e. even more based upon services/leisure rather than manufacturing. If that happens, it might also remove some of the huge international low-skilled mass migrationary pressures we currently see - although high skilled immigration may increase. On an aside, ultimately, house prices only keep increasing and increasing because there are people who want to live in them in certain areas - perhaps further technological advances might break the back of that too, allowing very (occasional) long-distance commuting, or routine remote working.
I think there is a fair chance of all that happening, but it's on a 30-50 year horizon (at least) and it's a question of whether 'The World' can get there in one piece in the meantime.
I offer even money that the Clegg/Kipper debate (I forget the fellow's name for the moment) won't change the mind of anyone who has posted on here more than ten times. Any takers?
If the answer is "Gordon Brown" as so many seem to think, its no wonder you don't understand voter intentions as you haven't understood the issue. To be fair I don't think most politicians have got a proper grasp so we can all give examples of mad politicians - Osborne, Hollande, Obama, Abe - reverting to type and getting it wrong.
Whilst the political establishment struggles for ideas people aren't willing to be the fall guy. "We're all in this together" was an extremely clever piece of positioning which worked at first, destroyed by the top rate tax cut and the wall of stories of big business paying no tax. Its patently clear that we aren't all in this together, and thats why voters aren't rushing to give thanks to the Tories. Again, I don't think Labour are proposing long term answers either, but what the Tories are doing clearly isn't working for people who are increasingly fed up/worried/desperate, and thats why they will vote for the other, whatever that happens to be. Would have been the LibDems before they contracted the yellow pox, so now its Labour and UKIP.
Be happy we don't have a clown party or a pirate party - people would be voting for that. Perhaps @JohnLoony could be positioned right, in a crazy world a loony vote is the sane choice....
If so it means the 9/4 for Farage to appear in the 2015 debates could be worth a bet, as the argument against it, that it would breach electoral law, is apparently easily overcome
The one thing he was genuinely passionate about is becoming Prime Minister. It sort of works because he just arbitrates between all the various views/factions - without massively caring too much what the outcome is. But it's why I have so much trouble respecting him.
It's Gove, Osborne and IDS who are doing the real Conservative things in this government - plus Theresa May having a crack now and again - which is why I um and err about whether to support them.
We had a rickety shanty with no insurance and a big mortgage outstanding built in an earthquake zone - then a 8,2 magnitude quake hit.
If we had a proper structure, with decent building regs, paid off the loans and a buffer we would have ridden it out far better - for that - Gordon "worst PM ever" Brown is to blame.
Personally I still believe that, when it comes down to it, many people with think about EdM as PM and haver, with the result that Labour is the largest party in a hung parliament.
"They've given up - wimps!"
And Tapestry convinced me that George W Bush is a lizard.
Also would offer even money that it was easier to scan two or three posts for Farages name rather than explain that you couldn't remember it!
Tasty prices on No overall majority
"NOM, NOM, NOM ,NOM, NOM ! NOM, NOM"
When not littered with astroturfers, ad hominem attacks and silly name calling, this place is great for thought provoking debate.
And then joined Ukip .....
Hhhmmm .....
(Though I'm unimpressed that you hadn't already realised that about G.W.)
Our debt to GDP ratio until June 2008 was 40%, far lower than most industrialised countries including frugal Germany !
In fact, debt / GDP ratio was lower in those 11 Labour years than in Thatcher's 11 years !
Andrew Feldman was the last straw. Prior to that, I was alienated by Cameron's two-faced attitude towards the EU, the green agenda, overseas aid, gay marriage, the Strategic Defence shambles, retention of the various speech crimes brought in by the last government, surveillance etc. etc.
I susceptible to being won over on a lot of issues. Trouble is, my vote doesn't count for toffee. I'm based in one of Labour's safest seats.
1) The debates on electoral reform and electoral voting systems
2) The brilliance of nighthawks and the oh so subtle subtle pop music references therein
3) The (classical) history lessons I give PBers.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100257505/is-the-american-president-still-the-most-powerful-man-on-earth/
I think a different American president would still be "the most powerful man on earth".
The others were a bloke in a pub who wanted to withdraw from Europe and a constituent who wanted to expel all immigrants ("what, even NHS staff?" worked for him). You're higher-quality!
Conversely I'm often persuaded to rethink by discussions on pb (JJ is keeping me just about in the open-minded camp over HS2), though almost always when it's put as an issue discussion rather than a "Labour sucks because..." line, which just triggers a defence mechanism.
Not that I've changed my position but that's more nuance and consistency in the position of those opposed to that.
And normally I'm very stubborn.
The sense that Cameron is basically just passing the time makes me less hostile than I'd otherwise be, but I can see it looks different from your perspective.
But wait until the Indy Ref result is declared.
Whatever the result it's going to be even more fun discussing Scottish Politics.
It wasn't public debt that was the issue as much as private debt.
We had had unprecedented asset price inflation as interest rates were kept artificially low (via the RPI/CPI swap in 2003); we had a dysfunctional financial services regulator which Tory MPs had warned, when it was created, was a recipe for disaster; and of course we had abolished boom and bust so the thought that any of this was likely to change was not included in Gordo's forecasts.
Sporting Index 16th Feb 2009 (the nearest equivalent date where I've got a note of the prices):
Con 350-356
Lab 224-230
LD 44-47
I have myself changed several people's view on foreign aid. Most people who object to it imagine that it's disbursed in the form of largesse handed unauditedly to various kleptocracies whose corrupt officials instantly either squander or nick it.
I point out that a lot of it is in effect a voucher to be spent by the receiving country on services purchased in the UK, with that as a specific condition. So UK foreign aid to Malawi may consist of paying for McKinsey UK to consult on setting up their power generation industry, or on UK engineers designing hardware.
Such foreign aid money is thus not nicked at all. It is largely spent in the UK, the skills and the credentials to do more such work accrue to UK workers in UK firms, and while it may or may not generate that much good will, it';s not going to generate ill will.
Quite a lot of foreign aid work done by UK private companies is thus funded by public money.
When you explain that it's like giving the unemployed food stamps rather than cash, even diehard UKIPpers alter their view a bit.
http://i.imgur.com/gXdTZ1z.jpg
Obviously, this distorts them. And provides others, notably OGH, with opportunity...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10661412/Dyslexia-may-not-exist-warn-academics.html
"Dyslexia may not exist warn academics"
“Being a peer is no excuse,” says Catherine, the wife of Lord Faulks of Donnington. “My husband is one, too, and he managed to get to the poll.”
Was Richard Curtis campaign manager?
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/03/labour-writes-to-cabinet-secretary-about-details-of-patrick-rocks-arrest/
Ok that betting employees, but 100% of those people are serious punters too! many very successful and very left wing
I went out for dinner last week with four hugely successful gamblers, and the editor of the racing post, and when they started saying Stuart Wheeler, our old boss, had lost it by donating to ukip I kept my mouth firmly shut!
Several posters have mentioned future world population growth as a big issue. As Mr. Dancer mentioned there was a discussion on here a few weeks ago after someone posted a link to the world of Hans Rosling, the Swedish Statistician. Rosling presents some very persuasive arguments that the number of children in the world has already peaked and that the total human population is set to stabilise at about 13 billion. Rumage around on Utube and you'll find several videos of talks he has given. For anyone interetedted in the subject I particulalry recommend they spend an hour watching this lecture, entitled "Don't Panic - The Truth about Population:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nvdeEi2mEc
Aside from anything else he makes some very telling points about the ignorance of the educated English.
On a separate note, Mr. Observer has made some interesting, and, to my mind, valid, points about effect of super rich global corporations. Whilst I would not go as far as to agree with Dr. Palmer in describing their conduct as a protection racket, I have no doubt that the way they are run is parasitic on rather than beneficial to our population as a whole. I wonder if at least part of the solution would be a fundamental reform of the way companies are taxed.
Companies were originally a legal construct to enable non-individuals to sign contracts, own property and so on. So why not tax them as individuals are taxed, abolish the fantastically complicated corporation tax and institute a corporate income tax? How about a flat rate, no allowances at all, tax on the income every company that does business here. Set at the right level, maybe 10%, it would increase the revenue and level the playing field.
Companies like Starbucks and Amazon would be forced to pay their fair share for the facilities they use (transport infrastructure, the legal system etc.) and companies like Thames Water would no longer be able to send dividends overseas whilst claiming losses against tax. Simple to administer, hard to evade (I'd also add in some spectacular penalties against the directors of any companies found guilty of evasion - mandatory gaol terms and disqualification for life), fair goes all round and increased revenue. What is not to like?
I might add that this is not a new idea until, if memory serves, 1964 companies were taxed on the same basis as individuals then the Labour government introduced an additional profits tax, which finally morphed into the corporation tax we now have.
So, why should anyone vote for him? If you stand for nothing, you can fall for anything. If course, that's different from saying I won't vote Conservative, over Labour, but you see the conundrum.
I sometimes wonder: had Cameron been more radical, consistent and bold, got in the papers, TV, radio explaining his vision for Britain, regularly arguing his principles, arguing his case for change - showing some real leadership - where he'd be now. If he'd married that with a big-tent approach (not just his mates and out of his comfort zone) even better.
I suspect, a higher Labour mid-term lead (with some extra Con-Lab switchers) but with very few extra defections to UKIP, and now the tide would be coming in pretty quickly (with the Conservative vote recovering) as Cameron was vindicated and all the waverers lined up on his side.
I even think he might have got to 40% and a majority with that.
"You've persuaded me on medical testing on animals."
Then very well done by NP, and I assume it was against (I must have missed the argument). Although after twenty years of doing exactly that sort of work (in the past), I expect I'd be argument-proof.
I remember visiting Huntingdon Research Centre and being impressed by their facilities and attitudes (similar to our own). Having braved the Sparts outside, I asked why they didn't open the place up to schools and make the arguments.
The answer ... We did. Ninety nine percent of people who came round were open to persuasion, but that one percent ignored everything and made up lies about about the place, saying - "We know because we've seen it for ourselves." Guess who got all the publicity?
There are faults on both sides, but reasoned arguments (as from NP) are always welcome.
But a very few with almost psychotic zeal, will always see exactly what they want to see, and if they don't see it, they'll make it up anyway.
We were accused of stealing pet cats from the street on one occasion. As NP will confirm, you need generations of "well bred" test animals to get consistent rather than erroneous results. Background pathology from mongrel animals could kill a life-saving drug.
If our lab animals had been human, they'd have been too posh to talk to PBers. Now Cameron or Harman ... perhaps?
Prior to the exchange I was of the opinion that most of the people opposed to medical testing on animals were soap dodging Spartists who had no background in medical sciences.
Nick provided evidence to the contrary, and very eloquently.
People may not believe any economic recovery is sustainable, because the UK will struggle to compete in the globalised world we are in. With a long running economic downturn, people are looking for more interventionist government. If people believe that Labour will deliver positive new policies that will help their families, they may take the chance.
1) Ukraine
2) Ukraine
3) EU/Ukraine - hmmm where is this going - financial sanctions/asset seize/Tory defending bankers in the City?
Boring.
Exactly, Mr. Royale, but he didn't. I wonder why. Could it be that Cameron has no principles, no values, no vision for Britain? Could it be that the reason is hasn't shown "real leadership" is that he couldn't lead a squad of ducklings across a fire bucket?
Some years ago Cameron declared himself the, "Heir to Blair". I am prepared to take him at his word.
Cameron is best when he allows his liberal instincts to come to the fore.
.
On three of the points you mention, public finances/welfare/education, I don't think the Conservative position is down to him and, on the others, his stance has been dictated either by the prevailing domestic/international mainstream orthodoxy, or when he's been pushed, by circumstance, to change his position due to real politik. I wish I could believe differently, but I made up my mind (finally) on this around 18 months ago.
I think Cameron's family and friends mean a lot to him - and his ambition. Outside of that - apart from slick presentation, being articulate and having a fair amount of natural intelligence - I don't think there's much to him.
I thought he u turned as and when in order to get votes
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2009/07/02/cameron-s-u-turn-apology-for-section-28
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/kevin-maguire-david-cameron-sorry-2907033
It seems to me Cameron attracts more of these votes by doing the opposite of what the deeply conservative reactionary Right wants him to do.
The Civil War had too many people on both sides with Ideas. It was a wretched time to live on these isles for that reason.
I like politicians who recognise they don't have all the answers and stop interfering in others lives. But that, in and of itself, is an idea. And it needs a leader to present it and, possibly, to legislate for it as well.
As much as I love her Majesty, I'm not entirely keen on all that Divine Rights of Kings malarkey.