Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Henry G Manson on the Ukip challenge to Labour

SystemSystem Posts: 11,889
edited May 2013 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Henry G Manson on the Ukip challenge to Labour

Two and a half of years ago when the ‘Blue Labour’ group of thinkers in the party first made their mark there was quite a bit of a stir. The ‘blue’ in Blue Labour was ‘small c’ conservativism among working class voters – it was blue collar. But in a party that wraps itself in all things red, even the name raised eyebrows.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • Options
    AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    First past the last post.
  • Options
    AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    An excellent article, Henry. One of your very best.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Good article Henry:

    "but if Labour buries its head in the sand then it could be next."

    The 'head in the sand' buriers point to Labour's 2010 voters who now say they will vote UKIP - (5% vs 8 for Lib Dem & 19 Con, in today's YouGov) - but how many former Labour voters who voted Lib Dem or stayed at home in 2010 are now UKIP supporters?

    All the major parties are out of touch - by both background and education, with the old 'working class' - who won Thatcher her power - and Blair his landslide. UKIP appeals to that - but whether that appeal holds up as they come under increasing scrutiny, only time will tell.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,238
    A very interesting piece, Mr. Manson. If UKIP stay strong until 2015 then their impact on the election could be very odd and hard to predict. They could cost Labour seats, as well as the Conservatives and Lib Dems. We might see some new tactical voting from (disaffected) Conservatives, and party bigwigs might struggle significantly with trying to work out how to combat UKIP and where to urge tactical voting and where not to.

    [The last point reminds me of a Grand Prix where the tactical decisions on tyres when the rubber doesn't last long and rain is forecast makes it nigh on impossible to get completely right].
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,238
    CeltKIP question: does UKIP have any real presence in Northern Ireland/Wales/Scotland?

    I'd guess none of the first and last, and maybe a smidgen in Wales.
  • Options
    corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549
    I think they got the 4th MEP in Wales, but more or less invisible outside the Euros.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,238
    Cheers, Mr. Corporeal.

    By the way, d'you speak any Welsh?
  • Options
    corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549
    edited May 2013

    Cheers, Mr. Corporeal.

    By the way, d'you speak any Welsh?

    I speak a little. It's compulsory in school up to 16. My skills have dwindled a bit since then but some stuff has hung on.

    (I presume some dastardly F1 team is now putting team orders out in Welsh?)
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,238
    Would you mind if I used the Vanilla messaging thingummyjig to ask you to check a small number (only about four) of things? Part of the book after the book after the next one has a Welshy bit [fantasy and fictional but the language is nicked from Wales].
  • Options
    RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    edited May 2013
    FPT: 'Rod, is this description of PR squared the same one that you want?'

    No, of course not. I've improved on it a lot.
    http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2010/05/10/as-pr-becomes-centre-stage-what-about-this/
    JDA Wiseman seems (or at least in the late 1990s when he came up with the basic system) to be a single-member constituency fanatic, with an obsession above all else in ensuring Sinn Fein don't win any seats...

    The only part of his basic idea that my system retains is the squaring of the national votes bit, done - contrary to his plan - separately in each of the four home nations ...
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,238
    F1 teams should probably try that. It's not the most common second language, after all.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,926

    CeltKIP question: does UKIP have any real presence in Northern Ireland/Wales/Scotland?
    I'd guess none of the first and last, and maybe a smidgen in Wales.

    Microscopic in Scotland, and ironically given their name, zero representation in the campaign to 'save' the UK.

    'THE pro-union Better Together campaign has refused to work with UKIP to persuade Scots to vote against ­independence.
    Better Together yesterday insisted that Nigel Farage’s resurgent right wingers “are not a Scottish party and this is a Scottish debate”.
    In return, UKIP accused Better Together of being “petty and small minded”.'

    http://tinyurl.com/cxs7y2d
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,238
    I thought as much, Mr. Divvie. I wonder if that's due to them being seen as English or the SNP meaning that it's harder for a fifth party to emerge than a fourth.
  • Options
    corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549

    Would you mind if I used the Vanilla messaging thingummyjig to ask you to check a small number (only about four) of things? Part of the book after the book after the next one has a Welshy bit [fantasy and fictional but the language is nicked from Wales].

    I can certainly try, I may very well have to resort to looking a few things up but will do what I can.

    Will you follow in the Dylan Thomas, and Terry Pratchett style of slipping in a joke welsh place name, (Llareggub, or Llamedos respectively for those two authors).
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,238
    Mr. Corporeal, I hadn't planned on it, but wouldn't be averse to so doing.

    The next door bit is vaguely Cornish, and I've had the place names Ventongimps and Mousehole suggested :p

    Message is on its way.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Good article Henry:

    "but if Labour buries its head in the sand then it could be next."

    The 'head in the sand' buriers point to Labour's 2010 voters who now say they will vote UKIP - (5% vs 8 for Lib Dem & 19 Con, in today's YouGov) - but how many former Labour voters who voted Lib Dem or stayed at home in 2010 are now UKIP supporters?

    All the major parties are out of touch - by both background and education, with the old 'working class' - who won Thatcher her power - and Blair his landslide. UKIP appeals to that - but whether that appeal holds up as they come under increasing scrutiny, only time will tell.

    Someone last night made the well-known point that Cameron is a poor-quality Blair, but it got me thinking.

    Blair worked for Labour because he atrracted moderate Tories while tribal loyalty kept the traditional working class voters on side. Cameron's problem, unlike Thatcher or Major is that he just doubles down on the Tory appeal to the Shires and has nothing to say to the C1/C2 voters who gave the Tories their majorities.

    On this basis, EdM is probably too much of an appeal to Labour's metropolitian heartland; and it's not clear who the Tories have who can authentically stretch their electoral reach.

  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,926

    I thought as much, Mr. Divvie. I wonder if that's due to them being seen as English or the SNP meaning that it's harder for a fifth party to emerge than a fourth.

    Bit of both perhaps, though with the Greens and various incarnations of socialists bubbling under, even fifth party status is pretty competitive. LDs and Cons aren't exactly thriving, but I doubt supporters of the former or many of those of the latter would consider UKIP as a likely alternative.
  • Options
    Finally number crunched Surrey County Council elections
    %s with change on 2009.

    Con 39.7% (-6.5%) 58 seats
    UKIP 22.4% (+12.2%) 3 seats
    LD 15.8% (-11.3%) 9 seats
    Lab 10.7% (+4.9%) 1 seat
    Green 1.6% (-0.3%) 1 seat
    Residents 6.5% (+0.6%) 7 seats
    Others including Ind 3.3% (+0.3%) 2 seats

    Tories with 39.7% of the vote win 71.6% of the seats.

    Who said FPTP isn't friendly to Conservatives?

    As always with FPTP it is not how many votes you get.
    It is how many votes you get AND where they are!
  • Options
    corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549

    Mr. Corporeal, I hadn't planned on it, but wouldn't be averse to so doing.

    The next door bit is vaguely Cornish, and I've had the place names Ventongimps and Mousehole suggested :p

    Message is on its way.

    As a random aside on place names (aside from the normal welsh variations. Aber being rivermouth, llan-church, pont-bridge, etc) near me there's a string of three villages named Sevastopol, Britannia, and Fleur-de-lys. No idea why, but I used to drive through them regularly for rugby reasons and it's always a little odd.
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,719
    Good article.

    Labour's problem though is that EdM is very much of the 'firends of SeanT' type lefty.

    He's still going to become prime minister in 2015.
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,719
    Charles said:

    Good article Henry:

    "but if Labour buries its head in the sand then it could be next."

    The 'head in the sand' buriers point to Labour's 2010 voters who now say they will vote UKIP - (5% vs 8 for Lib Dem & 19 Con, in today's YouGov) - but how many former Labour voters who voted Lib Dem or stayed at home in 2010 are now UKIP supporters?

    All the major parties are out of touch - by both background and education, with the old 'working class' - who won Thatcher her power - and Blair his landslide. UKIP appeals to that - but whether that appeal holds up as they come under increasing scrutiny, only time will tell.

    Someone last night made the well-known point that Cameron is a poor-quality Blair, but it got me thinking.

    Blair worked for Labour because he atrracted moderate Tories while tribal loyalty kept the traditional working class voters on side. Cameron's problem, unlike Thatcher or Major is that he just doubles down on the Tory appeal to the Shires and has nothing to say to the C1/C2 voters who gave the Tories their majorities.

    On this basis, EdM is probably too much of an appeal to Labour's metropolitian heartland; and it's not clear who the Tories have who can authentically stretch their electoral reach.

    Insight like that should get you a doctorate in PPE Charles.

    Actually Cameron does have something to say to the working class voters who give Conservative governments their majorities:

    "Get on your bike or put on your chauffer's cap or got off my road prole"
  • Options
    dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,297
    Going green presents a problem for Labour and others, it forces up the price of energy for working class families, whilst racking up higher taxes on those with cars - fuel duty, car parking charges, road tax, parking zones & congestion charges. Add on a lax immigration policy which has led to stagnant or falling real wages in some sectors.

    The Tories may be over-represented by those with Oxbridge PPEs, Eton and other highly expensive boarding schools, but are Labour's policy wonks (in reality middle class professionals from the public sector) any more representative of their electorates?
  • Options
    dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,297
    LLareggub, and LLamedos are fictional villages in Wales.
  • Options
    anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Charles said:

    Good article Henry:

    "but if Labour buries its head in the sand then it could be next."

    The 'head in the sand' buriers point to Labour's 2010 voters who now say they will vote UKIP - (5% vs 8 for Lib Dem & 19 Con, in today's YouGov) - but how many former Labour voters who voted Lib Dem or stayed at home in 2010 are now UKIP supporters?

    All the major parties are out of touch - by both background and education, with the old 'working class' - who won Thatcher her power - and Blair his landslide. UKIP appeals to that - but whether that appeal holds up as they come under increasing scrutiny, only time will tell.

    Someone last night made the well-known point that Cameron is a poor-quality Blair, but it got me thinking.

    Blair worked for Labour because he atrracted moderate Tories while tribal loyalty kept the traditional working class voters on side. Cameron's problem, unlike Thatcher or Major is that he just doubles down on the Tory appeal to the Shires and has nothing to say to the C1/C2 voters who gave the Tories their majorities.

    On this basis, EdM is probably too much of an appeal to Labour's metropolitian heartland; and it's not clear who the Tories have who can authentically stretch their electoral reach.
    It's not the messenger, its the message. Green energy, high speed rail, foreign aid are Mr Cameron's signature policies. They're Guardian reader policies.

  • Options
    samonipadsamonipad Posts: 182
    Cruddas would be a good Mayor of London in my opinion... How anyone of sane mind could prefer the blithering idiot David Lammy is beyond me.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Charles said:

    Good article Henry:

    "but if Labour buries its head in the sand then it could be next."

    The 'head in the sand' buriers point to Labour's 2010 voters who now say they will vote UKIP - (5% vs 8 for Lib Dem & 19 Con, in today's YouGov) - but how many former Labour voters who voted Lib Dem or stayed at home in 2010 are now UKIP supporters?

    All the major parties are out of touch - by both background and education, with the old 'working class' - who won Thatcher her power - and Blair his landslide. UKIP appeals to that - but whether that appeal holds up as they come under increasing scrutiny, only time will tell.

    Blair worked for Labour because he atrracted moderate Tories while tribal loyalty kept the traditional working class voters on side.
    It was more than 'tribal loyalty' - the conspicuous placement of John Prescott as 'Deputy Prime Minister' for a decade helped too - 'no nonsense John, clearly one of us' was very useful to New Labour - as window dressing, if nothing else.

    Who the Conservatives have is, as you observe, much more challenging - though I'm not sure Labour has a strong 'working class' front bench spokesman - though of course it is less of an issue for them....

  • Options
    Many of the seats that UKIP actually won are in the more urban areas under election. The centres of towns where the C2, D and Es are. This group would have traditionally been regarded as Labour, although some had gone to the LDs since about 1990. A significant part of them had been a sizable block voting in Thatcher. If Labour had attracted these fully back their councillor gains would have probably doubled. This trend may form the basis for an electoral pact between UKIP and the Conservatives. Although it may take a couple of lost GE's to get going!
  • Options
    hucks67hucks67 Posts: 758
    Would not surprise me if some deal was done between Tories and UKIP towards the end of 2014. Farage is saying that he won't deal with the Tories while Cameron is leader, but I predict that Farage will change his mind on this. If it looks like UKIP challenging in some seats will mean a Labour majority and no EU referendum, then I am sure UKIP will remove their candidate. Labour may then offer a referendum in say 2018 giving people a chance to decide for the first time since 1975, whether they want to stay in or leave the EU. The EU elections in 2014 could be a big factor in deciding what happens, if UKIP easily win those elections.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    samonipad said:

    Cruddas would be a good Mayor of London in my opinion... How anyone of sane mind could prefer the blithering idiot David Lammy is beyond me.

    Funny you should mention that - Lammy is writing articles on 'Boris is crap'

    http://labourlist.org/2013/05/one-year-on-boris-isnt-working/
  • Options
    Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 14,136
    Good article, Henry.

    Yes, Labour needs to examine the danger UKIP presents to a core part of its base and however unpalatable it may seem in some quarters the Blue Labour meme could play a vital role.

    I expect we will be hearing more of it over the next few years.
  • Options
    Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 14,136
    edited May 2013
    samonipad said:

    Cruddas would be a good Mayor of London in my opinion... How anyone of sane mind could prefer the blithering idiot David Lammy is beyond me.

    The Mayor is essentially a figurehead.

    Cruddas is a politician and interested in power.
  • Options
    samonipadsamonipad Posts: 182

    samonipad said:

    Cruddas would be a good Mayor of London in my opinion... How anyone of sane mind could prefer the blithering idiot David Lammy is beyond me.

    Funny you should mention that - Lammy is writing articles on 'Boris is crap'

    http://labourlist.org/2013/05/one-year-on-boris-isnt-working/
    Boris ushering in cronies????? Following in the footsteps of Ken and Lee Jasper?!
  • Options
    AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815

    Good article.

    Labour's problem though is that EdM is very much of the 'firends of SeanT' type lefty.

    He's still going to become prime minister in 2015.

    SeanT?
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    I have to say that Blue Labour and some of the ideas it has espoused has been the first time I've ever been interested in looking at the Labour party. They are absolutely correct on New Labour's excessive managerialism, they are right that the working class has faced losses from globalisation and not just economically, and they are correct that both major parties have excessively done the bidding of the City of London. However, they do need to carefully balance their traditionalism with the need to remain economically competitive in the modern world. It's a hard line to balance, but if Labour were to move in this direction it would be a very welcome addition to the political debate.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,237
    Greetings from Dallas.

    An excellent article from Henry. Sadly, EdM is not the leader to do what clearly should be done. He should spend more time talking to his constituents.
  • Options
    anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited May 2013
    hucks67 said:

    Would not surprise me if some deal was done between Tories and UKIP towards the end of 2014. Farage is saying that he won't deal with the Tories while Cameron is leader, but I predict that Farage will change his mind on this. If it looks like UKIP challenging in some seats will mean a Labour majority and no EU referendum, then I am sure UKIP will remove their candidate. Labour may then offer a referendum in say 2018 giving people a chance to decide for the first time since 1975, whether they want to stay in or leave the EU. The EU elections in 2014 could be a big factor in deciding what happens, if UKIP easily win those elections.

    UKIP are riding a wave. They don't need the Tories to help them to elect UKIP candidates.

    If UKIP keep building support, as 2015 approaches, the other parties are going to have to try to win over those voters. Not square Mr Farage.
  • Options
    CD13CD13 Posts: 6,358

    Very well written, Mr Manson, even with the odd typo.

    This variety of Labour supporter feels they are friendless, and only habit and tribal loyalty kept them voting Labour. That glue is getting weaker and when Ukip beckon, they can be attracted to them instead of sitting on their hands or voting for a party that seems to have deserted them.

    It should be easy for Labour to re-connect but EdM isn't the man for that. Fortunately for Labour, the Tories still specialise in posh, professional politicians too, so EdM may still scrape a majority.
  • Options
    AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815

    Charles said:

    Good article Henry:

    "but if Labour buries its head in the sand then it could be next."

    The 'head in the sand' buriers point to Labour's 2010 voters who now say they will vote UKIP - (5% vs 8 for Lib Dem & 19 Con, in today's YouGov) - but how many former Labour voters who voted Lib Dem or stayed at home in 2010 are now UKIP supporters?

    All the major parties are out of touch - by both background and education, with the old 'working class' - who won Thatcher her power - and Blair his landslide. UKIP appeals to that - but whether that appeal holds up as they come under increasing scrutiny, only time will tell.

    Someone last night made the well-known point that Cameron is a poor-quality Blair, but it got me thinking.

    Blair worked for Labour because he atrracted moderate Tories while tribal loyalty kept the traditional working class voters on side. Cameron's problem, unlike Thatcher or Major is that he just doubles down on the Tory appeal to the Shires and has nothing to say to the C1/C2 voters who gave the Tories their majorities.

    On this basis, EdM is probably too much of an appeal to Labour's metropolitian heartland; and it's not clear who the Tories have who can authentically stretch their electoral reach.

    Insight like that should get you a doctorate in PPE Charles.

    Actually Cameron does have something to say to the working class voters who give Conservative governments their majorities:

    "Get on your bike or put on your chauffer's cap or got off my road prole"
    If you want a cold arrogant line from Cam it is easy.

    It is "wait in line!".

    The priorities have been:

    1. Cut central government spending
    2. Transfer public sector employment to private sector.
    3. Solve problems with key drivers of the economy:
    - North Sea Oil & Gas extraction
    - Global core industries (car manufacture, aerospace, pharmaceuticals etc.)
    - Banking and Financial Services recovery, recapitalisation & restructure
    4. Do 1-3 with minimum impact on employment and growth
    5. Reduce then eliminate deficit and start reducing debt.
    7. Get credit flowing to SMEs and households.

    The coalition government is moving down the list slowly but surely. When it gets to 7, then the march of the small and regional makers can begin.

    Can you plausibly argue for a different order of priorities?

  • Options
    anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    AveryLP said:

    Charles said:

    Good article Henry:

    "but if Labour buries its head in the sand then it could be next."

    The 'head in the sand' buriers point to Labour's 2010 voters who now say they will vote UKIP - (5% vs 8 for Lib Dem & 19 Con, in today's YouGov) - but how many former Labour voters who voted Lib Dem or stayed at home in 2010 are now UKIP supporters?

    All the major parties are out of touch - by both background and education, with the old 'working class' - who won Thatcher her power - and Blair his landslide. UKIP appeals to that - but whether that appeal holds up as they come under increasing scrutiny, only time will tell.

    Someone last night made the well-known point that Cameron is a poor-quality Blair, but it got me thinking.

    Blair worked for Labour because he atrracted moderate Tories while tribal loyalty kept the traditional working class voters on side. Cameron's problem, unlike Thatcher or Major is that he just doubles down on the Tory appeal to the Shires and has nothing to say to the C1/C2 voters who gave the Tories their majorities.

    On this basis, EdM is probably too much of an appeal to Labour's metropolitian heartland; and it's not clear who the Tories have who can authentically stretch their electoral reach.

    Insight like that should get you a doctorate in PPE Charles.

    Actually Cameron does have something to say to the working class voters who give Conservative governments their majorities:

    "Get on your bike or put on your chauffer's cap or got off my road prole"
    If you want a cold arrogant line from Cam it is easy.

    It is "wait in line!".

    The priorities have been:

    1. Cut central government spending
    2. Transfer public sector employment to private sector.
    3. Solve problems with key drivers of the economy:
    - North Sea Oil & Gas extraction
    - Global core industries (car manufacture, aerospace, pharmaceuticals etc.)
    - Banking and Financial Services recovery, recapitalisation & restructure
    4. Do 1-3 with minimum impact on employment and growth
    5. Reduce then eliminate deficit and start reducing debt.
    7. Get credit flowing to SMEs and households.

    The coalition government is moving down the list slowly but surely. When it gets to 7, then the march of the small and regional makers can begin.

    Can you plausibly argue for a different order of priorities?

    As I recall first order of business in 2010 was raising taxes, not cutting government spending.

  • Options
    Gerry_ManderGerry_Mander Posts: 621
    AveryLP said:



    The priorities have been:

    1. Cut central government spending
    2. Transfer public sector employment to private sector.
    3. Solve problems with key drivers of the economy:
    - North Sea Oil & Gas extraction
    - Global core industries (car manufacture, aerospace, pharmaceuticals etc.)
    - Banking and Financial Services recovery, recapitalisation & restructure
    4. Do 1-3 with minimum impact on employment and growth
    5. Reduce then eliminate deficit and start reducing debt.
    7. Get credit flowing to SMEs and households.

    The coalition government is moving down the list slowly but surely. When it gets to 7, then the march of the small and regional makers can begin.

    Can you plausibly argue for a different order of priorities?

    Where's point 6?

    Henry, I wish we had 'like' for article. This is the best I have read from anyone, in quite a long time.
  • Options
    AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815

    AveryLP said:



    The priorities have been:

    1. Cut central government spending
    2. Transfer public sector employment to private sector.
    3. Solve problems with key drivers of the economy:
    - North Sea Oil & Gas extraction
    - Global core industries (car manufacture, aerospace, pharmaceuticals etc.)
    - Banking and Financial Services recovery, recapitalisation & restructure
    4. Do 1-3 with minimum impact on employment and growth
    5. Reduce then eliminate deficit and start reducing debt.
    7. Get credit flowing to SMEs and households.

    The coalition government is moving down the list slowly but surely. When it gets to 7, then the march of the small and regional makers can begin.

    Can you plausibly argue for a different order of priorities?

    Where's point 6?

    Henry, I wish we had 'like' for article. This is the best I have read from anyone, in quite a long time.
    It is a state secret.

  • Options
    welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,464
    edited May 2013
    corporeal said:

    Mr. Corporeal, I hadn't planned on it, but wouldn't be averse to so doing.

    The next door bit is vaguely Cornish, and I've had the place names Ventongimps and Mousehole suggested :p

    Message is on its way.

    As a random aside on place names (aside from the normal welsh variations. Aber being rivermouth, llan-church, pont-bridge, etc) near me there's a string of three villages named Sevastopol, Britannia, and Fleur-de-lys. No idea why, but I used to drive through them regularly for rugby reasons and it's always a little odd.
    If you mean Sebastapol in Pontypool it's named after the Crimean battles ( I assume the place was first developed for mining just after the 1850s?). Fleur de Lys may refer to the Prince of Wales feathers known as "Fleur de Lys" not sure but seems likely. Britannia, no idea. Though of course Britannia itself is merely a Latinised version of the Ancient British word which is "Prydain" in modern Welsh.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,238
    *sighs* Computer just decided it was a socialist and went on strike. Hoping it resist the urge to play up again...
  • Options
    AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815

    AveryLP said:

    Charles said:

    Good article Henry:

    "but if Labour buries its head in the sand then it could be next."

    The 'head in the sand' buriers point to Labour's 2010 voters who now say they will vote UKIP - (5% vs 8 for Lib Dem & 19 Con, in today's YouGov) - but how many former Labour voters who voted Lib Dem or stayed at home in 2010 are now UKIP supporters?

    All the major parties are out of touch - by both background and education, with the old 'working class' - who won Thatcher her power - and Blair his landslide. UKIP appeals to that - but whether that appeal holds up as they come under increasing scrutiny, only time will tell.

    Someone last night made the well-known point that Cameron is a poor-quality Blair, but it got me thinking.

    Blair worked for Labour because he atrracted moderate Tories while tribal loyalty kept the traditional working class voters on side. Cameron's problem, unlike Thatcher or Major is that he just doubles down on the Tory appeal to the Shires and has nothing to say to the C1/C2 voters who gave the Tories their majorities.

    On this basis, EdM is probably too much of an appeal to Labour's metropolitian heartland; and it's not clear who the Tories have who can authentically stretch their electoral reach.

    Insight like that should get you a doctorate in PPE Charles.

    Actually Cameron does have something to say to the working class voters who give Conservative governments their majorities:

    "Get on your bike or put on your chauffer's cap or got off my road prole"
    If you want a cold arrogant line from Cam it is easy.

    It is "wait in line!".

    The priorities have been:

    1. Cut central government spending
    2. Transfer public sector employment to private sector.
    3. Solve problems with key drivers of the economy:
    - North Sea Oil & Gas extraction
    - Global core industries (car manufacture, aerospace, pharmaceuticals etc.)
    - Banking and Financial Services recovery, recapitalisation & restructure
    4. Do 1-3 with minimum impact on employment and growth
    5. Reduce then eliminate deficit and start reducing debt.
    7. Get credit flowing to SMEs and households.

    The coalition government is moving down the list slowly but surely. When it gets to 7, then the march of the small and regional makers can begin.

    Can you plausibly argue for a different order of priorities?

    As I recall first order of business in 2010 was raising taxes, not cutting government spending.

    True. Let us give it 1. and move the successors down to fill 6. Only thing is that increasing taxes was never a goal more a tactical step. All the others can be considered persistent goals!

  • Options
    samonipadsamonipad Posts: 182
    edited May 2013
    CD13 said:


    Very well written, Mr Manson, even with the odd typo.

    This variety of Labour supporter feels they are friendless, and only habit and tribal loyalty kept them voting Labour. That glue is getting weaker and when Ukip beckon, they can be attracted to them instead of sitting on their hands or voting for a party that seems to have deserted them.

    It should be easy for Labour to re-connect but EdM isn't the man for that. Fortunately for Labour, the Tories still specialise in posh, professional politicians too, so EdM may still scrape a majority.


    As an ex Labour voter and now UKIP member I know exactly how these people feel.

    If anything the tribally loyal Labour posters on here are as bad as some of their MPs for making WWC people feel like they have nobody representing them... The non existent white flight.... "I don't come from your area but I know the demographic better than you know the people..."

    Oh ok then I'll vote UKIP
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,304
    One tricky thing for Labour this time around is that they've just got back a whole bunch of voters from the LibDem left. I'm assuming these people are of the Guardianista persuasion, in which case they're liable to get put off if they tack in a populist direction.

    In the short-term they can probably square the circle by talking about competence a lot, which lets them fudge the actual policy direction, but it's hard to see them getting a lot of the voters they lost back under Ed Miliband. He has the same problem as Cameron - there are some things he just can't sell convincingly, and if he tries too hard he risks just making the incongruity more obvious.

    I think they probably just need to resign themselves to some losses to UKIP and hope the Tories lose more.
  • Options
    Good article, Henry.

    "A sizeable number of Labour supporters in South Shields defected to UKIP"

    There was definite evidence that Labour supporters particularly on Council estates were switching to UKIP during the Eastleigh Bye.
    If polling day was one week later UKIP would have won Eastleigh.
  • Options
    anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    AveryLP said:

    AveryLP said:

    Charles said:

    Good article Henry:

    "but if Labour buries its head in the sand then it could be next."

    The 'head in the sand' buriers point to Labour's 2010 voters who now say they will vote UKIP - (5% vs 8 for Lib Dem & 19 Con, in today's YouGov) - but how many former Labour voters who voted Lib Dem or stayed at home in 2010 are now UKIP supporters?

    All the major parties are out of touch - by both background and education, with the old 'working class' - who won Thatcher her power - and Blair his landslide. UKIP appeals to that - but whether that appeal holds up as they come under increasing scrutiny, only time will tell.

    Someone last night made the well-known point that Cameron is a poor-quality Blair, but it got me thinking.

    Blair worked for Labour because he atrracted moderate Tories while tribal loyalty kept the traditional working class voters on side. Cameron's problem, unlike Thatcher or Major is that he just doubles down on the Tory appeal to the Shires and has nothing to say to the C1/C2 voters who gave the Tories their majorities.

    On this basis, EdM is probably too much of an appeal to Labour's metropolitian heartland; and it's not clear who the Tories have who can authentically stretch their electoral reach.

    Insight like that should get you a doctorate in PPE Charles.

    Actually Cameron does have something to say to the working class voters who give Conservative governments their majorities:

    "Get on your bike or put on your chauffer's cap or got off my road prole"
    If you want a cold arrogant line from Cam it is easy.

    It is "wait in line!".

    The priorities have been:

    1. Cut central government spending
    2. Transfer public sector employment to private sector.
    3. Solve problems with key drivers of the economy:
    - North Sea Oil & Gas extraction
    - Global core industries (car manufacture, aerospace, pharmaceuticals etc.)
    - Banking and Financial Services recovery, recapitalisation & restructure
    4. Do 1-3 with minimum impact on employment and growth
    5. Reduce then eliminate deficit and start reducing debt.
    7. Get credit flowing to SMEs and households.

    The coalition government is moving down the list slowly but surely. When it gets to 7, then the march of the small and regional makers can begin.

    Can you plausibly argue for a different order of priorities?

    As I recall first order of business in 2010 was raising taxes, not cutting government spending.

    True. Let us give it 1. and move the successors down to fill 6. Only thing is that increasing taxes was never a goal more a tactical step. All the others can be considered persistent goals!
    The budget deficit (5) we were told was the priority of this coalition government when it was first formed. It seems to have drifted from priority, to wouldn't that would be nice.

    While department spending has been cut in some cases, I believe overall spending is still up. The public sector wage bill has increased despite the reductions in headcount, because public sector wages are still rising. The problems with north sea oil/gas extraction were I believe introduced in the first budget, and then addressed in later budgets.

    A higher priority has been their energy policy. The 'decarbonising' of Britain, which translates into higher energy prices for british businesses which I would think would drive car and aerospace manufacturers overseas.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    dr_spyn said:

    Going green presents a problem for Labour and others, it forces up the price of energy for working class families, whilst racking up higher taxes on those with cars - fuel duty, car parking charges, road tax, parking zones & congestion charges. Add on a lax immigration policy which has led to stagnant or falling real wages in some sectors.

    The Tories may be over-represented by those with Oxbridge PPEs, Eton and other highly expensive boarding schools, but are Labour's policy wonks (in reality middle class professionals from the public sector) any more representative of their electorates?

    As a middle class professional in the public sector, I do not feel represented by any of the parties, including UKIP. The Labour party was a major disappointment to people like me. They brought forward more privatisation and internal market than the Tories did, they made us servants to targets that descended from on high, and did major damage to medical training and careers through MMC and the EWTD. I get similar feedback from friends and family of mine who are teachers, police, civil servants and even army.

    Now you may feel that these changes were right, but they have certainly alienated a lot of public sector professionals like me. It is not just the WWC that feels alienated from the political establishment.



  • Options
    AveryLP said:

    Charles said:

    Good article Henry:

    "but if Labour buries its head in the sand then it could be next."

    The 'head in the sand' buriers point to Labour's 2010 voters who now say they will vote UKIP - (5% vs 8 for Lib Dem & 19 Con, in today's YouGov) - but how many former Labour voters who voted Lib Dem or stayed at home in 2010 are now UKIP supporters?

    All the major parties are out of touch - by both background and education, with the old 'working class' - who won Thatcher her power - and Blair his landslide. UKIP appeals to that - but whether that appeal holds up as they come under increasing scrutiny, only time will tell.

    Someone last night made the well-known point that Cameron is a poor-quality Blair, but it got me thinking.

    Blair worked for Labour because he atrracted moderate Tories while tribal loyalty kept the traditional working class voters on side. Cameron's problem, unlike Thatcher or Major is that he just doubles down on the Tory appeal to the Shires and has nothing to say to the C1/C2 voters who gave the Tories their majorities.

    On this basis, EdM is probably too much of an appeal to Labour's metropolitian heartland; and it's not clear who the Tories have who can authentically stretch their electoral reach.

    Insight like that should get you a doctorate in PPE Charles.

    Actually Cameron does have something to say to the working class voters who give Conservative governments their majorities:

    "Get on your bike or put on your chauffer's cap or got off my road prole"
    If you want a cold arrogant line from Cam it is easy.

    It is "wait in line!".

    The priorities have been:

    1. Cut central government spending
    2. Transfer public sector employment to private sector.
    3. Solve problems with key drivers of the economy:
    - North Sea Oil & Gas extraction
    - Global core industries (car manufacture, aerospace, pharmaceuticals etc.)
    - Banking and Financial Services recovery, recapitalisation & restructure
    4. Do 1-3 with minimum impact on employment and growth
    5. Reduce then eliminate deficit and start reducing debt.
    7. Get credit flowing to SMEs and households.

    The coalition government is moving down the list slowly but surely. When it gets to 7, then the march of the small and regional makers can begin.

    Can you plausibly argue for a different order of priorities?

    1. Government spending up in cash and real terms - tick.
    2. Reclassification of public sector jobs proceeds apace - tick
    3. North Sea production severely damaged by tax grab - tick
    - industry continues to shut down under threat of carbon taxation - tick
    - banking festers on with its problems being ignored via QE and house price props - tick
    4. Hope no-one notices the game is KTCDTR, and I won't be there when it blows up.
    5. That's the next guy's problem
    7. The last thing on my mind.
  • Options
    AveryLP said:

    AveryLP said:

    Charles said:

    Good article Henry:

    "but if Labour buries its head in the sand then it could be next."

    The 'head in the sand' buriers point to Labour's 2010 voters who now say they will vote UKIP - (5% vs 8 for Lib Dem & 19 Con, in today's YouGov) - but how many former Labour voters who voted Lib Dem or stayed at home in 2010 are now UKIP supporters?

    All the major parties are out of touch - by both background and education, with the old 'working class' - who won Thatcher her power - and Blair his landslide. UKIP appeals to that - but whether that appeal holds up as they come under increasing scrutiny, only time will tell.

    Someone last night made the well-known point that Cameron is a poor-quality Blair, but it got me thinking.

    Blair worked for Labour because he atrracted moderate Tories while tribal loyalty kept the traditional working class voters on side. Cameron's problem, unlike Thatcher or Major is that he just doubles down on the Tory appeal to the Shires and has nothing to say to the C1/C2 voters who gave the Tories their majorities.

    On this basis, EdM is probably too much of an appeal to Labour's metropolitian heartland; and it's not clear who the Tories have who can authentically stretch their electoral reach.

    Insight like that should get you a doctorate in PPE Charles.

    Actually Cameron does have something to say to the working class voters who give Conservative governments their majorities:

    "Get on your bike or put on your chauffer's cap or got off my road prole"
    If you want a cold arrogant line from Cam it is easy.

    It is "wait in line!".

    The priorities have been:

    1. Cut central government spending
    2. Transfer public sector employment to private sector.
    3. Solve problems with key drivers of the economy:
    - North Sea Oil & Gas extraction
    - Global core industries (car manufacture, aerospace, pharmaceuticals etc.)
    - Banking and Financial Services recovery, recapitalisation & restructure
    4. Do 1-3 with minimum impact on employment and growth
    5. Reduce then eliminate deficit and start reducing debt.
    7. Get credit flowing to SMEs and households.

    The coalition government is moving down the list slowly but surely. When it gets to 7, then the march of the small and regional makers can begin.

    Can you plausibly argue for a different order of priorities?

    As I recall first order of business in 2010 was raising taxes, not cutting government spending.


    It was supposed to be 80% cutting spending, 20% raising taxes. Because there have been no spending cuts, it's all been loaded on taxes.
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    AveryLP said:


    3. Solve problems with key drivers of the economy:
    - North Sea Oil & Gas extraction
    - Global core industries (car manufacture, aerospace, pharmaceuticals etc.)
    - Banking and Financial Services recovery, recapitalisation & restructure

    What criteria makes these sectors the "key drivers" of the economy? They're not the largest sectors, the fastest growing sectors, or the sectors with most potential. Amount of media coverage, perhaps?

    Frighteningly, it probably is the basis upon which most MPs consider sectors' importance.
  • Options

    AveryLP said:



    The priorities have been:

    1. Cut central government spending
    2. Transfer public sector employment to private sector.
    3. Solve problems with key drivers of the economy:
    - North Sea Oil & Gas extraction
    - Global core industries (car manufacture, aerospace, pharmaceuticals etc.)
    - Banking and Financial Services recovery, recapitalisation & restructure
    4. Do 1-3 with minimum impact on employment and growth
    5. Reduce then eliminate deficit and start reducing debt.
    7. Get credit flowing to SMEs and households.

    The coalition government is moving down the list slowly but surely. When it gets to 7, then the march of the small and regional makers can begin.

    Can you plausibly argue for a different order of priorities?

    Where's point 6?

    Rule 6: There is no Rule Six.

  • Options

    AveryLP said:

    AveryLP said:

    Charles said:

    Good article Henry:

    "but if Labour buries its head in the sand then it could be next."

    The 'head in the sand' buriers point to Labour's 2010 voters who now say they will vote UKIP - (5% vs 8 for Lib Dem & 19 Con, in today's YouGov) - but how many former Labour voters who voted Lib Dem or stayed at home in 2010 are now UKIP supporters?

    All the major parties are out of touch - by both background and education, with the old 'working class' - who won Thatcher her power - and Blair his landslide. UKIP appeals to that - but whether that appeal holds up as they come under increasing scrutiny, only time will tell.

    Someone last night made the well-known point that Cameron is a poor-quality Blair, but it got me thinking.

    Blair worked for Labour because he atrracted moderate Tories while tribal loyalty kept the traditional working class voters on side. Cameron's problem, unlike Thatcher or Major is that he just doubles down on the Tory appeal to the Shires and has nothing to say to the C1/C2 voters who gave the Tories their majorities.

    On this basis, EdM is probably too much of an appeal to Labour's metropolitian heartland; and it's not clear who the Tories have who can authentically stretch their electoral reach.

    Insight like that should get you a doctorate in PPE Charles.

    Actually Cameron does have something to say to the working class voters who give Conservative governments their majorities:

    "Get on your bike or put on your chauffer's cap or got off my road prole"
    If you want a cold arrogant line from Cam it is easy.

    It is "wait in line!".

    The priorities have been:

    1. Cut central government spending
    2. Transfer public sector employment to private sector.
    3. Solve problems with key drivers of the economy:
    - North Sea Oil & Gas extraction
    - Global core industries (car manufacture, aerospace, pharmaceuticals etc.)
    - Banking and Financial Services recovery, recapitalisation & restructure
    4. Do 1-3 with minimum impact on employment and growth
    5. Reduce then eliminate deficit and start reducing debt.
    7. Get credit flowing to SMEs and households.

    The coalition government is moving down the list slowly but surely. When it gets to 7, then the march of the small and regional makers can begin.

    Can you plausibly argue for a different order of priorities?

    As I recall first order of business in 2010 was raising taxes, not cutting government spending.


    It was supposed to be 80% cutting spending, 20% raising taxes. Because there have been no spending cuts, it's all been loaded on taxes.
    Yes, Cameron and Osborne chickened out on making the necessary cuts from the very outset and this Government has been doomed ever since.

  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,669

    CeltKIP question: does UKIP have any real presence in Northern Ireland/Wales/Scotland?

    I'd guess none of the first and last, and maybe a smidgen in Wales.

    Morris, so far in Scotland they are hardly even at noise level, hard to see them doing anything given recent UKIP ideas that their should be no Scottish parliament and that most people tend to want to be in EU.
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    AveryLP said:

    AveryLP said:

    Charles said:

    Good article Henry:

    "but if Labour buries its head in the sand then it could be next."

    The 'head in the sand' buriers point to Labour's 2010 voters who now say they will vote UKIP - (5% vs 8 for Lib Dem & 19 Con, in today's YouGov) - but how many former Labour voters who voted Lib Dem or stayed at home in 2010 are now UKIP supporters?

    All the major parties are out of touch - by both background and education, with the old 'working class' - who won Thatcher her power - and Blair his landslide. UKIP appeals to that - but whether that appeal holds up as they come under increasing scrutiny, only time will tell.

    Someone last night made the well-known point that Cameron is a poor-quality Blair, but it got me thinking.

    Blair worked for Labour because he atrracted moderate Tories while tribal loyalty kept the traditional working class voters on side. Cameron's problem, unlike Thatcher or Major is that he just doubles down on the Tory appeal to the Shires and has nothing to say to the C1/C2 voters who gave the Tories their majorities.

    On this basis, EdM is probably too much of an appeal to Labour's metropolitian heartland; and it's not clear who the Tories have who can authentically stretch their electoral reach.

    Insight like that should get you a doctorate in PPE Charles.

    Actually Cameron does have something to say to the working class voters who give Conservative governments their majorities:

    "Get on your bike or put on your chauffer's cap or got off my road prole"
    If you want a cold arrogant line from Cam it is easy.

    It is "wait in line!".

    The priorities have been:

    1. Cut central government spending
    2. Transfer public sector employment to private sector.
    3. Solve problems with key drivers of the economy:
    - North Sea Oil & Gas extraction
    - Global core industries (car manufacture, aerospace, pharmaceuticals etc.)
    - Banking and Financial Services recovery, recapitalisation & restructure
    4. Do 1-3 with minimum impact on employment and growth
    5. Reduce then eliminate deficit and start reducing debt.
    7. Get credit flowing to SMEs and households.

    The coalition government is moving down the list slowly but surely. When it gets to 7, then the march of the small and regional makers can begin.

    Can you plausibly argue for a different order of priorities?

    As I recall first order of business in 2010 was raising taxes, not cutting government spending.


    It was supposed to be 80% cutting spending, 20% raising taxes. Because there have been no spending cuts, it's all been loaded on taxes.
    Of course there's been spending cuts. It's just been made up by increased spending elsewhere because spending cuts tend to depress the economy further, increasing automatic stabilisers.
  • Options

    Finally number crunched Surrey County Council elections
    %s with change on 2009.

    Con 39.7% (-6.5%) 58 seats
    UKIP 22.4% (+12.2%) 3 seats
    LD 15.8% (-11.3%) 9 seats
    Lab 10.7% (+4.9%) 1 seat
    Green 1.6% (-0.3%) 1 seat
    Residents 6.5% (+0.6%) 7 seats
    Others including Ind 3.3% (+0.3%) 2 seats

    Tories with 39.7% of the vote win 71.6% of the seats.

    Who said FPTP isn't friendly to Conservatives?

    As always with FPTP it is not how many votes you get.
    It is how many votes you get AND where they are!

    I posted this on Friday or yesterday (not the change in vote share, but the overall shares/seats were available at the Surrey website to the nearest %). The Council is one seat bigger after boundary changes, and Conservatives have 2 more seats than last time, with Residents losing one (and arguably gaining Haslemere, although it's also described as Ind). More seats on lower vote share...
  • Options
    Gerry_ManderGerry_Mander Posts: 621

    AveryLP said:



    The priorities have been:

    1. Cut central government spending
    2. Transfer public sector employment to private sector.
    3. Solve problems with key drivers of the economy:
    - North Sea Oil & Gas extraction
    - Global core industries (car manufacture, aerospace, pharmaceuticals etc.)
    - Banking and Financial Services recovery, recapitalisation & restructure
    4. Do 1-3 with minimum impact on employment and growth
    5. Reduce then eliminate deficit and start reducing debt.
    7. Get credit flowing to SMEs and households.

    The coalition government is moving down the list slowly but surely. When it gets to 7, then the march of the small and regional makers can begin.

    Can you plausibly argue for a different order of priorities?

    Where's point 6?

    Rule 6: There is no Rule Six.

    Where is the new number six?
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,669
    AveryLP said:

    Charles said:

    Good article Henry:

    "but if Labour buries its head in the sand then it could be next."

    The 'head in the sand' buriers point to Labour's 2010 voters who now say they will vote UKIP - (5% vs 8 for Lib Dem & 19 Con, in today's YouGov) - but how many former Labour voters who voted Lib Dem or stayed at home in 2010 are now UKIP supporters?

    All the major parties are out of touch - by both background and education, with the old 'working class' - who won Thatcher her power - and Blair his landslide. UKIP appeals to that - but whether that appeal holds up as they come under increasing scrutiny, only time will tell.

    Someone last night made the well-known point that Cameron is a poor-quality Blair, but it got me thinking.

    Blair worked for Labour because he atrracted moderate Tories while tribal loyalty kept the traditional working class voters on side. Cameron's problem, unlike Thatcher or Major is that he just doubles down on the Tory appeal to the Shires and has nothing to say to the C1/C2 voters who gave the Tories their majorities.

    On this basis, EdM is probably too much of an appeal to Labour's metropolitian heartland; and it's not clear who the Tories have who can authentically stretch their electoral reach.

    Insight like that should get you a doctorate in PPE Charles.

    Actually Cameron does have something to say to the working class voters who give Conservative governments their majorities:

    "Get on your bike or put on your chauffer's cap or got off my road prole"
    If you want a cold arrogant line from Cam it is easy.

    It is "wait in line!".

    The priorities have been:

    1. Cut central government spending
    2. Transfer public sector employment to private sector.
    3. Solve problems with key drivers of the economy:
    - North Sea Oil & Gas extraction
    - Global core industries (car manufacture, aerospace, pharmaceuticals etc.)
    - Banking and Financial Services recovery, recapitalisation & restructure
    4. Do 1-3 with minimum impact on employment and growth
    5. Reduce then eliminate deficit and start reducing debt.
    7. Get credit flowing to SMEs and households.

    The coalition government is moving down the list slowly but surely. When it gets to 7, then the march of the small and regional makers can begin.

    Can you plausibly argue for a different order of priorities?

    That will hit the buffers pretty soon when he loses his free oil money and goes down the pan.
  • Options
    AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited May 2013

    AveryLP said:

    AveryLP said:

    Charles said:

    Good article Henry:

    "but if Labour buries its head in the sand then it could be next."

    The 'head in the sand' buriers point to Labour's 2010 voters who now say they will vote UKIP - (5% vs 8 for Lib Dem & 19 Con, in today's YouGov) - but how many former Labour voters who voted Lib Dem or stayed at home in 2010 are now UKIP supporters?

    All the major parties are out of touch - by both background and education, with the old 'working class' - who won Thatcher her power - and Blair his landslide. UKIP appeals to that - but whether that appeal holds up as they come under increasing scrutiny, only time will tell.

    Someone last night made the well-known point that Cameron is a poor-quality Blair, but it got me thinking.

    Blair worked for Labour because he atrracted moderate Tories while tribal loyalty kept the traditional working class voters on side. Cameron's problem, unlike Thatcher or Major is that he just doubles down on the Tory appeal to the Shires and has nothing to say to the C1/C2 voters who gave the Tories their majorities.

    On this basis, EdM is probably too much of an appeal to Labour's metropolitian heartland; and it's not clear who the Tories have who can authentically stretch their electoral reach.

    Insight like that should get you a doctorate in PPE Charles.

    Actually Cameron does have something to say to the working class voters who give Conservative governments their majorities:

    "Get on your bike or put on your chauffer's cap or got off my road prole"
    If you want a cold arrogant line from Cam it is easy.

    It is "wait in line!".

    The priorities have been:

    1. Cut central government spending
    2. Transfer public sector employment to private sector.
    3. Solve problems with key drivers of the economy:
    - North Sea Oil & Gas extraction
    - Global core industries (car manufacture, aerospace, pharmaceuticals etc.)
    - Banking and Financial Services recovery, recapitalisation & restructure
    4. Do 1-3 with minimum impact on employment and growth
    5. Reduce then eliminate deficit and start reducing debt.
    7. Get credit flowing to SMEs and households.

    The coalition government is moving down the list slowly but surely. When it gets to 7, then the march of the small and regional makers can begin.

    Can you plausibly argue for a different order of priorities?

    As I recall first order of business in 2010 was raising taxes, not cutting government spending.

    True. Let us give it 1. and move the successors down to fill 6. Only thing is that increasing taxes was never a goal more a tactical step. All the others can be considered persistent goals!
    The budget deficit (5) we were told was the priority of this coalition government when it was first formed. It seems to have drifted from priority, to wouldn't that would be nice.

    While department spending has been cut in some cases, I believe overall spending is still up. The public sector wage bill has increased despite the reductions in headcount, because public sector wages are still rising. The problems with north sea oil/gas extraction were I believe introduced in the first budget, and then addressed in later budgets.

    A higher priority has been their energy policy. The 'decarbonising' of Britain, which translates into higher energy prices for british businesses which I would think would drive car and aerospace manufacturers overseas.
    Eliminating the structural deficit is the primary fiscal mandate. Osborne has allowed himself flexibility to shift phasing of fiscal measures provided the deficit remains forecast to be eliminated within a five year rolling period.

    The government has always been within this limit although he was pushing at its boundaries in Q4 2012. There was a small improvement in the forecast completion deadline in the OBR's March forecast, but essentially it was a snapshot of flat-lining deficit reduction over the next two years.

    Deficit reduction accelerated in Q1 2013 and it is likely we will see both GDP growth forecasts revised up and deficit forecasts revised down in June when the next OBR EFO is due. The shift is likely to be reasonably significant and the meme of flat-lining will quickly disappear from the lips of the governments detractors..

    The March snapshot of no short term movement should not therefore be interpreted as the government moving deficit reduction down its list of priorities.

    Spending has been reduced but the welfare budget is essentially a variable cost linked to economic growth and unemployment. The spend on welfare (£10 bn higher than forecast) was the only major area of overspend (more than countered by underspend elsewhere). Osborne's move to cap increases to 1% per annum will see this problem eliminated over the rest of the parliamentary term given forecast or better growth and employment.

    The forecast increase in North Sea output is a direct consequence of measures taken by Osborne, Cable and DECC to stimulate increased investment in the sector. It will start paying back with increased output from 2014 (maybe a little earlier if BoE comments are informed).

    Energy pricing remains an economic problem whose solution is hampered by political commitments and policies. I see no real sign of there being major plans to reverse current policy. It is unlikely however to affect the existing car manufacturing and aerospace industries where capital investment costs and time to market are the main protective barriers to short term competitive shifts.

    All in all, it is quite reasonable to be cautiously optimistic that the current recovery is solid (albeit with significant downside risks) and that the UK will perform relatively better than its main competitors over the short to medium term future. The fiscal targets of the government also look compatible with one of the very few countries with mixed AAA and AA+ credit ratings and low sovereign financing costs.



  • Options
    Socrates said:

    AveryLP said:

    AveryLP said:

    Charles said:

    Good article Henry:

    "but if Labour buries its head in the sand then it could be next."

    The 'head in the sand' buriers point to Labour's 2010 voters who now say they will vote UKIP - (5% vs 8 for Lib Dem & 19 Con, in today's YouGov) - but how many former Labour voters who voted Lib Dem or stayed at home in 2010 are now UKIP supporters?

    All the major parties are out of touch - by both background and education, with the old 'working class' - who won Thatcher her power - and Blair his landslide. UKIP appeals to that - but whether that appeal holds up as they come under increasing scrutiny, only time will tell.

    Someone last night made the well-known point that Cameron is a poor-quality Blair, but it got me thinking.

    Blair worked for Labour because he atrracted moderate Tories while tribal loyalty kept the traditional working class voters on side. Cameron's problem, unlike Thatcher or Major is that he just doubles down on the Tory appeal to the Shires and has nothing to say to the C1/C2 voters who gave the Tories their majorities.

    On this basis, EdM is probably too much of an appeal to Labour's metropolitian heartland; and it's not clear who the Tories have who can authentically stretch their electoral reach.

    Insight like that should get you a doctorate in PPE Charles.

    Actually Cameron does have something to say to the working class voters who give Conservative governments their majorities:

    "Get on your bike or put on your chauffer's cap or got off my road prole"
    If you want a cold arrogant line from Cam it is easy.

    It is "wait in line!".

    The priorities have been:

    1. Cut central government spending
    2. Transfer public sector employment to private sector.
    3. Solve problems with key drivers of the economy:
    - North Sea Oil & Gas extraction
    - Global core industries (car manufacture, aerospace, pharmaceuticals etc.)
    - Banking and Financial Services recovery, recapitalisation & restructure
    4. Do 1-3 with minimum impact on employment and growth
    5. Reduce then eliminate deficit and start reducing debt.
    7. Get credit flowing to SMEs and households.

    The coalition government is moving down the list slowly but surely. When it gets to 7, then the march of the small and regional makers can begin.

    Can you plausibly argue for a different order of priorities?

    As I recall first order of business in 2010 was raising taxes, not cutting government spending.


    It was supposed to be 80% cutting spending, 20% raising taxes. Because there have been no spending cuts, it's all been loaded on taxes.
    Of course there's been spending cuts. It's just been made up by increased spending elsewhere because spending cuts tend to depress the economy further, increasing automatic stabilisers.
    If you increase spending on aid, not much of it sticks in the domestic economy....
    Likewise with foreign armed adventures, and higher EU contributions.
  • Options
    I think the interesting question is probably as much for UKIP as for the Blue Labour line. UKIP have the potential for this line of attack, but do they have the means to really capitalise on it? Think back more to those Northern by-elections - Barnsley in particular, where they clearly solicited working class votes.
  • Options
    dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,297
    @foxiinsox

    Target culture removes or undermines professional judgement and perhaps clinical responsibilities, how far it also stifles innovation is another point.. Was astounded that the problems highlighted at Bristol Eye Hospital re follow up appointments appeared to be left unaddressed over time. Management targets appeared to override clinical priorities or clinicians' independence. Schools have had to adapt to an examination regime which attempts to impose a rigid or rigorous style of marking, which works easily for maths/sciences but sits less well with subjects where judgements and evaluations are many shades of grey not black and white.

  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    How much blander politics is today - none of this lot would have made it through a focus group:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ6JNwJLGqU&feature=player_embedded
  • Options
    anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746

    How much blander politics is today - none of this lot would have made it through a focus group:

    I think young Mr Rees-Mogg would have fit it perfectly.

  • Options
    AveryLP said:

    AveryLP said:

    AveryLP said:

    Charles said:

    Good article Henry:

    tell.



    "Get on your bike or put on your chauffer's cap or got off my road prole"

    As I recall first order of business in 2010 was raising taxes, not cutting government spending.

    True. Let us give it 1. and move the successors down to fill 6. Only thing is that increasing taxes was never a goal more a tactical step. All the others can be considered persistent goals!
    The budget deficit (5) we were told was the priority of this coalition government when it was first formed. It seems to have drifted from priority, to wouldn't that would be nice.

    While department spending has been cut in some cases, I believe overall spending is still up. The public sector wage bill has increased despite the reductions in headcount, because public sector wages are still rising. The problems with north sea oil/gas extraction were I believe introduced in the first budget, and then addressed in later budgets.

    A higher priority has been their energy policy. The 'decarbonising' of Britain, which translates into higher energy prices for british businesses which I would think would drive car and aerospace manufacturers overseas.

    Spending has been reduced but the welfare budget is essentially a variable cost linked to economic growth and unemployment. The spend on welfare (£10 bn higher than forecast) was the only major area of overspend (more than countered by underspend elsewhere). Osborne's move to cap increases to 1% per annum will see this problem eliminated over the rest of the parliamentary term given forecast or better growth and employment.

    The forecast increase in North Sea output is a direct consequence of measures taken by Osborne, Cable and DECC to stimulate increased investment in the sector. It will start paying back with increased output from 2014 (maybe a little earlier if BoE comments are informed).

    Energy pricing remains an economic problem whose solution is hampered by political commitments and policies. I see no real sign of there being major plans to reverse current policy. It is unlikely however to affect the existing car manufacturing and aerospace industries where capital investment costs and time to market are the main protective barriers to short term competitive shifts.

    All in all, it is quite reasonable to be cautiously optimistic that the current recovery is solid (albeit with significant downside risks) and that the UK will perform relatively better than its main competitors over the short to medium term future. The fiscal targets of the government also look compatible with one of the very few countries with mixed AAA and AA+ credit ratings and low sovereign financing costs.

    The welfare budget has been linked to the rising pensionable age population and immigration via displacement in the labour market.

    The damage done to the North Sea far outweighs the anticipated recovery, although maybe shale gas might change that - once Davey is moved out of the way of preventing it. I note Osborne has successfully decapitated some DECC civil servants - two senior resignations recently.

    Ford never moved Transit production to Turkey? Vauxhall is safe? With the loss of key metal alloy, chemical and component suppliers, UK industry is heavily under threat. The ECC Select Committee have just woken up to the implications of further oil refinery closures, the cost disadvantage faced by INEOS, aluminium smelter closures, and the higher global carbon emissions that result. They're just in handwringing mode, as are the Lords.

  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    FPT:

    @MikeSmithson

    I'm in favour of STV, not AV or FPTP.
  • Options
    AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited May 2013

    AveryLP said:

    Charles said:

    Good article Henry:

    "but if Labour buries its head in the sand then it could be next."

    The 'head in the sand' buriers point to Labour's 2010 voters who now say they will vote UKIP - (5% vs 8 for Lib Dem & 19 Con, in today's YouGov) - but how many former Labour voters who voted Lib Dem or stayed at home in 2010 are now UKIP supporters?

    All the major parties are out of touch - by both background and education, with the old 'working class' - who won Thatcher her power - and Blair his landslide. UKIP appeals to that - but whether that appeal holds up as they come under increasing scrutiny, only time will tell.

    Someone last night made the well-known point that Cameron is a poor-quality Blair, but it got me thinking.

    Blair worked for Labour because he atrracted moderate Tories while tribal loyalty kept the traditional working class voters on side. Cameron's problem, unlike Thatcher or Major is that he just doubles down on the Tory appeal to the Shires and has nothing to say to the C1/C2 voters who gave the Tories their majorities.

    On this basis, EdM is probably too much of an appeal to Labour's metropolitian heartland; and it's not clear who the Tories have who can authentically stretch their electoral reach.

    Insight like that should get you a doctorate in PPE Charles.

    Actually Cameron does have something to say to the working class voters who give Conservative governments their majorities:

    "Get on your bike or put on your chauffer's cap or got off my road prole"
    If you want a cold arrogant line from Cam it is easy.

    It is "wait in line!".

    The priorities have been:

    1. Cut central government spending
    2. Transfer public sector employment to private sector.
    3. Solve problems with key drivers of the economy:
    - North Sea Oil & Gas extraction
    - Global core industries (car manufacture, aerospace, pharmaceuticals etc.)
    - Banking and Financial Services recovery, recapitalisation & restructure
    4. Do 1-3 with minimum impact on employment and growth
    5. Reduce then eliminate deficit and start reducing debt.
    7. Get credit flowing to SMEs and households.

    The coalition government is moving down the list slowly but surely. When it gets to 7, then the march of the small and regional makers can begin.

    Can you plausibly argue for a different order of priorities?

    ...
    3. North Sea production severely damaged by tax grab - tick
    ...
    I'll take your points singly and in no particular order.

    The initial 'tax grab' led to extended negotiations between the government and the oil and gas extraction industry. This resulted in revisions which promoted new exploration, development and production in exchange for increased tax on mature production.

    The change in planned investments between 2010 and 2013 are clearly shown in the following OBR tables:
    Forecast Investment in UK Oil and Gas Production
    (All figures £ billion) Outturn|Forecast
    June 2010 Forecast
    2009|2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
    Capital exp. 7.5| 8.2 8.3 7.8 5.5 7.5 7.4
    Exploration 0.5| 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.5 0.5
    Operating exp. 7.3| 6.6 6.3 6.2 7.7 6.0 5.8

    Mar 2013 EFO 2011 2012|2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
    Capital exp. 9.4 12.3|15.4 14.6 14.1 12.2 11.2
    Decommiss. 0.5 0.7| 1.1 1.0 1.4 1.4 1.3
    Exploration 1.4 1.7| 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8
    Operating exp. 7.2 7.8| 9.0 9.2 9.3 9.5 9.7
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Ed Miliband is not the man to lead a Blue Labour approach, any more than David Cameron could embody a working class Tory movement.

    But perhaps Ed Miliband could license a more suitable figure to lead such an approach. Ed Balls has a suitably muscular personality. Jim Murphy also fits the bill.
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    39.7% for the Tories in Surrey is incredibly low for one of their safest counties.
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    I like that phrase:"The Purple Onslaught", it has a certain ring to it. Well done Mr. Manson.

    UKIP are taking and will be taking more and more of the Con/Lab/Lib party. Sure, UKIP are taking more from the Con part at the moment but each part will be duly served up and eaten. Bit by bit.
  • Options
    samsam Posts: 727
    antifrank said:

    Ed Miliband is not the man to lead a Blue Labour approach, any more than David Cameron could embody a working class Tory movement.

    But perhaps Ed Miliband could license a more suitable figure to lead such an approach. Ed Balls has a suitably muscular personality. Jim Murphy also fits the bill.

    Jon Cruddas? Its his idea after all

  • Options
    Interesting article but I think it stops where the real story begins which is whether Milibands bunch of wonky misfits will be even able to get a real hearing with disaffected blue collar Labour. After all white van man doesn't really have much time for wonks and even the much lauded Jon Cruddas has the air of a somewhat abstract and surreal lecturer in Marxism

    Furthermore, when it comes to the key bones of contention, Immigration, the EU and all the associated paraphenalia, Labour, like the Tories, are not going to budge much. ANything they do will be 9 parts BS and 1 part dressing. The marketing might change but the basic policy will not and the reality is people are losing patience with all the establishment parties and all their prevarication and obfuscation (as we are already seeing from the Tories yet again) will placate no one.

    The reality is no matter how complex the difficulties in extracting the UK from this mess the electorate is becoming impatient and the political class who got us into this mess better get us out of it and out of it in no short order. Otherwise I can see last Thursday happening with increasingly more intensity
  • Options
    corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549
    welshowl said:

    corporeal said:

    Mr. Corporeal, I hadn't planned on it, but wouldn't be averse to so doing.

    The next door bit is vaguely Cornish, and I've had the place names Ventongimps and Mousehole suggested :p

    Message is on its way.

    As a random aside on place names (aside from the normal welsh variations. Aber being rivermouth, llan-church, pont-bridge, etc) near me there's a string of three villages named Sevastopol, Britannia, and Fleur-de-lys. No idea why, but I used to drive through them regularly for rugby reasons and it's always a little odd.
    If you mean Sebastapol in Pontypool it's named after the Crimean battles ( I assume the place was first developed for mining just after the 1850s?). Fleur de Lys may refer to the Prince of Wales feathers known as "Fleur de Lys" not sure but seems likely. Britannia, no idea. Though of course Britannia itself is merely a Latinised version of the Ancient British word which is "Prydain" in modern Welsh.
    You're right of course, haven't been through in a while now. (googling around the village name is Fleur-de-lis).

    I don't know anything of the history, I just used to drive through and always wonder what happened.
  • Options
    AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited May 2013

    AveryLP said:

    AveryLP said:

    AveryLP said:

    Charles said:

    Good article Henry:

    tell.



    "Get on your bike or put on your chauffer's cap or got off my road prole"

    As I recall first order of business in 2010 was raising taxes, not cutting government spending.

    True. Let us give it 1. and move the successors down to fill 6. Only thing is that increasing taxes was never a goal more a tactical step. All the others can be considered persistent goals!
    The budget deficit (5) we were told was the priority of this coalition government when it was first formed. It seems to have drifted from priority, to wouldn't that would be nice.

    While department spending has been cut in some cases, I believe overall spending is still up. The public sector wage bill has increased despite the reductions in headcount, because public sector wages are still rising. The problems with north sea oil/gas extraction were I believe introduced in the first budget, and then addressed in later budgets.

    A higher priority has been their energy policy. The 'decarbonising' of Britain, which translates into higher energy prices for british businesses which I would think would drive car and aerospace manufacturers overseas.

    Spending has been reduced but the welfare budget is essentially a variable cost linked to economic growth and unemployment. The spend on welfare (£10 bn higher than forecast) was the only major area of overspend (more than countered by underspend elsewhere). Osborne's move to cap increases to 1% per annum will see this problem eliminated over the rest of the parliamentary term given forecast or better growth and employment.

    The forecast increase in North Sea output is a direct consequence of measures taken by Osborne, Cable and DECC to stimulate increased investment in the sector. It will start paying back with increased output from 2014 (maybe a little earlier if BoE comments are informed).

    Energy pricing remains an economic problem whose solution is hampered by political commitments and policies. I see no real sign of there being major plans to reverse current policy. It is unlikely however to affect the existing car manufacturing and aerospace industries where capital investment costs and time to market are the main protective barriers to short term competitive shifts.

    All in all, it is quite reasonable to be cautiously optimistic that the current recovery is solid (albeit with significant downside risks) and that the UK will perform relatively better than its main competitors over the short to medium term future. The fiscal targets of the government also look compatible with one of the very few countries with mixed AAA and AA+ credit ratings and low sovereign financing costs.

    ...

    Ford never moved Transit production to Turkey? Vauxhall is safe? With the loss of key metal alloy, chemical and component suppliers, UK industry is heavily under threat. ....

    I am being lazy and will quote from Wikipedia. These are just announcements made in one year, 2011, alone:

    In January 2011 BMW announced that it would be extending the Mini range with the launch of two new two-door sports crossover vehicles based on the Mini Paceman concept car, with a coupe version to enter production in 2011 and a roadster in 2012.

    In March 2011 Jaguar Land Rover announced that it would be hiring an additional 1,500 staff at its Halewood plant, and signed over £2 billion of supply contracts with UK-based companies, to enable production of its new Range Rover Evoque model.

    In April 2011 the MG Motor subsidiary of SAIC Motor announced that mass production had resumed at the Longbridge plant, as the first MG 6 to be produced in the United Kingdom came off the production line.

    In May 2011 Jaguar unveiled plans to build the C-X75 petrol-electric hybrid supercar in the UK from 2013, with production to be in association with Williams F1.

    Also in May, Aston Martin Lagonda confirmed that it was planning to revive the Lagonda marque, with the launch of two or three new models.

    In an interview with Reuters in the same month, Carl-Peter Forster, the Chief Executive of Tata Motors, revealed that Jaguar Land Rover would be investing over £5 billion in product development over the succeeding five years.

    In June, Nissan announced that the replacement for its Qashqai model would be designed and built in the UK, in a total investment of £192 million safeguarding around 6,000 jobs.

    In June BMW announced an investment of £500 million in the UK over the subsequent three years as part of an expansion of the Mini range to seven models.

    In September 2011, Jaguar Land Rover confirmed that it would be investing £355 million in the construction of a new engine plant near Wolverhampton, to manufacture a new family of four-cylinder petrol and diesel engines.

    Later in the same month it was announced that the Jensen marque would be revived, with a new version of the Interceptor to be built by CPP Holdings at the former Jaguar factory Browns Lane in Coventry.

    In November, Toyota announced plans to make the UK its sole European manufacturing base for hatchback versions of its next C-segment family car, resulting in the investment of over £100 million in its Burnaston plant and the creation of around 1,500 new jobs.


    Yes, Ford moved production of the Transit Van to Turkey and Vauxhall is weak, but the net inbound investment in the car manufacturing industry is positive overall. The important thing is to win more than you lose. And that is what the UK seems to be doing at the moment.
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    samonipad said:

    Cruddas would be a good Mayor of London in my opinion... How anyone of sane mind could prefer the blithering idiot David Lammy is beyond me.

    How true. Cruddas is one of the saner Labour MP's and has his nose firmly to the ground.

  • Options
    antifrank said:

    Jim Murphy also fits the bill.

    I'm not sure a Scot will resonant with blue collar England (I think Brown and Blair screwed that pooch).



  • Options
    resonant = resonate doh!
  • Options
    samonipadsamonipad Posts: 182

    Interesting article but I think it stops where the real story begins which is whether Milibands bunch of wonky misfits will be even able to get a real hearing with disaffected blue collar Labour. After all white van man doesn't really have much time for wonks and even the much lauded Jon Cruddas has the air of a somewhat abstract and surreal lecturer in Marxism

    Furthermore, when it comes to the key bones of contention, Immigration, the EU and all the associated paraphenalia, Labour, like the Tories, are not going to budge much. ANything they do will be 9 parts BS and 1 part dressing. The marketing might change but the basic policy will not and the reality is people are losing patience with all the establishment parties and all their prevarication and obfuscation (as we are already seeing from the Tories yet again) will placate no one.

    The reality is no matter how complex the difficulties in extracting the UK from this mess the electorate is becoming impatient and the political class who got us into this mess better get us out of it and out of it in no short order. Otherwise I can see last Thursday happening with increasingly more intensity

    The problem for Labour there is that all labour MPs from 20-50 seem to be new age lefty Marxist types... Is Dan Jarvis any good? Labour could do with a macho working class hero type
  • Options
    samonipadsamonipad Posts: 182
    Completely off topic but with the advent of gay marriage it is possible, although unlîkely in the near future, that we could have married couple playing against each other in professional sport. That would be brilliant!
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    FPT:

    @No_Offence_Alan

    I think UKIP topped the poll in at least these:

    Forest of Dean, Thanet North, Great Yarmouth, Boston&Skegness, Aylesbury.

    Aylesbury had something to do with HS2 according to some reports.
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited May 2013
    FPT:

    @Jonathan

    "One of the interesting questions for 2014 is whether the Locals and the Euros will be held on the same day. Not sure what the current status is. Could serious change the result."

    I think the government will hold them on the same day to save money and avoid a very low turnout.
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    @dr_spyn

    I was intending to go through all the results to see what the actual votes cast were, but I'll have to watch out in case someone else has already done it.
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Webpage of Mhairi Threlfall, who won Eastville in Bristol by one vote:

    http://mhairi4eastville.wordpress.com/about/
  • Options
    samonipad said:

    Completely off topic but with the advent of gay marriage it is possible, although unlîkely in the near future, that we could have married couple playing against each other in professional sport. That would be brilliant!

    Did John LLoyd never play against Chris Evert?

  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Roger Hickford won Linton in Cambridgeshire by one vote:

    http://www.lintonconservatives.co.uk/page4.htm
  • Options
    campagvelocetcampagvelocet Posts: 4
    edited May 2013

    ironically given their name, zero representation in the campaign to 'save' the UK.

    'THE pro-union Better Together campaign has refused to work with UKIP to persuade Scots to vote against ­independence.
    Better Together yesterday insisted that Nigel Farage’s resurgent right wingers “are not a Scottish party and this is a Scottish debate”.
    In return, UKIP accused Better Together of being “petty and small minded”.'

    UKIP are better of out of that one (unlike the AV issue). If they campaigned Salmond could point out the incongruence between the desire for British self-determination and the opposition to Scottish self-determination.

    It is interesting to see that the Better Together folks are just as afraid of anti-establishment politicians as the yes to AV brigade though.

    As a rare Scottish UKIP voter (when they have a candidate) I will be voting Yes in the independence referendum. That probably puts me in a very small group. Then again I'd secede from the lot of you tomorrow if I could!
  • Options
    Labour are probably at the very optimum point regarding Ukip support at the minute, but any further surge to the purples could be fatal to their chances in a range of important targets for them. For example, looking at the wards that make up Harlow; Labour had the biggest share of the vote on 36.5%, and Ukip came second on 28.9% (the Tories came third on 26.6%).

    A 3.8% Labour -> Ukip swing would turn the seat purple at a general election, even if there was no movement from Conservative to Ukip. Labour have to hope that the Ukip support stays more or less where it is, if socially conservative Labour voters continue their shift to Ukip, it could be fatal.
  • Options
    samonipadsamonipad Posts: 182

    samonipad said:

    Completely off topic but with the advent of gay marriage it is possible, although unlîkely in the near future, that we could have married couple playing against each other in professional sport. That would be brilliant!

    Did John LLoyd never play against Chris Evert?

    On wiki it says she played mixed doubles alongside Connors when they were together but not against

    She was miles better than Lloyd wasn't she?!
  • Options
    weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    UKIP have had a big boost and they'll get a big boost in 2014 (which will be interesting as we will see how UKIP V Lib Dems and UKIP V Labour pan out) However unless they get something like a comprehensive costed manifesto in 2015 it could all blow up like an exploding candygram.
  • Options
    samonipad said:


    The problem for Labour there is that all labour MPs from 20-50 seem to be new age lefty Marxist types... Is Dan Jarvis any good? Labour could do with a macho working class hero type

    Indeed for all their faults John Prescott / Denis Skinner etc served a purpose in the Labour Party. The Labour party has moved on but that part that were effectively deserted by Blair's clause IV moment haven't. It seems unlikely they will find enough authentic politicians of that sort to fill the gap.
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    It looks like things may be hotting up on Israels northern borders. Besides moving new Iron Dome batteries into position in the Haifa region. They have now closed all airspace to civilian flights over northern Israel.

    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4376393,00.html
  • Options

    ironically given their name, zero representation in the campaign to 'save' the UK.

    'THE pro-union Better Together campaign has refused to work with UKIP to persuade Scots to vote against ­independence.
    Better Together yesterday insisted that Nigel Farage’s resurgent right wingers “are not a Scottish party and this is a Scottish debate”.
    In return, UKIP accused Better Together of being “petty and small minded”.'

    UKIP are better of out of that one (unlike the AV issue). If they campaigned Salmond could point out the incongruence between the desire for British self-determination and the opposition to Scottish self-determination.

    It is interesting to see that the Better Together folks are just as afraid of anti-establishment politicians as the yes to AV brigade though.

    As a rare Scottish UKIP voter (when they have a candidate) I will be voting Yes in the independence referendum. That probably puts me in a very small group. Then again I'd secede from the lot of you tomorrow if I could!
    It sounds like job done for UKIP. Once again the Westminster elitists demonstrate how they believe they are too good for UKIP and its voters (granted there are only 50,000 or in Scotland for Euro-elections) but even so it can be used throughout the UK as yet another indication of the disingenuous and generally unpleasant attitudes of the three major parties toward UKIP and its voters. When will these mindless privileged snobs learn?
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Some interesting new footage from Syrian TV on the Israeli strike. Interesting music too.
    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4340140,00.html
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    It'd be interested to do a list of seats where UKIP either came first or were within 5% of winning in the local elections.

    As someone said earlier, they came very close to winning the most votes in Harlow.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,669
    AveryLP said:

    AveryLP said:

    AveryLP said:

    Charles said:

    Good article Henry:

    "but if Labour buries its head in the sand then it could be next."

    The 'head in the sand' buriers point to Labour's 2010 voters who now say they will vote UKIP - (5% vs 8 for Lib Dem & 19 Con, in today's YouGov) - but how many former Labour voters who voted Lib Dem or stayed at home in 2010 are now UKIP supporters?

    All the major parties are out of touch - by both background and education, with the old 'working class' - who won Thatcher her power - and Blair his landslide. UKIP appeals to that - but whether that appeal holds up as they come under increasing scrutiny, only time will tell.

    Someone last night made the well-known point that Cameron is a poor-quality Blair, but it got me thinking.

    Blair worked for Labour because he atrracted moderate Tories while tribal loyalty kept the traditional working class voters on side. Cameron's problem, unlike Thatcher or Major is that he just doubles down on the Tory appeal to the Shires and has nothing to say to the C1/C2 voters who gave the Tories their majorities.

    On this basis, EdM is probably too much of an appeal to Labour's metropolitian heartland; and it's not clear who the Tories have who can authentically stretch their electoral reach.

    Insight like that should get you a doctorate in PPE Charles.

    Actually Cameron does have something to say to the working class voters who give Conservative governments their majorities:

    "Get on your bike or put on your chauffer's cap or got off my road prole"
    If you want a cold arrogant line from Cam it is easy.

    It is "wait in line!".

    The priorities have been:

    1. Cut central government spending
    2. Transfer public sector employment to private sector.
    3. Solve problems with key drivers of the economy:
    - North Sea Oil & Gas extraction
    - Global core industries (car manufacture, aerospace, pharmaceuticals etc.)
    - Banking and Financial Services recovery, recapitalisation & restructure
    4. Do 1-3 with minimum impact on employment and growth
    5. Reduce then eliminate deficit and start reducing debt.
    7. Get credit flowing to SMEs and households.

    The coalition government is moving down the list slowly but surely. When it gets to 7, then the march of the small and regional makers can begin.

    Can you plausibly argue for a different order of priorities?

    As I recall first order of business in 2010 was raising taxes, not cutting government spending.

    True. Let us give it 1. and move the successors down to fill 6. Only thing is that increasing taxes was never a goal more a tactical step. All the others can be considered persistent goals!
    The budget deficit (5) we were told was the priority of this coalition government when it was first formed. It seems to have drifted from priority, to wouldn't that would be nice.

    While department spending has been cut in some cases, I believe overall spending is still up. The public sector wage bill has increased despite the reductions in headcount, because public sector wages are still rising. The problems with north sea oil/gas extraction were I believe introduced in the first budget, and then addressed in later budgets.

    A higher priority has been their energy policy. The 'decarbonising' of Britain, which translates into higher energy prices for british businesses which I would think would drive car and aerospace manufacturers overseas.
    Eliminating the structural deficit is the primary fiscal mandate. Osborne has allowed himself flexibility to shift phasing of fiscal measures provided the deficit remains forecast to be eliminated within a five year rolling period.

    The government has always been within this limit although he was pushing at its boundaries in Q4 2012. There was a small improvement in the forecast completion deadline in the OBR's March forecast, but essentially it was a snapshot of flat-lining deficit reduction over the next two years.

    Deficit reduction accelerated in Q1 2013 and it is likely we will see both GDP growth forecasts revised up and deficit forecasts revised down in June when the next OBR EFO is due. The shift is likely to be reasonably significant and the meme of flat-lining will quickly disappear from the lips of the governments detractors..

    The March snapshot of no short term movement should not therefore be interpreted as the government moving deficit reduction down its list of priorities.

    Spending has been reduced but the welfare budget is essentially a variable cost linked to economic growth and unemployment. The spend on welfare (£10 bn higher than forecast) was the only major area of overspend (more than countered by underspend elsewhere). Osborne's move to cap increases to 1% per annum will see this problem eliminated over the rest of the parliamentary term given forecast or better growth and employment.

    The forecast increase in North Sea output is a direct consequence of measures taken by Osborne, Cable and DECC to stimulate increased investment in the sector. It will start paying back with increased output from 2014 (maybe a little earlier if BoE comments are informed).

    Energy pricing remains an economic problem whose solution is hampered by political commitments and policies. I see no real sign of there being major plans to reverse current policy. It is unlikely however to affect the existing car manufacturing and aerospace industries where capital investment costs and time to market are the main protective barriers to short term competitive shifts.

    All in all, it is quite reasonable to be cautiously optimistic that the current recovery is solid (albeit with significant downside risks) and that the UK will perform relatively better than its main competitors over the short to medium term future. The fiscal targets of the government also look compatible with one of the very few countries with mixed AAA and AA+ credit ratings and low sovereign financing costs.



    The unionists maintained North sea oil was in terminal decline just recently, their puppets the OBR forecast it would be worthless and prices would plummet and the
    oil was almost dried up. You cannot have it both ways.
  • Options
    weejonnie said:

    UKIP have had a big boost and they'll get a big boost in 2014 (which will be interesting as we will see how UKIP V Lib Dems and UKIP V Labour pan out) However unless they get something like a comprehensive costed manifesto in 2015 it could all blow up like an exploding candygram.

    Well as long as we see the same from the other parties. After all what happened to the Tory 8k insurance policy for social care. It seemed to become a £75k surcharge. Clearly that was uncosted. Not forgetting of course there were no plans raise VAT suggesting there was a saerious black hole in osborne's costings. As for the Libdems Tuition Fees commitment that clearly couldn't have been costed else why dump it?

    As for Labour we all know about the accuracy of Gordon Brown's 'costed' budgets. Wasn't he something like £400 billion out on his estmiates from 2007-2009....

    The problem for the major parties is it doesn't matter whatever purile line of attack they attempt it doesn't take very long to tear to shreds the other party's previous offerings or candidates in exactly the same way and usually one can do it ten times over.......
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,669

    antifrank said:

    Jim Murphy also fits the bill.

    I'm not sure a Scot will resonant with blue collar England (I think Brown and Blair screwed that pooch).



    Especially one as useless as Murphy
  • Options
    Ukip got the biggest share of the vote in Boston and Skegness, where they got their highest non-Farage vote in 2010, beating the Tories 36.4% to 33.8%. A 4.6% Conservative -> Ukip swing would have seen them get the highest vote in Epping Forest, which is one of the Tories' safest seats, which shows how potentially vulnerable the Conservatives are in some deep blue seats if Ukip support stays at its current levels, or increases.
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    "Benedict Brogan ‏@benedictbrogan 1h

    Blimey. Oskar Lafontaine, who helped set up the #euro, has just called for it to be scrapped: http://f.hypotheses.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/981/files/2013/05/Lafontaines-U-turn-on-the-Euro.gif …"


    https://twitter.com/benedictbrogan
This discussion has been closed.