If you play with fire you will end up getting burnt.
When has a Tory ever tried to boost a left-wing party to encourage a split? Why are politicians of the left so bloody stupid?
More is at stake here then tactical considerations for the next general election. Boosting UKIP to make them a permanent force in British politics changes the very terrain of political debate. It massively shifts the centre ground of debate to the right, making the long-term prospects of parties of the centre and left that much poorer, and the task of winning arguments in public debate that much harder.
I'm with Josias Jessop on the state of the nation. We don't have signs that say "No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs" and the idea of such a sign is bizarre. We don't laugh at the mentally handicapped in the street, as was common in the 1950s. We don't criminalise gays - indeed, we now allow them to marry. We don't trap people in loveless marriages and we don't let children rot in state-run homes that were at best neglectful and at worst evil. We let more of our children reach their full academic potential than ever before. We provide the type of safety net for those at the bottom of society that George Orwell could never have dreamed of.
The scandal is that we have let successive generations subsist on that safety net without making any real effort to help them out of it.
In the IA/JJ debate I must say I find IA more convincing. JJ's dismissal of the "Britain is getting nastier" thesis as "simply laughable" is not persuasive. Certain types of tolerance have become generally accepted (few people really hate black people or gays any more), but social solidarity is IMO much, much weaker than it used to be, to the point that people on the margins are being squeezed relntlessly and most people don't care. Tolerance is good, but you can't live on it alone.
It could be argued that 'social solidarity' (at least amongst subgroups) was a partial cause of many of the problems that bedevilled us in the past. It can still be seen embedded within the 'them and us' attitudes over immigration, for instance. "We're a group, you're not part of it".
I'm also not sure that society had any more 'solidarity' in the past. And when it did, it often led to exclusion.
I'd love you to run on a platform of 'Britain is getting nastier'. I see acts of kindness all the time, from all sorts of people of different ages. I'm not sure it was the case when I was a kid. Perhaps if you spent more time in the UK you'd see the same?
I also doubt people 'don't care' about others. I think they do, but realise that there are deep problems on the other side of the scales; that it is a balance. True, there are many selfish people, but there are also many generous ones. And that is far from a strict left<>right divide.
Perhaps I'm being a little strong on this because I went to a talk last night by the legendary Captain Eric 'Winkle' Brown, who has been a hero of mine for decades. He spent nearly two hours talking about test flying captured German planes during and after the war, but the thing that will remain with me for longest was his brutal description of the liberation of Belsen.
It left me in no doubt that the past was worse, and that we've come a long way.
OGH article The LDs may perceive a chance that UKIP are bolstered but there may be downsides from informing a larger number of past/potential LD voters the fact that they are a Europhile party. In the past we have seen surveys where circa 40% of LD voters were Eurosceptic. By coming out and staking a massive message across the media that the LDs are pro EC, they may actually reduce their vote. This disconnect between most of the party's members/reps and the party's voters is one of those hidden dicotomies.
I think the LibDems have already lost all the "none of the above" / "a new kind of politics" voters that they once had.
Maybe, but then they are less likely to go back. But square that with the belief that the LDs will keep 40+ MPs due to incumbency. Both cannot be right. Some of the past incumbency comes from "none of the above", some from Lab leaners.
I'm with Josias Jessop on the state of the nation. We don't have signs that say "No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs" and the idea of such a sign is bizarre. We don't laugh at the mentally handicapped in the street, as was common in the 1950s. We don't criminalise gays - indeed, we now allow them to marry. We don't trap people in loveless marriages and we don't let children rot in state-run homes that were at best neglectful and at worst evil. We let more of our children reach their full academic potential than ever before. We provide the type of safety net for those at the bottom of society that George Orwell could never have dreamed of.
The scandal is that we have let successive generations subsist on that safety net without making any real effort to help them out of it.
We don't laugh at mentally ill people in the street, we punch and kill them then punish with light sentences
BTW in this neck of the woods we had a sitting Lib Dem councillor defect to UKIP this week.
I guess you mean the one in Wolverhampton who had been deselected . Whereas in Redditch a UKIP councillor on Worcestershire CC resigned over UKIP's gay marriage policy . 3 out of the 4 County Councillors elected last May have now gone .
Keep clutching those straws Mark.
you don't like facts very much do you , Stuart . Time we had another IndyRef poll showing Yes is toast .
Want to bet on who wins 2015 vote share out of ukip and the lib Dems?
Or do you agree with OGH that ukip have a good chance of winning that bet?
It is highly likely that UKIP will outpoll the LibDems in 2015.
UKIP has successfully taken - the 'none of the above' / 'new type of politics' voters from the Liberal Democrats - the social conservatives from the Conservative Party - the anti-immigration vote from the BNP - those who feel Labour politicians don't care about or aren't people like them - those for whom Europe is an overwhelming passion
The nice thing about insurgent political movements (and I think you could count the Liberal Democrats prior to 2010 as one), such as the Pirate Party, UKIP and Grillo's Five Starts, is that so long as they can remain unsullied by power, they can hide fundamental disagreements, and policy specifics such as where exactly spending cuts are to fall.
Over time, UKIP will need to have more policies than: (1) Leave the EU for something unspecified, (2) Grammar schools, and (3) No gay marriage.
But for now, they can capitalise on the fact that coalition has weakened the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, and the fact that Ed Milliband has... how to put this... only limited appeal to non-anoraks.
Speaking at Tobermory Women's Institute Caber Tossing Spring Event, SNP Economics guru - Evan MacBonkers of that Ilk stated :
"It's become clear that Scotland must look afar for a currency union with a friendly nation and our fraternal relations with the Peoples Republic of Vietnam give us a clear path to financial stability. Accordingly and with the famous Glasgow kiss in mind the Vietnamese Dong will be adopted and subdivided by the Ding - 100 Ding = 1 Dong
I firmly believe in short measure that the Ding Dong will become a currency to rival the mighty dollar" he continued.
There was wild cheering from the assembled women as the Lady Heather MacDonnut delivered a national record of tossing Mr MacBonkers into the harbour.
On topic some wise fellow did do a piece last may wondering if the Lib Dems might be the biggest beneficiaries at the general election of a UKIP surge.
You should be backing the Lib Dems to win seats like Camborne, Oxford West & Abingdon, possibly Winchester, I think they represent great value.
OGH article The LDs may perceive a chance that UKIP are bolstered but there may be downsides from informing a larger number of past/potential LD voters the fact that they are a Europhile party. In the past we have seen surveys where circa 40% of LD voters were Eurosceptic. By coming out and staking a massive message across the media that the LDs are pro EC, they may actually reduce their vote. This disconnect between most of the party's members/reps and the party's voters is one of those hidden dicotomies.
I think the LibDems have already lost all the "none of the above" / "a new kind of politics" voters that they once had.
Maybe, but then they are less likely to go back. But square that with the belief that the LDs will keep 40+ MPs due to incumbency. Both cannot be right. Some of the past incumbency comes from "none of the above", some from Lab leaners.
Approximately one in 10 Lib Dem voters have gone to UKIP. If one in 8 Conservatives go to UKIP, then they stand a good chance, in seats where the Conservatives are challengers.
My spread on Lib Dem seats is a (very wide) 32-38.
The Lib Dem targets (current Tory seats) are not exactly fertile Ukip territory, except maybe in Devon and Cornwall. Here are the seats from Lord Ashcroft's poll, with Ukip's share in 2010. I'm sure someone with more time on their hands can highlight the scores in recent local elections.
Really? Given Honorius thought his chicken, called Rome, had been killed and was relieved to discover it was 'only' the city I'm not sure your comparison quite works.
Also, Honorius was an incompetent idiot
Edited extra bit: could be wrong, but wasn't he also the imbecile who had Stilicho killed?
Really? Given Honorius thought his chicken, called Rome, had been killed and was relieved to discover it was 'only' the city I'm not sure your comparison quite works.
Also, Honorius was an incompetent idiot
Edited extra bit: could be wrong, but wasn't he also the imbecile who had Stilicho killed?
I thought you liked incompetent idiots, cf, The Son of Barca.
I thought it was more Honorius' allies that had Stilicho killed rather than Honorius himself?
Mr. Eagles, you're too kind to Honorius. My recollection, dim though it may be, is that Stilicho fled to a church for sanctuary. A note signed by Honorius promising his safety persuaded him to leave, at which point a second note signed by Honorius countermanding the promise of safety and commanding the Vandal's death was revealed.
It was a spectacular piece of insecure stupidity from a man for whom 'cretin' would be praise too high.
Mr. Smithson, I was wondering if you'd be kind enough to add the enormo-haddock blog (F1 betting) to the links at the side?
Mr. Eagles, you're too kind to Honorius. My recollection, dim though it may be, is that Stilicho fled to a church for sanctuary. A note signed by Honorius promising his safety persuaded him to leave, at which point a second note signed by Honorius countermanding the promise of safety and commanding the Vandal's death was revealed.
It was a spectacular piece of insecure stupidity from a man for whom 'cretin' would be praise too high.
Mr. Smithson, I was wondering if you'd be kind enough to add the enormo-haddock blog (F1 betting) to the links at the side?
BTW in this neck of the woods we had a sitting Lib Dem councillor defect to UKIP this week.
I guess you mean the one in Wolverhampton who had been deselected . Whereas in Redditch a UKIP councillor on Worcestershire CC resigned over UKIP's gay marriage policy . 3 out of the 4 County Councillors elected last May have now gone .
Keep clutching those straws Mark.
you don't like facts very much do you , Stuart . Time we had another IndyRef poll showing Yes is toast .
Want to bet on who wins 2015 vote share out of ukip and the lib Dems?
Or do you agree with OGH that ukip have a good chance of winning that bet?
Ed Milliband has... how to put this... only limited appeal to non-anoraks.
Oi! I happen to think he's a tool of the first order.
You should be backing the Lib Dems to win seats like Camborne, Oxford West & Abingdon, possibly Winchester, I think they represent great value.
I'm sure it will come as a surprise to many southern England lib dem voters that their party is a europhile party. That nice chap on the doorstep in 2010 was adamant that Europe must be reformed.
I've seen polls on here showing up to 40% of lib dem voters are skeptics.
Mr. Eagles, you're too kind to Honorius. My recollection, dim though it may be, is that Stilicho fled to a church for sanctuary. A note signed by Honorius promising his safety persuaded him to leave, at which point a second note signed by Honorius countermanding the promise of safety and commanding the Vandal's death was revealed.
It was a spectacular piece of insecure stupidity from a man for whom 'cretin' would be praise too high.
Mr. Smithson, I was wondering if you'd be kind enough to add the enormo-haddock blog (F1 betting) to the links at the side?
Mr. Eagles, fret not. Given your woeful lack of understanding of the Second Punic War I did not expect you to know about Stilicho's unfortunate demise.
It had slight echoes of the Boniface/Aetius rivalry, when Rome had two good generals but their mutual loathing meant one ended up fleeing. Killing the competent men at the top because of insecure emperors only hastened the empire's decline in the West. An Aurelian or Trajan would not have made such mistakes.
I'm with Josias Jessop on the state of the nation. We don't have signs that say "No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs" and the idea of such a sign is bizarre. We don't laugh at the mentally handicapped in the street, as was common in the 1950s. We don't criminalise gays - indeed, we now allow them to marry. We don't trap people in loveless marriages and we don't let children rot in state-run homes that were at best neglectful and at worst evil. We let more of our children reach their full academic potential than ever before. We provide the type of safety net for those at the bottom of society that George Orwell could never have dreamed of.
The scandal is that we have let successive generations subsist on that safety net without making any real effort to help them out of it.
Quite right, antifrank. The re-writing of history is just astonishing. In particular the left have convinced themselves that there was some pre-Thatcher golden age of solidarity when greed was unknown. This is just barmy - the pre-Thatcher days were the diametric opposite of social solidarity,
This 'golden age' myth is absolute, unmitigated tosh. Some things have got worse, sure, but a hell of a lot has got better. As well as the aspects you point to, we had violent intimidation by thuggish unions (anyone who thinks there was no greed clearly isn't old enough to remember pre-Thatcher industrial relations); we had appalling class hatred (now, alas, being revived slightly by Labour for party political reasons), workers and managers were virtually separate castes, didn't mix together, had separate canteens and different terms of employment; we had lots of explicit and vicious anti-Semitism; domestic violence, especially fuelled by drunkenness, was rife and largely tolerated; and so on.
In addition of course substantial numbers of people lived in real - not today's 'relative' - poverty.
Mr. Eagles, you're too kind to Honorius. My recollection, dim though it may be, is that Stilicho fled to a church for sanctuary. A note signed by Honorius promising his safety persuaded him to leave, at which point a second note signed by Honorius countermanding the promise of safety and commanding the Vandal's death was revealed.
It was a spectacular piece of insecure stupidity from a man for whom 'cretin' would be praise too high.
Mr. Smithson, I was wondering if you'd be kind enough to add the enormo-haddock blog (F1 betting) to the links at the side?
In the IA/JJ debate I must say I find IA more convincing. JJ's dismissal of the "Britain is getting nastier" thesis as "simply laughable" is not persuasive. Certain types of tolerance have become generally accepted (few people really hate black people or gays any more), but social solidarity is IMO much, much weaker than it used to be, to the point that people on the margins are being squeezed relntlessly and most people don't care. Tolerance is good, but you can't live on it alone.
It could be argued that 'social solidarity' (at least amongst subgroups) was a partial cause of many of the problems that bedevilled us in the past. It can still be seen embedded within the 'them and us' attitudes over immigration, for instance. "We're a group, you're not part of it".
I'm also not sure that society had any more 'solidarity' in the past. And when it did, it often led to exclusion.
I'd love you to run on a platform of 'Britain is getting nastier'. I see acts of kindness all the time, from all sorts of people of different ages. I'm not sure it was the case when I was a kid. Perhaps if you spent more time in the UK you'd see the same?
I also doubt people 'don't care' about others. I think they do, but realise that there are deep problems on the other side of the scales; that it is a balance. True, there are many selfish people, but there are also many generous ones. And that is far from a strict left<>right divide.
Perhaps I'm being a little strong on this because I went to a talk last night by the legendary Captain Eric 'Winkle' Brown, who has been a hero of mine for decades. He spent nearly two hours talking about test flying captured German planes during and after the war, but the thing that will remain with me for longest was his brutal description of the liberation of Belsen.
It left me in no doubt that the past was worse, and that we've come a long way.
There are two big differences between the UK 50 or 60 years ago, and the UK today. People could expect their own standard of living to rise steadily, and their children to have a better standard of living than they had; secondly, the standard of government was generally better and more honest.
@RCS100 In the CON-LD marginals the Ashcroft polling found that for every one 2010 LD who'd gone to UKIP three 2010 CON ones had.
Son. You are looking at figures the wrong way round.
Apparently that's not the first time OGH has said that to his lad. In his teenage years young Smithson Jnr went on a friend inspired blind date with a lady who stated her figure was :
40 : 24 : 36 :
Yipeeeeeeeeeee said Robert, "Busty Bertha here I come ...."
Not so fast said Dad .... "that's the number of men, down the canal, she's had in the last 24/36 hour period !!"
I'm with Josias Jessop on the state of the nation. We don't have signs that say "No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs" and the idea of such a sign is bizarre. We don't laugh at the mentally handicapped in the street, as was common in the 1950s. We don't criminalise gays - indeed, we now allow them to marry. We don't trap people in loveless marriages and we don't let children rot in state-run homes that were at best neglectful and at worst evil. We let more of our children reach their full academic potential than ever before. We provide the type of safety net for those at the bottom of society that George Orwell could never have dreamed of.
The scandal is that we have let successive generations subsist on that safety net without making any real effort to help them out of it.
Quite right, antifrank. The re-writing of history is just astonishing. In particular the left have convinced themselves that there was some pre-Thatcher golden age of solidarity when greed was unknown. This is just barmy - the pre-Thatcher days were the diametric opposite of social solidarity,
This 'golden age' myth is absolute, unmitigated tosh. Some things have got worse, sure, but a hell of a lot has got better. As well as the aspects you point to, we had violent intimidation by thuggish unions (anyone who thinks there was no greed clearly isn't old enough to remember pre-Thatcher industrial relations); we had appalling class hatred (now, alas, being revived slightly by Labour for party political reasons), workers and managers were virtually separate castes, didn't mix together, had separate canteens and different terms of employment; we had lots of explicit and vicious anti-Semitism; domestic violence, especially fuelled by drunkenness, was rife and largely tolerated; and so on.
In addition of course substantial numbers of people lived in real - not today's 'relative' - poverty.
Anyone wanting know how much things have changed for the better should view The Black and White Minstrel Show and/or Love Thy Neighbour. Both running as national TV shows in the late 70's, and both mind-boggling by today's standards.
workers and managers were virtually separate castes, didn't mix together, had separate canteens and different terms of employment;
Has any of this changed? And now the Managers earn 100x the salary of the workers instead of 10x
(figures made up, but probably right-ish!)
Yes, it has changed absolutely. As I said, right up to the 1980s they were separate castes, like officers and other ranks in the First World War, with very little movement from one caste to the other.
There are two big differences between the UK 50 or 60 years ago, and the UK today. People could expect their own standard of living to rise steadily, and their children to have a better standard of living than they had; secondly, the standard of government was generally better and more honest.
There are many more than two big differences (although I wasn't around and so could well be wrong), but taking your two:
1) Standard of living to rise steadily. A very good point, and one that could occupy many threads, methinks. For instance: how can we ensure they continue to rise?
2) The standard of government was generally better and more honest. I think you're on a sticky wicket with this one. Governance has many problems in this country, but can we be sure corruption (both moral and monetary) was any less in the past? Do we just get to hear about mistakes and scandals more because of the more open nature of that governance, less respect for politicians, and modern developments like the web? Was it really better back then?
There are two big differences between the UK 50 or 60 years ago, and the UK today. People could expect their own standard of living to rise steadily, and their children to have a better standard of living than they had; secondly, the standard of government was generally better and more honest.
Standards of living will rise, as they have done almost continuously since WWII (the last five years have been an unusual blip).
As for the standard of government: get real. OK, I agree that the Macmillan government was good, so your 50-60 years figure is arguably correct, but what about the next lot? the Douglas Home, Wilson and Heath governments were hardly models we should seek to emulate - they led us steadlily downhill to become the 'sick man of Europe'.
There are two big differences between the UK 50 or 60 years ago, and the UK today. People could expect their own standard of living to rise steadily, and their children to have a better standard of living than they had; secondly, the standard of government was generally better and more honest.
While I would agree with the first of your differences, there can be little doubt that politicians in the past were at least as corrupt and incompetent as they are now.
For example, around 100 years ago, members of the government insider traded Marconi shares, having privileged information about a government contract. More recently there was Harold Wilson's lavender list; there was T Dan Smith and Reginald Maulding; and (although I forget the name) there was a Defence Secretary that sold contracts. It was common for MPs to have their London apartments paid for my companies and unions. All these make a duck house look pretty small beer. And on the incompetence (and alcohol) side, George Brown and Reginald Maulding spring to mind.
There are two big differences between the UK 50 or 60 years ago, and the UK today. People could expect their own standard of living to rise steadily, and their children to have a better standard of living than they had; secondly, the standard of government was generally better and more honest.
There are many more than two big differences (although I wasn't around and so could well be wrong), but taking your two:
1) Standard of living to rise steadily. A very good point, and one that could occupy many threads, methinks. For instance: how can we ensure they continue to rise?
2) The standard of government was generally better and more honest. I think you're on a sticky wicket with this one. Governance has many problems in this country, but can we be sure corruption (both moral and monetary) was any less in the past? Do we just get to hear about mistakes and scandals more because of the more open nature of that governance, less respect for politicians, and modern developments like the web? Was it really better back then?
I think it's inconceivable that Maria Miller could have remained in office back then. And inconceivable that so many MPs and Peers would have fiddled their expenses.
Ah, just remembered something I wanted to post about. I saw the first question on Question Time last night and was pretty displeased that Dimbleby was bloody useless at picking up Hain for several things.
For a start, Hain was asked about the gold Brown sold (ie how can Labour criticise a bad sale given their own record) and didn't answer, and Dimbleby just let it drop. Hain also said something like 'think of what we could have done with all this money'. But... when you sell something you make money. You don't spend it. That's not just a stupid remark, it's diametrically opposed to reason.
There are two big differences between the UK 50 or 60 years ago, and the UK today. People could expect their own standard of living to rise steadily, and their children to have a better standard of living than they had; secondly, the standard of government was generally better and more honest.
Standards of living will rise, as they have done almost continuously since WWII (the last five years have been an unusual blip).
As for the standard of government: get real. OK, I agree that the Macmillan government was good, so your 50-60 years figure is arguably correct, but what about the next lot? the Douglas Home, Wilson and Heath governments were hardly models we should seek to emulate - they led us steadlily downhill to become the 'sick man of Europe'.
I'd agree that things went sharply downhill under Wilson and Heath.
WRT living standards, I wonder. Germany is Europe's strongest economy, but real wages are still below where they were in 2000. Median real wages in this country are where they were in 2003.
There are two big differences between the UK 50 or 60 years ago, and the UK today. People could expect their own standard of living to rise steadily, and their children to have a better standard of living than they had; secondly, the standard of government was generally better and more honest.
There are many more than two big differences (although I wasn't around and so could well be wrong), but taking your two:
1) Standard of living to rise steadily. A very good point, and one that could occupy many threads, methinks. For instance: how can we ensure they continue to rise?
2) The standard of government was generally better and more honest. I think you're on a sticky wicket with this one. Governance has many problems in this country, but can we be sure corruption (both moral and monetary) was any less in the past? Do we just get to hear about mistakes and scandals more because of the more open nature of that governance, less respect for politicians, and modern developments like the web? Was it really better back then?
I think it's inconceivable that Maria Miller could have remained in office back then. And inconceivable that so many MPs and Peers would have fiddled their expenses.
Reggie Maulding bounced back pretty quickly from his various scandals.
There are two big differences between the UK 50 or 60 years ago, and the UK today. People could expect their own standard of living to rise steadily, and their children to have a better standard of living than they had; secondly, the standard of government was generally better and more honest.
While I would agree with the first of your differences, there can be little doubt that politicians in the past were at least as corrupt and incompetent as they are now.
For example, around 100 years ago, members of the government insider traded Marconi shares, having privileged information about a government contract. More recently there was Harold Wilson's lavender list; there was T Dan Smith and Reginald Maulding; and (although I forget the name) there was a Defence Secretary that sold contracts. It was common for MPs to have their London apartments paid for my companies and unions. All these make a duck house look pretty small beer. And on the incompetence (and alcohol) side, George Brown and Reginald Maulding spring to mind.
You could also mention Lloyd George and his peers, Churchill and his lobbying on behalf of Burmah oil.
And the two great scandals of all time, The Profumo Affair and Rinkagate.
There are two big differences between the UK 50 or 60 years ago, and the UK today. People could expect their own standard of living to rise steadily, and their children to have a better standard of living than they had; secondly, the standard of government was generally better and more honest.
There are many more than two big differences (although I wasn't around and so could well be wrong), but taking your two:
1) Standard of living to rise steadily. A very good point, and one that could occupy many threads, methinks. For instance: how can we ensure they continue to rise?
2) The standard of government was generally better and more honest. I think you're on a sticky wicket with this one. Governance has many problems in this country, but can we be sure corruption (both moral and monetary) was any less in the past? Do we just get to hear about mistakes and scandals more because of the more open nature of that governance, less respect for politicians, and modern developments like the web? Was it really better back then?
I think it's inconceivable that Maria Miller could have remained in office back then. And inconceivable that so many MPs and Peers would have fiddled their expenses.
I agree about Miller, and indeed many of the MPs of all parties who did similar. But in their defence, the expenses system was a bizarre kludge of a system designed only to prevent the bad publicity of giving MPs pay rises, and many of the so-called 'scandals' that came out of it were overblown. Some were saints, some were stupid, some were (legal) chancers, whilst a few were out and out fraudsters.
But I'd guess there was a great deal of fraud going on back then in other ways, and it did not so much get the oxygen of publicity. The deference people had for politicians was admirable, but misplaced. And the idea that they were more competent as a whole is interesting.
Anyone wanting know how much things have changed for the better should view The Black and White Minstrel Show and/or Love Thy Neighbour. Both running as national TV shows in the late 70's, and both mind-boggling by today's standards.
Even as a boy, I never found shows like "Mixed Blessings" at all funny. Regrettably, these days we see a kind of paranoid anti-racism in some public sector organisations.
In the IA/JJ debate I must say I find IA more convincing. JJ's dismissal of the "Britain is getting nastier" thesis as "simply laughable" is not persuasive. Certain types of tolerance have become generally accepted (few people really hate black people or gays any more), but social solidarity is IMO much, much weaker than it used to be, to the point that people on the margins are being squeezed relntlessly and most people don't care. Tolerance is good, but you can't live on it alone.
It could be argued that 'social solidarity' (at least amongst subgroups) was a partial cause of many of the problems that bedevilled us in the past. It can still be seen embedded within the 'them and us' attitudes over immigration, for instance. "We're a group, you're not part of it".
I'm also not sure that society had any more 'solidarity' in the past. And when it did, it often led to exclusion.
The kind of weakened social solidarity that concerns me is threefold: cultural, economic and ethnic.
Culturally we have not in my view made a lot of net progress; while it is no longer tolerated to object to gays, neither is it tolerated to take your instructions on the matter from your religion. This is to trade one allotrope of intolerance for another. It has been widely observed that "liberals" are in fact unusually intolerant - of anyone who disagrees with them. There are many examples.
Economically we lack solidarity because there is a body of opinion that thinks benefits-poncing is fine and insists that addressing it is evil, and another that thinks not working should not pay. These seem irreconcilable viewpoints. There is superficially more solidarity about wealth, in that Kinnock and Blair are as happy to be multi-millionaires as Michael Ashcroft. But it's only superficial, because the left thinks immense wealth is only respectable if you obtained it on the public sector payroll and is hostile to anyone who came by it in business or through inheritance. The right sees it exactly the opposite way.
Ethnically, well, it speaks for itself; there may be as many as 75 million people living here (according to one supermarket's analysis of food sales) in which case you have 45 million white British and 30 million something else, with the latter fawned over by politicians and the formerly routinely dismissed and belittled. Schools in which 55 languages are spoken are a problem, not an achievement.
It's a bit rich for Nick to fret about a loss of social solidarity when all three of the above are the consequence of the left's own prejudices, neuroses and policies in government.
There are two big differences between the UK 50 or 60 years ago, and the UK today. People could expect their own standard of living to rise steadily, and their children to have a better standard of living than they had; secondly, the standard of government was generally better and more honest.
While I would agree with the first of your differences, there can be little doubt that politicians in the past were at least as corrupt and incompetent as they are now.
For example, around 100 years ago, members of the government insider traded Marconi shares, having privileged information about a government contract. More recently there was Harold Wilson's lavender list; there was T Dan Smith and Reginald Maulding; and (although I forget the name) there was a Defence Secretary that sold contracts. It was common for MPs to have their London apartments paid for my companies and unions. All these make a duck house look pretty small beer. And on the incompetence (and alcohol) side, George Brown and Reginald Maulding spring to mind.
You could also mention Lloyd George and his peers, Churchill and his lobbying on behalf of Burmah oil.
And the two great scandals of all time, The Profumo Affair and Rinkagate.
It's like with paedophilia: it's not that people have become more wicked, it is that they are caught more often.
Mind Your Language was probably the finest example of stereotyping TV has ever seen. Ireland was still showing a show on the same premise in 2007 when I was there.
Absolutely. In 1976 the UK government had to go to the IMF for a bailout. We were bankrupt. The IMF did exactly the same to us as they are doing to Greece etc. ie dictating draconian spending cuts in return for the money.
I haven't even started talking about inflation, which was intermittently of banana republic proportions in the 1970s.
Interest rates were set by governments to win elections. Sterling crises abounded as investors realised we had no proper independent commitment to monetary and fiscal control. Gilt auctions failed because no buyers turned up, even though they were offered yields of up to 20%.
The 'brain drain' prompted hundreds of thousands of capable people move overseas to avoid tax rates that were little more than theft.
Industrial relations? basket case. Manufacturing industry? do me a favour. Winter of discontent? don;t get me started. I could go on and on and on.
The idea we were better governed then is completely unsupportable and totally wrong. In fact its one of the most ludicrous assertions I have ever read on PB.
There are two big differences between the UK 50 or 60 years ago, and the UK today. People could expect their own standard of living to rise steadily, and their children to have a better standard of living than they had; secondly, the standard of government was generally better and more honest.
While I would agree with the first of your differences, there can be little doubt that politicians in the past were at least as corrupt and incompetent as they are now.
For example, around 100 years ago, members of the government insider traded Marconi shares, having privileged information about a government contract. More recently there was Harold Wilson's lavender list; there was T Dan Smith and Reginald Maulding; and (although I forget the name) there was a Defence Secretary that sold contracts. It was common for MPs to have their London apartments paid for my companies and unions. All these make a duck house look pretty small beer. And on the incompetence (and alcohol) side, George Brown and Reginald Maulding spring to mind.
You could also mention Lloyd George and his peers, Churchill and his lobbying on behalf of Burmah oil.
And the two great scandals of all time, The Profumo Affair and Rinkagate.
There are two big differences between the UK 50 or 60 years ago, and the UK today. People could expect their own standard of living to rise steadily, and their children to have a better standard of living than they had; secondly, the standard of government was generally better and more honest.
While I would agree with the first of your differences, there can be little doubt that politicians in the past were at least as corrupt and incompetent as they are now.
For example, around 100 years ago, members of the government insider traded Marconi shares, having privileged information about a government contract. More recently there was Harold Wilson's lavender list; there was T Dan Smith and Reginald Maulding; and (although I forget the name) there was a Defence Secretary that sold contracts. It was common for MPs to have their London apartments paid for my companies and unions. All these make a duck house look pretty small beer. And on the incompetence (and alcohol) side, George Brown and Reginald Maulding spring to mind.
You could also mention Lloyd George and his peers, Churchill and his lobbying on behalf of Burmah oil.
And the two great scandals of all time, The Profumo Affair and Rinkagate.
Rinkagate was simply hilarious.
It is the one scandal I wish I had been around for, as it happened.
Mind Your Language was probably the finest example of stereotyping TV has ever seen. Ireland was still showing a show on the same premise in 2007 when I was there.
WRT living standards, I wonder. Germany is Europe's strongest economy, but real wages are still below where they were in 2000. Median real wages in this country are where they were in 2003.
The trouble with figures like that is that they don't take account of qualitative changes which are part of living standards - for example, even an ordinary family can today afford a car which is far superior to anything a similar family might have owned twenty years ago, they have better choice of food in the shops, hotels and restaurants are better, and so on. Technological innovation continues, and the marketplace does deliver.
So overall I'm an optimist: if we can improve education, continue stabilising the public finances, continue with business-friendly policies, we will do well.
Obviously if we elect anti-business, anti-excellence governments, then, not so well.
It makes me want to get back to reading Shakespeare (I'm a short distance into the Complete Works) just so I can learn more insults to hurl at you for such abuse of English.
Mind Your Language was probably the finest example of stereotyping TV has ever seen. Ireland was still showing a show on the same premise in 2007 when I was there.
Ethnically, well, it speaks for itself; there may be as many as 75 million people living here (according to one supermarket's analysis of food sales) in which case you have 45 million white British and 30 million something else, with the latter fawned over by politicians and the formerly routinely dismissed and belittled. Schools in which 55 languages are spoken are a problem, not an achievement.
It's a bit rich for Nick to fret about a loss of social solidarity when all three of the above are the consequence of the left's own prejudices, neuroses and policies in government.
I googled for:
"75 million people UK" and found no reference to your supermarket story
and for "school uk 55 languages" and the only story I found was about City of Leeds school, where there were more than 50 nationalities, and half the kids did not speak English as a first language, which is not quite the same thing. I went to a school where fewer than half the pupils spoke English as a first language. It achieved pretty decent results - with 80 people in a year, getting four people into Oxbridge isn't a bad result, considering how poor many pupil's English skills were when they joined the school.
There are two big differences between the UK 50 or 60 years ago, and the UK today. People could expect their own standard of living to rise steadily, and their children to have a better standard of living than they had; secondly, the standard of government was generally better and more honest.
While I would agree with the first of your differences, there can be little doubt that politicians in the past were at least as corrupt and incompetent as they are now.
For example, around 100 years ago, members of the government insider traded Marconi shares, having privileged information about a government contract. More recently there was Harold Wilson's lavender list; there was T Dan Smith and Reginald Maulding; and (although I forget the name) there was a Defence Secretary that sold contracts. It was common for MPs to have their London apartments paid for my companies and unions. All these make a duck house look pretty small beer. And on the incompetence (and alcohol) side, George Brown and Reginald Maulding spring to mind.
You could also mention Lloyd George and his peers, Churchill and his lobbying on behalf of Burmah oil.
And the two great scandals of all time, The Profumo Affair and Rinkagate.
Rinkagate was simply hilarious.
It is the one scandal I wish I had been around for, as it happened.
It produced a number of crude jokes at school, although I didn't really grasp the ramifications of the scandal at the time.
It also produced one of Peter Cook's finest parodies, of Mr. Justice Cantley's summing up.
"He (Scott) is a pervert, a parasite, a liar, a worm, a self-confessed player of the pink oboe, a man (or woman) who by his (or her) own admission chews pillows. But, he may still be telling the truth. That is entirely a matter for you, members of the jury."
It makes me want to get back to reading Shakespeare (I'm a short distance into the Complete Works) just so I can learn more insults to hurl at you for such abuse of English.
I watched There's Something About Mary last night for the squillioneth time, and the phrase is in my head.
Just for you, I shall rephrase it
"Debate bounce for Farage after he went all Scipio Africanus on the latter day Hannibal that is Nick Clegg?"
The Lib Dem targets (current Tory seats) are not exactly fertile Ukip territory, except maybe in Devon and Cornwall. Here are the seats from Lord Ashcroft's poll, with Ukip's share in 2010. I'm sure someone with more time on their hands can highlight the scores in recent local elections.
There are certainly seats where Ukip did better - like NW Cambs at 8.3%.
That data hardly points to a systematic UKIP weakness in those sorts of seats, given that they only averaged 3.1% across the whole country. And bear in mind that in closely fought seats such as these, minor parties such as UKIP in 2010 will have been under threat of being squeezed anyway. So those figures don't really cast doubt on the case for a significant UKIP vote in such seats on the back of a strong national performance.
The point is Ukip are not likely to put in a strong enough national performance to make gains everywhere but will make an impact in certain areas like the South West and Eastern constituencies
Mind Your Language was probably the finest example of stereotyping TV has ever seen. Ireland was still showing a show on the same premise in 2007 when I was there.
It ain't 'alf 'ot mum?
It ain't alf racist mum....
It Ain't 'Alf 'Ot Mum, was genuinely funny, like Carry on Up the Khyber.
There are two big differences between the UK 50 or 60 years ago, and the UK today. People could expect their own standard of living to rise steadily, and their children to have a better standard of living than they had; secondly, the standard of government was generally better and more honest.
While I would agree with the first of your differences, there can be little doubt that politicians in the past were at least as corrupt and incompetent as they are now.
For example, around 100 years ago, members of the government insider traded Marconi shares, having privileged information about a government contract. More recently there was Harold Wilson's lavender list; there was T Dan Smith and Reginald Maulding; and (although I forget the name) there was a Defence Secretary that sold contracts. It was common for MPs to have their London apartments paid for my companies and unions. All these make a duck house look pretty small beer. And on the incompetence (and alcohol) side, George Brown and Reginald Maulding spring to mind.
You could also mention Lloyd George and his peers, Churchill and his lobbying on behalf of Burmah oil.
And the two great scandals of all time, The Profumo Affair and Rinkagate.
Rinkagate was simply hilarious.
It is the one scandal I wish I had been around for, as it happened.
It produced a number of crude jokes at school, although I didn't really grasp the ramifications of the scandal at the time.
It also produced one of Peter Cook's finest parodies, of Mr. Justice Cantley's summing up.
"He (Scott) is a pervert, a parasite, a liar, a worm, a self-confessed player of the pink oboe, a man (or woman) who by his (or her) own admission chews pillows. But, he may still be telling the truth. That is entirely a matter for you, members of the jury."
That's still not as unfair as some summing ups I have seen (or heard about)
There are two big differences between the UK 50 or 60 years ago, and the UK today. People could expect their own standard of living to rise steadily, and their children to have a better standard of living than they had; secondly, the standard of government was generally better and more honest.
While I would agree with the first of your differences, there can be little doubt that politicians in the past were at least as corrupt and incompetent as they are now.
For example, around 100 years ago, members of the government insider traded Marconi shares, having privileged information about a government contract. More recently there was Harold Wilson's lavender list; there was T Dan Smith and Reginald Maulding; and (although I forget the name) there was a Defence Secretary that sold contracts. It was common for MPs to have their London apartments paid for my companies and unions. All these make a duck house look pretty small beer. And on the incompetence (and alcohol) side, George Brown and Reginald Maulding spring to mind.
You could also mention Lloyd George and his peers, Churchill and his lobbying on behalf of Burmah oil.
And the two great scandals of all time, The Profumo Affair and Rinkagate.
Rinkagate was simply hilarious.
It is the one scandal I wish I had been around for, as it happened.
It produced a number of crude jokes at school, although I didn't really grasp the ramifications of the scandal at the time.
It also produced one of Peter Cook's finest parodies, of Mr. Justice Cantley's summing up.
"He (Scott) is a pervert, a parasite, a liar, a worm, a self-confessed player of the pink oboe, a man (or woman) who by his (or her) own admission chews pillows. But, he may still be telling the truth. That is entirely a matter for you, members of the jury."
That's still not as unfair as some summing ups I have seen (or heard about)
You should have been in court with me last Friday. I've never encountered a judge as rude as this oen.
There are two big differences between the UK 50 or 60 years ago, and the UK today. People could expect their own standard of living to rise steadily, and their children to have a better standard of living than they had; secondly, the standard of government was generally better and more honest.
While I would agree with the first of your differences, there can be little doubt that politicians in the past were at least as corrupt and incompetent as they are now.
For example, around 100 years ago, members of the government insider traded Marconi shares, having privileged information about a government contract. More recently there was Harold Wilson's lavender list; there was T Dan Smith and Reginald Maulding; and (although I forget the name) there was a Defence Secretary that sold contracts. It was common for MPs to have their London apartments paid for my companies and unions. All these make a duck house look pretty small beer. And on the incompetence (and alcohol) side, George Brown and Reginald Maulding spring to mind.
You could also mention Lloyd George and his peers, Churchill and his lobbying on behalf of Burmah oil.
And the two great scandals of all time, The Profumo Affair and Rinkagate.
Rinkagate was simply hilarious.
It is the one scandal I wish I had been around for, as it happened.
It produced a number of crude jokes at school, although I didn't really grasp the ramifications of the scandal at the time.
It also produced one of Peter Cook's finest parodies, of Mr. Justice Cantley's summing up.
"He (Scott) is a pervert, a parasite, a liar, a worm, a self-confessed player of the pink oboe, a man (or woman) who by his (or her) own admission chews pillows. But, he may still be telling the truth. That is entirely a matter for you, members of the jury."
That's still not as unfair as some summing ups I have seen (or heard about)
You should have been in court with me last Friday. I've never encountered a judge as rude as this oen.
I've seen one judge, during the evidence of the defendant, let out contemptuous snorts, laugh, giggle, roll his eyes.
During the summing he effectively told them, if they didn't find him guilty, they deserves to become the victims of crimes themselves.
Abortion is the elephant in the room... Nigh on 200,000 babies a year don't get to live (to put it nicely)
What goes around comes around. I am with Cormac McCarthy on this:
She kept on, kept on. Finally told me, said: I dont like the way this country is headed. I want my granddaughter to be able to have an abortion. And I said well mam I dont think you got any worries about the way the country is headed. The way I see it goin I dont have much doubt but what she’ll be able to have an abortion. I’m goin to say that not only will she be able to have an abortion, she’ll be able to have you put to sleep.
McCarthy, Cormac (2010-12-10). No Country for Old Men (Kindle Locations 2525-2528). Macmillan Publishers UK. Kindle Edition.
It hadn't occurred to me before but it seems to me his character must be right. There is surely quite a good chance that women who insist today on their right to abortion will eventually be euthanised by their grandchildren.
Mind Your Language was probably the finest example of stereotyping TV has ever seen. Ireland was still showing a show on the same premise in 2007 when I was there.
It ain't 'alf 'ot mum?
It ain't alf racist mum....
'Allo 'Allo...its on BBC2 everyday still... every joke is a poke at a stereotype.
I don't mind at all, I think jokes should be treated as jokes, but if we are digging out ones that may be "offensive"
I don't really remember "Love Thy Neighbour", only very vaguely, but wasn't the white bloke shown as an idiot we were laughing at, and his black neighbour representing a reasonable, normal person?
Mind Your Language was probably the finest example of stereotyping TV has ever seen. Ireland was still showing a show on the same premise in 2007 when I was there.
It ain't 'alf 'ot mum?
It ain't alf racist mum....
'Allo 'Allo...its on BBC2 everyday still... every joke is a poke at a stereotype.
I don't mind at all, I think jokes should be treated as jokes, but if we are digging out ones that may be "offensive"
I don't really remember "Love Thy Neighbour", only very vaguely, but wasn't the white bloke shown as an idiot we were laughing at, and his black neighbour representing a reasonable, normal person?
Rather like Rising Damp (which I've heard calls to ban). The joke was on Rigsby, not Philip.
OGH article The LDs may perceive a chance that UKIP are bolstered but there may be downsides from informing a larger number of past/potential LD voters the fact that they are a Europhile party. In the past we have seen surveys where circa 40% of LD voters were Eurosceptic. By coming out and staking a massive message across the media that the LDs are pro EC, they may actually reduce their vote. This disconnect between most of the party's members/reps and the party's voters is one of those hidden dicotomies.
I think the LibDems have already lost all the "none of the above" / "a new kind of politics" voters that they once had.
Maybe, but then they are less likely to go back. But square that with the belief that the LDs will keep 40+ MPs due to incumbency. Both cannot be right. Some of the past incumbency comes from "none of the above", some from Lab leaners.
Approximately one in 10 Lib Dem voters have gone to UKIP. If one in 8 Conservatives go to UKIP, then they stand a good chance, in seats where the Conservatives are challengers.
My spread on Lib Dem seats is a (very wide) 32-38.
32-38 is in line with the markets I have seen, but the LD Leaders seem to expect 40+. The bottom "core" level for the LDs is about 25.
But what do I know about LD votes? I did have the most accurate forecast of LD cllr losses in a previous PB annual competition!
And inconceivable that so many MPs and Peers would have fiddled their expenses.
Unlikely so many would have got caught, more like. They would have gotten away with it too if it hadn't been for that meddling Freedom of Information Act.
There's no way of stopping Scotland using the pound if it wants to - and why would we want the instability caused by having it use a different currency anyway? It would be economic madness, hence why the government minister said what he did.
We are best to avoid this line and instead focus on the great benefits of staying in the union.
LOL, we have been waiting for years for someone to tell us even one benefit , a real one and not the crap broad shoulders , share of trillions of debt , foodbanks , austerity , budget cuts , etc.
I remember being taken to the the Black and White Minstrals in the very early 70s in Southampton and even then I thought, "really"? My parents had been really keen to go but looked a bit shifty afterwards, my dad especially.
But I think the point Nick and others were making earlier is how does our society think and care for those who are at the edges, those with disabilities, the illegal immigrant, the feckless and foolish. We, on the whole, give them more money but we seem a lot more remote.
There was a program a few months ago about how social care intervention had changed. Fairly feckless families were given what would today be classed as slightly patronising rules about keeping their house and garden in order, proper meal times for the kids etc. It was called Benefits Britain 1949 on C4. The recipients loved it. Just loved it. And they seemed much happier. Sometimes caring involves more than writing a cheque.
'There's no way of stopping Scotland using the pound if it wants to - and why would we want the instability caused by having it use a different currency anyway? It would be economic madness, hence why the government minister said what he did.'
Has anyone ever said that Scotland can't continue to use the pound outside a currency union?
We can manage very well when 18 countries with a combined population of over 300 million change their currency but when one country with 5 million people change their currency it's 'economic madness'
Abortion is the elephant in the room... Nigh on 200,000 babies a year don't get to live (to put it nicely)
What goes around comes around. I am with Cormac McCarthy on this:
She kept on, kept on. Finally told me, said: I dont like the way this country is headed. I want my granddaughter to be able to have an abortion. And I said well mam I dont think you got any worries about the way the country is headed. The way I see it goin I dont have much doubt but what she’ll be able to have an abortion. I’m goin to say that not only will she be able to have an abortion, she’ll be able to have you put to sleep.
McCarthy, Cormac (2010-12-10). No Country for Old Men (Kindle Locations 2525-2528). Macmillan Publishers UK. Kindle Edition.
It hadn't occurred to me before but it seems to me his character must be right. There is surely quite a good chance that women who insist today on their right to abortion will eventually be euthanised by their grandchildren.
New Populus VI: Lab 37 (=); Cons 33 (-1); LD 10 (=); UKIP 13 (+2); Oth 7 (-1) Tables to follow
So the budget bounce lasted exactly.. two days ? At least, the flounce bounce lasted a week !
Flounce Bounce...ah, those were the days. In fact last weeks crossovergasm now seems just like a distant PB Hodges memory.
It's probably a taste of things to come, though. The two things that happen as the election approaches are that the government does popular budgetary things that they've been saving up, and UKIP gets squeezed. The budget bounce was a fairly minor warm-up to that, and even there they got the lead down to 2%. There should be room for a fair bit more movement where that came from.
@TheScreamingEagles We've put the Next Cabinet Minister Out market back up. I don't like it all that much, because there is too much potential for ambiguity about what counts as in or out of the cabinet. But for the benefit of anyone here who wants a bet - Only the people on our list count as cabinet ministers for betting purposes - "Attending" cabinet or some such term does not count - Dead Heat rules apply if more than one leave on the same day. (Lets hope someone does before the general election)
Regarding Maria Miller: leaving aside the expenses issue, it seems to me that she has been one of the least impressive of the current Conservative cabinet ministers. There are several other women whom Dave could promote and who are, I think, more talented, for example Esther McVey, Anna Soubry, Elizabeth Truss, Amber Rudd
New Populus VI: Lab 37 (=); Cons 33 (-1); LD 10 (=); UKIP 13 (+2); Oth 7 (-1) Tables to follow
So the budget bounce lasted exactly.. two days ? At least, the flounce bounce lasted a week !
Flounce Bounce...ah, those were the days. In fact last weeks crossovergasm now seems just like a distant PB Hodges memory.
It's probably a taste of things to come, though. The two things that happen as the election approaches are that the government does popular budgetary things that they've been saving up, and UKIP gets squeezed. The budget bounce was a fairly minor warm-up to that, and even there they got the lead down to 2%. There should be room for a fair bit more movement where that came from.
There's no way of stopping Scotland using the pound if it wants to - and why would we want the instability caused by having it use a different currency anyway? It would be economic madness, hence why the government minister said what he did.
We are best to avoid this line and instead focus on the great benefits of staying in the union.
LOL, we have been waiting for years for someone to tell us even one benefit , a real one and not the crap broad shoulders , share of trillions of debt , foodbanks , austerity , budget cuts , etc.
You're going to be so disappointed when Eck's promised paradise proves to be a foolish mirage, in the event of any 'Yes' vote.
@TheScreamingEagles We've put the Next Cabinet Minister Out market back up. I don't like it all that much, because there is too much potential for ambiguity about what counts as in or out of the cabinet. But for the benefit of anyone here who wants a bet - Only the people on our list count as cabinet ministers for betting purposes - "Attending" cabinet or some such term does not count - Dead Heat rules apply if more than one leave on the same day. (Lets hope someone does before the general election)
Thank you. In the past, next out of the cabinet markets have been profitable for us PBers, which probably explains why you don't like it heh.
I think, the rumours are for a cabinet reshuffle in the aftermath of the locals and Euros.
New Populus VI: Lab 37 (=); Cons 33 (-1); LD 10 (=); UKIP 13 (+2); Oth 7 (-1) Tables to follow
So the budget bounce lasted exactly.. two days ? At least, the flounce bounce lasted a week !
Flounce Bounce...ah, those were the days. In fact last weeks crossovergasm now seems just like a distant PB Hodges memory.
It's probably a taste of things to come, though. The two things that happen as the election approaches are that the government does popular budgetary things that they've been saving up, and UKIP gets squeezed. The budget bounce was a fairly minor warm-up to that, and even there they got the lead down to 2%. There should be room for a fair bit more movement where that came from.
And there's the turning on the opposition that usually happens between conference season and the GE. It's a brave punter who would back Labour carrying a polling lead the whole way from now into the next GE.
@TheScreamingEagles We've put the Next Cabinet Minister Out market back up. I don't like it all that much, because there is too much potential for ambiguity about what counts as in or out of the cabinet. But for the benefit of anyone here who wants a bet - Only the people on our list count as cabinet ministers for betting purposes - "Attending" cabinet or some such term does not count - Dead Heat rules apply if more than one leave on the same day. (Lets hope someone does before the general election)
Thank you. In the past, next out of the cabinet markets have been profitable for us PBers, which probably explains why you don't like it heh.
I think, the rumours are for a cabinet reshuffle in the aftermath of the locals and Euros.
They have actually been quite good for us during Dave's reign , because he has been so reluctant to sack anyone. Jeremy Hunt surviving was particularly helpful.
I remember being taken to the the Black and White Minstrals in the very early 70s in Southampton and even then I thought, "really"? My parents had been really keen to go but looked a bit shifty afterwards, my dad especially.
But I think the point Nick and others were making earlier is how does our society think and care for those who are at the edges, those with disabilities, the illegal immigrant, the feckless and foolish. We, on the whole, give them more money but we seem a lot more remote.
There was a program a few months ago about how social care intervention had changed. Fairly feckless families were given what would today be classed as slightly patronising rules about keeping their house and garden in order, proper meal times for the kids etc. It was called Benefits Britain 1949 on C4. The recipients loved it. Just loved it. And they seemed much happier. Sometimes caring involves more than writing a cheque.
There's a government scheme that appears to be working well to do exactly this sort of thing. To be politically neutral, it's based on a scheme that was started by some Labour councils.
There have been some good radio shows on it. It does not work in all cases, but every family who is raised out of the cycle of hopelessness is another family saved. It costs a great deal, but the long-term rewards must be incalculable.
There are two big differences between the UK 50 or 60 years ago, and the UK today. People could expect their own standard of living to rise steadily, and their children to have a better standard of living than they had; secondly, the standard of government was generally better and more honest.
While I would agree with the first of your differences, there can be little doubt that politicians in the past were at least as corrupt and incompetent as they are now.
For example, around 100 years ago, members of the government insider traded Marconi shares, having privileged information about a government contract. More recently there was Harold Wilson's lavender list; there was T Dan Smith and Reginald Maulding; and (although I forget the name) there was a Defence Secretary that sold contracts. It was common for MPs to have their London apartments paid for my companies and unions. All these make a duck house look pretty small beer. And on the incompetence (and alcohol) side, George Brown and Reginald Maulding spring to mind.
You could also mention Lloyd George and his peers, Churchill and his lobbying on behalf of Burmah oil.
And the two great scandals of all time, The Profumo Affair and Rinkagate.
Rinkagate was simply hilarious.
It is the one scandal I wish I had been around for, as it happened.
I was around for it and the main thing I remember was a strong sense that all those involved - Thorpe, Scott, and especially Peter Bessell - were the most repellent cockroaches imaginable. The dog and Scott's wife were the only ones you could like.
My father was incredulous that ITV had assigned one Desmond Hamill to report the case - "he looks as weird as they are" - and when Thorpe lost his seat he commented that the electorate had clearly arrived at its own verdict.
I was about 14 and I do recall wondering how the Westminster media could really have had no inkling of any of it. As we know now, they knew plenty.
Benefits Britain 1949 was a realy interesting series. It really was a safety net rather than a hammock. The single mum was feeling a bit hard done by, but even she saw the merit, and the 1949 Labour exchange and housing officers were allowed to be quite heavy at times.
If Supermarkets are really selling food for 75 million people, then that explains a lot of obesity and waste, not that we have an extra 10 million people!
I remember being taken to the the Black and White Minstrals in the very early 70s in Southampton and even then I thought, "really"? My parents had been really keen to go but looked a bit shifty afterwards, my dad especially.
But I think the point Nick and others were making earlier is how does our society think and care for those who are at the edges, those with disabilities, the illegal immigrant, the feckless and foolish. We, on the whole, give them more money but we seem a lot more remote.
There was a program a few months ago about how social care intervention had changed. Fairly feckless families were given what would today be classed as slightly patronising rules about keeping their house and garden in order, proper meal times for the kids etc. It was called Benefits Britain 1949 on C4. The recipients loved it. Just loved it. And they seemed much happier. Sometimes caring involves more than writing a cheque.
There are two big differences between the UK 50 or 60 years ago, and the UK today. People could expect their own standard of living to rise steadily, and their children to have a better standard of living than they had; secondly, the standard of government was generally better and more honest.
While I would agree with the first of your differences, there can be little doubt that politicians in the past were at least as corrupt and incompetent as they are now.
For example, around 100 years ago, members of the government insider traded Marconi shares, having privileged information about a government contract. More recently there was Harold Wilson's lavender list; there was T Dan Smith and Reginald Maulding; and (although I forget the name) there was a Defence Secretary that sold contracts. It was common for MPs to have their London apartments paid for my companies and unions. All these make a duck house look pretty small beer. And on the incompetence (and alcohol) side, George Brown and Reginald Maulding spring to mind.
You could also mention Lloyd George and his peers, Churchill and his lobbying on behalf of Burmah oil.
And the two great scandals of all time, The Profumo Affair and Rinkagate.
Rinkagate was simply hilarious.
It is the one scandal I wish I had been around for, as it happened.
I was around for it and the main thing I remember was a strong sense that all those involved - Thorpe, Scott, and especially Peter Bessell - were the most repellent cockroaches imaginable. The dog and Scott's wife were the only ones you could like.
My father was incredulous that ITV had assigned one Desmond Hamill to report the case - "he looks as weird as they are" - and when Thorpe lost his seat he commented that the electorate had clearly arrived at its own verdict.
I was about 14 and I do recall wondering how the Westminster media could really have had no inkling of any of it. As we know now, they knew plenty.
Private Eye were making the running for about 5 years before the scandal broke. Auberon Waugh ran as a Dog Lover in North Deveon, and had his election addresses pulped on an order from Lord Denning.
I remember being taken to the the Black and White Minstrals in the very early 70s in Southampton and even then I thought, "really"? My parents had been really keen to go but looked a bit shifty afterwards, my dad especially.
But I think the point Nick and others were making earlier is how does our society think and care for those who are at the edges, those with disabilities, the illegal immigrant, the feckless and foolish. We, on the whole, give them more money but we seem a lot more remote.
There was a program a few months ago about how social care intervention had changed. Fairly feckless families were given what would today be classed as slightly patronising rules about keeping their house and garden in order, proper meal times for the kids etc. It was called Benefits Britain 1949 on C4. The recipients loved it. Just loved it. And they seemed much happier. Sometimes caring involves more than writing a cheque.
There's a government scheme that appears to be working well to do exactly this sort of thing. To be politically neutral, it's based on a scheme that was started by some Labour councils.
There have been some good radio shows on it. It does not work in all cases, but every family who is raised out of the cycle of hopelessness is another family saved. It costs a great deal, but the long-term rewards must be incalculable.
There are two big differences between the UK 50 or 60 years ago, and the UK today. People could expect their own standard of living to rise steadily, and their children to have a better standard of living than they had; secondly, the standard of government was generally better and more honest.
While I would agree with the first of your differences, there can be little doubt that politicians in the past were at least as corrupt and incompetent as they are now.
For example, around 100 years ago, members of the government insider traded Marconi shares, having privileged information about a government contract. More recently there was Harold Wilson's lavender list; there was T Dan Smith and Reginald Maulding; and (although I forget the name) there was a Defence Secretary that sold contracts. It was common for MPs to have their London apartments paid for my companies and unions. All these make a duck house look pretty small beer. And on the incompetence (and alcohol) side, George Brown and Reginald Maulding spring to mind.
You could also mention Lloyd George and his peers, Churchill and his lobbying on behalf of Burmah oil.
And the two great scandals of all time, The Profumo Affair and Rinkagate.
Rinkagate was simply hilarious.
It is the one scandal I wish I had been around for, as it happened.
I was around for it and the main thing I remember was a strong sense that all those involved - Thorpe, Scott, and especially Peter Bessell - were the most repellent cockroaches imaginable. The dog and Scott's wife were the only ones you could like.
My father was incredulous that ITV had assigned one Desmond Hamill to report the case - "he looks as weird as they are" - and when Thorpe lost his seat he commented that the electorate had clearly arrived at its own verdict.
I was about 14 and I do recall wondering how the Westminster media could really have had no inkling of any of it. As we know now, they knew plenty.
I was at school with Peter Bessells children during that period so I remember the episode well!
I remember being taken to the the Black and White Minstrals in the very early 70s in Southampton and even then I thought, "really"? My parents had been really keen to go but looked a bit shifty afterwards, my dad especially.
But I think the point Nick and others were making earlier is how does our society think and care for those who are at the edges, those with disabilities, the illegal immigrant, the feckless and foolish. We, on the whole, give them more money but we seem a lot more remote.
There was a program a few months ago about how social care intervention had changed. Fairly feckless families were given what would today be classed as slightly patronising rules about keeping their house and garden in order, proper meal times for the kids etc. It was called Benefits Britain 1949 on C4. The recipients loved it. Just loved it. And they seemed much happier. Sometimes caring involves more than writing a cheque.
Of course it does. How many children of rich successful parents grow up with lots of money and clothes by no idea if love
Comments
When has a Tory ever tried to boost a left-wing party to encourage a split? Why are politicians of the left so bloody stupid?
More is at stake here then tactical considerations for the next general election. Boosting UKIP to make them a permanent force in British politics changes the very terrain of political debate. It massively shifts the centre ground of debate to the right, making the long-term prospects of parties of the centre and left that much poorer, and the task of winning arguments in public debate that much harder.
I think 3-1 is too short now though.
I'm also not sure that society had any more 'solidarity' in the past. And when it did, it often led to exclusion.
I'd love you to run on a platform of 'Britain is getting nastier'. I see acts of kindness all the time, from all sorts of people of different ages. I'm not sure it was the case when I was a kid. Perhaps if you spent more time in the UK you'd see the same?
I also doubt people 'don't care' about others. I think they do, but realise that there are deep problems on the other side of the scales; that it is a balance. True, there are many selfish people, but there are also many generous ones. And that is far from a strict left<>right divide.
Perhaps I'm being a little strong on this because I went to a talk last night by the legendary Captain Eric 'Winkle' Brown, who has been a hero of mine for decades. He spent nearly two hours talking about test flying captured German planes during and after the war, but the thing that will remain with me for longest was his brutal description of the liberation of Belsen.
It left me in no doubt that the past was worse, and that we've come a long way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Brown_(pilot)
But square that with the belief that the LDs will keep 40+ MPs due to incumbency.
Both cannot be right. Some of the past incumbency comes from "none of the above", some from Lab leaners.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-26669329
Abortion is the elephant in the room... Nigh on 200,000 babies a year don't get to live (to put it nicely)
I know some of you follow me on my twitter.
My account was compromised overnight and some dodgy tweets and direct messages were sent from my twitter account to my followers.
Please do not open any direct messages or any tweets sent from me between 12am and 3am.
Thanks.
UKIP has successfully taken
- the 'none of the above' / 'new type of politics' voters from the Liberal Democrats
- the social conservatives from the Conservative Party
- the anti-immigration vote from the BNP
- those who feel Labour politicians don't care about or aren't people like them
- those for whom Europe is an overwhelming passion
The nice thing about insurgent political movements (and I think you could count the Liberal Democrats prior to 2010 as one), such as the Pirate Party, UKIP and Grillo's Five Starts, is that so long as they can remain unsullied by power, they can hide fundamental disagreements, and policy specifics such as where exactly spending cuts are to fall.
Over time, UKIP will need to have more policies than: (1) Leave the EU for something unspecified, (2) Grammar schools, and (3) No gay marriage.
But for now, they can capitalise on the fact that coalition has weakened the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, and the fact that Ed Milliband has... how to put this... only limited appeal to non-anoraks.
Speaking at Tobermory Women's Institute Caber Tossing Spring Event, SNP Economics guru - Evan MacBonkers of that Ilk stated :
"It's become clear that Scotland must look afar for a currency union with a friendly nation and our fraternal relations with the Peoples Republic of Vietnam give us a clear path to financial stability. Accordingly and with the famous Glasgow kiss in mind the Vietnamese Dong will be adopted and subdivided by the Ding - 100 Ding = 1 Dong
I firmly believe in short measure that the Ding Dong will become a currency to rival the mighty dollar" he continued.
There was wild cheering from the assembled women as the Lady Heather MacDonnut delivered a national record of tossing Mr MacBonkers into the harbour.
You should be backing the Lib Dems to win seats like Camborne, Oxford West & Abingdon, possibly Winchester, I think they represent great value.
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/05/25/the-2015-general-election-will-the-liberal-democrats-make-net-gains/
My spread on Lib Dem seats is a (very wide) 32-38.
Also, Honorius was an incompetent idiot
Edited extra bit: could be wrong, but wasn't he also the imbecile who had Stilicho killed?
50 or fewer 5/2
51 to 75 7/1
76 to 100 8/1
101 to 125 8/1
126 to 150 4/1
151 to 175 4/1
176 or more 7/2
I thought it was more Honorius' allies that had Stilicho killed rather than Honorius himself?
Son. You are looking at figures the wrong way round.
It was a spectacular piece of insecure stupidity from a man for whom 'cretin' would be praise too high.
Mr. Smithson, I was wondering if you'd be kind enough to add the enormo-haddock blog (F1 betting) to the links at the side?
It's: http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/
I'm sure it will come as a surprise to many southern England lib dem voters that their party is a europhile party. That nice chap on the doorstep in 2010 was adamant that Europe must be reformed.
I've seen polls on here showing up to 40% of lib dem voters are skeptics.
It had slight echoes of the Boniface/Aetius rivalry, when Rome had two good generals but their mutual loathing meant one ended up fleeing. Killing the competent men at the top because of insecure emperors only hastened the empire's decline in the West. An Aurelian or Trajan would not have made such mistakes.
This 'golden age' myth is absolute, unmitigated tosh. Some things have got worse, sure, but a hell of a lot has got better. As well as the aspects you point to, we had violent intimidation by thuggish unions (anyone who thinks there was no greed clearly isn't old enough to remember pre-Thatcher industrial relations); we had appalling class hatred (now, alas, being revived slightly by Labour for party political reasons), workers and managers were virtually separate castes, didn't mix together, had separate canteens and different terms of employment; we had lots of explicit and vicious anti-Semitism; domestic violence, especially fuelled by drunkenness, was rife and largely tolerated; and so on.
In addition of course substantial numbers of people lived in real - not today's 'relative' - poverty.
40 : 24 : 36 :
Yipeeeeeeeeeee said Robert, "Busty Bertha here I come ...."
Not so fast said Dad .... "that's the number of men, down the canal, she's had in the last 24/36 hour period !!"
(figures made up, but probably right-ish!)
1) Standard of living to rise steadily. A very good point, and one that could occupy many threads, methinks. For instance: how can we ensure they continue to rise?
2) The standard of government was generally better and more honest. I think you're on a sticky wicket with this one. Governance has many problems in this country, but can we be sure corruption (both moral and monetary) was any less in the past? Do we just get to hear about mistakes and scandals more because of the more open nature of that governance, less respect for politicians, and modern developments like the web? Was it really better back then?
As for the standard of government: get real. OK, I agree that the Macmillan government was good, so your 50-60 years figure is arguably correct, but what about the next lot? the Douglas Home, Wilson and Heath governments were hardly models we should seek to emulate - they led us steadlily downhill to become the 'sick man of Europe'.
Wirral West
4/6 Labour
11/10 Conservatives
100 Liberal Democrats
100 UKIP
Keighley
5/6 Labour
Evs Conservatives
20 UKIP
100 Liberal Democrats
Bristol North West
4/5 Conservatives
Evs Labour
16 Liberal Democrats
100 UKIP
For example, around 100 years ago, members of the government insider traded Marconi shares, having privileged information about a government contract. More recently there was Harold Wilson's lavender list; there was T Dan Smith and Reginald Maulding; and (although I forget the name) there was a Defence Secretary that sold contracts. It was common for MPs to have their London apartments paid for my companies and unions. All these make a duck house look pretty small beer. And on the incompetence (and alcohol) side, George Brown and Reginald Maulding spring to mind.
For a start, Hain was asked about the gold Brown sold (ie how can Labour criticise a bad sale given their own record) and didn't answer, and Dimbleby just let it drop. Hain also said something like 'think of what we could have done with all this money'. But... when you sell something you make money. You don't spend it. That's not just a stupid remark, it's diametrically opposed to reason.
WRT living standards, I wonder. Germany is Europe's strongest economy, but real wages are still below where they were in 2000. Median real wages in this country are where they were in 2003.
And the two great scandals of all time, The Profumo Affair and Rinkagate.
But I'd guess there was a great deal of fraud going on back then in other ways, and it did not so much get the oxygen of publicity. The deference people had for politicians was admirable, but misplaced. And the idea that they were more competent as a whole is interesting.
Anyone wanting know how much things have changed for the better should view The Black and White Minstrel Show and/or Love Thy Neighbour. Both running as national TV shows in the late 70's, and both mind-boggling by today's standards.
Even as a boy, I never found shows like "Mixed Blessings" at all funny. Regrettably, these days we see a kind of paranoid anti-racism in some public sector organisations.
Culturally we have not in my view made a lot of net progress; while it is no longer tolerated to object to gays, neither is it tolerated to take your instructions on the matter from your religion. This is to trade one allotrope of intolerance for another. It has been widely observed that "liberals" are in fact unusually intolerant - of anyone who disagrees with them. There are many examples.
Economically we lack solidarity because there is a body of opinion that thinks benefits-poncing is fine and insists that addressing it is evil, and another that thinks not working should not pay. These seem irreconcilable viewpoints. There is superficially more solidarity about wealth, in that Kinnock and Blair are as happy to be multi-millionaires as Michael Ashcroft. But it's only superficial, because the left thinks immense wealth is only respectable if you obtained it on the public sector payroll and is hostile to anyone who came by it in business or through inheritance. The right sees it exactly the opposite way.
Ethnically, well, it speaks for itself; there may be as many as 75 million people living here (according to one supermarket's analysis of food sales) in which case you have 45 million white British and 30 million something else, with the latter fawned over by politicians and the formerly routinely dismissed and belittled. Schools in which 55 languages are spoken are a problem, not an achievement.
It's a bit rich for Nick to fret about a loss of social solidarity when all three of the above are the consequence of the left's own prejudices, neuroses and policies in government.
Ireland was still showing a show on the same premise in 2007 when I was there.
Absolutely. In 1976 the UK government had to go to the IMF for a bailout. We were bankrupt.
The IMF did exactly the same to us as they are doing to Greece etc. ie dictating draconian spending cuts in return for the money.
I haven't even started talking about inflation, which was intermittently of banana republic proportions in the 1970s.
Interest rates were set by governments to win elections. Sterling crises abounded as investors realised we had no proper independent commitment to monetary and fiscal control. Gilt auctions failed because no buyers turned up, even though they were offered yields of up to 20%.
The 'brain drain' prompted hundreds of thousands of capable people move overseas to avoid tax rates that were little more than theft.
Industrial relations? basket case. Manufacturing industry? do me a favour. Winter of discontent? don;t get me started. I could go on and on and on.
The idea we were better governed then is completely unsupportable and totally wrong. In fact its one of the most ludicrous assertions I have ever read on PB.
Populus @PopulusPolls 20s
New Populus VI: Lab 37 (=); Cons 33 (-1); LD 10 (=); UKIP 13 (+2); Oth 7 (-1) Tables to follow
A bit of local interest for me!
Ireland was still showing a show on the same premise in 2007 when I was there.
It ain't 'alf 'ot mum?
It ain't alf racist mum....
So overall I'm an optimist: if we can improve education, continue stabilising the public finances, continue with business-friendly policies, we will do well.
Obviously if we elect anti-business, anti-excellence governments, then, not so well.
*sighs*
It makes me want to get back to reading Shakespeare (I'm a short distance into the Complete Works) just so I can learn more insults to hurl at you for such abuse of English.
"75 million people UK" and found no reference to your supermarket story
and for
"school uk 55 languages" and the only story I found was about City of Leeds school, where there were more than 50 nationalities, and half the kids did not speak English as a first language, which is not quite the same thing. I went to a school where fewer than half the pupils spoke English as a first language. It achieved pretty decent results - with 80 people in a year, getting four people into Oxbridge isn't a bad result, considering how poor many pupil's English skills were when they joined the school.
It also produced one of Peter Cook's finest parodies, of Mr. Justice Cantley's summing up.
"He (Scott) is a pervert, a parasite, a liar, a worm, a self-confessed player of the pink oboe, a man (or woman) who by his (or her) own admission chews pillows. But, he may still be telling the truth. That is entirely a matter for you, members of the jury."
Just for you, I shall rephrase it
"Debate bounce for Farage after he went all Scipio Africanus on the latter day Hannibal that is Nick Clegg?"
Mine loved Benny Hill...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26885624
Edited extra bit: the first corner at Bahrain has been renamed after him. Schumacher won the first race there.
During the summing he effectively told them, if they didn't find him guilty, they deserves to become the victims of crimes themselves.
She kept on, kept on. Finally told me, said: I dont like the way this country is headed. I want my granddaughter to be able to have an abortion. And I said well mam I dont think you got any worries about the way the country is headed. The way I see it goin I dont have much doubt but what she’ll be able to have an abortion. I’m goin to say that not only will she be able to have an abortion, she’ll be able to have you put to sleep.
McCarthy, Cormac (2010-12-10). No Country for Old Men (Kindle Locations 2525-2528). Macmillan Publishers UK. Kindle Edition.
It hadn't occurred to me before but it seems to me his character must be right. There is surely quite a good chance that women who insist today on their right to abortion will eventually be euthanised by their grandchildren.
I don't mind at all, I think jokes should be treated as jokes, but if we are digging out ones that may be "offensive"
I don't really remember "Love Thy Neighbour", only very vaguely, but wasn't the white bloke shown as an idiot we were laughing at, and his black neighbour representing a reasonable, normal person?
But what do I know about LD votes? I did have the most accurate forecast of LD cllr losses in a previous PB annual competition!
Yep, and the black guy's wife was way foxier (the lovely Nina baden-semper)....
But I think the point Nick and others were making earlier is how does our society think and care for those who are at the edges, those with disabilities, the illegal immigrant, the feckless and foolish. We, on the whole, give them more money but we seem a lot more remote.
There was a program a few months ago about how social care intervention had changed. Fairly feckless families were given what would today be classed as slightly patronising rules about keeping their house and garden in order, proper meal times for the kids etc. It was called Benefits Britain 1949 on C4. The recipients loved it. Just loved it. And they seemed much happier. Sometimes caring involves more than writing a cheque.
'There's no way of stopping Scotland using the pound if it wants to - and why would we want the instability caused by having it use a different currency anyway? It would be economic madness, hence why the government minister said what he did.'
Has anyone ever said that Scotland can't continue to use the pound outside a currency union?
We can manage very well when 18 countries with a combined population of over 300 million change their currency but when one country with 5 million people change their currency it's 'economic madness'
Your having a laugh
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10009745/Savita-Halappanavars-death-a-doctors-eye-view.html
http://www.thejournal.ie/twenty-years-on-a-timeline-of-the-x-case-347359-Feb2012/
And many more.
We've put the Next Cabinet Minister Out market back up.
I don't like it all that much, because there is too much potential for ambiguity about what counts as in or out of the cabinet. But for the benefit of anyone here who wants a bet
- Only the people on our list count as cabinet ministers for betting purposes
- "Attending" cabinet or some such term does not count
- Dead Heat rules apply if more than one leave on the same day. (Lets hope someone does before the general election)
I think, the rumours are for a cabinet reshuffle in the aftermath of the locals and Euros.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-10989700
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/284086/early-intervention-next-steps2.pdf
There have been some good radio shows on it. It does not work in all cases, but every family who is raised out of the cycle of hopelessness is another family saved. It costs a great deal, but the long-term rewards must be incalculable.
The following reports are well worth a read; sadly I cannot find anything more recent:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6151/2183663.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/10961/Troubled_families_case_studies.pdf
My father was incredulous that ITV had assigned one Desmond Hamill to report the case - "he looks as weird as they are" - and when Thorpe lost his seat he commented that the electorate had clearly arrived at its own verdict.
I was about 14 and I do recall wondering how the Westminster media could really have had no inkling of any of it. As we know now, they knew plenty.
If Supermarkets are really selling food for 75 million people, then that explains a lot of obesity and waste, not that we have an extra 10 million people!
I think that's a strange comparison. John Osborne's 'Look Back In Anger' doesn;t remind me of modern Singapore one bit!
Bet365 have one of the most bonkers offers I've ever seen. Half your stake refunded on E/W bets on the National up to £125.
It is free money if you want it, half your outgoings, double your stake, whatever... it is a cracking offer though.
It is actual money NOT free bets that are credited to your account also.