This article reminded me of the excellent comic strip that was linked to on PB a few months ago which said "no one had ever won an election with X until...." It was based on the American experience but it showed the nonsense of relying on precedents in something as inherently unpredictable as elections.
In the referendum the consistent polling leads on the part of no proved to be a good indicator. The stability of Labour's lead despite all of Ed's best efforts to the contrary, is a very dangerous sign for the Tories.
Ed is not fit to be PM but it remains very likely that this is exactly what is going to happen.
Iain Dale @IainDale Follow Told by a normally reliable source another Tory UKIP defection is imminent. Stand by your beds. 1:31 PM - 29 Sep 2014 Any markets up?
Would not surprise me if it were Philip Davies.
Could UKIP win a by-election in Shipley though? Not convinced.
Looking at the 'no's to action in Syria I would narrow it down to 3 possibles:
Gordon Henderson - Sittingbourne Adam Holloway - Gravesham John Baron - Basildon and Billericay
Think UKIP could win a defection by-election in any of these 3 constituencies.
A by election in Gravesham would be a genuine three way battle, Labour won the local elections there in 2013.
Indeed. Which is why I never set much stall by "precedent" stats. There was a great cartoon at the Potus 2012 election which I think Antifrank sourced which poked fun at this brilliantly.
I wish I could put my finger on it.
Yes it was an amusing cartoon. Nothing more. Most of the "records" were "no-one with a left-parting in their hair..."-type guff.
Rigorous and relevant statistics tell a better tale...
Yes, it is appalling but as with Oscar Wilde's libel suit, maybe the Tories would be better advised to swallow it rather than risk it hitting the headlines again in, say, six months' time during the election campaign.
Elswehere Kiev government forces have abandoned a number of positions in the Donbass leaving behind heavy equipment sorely needed by the rebels. NAF now able to muster circa 20k soldiers with Kiev able to muster only 35-40k with many of their elite units and equipment significantly degraded. Offensive capabilities remain limited and any offensive runs the risk of a counter offensive which would see further NAF gains. Novorossiya is beginning to take shape as an independent state with a military well capable of protecting itself. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/09/16/ukraines-breakaway-region-is-becoming-a-de-facto-country/
In the rear support for the war party led by Lyashko continues to drop with Poroshenko set to win a sizeable majority. Fully 32% plan to boycott the parliamentary election, 3% to spoil the ballot, 5% to vote for pro-Russian parties which most likely won't be allowed on the ballot (CPU, PR), and another 3% to vote for Tihipko's "Strong Ukraine". Less than 60% plan to vote in Eastern and Southern Ukraine (obviously this excludes Crimea and the Donbass which are de facto liberated now). In the government controlled areas of Donbass, 23.5% are planning to participate in the October election. Very poor considering the intensive propaganda of the Kiev media. The natives are getting restless with promised Western economic assistance proving so far to be empty promises.
That no one talks about MH17 now tells you all you need to know.
The Tories' bizarre penchant for cryptic slogans continues
I think The Big Society was good myself... set themselves against The Big State well
Cameron didn't have the balls to stick with it, a la Miliband and Blue Labour
I would say UKIP are a combo of both, that's why I vote for them. I liked both ideas at the time
Agreed. The Big Society was one of the best concepts any party has come up with in a very long time. The problem was one of execution and the impression that the Tories really didn't understand their own concept or what was necessary to achieve it.
Yes, it is appalling but as with Oscar Wilde's libel suit, maybe the Tories would be better advised to swallow it rather than risk it hitting the headlines again in, say, six months' time during the election campaign.
They can't stop the model suing.
No but they might have a word with Mark Pritchard, the MP who has complained.
Chesham&Amersham CLP @CheshamAmersham We're looking for a parliamentary candidate for the 2015 general election. Are you a Labour Party member looking for a seat to contest? Retweeted by tom_watson
I would agree that there have been some societal improvements that I would not change. But overall I believe our society is much poorer in terms of the relationship between the Government and the populace than it has been in the past and that the trend is going in entirely the wrong direction.
That's looking at things very much through rose-tinted spectacles. I remember times, and they are not long ago, when:
- The state told me how much foreign exchange I was allowed to buy - The state told me how much of a mortgage I was allowed - The state told my employer how much it could pay its employees - The state told my employer what prices it could charge its customers - The state insisted I'd have to join a particular trade union to work in a given industry - The state told me that I could only buy not only telecoms services, but even telecoms equipment, only through the state monopoly industy
There are many more such examples. We actually live in a much freer society than at any time in living memory. The Maggie revolution was stunning, but the achievements are of course taken for granted now even by those who claim to despise her.
And whilst I don't remember them I know of times well before that when they State did none of those things. To pick out one particular dark period in history and use it as an example of the whole of the past is frankly daft.
Now of course the State just robs us blind instead.
Yes, it is appalling but as with Oscar Wilde's libel suit, maybe the Tories would be better advised to swallow it rather than risk it hitting the headlines again in, say, six months' time during the election campaign.
I'm not sure that's right: I think the way Newmark's handled it may garner him some sympathy.
How many of us can honestly say, hand on heart, that we would not fall for anything similar? That flattery and comment from someone who knew us (or at least our public profile) well could cause us to do something obviously stupid?
Remember, this was not an affair, just a sordid photo.
I'm very happily married and deeply in love. I've never had an affair, and can foresee no circumstances were I'd have one. But I'm not sure that I wouldn't fall for someone pressing the right buttons and getting me to do something stupid.
And if we were honest, the same could be said for most of us.
Elswehere Kiev government forces have abandoned a number of positions in the Donbass leaving behind heavy equipment sorely needed by the rebels. NAF now able to muster circa 20k soldiers with Kiev able to muster only 35-40k with many of their elite units and equipment significantly degraded. Offensive capabilities remain limited and any offensive runs the risk of a counter offensive which would see further NAF gains. Novorossiya is beginning to take shape as an independent state with a military well capable of protecting itself. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/09/16/ukraines-breakaway-region-is-becoming-a-de-facto-country/
In the rear support for the war party led by Lyashko continues to drop with Poroshenko set to win a sizeable majority. Fully 32% plan to boycott the parliamentary election, 3% to spoil the ballot, 5% to vote for pro-Russian parties which most likely won't be allowed on the ballot (CPU, PR), and another 3% to vote for Tihipko's "Strong Ukraine". Less than 60% plan to vote in Eastern and Southern Ukraine (obviously this excludes Crimea and the Donbass which are de facto liberated now). In the government controlled areas of Donbass, 23.5% are planning to participate in the October election. Very poor considering the intensive propaganda of the Kiev media. The natives are getting restless with promised Western economic assistance proving so far to be empty promises.
That no one talks about MH17 now tells you all you need to know.
David - Antifrank linked to that very cartoon below.
Agreed.
Antifrank is usually a lot quicker off the mark than me and I see having refreshed properly that I am particularly far down the field this time. Oh well!
Yes, it is appalling but as with Oscar Wilde's libel suit, maybe the Tories would be better advised to swallow it rather than risk it hitting the headlines again in, say, six months' time during the election campaign.
They can't stop the model suing.
No but they might have a word with Mark Pritchard, the MP who has complained.
Nah. The Mirror deserves everything it gets for this one.
And whilst I don't remember them I know of times well before that when they State did none of those things. To pick out one particular dark period in history and use it as an example of the whole of the past is frankly daft. .
Well, you'd have to go back to before the First World War to look for your golden age. However, you won't find it. Look at, for example, the attack on property rights of the building of the railways, when a few well-connected landowners could get their private compulsory-purchase bills through parliament. Even in the most favourable interpretation, the golden age you hark back to existed in practice only for a minority with private means, and even then was subject to all sorts of state interference - in their sex lives for example, or in religion. The Test Act was repealed only in 1828 (by a Tory government, natch), and even after that there was considerable state-sponsored discrimination on religious grounds right through the nineteenth century.
Yes, it is appalling but as with Oscar Wilde's libel suit, maybe the Tories would be better advised to swallow it rather than risk it hitting the headlines again in, say, six months' time during the election campaign.
They can't stop the model suing.
No but they might have a word with Mark Pritchard, the MP who has complained.
Nah. The Mirror deserves everything it gets for this one.
And that is no doubt why the complaint was made. But it was not made by Newmark, and it is probably better for him and the Conservative Party if this is allowed to be forgotten. It would be different if the minister had not taken the bait but he did. When his Paisley PJs hit the headlines again next year, who benefits? As the lawyers say: expensive things, principles.
Elswehere Kiev government forces have abandoned a number of positions in the Donbass leaving behind heavy equipment sorely needed by the rebels. NAF now able to muster circa 20k soldiers with Kiev able to muster only 35-40k with many of their elite units and equipment significantly degraded. Offensive capabilities remain limited and any offensive runs the risk of a counter offensive which would see further NAF gains. Novorossiya is beginning to take shape as an independent state with a military well capable of protecting itself. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/09/16/ukraines-breakaway-region-is-becoming-a-de-facto-country/
In the rear support for the war party led by Lyashko continues to drop with Poroshenko set to win a sizeable majority. Fully 32% plan to boycott the parliamentary election, 3% to spoil the ballot, 5% to vote for pro-Russian parties which most likely won't be allowed on the ballot (CPU, PR), and another 3% to vote for Tihipko's "Strong Ukraine". Less than 60% plan to vote in Eastern and Southern Ukraine (obviously this excludes Crimea and the Donbass which are de facto liberated now). In the government controlled areas of Donbass, 23.5% are planning to participate in the October election. Very poor considering the intensive propaganda of the Kiev media. The natives are getting restless with promised Western economic assistance proving so far to be empty promises.
That no one talks about MH17 now tells you all you need to know.
Oh dear. Time to get the tinfoil hat out again.
You get that out rather often don't you? Assad being behind ISIS I think it was last time wasn't it?
The Tories' bizarre penchant for cryptic slogans continues
I think The Big Society was good myself... set themselves against The Big State well
Cameron didn't have the balls to stick with it, a la Miliband and Blue Labour
I would say UKIP are a combo of both, that's why I vote for them. I liked both ideas at the time
Agreed. The Big Society was one of the best concepts any party has come up with in a very long time. The problem was one of execution and the impression that the Tories really didn't understand their own concept or what was necessary to achieve it.
The main problem with The Big Society from a political party's point of view is that it seeks to politicise lots of good and charitable work done by at least hundreds of thousands of people up and down this country of all political persuasions whether they have any political intent or not.
So those that do sponsored charity runs or work with their church etc etc do not for a moment think they are doing the government's work, usually quite the reverse. And in government it can all too easily fall into the temptation of having charities fill the gaps that on one view the state should fill. So you have foodbanks giving food to hungry people who all too often are being sanctioned by the State for some perceived failing on their part.
My view is that the original concept of recognising that it is not the role or the function of the State to look after us and nanny us from cradle to grave is a sound one but claiming any positive steps are a result of the policy is problematic in the extreme.
Indeed. Which is why I never set much stall by "precedent" stats. There was a great cartoon at the Potus 2012 election which I think Antifrank sourced which poked fun at this brilliantly.
I wish I could put my finger on it.
Yes it was an amusing cartoon. Nothing more. Most of the "records" were "no-one with a left-parting in their hair..."-type guff.
Rigorous and relevant statistics tell a better tale...
Like most xckd (?) cartoons, not as clever as it thinks it is.
"No party behind on the economy" and "no leader behind in popularity" are a big deal.
And whilst I don't remember them I know of times well before that when they State did none of those things. To pick out one particular dark period in history and use it as an example of the whole of the past is frankly daft. .
Well, you'd have to go back to before the First World War to look for your golden age. However, you won't find it. Look at, for example, the attack on property rights of the building of the railways, when a few well-connected landowners could get their private compulsory-purchase bills through parliament. Even in the most favourable interpretation, the golden age you hark back to existed in practice only for a minority with private means, and even then was subject to all sorts of state interference - in their sex lives for example, or in religion. The Test Act was repealed only in 1828 (by a Tory government, natch), and even after that there was considerable state-sponsored discrimination on religious grounds right through the nineteenth century.
The concept of a golden age is, as you say, a mythologised one. We have progressed in many ways and that should be celebrated. But in certain areas we have gone backwards, and that movement is to be regretted and fought.
Yes, it is appalling but as with Oscar Wilde's libel suit, maybe the Tories would be better advised to swallow it rather than risk it hitting the headlines again in, say, six months' time during the election campaign.
They can't stop the model suing.
No but they might have a word with Mark Pritchard, the MP who has complained.
Nah. The Mirror deserves everything it gets for this one.
And that is no doubt why the complaint was made. But it was not made by Newmark, and it is probably better for him and the Conservative Party if this is allowed to be forgotten. It would be different if the minister had not taken the bait but he did. When his Paisley PJs hit the headlines again next year, who benefits? As the lawyers say: expensive things, principles.
Any paper would be deserve the same treatment as The Mirror. It's going to be interesting to see how the new watchdog acts, particularly in view of the copyright issue.
Citing Russian government reporting on Russian militias' claims that anti-Russian forces carried out mass killings as "evidence"?
That story cites the OSCE ( http://www.osce.org ) as confirming the presence of these mass graves. Again, a case where a short read ahead might have helped you. Again a case where your under-nourished list of news sources has let you down. It has always been widely known that the Ukranian forces were not fully under one central command, with many groups such as Right-Sector operating independently. That's a neo-nazi group unless you weren't aware. I take it your firm line on the 'far right' still applies?
Can you link me to the actual evidence of OSCE confirming it? Because the quote provided by the OSCE basically says "we're looking into it". And one of the sides in the conflict claiming it as so doesn't count I'm afraid.
And whilst I don't remember them I know of times well before that when they State did none of those things. To pick out one particular dark period in history and use it as an example of the whole of the past is frankly daft. .
Well, you'd have to go back to before the First World War to look for your golden age. However, you won't find it. Look at, for example, the attack on property rights of the building of the railways, when a few well-connected landowners could get their private compulsory-purchase bills through parliament. Even in the most favourable interpretation, the golden age you hark back to existed in practice only for a minority with private means, and even then was subject to all sorts of state interference - in their sex lives for example, or in religion. The Test Act was repealed only in 1828 (by a Tory government, natch), and even after that there was considerable state-sponsored discrimination on religious grounds right through the nineteenth century.
There will always be examples of how the Government overruled people no matter where you look. But we currently have a situation where the State takes almost half of the GDP of the country to waste and in doing so has warped our society and our expectations as a nation far beyond anything that is practical or desirable in the long term.
I have never referred to a 'Golden Age', that is just you indulging in a logical fallacy. All I have said is that the idea that things were not better in significant ways in the past is clearly false and that maintaining that belief that we have the best of what is currently possible, particularly given that it is unsustainable, is a dangerous and false assertion.
Well, England certainly doesn't seem terribly keen on coalitions at the moment, especially not the people who voted for the LibDems specifically in order to get one.
I find that bemusing. The Lib Dems have stood for years on having 'fairer' electoral systems that stood good chances of putting them into coalitions. Yet the moment they go into coalition, people scream and huff about it being the 'wrong' coalition, despite the fact it was the only practical one available.
What did they expect?
(Edit: and I should add the coalition has been more mature and successful than I considered possible when it was formed).
The parliamentary Lib Dems have largely got on with it. I was at a local activists party in 2010 (I'm now just an invisible supporter) and the feeling then was although it was not something we want to do there's a job to be done and therefore we need to do it well. The problems the Tories have is with their EU obsessed right flank (ie with their own internal coalition).
The problem the Conservatives have is not just their EU-obsessed right flank, but a large number who hark back to nebulous glorious days of the past, when our military was strong, we ruled ourselves, society was somehow better, and the days were generally sunnier (thus disproving this newfangled AGW rubbish).
As a forty-something, I find this attitude curious. Whilst the country has problems, I would rather be alive now than at any time in the past. Give me the Britain of 2014 over that of 1984, 1954 or 1924.
And we all - including political parties - need to work to ensure that 2044 is better than 2014.
There will always be examples of how the Government overruled people no matter where you look. But we currently have a situation where the State takes almost half of the GDP of the country to waste and in doing so has warped our society and our expectations as a nation far beyond anything that is practical or desirable in the long term.
I have never referred to a 'Golden Age', that is just you indulging in a logical fallacy. All I have said is that the idea that things were not better in significant ways in the past is clearly false and that maintaining that belief that we have the best of what is currently possible, particularly given that it is unsustainable, is a dangerous and false assertion.
You said " I believe our society is much poorer in terms of the relationship between the Government and the populace than it has been in the past "
Decide or decline sounds like one of those late afternoon quiz shows....
'And coming up after Pointless, Decide or Decline.....where Conservative MPs face their careers ending if they can't decide to agree with David Cameron quickly enough...
Decide or decline not a strong slogan, for the following reason. A successful slogan must have a hook as well as bait. The bait is sounding good, being catchy, being memorable, generating agreement. The hook is a lot harder -it's how the slogan applies only to what you're selling, and excludes the competition. 'It's the real thing' Coca cola's legendary slogan, emphasising the brand's authenticity set against the 'young pretender' of Pepsi, is an example of such a slogan.
'Decide or decline' sounds ok, there's a fairly clever double meaning on decline, but there's not much hook -I could just as easily read this slogan and 'decide' it was time to vote UKIP. It only really works as an attack on Labour, and there are probably comparatively few Labour voters exercised by national decline -otherwise they wouldn't vote Labour.
What they should have done is a double attack along the lines of the 'make believe dreams of UKIP' or the 'real nightmares of five years of Labour'. 'If you can't face a socialist nightmare, but don't believe separatist daydreams, vote Conservative'. It needs finessing obviously, but I haven't had long.
My view is that the original concept of recognising that it is not the role or the function of the State to look after us and nanny us from cradle to grave is a sound one but claiming any positive steps are a result of the policy is problematic in the extreme.
Well, exactly.
The whole point of the Big Society would be that people can organise themselves to improve their communities without needing State direction, assistance or interference. Logically it's therefore impossible for a government to claim the credit for this happening, or even, perhaps, to implement any policies that would make it happen.
So it was a mistake to see the Big Society in normal political policy terms - it was only ever going to work as one part meta-philosophical debate about the nature of government, society and individual involvement and one part getting stuck in proactively to make things happen on the ground outwith the functions of the state.
Yes, it is appalling but as with Oscar Wilde's libel suit, maybe the Tories would be better advised to swallow it rather than risk it hitting the headlines again in, say, six months' time during the election campaign.
I'm not sure that's right: I think the way Newmark's handled it may garner him some sympathy.
How many of us can honestly say, hand on heart, that we would not fall for anything similar? That flattery and comment from someone who knew us (or at least our public profile) well could cause us to do something obviously stupid?
Remember, this was not an affair, just a sordid photo.
I'm very happily married and deeply in love. I've never had an affair, and can foresee no circumstances were I'd have one. But I'm not sure that I wouldn't fall for someone pressing the right buttons and getting me to do something stupid.
And if we were honest, the same could be said for most of us.
How can you have sympathy for a fool unless you are also a fool. The man is an imbecile and is obviously not capable of running a bath never mind a government department. You by your post appear to associate yourself as being like him.
You said " I believe our society is much poorer in terms of the relationship between the Government and the populace than it has been in the past "
OK: When? Put a date to it.
Robert Smithson regularly likes to quote AJP Taylor on this issue and I will do the same.
"Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police. Unlike the countries of the European continent, the state did not require its citizens to perform military service. An Englishman could enlist, if he chose, in the regular army, the navy, or the territorials. He could also ignore, if he chose, the demands of national defence. Substantial householders were occasionally called on for jury service. Otherwise, only those helped the state who wished to do so. The Englishman paid taxes on a modest scale: nearly £200 million in 1913-14, or rather less than 8 per cent. of the national income. The state intervened to prevent the citizen from eating adulterated food or contracting certain infectious diseases. It imposed safety rules in factories, and prevented women, and adult males in some industries, from working excessive hours. The state saw to it that children received education up to the age of 13. Since 1 January 1909, it provided a meagre pension for the needy over the age of 70. Since 1911, it helped to insure certain classes of workers against sickness and unemployment. This tendency towards more state action was increasing. Expenditure on the social services had roughly doubled since the Liberals took office in 1905. Still, broadly speaking, the state acted only to help those who could not help themselves. It left the adult citizen alone."
Elswehere Kiev government forces have abandoned a number of positions in the Donbass leaving behind heavy equipment sorely needed by the rebels. NAF now able to muster circa 20k soldiers with Kiev able to muster only 35-40k with many of their elite units and equipment significantly degraded. Offensive capabilities remain limited and any offensive runs the risk of a counter offensive which would see further NAF gains. Novorossiya is beginning to take shape as an independent state with a military well capable of protecting itself. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/09/16/ukraines-breakaway-region-is-becoming-a-de-facto-country/
In the rear support for the war party led by Lyashko continues to drop with Poroshenko set to win a sizeable majority. Fully 32% plan to boycott the parliamentary election, 3% to spoil the ballot, 5% to vote for pro-Russian parties which most likely won't be allowed on the ballot (CPU, PR), and another 3% to vote for Tihipko's "Strong Ukraine". Less than 60% plan to vote in Eastern and Southern Ukraine (obviously this excludes Crimea and the Donbass which are de facto liberated now). In the government controlled areas of Donbass, 23.5% are planning to participate in the October election. Very poor considering the intensive propaganda of the Kiev media. The natives are getting restless with promised Western economic assistance proving so far to be empty promises.
That no one talks about MH17 now tells you all you need to know.
Oh dear. Time to get the tinfoil hat out again.
You get that out rather often don't you? Assad being behind ISIS I think it was last time wasn't it?
Yes, it is appalling but as with Oscar Wilde's libel suit, maybe the Tories would be better advised to swallow it rather than risk it hitting the headlines again in, say, six months' time during the election campaign.
I'm not sure that's right: I think the way Newmark's handled it may garner him some sympathy.
How many of us can honestly say, hand on heart, that we would not fall for anything similar? That flattery and comment from someone who knew us (or at least our public profile) well could cause us to do something obviously stupid?
Remember, this was not an affair, just a sordid photo.
I'm very happily married and deeply in love. I've never had an affair, and can foresee no circumstances were I'd have one. But I'm not sure that I wouldn't fall for someone pressing the right buttons and getting me to do something stupid.
And if we were honest, the same could be said for most of us.
How can you have sympathy for a fool unless you are also a fool. The man is an imbecile and is obviously not capable of running a bath never mind a government department. You by your post appear to associate yourself as being like him.
You can have sympathy with people who are foolish. For instance, I have a little sympathy (*) for those who have spent the last couple of years spamming websites about their desire for Scottish independence, only to see their countrymen nobly disagree with them.
I may be wrong to think that there was not also an increase in the vote share for Labour between 1964 and 1966 and that Labour got back in 1970 after only 1 term out under Heath government of 1970-74?
Comments
In the referendum the consistent polling leads on the part of no proved to be a good indicator. The stability of Labour's lead despite all of Ed's best efforts to the contrary, is a very dangerous sign for the Tories.
Ed is not fit to be PM but it remains very likely that this is exactly what is going to happen.
Can I suggest Share or Shaft as a more visceral alternative?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YzZ86GYoxE0
No, scrub that.
You'd definitely have to delete all of your jokes first.
A by election in Gravesham would be a genuine three way battle, Labour won the local elections there in 2013.
Rigorous and relevant statistics tell a better tale...
Agreed.
That no one talks about MH17 now tells you all you need to know.
Chesham&Amersham CLP @CheshamAmersham
We're looking for a parliamentary candidate for the 2015 general election. Are you a Labour Party member looking for a seat to contest?
Retweeted by tom_watson
Now of course the State just robs us blind instead.
How many of us can honestly say, hand on heart, that we would not fall for anything similar? That flattery and comment from someone who knew us (or at least our public profile) well could cause us to do something obviously stupid?
Remember, this was not an affair, just a sordid photo.
I'm very happily married and deeply in love. I've never had an affair, and can foresee no circumstances were I'd have one. But I'm not sure that I wouldn't fall for someone pressing the right buttons and getting me to do something stupid.
And if we were honest, the same could be said for most of us.
The guardian yesterday linked to one of my threads yesterday (although they said Mike wrote it)
Last year Adam Boulton made the same mistake last year.
So those that do sponsored charity runs or work with their church etc etc do not for a moment think they are doing the government's work, usually quite the reverse. And in government it can all too easily fall into the temptation of having charities fill the gaps that on one view the state should fill. So you have foodbanks giving food to hungry people who all too often are being sanctioned by the State for some perceived failing on their part.
My view is that the original concept of recognising that it is not the role or the function of the State to look after us and nanny us from cradle to grave is a sound one but claiming any positive steps are a result of the policy is problematic in the extreme.
"No party behind on the economy" and "no leader behind in popularity" are a big deal.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BysWE6MIEAAe5w5.jpg
http://barristerblogger.com/2014/09/28/tricked-sex-fraud-sunday-mirrors-sting-brookes-newmark-criminal/
Might amuse the lawyers, but will the model be willing to sue for misuse of her photograph?
https://m.ladbrokes.com/ladbrokes/en/#!event_details?id=219441608
I have never referred to a 'Golden Age', that is just you indulging in a logical fallacy. All I have said is that the idea that things were not better in significant ways in the past is clearly false and that maintaining that belief that we have the best of what is currently possible, particularly given that it is unsustainable, is a dangerous and false assertion.
I was thinking a job swap might work. Get the Conservatives to run Hong Kong, and the Communist Party of China to deal with defecting MPs.
OK: When? Put a date to it.
'Decide or decline' sounds ok, there's a fairly clever double meaning on decline, but there's not much hook -I could just as easily read this slogan and 'decide' it was time to vote UKIP. It only really works as an attack on Labour, and there are probably comparatively few Labour voters exercised by national decline -otherwise they wouldn't vote Labour.
What they should have done is a double attack along the lines of the 'make believe dreams of UKIP' or the 'real nightmares of five years of Labour'. 'If you can't face a socialist nightmare, but don't believe separatist daydreams, vote Conservative'. It needs finessing obviously, but I haven't had long.
The way to make money out of any defection is to lump on UKIP to win the seat in 2015 before the bookies slash the odds.
The whole point of the Big Society would be that people can organise themselves to improve their communities without needing State direction, assistance or interference. Logically it's therefore impossible for a government to claim the credit for this happening, or even, perhaps, to implement any policies that would make it happen.
So it was a mistake to see the Big Society in normal political policy terms - it was only ever going to work as one part meta-philosophical debate about the nature of government, society and individual involvement and one part getting stuck in proactively to make things happen on the ground outwith the functions of the state.
"Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police. Unlike the countries of the European continent, the state did not require its citizens to perform military service. An Englishman could enlist, if he chose, in the regular army, the navy, or the territorials. He could also ignore, if he chose, the demands of national defence. Substantial householders were occasionally called on for jury service. Otherwise, only those helped the state who wished to do so. The Englishman paid taxes on a modest scale: nearly £200 million in 1913-14, or rather less than 8 per cent. of the national income. The state intervened to prevent the citizen from eating adulterated food or contracting certain infectious diseases. It imposed safety rules in factories, and prevented women, and adult males in some industries, from working excessive hours. The state saw to it that children received education up to the age of 13. Since 1 January 1909, it provided a meagre pension for the needy over the age of 70. Since 1911, it helped to insure certain classes of workers against sickness and unemployment. This tendency towards more state action was increasing. Expenditure on the social services had roughly doubled since the Liberals took office in 1905. Still, broadly speaking, the state acted only to help those who could not help themselves. It left the adult citizen alone."
Next.
(*) one grain's worth.