Three unhelpful pieces of PR for Labour in the press.
1. Tony Benn's tax avoidance on his £5m+ estate 2. The Blairs buy their 31st property and a lot of it paid for in cash. 3. EdM giving 2p to a beggar and looking very embarrassed
Perhaps all summed up by cif comments:
"Labour - the party of the working man... Don't make me laugh. These types of socialists would cross the street to avoid getting contaminated by the people who vote for them" and
"Yes, so stay on your side of the road please,"
Just show how detached a lot of the Labour leadership (over the ages) is from their supporters who are now waking up! Still presume a lot will still vote tribally in 2015.
Some good points on Labour's Senate plans. A key consideration for me with any constitutional reform is to think about the role of a body and the end vision. I have always been sceptical of changing FPTP because I believe that when we have an executive fused to the legislature we need a system that generally provides the capacity for strong government.
On the Lords, we first need to ask what is its role? I generally think that what it does now is a pretty good role - review without too much blocking power. With that in mind then a less political, expert driven House makes more sense. I am also a support of the Bishops in the House. Archbishop Welby's recent speech to the Parliamentary Press Gallery lunch is good here and is something I briefly wrote about on my blog this week - www.thesceptredisle.wordpress.com.
Now my support of non-election of Lords is not to say I am against reform. The Lords should be smaller, there could be term limits, it could be appointed independently of political parties completely etc, etc. But I am wary of grand visions influencing constitutional reform in one big change.
Moreover, as you imply in your post - do people feel as though they have a regional identity? A House representing the nations and regions of the UK, yet ignoring the biggest nation England! A House of Commons with most legislative power and still no recognition of England. It is a bit of a joke from Labour and seems unsatisfactory.
Moreover Labour are in danger of undermining any constitutional convention by pre-releasing their desired end result. Now one could argue this is just one of their submissions to such a convention. If so then they cannot promise that they will deliver this reform without pre-judging the results!
"Perhaps the average WWC English Labour voter is more socially conservative than the hierarchy wish to acknowledge?"
Obviously they're not a homogenous bunch, but a socially conservative and economically leftish party would hoover up quite a few votes (and a few Labour MPs). The Labour party would then be competing with the LDs for the middle class "intellectuals", the ones who consider themselves progressive.
The SWP types would then be in a better position to infiltrate what was left.
Social conservatism really isn't about skin colour. A socially conservative, left of centre message would attract votes from working class people of all ethnicities. It would also be a viable option for a lot more people than that.
Mr. M, indeed, the question of "What the Lords should do?" must be answered. Instead some are focusing on just axing what's there now and replacing it with any old thing.
Strong regional identities could become a terminal problem for England if those who are short-sighted or self-interested enough to oppose an English Parliament get their way and carve England up into pieces.
Resolving the democratic problem for the English must take precedent over fiddling with a secondary revising chamber of the UK Parliament.
There are multiple problems with this. 1) What about the bishops? Labour's ill-thought out constitutional meddling may yet cost us the UK itself, and they may end up disestablishing the Church by accident. 2) It's an attempt to entrench Balkanisation of the UK and inflicting Labour's dividing lines on an ancient country. He doesn't want 'constituency' Senators, as it were, but regional and city senators. 3) It does nothing to address the need for an English Parliament and, as mentioned above, seeks to actively make such a necessary step more difficult by carving England up into shitty little regions and city areas. It's not about resolving the Lords problem, but shafting England by taking a pre-emptive step to try and prevent a Parliament by creating dividing lines. 4) Why the rush? Labour doesn't want to back English votes for English laws, let alone an English Parliament. Indeed, they're prevaricating with the wish for a constitutional convention, but when it comes to the Lords they just want to impose their own will on the British constitution without even asking for cross-party consensus.
Once again, when it comes to changing the constitution in a way which may give England fairness, Labour couldn't give a damn.
Mr. Dancer, it is just another idea thrown out by the Ed Miliband machine.
Yesterday we were told that he will create a new English committee to be chaired by the PM and made up of all relevant secretaries of state plus city and shire leaders. This committee is presumably instead of addressing the "English Question".
The Labour machine seems geared to spew out a new policy every two or three days on average. The problem is those policies, regardless of any individual merit, have no unifying idea into which they will fit. Furthermore nor do any of those eye-catching policy initiatives seem to have been thought through to any degree, so they fall apart when someone asks a question.
Protecting the lowest paid from being undercut by restricting competition for their job is an idea that appeals to many left wingers I would have thought
"Social conservatism really isn't about skin colour."
I didn't mean to imply that it was.
There are many more important distinctions. Eamonn McCann, an Irish Marxist described the Orange men as ... "tuppence ha'penny looking down on tuppence." A general feeling of being all in it together and with united views, no matter what the ethnicity - a powerful phrase when used correctly.
Three unhelpful pieces of PR for Labour in the press.
1. Tony Benn's tax avoidance on his £5m+ estate 2. The Blairs buy their 31st property and a lot of it paid for in cash. 3. EdM giving 2p to a beggar and looking very embarrassed
Perhaps all summed up by cif comments:
"Labour - the party of the working man... Don't make me laugh. These types of socialists would cross the street to avoid getting contaminated by the people who vote for them" and
"Yes, so stay on your side of the road please,"
Just show how detached a lot of the Labour leadership (over the ages) is from their supporters who are now waking up! Still presume a lot will still vote tribally in 2015.
My Ph.D. dissertation chairman, who became a high Pentagon official assigned to wind down the Vietnam war, in answer to my question about how Washington gets Europeans to always do what Washington wants replied: “Money, we give them money.” “Foreign aid?” I asked. “No, we give the European political leaders bagfuls of money. They are for sale, We bought them. They report to us.”
Social conservatism really isn't about skin colour. A socially conservative, left of centre message would attract votes from working class people of all ethnicities. It would also be a viable option for a lot more people than that.
A shared economic situation or class does not equal a shared social and cultural belief.
The social class is separated along social/cultural lines.
It could disestablish the Church of England, and makes an English Parliament harder to achieve by carving this ancient land up into shitty little regions. Labour also appears to be promising to inflict this change regardless of whether it has consent of the people or other parties.
The Lords does need changing, but it has to be in a cross-party basis, and the more urgent matter is an English Parliament.
Labour's approach might be even worse than the Lib Dem madness of one-off 15 year terms.
Either way, their answer to fairness for England is to ignore the bloody question.
Mr Dancer, I fail to see why the CofE shoud NOT be disestablished. The number of people to demonstrate loyalty to it, as oppsed to professing to do so, continues to fall, as indeed thenumber of overtly Christians generally. Secondly, as JamesM points out, many English people do feel feel they have a regional identity; have you ever spent time on Tyne or Wearside, for example? They have their disputes but to suggest that they are the same as Yorkies or Midlanders, for example, is to risk a severe ear-bashing! Same applies in Lancashire, and we regularly have demonstrations of Yorkshire loyalty here on pb!
I have though to agree that an English Parliament would be a useful development, and that any reform should be a matter of cross-party agreement. However, only a dedicated tribalist would suggest that the other side can’t have good ideas, and, as with any journey, we have to start from somewhere.
What we have to do is to remember Harry Truman’s dictum; it’s amazing what can be done if no-one’s bothered about claiming the credit!"
There are multiple problems with this. 1) What about the bishops? Labour's ill-thought out constitutional meddling may yet cost us the UK itself, and they may end up disestablishing the Church by accident. 2) It's an attempt to entrench Balkanisation of the UK and inflicting Labour's dividing lines on an ancient country. He doesn't want 'constituency' Senators, as it were, but regional and city senators. 3) It does nothing to address the need for an English Parliament and, as mentioned above, seeks to actively make such a necessary step more difficult by carving England up into shitty little regions and city areas. It's not about resolving the Lords problem, but shafting England by taking a pre-emptive step to try and prevent a Parliament by creating dividing lines. 4) Why the rush? Labour doesn't want to back English votes for English laws, let alone an English Parliament. Indeed, they're prevaricating with the wish for a constitutional convention, but when it comes to the Lords they just want to impose their own will on the British constitution without even asking for cross-party consensus.
Once again, when it comes to changing the constitution in a way which may give England fairness, Labour couldn't give a damn.
Mr. Dancer, it is just another idea thrown out by the Ed Miliband machine.
Yesterday we were told that he will create a new English committee to be chaired by the PM and made up of all relevant secretaries of state plus city and shire leaders. This committee is presumably instead of addressing the "English Question".
The Labour machine seems geared to spew out a new policy every two or three days on average. The problem is those policies, regardless of any individual merit, have no unifying idea into which they will fit. Furthermore nor do any of those eye-catching policy initiatives seem to have been thought through to any degree, so they fall apart when someone asks a question.
I haven't seen HIGNFY yet, but it is also worth pointing out that The News Quiz on Radio 4 also put the boot into Ed, regarding Harriet's T-shirt stunt. It was said Ed wouldn't be doing a similar stunt - because he would get his head stuck through the arm-hole...
It isn't even an "aw bless, he TRIES..." resigned failure. It's the guy is just useless.
This is only worth pointing out because since the start of recorded time, the purpose of The News Quiz has been to put the boot into the Tories.
Protecting the lowest paid from being undercut by restricting competition for their job is an idea that appeals to many left wingers I would have thought
I agree. But what does that come with? If, for example, it just means your job moving to another country it does not really help you. So then you start looking at protectionism too and job security. And so on. That's where the internal difficulties might begin for UKIP. The big job losses in the 80s were not caused by immigration, but by globalisation.
King Cole, it's a legitimate political perspective, but disestablishment should not occur by accident due to short-sighted constitutional meddling.
You also do not need to tell a Yorkshireman about regional identity. As an Englishman I deserve no less than the Scots enjoy, and that necessitates an English Parliament. England is not the possession of the clown prince Miliband, to be cut up into crappy little regions, bereft of real power, whilst the Scots enjoy DevoMax.
Protecting the lowest paid from being undercut by restricting competition for their job is an idea that appeals to many left wingers I would have thought
I agree. But what does that come with? If, for example, it just means your job moving to another country it does not really help you. So then you start looking at protectionism too and job security. And so on. That's where the internal difficulties might begin for UKIP. The big job losses in the 80s were not caused by immigration, but by globalisation.
Seems to me having protectionism for the lowest paid gradually moving to a free market for the top jobs is a sensible idea
Like a progressive immigration system, where as at the moment it is like a flat tax
Mr. Mark, there wasn't much about Miliband on HIGNFY this week, but I think that was because the Scottish poll broke too early for the recording. It may feature next time.
Mr. Itajai, be fair. We all know Miliband has amnesia problems.
Social conservatism really isn't about skin colour. A socially conservative, left of centre message would attract votes from working class people of all ethnicities. It would also be a viable option for a lot more people than that.
A shared economic situation or class does not equal a shared social and cultural belief.
The social class is separated along social/cultural lines.
Of course. That's why it would be wrong to label all members of the working class - whatever colour they are - as socially conservative. But it is undoubtedly a demographic that exists and which cuts across ethnicities.
Miliband has hit rock bottom ! The media have gone over the top
I must admit I was quite shocked at the derision with which he was treated on last night's HIGNFY. Cameron was projected as almost statesmanlike by contrast. And Tories complain at BBC bias. Hmmm ...
I'm not sure it disproves BBC bias at all - I'd suggest Ed's deconstruction on HIGNFY etc is a function of his own side's recognition that they need to remove the liabililty at the top of their party asap.
Protecting the lowest paid from being undercut by restricting competition for their job is an idea that appeals to many left wingers I would have thought
I agree. But what does that come with? If, for example, it just means your job moving to another country it does not really help you. So then you start looking at protectionism too and job security. And so on. That's where the internal difficulties might begin for UKIP. The big job losses in the 80s were not caused by immigration, but by globalisation.
Seems to me having protectionism for the lowest paid gradually moving to a free market for the top jobs is a sensible idea
Like a progressive immigration system, where as at the moment it is like a flat tax
What do you mean by protectionism? The state intervening to prevent jobs going overseas? That is very left wing. But I am not sure it would get much support from people like Reckless, Farage and Carswell.
Is America a more successful country than ours over that period? The answer is yes in GDP per capita terms. The reasons for it probably have more to do with the laws, policies and administration of their respective government apparatus than other factors. I have no doubt from my own previous involvement with UK and other governments that the way these operate is a massive factor in our economic prosperity. When selecting people for a job the best practice is to look for matches with a well thought through Job Spec and the candidates experience and abilities. Our Govt operates by a PM selecting 100 people from a pool of just 325+ many of whom they owe favours and depend upon support from. It is a corrupting process that does not get the best person in each role. They then preside over departments in which they can only hire and fire less than 0.0001% of the staff.
It's also to do with the relative starting point.
Don't forget, that large parts of the West were still basically unoccupied as late as the 1870s.
The Huntington's didn't open the Southern Pacific (which connected New York to LA) until 1869.
Amongst the accusations of racism, homophobia and other isms directed at Ukip, I sense another gut feeling towards them from some.
Snobbery ... the feeling that they are ignorant, untutored and not really on the same intellectual plane as the "proper" politiciansm and that supporters of the "cultured" parties are intellectually superior. Another reason for the intense betrayal felt when Reckless defected.
It's overt enough to be picked up by Ukip supporters and a reason why the many of the insults are counterproductive.
The rats and he ferrets are swarming into Toad Hall.
Hence the sneering assumptions it appeals to the "left behind". The poor, the old, the uneducated.
After all, no "proper" (educated, well off, young) would vote for them. Would they....
I don't think that's sneering (or need not be), more an honest attempt to understand what UKIP's appeal is.
It doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that, for example, the people who are most opposed to immigration are those who face the greatest economic challenge from immigration.
The lower middle class and working working-class are the most affected. Left behind by no means, the strivers who win elections for who they vote. The bottom of society does not care and will remain Labour as they promise most sweeties.
I don't think we are really disagreeing. For once.
I should confirm, I am sceptical of the notion of a regional identity. I am a Lancastrian more than I am a North Westerner. Now I acknowledge we have to recognise a distinction between identity and practicalities for policy delivery, and they may not marry up, yet I can't see why cities and counties are not the best unit if we are to devolve below the national level. They are clear, understood and there is a sense of identity with them. In most cases they are a decent size too and there is always scope for grass root campaigns to merge these if the people want. Alongside this though we must recognise England as the demos it is.
With the Lords, I do not immediately see why it is the place to capture the nation/regions issue. It has no say over devolved issues and has no primary role over England either in terms of being a dominant House within Parliament. This reform also risks ignoring the imbalance in the Commons.
On the Church's establishment status, Morris_Dancer is correct, this must be thought through carefully. Again I revert you to Justin Welby who powerful argues on this issue.
In terms of a way forward. In the immediate term we could cut the Lords drastically in size, add term limits and remove political patronage whilst keeping its functions unchanged. I am not against the idea of some form of model where you have say:
- Lords becoming a Senate in title terms (let Lords/Ladies remain for landowners/honours). - Reduce down to say, 300 members (including Bishops) on 15 year terms, with 1/3 appointed every five years. - Appointments controlled by an independent committee. Not sure how the cross-bencher/party divide works unless you make everyone cross-bencher. - You could add an indirect election element although this risks empowering political parties more and blurring the elected/unelected relationship in Parliament, by splitting the 300 members in to 100 appointed/Bishops and 200 indirectly elected in thirds proportionally across the UK based on General Election votes in totality (min. 5% threshold).
EDIT:
The votes across the UK, I realise now, won't work as the SNP, NI, PC etc only stand in parts and thus may not hit 5% of total votes. Indirect election then may not work, unless it is split in to the four nations with each allocated a number of Senators.
Miliband has hit rock bottom ! The media have gone over the top
I must admit I was quite shocked at the derision with which he was treated on last night's HIGNFY. Cameron was projected as almost statesmanlike by contrast. And Tories complain at BBC bias. Hmmm ...
I'm not sure it disproves BBC bias at all - I'd suggest Ed's deconstruction on HIGNFY etc is a function of his own side's recognition that they need to remove the liabililty at the top of their party asap.
Cameron is statesmanlike. Ed needs people telling him hard truths. What's the problem here?
Labour’s HoL proposal is by no means perfect but at least they and the LD’s are looking at reforming this unwieldy, obese body, stuffed full of place-persons and yesterday’s men (and women).
The reason being why it is in this condition being entirely down to Labour's last set of reforms, of course.
It hardly gives you confidence about the ability to make sensible changes on a unilateral basis.
King Cole, it's a legitimate political perspective, but disestablishment should not occur by accident due to short-sighted constitutional meddling.
You also do not need to tell a Yorkshireman about regional identity. As an Englishman I deserve no less than the Scots enjoy, and that necessitates an English Parliament. England is not the possession of the clown prince Miliband, to be cut up into crappy little regions, bereft of real power, whilst the Scots enjoy DevoMax.
I was, I thought, agreeing with you about an English Parliament. Being British ... part Welsh, part English ......, I don’t feel as you do for nationalist reasons, but as a resident of England I want to see my and my neighbours interests given the same attention as those of other countries making up the UK.
I do wonder though; we have three (we have a Parish Council here) levels of “local” Government, plus an English Parliament plus a UK one, plus a European one. Are we are in serious danger of having more politicians than is good for us!
I see Labour's plans for an elected Senate entail regional-wide constituencies. Of course they go for the less democratic large constituencies with party lists, which give plenty of space to put in their SPAD and union candidates without much danger of the public voting them out. Same old-fashioned authoritarian Labour.
Also, the regions are terribly designed. Why on Earth should Norfolk be thrown in with Hertfordshire? Why is Cornwall in with Swindon? Why is Lincolnshire divided between regions?
Protecting the lowest paid from being undercut by restricting competition for their job is an idea that appeals to many left wingers I would have thought
I agree. But what does that come with? If, for example, it just means your job moving to another country it does not really help you. So then you start looking at protectionism too and job security. And so on. That's where the internal difficulties might begin for UKIP. The big job losses in the 80s were not caused by immigration, but by globalisation.
Seems to me having protectionism for the lowest paid gradually moving to a free market for the top jobs is a sensible idea
Like a progressive immigration system, where as at the moment it is like a flat tax
What do you mean by protectionism? The state intervening to prevent jobs going overseas? That is very left wing. But I am not sure it would get much support from people like Reckless, Farage and Carswell.
Yes, but the jobs lost to low wage countries have largely been lost already (at least in the UK), and there were non-tradeable segments they could move into. The idea that the British low wage earners now in non-tradeable segments should also be now undercut, with nowhere else for them to go, is something that only appeals to the worst plutocrats.
Can someone explain to me why Jim Murphy is the favourite to be the next Scottish Labour leader, given that the union establishment obviously don't like him and that there don't seem to be many Blairite Scottish Labour MPs or MSPs?
Also, the regions are terribly designed. Why on Earth should Norfolk be thrown in with Hertfordshire? Why is Cornwall in with Swindon? Why is Lincolnshire divided between regions?
I agree,
Yorkshire should have been a region including the bits that are in "Cleveland" and "Humberside"
Southeast should have been Kent, Sussex and Surrey,
Northern Home Counties (Icknield Region?) Herts, Essex & Bucks
There should have been a Wessex region of Berks, Hants, Wilts, Dorset
Southwest should have been Somerset, Devon, Cornwall,
Another new region should have included, Bristol, Gloucs, Worcs and Hereford
East of England should have been Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambs, Peterborough and Lincs
South Midlands should have been Beds, Oxon, Huntingdonshire Milton Keynes & Northants.
East Midlands, Leics, Notts, Derbys Rutland.
Lancashire Region should have included Lancashire including Greater Manchester & Merseyside
Borders Region: Salop, Cheshire, Staffs.
West Midlands, Warwickshire & West Midlands conurbation
North of England Westmoreland, Cumberland, Durham, Northumberland.
London = London
If those had been the regions there might have been a chance of accepting them as the main tier of local government instead of Counties which in turn would have allowed more powers to be devolved to them from central Government.
Protecting the lowest paid from being undercut by restricting competition for their job is an idea that appeals to many left wingers I would have thought
I agree. But what does that come with? If, for example, it just means your job moving to another country it does not really help you. So then you start looking at protectionism too and job security. And so on. That's where the internal difficulties might begin for UKIP. The big job losses in the 80s were not caused by immigration, but by globalisation.
Seems to me having protectionism for the lowest paid gradually moving to a free market for the top jobs is a sensible idea
Like a progressive immigration system, where as at the moment it is like a flat tax
What do you mean by protectionism? The state intervening to prevent jobs going overseas? That is very left wing. But I am not sure it would get much support from people like Reckless, Farage and Carswell.
Yes, but the jobs lost to low wage countries have largely been lost already (at least in the UK), and there were non-tradeable segments they could move into. The idea that the British low wage earners now in non-tradeable segments should also be now undercut, with nowhere else for them to go, is something that only appeals to the worst plutocrats.
There are no non-tradeable segments. Any job can be made more efficient using machinery or services provided offshore.
Miliband has hit rock bottom ! The media have gone over the top
I must admit I was quite shocked at the derision with which he was treated on last night's HIGNFY. Cameron was projected as almost statesmanlike by contrast. And Tories complain at BBC bias. Hmmm ...
I'm not sure it disproves BBC bias at all - I'd suggest Ed's deconstruction on HIGNFY etc is a function of his own side's recognition that they need to remove the liabililty at the top of their party asap.
The problem is exactly who have they got who would do any better?
Protecting the lowest paid from being undercut by restricting competition for their job is an idea that appeals to many left wingers I would have thought
And its only considered left wing because it was championed in the 20th century by socialists while the conservatives who had historically been the right wing party increasingly turned to radical liberal laissez faire policies as a way of countering socialism.
Which party was it that was so opposed to repeal of the corn laws because it would affect the jobs of the (then huges) agriculture sector - the tories.
Therein lies the problem with the conservative party - it isn't.
If the Tories are 24 short with the Libdems on 26 then the coalition has a nominal majority of 4.
Sinn Fein abstensions make it effectively 8.
Supply and confidence from DUP would effectively make it up to 28.
Whether the Libdems would want to be in such a coalition remains to be seen, but even if the DUP were onboard, the combined majority is still small enough for both Libdem and especially Tory backbenchers to make the governments life a misery.
Look, I realise my maths have been a bit poor today, but... If the Tories are 24 short of an overall majority (i.e. with the LibDems in the opposition camp) then a Con/LD coalition would have 26 more, cancelling out the Tory shortfall of 24 and adding 2. But also the opposition would have 26 fewer MPs. So the coalition majority would be 28.
No, it wouldn't. The maths is:
For every x seats under 326, you are x seats "short" of a majority. For every y seats over 325, you have a majority of 2y.
The confusion arises because you only start counting double (in the common expressions) once you get into majority territory. If the Tories had a majority of 8, and then added 26 LDs anyway, they'd then have a majority of 8 + (2*26) = 60.
David Butler, who turned 90 recently, was invited by Churchill to Chertwell in 1950 to discuss Tory election prospects. Butler tried to demonstrate this very principle using oranges but Churchill just couldn't get it.
Butler was also surprised to be offered a glass of port at 10am...
Also, the regions are terribly designed. Why on Earth should Norfolk be thrown in with Hertfordshire? Why is Cornwall in with Swindon? Why is Lincolnshire divided between regions?
I agree,
Yorkshire should have been a region including the bits that are in "Cleveland" and "Humberside"
Southeast should have been Kent, Sussex and Surrey,
Northern Home Counties (Icknield Region?) Herts, Essex & Bucks
There should have been a Wessex region of Berks, Hants, Wilts, Dorset
Southwest should have been Somerset, Devon, Cornwall,
Another new region should have included, Bristol, Gloucs, Worcs and Hereford
East of England should have been Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambs, Peterborough and Lincs
South Midlands should have been Beds, Oxon, Huntingdonshire Milton Keynes & Northants.
East Midlands, Leics, Notts, Derbys Rutland.
Lancashire Region should have included Lancashire including Greater Manchester & Merseyside
Borders Region: Salop, Cheshire, Staffs.
West Midlands, Warwickshire & West Midlands conurbation
North of England Westmoreland, Cumberland, Durham, Northumberland.
London = London
If those had been the regions there might have been a chance of accepting them as the main tier of local government instead of Counties which in turn would have allowed more powers to be devolved to them from central Government.
The problem is your divisions are open to criticism and counter proposal. For example I would say Kent would be far better associated with Essex than Surrey (which would be better associated with Berks). Herts would be better associated with Bedforshire and perhaps Cambridgeshire and so forth. I have no idea how you have come to the conclusions you have but I disagree with many of them.
Also, the regions are terribly designed. Why on Earth should Norfolk be thrown in with Hertfordshire? Why is Cornwall in with Swindon? Why is Lincolnshire divided between regions?
Protecting the lowest paid from being undercut by restricting competition for their job is an idea that appeals to many left wingers I would have thought
And its only considered left wing because it was championed in the 20th century by socialists while the conservatives who had historically been the right wing party increasingly turned to radical liberal laissez faire policies as a way of countering socialism.
Which party was it that was so opposed to repeal of the corn laws because it would affect the jobs of the (then huges) agriculture sector - the tories.
Therein lies the problem with the conservative party - it isn't.
A more recent example would be the Tory championing of supermarkets at the expense of small shops, destroying their voting base in the process.
King Cole, it's a legitimate political perspective, but disestablishment should not occur by accident due to short-sighted constitutional meddling.
You also do not need to tell a Yorkshireman about regional identity. As an Englishman I deserve no less than the Scots enjoy, and that necessitates an English Parliament. England is not the possession of the clown prince Miliband, to be cut up into crappy little regions, bereft of real power, whilst the Scots enjoy DevoMax.
There is no point devolving power from 60 million people to 50 million people. Regional parliaments would no more destroy England than its current lack of parliament does. I agree the exercise will be pointless though if they enjoy no real power.
Protecting the lowest paid from being undercut by restricting competition for their job is an idea that appeals to many left wingers I would have thought
I agree. But what does that come with? If, for example, it just means your job moving to another country it does not really help you. So then you start looking at protectionism too and job security. And so on. That's where the internal difficulties might begin for UKIP. The big job losses in the 80s were not caused by immigration, but by globalisation.
Seems to me having protectionism for the lowest paid gradually moving to a free market for the top jobs is a sensible idea
Like a progressive immigration system, where as at the moment it is like a flat tax
What do you mean by protectionism? The state intervening to prevent jobs going overseas? That is very left wing. But I am not sure it would get much support from people like Reckless, Farage and Carswell.
No I mean the state intervening to stop cheap labour undercutting the lowest paid in the country.. a bit like an old trade union
That has support from all of the above because it is UKIP policy
And as people get richer, the state intervenes less
Somehow, in giving 2 pence away Ed has managed to annoy everyone - 2p is a paltry, token amount... if he was going to give something away it should have been at least a pound or perhaps even a fiver.
But he's also pissed off the vast majority that thinks that giving money to beggars is a bad idea full stop.
Add to that the clearly awkward body language of Mr Miliband and the fact that the beggar appears to be of Roma ethnicity , and it is just plain bad.
I guess the consolation is that the story will be in the chip wrappers by monday. But it reinforces alot of views about Ed Miliband,
I can't see why we need a democratically elected second chamber at all. The point of a second chamber is surely to act as a constraint on a democratically elected first chamber, not to provide an interesting case study in the differing results which electoral systems can throw up given the same electorate. If they are both democratically elected, I don't see the value a second chamber would add. And there would be endless disputes when both could claim a mandate from the voters. So let's just abolish the Lords altogether if we are going down this route and save a bunch of useless salaries.
In fact, my ideal constitution for GB anyway if I were writing it from scratch would be three unicameral national parliaments with similar powers to today's Holyrood and a radically slimmed-down (200 seats?) House of Commons for federal matters.
Oh, and separate time zones for England and Scotland.
As mentioned down the thread, I am beginning to feel sorry for Ed. Taking the piss out of him for giving a beggar something shows how his stock has plummeted. Then for HIGNFY, he was just a figure of fun.
Ed is the new Ukip.
But he means well, is ambitious, and er ... er ... that's it, really.
If he could get rid of the ambition, he could join the Greens.
Ed deserves everything he gets. If he had any self-awareness he would have stood down as Labour leader a long time ago - and actually would not have stood in the first place. Not only is he personally a liability, but under his leadership Labour has seen its vote in one major heartland collapse, while it is coming under significant pressure in others. And he has made no effort at all to broaden Labour's appeal. Indeed, his complete lack of self aware ness is another reason why he is completely unfit to lead a political party, let alone a government. I am sure he is a very nice bloke, but he is clearly not up to doing the job he currently has - and his risible efforts to change perceptions are worthy only of mockery. He is taking the British electorate fools.
Somehow, in giving 2 pence away Ed has managed to annoy everyone - 2p is a paltry, token amount... if he was going to give something away it should have been at least a pound or perhaps even a fiver.
But he's also pissed off the vast majority that thinks that giving money to beggars is a bad idea full stop.
Add to that the clearly awkward body language of Mr Miliband and the fact that the beggar appears to be of Roma ethnicity , and it is just plain bad.
I guess the consolation is that the story will be in the chip wrappers by monday. But it reinforces alot of views about Ed Miliband,
The incident is very symbolic of the Labour Party. -the appearance of beneficence (unlike those nasty right-wingers), but the reality being utterly ineffective -wanting the poor to be there as an accessory, but actually neither understanding nor caring about their fate
Can someone explain to me why Jim Murphy is the favourite to be the next Scottish Labour leader, given that the union establishment obviously don't like him and that there don't seem to be many Blairite Scottish Labour MPs or MSPs?
An excellent question. For which I don't have an answer. I presume the full New Labour machine being bbehind hill is an advantage?
Somehow, in giving 2 pence away Ed has managed to annoy everyone - 2p is a paltry, token amount... if he was going to give something away it should have been at least a pound or perhaps even a fiver.
But he's also pissed off the vast majority that thinks that giving money to beggars is a bad idea full stop.
Add to that the clearly awkward body language of Mr Miliband and the fact that the beggar appears to be of Roma ethnicity , and it is just plain bad.
I guess the consolation is that the story will be in the chip wrappers by monday. But it reinforces alot of views about Ed Miliband,
You mean you actually thought the Labour leadership in their ivory towers want to rub shoulders with the hoi polloi? We knew they sneered their noses at the home grown variety, but it now seems we know they do it to the imported sort too.
It just reinforced everything we always suspected about the Labour elite. But the media were too afraid to tell us.
Nicely put. If missing the crucial pig-dog reference oddly?
In the 2005 general election this magazine supported the Conservatives, with one exception — we urged voters in Medway not to vote for a deeply unimpressive Tory candidate by the name of Mark Reckless. Our then political editor, Peter Oborne, went so far as to write a pamphlet in support of the Labour rival, Bob Marshall Andrews, who had a commendable record of sticking it to Tony Blair. Reckless, by contrast, had nothing to commend him. He lost by just 213 votes — suggesting that The Spectator’s intervention had been decisive.
Nicely put. If missing the crucial pig-dog reference oddly?
In the 2005 general election this magazine supported the Conservatives, with one exception — we urged voters in Medway not to vote for a deeply unimpressive Tory candidate by the name of Mark Reckless. Our then political editor, Peter Oborne, went so far as to write a pamphlet in support of the Labour rival, Bob Marshall Andrews, who had a commendable record of sticking it to Tony Blair. Reckless, by contrast, had nothing to commend him. He lost by just 213 votes — suggesting that The Spectator’s intervention had been decisive.
The final sentence is already being pondered by all the Tory "tub-thumpers" who somehow thought this would be a close run thing
"It is strange to think that only a few weeks ago, the Tories were confident about keeping hold of Rochester & Strood. They had been blindsided by Douglas Carswell’s defection to Ukip, and unable to organise themselves in time to hold Clacton; in any case, his constituency was ideal territory for Ukip. Rochester, they thought, was different. Mark Reckless’s is a Tory safe seat, and he has none of Carswell’s eloquence or popularity. Most Conservatives were reluctant to campaign too hard against Carswell, but many were keen to crush Reckless — and, hopefully, mark the beginning of the end of Nigel Farage.
But to the great surprise of No. 10, it turns out that voters in Rochester are not very interested in joining the Tory fightback. Even Cabinet members are returning from Rochester with the sense that the battle is already lost. So the talk has turned to damage limitation: how to ensure that the Prime Minister is not too closely associated with failure, given that he already made five visits to the constituency? How to pretend, the day after the election, that losing two by-elections to Ukip doesn’t really matter?"
Can someone explain to me why Jim Murphy is the favourite to be the next Scottish Labour leader, given that the union establishment obviously don't like him and that there don't seem to be many Blairite Scottish Labour MPs or MSPs?
Quite so. I can only assume that Mr Murphy's side has been doing some arm-twisting. Mr Sarwar has jacked in the deputy post already, obviating the 'two MPs at the head' objection.
You might like to look at Ian Bell's comment pieces in the Herald -
It is also worth a look at this, and the Lallans Peat Worrier piece therein, which points out the adverse financial implications for Mr Murphy and/or any MSP 'encouraged' to resign to make way for him (never mind the uncertainties) [edit] in terms of leaving one's seat early:
Nicely put. If missing the crucial pig-dog reference oddly?
In the 2005 general election this magazine supported the Conservatives, with one exception — we urged voters in Medway not to vote for a deeply unimpressive Tory candidate by the name of Mark Reckless. Our then political editor, Peter Oborne, went so far as to write a pamphlet in support of the Labour rival, Bob Marshall Andrews, who had a commendable record of sticking it to Tony Blair. Reckless, by contrast, had nothing to commend him. He lost by just 213 votes — suggesting that The Spectator’s intervention had been decisive.
The final sentence is already being pondered by all the Tory "tub-thumpers" who somehow thought this would be a close run thing
"It is strange to think that only a few weeks ago, the Tories were confident about keeping hold of Rochester & Strood. They had been blindsided by Douglas Carswell’s defection to Ukip, and unable to organise themselves in time to hold Clacton; in any case, his constituency was ideal territory for Ukip. Rochester, they thought, was different. Mark Reckless’s is a Tory safe seat, and he has none of Carswell’s eloquence or popularity. Most Conservatives were reluctant to campaign too hard against Carswell, but many were keen to crush Reckless — and, hopefully, mark the beginning of the end of Nigel Farage.
But to the great surprise of No. 10, it turns out that voters in Rochester are not very interested in joining the Tory fightback. Even Cabinet members are returning from Rochester with the sense that the battle is already lost. So the talk has turned to damage limitation: how to ensure that the Prime Minister is not too closely associated with failure, given that he already made five visits to the constituency? How to pretend, the day after the election, that losing two by-elections to Ukip doesn’t really matter?"
Yes indeed. It does rather suggest that your latest recruit is no Carswell.
Can someone explain to me why Jim Murphy is the favourite to be the next Scottish Labour leader, given that the union establishment obviously don't like him and that there don't seem to be many Blairite Scottish Labour MPs or MSPs?
An excellent question. For which I don't have an answer. I presume the full New Labour machine being bbehind hill is an advantage?
The media have decided, and SLAB appear to be in full rabbit in headlights mode. The Yougov Scottish poll suggests that Labour's (currently dire) polling would be unchanged if Murphy was leader.
Somehow, in giving 2 pence away Ed has managed to annoy everyone - 2p is a paltry, token amount... if he was going to give something away it should have been at least a pound or perhaps even a fiver.
But he's also pissed off the vast majority that thinks that giving money to beggars is a bad idea full stop.
Add to that the clearly awkward body language of Mr Miliband and the fact that the beggar appears to be of Roma ethnicity , and it is just plain bad.
I guess the consolation is that the story will be in the chip wrappers by monday. But it reinforces alot of views about Ed Miliband,
You mean you actually thought the Labour leadership in their ivory towers want to rub shoulders with the hoi polloi? We knew they sneered their noses at the home grown variety, but it now seems we know they do it to the imported sort too.
It just reinforced everything we always suspected about the Labour elite. But the media were too afraid to tell us.
Good Lord, No - but I thought Ed might have a bit more self awareness about him.
I also like how in Ed Miliband's speech he refers to "A Senate of the nations and regions of Britain".
The nations he's referring to are, of course, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. England doesn't count as a nation in his view. That's why it doesn't deserve a parliament. He probably thinks like his father, regarding the English as rabid nationalists that need to lose wars and be subjugated just to "show them the way things they are".
Nicely put. If missing the crucial pig-dog reference oddly?
In the 2005 general election this magazine supported the Conservatives, with one exception — we urged voters in Medway not to vote for a deeply unimpressive Tory candidate by the name of Mark Reckless. Our then political editor, Peter Oborne, went so far as to write a pamphlet in support of the Labour rival, Bob Marshall Andrews, who had a commendable record of sticking it to Tony Blair. Reckless, by contrast, had nothing to commend him. He lost by just 213 votes — suggesting that The Spectator’s intervention had been decisive.
The final sentence is already being pondered by all the Tory "tub-thumpers" who somehow thought this would be a close run thing
"It is strange to think that only a few weeks ago, the Tories were confident about keeping hold of Rochester & Strood. They had been blindsided by Douglas Carswell’s defection to Ukip, and unable to organise themselves in time to hold Clacton; in any case, his constituency was ideal territory for Ukip. Rochester, they thought, was different. Mark Reckless’s is a Tory safe seat, and he has none of Carswell’s eloquence or popularity. Most Conservatives were reluctant to campaign too hard against Carswell, but many were keen to crush Reckless — and, hopefully, mark the beginning of the end of Nigel Farage.
But to the great surprise of No. 10, it turns out that voters in Rochester are not very interested in joining the Tory fightback. Even Cabinet members are returning from Rochester with the sense that the battle is already lost. So the talk has turned to damage limitation: how to ensure that the Prime Minister is not too closely associated with failure, given that he already made five visits to the constituency? How to pretend, the day after the election, that losing two by-elections to Ukip doesn’t really matter?"
Yes indeed. It does rather suggest that your latest recruit is no Carswell.
Also, the regions are terribly designed. Why on Earth should Norfolk be thrown in with Hertfordshire? Why is Cornwall in with Swindon? Why is Lincolnshire divided between regions?
Please could you link your source?
The source for which bit? Ed Miliband referred to the statistical regions in his speech, which are the ones I'm criticising.
Nicely put. If missing the crucial pig-dog reference oddly?
In the 2005 general election this magazine supported the Conservatives, with one exception — we urged voters in Medway not to vote for a deeply unimpressive Tory candidate by the name of Mark Reckless. Our then political editor, Peter Oborne, went so far as to write a pamphlet in support of the Labour rival, Bob Marshall Andrews, who had a commendable record of sticking it to Tony Blair. Reckless, by contrast, had nothing to commend him. He lost by just 213 votes — suggesting that The Spectator’s intervention had been decisive.
The final sentence is already being pondered by all the Tory "tub-thumpers" who somehow thought this would be a close run thing
"It is strange to think that only a few weeks ago, the Tories were confident about keeping hold of Rochester & Strood. They had been blindsided by Douglas Carswell’s defection to Ukip, and unable to organise themselves in time to hold Clacton; in any case, his constituency was ideal territory for Ukip. Rochester, they thought, was different. Mark Reckless’s is a Tory safe seat, and he has none of Carswell’s eloquence or popularity. Most Conservatives were reluctant to campaign too hard against Carswell, but many were keen to crush Reckless — and, hopefully, mark the beginning of the end of Nigel Farage.
But to the great surprise of No. 10, it turns out that voters in Rochester are not very interested in joining the Tory fightback. Even Cabinet members are returning from Rochester with the sense that the battle is already lost. So the talk has turned to damage limitation: how to ensure that the Prime Minister is not too closely associated with failure, given that he already made five visits to the constituency? How to pretend, the day after the election, that losing two by-elections to Ukip doesn’t really matter?"
Yes indeed. It does rather suggest that your latest recruit is no Carswell.
eh? what does?
The Spectator preferred a Lab MP over Reckless even in 2005.
Nicely put. If missing the crucial pig-dog reference oddly?
In the 2005 general election this magazine supported the Conservatives, with one exception — we urged voters in Medway not to vote for a deeply unimpressive Tory candidate by the name of Mark Reckless. Our then political editor, Peter Oborne, went so far as to write a pamphlet in support of the Labour rival, Bob Marshall Andrews, who had a commendable record of sticking it to Tony Blair. Reckless, by contrast, had nothing to commend him. He lost by just 213 votes — suggesting that The Spectator’s intervention had been decisive.
The final sentence is already being pondered by all the Tory "tub-thumpers" who somehow thought this would be a close run thing
"It is strange to think that only a few weeks ago, the Tories were confident about keeping hold of Rochester & Strood. They had been blindsided by Douglas Carswell’s defection to Ukip, and unable to organise themselves in time to hold Clacton; in any case, his constituency was ideal territory for Ukip. Rochester, they thought, was different. Mark Reckless’s is a Tory safe seat, and he has none of Carswell’s eloquence or popularity. Most Conservatives were reluctant to campaign too hard against Carswell, but many were keen to crush Reckless — and, hopefully, mark the beginning of the end of Nigel Farage.
But to the great surprise of No. 10, it turns out that voters in Rochester are not very interested in joining the Tory fightback. Even Cabinet members are returning from Rochester with the sense that the battle is already lost. So the talk has turned to damage limitation: how to ensure that the Prime Minister is not too closely associated with failure, given that he already made five visits to the constituency? How to pretend, the day after the election, that losing two by-elections to Ukip doesn’t really matter?"
Yes indeed. It does rather suggest that your latest recruit is no Carswell.
eh? what does?
The Spectator preferred a Lab MP over Reckless even in 2005.
Well that's got nothing to do with what I wrote but not to worry!
Nicely put. If missing the crucial pig-dog reference oddly?
In the 2005 general election this magazine supported the Conservatives, with one exception — we urged voters in Medway not to vote for a deeply unimpressive Tory candidate by the name of Mark Reckless. Our then political editor, Peter Oborne, went so far as to write a pamphlet in support of the Labour rival, Bob Marshall Andrews, who had a commendable record of sticking it to Tony Blair. Reckless, by contrast, had nothing to commend him. He lost by just 213 votes — suggesting that The Spectator’s intervention had been decisive.
The final sentence is already being pondered by all the Tory "tub-thumpers" who somehow thought this would be a close run thing
"It is strange to think that only a few weeks ago, the Tories were confident about keeping hold of Rochester & Strood. They had been blindsided by Douglas Carswell’s defection to Ukip, and unable to organise themselves in time to hold Clacton; in any case, his constituency was ideal territory for Ukip. Rochester, they thought, was different. Mark Reckless’s is a Tory safe seat, and he has none of Carswell’s eloquence or popularity. Most Conservatives were reluctant to campaign too hard against Carswell, but many were keen to crush Reckless — and, hopefully, mark the beginning of the end of Nigel Farage.
But to the great surprise of No. 10, it turns out that voters in Rochester are not very interested in joining the Tory fightback. Even Cabinet members are returning from Rochester with the sense that the battle is already lost. So the talk has turned to damage limitation: how to ensure that the Prime Minister is not too closely associated with failure, given that he already made five visits to the constituency? How to pretend, the day after the election, that losing two by-elections to Ukip doesn’t really matter?"
Yes indeed. It does rather suggest that your latest recruit is no Carswell.
eh? what does?
The Spectator preferred a Lab MP over Reckless even in 2005.
Well that's got nothing to do with what I wrote but not to worry!
I believe I started the conversation and that was my point that I was making... Feel free to make other points and I won't worry either.
Also, the regions are terribly designed. Why on Earth should Norfolk be thrown in with Hertfordshire? Why is Cornwall in with Swindon? Why is Lincolnshire divided between regions?
Please could you link your source?
The source for which bit? Ed Miliband referred to the statistical regions in his speech, which are the ones I'm criticising.
Yes I was looking to see where the regions were defined. So did he use these regions?
But no-one identifies with half of those regions either: the fact you can't come up with names for them says it all. Also would Bedfordshire really be ok being in the Midlands? I also really dislike how northern regions get to keep their city economic engines, while London gets carved off from the home counties.
If there are regional identities the main ones are: the North, the Midlands, the Westcountry, East Anglia, the South East.
Nicely put. If missing the crucial pig-dog reference oddly?
In the 2005 general election this magazine supported the Conservatives, with one exception — we urged voters in Medway not to vote for a deeply unimpressive Tory candidate by the name of Mark Reckless. Our then political editor, Peter Oborne, went so far as to write a pamphlet in support of the Labour rival, Bob Marshall Andrews, who had a commendable record of sticking it to Tony Blair. Reckless, by contrast, had nothing to commend him. He lost by just 213 votes — suggesting that The Spectator’s intervention had been decisive.
Indeed which is why the dismissal of the Tory candidate Kelly Tolhurst by certain contributors on here on one of yesterday's threads is a bit premature. What actually is so impressive about Reckless given his expensive public school education? Is it his Oxbridge background with a 2:1 in PPE, his progress as yet another lawyer, his drinking, his regular rebellions and eventually blatant careerism in the sense that his defection was largely driven by frustration at being rightly overlooked by Cameron?
Kelly by contrast is a product of a Medway High School (secondary modern in old parlance) and has a small business making her the type of person the HoC let alone the Tories could do with more of. She probably won't win this time but increasing her vote share by 2% in the latest poll while Lab with the supposedly more impressive candidate fell by 9% might reflect her diligence and the fact she relates well to R & S voters.
Also, the regions are terribly designed. Why on Earth should Norfolk be thrown in with Hertfordshire? Why is Cornwall in with Swindon? Why is Lincolnshire divided between regions?
Please could you link your source?
The source for which bit? Ed Miliband referred to the statistical regions in his speech, which are the ones I'm criticising.
Yes I was looking to see where the regions were defined. So did he use these regions?
BTW David, an excellent article - and it has provoked some very good comment too.
PB at its best.
Seconded - cheers Mr Herdson.
That's ok. It helps that I've now worked out how to use Datawrapper. Expect more graphs to come (not today, but the pb polling average for October will be out before too long).
Nicely put. If missing the crucial pig-dog reference oddly?
In the 2005 general election this magazine supported the Conservatives, with one exception — we urged voters in Medway not to vote for a deeply unimpressive Tory candidate by the name of Mark Reckless. Our then political editor, Peter Oborne, went so far as to write a pamphlet in support of the Labour rival, Bob Marshall Andrews, who had a commendable record of sticking it to Tony Blair. Reckless, by contrast, had nothing to commend him. He lost by just 213 votes — suggesting that The Spectator’s intervention had been decisive.
The final sentence is already being pondered by all the Tory "tub-thumpers" who somehow thought this would be a close run thing
"It is strange to think that only a few weeks ago, the Tories were confident about keeping hold of Rochester & Strood. They had been blindsided by Douglas Carswell’s defection to Ukip, and unable to organise themselves in time to hold Clacton; in any case, his constituency was ideal territory for Ukip. Rochester, they thought, was different. Mark Reckless’s is a Tory safe seat, and he has none of Carswell’s eloquence or popularity. Most Conservatives were reluctant to campaign too hard against Carswell, but many were keen to crush Reckless — and, hopefully, mark the beginning of the end of Nigel Farage.
But to the great surprise of No. 10, it turns out that voters in Rochester are not very interested in joining the Tory fightback. Even Cabinet members are returning from Rochester with the sense that the battle is already lost. So the talk has turned to damage limitation: how to ensure that the Prime Minister is not too closely associated with failure, given that he already made five visits to the constituency? How to pretend, the day after the election, that losing two by-elections to Ukip doesn’t really matter?"
Yes indeed. It does rather suggest that your latest recruit is no Carswell.
Conservative strategy must now be to play down the significance of defeat.
There is a sizable straw at which they can clutch. The increase in UKIP's Poll lead can be attributed to Labour voters, voting tactically or otherwise. Were this not so, the defeat would be suggesting a rampant UKIP capable of taking dozens of seats at the GE.
As it is, I expect Farage will crank up expectations from five or six seats, as he indicated post-Clacton, to ten or more.
There are plenty of good betting options based on such a forecast. By contrast, the 'None' option on Betfair's UKIP seats market can now be pronounced dead.
How to pretend, the day after the election, that losing two by-elections to Ukip doesn’t really matter?"
Are Reckless and Carswell completely different to the previous sitting MPs, Reckless and Carswell?
What is the difference between UKIP and the Tories? It looks like The Tories v The Tories. Even the ex-Tory MPs look identical to the new UKIP MPs. Because they are.
That Labour voters are taking the side of one bunch of Tories in a fight against another bunch of Tories is quite comical. They should be lining up behind their candidate and dragging in all those 2010 Lib Dems. surely?
Rochester and Clacton will both have the same right of centre MPs that they elected in 2010 when this charade is over.
But no-one identifies with half of those regions either: the fact you can't come up with names for them says it all. Also would Bedfordshire really be ok being in the Midlands? I also really dislike how northern regions get to keep their city economic engines, while London gets carved off from the home counties.
If there are regional identities the main ones are: the North, the Midlands, the Westcountry, East Anglia, the South East.
I suspect if you had 4 people in a room they would come up with 5 answers
What we should have had is wide consultation and a national debate to come up with the right solution.
What we got was the man from Westminster knows best and a total dogs breakfast with not even the easy goals scored (eg Yorkshire on its historic boundaries being a region)
"She probably won't win this time but increasing her vote share by 2% in the latest poll while Lab with the supposedly more impressive candidate fell by 9% might reflect her diligence and the fact she relates well to R & S voters."
It might also reflect, Norm, that the Conservatives have been 'throwing the kitchen sink at it', as posters here were regularly advised they would.
BTW David, an excellent article - and it has provoked some very good comment too.
PB at its best.
Seconded - cheers Mr Herdson.
That's ok. It helps that I've now worked out how to use Datawrapper. Expect more graphs to come (not today, but the pb polling average for October will be out before too long).
Must admit, the presentation of polling on PB has come on in leaps and bounds since 'Datawrapper' made it's appearance. - glad to see you learning 'new tricks' and moving with the times Mr Herdson. ; )
Nicely put. If missing the crucial pig-dog reference oddly?
In the 2005 general election this magazine supported the Conservatives, with one exception — we urged voters in Medway not to vote for a deeply unimpressive Tory candidate by the name of Mark Reckless. Our then political editor, Peter Oborne, went so far as to write a pamphlet in support of the Labour rival, Bob Marshall Andrews, who had a commendable record of sticking it to Tony Blair. Reckless, by contrast, had nothing to commend him. He lost by just 213 votes — suggesting that The Spectator’s intervention had been decisive.
The final sentence is already being pondered by all the Tory "tub-thumpers" who somehow thought this would be a close run thing
"It is strange to think that only a few weeks ago, the Tories were confident about keeping hold of Rochester & Strood. They had been blindsided by Douglas Carswell’s defection to Ukip, and unable to organise themselves in time to hold Clacton; in any case, his constituency was ideal territory for Ukip. Rochester, they thought, was different. Mark Reckless’s is a Tory safe seat, and he has none of Carswell’s eloquence or popularity. Most Conservatives were reluctant to campaign too hard against Carswell, but many were keen to crush Reckless — and, hopefully, mark the beginning of the end of Nigel Farage.
But to the great surprise of No. 10, it turns out that voters in Rochester are not very interested in joining the Tory fightback. Even Cabinet members are returning from Rochester with the sense that the battle is already lost. So the talk has turned to damage limitation: how to ensure that the Prime Minister is not too closely associated with failure, given that he already made five visits to the constituency? How to pretend, the day after the election, that losing two by-elections to Ukip doesn’t really matter?"
Yes indeed. It does rather suggest that your latest recruit is no Carswell.
Conservative strategy must now be to play down the significance of defeat.
There is a sizable straw at which they can clutch. The increase in UKIP's Poll lead can be attributed to Labour voters, voting tactically or otherwise. Were this not so, the defeat would be suggesting a rampant UKIP capable of taking dozens of seats at the GE.
As it is, I expect Farage will crank up expectations from five or six seats, as he indicated post-Clacton, to ten or more.
There are plenty of good betting options based on such a forecast. By contrast, the 'None' option on Betfair's UKIP seats market can now be pronounced dead.
Bit difficult to play it down after saying you'd "throw the kitchen sink" at it.
"She probably won't win this time but increasing her vote share by 2% in the latest poll while Lab with the supposedly more impressive candidate fell by 9% might reflect her diligence and the fact she relates well to R & S voters."
It might also reflect, Norm, that the Conservatives have been 'throwing the kitchen sink at it', as posters here were regularly advised they would.
Agreed although Lab in the person of EdM and other frontbenchers have been down here as well. In truth though all the campaigning in the world won't change minds if the message or the messenger is someone voters don't want to hear! FWIW I think Kelly will do well enough without winning the seat.
Nicely put. If missing the crucial pig-dog reference oddly?
In the 2005 general election this magazine supported the Conservatives, with one exception — we urged voters in Medway not to vote for a deeply unimpressive Tory candidate by the name of Mark Reckless. Our then political editor, Peter Oborne, went so far as to write a pamphlet in support of the Labour rival, Bob Marshall Andrews, who had a commendable record of sticking it to Tony Blair. Reckless, by contrast, had nothing to commend him. He lost by just 213 votes — suggesting that The Spectator’s intervention had been decisive.
The final sentence is already being pondered by all the Tory "tub-thumpers" who somehow thought this would be a close run thing
"gel Farage.
But to the great surprise of No. 10, it turns out that voters in Rochester are not very interested in joining the Tory fightback. Even Cabinet members are returning from Rochester with the sense that the battle is already lost. So the talk has turned to damage limitation: how to ensure that the Prime Minister is not too closely associated with failure, given that he already made five visits to the constituency? How to pretend, the day after the election, that losing two by-elections to Ukip doesn’t really matter?"
Yes indeed. It does rather suggest that your latest recruit is no Carswell.
Conservative strategy must now be to play down the significance of defeat.
There is a sizable straw at which they can clutch. The increase in UKIP's Poll lead can be attributed to Labour voters, voting tactically or otherwise. Were this not so, the defeat would be suggesting a rampant UKIP capable of taking dozens of seats at the GE.
As it is, I expect Farage will crank up expectations from five or six seats, as he indicated post-Clacton, to ten or more.
There are plenty of good betting options based on such a forecast. By contrast, the 'None' option on Betfair's UKIP seats market can now be pronounced dead.
Bit difficult to play it down after saying you'd "throw the kitchen sink" at it.
Hmmmm....how about 'We threw the kitchen sink at it but it ducked so we've decided to not to throw anything else because it's not really worth it'?
OK, I'm struggling, but then I don't have Grant Shapps' imagination.
"She probably won't win this time but increasing her vote share by 2% in the latest poll while Lab with the supposedly more impressive candidate fell by 9% might reflect her diligence and the fact she relates well to R & S voters."
It might also reflect, Norm, that the Conservatives have been 'throwing the kitchen sink at it', as posters here were regularly advised they would.
Agreed although Lab in the person of EdM and other frontbenchers have been down here as well. In truth though all the campaigning in the world won't change minds if the message or the messenger is someone voters don't want to hear! FWIW I think Kelly will do well enough without winning the seat.
She's a decent enough candidate, Norm, as is the Labour lady, but there are forces at work here that would probably be too strong for all but the very best.
Nigel Farage has the easiest job in the world right now. All he has to do sit back and let the news agenda do his campaigning for him. His counterparts seem powerless to resist, and very often make matters worse for themselves in their hamfisted attempts to do so.
Comments
1. Tony Benn's tax avoidance on his £5m+ estate
2. The Blairs buy their 31st property and a lot of it paid for in cash.
3. EdM giving 2p to a beggar and looking very embarrassed
Perhaps all summed up by cif comments:
"Labour - the party of the working man... Don't make me laugh. These types of socialists would cross the street to avoid getting contaminated by the people who vote for them" and
"Yes, so stay on your side of the road please,"
Just show how detached a lot of the Labour leadership (over the ages) is from their supporters who are now waking up! Still presume a lot will still vote tribally in 2015.
Some good points on Labour's Senate plans. A key consideration for me with any constitutional reform is to think about the role of a body and the end vision. I have always been sceptical of changing FPTP because I believe that when we have an executive fused to the legislature we need a system that generally provides the capacity for strong government.
On the Lords, we first need to ask what is its role? I generally think that what it does now is a pretty good role - review without too much blocking power. With that in mind then a less political, expert driven House makes more sense. I am also a support of the Bishops in the House. Archbishop Welby's recent speech to the Parliamentary Press Gallery lunch is good here and is something I briefly wrote about on my blog this week - www.thesceptredisle.wordpress.com.
Now my support of non-election of Lords is not to say I am against reform. The Lords should be smaller, there could be term limits, it could be appointed independently of political parties completely etc, etc. But I am wary of grand visions influencing constitutional reform in one big change.
Moreover, as you imply in your post - do people feel as though they have a regional identity? A House representing the nations and regions of the UK, yet ignoring the biggest nation England! A House of Commons with most legislative power and still no recognition of England. It is a bit of a joke from Labour and seems unsatisfactory.
Moreover Labour are in danger of undermining any constitutional convention by pre-releasing their desired end result. Now one could argue this is just one of their submissions to such a convention. If so then they cannot promise that they will deliver this reform without pre-judging the results!
Yes (Now:Then)
480:449 = 1.07 * 1.617,989 = 1,731,248
No (Now:Then)
533:599 = 0.89 * 2,001,926 = 1,781,714
Strong regional identities could become a terminal problem for England if those who are short-sighted or self-interested enough to oppose an English Parliament get their way and carve England up into pieces.
Resolving the democratic problem for the English must take precedent over fiddling with a secondary revising chamber of the UK Parliament.
Yesterday we were told that he will create a new English committee to be chaired by the PM and made up of all relevant secretaries of state plus city and shire leaders. This committee is presumably instead of addressing the "English Question".
The Labour machine seems geared to spew out a new policy every two or three days on average. The problem is those policies, regardless of any individual merit, have no unifying idea into which they will fit. Furthermore nor do any of those eye-catching policy initiatives seem to have been thought through to any degree, so they fall apart when someone asks a question.
"Social conservatism really isn't about skin colour."
I didn't mean to imply that it was.
There are many more important distinctions. Eamonn McCann, an Irish Marxist described the Orange men as ... "tuppence ha'penny looking down on tuppence." A general feeling of being all in it together and with united views, no matter what the ethnicity - a powerful phrase when used correctly.
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/09/02/warning-world-washington-nato-eu-vassals-insane-paul-craig-roberts-2/
The social class is separated along social/cultural lines.
Secondly, as JamesM points out, many English people do feel feel they have a regional identity; have you ever spent time on Tyne or Wearside, for example? They have their disputes but to suggest that they are the same as Yorkies or Midlanders, for example, is to risk a severe ear-bashing!
Same applies in Lancashire, and we regularly have demonstrations of Yorkshire loyalty here on pb!
I have though to agree that an English Parliament would be a useful development, and that any reform should be a matter of cross-party agreement. However, only a dedicated tribalist would suggest that the other side can’t have good ideas, and, as with any journey, we have to start from somewhere.
What we have to do is to remember Harry Truman’s dictum; it’s amazing what can be done if no-one’s bothered about claiming the credit!"
Has he already forgotten about the buses?
It isn't even an "aw bless, he TRIES..." resigned failure. It's the guy is just useless.
This is only worth pointing out because since the start of recorded time, the purpose of The News Quiz has been to put the boot into the Tories.
PB at its best.
King Cole, it's a legitimate political perspective, but disestablishment should not occur by accident due to short-sighted constitutional meddling.
You also do not need to tell a Yorkshireman about regional identity. As an Englishman I deserve no less than the Scots enjoy, and that necessitates an English Parliament. England is not the possession of the clown prince Miliband, to be cut up into crappy little regions, bereft of real power, whilst the Scots enjoy DevoMax.
Like a progressive immigration system, where as at the moment it is like a flat tax
Mr. Itajai, be fair. We all know Miliband has amnesia problems.
PB Tory loons like yourself like to comfortably insinuate without having the courage of your convictions.
Don't forget, that large parts of the West were still basically unoccupied as late as the 1870s.
The Huntington's didn't open the Southern Pacific (which connected New York to LA) until 1869.
With the Lords, I do not immediately see why it is the place to capture the nation/regions issue. It has no say over devolved issues and has no primary role over England either in terms of being a dominant House within Parliament. This reform also risks ignoring the imbalance in the Commons.
On the Church's establishment status, Morris_Dancer is correct, this must be thought through carefully. Again I revert you to Justin Welby who powerful argues on this issue.
In terms of a way forward. In the immediate term we could cut the Lords drastically in size, add term limits and remove political patronage whilst keeping its functions unchanged. I am not against the idea of some form of model where you have say:
- Lords becoming a Senate in title terms (let Lords/Ladies remain for landowners/honours).
- Reduce down to say, 300 members (including Bishops) on 15 year terms, with 1/3 appointed every five years.
- Appointments controlled by an independent committee. Not sure how the cross-bencher/party divide works unless you make everyone cross-bencher.
- You could add an indirect election element although this risks empowering political parties more and blurring the elected/unelected relationship in Parliament, by splitting the 300 members in to 100 appointed/Bishops and 200 indirectly elected in thirds proportionally across the UK based on General Election votes in totality (min. 5% threshold).
EDIT:
The votes across the UK, I realise now, won't work as the SNP, NI, PC etc only stand in parts and thus may not hit 5% of total votes. Indirect election then may not work, unless it is split in to the four nations with each allocated a number of Senators.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company
It hardly gives you confidence about the ability to make sensible changes on a unilateral basis.
I do wonder though; we have three (we have a Parish Council here) levels of “local” Government, plus an English Parliament plus a UK one, plus a European one. Are we are in serious danger of having more politicians than is good for us!
http://election-data.blogspot.com/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2816394/Beggars-t-choosers-eh-Mr-Miliband-Toe-curling-encounter-sees-Labour-leader-drop-just-2p-homeless-woman-s-cup.html
Yorkshire should have been a region including the bits that are in "Cleveland" and "Humberside"
Southeast should have been Kent, Sussex and Surrey,
Northern Home Counties (Icknield Region?) Herts, Essex & Bucks
There should have been a Wessex region of Berks, Hants, Wilts, Dorset
Southwest should have been Somerset, Devon, Cornwall,
Another new region should have included, Bristol, Gloucs, Worcs and Hereford
East of England should have been Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambs, Peterborough and Lincs
South Midlands should have been Beds, Oxon, Huntingdonshire Milton Keynes & Northants.
East Midlands, Leics, Notts, Derbys Rutland.
Lancashire Region should have included Lancashire including Greater Manchester & Merseyside
Borders Region: Salop, Cheshire, Staffs.
West Midlands, Warwickshire & West Midlands conurbation
North of England Westmoreland, Cumberland, Durham, Northumberland.
London = London
If those had been the regions there might have been a chance of accepting them as the main tier of local government instead of Counties which in turn would have allowed more powers to be devolved to them from central Government.
Which party was it that was so opposed to repeal of the corn laws because it would affect the jobs of the (then huges) agriculture sector - the tories.
Therein lies the problem with the conservative party - it isn't.
Thanks to Ed's party, it's all about the HRA/ECHR.
Butler was also surprised to be offered a glass of port at 10am...
He shows an apparent distaste that immigrants from Romania have dared impinge on his middle class bubble. How unfortunate.
Perhaps if he had been more involved in voluntary work he'd be more comfortable with such people.
Regional parliaments would no more destroy England than its current lack of parliament does.
I agree the exercise will be pointless though if they enjoy no real power.
That has support from all of the above because it is UKIP policy
And as people get richer, the state intervenes less
But he's also pissed off the vast majority that thinks that giving money to beggars is a bad idea full stop.
Add to that the clearly awkward body language of Mr Miliband and the fact that the beggar appears to be of Roma ethnicity , and it is just plain bad.
I guess the consolation is that the story will be in the chip wrappers by monday. But it reinforces alot of views about Ed Miliband,
In fact, my ideal constitution for GB anyway if I were writing it from scratch would be three unicameral national parliaments with similar powers to today's Holyrood and a radically slimmed-down (200 seats?) House of Commons for federal matters.
Oh, and separate time zones for England and Scotland.
-the appearance of beneficence (unlike those nasty right-wingers), but the reality being utterly ineffective
-wanting the poor to be there as an accessory, but actually neither understanding nor caring about their fate
It just reinforced everything we always suspected about the Labour elite. But the media were too afraid to tell us.
In the 2005 general election this magazine supported the Conservatives, with one exception — we urged voters in Medway not to vote for a deeply unimpressive Tory candidate by the name of Mark Reckless. Our then political editor, Peter Oborne, went so far as to write a pamphlet in support of the Labour rival, Bob Marshall Andrews, who had a commendable record of sticking it to Tony Blair. Reckless, by contrast, had nothing to commend him. He lost by just 213 votes — suggesting that The Spectator’s intervention had been decisive.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-week/leading-article/9355882/how-to-fight-ukip/
"It is strange to think that only a few weeks ago, the Tories were confident about keeping hold of Rochester & Strood. They had been blindsided by Douglas Carswell’s defection to Ukip, and unable to organise themselves in time to hold Clacton; in any case, his constituency was ideal territory for Ukip. Rochester, they thought, was different. Mark Reckless’s is a Tory safe seat, and he has none of Carswell’s eloquence or popularity. Most Conservatives were reluctant to campaign too hard against Carswell, but many were keen to crush Reckless — and, hopefully, mark the beginning of the end of Nigel Farage.
But to the great surprise of No. 10, it turns out that voters in Rochester are not very interested in joining the Tory fightback. Even Cabinet members are returning from Rochester with the sense that the battle is already lost. So the talk has turned to damage limitation: how to ensure that the Prime Minister is not too closely associated with failure, given that he already made five visits to the constituency? How to pretend, the day after the election, that losing two by-elections to Ukip doesn’t really matter?"
You might like to look at Ian Bell's comment pieces in the Herald -
http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/a-murphy-succession-would-not-be-a-carefree-shoo-in.25715165
http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/labour-business-as-usual-while-going-out-of-business.25731557
It is also worth a look at this, and the Lallans Peat Worrier piece therein, which points out the adverse financial implications for Mr Murphy and/or any MSP 'encouraged' to resign to make way for him (never mind the uncertainties) [edit] in terms of leaving one's seat early:
http://wingsoverscotland.com/looking-for-a-way-in/#more-62774
Will Bradford East CLP pick a Mohammed, an Imran or the white chap?
Answers by the end of the day.....
The nations he's referring to are, of course, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. England doesn't count as a nation in his view. That's why it doesn't deserve a parliament. He probably thinks like his father, regarding the English as rabid nationalists that need to lose wars and be subjugated just to "show them the way things they are".
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45256000/gif/_45256551_unemploy_jul_sep_uk466.gif
But no-one identifies with half of those regions either: the fact you can't come up with names for them says it all. Also would Bedfordshire really be ok being in the Midlands? I also really dislike how northern regions get to keep their city economic engines, while London gets carved off from the home counties.
If there are regional identities the main ones are: the North, the Midlands, the Westcountry, East Anglia, the South East.
Kelly by contrast is a product of a Medway High School (secondary modern in old parlance) and has a small business making her the type of person the HoC let alone the Tories could do with more of. She probably won't win this time but increasing her vote share by 2% in the latest poll while Lab with the supposedly more impressive candidate fell by 9% might reflect her diligence and the fact she relates well to R & S voters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions_of_England
There is a sizable straw at which they can clutch. The increase in UKIP's Poll lead can be attributed to Labour voters, voting tactically or otherwise. Were this not so, the defeat would be suggesting a rampant UKIP capable of taking dozens of seats at the GE.
As it is, I expect Farage will crank up expectations from five or six seats, as he indicated post-Clacton, to ten or more.
There are plenty of good betting options based on such a forecast. By contrast, the 'None' option on Betfair's UKIP seats market can now be pronounced dead.
What is the difference between UKIP and the Tories? It looks like The Tories v The Tories. Even the ex-Tory MPs look identical to the new UKIP MPs. Because they are.
That Labour voters are taking the side of one bunch of Tories in a fight against another bunch of Tories is quite comical. They should be lining up behind their candidate and dragging in all those 2010 Lib Dems. surely?
Rochester and Clacton will both have the same right of centre MPs that they elected in 2010 when this charade is over.
What we should have had is wide consultation and a national debate to come up with the right solution.
What we got was the man from Westminster knows best and a total dogs breakfast with not even the easy goals scored (eg Yorkshire on its historic boundaries being a region)
"She probably won't win this time but increasing her vote share by 2% in the latest poll while Lab with the supposedly more impressive candidate fell by 9% might reflect her diligence and the fact she relates well to R & S voters."
It might also reflect, Norm, that the Conservatives have been 'throwing the kitchen sink at it', as posters here were regularly advised they would.
OK, I'm struggling, but then I don't have Grant Shapps' imagination.
Nigel Farage has the easiest job in the world right now. All he has to do sit back and let the news agenda do his campaigning for him. His counterparts seem powerless to resist, and very often make matters worse for themselves in their hamfisted attempts to do so.