Tony Blair may be summed up in just two words - Pure Evil.
A most penetrating and erudite critique... if that is how you see Blair, where would you put for example, Pol Pot ?
I am sure they had a great deal in common.
Could be, I wasnt paying a lot of attention at the time, but I am sure I would have noticed the population of all the major British cities being driven into the countryside. Some how despite my qualifications I managed to avoid being executed in the Killing Fields of Essex, or starved to death along with a quarter of the population in re-education camps.
"Its a Movie. The great Messiah claims from the mountain that the people cannot be saved."
Talking of which I thought it was brilliant (for what it was). I'm about the only person who did but for sheer scale and craft I've not seen its like before
I rather enjoyed it too - they don't build movies like that any more - could have done with a bit of trimming - but otherwise an entertaining view.
On the Hopkins thing, I saw on Twitter:
England has Hopkins Scotland has Ebola.
Thats 1-nill to Scotland......
Intereresting article Mr Manson - somewhat mangled: Jim Murphy in Scotland showing any sign of political yet faces a struggle against the nationalists......
In any case, wasn't 'Blairism' more a way of operating, rather than a coherent political philosophy?
Tony Blair may be summed up in just two words - Pure Evil.
A most penetrating and erudite critique... if that is how you see Blair, where would you put for example, Pol Pot ?
I am sure they had a great deal in common.
Could be, I wasnt paying a lot of attention at the time, but I am sure I would have noticed the population of all the major British cities being driven into the countryside. Some how despite my qualifications I managed to avoid being executed in the Killing Fields of Essex, or starved to death along with a quarter of the population in re-education camps.
But he was responsible for many deaths elsewhere - and used the British armed forces as instruments of evil and aggression. Pity they were not defeated.
Very perceptive piece.My judgement on anything Blair has to say is contingent on the outcome of Chilcot which cannot come soon enough.Blair remains innocent until proven guilty but has a case to answer.Blair and the rest of us need that resolved before we can all move on.
I suspect you will find the army comes out as bad if not worse than Blair.
The whole,torrid truth about Iraq needs to be told.
FPT AndyJS says ... ''Petrol prices are about the same now as they were 30 years when you take inflation into account. Prices in 1984 were about 35 pence and inflation has tripled the value of the pound since then.''
You may be right - but inflation has slashed the value of the pound threefold since then. Shouldn't earnings and growth be taken into account as well. The graph at the end of this paper (dated Jan '14) says that both in 1950 and 1990 petrol was about 75p/l or less. 1985 was nearer 100p. At 2012 prices. its what... 115p now? file:///home/chronos/u-5bc2250e420291ab3e8bc6a318ad30f302dee10c/Downloads/sn04712.pdf
Andy - you need to look at prices ex-tax.
If it wasn't for the massive increase in petrol taxes since then, the real cost of fuel would be much lower.
FPT AndyJS says ... ''Petrol prices are about the same now as they were 30 years when you take inflation into account. Prices in 1984 were about 35 pence and inflation has tripled the value of the pound since then.''
You may be right - but inflation has slashed the value of the pound threefold since then. Shouldn't earnings and growth be taken into account as well. The graph at the end of this paper (dated Jan '14) says that both in 1950 and 1990 petrol was about 75p/l or less. 1985 was nearer 100p. At 2012 prices. its what... 115p now? file:///home/chronos/u-5bc2250e420291ab3e8bc6a318ad30f302dee10c/Downloads/sn04712.pdf
Andy - you need to look at prices ex-tax.
If it wasn't for the massive increase in petrol taxes since then, the real cost of fuel would be much lower.
The paper also looks at tax I think
Does it allow for the more than doubling in real GDP since 1980? It may cost just as much in real terms, but it's less than half the share of pocket it was, which in a much realer sense, makes it much cheaper.
GDP is a bit of a pointless comparison - compared against average wage would be a more sensible comparison.
Blimey Henry you're a voice from the past. Blair was correct: Labour can only win when it wins the centre.
The idea that it's Blair's New Labour that are a 'ragged mess,' is hilarious. They are pretty much the current Government. Love him or loathe him Tony Blair, like Thatcher before him, set the direction of an entire country for two decades.
This "win from the centre" meme is a misreading of Blair's political strategy.
Fundamentally, all it says is that, to win, you need to reach out beyond your core vote.
If you think of the world as a simplistic left/right construct then the "mushy centre" is where the outreach needs to take place (assuming that Communistics/BNPetc don't provide enough potential on the left/right extremes). But this no longer works: both the right and the left have alternatives that prevent the main parties tacking too close to the middle ground.
But Thatcher didn't win based on her right-wing positioning or some appeal to the centre. She won by managing to reignite the Tory appeal to the C1/C2 group - the group that Baldwin and Disraeli both managed to win, while Cameron has rubbed them up the wrong way.
Excellent observation Charles. I agree entirely. I would however go further and say that slowly but surely the whole left/right meme is being dissolved by other factors - most notably the pro and anti statist argument.
The change.org petition against Katie Hopkins (no relation) has already reached 17,000+ signatories.
Her comments were stupid, but were they any more offensive than certain "comedians" or even those who make rabid comments about Tories?
Interesting world we are heading towards.
Can't imagine a world in which Scots do not make equally offensive jokes about the English. Where has people's sense of proportion/humour/free speech gone?
She is a particularly nasty piece of work and insults anyone and everyone. She really does need sorting out and desperate that the media give her a mouthpiece to spout her nastiness. She really should look in a mirror.
Tony Blair may be summed up in just two words - Pure Evil.
A most penetrating and erudite critique... if that is how you see Blair, where would you put for example, Pol Pot ?
I am sure they had a great deal in common.
Could be, I wasnt paying a lot of attention at the time, but I am sure I would have noticed the population of all the major British cities being driven into the countryside. Some how despite my qualifications I managed to avoid being executed in the Killing Fields of Essex, or starved to death along with a quarter of the population in re-education camps.
But he was responsible for many deaths elsewhere - and used the British armed forces as instruments of evil and aggression. Pity they were not defeated.
So you would have liked to see our soldiers and armed forced, doing their sworn duty, defeated in the field and hence killed in large numbers because you disagree with Blair's policy, what a disgrace.
"Its a Movie. The great Messiah claims from the mountain that the people cannot be saved."
Talking of which I thought it was brilliant (for what it was). I'm about the only person who did but for sheer scale and craft I've not seen its like before
I agree certainly a big build or was it just a big mirror? .... Did they replant all the trees? Important points we must have the answer too....
I understood though that a number of viewers didn't see the skill involved and just poured cold water on it.
Anyway off now to part seas of champagne from their bottles.
Mr. Tyndall, sometimes graphs plotting political positions have an X axis with left- and right-wing views, and a Y axis with liberal and authoritarianism labels.
It may be that we're shifting to a Liberal Versus Authoritarian age (this idiocy about arresting Hopkins for being an offensive oaf is madness) and left/right will shift to the background, but I don't think it'll disappear.
The change.org petition against Katie Hopkins (no relation) has already reached 17,000+ signatories.
Her comments were stupid, but were they any more offensive than certain "comedians" or even those who make rabid comments about Tories?
Interesting world we are heading towards.
Can't imagine a world in which Scots do not make equally offensive jokes about the English. Where has people's sense of proportion/humour/free speech gone?
She is a particularly nasty piece of work and insults anyone and everyone. She really does need sorting out and desperate that the media give her a mouthpiece to spout her nastiness. She really should look in a mirror.
My comments fall more in the spirit of Voltaire, rather than support for her silly attention-seeking comments
Mr. G, her comments were very unpleasant and utterly without merit. But that does not mean they should be criminalised. Freedom of speech must include freedom to be an obnoxious or offensive oaf, otherwise we don't have freedom.
Its a Movie. The great Messiah claims from the mountain that the people cannot be saved. In response Ed builds an arc with a rudder that can only steer in ever decreasing circles to the left until it disappears up its own poop deck while the Labour passengers wail in anguish about the positions of the deck chairs.
Lets face it I think its generally accepted that Blair won because he understood that the center ground had to be won. Ed does not think this and has exited far left out of most peoples view and why the Labour supporters do imitations of Ostriches.
It's why Ed is going to lose........ and big.
Hope everyone has a very safe and happy new years evening. Happy New Year !!
Without a self serving Brown as Chancellor, Labour will still be happy to take us into the Euro.
Its a Movie. The great Messiah claims from the mountain that the people cannot be saved. In response Ed builds an arc with a rudder that can only steer in ever decreasing circles to the left until it disappears up its own poop deck while the Labour passengers wail in anguish about the positions of the deck chairs.
Lets face it I think its generally accepted that Blair won because he understood that the center ground had to be won. Ed does not think this and has exited far left out of most peoples view and why the Labour supporters do imitations of Ostriches.
It's why Ed is going to lose........ and big.
Hope everyone has a very safe and happy new years evening. Happy New Year !!
Without a self serving Brown as Chancellor, Labour will still be happy to take us into the Euro.
Are you paying attention, Kippers?
Farage will be on our 50 Euro note......
Why should they pay attention ? Have you anything worthwhile saying. ? Even kippers don't find an in out referendum the key event that makes them vote UKIP.
Try having some policies instead if you want people to vote for you, scary Ed Miliband doesn't work.
Its a Movie. The great Messiah claims from the mountain that the people cannot be saved. In response Ed builds an arc with a rudder that can only steer in ever decreasing circles to the left until it disappears up its own poop deck while the Labour passengers wail in anguish about the positions of the deck chairs.
Lets face it I think its generally accepted that Blair won because he understood that the center ground had to be won. Ed does not think this and has exited far left out of most peoples view and why the Labour supporters do imitations of Ostriches.
It's why Ed is going to lose........ and big.
Hope everyone has a very safe and happy new years evening. Happy New Year !!
Without a self serving Brown as Chancellor, Labour will still be happy to take us into the Euro.
Are you paying attention, Kippers?
Farage will be on our 50 Euro note......
Why should they pay attention ? Have you anything worthwhile saying. ? Even kippers don't find an in out referendum the key event that makes them vote UKIP.
Try having some policies instead if you want people to vote for you, scary Ed Miliband doesn't work.
You really have painted yourself into a corner haven't you.
I suppose you'd place me on the Blairite wing, so I suppose I should be hostile, but I'm not. The New Labour project died when the heir apparent, Miliband D, fluffed his lines and allowed GB to remain as PM. The Blairites appear to have diminished in importance steadily since then and like it or not, the Party is in the hands of Ed and his gang now.
I agree that It could yet win the next GE, if not outright then at least with the assistance of the SNP.
Its a Movie. The great Messiah claims from the mountain that the people cannot be saved. In response Ed builds an arc with a rudder that can only steer in ever decreasing circles to the left until it disappears up its own poop deck while the Labour passengers wail in anguish about the positions of the deck chairs.
Lets face it I think its generally accepted that Blair won because he understood that the center ground had to be won. Ed does not think this and has exited far left out of most peoples view and why the Labour supporters do imitations of Ostriches.
It's why Ed is going to lose........ and big.
Hope everyone has a very safe and happy new years evening. Happy New Year !!
Without a self serving Brown as Chancellor, Labour will still be happy to take us into the Euro.
FPT AndyJS says ... ''Petrol prices are about the same now as they were 30 years when you take inflation into account. Prices in 1984 were about 35 pence and inflation has tripled the value of the pound since then.''
You may be right - but inflation has slashed the value of the pound threefold since then. Shouldn't earnings and growth be taken into account as well. The graph at the end of this paper (dated Jan '14) says that both in 1950 and 1990 petrol was about 75p/l or less. 1985 was nearer 100p. At 2012 prices. its what... 115p now? file:///home/chronos/u-5bc2250e420291ab3e8bc6a318ad30f302dee10c/Downloads/sn04712.pdf
Andy - you need to look at prices ex-tax.
If it wasn't for the massive increase in petrol taxes since then, the real cost of fuel would be much lower.
FPT AndyJS says ... ''Petrol prices are about the same now as they were 30 years when you take inflation into account. Prices in 1984 were about 35 pence and inflation has tripled the value of the pound since then.''
You may be right - but inflation has slashed the value of the pound threefold since then. Shouldn't earnings and growth be taken into account as well. The graph at the end of this paper (dated Jan '14) says that both in 1950 and 1990 petrol was about 75p/l or less. 1985 was nearer 100p. At 2012 prices. its what... 115p now? file:///home/chronos/u-5bc2250e420291ab3e8bc6a318ad30f302dee10c/Downloads/sn04712.pdf
Andy - you need to look at prices ex-tax.
If it wasn't for the massive increase in petrol taxes since then, the real cost of fuel would be much lower.
The paper also looks at tax I think
Does it allow for the more than doubling in real GDP since 1980? It may cost just as much in real terms, but it's less than half the share of pocket it was, which in a much realer sense, makes it much cheaper.
That was the point I was originally making as well.
Mr. G, her comments were very unpleasant and utterly without merit. But that does not mean they should be criminalised. Freedom of speech must include freedom to be an obnoxious or offensive oaf, otherwise we don't have freedom.
Must agree, Morris.
Were this not the case I'd have been banged up years ago, along with another dozen or so of this Parish. (But not your genteel self, of course.)
Are there any Nixons which currently are politicians in the US?
No, America has wisely Nixed the Nixons.
It shows how sad I am that when ydoethur initially posed the question I knew off the top of my head that Jay Nixon was Governor of Missouri. Not related to the famous one as far as I know.
This is despite the fact that other European countries have more Muslims and more racism. At what point do people accept that our immigration and integration policies have been particularly poor? I've yet to see a single prominent politician or commentator on the left try to understand this issue. Confronted with fact after fact about appalling integration of Muslims in our country, they just shrug their shoulders and blame everyone else.
This is despite the fact that other European countries have more Muslims and more racism. At what point do people accept that our immigration and integration policies have been particularly poor? I've yet to see a single prominent politician or commentator on the left try to understand this issue. Confronted with fact after fact about appalling integration of Muslims in our country, they just shrug their shoulders and blame everyone else.
This is despite the fact that other European countries have more Muslims and more racism. At what point do people accept that our immigration and integration policies have been particularly poor? I've yet to see a single prominent politician or commentator on the left try to understand this issue. Confronted with fact after fact about appalling integration of Muslims in our country, they just shrug their shoulders and blame everyone else.
I thought per capita Sweeden was much further ahead?
While I agree they are pandering, and showing what their customers want to see, some of those tweets are moronic; suggesting that you burn Harper Collins books, and that Israel has been there for 6,000 years (last time I checked it was founded in 1948).
This is despite the fact that other European countries have more Muslims and more racism. At what point do people accept that our immigration and integration policies have been particularly poor? I've yet to see a single prominent politician or commentator on the left try to understand this issue. Confronted with fact after fact about appalling integration of Muslims in our country, they just shrug their shoulders and blame everyone else.
I thought per capita Sweeden was much further ahead?
That's right on a per capita basis, but only just.
It's worth bearing in mind that Sweden's integration strategy is a hyped our version of our own: say how wonderful immigration is, and accuse anyone raising concerns of being a racist. At what point do people accept that such a system has terrible results?
This is despite the fact that other European countries have more Muslims and more racism. At what point do people accept that our immigration and integration policies have been particularly poor? I've yet to see a single prominent politician or commentator on the left try to understand this issue. Confronted with fact after fact about appalling integration of Muslims in our country, they just shrug their shoulders and blame everyone else.
I thought per capita Sweeden was much further ahead?
That's right on a per capita basis, but only just.
It's worth bearing in mind that Sweden's integration strategy is a hyped our version of our own: say how wonderful immigration is, and accuse anyone raising concerns of being a racist. At what point do people accept that such a system has terrible results?
I think it is almost 10x as much as us on a per capita basis.
I have literally no experience in this area. Are race relations particularly bad in Sweden? I thought it was a lot worse here.
Part of the problem with Blair's analysis is that he inevitably overlooks his own role in eroding the strength of the coalition that he built, and the reputation of centrists in general. New Labour was at its strongest when it realised where it had public support to go with the left's instincts, and where it didn't and taking the party on was the best option. So getting tough on law and order, but also increasing funding for the NHS, minimum wage etc. At some point Blair forgot that you need to prove to your traditional supporters you still stand for them because they're as important a part of that coalition of voters as the centrist votes you gain by taking on your party and populism and maintaining the centre ground. Iraq was the most obviously disastrous decision that hollowed out the Labour vote, but on others as well it often seemed like Blair had it half right - that you need to decouple yourself from the shibboleths of your party and avoid the most naked forms of populism. But that after a while in government he almost got captured by the establishment and lost touch with the second part of what made him successful - the ability to articulate your own party's positions and more radical beliefs in a populist way. Dismissing the anti-immigration, anti-EU argument rather than taking it on from a position of strength also now looks like a catastrophic mistake. His dismissal of the FOI Act, one of Labour's better moments, is telling.
Ironically it's left Ed Miliband with a huge problem and a route to victory, namely that despite a moderate shift to the left he's still derided as New Labour establishment and not left enough by those on Labour's left flank (and protest vote Kippers). Yet the same problem may engulf Cameron in that his own attempt to run the Blairite playbook in reverse engenders the same mistrust, both within his natural supporters and the apolitical working class voters who formerly switched between the two parties.
This is despite the fact that other European countries have more Muslims and more racism. At what point do people accept that our immigration and integration policies have been particularly poor? I've yet to see a single prominent politician or commentator on the left try to understand this issue. Confronted with fact after fact about appalling integration of Muslims in our country, they just shrug their shoulders and blame everyone else.
I thought per capita Sweeden was much further ahead?
That's right on a per capita basis, but only just.
It's worth bearing in mind that Sweden's integration strategy is a hyped our version of our own: say how wonderful immigration is, and accuse anyone raising concerns of being a racist. At what point do people accept that such a system has terrible results?
I think it is almost 10x as much as us on a per capita basis.
I have literally no experience in this area. Are race relations particularly bad in Sweden? I thought it was a lot worse here.
In Malmo there is growing violence by M.E. muslim refugees, including numerous car bombings. Lets say a London 7/7 every 3 months or so in Sweden, so it's pretty bad and it explains the rapid rise of the Swedish Democrats.
"Since 1997 the myth that only a New Labour government could be elected has been carefully promoted and perpetuated. The fact a social democratic John Smith-led Labour Party was heading to a solid working majority in 1994 has been buried on the isle of Iona with him."
Similarly a miliband win will expose the myth that Cameron got enough seats to be PM because Cameron turned to mushy wet social liberal policies and denounced his own party as nasty will be exposed for what it is. ie Rubbish.
If Cameron had been a conservative he would have had a clear majority in 2010. Instead he embraced loony left liberal social policies and has probably split his party for good.
This is despite the fact that other European countries have more Muslims and more racism. At what point do people accept that our immigration and integration policies have been particularly poor? I've yet to see a single prominent politician or commentator on the left try to understand this issue. Confronted with fact after fact about appalling integration of Muslims in our country, they just shrug their shoulders and blame everyone else.
I thought per capita Sweeden was much further ahead?
That's right on a per capita basis, but only just.
It's worth bearing in mind that Sweden's integration strategy is a hyped our version of our own: say how wonderful immigration is, and accuse anyone raising concerns of being a racist. At what point do people accept that such a system has terrible results?
You put it yourself. Sweden is Tumblr turned into a country. There's a kind of race going on. Can the ruling parties (Social Democrats, Moderates, Centre are interchangeable) turn the Swedes into an ethnic minority in their own country before the Swedish Democrats win?
Tony Blair may be summed up in just two words - Pure Evil.
A most penetrating and erudite critique... if that is how you see Blair, where would you put for example, Pol Pot ?
I am sure they had a great deal in common.
Could be, I wasnt paying a lot of attention at the time, but I am sure I would have noticed the population of all the major British cities being driven into the countryside. Some how despite my qualifications I managed to avoid being executed in the Killing Fields of Essex, or starved to death along with a quarter of the population in re-education camps.
But he was responsible for many deaths elsewhere - and used the British armed forces as instruments of evil and aggression. Pity they were not defeated.
So you would have liked to see our soldiers and armed forced, doing their sworn duty, defeated in the field and hence killed in large numbers because you disagree with Blair's policy, what a disgrace.
That is a non sequitur.I did not actually wish them any harm, but any casualties suffered I blame on those who sent them to Iraq. The Iraqi people had every right to defend themselves - in the same way that we would have done had we been invaded back in 1940. I condemn all aggression - including British aggression. To condemn such action by other countries - whether German, Russian or Iraqi -and to then turn a blind eye when my own country is guilty of the same thing, would be pure humbug and hypocrisy.
While I agree they are pandering, and showing what their customers want to see, some of those tweets are moronic; suggesting that you burn Harper Collins books, and that Israel has been there for 6,000 years (last time I checked it was founded in 1948).
I wonder why Britain abstained rather than vote for or against the UNSC Palestine Statehood resolution today.
"Since 1997 the myth that only a New Labour government could be elected has been carefully promoted and perpetuated. The fact a social democratic John Smith-led Labour Party was heading to a solid working majority in 1994 has been buried on the isle of Iona with him."
Similarly a miliband win will expose the myth that Cameron got enough seats to be PM because Cameron turned to mushy wet social liberal policies and denounced his own party as nasty will be exposed for what it is. ie Rubbish.
If Cameron had been a conservative he would have had a clear majority in 2010. Instead he embraced loony left liberal social policies and has probably split his party for good.
It's probably best to say that Cameron is a political relic from the 1990's who didn't know that he was out of fashion by 2010. The Tory party has been unfortunate for selecting a Blair like leader just at the time he went out of fashion.
"Since 1997 the myth that only a New Labour government could be elected has been carefully promoted and perpetuated. The fact a social democratic John Smith-led Labour Party was heading to a solid working majority in 1994 has been buried on the isle of Iona with him."
Similarly a miliband win will expose the myth that Cameron got enough seats to be PM because Cameron turned to mushy wet social liberal policies and denounced his own party as nasty will be exposed for what it is. ie Rubbish.
If Cameron had been a conservative he would have had a clear majority in 2010. Instead he embraced loony left liberal social policies and has probably split his party for good.
It's probably best to say that Cameron is a political relic from the 1990's who didn't know that he was out of fashion by 2010. The Tory party has been unfortunate for selecting a Blair like leader just at the time he went out of fashion.
The change.org petition against Katie Hopkins (no relation) has already reached 17,000+ signatories.
Her comments were stupid, but were they any more offensive than certain "comedians" or even those who make rabid comments about Tories?
Interesting world we are heading towards.
Can't imagine a world in which Scots do not make equally offensive jokes about the English. Where has people's sense of proportion/humour/free speech gone?
You try making an anti-English joke this last two years and see what happens. I'm not that stupid (even if I had meant it which I wouldn't).
Even the Tories tried to claim that it was anti-English racism to complain about Tory rule from Westminster.
Interesting to see a (Labour) poster so impressed by Cameron's radicalism.
Cameron does seem to be have been intent on making the most of pretty poor hand when he entered office. No free hand in setting his main domestic priorities - whoever was in power, the theme of this Parliament was always going to be the Big D - and a coalition to tie one of his hands behind his back. Yet he's tried very hard to leave a mark on this country -as if he assumed from the outset that he was unlikely to get a second chance.
In contrast, when Blair had an opportunity to reshape this country, he largely sat on cruise control. Did he not have some goal he wanted to achieve? Did he just assume he could run the show forever? Was his main concern simply to fill the office, to stop someone else taking the top slot?
If you think of the world as a simplistic left/right construct then the "mushy centre" is where the outreach needs to take place (assuming that Communistics/BNPetc don't provide enough potential on the left/right extremes). But this no longer works: both the right and the left have alternatives that prevent the main parties tacking too close to the middle ground.
But Thatcher didn't win based on her right-wing positioning or some appeal to the centre. She won by managing to reignite the Tory appeal to the C1/C2 group - the group that Baldwin and Disraeli both managed to win, while Cameron has rubbed them up the wrong way.
Indeed. If sitting in the centre ground was all that matters then we would have run of Liberal Party governments for the past 100 years, no one would have bothered with the SDP or the LDs because the old Liberal Party would have been doing very nicely thank you.
To be controversial: Thatcher combined Gladstonian radicalism with a dose of Lloyd George's appeal to the skilled working classes
That also applies to UKIP though, lets call Thacherism as simply right wing populism.
Not at all: Gladstonian Liberalism was fundamentally internationalist and outward looking. Kippery is very much focused on internal matters: protection rather than growth.
Is there growth in the EU? Thatcher was more inclined to America, much like UKIP is, so essentially they are the same just UKIP being a more extreme version of Thacherism.
The difference is that Kippery bemoans what was lost and seeks to restore some golden age.
Thatcher had a vision of Britain's potential and wanted to create a society that could fulfil that vision.
If you think of the world as a simplistic left/right construct then the "mushy centre" is where the outreach needs to take place (assuming that Communistics/BNPetc don't provide enough potential on the left/right extremes). But this no longer works: both the right and the left have alternatives that prevent the main parties tacking too close to the middle ground.
But Thatcher didn't win based on her right-wing positioning or some appeal to the centre. She won by managing to reignite the Tory appeal to the C1/C2 group - the group that Baldwin and Disraeli both managed to win, while Cameron has rubbed them up the wrong way.
Indeed. If sitting in the centre ground was all that matters then we would have run of Liberal Party governments for the past 100 years, no one would have bothered with the SDP or the LDs because the old Liberal Party would have been doing very nicely thank you.
To be controversial: Thatcher combined Gladstonian radicalism with a dose of Lloyd George's appeal to the skilled working classes
That also applies to UKIP though, lets call Thacherism as simply right wing populism.
Not at all: Gladstonian Liberalism was fundamentally internationalist and outward looking. Kippery is very much focused on internal matters: protection rather than growth.
Is there growth in the EU? Thatcher was more inclined to America, much like UKIP is, so essentially they are the same just UKIP being a more extreme version of Thacherism.
The difference is that Kippery bemoans what was lost and seeks to restore some golden age.
Thatcher had a vision of Britain's potential and wanted to create a society that could fulfil that vision.
I think UKIP (in foreign policy terms) are more like the Radical wing of the late 19th century Liberals.
keep an eye on P2P. Double-digit returns possible, and things just got better with the forthcoming NISA wrapper, with losses soon to be offsettable against profits, per the Autumn Statement...
While I agree they are pandering, and showing what their customers want to see, some of those tweets are moronic; suggesting that you burn Harper Collins books, and that Israel has been there for 6,000 years (last time I checked it was founded in 1948).
I wonder why Britain abstained rather than vote for or against the UNSC Palestine Statehood resolution today.
Lack of guts to pick one or the other, clearly, standard for many middling powers I imagine.
Merry merry to all as we move into Janus territory.
If you think of the world as a simplistic left/right construct then the "mushy centre" is where the outreach needs to take place (assuming that Communistics/BNPetc don't provide enough potential on the left/right extremes). But this no longer works: both the right and the left have alternatives that prevent the main parties tacking too close to the middle ground.
But Thatcher didn't win based on her right-wing positioning or some appeal to the centre. She won by managing to reignite the Tory appeal to the C1/C2 group - the group that Baldwin and Disraeli both managed to win, while Cameron has rubbed them up the wrong way.
Indeed. If sitting in the centre ground was all that matters then we would have run of Liberal Party governments for the past 100 years, no one would have bothered with the SDP or the LDs because the old Liberal Party would have been doing very nicely thank you.
To be controversial: Thatcher combined Gladstonian radicalism with a dose of Lloyd George's appeal to the skilled working classes
That also applies to UKIP though, lets call Thacherism as simply right wing populism.
Not at all: Gladstonian Liberalism was fundamentally internationalist and outward looking. Kippery is very much focused on internal matters: protection rather than growth.
Is there growth in the EU? Thatcher was more inclined to America, much like UKIP is, so essentially they are the same just UKIP being a more extreme version of Thacherism.
The difference is that Kippery bemoans what was lost and seeks to restore some golden age.
Thatcher had a vision of Britain's potential and wanted to create a society that could fulfil that vision.
I think UKIP (in foreign policy terms) are more like the Radical wing of the late 19th century Liberals.
I thought the Radicals were all for "muscular liberalism" - Bulgaria et al?
While I agree they are pandering, and showing what their customers want to see, some of those tweets are moronic; suggesting that you burn Harper Collins books, and that Israel has been there for 6,000 years (last time I checked it was founded in 1948).
I wonder why Britain abstained rather than vote for or against the UNSC Palestine Statehood resolution today.
Lack of guts to pick one or the other, clearly, standard for many middling powers I imagine.
Merry merry to all as we move into Janus territory.
Plus, no benefit and some harm to voting either way. I suspect the government was against the resolution (this was the one with the 3 year deadline, right?), but America will veto so we don't need to vote against to stop it. Israel-Palestine is an issue where going to bat for one side doesn't get their appreciation, just the hate from the other side's supporters. Unless our vote would swing things, the path of least resistance is just never to vote on it.
(Not that I necessarily approve of that strategy, just to clarify.)
The reason I mention this is that I had no idea what I was doing. I am a total novice. So it can't be that hard to make money. If I can do it anyone can do it. You just need money to start with.
With a time frame of September to December you didn't invest - you gambled.
Or, in other words, it's easy to make money in a rising market - your performance pretty much mirrors a low cost Developed World Tracker (like the Vanguard Developed World Ex-UK Tracker)
If you think of the world as a simplistic left/right construct then the "mushy centre" is where the outreach needs to take place (assuming that Communistics/BNPetc don't provide enough potential on the left/right extremes). But this no longer works: both the right and the left have alternatives that prevent the main parties tacking too close to the middle ground.
But Thatcher didn't win based on her right-wing positioning or some appeal to the centre. She won by managing to reignite the Tory appeal to the C1/C2 group - the group that Baldwin and Disraeli both managed to win, while Cameron has rubbed them up the wrong way.
Indeed. If sitting in the centre ground was all that matters then we would have run of Liberal Party governments for the past 100 years, no one would have bothered with the SDP or the LDs because the old Liberal Party would have been doing very nicely thank you.
To be controversial: Thatcher combined Gladstonian radicalism with a dose of Lloyd George's appeal to the skilled working classes
That also applies to UKIP though, lets call Thacherism as simply right wing populism.
Not at all: Gladstonian Liberalism was fundamentally internationalist and outward looking. Kippery is very much focused on internal matters: protection rather than growth.
Is there growth in the EU? Thatcher was more inclined to America, much like UKIP is, so essentially they are the same just UKIP being a more extreme version of Thacherism.
The difference is that Kippery bemoans what was lost and seeks to restore some golden age.
Thatcher had a vision of Britain's potential and wanted to create a society that could fulfil that vision.
I think UKIP (in foreign policy terms) are more like the Radical wing of the late 19th century Liberals.
I thought the Radicals were all for "muscular liberalism" - Bulgaria et al?
The Radicals were generally for non-intervention. At the time, they were called Little Englanders.
Outrage as senior Conservative councillor uses n word in council meeting. Same article reveals another Conservative councillor used the word in July and was sent for Diversity training.
The reason I mention this is that I had no idea what I was doing. I am a total novice. So it can't be that hard to make money. If I can do it anyone can do it. You just need money to start with.
With a time frame of September to December you didn't invest - you gambled.
Or, in other words, it's easy to make money in a rising market - your performance pretty much mirrors a low cost Developed World Tracker (like the Vanguard Developed World Ex-UK Tracker)
Actually I am a moron, you did vastly worse than a low cost tracker, the Vanguard Tracker racked up a real 7% profit over the 4 months implying a 21% return for the year compared to your implied 8%.
Outrage as senior Conservative councillor uses n word in council meeting. Same article reveals another Conservative councillor used the word in July and was sent for Diversity training.
"Since 1997 the myth that only a New Labour government could be elected has been carefully promoted and perpetuated. The fact a social democratic John Smith-led Labour Party was heading to a solid working majority in 1994 has been buried on the isle of Iona with him."
Similarly a miliband win will expose the myth that Cameron got enough seats to be PM because Cameron turned to mushy wet social liberal policies and denounced his own party as nasty will be exposed for what it is. ie Rubbish.
If Cameron had been a conservative he would have had a clear majority in 2010. Instead he embraced loony left liberal social policies and has probably split his party for good.
It's probably best to say that Cameron is a political relic from the 1990's who didn't know that he was out of fashion by 2010. The Tory party has been unfortunate for selecting a Blair like leader just at the time he went out of fashion.
Outrage as senior Conservative councillor uses n word in council meeting. Same article reveals another Conservative councillor used the word in July and was sent for Diversity training.
Henry G Manson: Well said !!! Very well said. The John Smith part is forgotten.
If Ed wins in May , even as the largest party only, I would like to read what those two lapdogs, John Rentoul and Dan Hodges will have to write. Also, what the great heir apparent, now resinding in New York, and found to have feet of clay thinks about it. To be fair, David have not said anything from the sidelines after his defeat.
Labour SNP coalition or Lab minority with an SNP and/or LD enhanced confidence/supply arrangement, possibly headed by Burnham, Johnson or Cooper as PM
Cameron out & the tories to lurch right and blame everything on europe/scots/etc
A general election Greengasm, with the greens topping 13% at some point in the campaign. They'll win precisely 3 seats - Brighton, Norwich S & Bristol W.
UKIP to get 12% of the vote and 2 or 3 seats, including Carswell but not Farage.
Scottish labour to win 10 or less Scottish seats.
Jo Swinson and Danny Alexander to hold their seats. Clegg out, Swinson to become next LD leader.
OGH not to make much money on the election. (I'm sorry, I really hope you do Mike, but a couple of weeks ago you sold the SNP at 21 on SPIN. Tonight the spread was 28.5-30.5)
This year, starting September, I made my first investment in anything other than property (having been skint or spendthrift for the rest of my stupid life).
I went for shares: mainly American, Asian, and tech focussed. I've just cashed out and made a modest four figure sum, implying an annual return of 8%.
Which is not bad when inflation is barely 1%.
The reason I mention this is that I had no idea what I was doing. I am a total novice. So it can't be that hard to make money. If I can do it anyone can do it. You just need money to start with.
The government just needs to give everyone a lump sum to invest, with a big sticker attached saying "please don't spend this on cakes or Aldi vodka, invest it in stocks", and we'd all be better off. Literally and emblematically.
My two London properties have put on £150k in 2014, thanks to the Russian mafia and the other drug dealers, tax dodgers, third world politicians bringing their illegal looted wealth and investing in London. Mansion tax would get a slice of that loot. They would also pay quietly.
Outrage as senior Conservative councillor uses n word in council meeting. Same article reveals another Conservative councillor used the word in July and was sent for Diversity training.
It's no problem if you're part of the mainstream parties.
Surely use of the woodpile phrase is not actually being racist. OK it includes an unfortunate word, but it is not as if you are referring to black people as niggers. Viz recent discussions on here about using the word chinky of another person (unacceptable) or a takeaway (no racist intent to be inferred).
Labour SNP coalition or Lab minority with an SNP and/or LD enhanced confidence/supply arrangement, possibly headed by Burnham, Johnson or Cooper as PM
Cameron out & the tories to lurch right and blame everything on europe/scots/etc
A general election Greengasm, with the greens topping 13% at some point in the campaign. They'll win precisely 3 seats - Brighton, Norwich S & Bristol W.
UKIP to get 12% of the vote and 2 or 3 seats, including Carswell but not Farage.
Scottish labour to win 10 or less Scottish seats.
Jo Swinson and Danny Alexander to hold their seats. Clegg out, Swinson to become next LD leader.
OGH not to make much money on the election. (I'm sorry, I really hope you do Mike, but a couple of weeks ago you sold the SNP at 21 on SPIN. Tonight the spread was 28.5-30.5)
Isam to lose ost of his PB UKIP bets.
Antifrank to make a packet out of the election.
Tim to return to PB
PB server to go tits up on election night.
Umm, I think that is all
Happy new year everyone
It was fun until you mentioned Danny Boy ! Clearly you have been drinking far too early !
Surely use of the woodpile phrase is not actually being racist. OK it includes an unfortunate word, but it is not as if you are referring to black people as n[redacted]. Viz recent discussions on here about using the word chinky of another person (unacceptable) or a takeaway (no racist intent to be inferred).
My gut instinct is that the response is a counterproductive overreaction against people giving up their time to help their community. But after the manure piled on UKIP over Kerry Smith and other recent UKIP verbal faux pas by assorted tories and the concerted attempt to smear UKIP as racists, its a case of hoist by your own petard as far as the Tory party is concerned.
PS I redacted the "n" word when quoting you, probably not a good idea to give it a few dozen more airings here, not because I'm fanatically PC but its impolite in the same way as f*** and similar are and you wouldn't expect to see f*** etc used liberally.
Regarding house prices, I bought a house in the Yorkshire 'golden triangle' in early 1998 for 150k, then sold it in late 2005 for 390k. That's absurd, though I'm not complaining.
Comments
Shut it you effete saxon chutney ferret.....
Oh, and happy new year to you and all.
On the Hopkins thing, I saw on Twitter:
England has Hopkins
Scotland has Ebola.
Thats 1-nill to Scotland......
Intereresting article Mr Manson - somewhat mangled: Jim Murphy in Scotland showing any sign of political yet faces a struggle against the nationalists......
In any case, wasn't 'Blairism' more a way of operating, rather than a coherent political philosophy?
Happy and Prosperous New Year.
Certainly more prosperous as part of the UK, than as an independent Scotland on $56 oil......
(Sorry, couldn't resist)
I understood though that a number of viewers didn't see the skill involved and just poured cold water on it.
Anyway off now to part seas of champagne from their bottles.
It may be that we're shifting to a Liberal Versus Authoritarian age (this idiocy about arresting Hopkins for being an offensive oaf is madness) and left/right will shift to the background, but I don't think it'll disappear.
Farage will be on our 50 Euro note......
Try having some policies instead if you want people to vote for you, scary Ed Miliband doesn't work.
I suppose you'd place me on the Blairite wing, so I suppose I should be hostile, but I'm not. The New Labour project died when the heir apparent, Miliband D, fluffed his lines and allowed GB to remain as PM. The Blairites appear to have diminished in importance steadily since then and like it or not, the Party is in the hands of Ed and his gang now.
I agree that It could yet win the next GE, if not outright then at least with the assistance of the SNP.
Were this not the case I'd have been banged up years ago, along with another dozen or so of this Parish. (But not your genteel self, of course.)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11319420/Labour-elite-thinks-Northerners-are-stupid-MP-complains.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2892629/Israel-omitted-HarperCollins-atlas-including-country-unacceptable-customers.html
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B4Rsnl4CUAAun4G.png:large
This is despite the fact that other European countries have more Muslims and more racism. At what point do people accept that our immigration and integration policies have been particularly poor? I've yet to see a single prominent politician or commentator on the left try to understand this issue. Confronted with fact after fact about appalling integration of Muslims in our country, they just shrug their shoulders and blame everyone else.
Missed that. Thanks for the correction. Britain is the biggest supplier of ISIS recruits in the developed world.
What was that saying Tories are always right, Tories are never wrong.
I planned a quiet night, but there's a bar open tonight playing nothing but 80s (and 90s) cheesy pop music, so I have to go.
Those posters really didn't fit the times though, back then it was Saint Tony!
It's worth bearing in mind that Sweden's integration strategy is a hyped our version of our own: say how wonderful immigration is, and accuse anyone raising concerns of being a racist. At what point do people accept that such a system has terrible results?
I have literally no experience in this area. Are race relations particularly bad in Sweden? I thought it was a lot worse here.
Ironically it's left Ed Miliband with a huge problem and a route to victory, namely that despite a moderate shift to the left he's still derided as New Labour establishment and not left enough by those on Labour's left flank (and protest vote Kippers). Yet the same problem may engulf Cameron in that his own attempt to run the Blairite playbook in reverse engenders the same mistrust, both within his natural supporters and the apolitical working class voters who formerly switched between the two parties.
Tony Blair = War Criminal
Tyrants like Rajapakse will always point fingers back to the UK when the UK accuses him of war crimes - and to be honest he has a point.
We are just as bad as a banana republic such as Sri Lanka.
Lets say a London 7/7 every 3 months or so in Sweden, so it's pretty bad and it explains the rapid rise of the Swedish Democrats.
This was just a few days ago:
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/car-bombs-rock-southern-swedens-city-malmo-27735717
Similarly a miliband win will expose the myth that Cameron got enough seats to be PM because Cameron turned to mushy wet social liberal policies and denounced his own party as nasty will be exposed for what it is. ie Rubbish.
If Cameron had been a conservative he would have had a clear majority in 2010. Instead he embraced loony left liberal social policies and has probably split his party for good.
The Tory party has been unfortunate for selecting a Blair like leader just at the time he went out of fashion.
And with that I leave you and 2014 with another 90's relic, but much more popular:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8oTtSTRdSw
Happy new year.
I am sorry for what has been done to your people. I would like not to believe some of the things I've read about, but I fear they're all too true.
Even the Tories tried to claim that it was anti-English racism to complain about Tory rule from Westminster.
Cameron does seem to be have been intent on making the most of pretty poor hand when he entered office. No free hand in setting his main domestic priorities - whoever was in power, the theme of this Parliament was always going to be the Big D - and a coalition to tie one of his hands behind his back. Yet he's tried very hard to leave a mark on this country -as if he assumed from the outset that he was unlikely to get a second chance.
In contrast, when Blair had an opportunity to reshape this country, he largely sat on cruise control. Did he not have some goal he wanted to achieve? Did he just assume he could run the show forever? Was his main concern simply to fill the office, to stop someone else taking the top slot?
Thatcher had a vision of Britain's potential and wanted to create a society that could fulfil that vision.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=GD8k1CnVeAQ
keep an eye on P2P. Double-digit returns possible, and things just got better with the forthcoming NISA wrapper, with losses soon to be offsettable against profits, per the Autumn Statement...
All the veries to one and all!
Merry merry to all as we move into Janus territory.
Premature confligration?
(Not that I necessarily approve of that strategy, just to clarify.)
Or, in other words, it's easy to make money in a rising market - your performance pretty much mirrors a low cost Developed World Tracker (like the Vanguard Developed World Ex-UK Tracker)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2892885/Deputy-mayor-racism-storm-comparing-flood-prevention-n-woodpile-council-meeting.html
oh dear, oh dear, oh dear
Tories are UKIP for pussies
If Ed wins in May , even as the largest party only, I would like to read what those two lapdogs, John Rentoul and Dan Hodges will have to write. Also, what the great heir apparent, now resinding in New York, and found to have feet of clay thinks about it. To be fair, David have not said anything from the sidelines after his defeat.
Labour SNP coalition or Lab minority with an SNP and/or LD enhanced confidence/supply arrangement, possibly headed by Burnham, Johnson or Cooper as PM
Cameron out & the tories to lurch right and blame everything on europe/scots/etc
A general election Greengasm, with the greens topping 13% at some point in the campaign. They'll win precisely 3 seats - Brighton, Norwich S & Bristol W.
UKIP to get 12% of the vote and 2 or 3 seats, including Carswell but not Farage.
Scottish labour to win 10 or less Scottish seats.
Jo Swinson and Danny Alexander to hold their seats. Clegg out, Swinson to become next LD leader.
OGH not to make much money on the election. (I'm sorry, I really hope you do Mike, but a couple of weeks ago you sold the SNP at 21 on SPIN. Tonight the spread was 28.5-30.5)
Isam to lose ost of his PB UKIP bets.
Antifrank to make a packet out of the election.
Tim to return to PB
PB server to go tits up on election night.
Umm, I think that is all
Happy new year everyone
Brilante nova anuale por totem miai Twitterpopularii dro 2015. Buonea vesperea por totem Mundial in Anglia, Europea i Mundol.
Hoopelig Noi Yurgel fir 2015 at allom myner Twitterfolgendungpeep. Godel wilniung fir toodel Welt in Britland, Ewropealand ek Weltan.
And especially happy new year OGH for keeping the site going this long, I suspect at some personal financial expense.
My gut instinct is that the response is a counterproductive overreaction against people giving up their time to help their community. But after the manure piled on UKIP over Kerry Smith and other recent UKIP verbal faux pas by assorted tories and the concerted attempt to smear UKIP as racists, its a case of hoist by your own petard as far as the Tory party is concerned.
PS I redacted the "n" word when quoting you, probably not a good idea to give it a few dozen more airings here, not because I'm fanatically PC but its impolite in the same way as f*** and similar are and you wouldn't expect to see f*** etc used liberally.
4 more months