I realise that by elections are a different kettle of fish to a GE, but can anyone else justify the decision in the Ashcroft poll to treat R&S The same as any other seat weighting wise? Surely the fact Ukip won the seat should play some part in the methodology? Or does it make zero difference and was rightly ignored?
You are clutching at straws. Just sit back and wait for the Ed Miliband minority government to come in. In the HoC will be 1 to 3 UKIP MPs. Oh, and no referendum on Europe because there were not enough Conservative MPs elected. That is what the polls are saying will happen.
You are a boring troll with nothing to offer
That is a new accusation from someone who has in a short time posted 14,000 times on here. But if applying such labels helps you through your day, good luck.
candidate was last night forced to make a grovelling apology after the Sunday Express revealed he repeatedly used football-related sectarian slurs.
Brendan O’Hara, who is the favourite to win the crucial marginal seat of Argyll and Bute, called Rangers supporters “huns” on a Celtic fans’ website.
It is an extremely insulting and bigoted term for the Ibrox club and their followers, although some would argue it is derogatory to all Protestants.
I'm a hun and I fund it neither offensive nor bigoted for a tim to use the term.
More desperation from the Unionist mafia.
Agreed, as someone who grew up in the west of Scotland, from a family full of "huns" it's not "extremely insulting" or "derogatory".
It's also fairly desperate to dig up 20 year old comments about Mo Johnston and use them in an election campaign in this fashion.
I did once come a cropper once for using the term "left-footer". The person I picked up the phrase from used it as a light hearted description of herself, and when I used it among other people, no-one picked me up on it. And then someone did... as they were from the Midlands as far as I know I am still slightly surprised they found it that offensive, but I am now a lot more careful.
I know my optimism has become a bit irritating to many here, so I've largely muted it. But it's genuine nonetheless, for all sorts of local reasons. More generally, my impression is that the East Midlands are going to be much like UNS, neither better nor worse. (I don 't know anything about the West Midlands - less than I know about Scotland.)
On shy Kippers - I always make a point of friendly enquiry to people who seem to be shy in expressing their views, partly just to be civilised but also to get the information (in one case it turned out to be "I think Hitler was right", so perhaps shyness was appropriate in his case). Obviously the small minority of people who really are racists currently have UKIP as the least bad option, but that doesn't make a UKIP vote racist. I think the most common cause of UKIP support is simply unease about immigration - not hatred of it, but feeling it's too much and Something Should Be Done. The weakness of the party is that they're not perceived to say much more than that. This is partly journalistic laziness - nobody bothers to report on UKIP's views on the economy, for instance - but if Farage really wanted UKIP to be seen as a broad brush party, he's had enough opportunities to focus on other things.
But are there a lot of shy Kippers? To friends maybe, to an anoymous pollsters I doubt it, and I think it's balanced by the lower probability that all of them will vote in the end.
It is always difficult to connect local face to face experience with national polls, even constituency polls. In a number of constituencies the local folk claim that the Ashcroft polls do not match their own expectations & experiences, we shall have to wait until May 8th to find out who is right.
I know from my own experience knocking on doors in London over the past 18 months that the London polls showing Lab on around 45% do seem pretty accurate. I am optimistic that Labour is on course for 10 to 12 gains in London, again from personal experience from knocking on doors in three marginals (all of them the least likely). At times I have been very pleasantly surprised by the level of support we have found.
I have not come across many UKIP inclined folk (though have been in Thurrock too where things are different), or at least those admitting to be so. I suspect those who say "you are all as bad as each other" or similar are probably inclined to UKIP if they actually vote at all.
However I can see that there might be a tendency for people to hide their views if they might cause social embarrassment, something that might not only affect UKIP support but all the parties in Scotland.
Just caught up with last nights thread, as ever Scotland/SNP seemed to be taking centre stage. Picking up on a few of the themes:
- "Peak SNP" - I think from where I sit in Central Scotland the SNP surge still has some way to go and will be peaking around 7th May. The disillusionment with the 3 "mainstream parties" is reaching new highs as their election campaigns flounder around, its amazing that with 5 years notice of the election date that they've come up with such poor campaigns.
- "Holyrood 2016" - I think the SNP surge will carry through to next May and the SNP will hoover up most of the constituency seats. Leaving SLAB, SLID and the Tories fighting with UKIP and the Greens for regional list seats.
- "Scotland's Economy" - The constant putting down of Scotland's economy is getting a bit boring, for what it's worth I remember watching a Bloomberg interview with Martin Sorrell in which he indicated an Independent Scotland would become the Singapore of Europe. As you can see from the YouGov findings Independence was about much more than oil, if anything it's many of the PB contributors who are over preoccupied about oil.
Super rich bad: Rich good Eton bad: Minor public school good It's interesting where you draw the line and build the barricade, Roger.
Usually just after where you stand personally...
To be fair to the Tories, they have delivered for all of us top rate taxpayers, haven't they? Markets booming, property prices soaring, top rate tax cut, dividend tax rate cut and so on. There's never been a better time to be well off.
I disagree: asset price inflation is never good for people who are still looking to build their asset portfolio for utility rather than financial reasons (e.g. buying a bigger house to live in). But it is an inevitable consequence of QE. I personally believe (hope!) that the current valuations will not be sustained in future.
The top rate is still higher than it was under Labour. It's an indication of the direction of travel, nothing more. The people who have really benefited under this government are those that have benefited from the substantial increases in the personal allowance.
Not really. They have seen many of their tax credits cut or frozen, while the VAT rise has had a much bigger effect than it has on folk further up the income scale. I think if us top rate taxpayers were being honest we'd say we have done extremely well over recent years and it is thanks to the government. In the unlikely event of Labour getting in things would become tougher.
Not if you look at the IFS stats. The top decile has done worse, then (i think) the bottom decile. Then second top, then 2/3 bottom. Most of the middle are +/- where they were. This is all fiscal policy.
Obviously asset price inflation benefits those with assets who don't intend to buy more assets in future.
You are clutching at straws. Just sit back and wait for the Ed Miliband minority government to come in. In the HoC will be 1 to 3 UKIP MPs. Oh, and no referendum on Europe because there were not enough Conservative MPs elected. That is what the polls are saying will happen.
Even assuming the Conservatives had a very good election and won 300-310 seats, it is open to doubt whether a Bill authorising a referendum on EU membership would carry. The Tories would have to rely on the DUP and a dwindling number of backbench Labour Eurosceptics to get it through. The rest of the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Scots would oppose en bloc. Unless they were prepared to devote the whole of a session to the Bill, it is difficult to see how it would pass.
The libertarian in me is starting to like the idea of the SNP as a permanently cantankerous, troublesome blocking minority opposed to the very existence of the country whose legislature they've been elected to, preventing anybody from passing any laws.
Why is Milliband saying he'll run a current account surplus? Simply not true is it?
but it is an aspiration to be achieved at some remote point in the future, and does not include socialist "investment" in any project that can be capitalised.
On Danny Alexander going to the Lords and remaining Chief Secretary to the Treasury, others have said why it won't happen, but what struck me is it would be a bit of a slap in the face to the remaining LD MPs if a coalition kept him in place by giving him a peerage. He wasn't even the first choice for the job initially. I wonder what the working relationship between Alexander and Osborne is - he seemed a very loyal member of the coalition, taking the heat for Osborne in the press by doing his job and defending coalition policies, I wouldn't be surprised to learn they work very well together and Osborne would like to keep him on.
On the Lords as a whole, I'm able to be convinced a number of ways. I have a fear of an entirely elected chamber being just a copy of the Commons and losing something of its current role, and I amidst all the retirement lordships to retiring MPs and handouts to party doners, I do think the Lords' inclusion of a range of business people, academics, military and religious leaders and so on, who wouldn't normally be in such a body, can be a plus. Long, but single, terms for elected people would be a reasonable idea I think.
Maybe yiou can answer the question I asked downthread. Why does the SNP's favourite webbsite 'Wings over Scotland' use a logo based on the Waffen SS? It's not that I mind just that every time I read one of your or Scotslass's posts I start humming the Horst-Wessel
Kindly remind me never to go shooting with you, should I ever show the urge, as you can't tell the difference between a Lion Rampant and an eagle.
The US Navy emblem is actually much closer to the NSDAP (not Waffen SS) eagle, so you might want to direct your queries there first.
As for @Dr_Spyn 's query re black kilts - you will no doubt know that it is SLAB which is infamous for introducing them to wider knowledge, on the person of Mr McConnell (prop., ret. hurt) in NYC. Though that was more a sartorial statement than a political one, unless it was intended to be a Caledonian version of Cool Britannia:
Your next PM @nickeardley: Ed Miliband tells @MarrShow he thinks Labour can win the election in Scotland
The naivety of the man beggars belief. His premiership is going to be one long set of car crashes. Great for political observers but the economic pain may harm a generation.
In his defence, he cannot really say anything else. There are still some seats that Labour can win in Scotland (and it feels really odd to be saying that it is just 'some'), and it is vital for Labour that their footsoldiers get out on the ground, and that their voters turn out. Saying "we're going to lose big" would be utterly counter-productive.
ISTR Hesseltine made similar comments about the Conservatives before the 1997 GE. He knew the claims were rubbish, but you cannot be seen to give in before the poll.
Indeed. I would go for the Australian model of an elected senate with pre-1911 House of Lords powers. In which case, if a retiring MP wanted to stand for it, he could.
I see no reason to have appointed Senators.
The problem with retiring MPs being appointed to the Lords is that it gives them another incentive to continue to grovel to their party leaders and/or the Executive, if they continue on the back benches after retiring from a ministerial career. It would be better if they could continue to use that skills and experience independently. So I would completely remove the opportunity for someone to appoint them to a sinecure for life.
The difficulty with repealing the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 is what would happen when the new Senate choose to block supply, as it did in Australia in 1975. The joint sitting of both Houses model which is used in Australia is a method (whether desirable or not) of curing legislative deadlock, but it cannot cure a failure to grant supply since supply must be granted to the Crown in each session of Parliament. If there is to be an elected Senate, it would be preferable therefore for the House of Commons' exclusive cognisance of Money Bills to continue.
Maybe yiou can answer the question I asked downthread. Why does the SNP's favourite webbsite 'Wings over Scotland' use a logo based on the Waffen SS? It's not that I mind just that every time I read one of your or Scotslass's posts I start humming the Horst-Wessel
It isn't, I don't know why you are going on about this one. As a dog whistle goes, it is pretty stupid, no-one seriously believes that Scots Nats are Nazis. As I pointed out earlier, it bears more resemblance to the Aeroflot logo. I am not even sure the one you posted is an actual Waffen SS logo, the lack of SS runes is a bit odd.
I realise that by elections are a different kettle of fish to a GE, but can anyone else justify the decision in the Ashcroft poll to treat R&S The same as any other seat weighting wise? Surely the fact Ukip won the seat should play some part in the methodology? Or does it make zero difference and was rightly ignored?
Oh, and no referendum on Europe because there were not enough Conservative MPs elected. That is what the polls are saying will happen.
If Conservative MPs had voted in favour of an EU referendum in 2011 it would have passed. But Mr Cameron had a three line whip opposing the referendum, and the majority of the parliamentary Conservative Party happily voted it down.
Tories dismal - all tactics, no strategy. Little attempt to offer a positive vision or a coherent package. Undermined own reputation for prudence to spike Labour guns on NHS - a costly sacrifice. Unwillingness to make a positive case for low tax, low spend, reformed state has alienated true conservatives without substantially increasing appeal to the centre. May yet pull clear but my early campaign optimism has waned. CCHQ overrun by infants whose incessant attacks on the SNP will result in a nasty aftermath if the Tories prevail.
Labour - disciplined campaign, despite thin and fundamentally flawed prospectus for government. Clearly not ready to return to power. Have eschewed serious policy work in favour of a series of cheap, populist and ultimately harmful policies that are designed to appeal to the ignorant and the angry. If successful, Labour and the UK will pay dearly for this crass attempt to ride the class war horse. Miliband becoming increasingly hubristic.
Lib Dems - in the national campaign no-one's listening and they don't seem to care. Locally they seem to be doing better, and in England at least may spring a surprise. But nationally struggling for airtime and to define a clear message.
SNP - rampant
PC - poor imitation of SNP, but will be learning lessons. Could become a major headache for Labour in Wales in future parliaments.
Greens - comedy value. Tories need to start funding them and giving them a platform to appeal to the far left, but their fantasy manifesto has largely out paid to hopes they can put a serious dent into Labour's support
Ukip - surprisingly lacklustre. Hard to reconcile their campaign performance with their enthusiasm (hubris?) in the Autumn. Future of party largely turns on whether Farage wins his seat, and if not what follows.
I realise that by elections are a different kettle of fish to a GE, but can anyone else justify the decision in the Ashcroft poll to treat R&S The same as any other seat weighting wise? Surely the fact Ukip won the seat should play some part in the methodology? Or does it make zero difference and was rightly ignored?
You are clutching at straws. Just sit back and wait for the Ed Miliband minority government to come in. In the HoC will be 1 to 3 UKIP MPs. Oh, and no referendum on Europe because there were not enough Conservative MPs elected. That is what the polls are saying will happen.
You are a boring troll with nothing to offer
That is a new accusation from someone who has in a short time posted 14,000 times on here. But if applying such labels helps you through your day, good luck.
Don't see how number of posts comes into it
I offer betting experience and try to find new ways of analysing data.. You just say ner ner ner
Indeed. I would go for the Australian model of an elected senate with pre-1911 House of Lords powers. In which case, if a retiring MP wanted to stand for it, he could.
I see no reason to have appointed Senators.
The problem with retiring MPs being appointed to the Lords is that it gives them another incentive to continue to grovel to their party leaders and/or the Executive, if they continue on the back benches after retiring from a ministerial career. It would be better if they could continue to use that skills and experience independently. So I would completely remove the opportunity for someone to appoint them to a sinecure for life.
The difficulty with repealing the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 is what would happen when the new Senate choose to block supply, as it did in Australia in 1975. The joint sitting of both Houses model which is used in Australia is a method (whether desirable or not) of curing legislative deadlock, but it cannot cure a failure to grant supply since supply must be granted to the Crown in each session of Parliament. If there is to be an elected Senate, it would be preferable therefore for the House of Commons' exclusive cognisance of Money Bills to continue.
On Danny Alexander going to the Lords and remaining Chief Secretary to the Treasury, others have said why it won't happen, but what struck me is it would be a bit of a slap in the face to the remaining LD MPs if a coalition kept him in place by giving him a peerage. He wasn't even the first choice for the job initially. I wonder what the working relationship between Alexander and Osborne is - he seemed a very loyal member of the coalition, taking the heat for Osborne in the press by doing his job and defending coalition policies, I wouldn't be surprised to learn they work very well together and Osborne would like to keep him on.
On the Lords as a whole, I'm able to be convinced a number of ways. I have a fear of an entirely elected chamber being just a copy of the Commons and losing something of its current role, and I amidst all the retirement lordships to retiring MPs and handouts to party doners, I do think the Lords' inclusion of a range of business people, academics, military and religious leaders and so on, who wouldn't normally be in such a body, can be a plus. Long, but single, terms for elected people would be a reasonable idea I think.
It would also be more damaging for the LDs in some parts of Scotland: they did not give a good impression by awarding a peerage to a MSP who had had little more than a decade in elected office before losing an election.
I half agree (but then as I support a near-fully elected upper chamber, I would).
There should be a minimum period IMO between a defeated MP losing his / her seat and their receiving a peerage. It's an affront to democracy to behave otherwise although governments of all stripes have done it. On the other hand, there's a long-standing practice of rewarding retiring MPs who have achieved distinction with a peerage and I don't have a problem with that. Given the Lords' role in revising legislation, their skills are useful and will be subject to decay if left for five years. Forcing them to wait would also make the Lords an even more geriatric chamber.
But as I say, I'd much rather that the Lords / Senate were fully elected with the exception of a small provision for Senators for Life.
Indeed. I would go for the Australian model of an elected senate with pre-1911 House of Lords powers. In which case, if a retiring MP wanted to stand for it, he could.
I see no reason to have appointed Senators.
The problem with retiring MPs being appointed to the Lords is that it gives them another incentive to continue to grovel to their party leaders and/or the Executive, if they continue on the back benches after retiring from a ministerial career. It would be better if they could continue to use that skills and experience independently. So I would completely remove the opportunity for someone to appoint them to a sinecure for life.
I agree that the relative powers between the two Houses should be amended (in the Lords' / Senate's favour) if the Upper House were to be elected - both of which would be good things.
In terms of the Life appointments, I'd include the provision so that exceptionally eminent individuals could be retained in parliament without the workload of a constituency. They would inevitably be people who had already served a long career. I'd limit the number to five (out of a chamber of no more than 200), with no more than one created per year and no more than two created in any parliament of the Senate (which would be three years - I'd elect one-third every three years by PR to renewable nine-year terms). Minimum qualification for appointment would be one-half the total membership of the Senate and three-quarters of those voting. That should ensure that the positions really were reserved for the great. The Senate would also have the right to remove lifetime members if a motion to do so is carried to the same qualifications.
Tories dismal - all tactics, no strategy. Little attempt to offer a positive vision or a coherent package. Undermined own reputation for prudence to spike Labour guns on NHS - a costly sacrifice. Unwillingness to make a positive case for low tax, low spend, reformed state has alienated true conservatives without substantially increasing appeal to the centre. May yet pull clear but my early campaign optimism has waned. CCHQ overrun by infants whose incessant attacks on the SNP will result in a nasty aftermath if the Tories prevail.
Labour - disciplined campaign, despite thin and fundamentally flawed prospectus for government. Clearly not ready to return to power. Have eschewed serious policy work in favour of a series of cheap, populist and ultimately harmful policies that are designed to appeal to the ignorant and the angry. If successful, Labour and the UK will pay dearly for this crass attempt to ride the class war horse. Miliband becoming increasingly hubristic.
Lib Dems - in the national campaign no-one's listening and they don't seem to care. Locally they seem to be doing better, and in England at least may spring a surprise. But nationally struggling for airtime and to define a clear message.
SNP - rampant
PC - poor imitation of SNP, but will be learning lessons. Could become a major headache for Labour in Wales in future parliaments.
Greens - comedy value. Tories need to start funding them and giving them a platform to appeal to the far left, but their fantasy manifesto has largely out paid to hopes they can put a serious dent into Labour's support
Ukip - surprisingly lacklustre. Hard to reconcile their campaign performance with their enthusiasm (hubris?) in the Autumn. Future of party largely turns on whether Farage wins his seat, and if not what follows.
Cliff Notes....
Overall thoughts on the campaign
[Insert Party Name] - S##t
Makes you wonder what all the people working for the parties have been doing for their money, as very little coherent strategy or policy from any of them.
Anecdote. "Lefty" friend who has recently become quite ukippy in his attitudes (Islam, Guardianistas, etc) told me he was still voting Labour, despite his contempt for most of the party's policies and attitudes.
I asked him why. He was basically unable to explain, despite being highly intelligent. He just mumbled something about the Tories and the NHS, but had no evidence to back it up.
This is one reason why I reckon Labour will scrape a plurality, despite the fact they crashed the country just five years ago. Tribal loyalties persist. And we haven't learned our lessons. This is 1974, not 1979. We need another term of terrible socialist incompetence before we finally Get Real.
A bit like Rod Liddle.
My guess at this stage is the Conservatives will finish ahead on votes and seats, but not by enough to govern.
You are clutching at straws. Just sit back and wait for the Ed Miliband minority government to come in. In the HoC will be 1 to 3 UKIP MPs. Oh, and no referendum on Europe because there were not enough Conservative MPs elected. That is what the polls are saying will happen.
Even assuming the Conservatives had a very good election and won 300-310 seats, it is open to doubt whether a Bill authorising a referendum on EU membership would carry. The Tories would have to rely on the DUP and a dwindling number of backbench Labour Eurosceptics to get it through. The rest of the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Scots would oppose en bloc. Unless they were prepared to devote the whole of a session to the Bill, it is difficult to see how it would pass.
The libertarian in me is starting to like the idea of the SNP as a permanently cantankerous, troublesome blocking minority opposed to the very existence of the country whose legislature they've been elected to, preventing anybody from passing any laws.
Well, new governments do like to tinker with things right away, which may not be necessary a lot of the time, so I can see the benefits for the government in having to at the least take some time to make sure everything is in order - as they would need every one of their own votes and probably a few from elsewhere to pass things due to the SNP bloc, so would have to plan things more carefully.
I realise that by elections are a different kettle of fish to a GE, but can anyone else justify the decision in the Ashcroft poll to treat R&S The same as any other seat weighting wise? Surely the fact Ukip won the seat should play some part in the methodology? Or does it make zero difference and was rightly ignored?
Oh, and no referendum on Europe because there were not enough Conservative MPs elected. That is what the polls are saying will happen.
If Conservative MPs had voted in favour of an EU referendum in 2011 it would have passed. But Mr Cameron had a three line whip opposing the referendum, and the majority of the parliamentary Conservative Party happily voted it down.
Tories dismal - all tactics, no strategy. Little attempt to offer a positive vision or a coherent package. Undermined own reputation for prudence to spike Labour guns on NHS - a costly sacrifice. Unwillingness to make a positive case for low tax, low spend, reformed state has alienated true conservatives without substantially increasing appeal to the centre. May yet pull clear but my early campaign optimism has waned. CCHQ overrun by infants whose incessant attacks on the SNP will result in a nasty aftermath if the Tories prevail.
Labour - disciplined campaign, despite thin and fundamentally flawed prospectus for government. Clearly not ready to return to power. Have eschewed serious policy work in favour of a series of cheap, populist and ultimately harmful policies that are designed to appeal to the ignorant and the angry. If successful, Labour and the UK will pay dearly for this crass attempt to ride the class war horse. Miliband becoming increasingly hubristic.
Lib Dems - in the national campaign no-one's listening and they don't seem to care. Locally they seem to be doing better, and in England at least may spring a surprise. But nationally struggling for airtime and to define a clear message.
SNP - rampant
PC - poor imitation of SNP, but will be learning lessons. Could become a major headache for Labour in Wales in future parliaments.
Greens - comedy value. Tories need to start funding them and giving them a platform to appeal to the far left, but their fantasy manifesto has largely out paid to hopes they can put a serious dent into Labour's support
Ukip - surprisingly lacklustre. Hard to reconcile their campaign performance with their enthusiasm (hubris?) in the Autumn. Future of party largely turns on whether Farage wins his seat, and if not what follows.
Cliff Notes....
Overall thoughts on the campaign
[Insert Party Name] - S##t
Makes you wonder what all the people working for the parties have been doing for their money, as very little coherent strategy or policy from any of them.
It would be interesting to know how you gov would be showing if they hadn't suddenly changed their methodology to what people say they did in 2010. I would have thought that this was a particularly unreliable way of polling. Most cannot recall what they did last month never mind 5 yrs ago.
Tories dismal - all tactics, no strategy. Little attempt to offer a positive vision or a coherent package. Undermined own reputation for prudence to spike Labour guns on NHS - a costly sacrifice. Unwillingness to make a positive case for low tax, low spend, reformed state has alienated true conservatives without substantially increasing appeal to the centre. May yet pull clear but my early campaign optimism has waned. CCHQ overrun by infants whose incessant attacks on the SNP will result in a nasty aftermath if the Tories prevail.
Labour - disciplined campaign, despite thin and fundamentally flawed prospectus for government. Clearly not ready to return to power. Have eschewed serious policy work in favour of a series of cheap, populist and ultimately harmful policies that are designed to appeal to the ignorant and the angry. If successful, Labour and the UK will pay dearly for this crass attempt to ride the class war horse. Miliband becoming increasingly hubristic.
Lib Dems - in the national campaign no-one's listening and they don't seem to care. Locally they seem to be doing better, and in England at least may spring a surprise. But nationally struggling for airtime and to define a clear message.
SNP - rampant
PC - poor imitation of SNP, but will be learning lessons. Could become a major headache for Labour in Wales in future parliaments.
Greens - comedy value. Tories need to start funding them and giving them a platform to appeal to the far left, but their fantasy manifesto has largely out paid to hopes they can put a serious dent into Labour's support
Ukip - surprisingly lacklustre. Hard to reconcile their campaign performance with their enthusiasm (hubris?) in the Autumn. Future of party largely turns on whether Farage wins his seat, and if not what follows.
I'd agree with a lot of that. If I had to sum things up very briefly I'd say:
Con - Wayward and increasingly frantic Lab - Disciplined but limited LDs - Invisible SNP - Swaggering PC - "When we grow up, we can be like the SNP" Greens - Not as much coverage as they'd hoped after debates UKIP - Mostly gaffe free, but oddly lacking
The assumption made by ICM et al with their spiral of silence adjustment to deal with shy voters is that the voter supported the party they are now shy about admitting support for in the last election and their shyness derives from the actions the party have taken as a result of that support - eg by being in government. So the central assumption is that voters aren't shy about a change in vote only about a loyal vote in the face of widely perceived betrayal, etc.
I'm almost convinced by the argument that UKIP break this assumption. One caveat though. The don't know figures in the polls are not, in my recollection, that different between phone and online pollsters, and they follow the pollsters existing paradigm - with 2010 Liberal Democrats being most likely to say to a pollster that they don't know, because they are most likely to be shy about loyal support.
This means that we don't have a good proxy for the shy factor in UKIP support as the difference between online pollsters is about as big as between phone and online pollsters.
I'm going to stop bigging up phone pollsters though.
On Danny Alexander going to the Lords and remaining Chief Secretary to the Treasury, others have said why it won't happen, but what struck me is it would be a bit of a slap in the face to the remaining LD MPs if a coalition kept him in place by giving him a peerage. He wasn't even the first choice for the job initially. I wonder what the working relationship between Alexander and Osborne is - he seemed a very loyal member of the coalition, taking the heat for Osborne in the press by doing his job and defending coalition policies, I wouldn't be surprised to learn they work very well together and Osborne would like to keep him on.
On the Lords as a whole, I'm able to be convinced a number of ways. I have a fear of an entirely elected chamber being just a copy of the Commons and losing something of its current role, and I amidst all the retirement lordships to retiring MPs and handouts to party doners, I do think the Lords' inclusion of a range of business people, academics, military and religious leaders and so on, who wouldn't normally be in such a body, can be a plus. Long, but single, terms for elected people would be a reasonable idea I think.
It would also be more damaging for the LDs in some parts of Scotland: they did not give a good impression by awarding a peerage to a MSP who had had little more than a decade in elected office before losing an election.
They aren't at peak damage? The LDs could suffer more damage in Scotland than they have already suffered? I didn't know you were a LD optimist
Tories dismal - all tactics, no strategy. Little attempt to offer a positive vision or a coherent package. Undermined own reputation for prudence to spike Labour guns on NHS - a costly sacrifice. Unwillingness to make a positive case for low tax, low spend, reformed state has alienated true conservatives without substantially increasing appeal to the centre. May yet pull clear but my early campaign optimism has waned. CCHQ overrun by infants whose incessant attacks on the SNP will result in a nasty aftermath if the Tories prevail.
Labour - disciplined campaign, despite thin and fundamentally flawed prospectus for government. Clearly not ready to return to power. Have eschewed serious policy work in favour of a series of cheap, populist and ultimately harmful policies that are designed to appeal to the ignorant and the angry. If successful, Labour and the UK will pay dearly for this crass attempt to ride the class war horse. Miliband becoming increasingly hubristic.
Lib Dems - in the national campaign no-one's listening and they don't seem to care. Locally they seem to be doing better, and in England at least may spring a surprise. But nationally struggling for airtime and to define a clear message.
SNP - rampant
PC - poor imitation of SNP, but will be learning lessons. Could become a major headache for Labour in Wales in future parliaments.
Greens - comedy value. Tories need to start funding them and giving them a platform to appeal to the far left, but their fantasy manifesto has largely out paid to hopes they can put a serious dent into Labour's support
Ukip - surprisingly lacklustre. Hard to reconcile their campaign performance with their enthusiasm (hubris?) in the Autumn. Future of party largely turns on whether Farage wins his seat, and if not what follows.
Cliff Notes....
Overall thoughts on the campaign
[Insert Party Name] - S##t
Makes you wonder what all the people working for the parties have been doing for their money, as very little coherent strategy or policy from any of them.
Maybe that's the problem, too many guys.
Not sure we can blame it all on gender - Lucy Powell bears some responsibility for the abject nonsense Labour are serving up, while the Greens and PC are both led by women and both treading water at best, despite the failures of the main parties. The Conservatives are probably most guilty of immature testosterone-based campaigning and it is very off-putting. They need some grown-ups who can tell the difference between an event that pushes the buttons of the partisan and politically-obsessed and an event that matters to Main Street, and who can resist the urge to turn every comment into a bloody viral "poster".
On Danny Alexander going to the Lords and remaining Chief Secretary to the Treasury, others have said why it won't happen, but what struck me is it would be a bit of a slap in the face to the remaining LD MPs if a coalition kept him in place by giving him a peerage. He wasn't even the first choice for the job initially. I wonder what the working relationship between Alexander and Osborne is - he seemed a very loyal member of the coalition, taking the heat for Osborne in the press by doing his job and defending coalition policies, I wouldn't be surprised to learn they work very well together and Osborne would like to keep him on.
On the Lords as a whole, I'm able to be convinced a number of ways. I have a fear of an entirely elected chamber being just a copy of the Commons and losing something of its current role, and I amidst all the retirement lordships to retiring MPs and handouts to party doners, I do think the Lords' inclusion of a range of business people, academics, military and religious leaders and so on, who wouldn't normally be in such a body, can be a plus. Long, but single, terms for elected people would be a reasonable idea I think.
My long-stated view on HoL reform is to have bodies elect them. If the primary role of the HoL is to refine legislation, we need people in it who can understand both the legislation and its implications. Therefore you might have a total of (e.g.) 400 seats.
30 to political parties (although preferably not) 30 to trade unionists 30 to retired business leaders 20 military 80 to all of the sciences 80 to all engineering 50 charities 8 for the various law bodies 5 would be allocated to the CofE 3 to other religions ... and so on. Exact numbers to be agreed.
For instance: chemistry might be allocated 15 seats. If there are three main chemistry bodies, then each can choose five people to represent their science. Their length of terms are set by the bodies (e.g. life, or year-long terms, or somewhere in between). However the HoL as a whole can throw out someone for misdemeanours, in which case the organisation has to choose someone new.
For instance, the Institute of Civil Engineers could have an allocation of five members; they may choose to elect a person each year to serve five-year terms, and may choose them to represent different sub-disciplines: e.g. water management, tunnelling, bridges, groundworks etc. Chemistry might choose by different criteria.
I'd also allow such experts to take part in, and even chair, select committees.
Anecdote. "Lefty" friend who has recently become quite ukippy in his attitudes (Islam, Guardianistas, etc) told me he was still voting Labour, despite his contempt for most of the party's policies and attitudes.
I asked him why. He was basically unable to explain, despite being highly intelligent. He just mumbled something about the Tories and the NHS, but had no evidence to back it up.
This is one reason why I reckon Labour will scrape a plurality, despite the fact they crashed the country just five years ago. Tribal loyalties persist. And we haven't learned our lessons. This is 1974, not 1979. We need another term of terrible socialist incompetence before we finally Get Real.
A bit like Rod Liddle.
My guess at this stage is the Conservatives will finish ahead on votes and seats, but not by enough to govern.
And that exactly explains why Labour MPs, and Labour governments, are elected time and time again. A hated, angry or resentful vote doesn't matter. It counts the same as an enthusiastic and positive one. A vote is a vote.
If people vote Labour, and so many dislike them but do, they will get Labour with all that entails.
Anecdote. "Lefty" friend who has recently become quite ukippy in his attitudes (Islam, Guardianistas, etc) told me he was still voting Labour, despite his contempt for most of the party's policies and attitudes.
I asked him why. He was basically unable to explain, despite being highly intelligent. He just mumbled something about the Tories and the NHS, but had no evidence to back it up.
This is one reason why I reckon Labour will scrape a plurality, despite the fact they crashed the country just five years ago. Tribal loyalties persist. And we haven't learned our lessons. This is 1974, not 1979. We need another term of terrible socialist incompetence before we finally Get Real.
A bit like Rod Liddle.
My guess at this stage is the Conservatives will finish ahead on votes and seats, but not by enough to govern.
Yep. 10 more MPs than Labour would count for little if you have 50 celtic nationalists determined to vote the Tories down.
It would be interesting to know how you gov would be showing if they hadn't suddenly changed their methodology to what people say they did in 2010. I would have thought that this was a particularly unreliable way of polling. Most cannot recall what they did last month never mind 5 yrs ago.
That's not what they changed. The change was to weight to how people said they'd vote in Jan/Feb. The result of doing this is less noise.
You are clutching at straws. Just sit back and wait for the Ed Miliband minority government to come in. In the HoC will be 1 to 3 UKIP MPs. Oh, and no referendum on Europe because there were not enough Conservative MPs elected. That is what the polls are saying will happen.
Even assuming the Conservatives had a very good election and won 300-310 seats, it is open to doubt whether a Bill authorising a referendum on EU membership would carry. The Tories would have to rely on the DUP and a dwindling number of backbench Labour Eurosceptics to get it through. The rest of the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Scots would oppose en bloc. Unless they were prepared to devote the whole of a session to the Bill, it is difficult to see how it would pass.
I've just realised that Europe explains Cameron's oddly lacklustre, unhungry approach to this election. Deep down he wants to lose (but not catastrophically) so he will not have to enact his referendum promise.
He's a smart guy. He knows that the referendum will be chaotic and possibly disastrous, splitting the party in two, alienating donors, angering the City, and ruining his own reputation as he has to sell a bogus "reform package" to a skeptical electorate, to get them to vote IN (which is what he clearly wants).
Just a nightmare. Who would want all that for two or three years, dominating everything he does?
How much better to go down as that decent affable PM who ran a modestly competent government, unfairly defeated by scheming socialists who ruined everything, yet again.
If he loses he might be regarded quite fondly. If he wins he has to eat crow.
Cameron's destiny seems to be to lead the party to results which are in many ways very good (100+gains, limiting losses to 20-30 after 5 years of unpopular cuts), but which are not good enough.
I'd assumed if he won he'd be gone after the EU referendum anyway. If he lost, well, clearly he'd be out. If he won, he'd have spent years fighting a lot of his own party and the issue dominating everything else he wanted to do, he'd probably step down to give someone else a chance to take the party forward after that difficult fight or something.
Tories dismal - all tactics, no strategy. Little attempt to offer a positive vision or a coherent package. Undermined own reputation for prudence to spike Labour guns on NHS - a costly sacrifice. Unwillingness to make a positive case for low tax, low spend, reformed state has alienated true conservatives without substantially increasing appeal to the centre. May yet pull clear but my early campaign optimism has waned. CCHQ overrun by infants whose incessant attacks on the SNP will result in a nasty aftermath if the Tories prevail.
Labour - disciplined campaign, despite thin and fundamentally flawed prospectus for government. Clearly not ready to return to power. Have eschewed serious policy work in favour of a series of cheap, populist and ultimately harmful policies that are designed to appeal to the ignorant and the angry. If successful, Labour and the UK will pay dearly for this crass attempt to ride the class war horse. Miliband becoming increasingly hubristic.
Lib Dems - in the national campaign no-one's listening and they don't seem to care. Locally they seem to be doing better, and in England at least may spring a surprise. But nationally struggling for airtime and to define a clear message.
SNP - rampant
PC - poor imitation of SNP, but will be learning lessons. Could become a major headache for Labour in Wales in future parliaments.
Greens - comedy value. Tories need to start funding them and giving them a platform to appeal to the far left, but their fantasy manifesto has largely out paid to hopes they can put a serious dent into Labour's support
Ukip - surprisingly lacklustre. Hard to reconcile their campaign performance with their enthusiasm (hubris?) in the Autumn. Future of party largely turns on whether Farage wins his seat, and if not what follows.
UKIP supporters would say they are being deliberately kept off camera. If you look at the lefty BBC reports they are overwhelmingly pro Labour in tone and prominence.
You are clutching at straws. Just sit back and wait for the Ed Miliband minority government to come in. In the HoC will be 1 to 3 UKIP MPs. Oh, and no referendum on Europe because there were not enough Conservative MPs elected. That is what the polls are saying will happen.
Even assuming the Conservatives had a very good election and won 300-310 seats, it is open to doubt whether a Bill authorising a referendum on EU membership would carry. The Tories would have to rely on the DUP and a dwindling number of backbench Labour Eurosceptics to get it through. The rest of the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Scots would oppose en bloc. Unless they were prepared to devote the whole of a session to the Bill, it is difficult to see how it would pass.
I've just realised that Europe explains Cameron's oddly lacklustre, unhungry approach to this election. Deep down he wants to lose (but not catastrophically) so he will not have to enact his referendum promise.
He's a smart guy. He knows that the referendum will be chaotic and possibly disastrous, splitting the party in two, alienating donors, angering the City, and ruining his own reputation as he has to sell a bogus "reform package" to a skeptical electorate, to get them to vote IN (which is what he clearly wants).
Just a nightmare. Who would want all that for two or three years, dominating everything he does?
How much better to go down as that decent affable PM who ran a modestly competent government, unfairly defeated by scheming socialists who ruined everything, yet again.
If he loses he might be regarded quite fondly. If he wins he has to eat crow.
Who would want it, unless they wished to leave the EU? I agree with this.
Anecdote. "Lefty" friend who has recently become quite ukippy in his attitudes (Islam, Guardianistas, etc) told me he was still voting Labour, despite his contempt for most of the party's policies and attitudes.
I asked him why. He was basically unable to explain, despite being highly intelligent. He just mumbled something about the Tories and the NHS, but had no evidence to back it up.
This is one reason why I reckon Labour will scrape a plurality, despite the fact they crashed the country just five years ago. Tribal loyalties persist. And we haven't learned our lessons. This is 1974, not 1979. We need another term of terrible socialist incompetence before we finally Get Real.
If he loses he might be regarded quite fondly. If he wins he has to eat crow.
Dave regards the electorate as a bunch of ungrateful bastards. He looks at what he has done in the past five years and thinks he should be a shoo-in. And yet he is being asked to justify himself all over again.
Maybe he doesn't want to lead such a sulky, capricious country. A country that takes seriously the incoherent envious rubbish that ed Miliband has served up.
The libertarian in me is starting to like the idea of the SNP as a permanently cantankerous, troublesome blocking minority opposed to the very existence of the country whose legislature they've been elected to, preventing anybody from passing any laws.
Perhaps, but the problem is that the SNP will always vote for higher taxes and higher spending on England. As for their record of centralisation and reduction of civil liberties at Holyrood, it is pretty grim.
How does this Rent Cap thing work..what will be the result.
Its a cap on annual rent increases at inflation within a three year tenancy.
Landlords will be obliged to tell new tenants what the previous tenant paid - but there is no cap on what that will be.
Results?
Last night it was pointed out that a 3 year tenancy in E&W is a 'DEED' which will need a solicitor to draw up.
Not clear whether this also applies to social housing, which have seen greater increases in rent than private accommodation.
In summary a half cocked solution, with downsides, to the wrong problem.
Plus the unbalanced termination rights (tenants can leave with 1 months notice) will, all other things being equal, tend to increase the price of tenancies (whether with a non-refundable deposit or something else)
I realise that by elections are a different kettle of fish to a GE, but can anyone else justify the decision in the Ashcroft poll to treat R&S The same as any other seat weighting wise? Surely the fact Ukip won the seat should play some part in the methodology? Or does it make zero difference and was rightly ignored?
Well the turnout in the by-election was 50% compared to 65% at the general election. That would be one reason. More worried about the lack of named candidates in the constituency polls.
It would be interesting to know how you gov would be showing if they hadn't suddenly changed their methodology to what people say they did in 2010. I would have thought that this was a particularly unreliable way of polling. Most cannot recall what they did last month never mind 5 yrs ago.
That's not what they changed. The change was to weight to how people said they'd vote in Jan/Feb. The result of doing this is less noise.
I think there had been a couple of Tory leads just before the change in methodology (2nd 3rd and 5th April). I am not saying that this was the reason for the change.
y long-stated view on HoL reform is to have bodies elect them. If the primary role of the HoL is to refine legislation, we need people in it who can understand both the legislation and its implications. Therefore you might have a total of (e.g.) 400 seats.
30 to political parties (although preferably not) 30 to trade unionists 30 to retired business leaders 20 military 80 to all of the sciences 80 to all engineering 50 charities 8 for the various law bodies 5 would be allocated to the CofE 3 to other religions ... and so on. Exact numbers to be agreed.
For instance: chemistry might be allocated 15 seats. If there are three main chemistry bodies, then each can choose five people to represent their science. Their length of terms are set by the bodies (e.g. life, or year-long terms, or somewhere in between). However the HoL as a whole can throw out someone for misdemeanours, in which case the organisation has to choose someone new.
For instance, the Institute of Civil Engineers could have an allocation of five members; they may choose to elect a person each year to serve five-year terms, and may choose them to represent different sub-disciplines: e.g. water management, tunnelling, bridges, groundworks etc. Chemistry might choose by different criteria.
I'd also allow such experts to take part in, and even chair, select committees.
An interesting idea. I cannot say I have ever seen a similar suggestion offered in the debate before - it's always just how many elected, and how long for. I doubt I'll see any party taking up such a platform, but it'd be interesting to see how people reacted to it being debated.
With the parties, I recall Labour have the plan for a Senate of the Nations and Regions - so I guess that issue does not need much debating at their planned constitutional convention, if they already have the model they want laid out? - and I was surprised the Tories suggested not touching it at all IIRC, but I don't remember anyone elses' position. The SNP I presume are for abolition given they don't allow their members to accept peerages.
Anecdote. "Lefty" friend who has recently become quite ukippy in his attitudes (Islam, Guardianistas, etc) told me he was still voting Labour, despite his contempt for most of the party's policies and attitudes.
I asked him why. He was basically unable to explain, despite being highly intelligent. He just mumbled something about the Tories and the NHS, but had no evidence to back it up.
This is one reason why I reckon Labour will scrape a plurality, despite the fact they crashed the country just five years ago. Tribal loyalties persist. And we haven't learned our lessons. This is 1974, not 1979. We need another term of terrible socialist incompetence before we finally Get Real.
A bit like Rod Liddle.
My guess at this stage is the Conservatives will finish ahead on votes and seats, but not by enough to govern.
Yep. 10 more MPs than Labour would count for little if you have 50 celtic nationalists determined to vote the Tories down.
Anecdote. "Lefty" friend who has recently become quite ukippy in his attitudes (Islam, Guardianistas, etc) told me he was still voting Labour, despite his contempt for most of the party's policies and attitudes.
I asked him why. He was basically unable to explain, despite being highly intelligent. He just mumbled something about the Tories and the NHS, but had no evidence to back it up.
This is one reason why I reckon Labour will scrape a plurality, despite the fact they crashed the country just five years ago. Tribal loyalties persist. And we haven't learned our lessons. This is 1974, not 1979. We need another term of terrible socialist incompetence before we finally Get Real.
Not sure we can blame it all on gender - Lucy Powell bears some responsibility for the abject nonsense Labour are serving up, while the Greens and PC are both led by women and both treading water at best, despite the failures of the main parties. The Conservatives are probably most guilty of immature testosterone-based campaigning and it is very off-putting. They need some grown-ups who can tell the difference between an event that pushes the buttons of the partisan and politically-obsessed and an event that matters to Main Street, and who can resist the urge to turn every comment into a bloody viral "poster".
Sorry, I meant "guys" gender-neutrally. Too many people who need to be consulted all with different opinions, you end up with something incoherent.
You are clutching at straws. Just sit back and wait for the Ed Miliband minority government to come in. In the HoC will be 1 to 3 UKIP MPs. Oh, and no referendum on Europe because there were not enough Conservative MPs elected. That is what the polls are saying will happen.
Even assuming the Conservatives had a very good election and won 300-310 seats, it is open to doubt whether a Bill authorising a referendum on EU membership would carry. The Tories would have to rely on the DUP and a dwindling number of backbench Labour Eurosceptics to get it through. The rest of the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Scots would oppose en bloc. Unless they were prepared to devote the whole of a session to the Bill, it is difficult to see how it would pass.
I've just realised that Europe explains Cameron's oddly lacklustre, unhungry approach to this election. Deep down he wants to lose (but not catastrophically) so he will not have to enact his referendum promise.
He's a smart guy. He knows that the referendum will be chaotic and possibly disastrous, splitting the party in two, alienating donors, angering the City, and ruining his own reputation as he has to sell a bogus "reform package" to a skeptical electorate, to get them to vote IN (which is what he clearly wants).
Just a nightmare. Who would want all that for two or three years, dominating everything he does?
How much better to go down as that decent affable PM who ran a modestly competent government, unfairly defeated by scheming socialists who ruined everything, yet again.
If he loses he might be regarded quite fondly. If he wins he has to eat crow.
You may well be right.
Another point to consider is he knows better than most what is coming and thinks it better to let someone else carry the can.
Yes but Rod liddle is a wealthy London based journalist insulated completely from the implications of labour policies. I bet Sean T's friend is something similar.
This isn;t voting, it's virtue signalling.
That is not the case in labour's northern strongholds. We saw earlier how the vote in Grimsby has essentially totally collapsed.
This is why it is frustrating that there have been no constituency polls in areas where UKIP is threatening labour. People simply do not believe they can ever be ousted from these places.
The fact Ed promised to make islamophobia a crime has been completely overlooked by the mainstream media. But if I was UKIP, I'd be all over that.
Maybe yiou can answer the question I asked downthread. Why does the SNP's favourite webbsite 'Wings over Scotland' use a logo based on the Waffen SS? It's not that I mind just that every time I read one of your or Scotslass's posts I start humming the Horst-Wessel
Kindly remind me never to go shooting with you, should I ever show the urge, as you can't tell the difference between a Lion Rampant and an eagle.
The US Navy emblem is actually much closer to the NSDAP (not Waffen SS) eagle, so you might want to direct your queries there first.
As for @Dr_Spyn 's query re black kilts - you will no doubt know that it is SLAB which is infamous for introducing them to wider knowledge, on the person of Mr McConnell (prop., ret. hurt) in NYC. Though that was more a sartorial statement than a political one, unless it was intended to be a Caledonian version of Cool Britannia:
I realise that by elections are a different kettle of fish to a GE, but can anyone else justify the decision in the Ashcroft poll to treat R&S The same as any other seat weighting wise? Surely the fact Ukip won the seat should play some part in the methodology? Or does it make zero difference and was rightly ignored?
Well the turnout in the by-election was 50% compared to 65% at the general election. That would be one reason. More worried about the lack of named candidates in the constituency polls.
Yes I don't think they should substitute the 2010 electorate for the 2014 one but just think it must play some role in VI more than 0%
Anecdote. "Lefty" friend who has recently become quite ukippy in his attitudes (Islam, Guardianistas, etc) told me he was still voting Labour, despite his contempt for most of the party's policies and attitudes.
I asked him why. He was basically unable to explain, despite being highly intelligent. He just mumbled something about the Tories and the NHS, but had no evidence to back it up.
This is one reason why I reckon Labour will scrape a plurality, despite the fact they crashed the country just five years ago. Tribal loyalties persist. And we haven't learned our lessons. This is 1974, not 1979. We need another term of terrible socialist incompetence before we finally Get Real.
The modern conservative party is deluded. The idea that our country's problems are about a bloated overspending state are pure nonsense. See Tesco's collapse and how Aldi and Lidl are cleaning up. German capitalism works, British capitalism doesn't.
You are clutching at straws. Just sit back and wait for the Ed Miliband minority government to come in. In the HoC will be 1 to 3 UKIP MPs. Oh, and no referendum on Europe because there were not enough Conservative MPs elected. That is what the polls are saying will happen.
Even assuming the Conservatives had a very good election and won 300-310 seats, it is open to doubt whether a Bill authorising a referendum on EU membership would carry. The Tories would have to rely on the DUP and a dwindling number of backbench Labour Eurosceptics to get it through. The rest of the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Scots would oppose en bloc. Unless they were prepared to devote the whole of a session to the Bill, it is difficult to see how it would pass.
I've just realised that Europe explains Cameron's oddly lacklustre, unhungry approach to this election. Deep down he wants to lose (but not catastrophically) so he will not have to enact his referendum promise.
He's a smart guy. He knows that the referendum will be chaotic and possibly disastrous, splitting the party in two, alienating donors, angering the City, and ruining his own reputation as he has to sell a bogus "reform package" to a skeptical electorate, to get them to vote IN (which is what he clearly wants).
Just a nightmare. Who would want all that for two or three years, dominating everything he does?
How much better to go down as that decent affable PM who ran a modestly competent government, unfairly defeated by scheming socialists who ruined everything, yet again.
If he loses he might be regarded quite fondly. If he wins he has to eat crow.
Disagree. I think he believes he can cut a meaningful deal in Europe because given the Greek situation, the conditions are there for a deal to be done. The EU may need Britain to sign up to some reform package - in which case there will need to be a quid pro quo - and there's already support in the north of the continent for making the Union (funded by their money) work better. And I think he's right to so believe.
The real reason he's not looked very hungry is, I suspect, he's just not the sort of politician who's very motivated by political campaigning. He's a natural minister, not a platform orator.
On Danny Alexander going to the Lords and remaining Chief Secretary to the Treasury, others have said why it won't happen, but what struck me is it would be a bit of a slap in the face to the remaining LD MPs if a coalition kept him in place by giving him a peerage. He wasn't even the first choice for the job initially. I wonder what the working relationship between Alexander and Osborne is - he seemed a very loyal member of the coalition, taking the heat for Osborne in the press by doing his job and defending coalition policies, I wouldn't be surprised to learn they work very well together and Osborne would like to keep him on.
On the Lords as a whole, I'm able to be convinced a number of ways. I have a fear of an entirely elected chamber being just a copy of the Commons and losing something of its current role, and I amidst all the retirement lordships to retiring MPs and handouts to party doners, I do think the Lords' inclusion of a range of business people, academics, military and religious leaders and so on, who wouldn't normally be in such a body, can be a plus. Long, but single, terms for elected people would be a reasonable idea I think.
My long-stated view on HoL reform is to have bodies elect them. If the primary role of the HoL is to refine legislation, we need people in it who can understand both the legislation and its implications. Therefore you might have a total of (e.g.) 400 seats.
30 to political parties (although preferably not) 30 to trade unionists 30 to retired business leaders 20 military 80 to all of the sciences 80 to all engineering 50 charities 8 for the various law bodies 5 would be allocated to the CofE 3 to other religions ... and so on. Exact numbers to be agreed.
For instance: chemistry might be allocated 15 seats. If there are three main chemistry bodies, then each can choose five people to represent their science. Their length of terms are set by the bodies (e.g. life, or year-long terms, or somewhere in between). However the HoL as a whole can throw out someone for misdemeanours, in which case the organisation has to choose someone new.
For instance, the Institute of Civil Engineers could have an allocation of five members; they may choose to elect a person each year to serve five-year terms, and may choose them to represent different sub-disciplines: e.g. water management, tunnelling, bridges, groundworks etc. Chemistry might choose by different criteria.
I'd also allow such experts to take part in, and even chair, select committees.
I agree with you. This has been my favoured form of House of Lords reform for years: a body of experts.
However, I feel some sort of mix would be needed to prevent expert group-think and stitch-ups on the big issues. I could see an establishment consensus reached on, say, Europe and Immigration that's way out of line with public opinion.
On Danny Alexander going to the Lords and remaining Chief Secretary to the Treasury, others have said why it won't happen, but what struck me is it would be a bit of a slap in the face to the remaining LD MPs if a coalition kept him in place by giving him a peerage. He wasn't even the first choice for the job initially. I wonder what the working relationship between Alexander and Osborne is - he seemed a very loyal member of the coalition, taking the heat for Osborne in the press by doing his job and defending coalition policies, I wouldn't be surprised to learn they work very well together and Osborne would like to keep him on.
On the Lords as a whole, I'm able to be convinced a number of ways. I have a fear of an entirely elected chamber being just a copy of the Commons and losing something of its current role, and I amidst all the retirement lordships to retiring MPs and handouts to party doners, I do think the Lords' inclusion of a range of business people, academics, military and religious leaders and so on, who wouldn't normally be in such a body, can be a plus. Long, but single, terms for elected people would be a reasonable idea I think.
My long-stated view on HoL reform is to have bodies elect them. If the primary role of the HoL is to refine legislation, we need people in it who can understand both the legislation and its implications. Therefore you might have a total of (e.g.) 400 seats.
30 to political parties (although preferably not) 30 to trade unionists 30 to retired business leaders 20 military 80 to all of the sciences 80 to all engineering 50 charities 8 for the various law bodies 5 would be allocated to the CofE 3 to other religions ... and so on. Exact numbers to be agreed.
For instance: chemistry might be allocated 15 seats. If there are three main chemistry bodies, then each can choose five people to represent their science. Their length of terms are set by the bodies (e.g. life, or year-long terms, or somewhere in between). However the HoL as a whole can throw out someone for misdemeanours, in which case the organisation has to choose someone new.
For instance, the Institute of Civil Engineers could have an allocation of five members; they may choose to elect a person each year to serve five-year terms, and may choose them to represent different sub-disciplines: e.g. water management, tunnelling, bridges, groundworks etc. Chemistry might choose by different criteria.
I'd also allow such experts to take part in, and even chair, select committees.
Corporatism. The last person to try that was Benito Mussolini. Sorry, but the only people who need to be represented are voters.
y long-stated view on HoL reform is to have bodies elect them. If the primary role of the HoL is to refine legislation, we need people in it who can understand both the legislation and its implications. Therefore you might have a total of (e.g.) 400 seats.
30 to political parties (although preferably not) 30 to trade unionists 30 to retired business leaders 20 military 80 to all of the sciences 80 to all engineering 50 charities 8 for the various law bodies 5 would be allocated to the CofE 3 to other religions ... and so on. Exact numbers to be agreed.
For instance: chemistry might be allocated 15 seats. If there are three main chemistry bodies, then each can choose five people to represent their science. Their length of terms are set by the bodies (e.g. life, or year-long terms, or somewhere in between). However the HoL as a whole can throw out someone for misdemeanours, in which case the organisation has to choose someone new.
For instance, the Institute of Civil Engineers could have an allocation of five members; they may choose to elect a person each year to serve five-year terms, and may choose them to represent different sub-disciplines: e.g. water management, tunnelling, bridges, groundworks etc. Chemistry might choose by different criteria.
I'd also allow such experts to take part in, and even chair, select committees.
An interesting idea. I cannot say I have ever seen a similar suggestion offered in the debate before - it's always just how many elected, and how long for. I doubt I'll see any party taking up such a platform, but it'd be interesting to see how people reacted to it being debated.
With the parties, I recall Labour have the plan for a Senate of the Nations and Regions
Thus indicating that they intend continuing to run England as a directly governed territory of the central government, while allowing autonomy to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Anecdote. "Lefty" friend who has recently become quite ukippy in his attitudes (Islam, Guardianistas, etc) told me he was still voting Labour, despite his contempt for most of the party's policies and attitudes.
I asked him why. He was basically unable to explain, despite being highly intelligent. He just mumbled something about the Tories and the NHS, but had no evidence to back it up.
This is one reason why I reckon Labour will scrape a plurality, despite the fact they crashed the country just five years ago. Tribal loyalties persist. And we haven't learned our lessons. This is 1974, not 1979. We need another term of terrible socialist incompetence before we finally Get Real.
The modern conservative party is deluded. The idea that our country's problems are about a bloated overspending state are pure nonsense. See Tesco's collapse and how Aldi and Lidl are cleaning up. German capitalism works, British capitalism doesn't.
Nonsense. Tesco are going through a blip but still are much stronger than the discount retailers for now at least and I hope and expect that's not going to change.
Our problems entirely are an overspending state. British capitalism is working which is why Britain's put on more jobs in recent years than all of Europe including Germany combined. British capitalism is working which is why Britain is growing faster than Germany. British capitalism is working which is why Britain is on course to overtake Germany as Europe's largest economy.
Keep talking down your own country though if it makes you feel somehow smug. It doesn't make you right or clever.
Anecdote. "Lefty" friend who has recently become quite ukippy in his attitudes (Islam, Guardianistas, etc) told me he was still voting Labour, despite his contempt for most of the party's policies and attitudes.
I asked him why. He was basically unable to explain, despite being highly intelligent. He just mumbled something about the Tories and the NHS, but had no evidence to back it up.
This is one reason why I reckon Labour will scrape a plurality, despite the fact they crashed the country just five years ago. Tribal loyalties persist. And we haven't learned our lessons. This is 1974, not 1979. We need another term of terrible socialist incompetence before we finally Get Real.
The modern conservative party is deluded. The idea that our country's problems are about a bloated overspending state are pure nonsense. See Tesco's collapse and how Aldi and Lidl are cleaning up. German capitalism works, British capitalism doesn't.
And therein lies the reason why Labour will probably win the election. Too many people think there was nothing really all that wrong with what they did last time so why shouldn't they do it again? After all, it was those nasty big boys who came in from the banks or America or wherever and broke it all, wasn't it?
Well no, it wasn't. The state was bloated and was certainly overspending (which is the very definition of a structural deficit). But so much easier to blame someone else. As you no doubt will again when it all goes wrong.
On Danny Alexander going to the Lords and remaining Chief Secretary to the Treasury, others have said why it won't happen, but what struck me is it would be a bit of a slap in the face to the remaining LD MPs if a coalition kept him in place by giving him a peerage. He wasn't even the first choice for the job initially. I wonder what the working relationship between Alexander and Osborne is - he seemed a very loyal member of the coalition, taking the heat for Osborne in the press by doing his job and defending coalition policies, I wouldn't be surprised to learn they work very well together and Osborne would like to keep him on.
On the Lords as a whole, I'm able to be convinced a number of ways. I have a fear of an entirely elected chamber being just a copy of the Commons and losing something of its current role, and I amidst all the retirement lordships to retiring MPs and handouts to party doners, I do think the Lords' inclusion of a range of business people, academics, military and religious leaders and so on, who wouldn't normally be in such a body, can be a plus. Long, but single, terms for elected people would be a reasonable idea I think.
For instance: chemistry might be allocated 15 seats. If there are three main chemistry bodies, then each can choose five people to represent their science. Their length of terms are set by the bodies (e.g. life, or year-long terms, or somewhere in between). However the HoL as a whole can throw out someone for misdemeanours, in which case the organisation has to choose someone new.
For instance, the Institute of Civil Engineers could have an allocation of five members; they may choose to elect a person each year to serve five-year terms, and may choose them to represent different sub-disciplines: e.g. water management, tunnelling, bridges, groundworks etc. Chemistry might choose by different criteria.
I'd also allow such experts to take part in, and even chair, select committees.
Corporatism. The last person to try that was Benito Mussolini. Sorry, but the only people who need to be represented are voters.
I know what you mean, but I think it's broadly ok for a reforming and redrafting chamber. And no more.
I've lost count of the times an awfully thought through piece of Commons legislation has been sensibly amended by the Lords, or rejected for reconsideration, as they have the knowledge, patience and common sense to know it won't work.
They seem more able to arbitrate dispassionately across party lines on complex issues. I've been impressed by the quality of debate in there on more than one occasion.
Just a comment on the minor parties. I think UKIP's 3.1% last GE was a post-war record for a fourth party (and a record for a party not winning any seats). Although they and the Greens have fallen back slightly they seem to have settled out at around 13-14% and 5% respectively, and of course the SNP is at 4-5% nationally. So it still looks as if we could have three "fourth parties" beating UKIP's score last time out.
You are clutching at straws. Just sit back and wait for the Ed Miliband minority government to come in. In the HoC will be 1 to 3 UKIP MPs. Oh, and no referendum on Europe because there were not enough Conservative MPs elected. That is what the polls are saying will happen.
Even assuming the Conservatives had a very good election and won 300-310 seats, it is open to doubt whether a Bill authorising a referendum on EU membership would carry. The Tories would have to rely on the DUP and a dwindling number of backbench Labour Eurosceptics to get it through. The rest of the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Scots would oppose en bloc. Unless they were prepared to devote the whole of a session to the Bill, it is difficult to see how it would pass.
I've just realised that Europe explains Cameron's oddly lacklustre, unhungry approach to this election. Deep down he wants to lose (but not catastrophically) so he will not have to enact his referendum promise.
He's a smart guy. He knows that the referendum will be chaotic and possibly disastrous, splitting the party in two, alienating donors, angering the City, and ruining his own reputation as he has to sell a bogus "reform package" to a skeptical electorate, to get them to vote IN (which is what he clearly wants).
Just a nightmare. Who would want all that for two or three years, dominating everything he does?
How much better to go down as that decent affable PM who ran a modestly competent government, unfairly defeated by scheming socialists who ruined everything, yet again.
If he loses he might be regarded quite fondly. If he wins he has to eat crow.
It isn't just Europe, it's all sorts of other chickens coming home to roost.
My long-stated view on HoL reform is to have bodies elect them. If the primary role of the HoL is to refine legislation, we need people in it who can understand both the legislation and its implications. Therefore you might have a total of (e.g.) 400 seats.
30 to political parties (although preferably not) 30 to trade unionists 30 to retired business leaders 20 military 80 to all of the sciences 80 to all engineering 50 charities 8 for the various law bodies 5 would be allocated to the CofE 3 to other religions ... and so on. Exact numbers to be agreed.
For instance: chemistry might be allocated 15 seats. If there are three main chemistry bodies, then each can choose five people to represent their science. Their length of terms are set by the bodies (e.g. life, or year-long terms, or somewhere in between). However the HoL as a whole can throw out someone for misdemeanours, in which case the organisation has to choose someone new.
For instance, the Institute of Civil Engineers could have an allocation of five members; they may choose to elect a person each year to serve five-year terms, and may choose them to represent different sub-disciplines: e.g. water management, tunnelling, bridges, groundworks etc. Chemistry might choose by different criteria.
I'd also allow such experts to take part in, and even chair, select committees.
I agree with you. This has been my favoured form of House of Lords reform for years: a body of experts.
However, I feel some sort of mix would be needed to prevent expert group-think and stitch-ups on the big issues. I could see an establishment consensus reached on, say, Europe and Immigration that's way out of line with public opinion.
That's a potential problem. But remember the HoL will not be setting the legislation: they will be examining the laws that come from the HoC and proposing changes. The lack of STEM knowledge in the HoC is both telling and terrible.
Another potential problem is that such a house of experts might start to be taken more seriously than the inexpert MPs that parties put up for election. Although I see that more as a benefit than a problem. ;-)
Off topic, but for anyone interested, the UK Fire Service ISAR team have been deployed to help with rescue operations in the Nepal earthquake area. Leicestershire have sent a team, and I know them all, and a lot of the other team members as well, so I wish them good luck, and hope they succeed in what will be a difficult, gruelling and dangerous job. It's a long journey, and these things have a habit of turning into a political and agency pissing contest, which delays things, so I just hope the men and women manage to get on scene in good time.
Aldi's are pish-poor: Hence they are prevelant in down-trodden areas. They offer a service but not one an average person would wish to undertake given resources.
Sommerfield used to be pretty good: And then the Co-Op snorted it. The Co-Op ain't bad but I would only go to buy specials.
Tescos is the biz for me. Decent food at a decent price. If only their bakery stayed open longer.
Waitrose and M&S have, limited, high-quality food. Sadly beyond my current budget.
Iceland: Cannot be beaten in cost and quality. Need to buy bigger freezer...!
Corporatism. The last person to try that was Benito Mussolini. Sorry, but the only people who need to be represented are voters.
Quite. One of the fallacies of this approach is that the assumption that the mere fact of one's involvement in a profession or vocation gives one a knowledge of the law in that area. To what extent does the average home owner understand the Law of Property Acts? The last few years have shown that precious few doctors understand the NHS legislation. There is no reason to think that this sort of corporatist monstrosity would result in anything other than a triumph for vested interests.
How does this Rent Cap thing work..what will be the result.
Its a cap on annual rent increases at inflation within a three year tenancy.
Landlords will be obliged to tell new tenants what the previous tenant paid - but there is no cap on what that will be.
Results?
Last night it was pointed out that a 3 year tenancy in E&W is a 'DEED' which will need a solicitor to draw up.
Not clear whether this also applies to social housing, which have seen greater increases in rent than private accommodation.
In summary a half cocked solution, with downsides, to the wrong problem.
Plus the unbalanced termination rights (tenants can leave with 1 months notice) will, all other things being equal, tend to increase the price of tenancies (whether with a non-refundable deposit or something else)
At first glance, it is similar to Germany's rent controls. Germany has a rental sector which is about 60% of all housing. In Germany, rent does not mean a freeze.
Anecdote. "Lefty" friend who has recently become quite ukippy in his attitudes (Islam, Guardianistas, etc) told me he was still voting Labour, despite his contempt for most of the party's policies and attitudes.
I asked him why. He was basically unable to explain, despite being highly intelligent. He just mumbled something about the Tories and the NHS, but had no evidence to back it up.
This is one reason why I reckon Labour will scrape a plurality, despite the fact they crashed the country just five years ago. Tribal loyalties persist. And we haven't learned our lessons. This is 1974, not 1979. We need another term of terrible socialist incompetence before we finally Get Real.
The modern conservative party is deluded. The idea that our country's problems are about a bloated overspending state are pure nonsense. See Tesco's collapse and how Aldi and Lidl are cleaning up. German capitalism works, British capitalism doesn't.
And therein lies the reason why Labour will probably win the election. Too many people think there was nothing really all that wrong with what they did last time so why shouldn't they do it again? After all, it was those nasty big boys who came in from the banks or America or wherever and broke it all, wasn't it?
Well no, it wasn't. The state was bloated and was certainly overspending (which is the very definition of a structural deficit). But so much easier to blame someone else. As you no doubt will again when it all goes wrong.
David you are an intelligent man. However you seem unable to accept that the biggest problem our economy has faced is a collapse in output. Should the Labour government have been running a deficit in 2008? No. But you can just as easily say it was a matter of undertaxing rather than overspending. State spending was not historically anomalous by post war standards or compared to other northern European countries. The fact that GDP is 16% below the pre-crisis trend is what is killing us. As is the fact it may take us another year to get back to pre-crisis per capita GDP levels. Given the need to increase health and pensions spending year on year otherwise there'd be huge political fallout you then face a massive fiscal challenge.
Corporatism. The last person to try that was Benito Mussolini. Sorry, but the only people who need to be represented are voters.
I know what you mean, but I think it's broadly ok for a reforming and redrafting chamber. And no more.
I've lost count of the times an awfully thought through piece of Commons legislation has been sensibly amended by the Lords, or rejected for reconsideration, as they have the knowledge, patience and common sense to know it won't work.
They seem more able to arbitrate dispassionately across party lines on complex issues. I've been impressed by the quality of debate in there on more than one occasion.
I just don't see how you would decide which "corporations" would get to nominate representatives, and how you would decide their weights. From JosiasJessop's list, someone who was a scientist, a Christian, a member of a trade union and an active member of/volunteer for a charity might get represented four times, me not at all (unless CAMRA was going to be a nominating corporation). Utterly random, unrepresentative, undemocratic and establishment-oriented.
On Danny Alexander going to the Lords and remaining Chief Secretary to the Treasury, others have said why it won't happen, but what struck me is it would be a bit of a slap in the face to the remaining LD MPs if a coalition kept him in place by giving him a peerage. He wasn't even the first choice for the job initially. I wonder what the working relationship between Alexander and Osborne is - he seemed a very loyal member of the coalition, taking the heat for Osborne in the press by doing his job and defending coalition policies, I wouldn't be surprised to learn they work very well together and Osborne would like to keep him on.
On the Lords as a whole, I'm able to be convinced a number of ways. I have a fear of an entirely elected chamber being just a copy of the Commons and losing something of its current role, and I amidst all the retirement lordships to retiring MPs and handouts to party doners, I do think the Lords' inclusion of a range of business people, academics, military and religious leaders and so on, who wouldn't normally be in such a body, can be a plus. Long, but single, terms for elected people would be a reasonable idea I think.
My long-stated view on HoL reform is to have bodies elect them. If the primary role of the HoL is to refine legislation, we need people in it who can understand both the legislation and its implications. Therefore you might have a total of (e.g.) 400 seats.
30 to political parties (although preferably not) 30 to trade unionists 30 to retired business leaders 20 military 80 to all of the sciences 80 to all engineering 50 charities 8 for the various law bodies 5 would be allocated to the CofE 3 to other religions ... and so on. Exact numbers to be agreed.
For instance: chemistry might be allocated 15 seats. If there are three main chemistry bodies, then each can choose five people to represent their science. Their length of terms are set by the bodies (e.g. life, or year-long terms, or somewhere in between). However the HoL as a whole can throw out someone for misdemeanours, in which case the organisation has to choose someone new.
For instance, the Institute of Civil Engineers could have an allocation of five members; they may choose to elect a person each year to serve five-year terms, and may choose them to represent different sub-disciplines: e.g. water management, tunnelling, bridges, groundworks etc. Chemistry might choose by different criteria.
I'd also allow such experts to take part in, and even chair, select committees.
Corporatism. The last person to try that was Benito Mussolini. Sorry, but the only people who need to be represented are voters.
That's not something I'm aware of. Do you have a links that I could read up on it please?)
For instance: chemistry might be allocated 15 seats. If there are three main chemistry bodies, then each can choose five people to represent their science. Their length of terms are set by the bodies (e.g. life, or year-long terms, or somewhere in between). However the HoL as a whole can throw out someone for misdemeanours, in which case the organisation has to choose someone new.
For instance, the Institute of Civil Engineers could have an allocation of five members; they may choose to elect a person each year to serve five-year terms, and may choose them to represent different sub-disciplines: e.g. water management, tunnelling, bridges, groundworks etc. Chemistry might choose by different criteria.
I'd also allow such experts to take part in, and even chair, select committees.
Corporatism. The last person to try that was Benito Mussolini. Sorry, but the only people who need to be represented are voters.
I know what you mean, but I think it's broadly ok for a reforming and redrafting chamber. And no more.
I've lost count of the times an awfully thought through piece of Commons legislation has been sensibly amended by the Lords, or rejected for reconsideration, as they have the knowledge, patience and common sense to know it won't work.
They seem more able to arbitrate dispassionately across party lines on complex issues. I've been impressed by the quality of debate in there on more than one occasion.
But how much of that is down to the Lords' career backgrounds and how much to the nature of the Lords itself? After all, most Lords - and an even greater proportion of active Lords - are party appointments.
Surely the reason for thoughtful amendment is that it operates in a less partisan way (not least because the media focus isn't on it)? A chamber filled with politicians but with no party having anything like a majority would be likely to produce a similar outcome. (Ironically, had an elected Senate been in place since 2000, the present government would have probably had a majority, at least to begin with - one good reason for keeping the voting systems for the two chambers distinct).
That's not something I'm aware of. Do you have a links that I could read up on it please?)
To stimulate development Mussolini pushed the modern capitalistic sector in the service of the state, intervening directly as needed to create a collaboration between the industrialists, the workers, and the state. The government crushed fundamental class conflicts in favour of corporatism. In the short term the government worked to reform the widely-abused tax system, dispose of inefficient state-owned industry, cut government costs, and introduce tariffs to protect the new industries.
Corporatism. The last person to try that was Benito Mussolini. Sorry, but the only people who need to be represented are voters.
Quite. One of the fallacies of this approach is that the assumption that the mere fact of one's involvement in a profession or vocation gives one a knowledge of the law in that area. To what extent does the average home owner understand the Law of Property Acts? The last few years have shown that precious few doctors understand the NHS legislation. There is no reason to think that this sort of corporatist monstrosity would result in anything other than a triumph for vested interests.
I agree with you - but it was @JohnLilburne who made the original comment, not me.
Anecdote. "Lefty" friend who has recently become quite ukippy in his attitudes (Islam, Guardianistas, etc) told me he was still voting Labour, despite his contempt for most of the party's policies and attitudes.
I asked him why. He was basically unable to explain, despite being highly intelligent. He just mumbled something about the Tories and the NHS, but had no evidence to back it up.
This is one reason why I reckon Labour will scrape a plurality, despite the fact they crashed the country just five years ago. Tribal loyalties persist. And we haven't learned our lessons. This is 1974, not 1979. We need another term of terrible socialist incompetence before we finally Get Real.
The modern conservative party is deluded. The idea that our country's problems are about a bloated overspending state are pure nonsense. See Tesco's collapse and how Aldi and Lidl are cleaning up. German capitalism works, British capitalism doesn't.
And therein lies the reason why Labour will probably win the election. Too many people think there was nothing really all that wrong with what they did last time so why shouldn't they do it again?
Quite so. People do not fear getting in again, and they have a more positive view of the party than the Tories, which the leadership factor is not overcoming (and in any case Ed M has improved his position). Add in the Labour vote being more efficient even with the Scottish troubles (and some hopes from Tories that their vote will be more efficient this time), and of course they will win.
Corporatism. The last person to try that was Benito Mussolini. Sorry, but the only people who need to be represented are voters.
I know what you mean, but I think it's broadly ok for a reforming and redrafting chamber. And no more.
I've lost count of the times an awfully thought through piece of Commons legislation has been sensibly amended by the Lords, or rejected for reconsideration, as they have the knowledge, patience and common sense to know it won't work.
They seem more able to arbitrate dispassionately across party lines on complex issues. I've been impressed by the quality of debate in there on more than one occasion.
I just don't see how you would decide which "corporations" would get to nominate representatives, and how you would decide their weights. From JosiasJessop's list, someone who was a scientist, a Christian, a member of a trade union and an active member of/volunteer for a charity might get represented four times, me not at all (unless CAMRA was going to be a nominating corporation). Utterly random, unrepresentative, undemocratic and establishment-oriented.
There is a dearth of scientists, engineers and medics in parliament. We do have Law Lords, who I think make an interesting contribution.
The last thing I want is another body of tired career politicians.
'In the midst of the most fraudulent General Election I have ever experienced, a clear and honest voice speaks, and is drowned by a tornado of lies.
After 40 years in the trade of journalism, I think I know what news is. And when Norman Tebbit, the fiercest and roughest anti-socialist street-fighter of the Thatcher years, suggests that Tories in Scotland vote Labour, that is news.
This is what he said: ‘From the Tories’ point of view we are not going to come home with a vast number of seats from Scotland. We know that. So the choice is, would we rather have a Scot Nat or Labour? I think, on balance, probably a Labour MP would be a more reasonable thing to have.’
Asked if he was advising Tory supporters to vote Labour where it is contesting seats with the SNP, he said: ‘I hesitate to say that. But it is logical from where I stand.’ Of course it is. Anyone who seriously wants to keep Scotland in the UK must seek to stop the rise of the SNP, not to fuel and encourage it.
Lord Tebbit is not the only Tory who has been appalled by the deliberate boosting of the SNP’s Nicola Sturgeon by such figures as Chief Whip Michael Gove and Chancellor George Osborne.
Both these men have acted like student politicians, helping one enemy to do down another. This may work in the tail-coated silly-clever struggles of the Oxford Union. But it is quite wrong when a real country is at stake.
Lord Tebbit’s outburst was astonishing from a man who would have been a Tory Prime Minister, had an IRA death squad not confined his wife to a wheelchair and injured him far more badly than he has ever revealed.
So why haven’t we heard more about it? And why hasn’t the Tory Party expelled, or at least suspended him for this blatant defiance of his leader?
I mainly blame the squeaking multitudes of political journalists who, in my view, have settled on a line about what this Election is about and are reading from a script given to them by the Government spin doctors on whom they depend so much.
And Lord Tebbit’s amazing intervention doesn’t fit the script. In fact, it utterly destroys the official version, that this is a contest between a fiscally responsible, unionist Tory Party and a mad Trotskyist Labour Party in hock to the SNP and some trade union maniacs.
In fact, it’s the most amazing development in politics since another former Tory giant, Enoch Powell, urged his supporters to vote Labour in February 1974 and snarled ‘Judas was paid! I am making a sacrifice!’, in response to cries of ‘Judas!’
Yet it’s barely been mentioned, because it’s easier for commentators to ignore it than to explain it, and admit that their whole version of events is wrong. But it is.'
Corporatism. The last person to try that was Benito Mussolini. Sorry, but the only people who need to be represented are voters.
That's not something I'm aware of. Do you have a links that I could read up on it please?)
Wikipedia has quite a lot on Italian fascism but it is mostly about ideology and the process of gaining power. There's a bit here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Italy_under_fascism#The_Corporative_phase. As I recall, there was a rubber-stamp Parliament that was elected on syndicalist or corporate lines. However the Wiki article on the Italian fascist state doesn't mention it (probably because it wasn't actually very important). Just as no-one ever mentions the Reichstag after Hitler came to power although it continued to exist.
Greetings from Tokyo Narita Airport. I've long thought that if the polls make a significant mistake it'll be underestimating the UKIP share by a few points. I suspect the latest London poll putting the purples on 10% is about right which makes it unlikely they're on only 12-13% nationally IMO.
How does this Rent Cap thing work..what will be the result.
Its a cap on annual rent increases at inflation within a three year tenancy.
Landlords will be obliged to tell new tenants what the previous tenant paid - but there is no cap on what that will be.
Results?
Last night it was pointed out that a 3 year tenancy in E&W is a 'DEED' which will need a solicitor to draw up.
Not clear whether this also applies to social housing, which have seen greater increases in rent than private accommodation.
In summary a half cocked solution, with downsides, to the wrong problem.
Plus the unbalanced termination rights (tenants can leave with 1 months notice) will, all other things being equal, tend to increase the price of tenancies (whether with a non-refundable deposit or something else)
At first glance, it is similar to Germany's rent controls. Germany has a rental sector which is about 60% of all housing. In Germany, rent does not mean a freeze.
Germany has a completely different model, with advantages and disadvantages.
But to apply part of the German approach to the UK model is just daft.
I'd look at making interest payments on residential property non-tax deductible. At the moment, you can't deduct interest payments on your own property from your income, but you can deduct interest payments on BTL investments. That creates a fundamental distortion, which allows - in the round - BTL investors to pay higher prices than o/o.
Suspect it would need to be phased in, and would need to model through the impact on house prices / loan coverage ratios etc. but should be explored IMV.
Apparently on Marr Ed Miliband just ruled out a confidence and supply with the SNP, which seems relevant to Next PM etc. I suppose that doesn't prevent them from voting for him for PM etc, it just prevents him from officially agreeing with them about what he'd have to do for them to vote for him?
And therein lies the reason why Labour will probably win the election. Too many people think there was nothing really all that wrong with what they did last time so why shouldn't they do it again? After all, it was those nasty big boys who came in from the banks or America or wherever and broke it all, wasn't it?
Well no, it wasn't. The state was bloated and was certainly overspending (which is the very definition of a structural deficit). But so much easier to blame someone else. As you no doubt will again when it all goes wrong.
David you are an intelligent man. However you seem unable to accept that the biggest problem our economy has faced is a collapse in output. Should the Labour government have been running a deficit in 2008? No. But you can just as easily say it was a matter of undertaxing rather than overspending. State spending was not historically anomalous by post war standards or compared to other northern European countries. The fact that GDP is 16% below the pre-crisis trend is what is killing us. As is the fact it may take us another year to get back to pre-crisis per capita GDP levels. Given the need to increase health and pensions spending year on year otherwise there'd be huge political fallout you then face a massive fiscal challenge.
I don't accept the need to increase pensions spending over and above inflation but as no-one seems prepared to make the case it'll happen anyway.
No, the problem was that the pre-2008 economy was bloated by huge amounts of debt which artificially inflated the nominal GDP figures. People were spending on equity release and other borrowings as if there were no tomorrow; the government was running a huge (IMO £50-80bn pa) structural deficit; the country was importing far more than it was exporting (it still is); businesses were pumping up their own debt; banks were lending foolishly and people borrowing foolishly.
Some of that is to be expected in a growing economy but the scale was off the charts. And inevitably, if you measure an economy by spending or consumption then it looked healthy. It was all a mirage. (I recognise that the current account deficit does reduce the GDP stats).
In as far as the deficit could have been solved by taxing more, I agree - though that wasn't going to happen for the same reason that certain special interest groups never have spending on them cut.
I probably should give more thought to this but now that the morning has worn on and people are unlikely to be awoken by letterboxes clattering, I have some leaflets to go and deliver, so must head off.
For instance: chemistry might be allocated 15 seats. If there are three main chemistry bodies, then each can choose five people to represent their science. Their length of terms are set by the bodies (e.g. life, or year-long terms, or somewhere in between). However the HoL as a whole can throw out someone for misdemeanours, in which case the organisation has to choose someone new.
For instance, the Institute of Civil Engineers could have an allocation of five members; they may choose to elect a person each year to serve five-year terms, and may choose them to represent different sub-disciplines: e.g. water management, tunnelling, bridges, groundworks etc. Chemistry might choose by different criteria.
I'd also allow such experts to take part in, and even chair, select committees.
Corporatism. The last person to try that was Benito Mussolini. Sorry, but the only people who need to be represented are voters.
I know what you mean, but I think it's broadly ok for a reforming and redrafting chamber. And no more.
I've lost count of the times an awfully thought through piece of Commons legislation has been sensibly amended by the Lords, or rejected for reconsideration, as they have the knowledge, patience and common sense to know it won't work.
They seem more able to arbitrate dispassionately across party lines on complex issues. I've been impressed by the quality of debate in there on more than one occasion.
But how much of that is down to the Lords' career backgrounds and how much to the nature of the Lords itself? After all, most Lords - and an even greater proportion of active Lords - are party appointments.
Surely the reason for thoughtful amendment is that it operates in a less partisan way (not least because the media focus isn't on it)? A chamber filled with politicians but with no party having anything like a majority would be likely to produce a similar outcome. (Ironically, had an elected Senate been in place since 2000, the present government would have probably had a majority, at least to begin with - one good reason for keeping the voting systems for the two chambers distinct).
I think the fact it's not elected is important in the independence it exercises, its lack of partisan behaviour and, correspondingly, the limitations that puts on its power. I fear that would be at risk in a wholly elected chamber. There is a precedent for expertise: we have Law Lords and bishops, whom I both think make an interesting contribution. I might settle for a mix of party peers and appointed experts.
I absolutely detest the word Senate, and throwing almost 1,000 years of history down the drain, by the way. We are not a republic.
Corporatism. The last person to try that was Benito Mussolini. Sorry, but the only people who need to be represented are voters.
I know what you mean, but I think it's broadly ok for a reforming and redrafting chamber. And no more.
I've lost count of the times an awfully thought through piece of Commons legislation has been sensibly amended by the Lords, or rejected for reconsideration, as they have the knowledge, patience and common sense to know it won't work.
They seem more able to arbitrate dispassionately across party lines on complex issues. I've been impressed by the quality of debate in there on more than one occasion.
I just don't see how you would decide which "corporations" would get to nominate representatives, and how you would decide their weights. From JosiasJessop's list, someone who was a scientist, a Christian, a member of a trade union and an active member of/volunteer for a charity might get represented four times, me not at all (unless CAMRA was going to be a nominating corporation). Utterly random, unrepresentative, undemocratic and establishment-oriented.
It's not a case of representation; it's a case of getting people in place who can hopefully do a good job at examining and amending HoC legislation. Besides, most people will belong to several groups of the above (**). Under an elected system, the only people being represented are the political parties.
The representation of individuals occurs in the HoC (*). The representation of good legislation for the country occurs in the HoL.
As for who chooses numbers: there would have to be a recommendation from a suitable study. It can only be better than the current system, or the incompetent and pointless mess that would be an elected HoL.
(*) Or at least it should. too often, it is the representation of the whips' wishes. (**) I'd have someone representing atheists and/or agnostics in the religious groups. ;-)
For instance: chemistry might be allocated 15 seats. If there are three main chemistry bodies, then each can choose five people to represent their science. Their length of terms are set by the bodies (e.g. life, or year-long terms, or somewhere in between). However the HoL as a whole can throw out someone for misdemeanours, in which case the organisation has to choose someone new.
For instance, the Institute of Civil Engineers could have an allocation of five members; they may choose to elect a person each year to serve five-year terms, and may choose them to represent different sub-disciplines: e.g. water management, tunnelling, bridges, groundworks etc. Chemistry might choose by different criteria.
I'd also allow such experts to take part in, and even chair, select committees.
Corporatism. The last person to try that was Benito Mussolini. Sorry, but the only people who need to be represented are voters.
I know what you mean, but of debate in there on more than one occasion.
But how much of tha
I think the fact it's not elected is important in the independence it exercises, its lack of partisan behaviour and, correspondingly, the limitations that puts on its power. I fear that would be at risk in a wholly elected chamber. There is a precedent for expertise: we have Law Lords and bishops, whom I both think make an interesting contribution. I might settle for a mix of party peers and appointed experts.
I absolutely detest the word Senate, and throwing almost 1,000 years of history down the drain, by the way. We are not a republic.
I would call any revised body the House of Lords. Why not? Even if elected, we already have appointed lords with no aristocratic connections, why not just call those elected in Lords rather than Senators.
Apparently on Marr Ed Miliband just ruled out a confidence and supply with the SNP, which seems relevant to Next PM etc. I suppose that doesn't prevent them from voting for him for PM etc, it just prevents him from officially agreeing with them about what he'd have to do for them to vote for him?
Anecdote. "Lefty" friend who has recently become quite ukippy in his attitudes (Islam, Guardianistas, etc) told me he was still voting Labour, despite his contempt for most of the party's policies and attitudes.
I asked him why. He was basically unable to explain, despite being highly intelligent. He just mumbled something about the Tories and the NHS, but had no evidence to back it up.
This is one reason why I reckon Labour will scrape a plurality, despite the fact they crashed the country just five years ago. Tribal loyalties persist. And we haven't learned our lessons. This is 1974, not 1979. We need another term of terrible socialist incompetence before we finally Get Real.
The modern conservative party is deluded. The idea that our country's problems are about a bloated overspending state are pure nonsense. See Tesco's collapse and how Aldi and Lidl are cleaning up. German capitalism works, British capitalism doesn't.
And therein lies the reason why Labour will probably win the election. Too many people think there was nothing really all that wrong with what they did last time so why shouldn't they do it again? After all, it was those nasty big boys who came in from the banks or America or wherever and broke it all, wasn't it?
Well no, it wasn't. The state was bloated and was certainly overspending (which is the very definition of a structural deficit). But so much easier to blame someone else. As you no doubt will again when it all goes wrong.
The flip-side of that is that too many people surrender to their prejudices that the Tories sound posh, superior and pompous and look like they're enjoying themselves too much at the expense of others.
The real (or perceived) class consciousness in this country is absolutely endemic.
Never underestimate the ability of a seemingly rational person to make an irrational decision off the back of it.
Corporatism. The last person to try that was Benito Mussolini. Sorry, but the only people who need to be represented are voters.
I know what you mean, but I think it's broadly ok for a reforming and redrafting chamber. And no more.
I've lost count of the times an awfully thought through piece of Commons legislation has been sensibly amended by the Lords, or rejected for reconsideration, as they have the knowledge, patience and common sense to know it won't work.
They seem more able to arbitrate dispassionately across party lines on complex issues. I've been impressed by the quality of debate in there on more than one occasion.
I just don't see how you would decide which "corporations" would get to nominate representatives, and how you would decide their weights. From JosiasJessop's list, someone who was a scientist, a Christian, a member of a trade union and an active member of/volunteer for a charity might get represented four times, me not at all (unless CAMRA was going to be a nominating corporation). Utterly random, unrepresentative, undemocratic and establishment-oriented.
There is a dearth of scientists, engineers and medics in parliament. We do have Law Lords, who I think make an interesting contribution.
The last thing I want is another body of tired career politicians.
So you would replace it by an undemocratic model where we make an a priori decision that some citizens are more worthy of representation than others. Why should trade unions be represented but not unorganised employees like me (and we are a majority)? etc etc.
Actually I have realised I probably would be represented under the Jessop model as I am still a member of the CIPD. But I wouldn't want them anywhere near Parliament.
It maybe doesn't occur to you that if we put these people in Parliament to (mostly) represent their professions they will vote out of self-interest. Exactly the same reason why my namesake wished to exclude lawyers from Parliament.
For instance: chemistry might be allocated 15 seats. If there are three main chemistry bodies, then each can choose five people to represent their science. Their length of terms are set by the bodies (e.g. life, or year-long terms, or somewhere in between). However the HoL as a whole can throw out someone for misdemeanours, in which case the organisation has to choose someone new.
For instance, the Institute of Civil Engineers could have an allocation of five members; they may choose to elect a person each year to serve five-year terms, and may choose them to represent different sub-disciplines: e.g. water management, tunnelling, bridges, groundworks etc. Chemistry might choose by different criteria.
I'd also allow such experts to take part in, and even chair, select committees.
Corporatism. The last person to try that was Benito Mussolini. Sorry, but the only people who need to be represented are voters.
I know what you mean, but of debate in there on more than one occasion.
But how much of tha
I think the fact it's not elected is important in the independence it exercises, its lack of partisan behaviour and, correspondingly, the limitations that puts on its power. I fear that would be at risk in a wholly elected chamber. There is a precedent for expertise: we have Law Lords and bishops, whom I both think make an interesting contribution. I might settle for a mix of party peers and appointed experts.
I absolutely detest the word Senate, and throwing almost 1,000 years of history down the drain, by the way. We are not a republic.
I would call any revised body the House of Lords. Why not? Even if elected, we already have appointed lords with no aristocratic connections, why not just call those elected in Lords rather than Senators.
Agreed. MHL (member of the house of lords), PL (peer of the lords), PP (peer of parliament) or Lord-Lieutenant of Parliament (LLP) would all work IMHO.
Comments
I know from my own experience knocking on doors in London over the past 18 months that the London polls showing Lab on around 45% do seem pretty accurate. I am optimistic that Labour is on course for 10 to 12 gains in London, again from personal experience from knocking on doors in three marginals (all of them the least likely). At times I have been very pleasantly surprised by the level of support we have found.
I have not come across many UKIP inclined folk (though have been in Thurrock too where things are different), or at least those admitting to be so. I suspect those who say "you are all as bad as each other" or similar are probably inclined to UKIP if they actually vote at all.
However I can see that there might be a tendency for people to hide their views if they might cause social embarrassment, something that might not only affect UKIP support but all the parties in Scotland.
- "Peak SNP" - I think from where I sit in Central Scotland the SNP surge still has some way to go and will be peaking around 7th May. The disillusionment with the 3 "mainstream parties" is reaching new highs as their election campaigns flounder around, its amazing that with 5 years notice of the election date that they've come up with such poor campaigns.
- "Holyrood 2016" - I think the SNP surge will carry through to next May and the SNP will hoover up most of the constituency seats. Leaving SLAB, SLID and the Tories fighting with UKIP and the Greens for regional list seats.
- "Scotland's Economy" - The constant putting down of Scotland's economy is getting a bit boring, for what it's worth I remember watching a Bloomberg interview with Martin Sorrell in which he indicated an Independent Scotland would become the Singapore of Europe. As you can see from the YouGov findings Independence was about much more than oil, if anything it's many of the PB contributors who are over preoccupied about oil.
Obviously asset price inflation benefits those with assets who don't intend to buy more assets in future.
On the Lords as a whole, I'm able to be convinced a number of ways. I have a fear of an entirely elected chamber being just a copy of the Commons and losing something of its current role, and I amidst all the retirement lordships to retiring MPs and handouts to party doners, I do think the Lords' inclusion of a range of business people, academics, military and religious leaders and so on, who wouldn't normally be in such a body, can be a plus. Long, but single, terms for elected people would be a reasonable idea I think.
We had a bet on whether ICM would be the most accurate pollster on the Ukip score at the GE
Last poll being the one used
I take it that if another pollster gives the same forecast as ICM and they are the closest, dead heat rules apply?
The US Navy emblem is actually much closer to the NSDAP (not Waffen SS) eagle, so you might want to direct your queries there first.
As for @Dr_Spyn 's query re black kilts - you will no doubt know that it is SLAB which is infamous for introducing them to wider knowledge, on the person of Mr McConnell (prop., ret. hurt) in NYC. Though that was more a sartorial statement than a political one, unless it was intended to be a Caledonian version of Cool Britannia:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7395044.stm
ISTR Hesseltine made similar comments about the Conservatives before the 1997 GE. He knew the claims were rubbish, but you cannot be seen to give in before the poll.
Tories dismal - all tactics, no strategy. Little attempt to offer a positive vision or a coherent package. Undermined own reputation for prudence to spike Labour guns on NHS - a costly sacrifice. Unwillingness to make a positive case for low tax, low spend, reformed state has alienated true conservatives without substantially increasing appeal to the centre. May yet pull clear but my early campaign optimism has waned. CCHQ overrun by infants whose incessant attacks on the SNP will result in a nasty aftermath if the Tories prevail.
Labour - disciplined campaign, despite thin and fundamentally flawed prospectus for government. Clearly not ready to return to power. Have eschewed serious policy work in favour of a series of cheap, populist and ultimately harmful policies that are designed to appeal to the ignorant and the angry. If successful, Labour and the UK will pay dearly for this crass attempt to ride the class war horse. Miliband becoming increasingly hubristic.
Lib Dems - in the national campaign no-one's listening and they don't seem to care. Locally they seem to be doing better, and in England at least may spring a surprise. But nationally struggling for airtime and to define a clear message.
SNP - rampant
PC - poor imitation of SNP, but will be learning lessons. Could become a major headache for Labour in Wales in future parliaments.
Greens - comedy value. Tories need to start funding them and giving them a platform to appeal to the far left, but their fantasy manifesto has largely out paid to hopes they can put a serious dent into Labour's support
Ukip - surprisingly lacklustre. Hard to reconcile their campaign performance with their enthusiasm (hubris?) in the Autumn. Future of party largely turns on whether Farage wins his seat, and if not what follows.
I offer betting experience and try to find new ways of analysing data.. You just say ner ner ner
My days fine without your advice don't worry x
The Scottish Govts funded charity is pretty clear on the matter.
http://nilbymouth.org/resources/history/
The SNP candidate for Argyll is a vile bigot - laws or not.
In terms of the Life appointments, I'd include the provision so that exceptionally eminent individuals could be retained in parliament without the workload of a constituency. They would inevitably be people who had already served a long career. I'd limit the number to five (out of a chamber of no more than 200), with no more than one created per year and no more than two created in any parliament of the Senate (which would be three years - I'd elect one-third every three years by PR to renewable nine-year terms). Minimum qualification for appointment would be one-half the total membership of the Senate and three-quarters of those voting. That should ensure that the positions really were reserved for the great. The Senate would also have the right to remove lifetime members if a motion to do so is carried to the same qualifications.
Overall thoughts on the campaign
[Insert Party Name] - S##t
Makes you wonder what all the people working for the parties have been doing for their money, as very little coherent strategy or policy from any of them.
My guess at this stage is the Conservatives will finish ahead on votes and seats, but not by enough to govern.
The point is the votes to pass an EU Referendum were there, if Conservative MPs had voted in favour. They did not.
Con - Wayward and increasingly frantic
Lab - Disciplined but limited
LDs - Invisible
SNP - Swaggering
PC - "When we grow up, we can be like the SNP"
Greens - Not as much coverage as they'd hoped after debates
UKIP - Mostly gaffe free, but oddly lacking
I'm almost convinced by the argument that UKIP break this assumption. One caveat though. The don't know figures in the polls are not, in my recollection, that different between phone and online pollsters, and they follow the pollsters existing paradigm - with 2010 Liberal Democrats being most likely to say to a pollster that they don't know, because they are most likely to be shy about loyal support.
This means that we don't have a good proxy for the shy factor in UKIP support as the difference between online pollsters is about as big as between phone and online pollsters.
I'm going to stop bigging up phone pollsters though.
30 to political parties (although preferably not)
30 to trade unionists
30 to retired business leaders
20 military
80 to all of the sciences
80 to all engineering
50 charities
8 for the various law bodies
5 would be allocated to the CofE
3 to other religions
... and so on. Exact numbers to be agreed.
For instance: chemistry might be allocated 15 seats. If there are three main chemistry bodies, then each can choose five people to represent their science. Their length of terms are set by the bodies (e.g. life, or year-long terms, or somewhere in between). However the HoL as a whole can throw out someone for misdemeanours, in which case the organisation has to choose someone new.
For instance, the Institute of Civil Engineers could have an allocation of five members; they may choose to elect a person each year to serve five-year terms, and may choose them to represent different sub-disciplines: e.g. water management, tunnelling, bridges, groundworks etc. Chemistry might choose by different criteria.
I'd also allow such experts to take part in, and even chair, select committees.
If people vote Labour, and so many dislike them but do, they will get Labour with all that entails.
Tom @Tom_Fowdy Apr 24
That's it, UKIP are now officially bigger than the Liberal Democrats in membership figures!
New figure: 45,021!
I'd assumed if he won he'd be gone after the EU referendum anyway. If he lost, well, clearly he'd be out. If he won, he'd have spent years fighting a lot of his own party and the issue dominating everything else he wanted to do, he'd probably step down to give someone else a chance to take the party forward after that difficult fight or something.
But I do not think the situation will arise.
Actually, I agreed three years ago:
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2012/05/05/will-cameron-go-the-way-of-heath/
Dave regards the electorate as a bunch of ungrateful bastards. He looks at what he has done in the past five years and thinks he should be a shoo-in. And yet he is being asked to justify himself all over again.
Maybe he doesn't want to lead such a sulky, capricious country. A country that takes seriously the incoherent envious rubbish that ed Miliband has served up.
Very astute summary
With the parties, I recall Labour have the plan for a Senate of the Nations and Regions - so I guess that issue does not need much debating at their planned constitutional convention, if they already have the model they want laid out? - and I was surprised the Tories suggested not touching it at all IIRC, but I don't remember anyone elses' position. The SNP I presume are for abolition given they don't allow their members to accept peerages.
Another point to consider is he knows better than most what is coming and thinks it better to let someone else carry the can.
Yes but Rod liddle is a wealthy London based journalist insulated completely from the implications of labour policies. I bet Sean T's friend is something similar.
This isn;t voting, it's virtue signalling.
That is not the case in labour's northern strongholds. We saw earlier how the vote in Grimsby has essentially totally collapsed.
This is why it is frustrating that there have been no constituency polls in areas where UKIP is threatening labour. People simply do not believe they can ever be ousted from these places.
The fact Ed promised to make islamophobia a crime has been completely overlooked by the mainstream media. But if I was UKIP, I'd be all over that.
The real reason he's not looked very hungry is, I suspect, he's just not the sort of politician who's very motivated by political campaigning. He's a natural minister, not a platform orator.
However, I feel some sort of mix would be needed to prevent expert group-think and stitch-ups on the big issues. I could see an establishment consensus reached on, say, Europe and Immigration that's way out of line with public opinion.
Our problems entirely are an overspending state. British capitalism is working which is why Britain's put on more jobs in recent years than all of Europe including Germany combined. British capitalism is working which is why Britain is growing faster than Germany. British capitalism is working which is why Britain is on course to overtake Germany as Europe's largest economy.
Keep talking down your own country though if it makes you feel somehow smug. It doesn't make you right or clever.
Well no, it wasn't. The state was bloated and was certainly overspending (which is the very definition of a structural deficit). But so much easier to blame someone else. As you no doubt will again when it all goes wrong.
I've lost count of the times an awfully thought through piece of Commons legislation has been sensibly amended by the Lords, or rejected for reconsideration, as they have the knowledge, patience and common sense to know it won't work.
They seem more able to arbitrate dispassionately across party lines on complex issues. I've been impressed by the quality of debate in there on more than one occasion.
Another potential problem is that such a house of experts might start to be taken more seriously than the inexpert MPs that parties put up for election. Although I see that more as a benefit than a problem. ;-)
Sommerfield used to be pretty good: And then the Co-Op snorted it. The Co-Op ain't bad but I would only go to buy specials.
Tescos is the biz for me. Decent food at a decent price. If only their bakery stayed open longer.
Waitrose and M&S have, limited, high-quality food. Sadly beyond my current budget.
Iceland: Cannot be beaten in cost and quality. Need to buy bigger freezer...!
Always a good day when plastic Jocks get their misapprehensions corrected.
Surely the reason for thoughtful amendment is that it operates in a less partisan way (not least because the media focus isn't on it)? A chamber filled with politicians but with no party having anything like a majority would be likely to produce a similar outcome. (Ironically, had an elected Senate been in place since 2000, the present government would have probably had a majority, at least to begin with - one good reason for keeping the voting systems for the two chambers distinct).
'But that is the Labour policy isn't it all along ?'
Just change the description of some of the spending to investment & then the magic kicks in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Italy_under_fascism
{
Secondary: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Europe-Since-Napoleon-David-Thomson/dp/0140135618
}
]
The last thing I want is another body of tired career politicians.
After 40 years in the trade of journalism, I think I know what news is. And when Norman Tebbit, the fiercest and roughest anti-socialist street-fighter of the Thatcher years, suggests that Tories in Scotland vote Labour, that is news.
This is what he said: ‘From the Tories’ point of view we are not going to come home with a vast number of seats from Scotland. We know that. So the choice is, would we rather have a Scot Nat or Labour? I think, on balance, probably a Labour MP would be a more reasonable thing to have.’
Asked if he was advising Tory supporters to vote Labour where it is contesting seats with the SNP, he said: ‘I hesitate to say that. But it is logical from where I stand.’
Of course it is. Anyone who seriously wants to keep Scotland in the UK must seek to stop the rise of the SNP, not to fuel and encourage it.
Lord Tebbit is not the only Tory who has been appalled by the deliberate boosting of the SNP’s Nicola Sturgeon by such figures as Chief Whip Michael Gove and Chancellor George Osborne.
Both these men have acted like student politicians, helping one enemy to do down another. This may work in the tail-coated silly-clever struggles of the Oxford Union. But it is quite wrong when a real country is at stake.
Lord Tebbit’s outburst was astonishing from a man who would have been a Tory Prime Minister, had an IRA death squad not confined his wife to a wheelchair and injured him far more badly than he has ever revealed.
So why haven’t we heard more about it? And why hasn’t the Tory Party expelled, or at least suspended him for this blatant defiance of his leader?
I mainly blame the squeaking multitudes of political journalists who, in my view, have settled on a line about what this Election is about and are reading from a script given to them by the Government spin doctors on whom they depend so much.
And Lord Tebbit’s amazing intervention doesn’t fit the script. In fact, it utterly destroys the official version, that this is a contest between a fiscally responsible, unionist Tory Party and a mad Trotskyist Labour Party in hock to the SNP and some trade union maniacs.
In fact, it’s the most amazing development in politics since another former Tory giant, Enoch Powell, urged his supporters to vote Labour in February 1974 and snarled ‘Judas was paid! I am making a sacrifice!’, in response to cries of ‘Judas!’
Yet it’s barely been mentioned, because it’s easier for commentators to ignore it than to explain it, and admit that their whole version of events is wrong. But it is.'
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/
But to apply part of the German approach to the UK model is just daft.
I'd look at making interest payments on residential property non-tax deductible. At the moment, you can't deduct interest payments on your own property from your income, but you can deduct interest payments on BTL investments. That creates a fundamental distortion, which allows - in the round - BTL investors to pay higher prices than o/o.
Suspect it would need to be phased in, and would need to model through the impact on house prices / loan coverage ratios etc. but should be explored IMV.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/apr/26/election-2015-live
No, the problem was that the pre-2008 economy was bloated by huge amounts of debt which artificially inflated the nominal GDP figures. People were spending on equity release and other borrowings as if there were no tomorrow; the government was running a huge (IMO £50-80bn pa) structural deficit; the country was importing far more than it was exporting (it still is); businesses were pumping up their own debt; banks were lending foolishly and people borrowing foolishly.
Some of that is to be expected in a growing economy but the scale was off the charts. And inevitably, if you measure an economy by spending or consumption then it looked healthy. It was all a mirage. (I recognise that the current account deficit does reduce the GDP stats).
In as far as the deficit could have been solved by taxing more, I agree - though that wasn't going to happen for the same reason that certain special interest groups never have spending on them cut.
I probably should give more thought to this but now that the morning has worn on and people are unlikely to be awoken by letterboxes clattering, I have some leaflets to go and deliver, so must head off.
I absolutely detest the word Senate, and throwing almost 1,000 years of history down the drain, by the way. We are not a republic.
The representation of individuals occurs in the HoC (*). The representation of good legislation for the country occurs in the HoL.
As for who chooses numbers: there would have to be a recommendation from a suitable study. It can only be better than the current system, or the incompetent and pointless mess that would be an elected HoL.
(*) Or at least it should. too often, it is the representation of the whips' wishes.
(**) I'd have someone representing atheists and/or agnostics in the religious groups. ;-)
The real (or perceived) class consciousness in this country is absolutely endemic.
Never underestimate the ability of a seemingly rational person to make an irrational decision off the back of it.
Actually I have realised I probably would be represented under the Jessop model as I am still a member of the CIPD. But I wouldn't want them anywhere near Parliament.
It maybe doesn't occur to you that if we put these people in Parliament to (mostly) represent their professions they will vote out of self-interest. Exactly the same reason why my namesake wished to exclude lawyers from Parliament.