I am thoroughly baffled that the government would want a battle over repealing the Hunting Act, even if they are now pledged to allow a free vote on it. Like others I'd assumed it was completely ineffective and that hunts happened in any case, and it's an issue there will be Tory dissenters on, so why kick up a fuss on such a minor issue if you do not have to?
I agree with this. Our local hunt has carried on regardless and gone from strength to strength. Let the townies continue to feel smug and self righteous.
Back on topic, I think Cooper is a terrible communicator; Kendall or Creagh beat her hands down - that's assuming that Labour want to play the rather silly gender card.
I am thoroughly baffled that the government would want a battle over repealing the Hunting Act, even if they are now pledged to allow a free vote on it. Like others I'd assumed it was completely ineffective and that hunts happened in any case, and it's an issue there will be Tory dissenters on, so why kick up a fuss on such a minor issue if you do not have to?
Because it's an issue the Prime Minister personally feel's quite strongly about?
Given he has a majority and won't be up for re-election in 2020, if repeal of the hunting ban is something Cameron want's to do then he has earned the right to have a go at it.
Labour has the opportunity to select the first ever woman Prime Minister just at the time it is likely Hilary will be the new POTUS.If Hilary can handle Bill then Yvette can handle Ed.I liked Yvette's answer when asked who wears the trousers in your house."We both do" she said.
Yvette Cooper could be Labour's Hilary.
Key to Labour regaining support is adoption of federalism allowing separate policy formulation in different parts of the UK.SLAB needs a change of direction away from the Branch Office of London Labour.SLAB must never ever be Better Together ever again with the Tories.In any future indyref Labour has to fight separately from the Tories. UK Labour should organise and put up candidates in NI too.
I am thoroughly baffled that the government would want a battle over repealing the Hunting Act, even if they are now pledged to allow a free vote on it. Like others I'd assumed it was completely ineffective and that hunts happened in any case, and it's an issue there will be Tory dissenters on, so why kick up a fuss on such a minor issue if you do not have to?
I agree with this. Our local hunt has carried on regardless and gone from strength to strength. Let the townies continue to feel smug and self righteous.
Back on topic, I think Cooper is a terrible communicator; Kendall or Creagh beat her hands down - that's assuming that Labour want to play the rather silly gender card.
The hunting ban is terrible legislation that was implemented out of spite. As such, it should by rights be repealed.
However, a vote would use up a little of Cameron's precious capital, it will just be another thing for the left to obsess about 'nasty Tories'. As such, it might best be left alone.
I am thoroughly baffled that the government would want a battle over repealing the Hunting Act, even if they are now pledged to allow a free vote on it. Like others I'd assumed it was completely ineffective and that hunts happened in any case, and it's an issue there will be Tory dissenters on, so why kick up a fuss on such a minor issue if you do not have to?
The Tory leadership have long been under grassroots pressure to repeal the Act. A promise of a free vote is a pragmatic way to appease those who want a repeal without provoking a rebellion from those Tory MPs who would not vote for repeal (with one eye on their suburban electorate).
It's also another thing to keep the outraged left occupied with while Osborne proceeds with the central business of government unmolested.
Harman will be responding to Osborne's emergency budget...
Falconer? In Burnham camp? That's an interesting one. Owen Smith was being discussed in Newstatesman yesterday as an outsider to run, so seems he's made his mind up.
Problem is Rochdale, 'investment' has just become another name for spending. 'Investment' in jobs, 'investment' in skills etc.
What you propose is an honest choice, and i cant understand why politicans dont keep it that simple
For those of us in business "investment" means "investment". It means that I want to spend company money, I have to make a proposal showing the return on that investment and the other benefits we will gain for that investment.
Its spending. With payback. This preposterous debate about debt and deficit has now moved onto "overspending". I haven't seen any evidence that Labour economically overspent prior to the crash, not when debt to GDP fell. But politically its now become accepted - despite Cameron and Osborne in opposition pledging not only to match our "overspending" pound for pound but to go even further so that they could "share in the proceeds of [further] growth" through tax cuts on top.
It is a political failure on an epic scale to allow basic historical facts to be rewritten. It demonstrates how Labour had no narrative post 2010, just fiddling around the edges of the Tory narrative. It surely can't be that hard to do? Reframe the debate. Its not "we will cut slightly less hard than they will" its "here's our vision for society"
Of course there is. We have had laws regulating animal cruelty for centuries. Are you saying they should all be abolished? That there is no libertarian argument against cockfighting, against animal torture, against animal sacrifices - that as far as animals are concerned we can't say a word? That's anarchy, not libertarian.
You are conflating practice with principle. It is certainly true that there have been laws regulating the use and disposal of animals for a very long time. The existence of those laws does not demonstrate that they were enacted pursuant to a libertarian or any other agenda, since we do not live in a libertarian utopia. It is gross hyperbole to argue that it would be anarchy if there were no laws regulating the use and disposal of animals. In any event, I am not advocating that. A man's animals ought to be protected by the law in the same way as his other personal property, no more, no less.
It is not an authoritarian principle to view animals as more than property.
Labour has the opportunity to select the first ever woman Prime Minister just at the time it is likely Hilary will be the new POTUS.If Hilary can handle Bill then Yvette can handle Ed.I liked Yvette's answer when asked who wears the trousers in your house."We both do" she said.
Yvette Cooper could be Labour's Hilary.
Key to Labour regaining support is adoption of federalism allowing separate policy formulation in different parts of the UK.SLAB needs a change of direction away from the Branch Office of London Labour.SLAB must never ever be Better Together ever again with the Tories.In any future indyref Labour has to fight separately from the Tories. UK Labour should organise and put up candidates in NI too.
Congratulations on the most historically inaccurate post in the history of PB.
Which is some achievement when you consider Morris Dancer posts on a regular basis here
"My frustration is that "One Nation" was the right approach. The battle was always how to bridge the alleged "middle class" (the Mail would INSIST I was middle class. I don't think anyone is) with our declining roots in the public sector and our core vote. One nation could have done that - whilst I am a loud critic of Blair its for what he turned into post 2003 not the New Labour project. We were an extremely effective radical government in the first term - rediscovering that radicalism was the need especially when the deregulated economic system had bust itself."
I agree, and while for 10 years I was New Labour, I left the party very disillusioned in 2004 (the combination of the Iraq war and Milburns NHS privatisations).
What puzzles me is that despite the above, you voiced opposition to Liz Kendall, not sure why. Is it that you oppose her yourself? Or is it that she will be too divisive within the party?
In some ways this contest does seem to have come a bit early for Kendall, but she is 43 and cannot wait forever. 48 is a perfectly respectable age for a PM.
Mr. Eagles, a man who considers the Queen of Bithynia a superior general to Hannibal is in no position to criticise the historical knowledge of anyone else.
Labour has the opportunity to select the first ever woman Prime Minister just at the time it is likely Hilary will be the new POTUS.If Hilary can handle Bill then Yvette can handle Ed.I liked Yvette's answer when asked who wears the trousers in your house."We both do" she said. Yvette Cooper could be Labour's Hilary. Key to Labour regaining support is adoption of federalism allowing separate policy formulation in different parts of the UK.SLAB needs a change of direction away from the Branch Office of London Labour.SLAB must never ever be Better Together ever again with the Tories.In any future indyref Labour has to fight separately from the Tories. UK Labour should organise and put up candidates in NI too.
Congratulations on the most historically inaccurate post in the history of PB. Which is some achievement when you consider Morris Dancer posts on a regular basis here
Don't forget me. For once I will not snip the original, it is so wonderful.
I do hope that Labour can put together a decent vision for the country. It's not healthy for our politics to be in this state. I'm not an ideological Tory, and I don't want to feel as if I have no option but to vote Conservative, because their opposition is completely incoherent and policy-free.
calum - Should Labour's London head office be dealing with "the Scotland ball"? Surely that is Scottish Labour and Murphy's job. I thought the problem with SLAB was that it was too much ran from London, so them taking their eye off should give Murphy a time to shine.
If Murphy can't shine, that speaks volumes.
Someone is going to have to stop the level of infighting and backstabbing about to engulf SLAB - and this disarray will happen regardless of whether Murphy clings on or not. 100 into 15 doesn't go. 100 career politicians battling for 15 list seats will get very ugly.
It is a potential Catch 22 for London. They either sit back and watch Scottish Labour dissolve into chaos or they interfere and the Branch Office claims go back front and centre. I'm not sure which is least damaging.
I haven't seen any evidence that Labour economically overspent prior to the crash
Yes you have. Whether you accept that evidence or stick your head in the sand or refute it is up to you. But the evidence has been provided repeatedly.
Evidence 1: Labour ran a boomtime deficit for seven consecutive years prior to the crash. Evidence 2: Labour increased spending by 50% in real terms.
Accept that or not, but those are facts and that is evidence.
Ukip spy who infiltrated protest group 'tried to encourage abuse of Farage'
Ukip sent a spy to obtain “information from the inside” on an anti-Nigel Farage protest group, where campaigners say he tried to encourage activists to deface posters and heckle outside meetings.
calum - Should Labour's London head office be dealing with "the Scotland ball"? Surely that is Scottish Labour and Murphy's job. I thought the problem with SLAB was that it was too much ran from London, so them taking their eye off should give Murphy a time to shine.
If Murphy can't shine, that speaks volumes.
I think Jim has already failed to shine when he suffered what must be one of the greatest ever political defeats, losing all but one seat, I think if he had at least held his own seat then that would have been something. As SLABs rules require the leader to be a serving parliamentarian his resignation should have been automatic.
Personally I would prefer for Jim to linger on and lead SLAB into a further defeat in May 2016, where they would likely lose at least half of their 37 seats at Holyrood, given Jims track record in Scotland he would likely add to the scale of SLABs defeat. The party is at risk of disintegrating as SLAB MSPs fight to save their skins, suffice to say Jim is now putting his career before party and country.
It is not an authoritarian principle to view animals as more than property.
The only animal that is 'property' is a pet or a farm animal and we rightly have laws and our common humanity when taking responsibility for them. The life in the wild of a non husbanded or domesticated animal is one of unremitting desperation for survival and a cruel near starvation existence. As part of that they are selfish and uncaring about what they kill to stay alive. The term 'humanity' has no meaning in their existence. There is nothing more or less humane about fox hunting with hounds as opposed to killing by setting traps of one kind or another.
I am thoroughly baffled that the government would want a battle over repealing the Hunting Act, even if they are now pledged to allow a free vote on it. Like others I'd assumed it was completely ineffective and that hunts happened in any case, and it's an issue there will be Tory dissenters on, so why kick up a fuss on such a minor issue if you do not have to?
Because it's an issue the Prime Minister personally feel's quite strongly about?
Given he has a majority and won't be up for re-election in 2020, if repeal of the hunting ban is something Cameron want's to do then he has earned the right to have a go at it.
Well obviously he has a right to pursue anything he wants to pursue, it's a matter of if it is a good use of a finite amount of political capital; there's lots of things PMs want to do they don't do. His capital is pretty high right now so he should probably move on it fast if he wants to, but as to your point about him feeling strongly about it, perhaps he does, but not enough to make it like almost any other vote and whip it through it has to be noted.
OblitusSumMe - Fox hunting. It will give an excuse to energise the left. I think the police have better things to do than look after the resulting protests (not least at the site of the Hunts themselves. In any event the act should be amended not repealed. Always assuming there is a majority to do anything in the first place. How amazing is it that we are talking about fox hunting for gawd's sake! Harman as acting LOTO would respond to the budget. Who is Shadow Chancellor? The sad clue is that he ran Browns campaign to be leader in 2007 and Ball's unsuccessful campaign in 2010. He is married to a former special advisor to Gordon Brown. Nothing like a break from the past is there?
It is not an authoritarian principle to view animals as more than property.
The only animal that is 'property' is a pet or a farm animal and we rightly have laws and our common humanity when taking responsibility for them. The life in the wild of a non husbanded or domesticated animal is one of unremitting desperation for survival and a cruel near starvation existence. As part of that they are selfish and uncaring about what they kill to stay alive. The term 'humanity' has no meaning in their existence. There is nothing more or less humane about fox hunting with hounds as opposed to killing by setting traps of one kind or another.
What about breeding pests in or encouraging their breeding in order for them to then be hunted? Is that less humane than setting traps?
How amazing is it that we are talking about fox hunting for gawd's sake!
No kidding. What a clever feint from the Tories - people will get so worked up over the Hunting Act being debated again that they'll sell of the NHS wholesale or something. Well played, Cameron.
I presume the free vote on the Act was another thing that would have been dropped in any coalition talks? Although since it would not pass in such a coalition a situation, perhaps not.
I am thoroughly baffled that the government would want a battle over repealing the Hunting Act, even if they are now pledged to allow a free vote on it. Like others I'd assumed it was completely ineffective and that hunts happened in any case, and it's an issue there will be Tory dissenters on, so why kick up a fuss on such a minor issue if you do not have to?
Because it's an issue the Prime Minister personally feel's quite strongly about?
Given he has a majority and won't be up for re-election in 2020, if repeal of the hunting ban is something Cameron want's to do then he has earned the right to have a go at it.
Well obviously he has a right to pursue anything he wants to pursue, it's a matter of if it is a good use of a finite amount of political capital; there's lots of things PMs want to do they don't do. His capital is pretty high right now so he should probably move on it fast if he wants to, but as to your point about him feeling strongly about it, perhaps he does, but not enough to make it like almost any other vote and whip it through it has to be noted.
There is one issue that needs political capital spending on. English Votes for English Laws. Everything else is secondary and can wait.
I presume the free vote on the Act was another thing that would have been dropped in any coalition talks? Although since it would not pass in such a coalition a situation, perhaps not.
This situation reminds me of that 1992 Downing Street sketch where Tory cabinet have trashed 10 Downing Street and are sitting there saying, "Oh shit, we won!"
I guess the current strategy is to get all the stuff they expected to trade away to the LibDems voted down by their backbenchers early in the parliament so everyone will have forgotten about it by 2020.
I presume the free vote on the Act was another thing that would have been dropped in any coalition talks? Although since it would not pass in such a coalition a situation, perhaps not.
This situation reminds me of that 1992 Downing Street sketch where the Tories are sitting around in 10 Downing Street that they've trashed saying, "Oh shit, we won!"
I guess the current strategy is to get all the stuff they expected to trade away to the LibDems voted down by their backbenchers early in the parliament so everyone will have forgotten about it by 2020.
Mr. Tokyo, worth noting that the Conservatives will have known the Lib Dems aren't rubbish at negotiating, and they certain 'tradeable' policies might have been allowed by the Lib Dems specifically to cause the Conservatives damage. So I doubt there's anything too horrendous, because they couldn't guarantee negotiating away exactly what they wanted.
Can't the hunters be retrained to chase down badgers?
That way they can continue with their bloodlust while saving the population from the badger apocalypse, by far the most dangerous, concerning and ignored threat they face.
calum - Should Labour's London head office be dealing with "the Scotland ball"? Surely that is Scottish Labour and Murphy's job. I thought the problem with SLAB was that it was too much ran from London, so them taking their eye off should give Murphy a time to shine.
If Murphy can't shine, that speaks volumes.
Someone is going to have to stop the level of infighting and backstabbing about to engulf SLAB - and this disarray will happen regardless of whether Murphy clings on or not. 100 into 15 doesn't go. 100 career politicians battling for 15 list seats will get very ugly.
It is a potential Catch 22 for London. They either sit back and watch Scottish Labour dissolve into chaos or they interfere and the Branch Office claims go back front and centre. I'm not sure which is least damaging.
But infighting is what SLab does because for decades, when SLab was dominant at local and then Scottish levels, infighting was how you got the prizes. It wasn't about beating the Tories, Lib Dems or SNP - that came more-or-less by default - it was about beating your colleagues. And that will be a habit and a culture that will be very hard to break, particularly now that the prizes are so much less.
It is not an authoritarian principle to view animals as more than property.
Of course it is. Animal welfare legislation proceeds on the premise that the majority of the population have a right to impose their purely subjective moral views on the minority when the minority engage in an activity which causes no person any harm or damage. That is the same rationale as that which lay behind the now repealed prohibition on consenting sexual activity between adults of the same sex.
Consider the quite outrageously authoritarian provisions of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. By section 3 of that Act, a person may not remove a verminous badger set from his own land, even if it is causing considerable damage to his crops or property. By section 4, a person may not have a live badger under his possession or control, no matter how hungry he is or how lucrative the badger may be if sold. Quite absurd. Then contrast the protection given to animals and humans. By section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, it is an offence for a person negligently to cause unnecessary suffering to an animal. Yet a person may intentionally use any force he likes against another person in his own home, if he irrationally believes that the force is used in his own self-defence and provided the force is not grossly disproportionate to his irrational perception (R v Williams (1984) 78 Cr App R 276 (CA); Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, s. 76(5A)).
Mr. Tokyo, worth noting that the Conservatives will have known the Lib Dems aren't rubbish at negotiating, and they certain 'tradeable' policies might have been allowed by the Lib Dems specifically to cause the Conservatives damage. So I doubt there's anything too horrendous, because they couldn't guarantee negotiating away exactly what they wanted.
Nah, with negotiations you try to find positive-sum outcomes that work for both sides, so if jettisoning Tory policies designed for base-pleasing rather than actually doing was helpful to the Tories, they and the LibDems would have worked out a way to get it done.
calum - Should Labour's London head office be dealing with "the Scotland ball"? Surely that is Scottish Labour and Murphy's job. I thought the problem with SLAB was that it was too much ran from London, so them taking their eye off should give Murphy a time to shine.
If Murphy can't shine, that speaks volumes.
Someone is going to have to stop the level of infighting and backstabbing about to engulf SLAB - and this disarray will happen regardless of whether Murphy clings on or not. 100 into 15 doesn't go. 100 career politicians battling for 15 list seats will get very ugly.
It is a potential Catch 22 for London. They either sit back and watch Scottish Labour dissolve into chaos or they interfere and the Branch Office claims go back front and centre. I'm not sure which is least damaging.
But infighting is what SLab does because for decades, when SLab was dominant at local and then Scottish levels, infighting was how you got the prizes. It wasn't about beating the Tories, Lib Dems or SNP - that came more-or-less by default - it was about beating your colleagues. And that will be a habit and a culture that will be very hard to break, particularly now that the prizes are so much less.
With the exception of Monklands in 1994, it never got reported.
SLAB are now in the spotlight, they are being focused on like never before and the dirty linen will be visible to all. Every sectarian slur, ever sexist smear, every local split, they will be covered in depth and extensively. Can London really not step in when this is being covered not just locally but, possibly, nationally as well. Murphy's potential No-Confidence today is on the national news broadcasts and that's on a Saturday when the national news broadcasts are significantly shorter than other days.
The question is whether Labour are just having a run of poor form so no change needed (Burnham, Cooper) or whether there is something fundamental that needs fixing (Kendall, ?Creagh).
I haven't seen any evidence that Labour economically overspent prior to the crash
Yes you have. Whether you accept that evidence or stick your head in the sand or refute it is up to you. But the evidence has been provided repeatedly.
Evidence 1: Labour ran a boomtime deficit for seven consecutive years prior to the crash. Evidence 2: Labour increased spending by 50% in real terms.
Accept that or not, but those are facts and that is evidence.
Evidence 3 - debt as % of GDP dropped despite your other two points. The point about a booming economy is that you CAN spend more and have debt fall - growth outstrips spending.
I am amused as to how "a deficit" has become (a) a bad thing and (b) a Labour thing. Thatcher and Major governments ran bigger deficits for more years than Labour, yet deficits were apparently invented by Gordon Brown.
Again, I haven't seen evidence of an overspend. Investment that delivers needed infrastructure and drives economic growth is exactly what we need to be doing. That "investment" has become "deficit" has become "wrong" is a large part of the problem.
I haven't seen any evidence that Labour economically overspent prior to the crash
Yes you have. Whether you accept that evidence or stick your head in the sand or refute it is up to you. But the evidence has been provided repeatedly.
Evidence 1: Labour ran a boomtime deficit for seven consecutive years prior to the crash. Evidence 2: Labour increased spending by 50% in real terms.
Accept that or not, but those are facts and that is evidence.
Evidence 3 - debt as % of GDP dropped despite your other two points. The point about a booming economy is that you CAN spend more and have debt fall - growth outstrips spending.
I am amused as to how "a deficit" has become (a) a bad thing and (b) a Labour thing. Thatcher and Major governments ran bigger deficits for more years than Labour, yet deficits were apparently invented by Gordon Brown.
Again, I haven't seen evidence of an overspend. Investment that delivers needed infrastructure and drives economic growth is exactly what we need to be doing. That "investment" has become "deficit" has become "wrong" is a large part of the problem.
Debt to GDP rose massively comparing like points in the economic cycle. That is the structural deficit Labour ran.
Frankly, you can ignore the evidence if you wish. That's your prerogative. But Labour will continue to get hammered in England if it does likewise.
At this stage the most important thing is that at least three of the four candidates get the nominations they need. The biggest disaster for Labour would be to not have Kendall or Creagh in the race in the first place. I hope at least a few MPs consider this when deciding who to nominate. A contest that involves just Cooper and Burnham would be an unmitigated disaster for Labour. Having one or both of the other two involved would at least mean the front runners having to answer some difficult questions.
But, as ever with Labour, bet on the comfort blanket. That basically seems to be what Henry is saying in his piece.
I haven't seen any evidence that Labour economically overspent prior to the crash
Yes you have. Whether you accept that evidence or stick your head in the sand or refute it is up to you. But the evidence has been provided repeatedly.
Evidence 1: Labour ran a boomtime deficit for seven consecutive years prior to the crash. Evidence 2: Labour increased spending by 50% in real terms.
Accept that or not, but those are facts and that is evidence.
Evidence 3 - debt as % of GDP dropped despite your other two points. The point about a booming economy is that you CAN spend more and have debt fall - growth outstrips spending.
I am amused as to how "a deficit" has become (a) a bad thing and (b) a Labour thing. Thatcher and Major governments ran bigger deficits for more years than Labour, yet deficits were apparently invented by Gordon Brown.
Again, I haven't seen evidence of an overspend. Investment that delivers needed infrastructure and drives economic growth is exactly what we need to be doing. That "investment" has become "deficit" has become "wrong" is a large part of the problem.
Rochdale Pioneers carefully forgets all the warnings to Brown from the IMF downwards starting in 2003 and continuing up to the crash with the immortal words "The UK is the worse positioned to withstand the oncoming storm"
. It's why Labour are unelectable and will remain so as long as they ignore the obvious.
Not sure many people have noticed the Lib Dem leadership contest.
Ukip = The Wire in the sense of "come at the king, you best not miss" Labour = The Wire in the sense that it is full of characters it is hard to keep track, and even the important ones sometimes get killed off Lib Dems = Waiting for Godot
I haven't seen any evidence that Labour economically overspent prior to the crash
Yes you have. Whether you accept that evidence or stick your head in the sand or refute it is up to you. But the evidence has been provided repeatedly.
Evidence 1: Labour ran a boomtime deficit for seven consecutive years prior to the crash. Evidence 2: Labour increased spending by 50% in real terms.
Accept that or not, but those are facts and that is evidence.
Evidence 3 - debt as % of GDP dropped despite your other two points. The point about a booming economy is that you CAN spend more and have debt fall - growth outstrips spending.
I am amused as to how "a deficit" has become (a) a bad thing and (b) a Labour thing. Thatcher and Major governments ran bigger deficits for more years than Labour, yet deficits were apparently invented by Gordon Brown.
Again, I haven't seen evidence of an overspend. Investment that delivers needed infrastructure and drives economic growth is exactly what we need to be doing. That "investment" has become "deficit" has become "wrong" is a large part of the problem.
Rochdale Pioneers carefully forgets all the warnings to Brown from the IMF downwards starting in 2003 and continuing up to the crash with the immortal words "The UK is the worse positioned to withstand the oncoming storm"
. It's why Labour are unelectable and will remain so as long.
Not sure many people have noticed the Lib Dem leadership contest.
Ukip = The Wire in the sense of "come at the king, you best not miss" Labour = The Wire in the sense that it is full of characters it is hard to keep track, and even the important ones sometimes get killed off Lib Dems = Waiting for Godot
Lib Dems - The Wire...Omar Little's Crew as there is only handful of them....and they keep getting killed off.
Interesting post from Rochdale Pioneers. As that rare bird on PB, a Labour party insider, he/ she seems to confirm my view that there is a strong desire to move away from anyone too closely associate with either Brown or Miliband. That should help my preferred candidate, Liz Kendall, but she has to avoid being pigeon-holed as 'on the right' or as 'Blairite'. Those labels are potentially fatal to her chances - and fwiw, I don't think they're accurate either.
Lord help us all if I'm a "Labour party insider"! I am an elected town councillor and a minor party functionary locally. BTW where I differ from many on this site is that I don't just talk about politics I get out there and do it (and having people say "I'm voting for you" when you knock on the door is very nice...!) - but I don't bet.
A starter for 10. Investment has become a dirty word associated with "subsidy" which in turn suggests "failure". This country is desperate for a massive investment into infrastructure - roads, railways, airports, housing, fibre optics, power generating capacity to name a few. The market doesn't want to step in and do so. Government can borrow money at near 0% interest rates AND investors worldwide are desperate for something solid to spend their money on. All these projects pay a good ROI both in the short term as the money is spent and in the long term as they make our economy stronger and more competitive. In previous generations we would have been investing in all of these things, but this generation won't and no politician wants to challenge the "investment is subsidy is failure" narrative. Why not?
My apologies, Rochdale Pioneers. I simply meant someone who appears to know the Labour Party from the inside - and what you say confirms that. A problem with PB is that a lot of the comments on the Labour party leadership come from Tories and it's painfully obvious that they know nothing about how Labour party members and affiliates think.
I also agree with your point about investment, btw. It's why I strongly support projects such as Crossrail, HS2 and Heathrow expansion (coming soon, I hope).
It is not an authoritarian principle to view animals as more than property.
The only animal that is 'property' is a pet or a farm animal and we rightly have laws and our common humanity when taking responsibility for them. The life in the wild of a non husbanded or domesticated animal is one of unremitting desperation for survival and a cruel near starvation existence. As part of that they are selfish and uncaring about what they kill to stay alive. The term 'humanity' has no meaning in their existence. There is nothing more or less humane about fox hunting with hounds as opposed to killing by setting traps of one kind or another.
Well there are two sides to it.
I kept quails and turkeys and keep bees. There are basic standards of husbandry required to enable them to survive healthily - food, dry conditions etc.. So humans have a duty of care.
But at the same time, if left unchecked they can - and often do - cause chaos -anyone fancy a swarm of bees under their floorboards? Foxes and rats for example are pests.. I don't see much support for banning pest controllers from exterminating rats.
It's all a matter of a balanced viewpoint. Unbalanced people who think that injuring humans because of their own beliefs are a menace and can have long term destructive effects. After all, the British water vole is under threat from mink. The mink were released from captivity by Animal Rights activists.
And grey squirrels are highly destructive of song birds and their young as are magpies... People who oppose culling either appear to be narrow minded .. err idealists - err probably not idealists..
I trap foxes and squirrels not because I enjoy it but because the excess numbers do untold damage to native birds and bumble bees. (Foxes destroy and eat bumble bee nests - not many idealists will tell you that).
"In a 159-page ruling the tribunal was also outspoken in its criticism of former Labour councillor Mary Creagh, now MP for Wakefield, who made the initial complaint.
It described her as an "insensitive witness, lacking in balanced judgment and one who was prepared to make assumptions about honesty and integrity of others without any proper basis"."The ruling said: "The tribunal considers that her evidence was heavily influenced by her political motives.
She said today she "stood by" what she told the tribunal.
"I blew the whistle because I believed the Liberal Democrats were not meeting the standards we expect from people in public office. I invite people to look at my evidence and draw their own conclusions," Ms Creagh said."
Can't the hunters be retrained to chase down badgers?
That way they can continue with their bloodlust while saving the population from the badger apocalypse, by far the most dangerous, concerning and ignored threat they face.
What's your view on banning all private fishing on the basis of cruelty and allowing only commercial fishing where such activity is used to feed the nation?
Not sure many people have noticed the Lib Dem leadership contest.
Ukip = The Wire in the sense of "come at the king, you best not miss" Labour = The Wire in the sense that it is full of characters it is hard to keep track, and even the important ones sometimes get killed off Lib Dems = Waiting for Godot
Makes sense. Apparently, Beckett is Clegg's favourite writer ...
Serious question: was Murphy or Miliband more helpful to the SNP?
Better Together probably killed Labour but Murphy twisted the knife. Miliband was pretty much irrelevant, he won't have helped being a privileged London posh boy. But Murphy was such a bad decision.
Interesting post from Rochdale Pioneers. As that rare bird on PB, a Labour party insider, he/ she seems to confirm my view that there is a strong desire to move away from anyone too closely associate with either Brown or Miliband. That should help my preferred candidate, Liz Kendall, but she has to avoid being pigeon-holed as 'on the right' or as 'Blairite'. Those labels are potentially fatal to her chances - and fwiw, I don't think they're accurate either.
Lord help us all if I'm a "Labour party insider"! I am an elected town councillor and a minor party functionary locally. BTW where I differ from many on this site is that I don't just talk about politics I get out there and do it (and having people say "I'm voting for you" when you knock on the door is very nice...!) - but I don't bet.
A starter for 10. Investment has become a dirty word associated with "subsidy" which in turn suggests "failure". This country is desperate for a massive investment into infrastructure - roads, railways, airports, housing, fibre optics, power generating capacity to name a few. The market doesn't want to step in and do so. Government can borrow money at near 0% interest rates AND investors worldwide are desperate for something solid to spend their money on. All these projects pay a good ROI both in the short term as the money is spent and in the long term as they make our economy stronger and more competitive. In previous generations we would have been investing in all of these things, but this generation won't and no politician wants to challenge the "investment is subsidy is failure" narrative. Why not?
A problem with PB is that a lot of the comments on the Labour party leadership come from Tories and it's painfully obvious that they know nothing about how Labour party members and affiliates think.
Maybe. But the PB Tories told Labour it had picked a duff one with Ed.
Labour should listen to what we say. We are not without experience in picking a duff one as leader ourselves.
Nor without experience in dispatching them, once that was clear.
But very happy for Labour to continue to run in the opposite direction of what we suggest. Hur hur hur....
Rochdale Pioneer. ---- Spending must be sustainable. No matter who is in government. Spending and deficits are required in the recession end of the business cycle but in the upswing you need to see deficits fall and run surpluses. What you do not need to do is leave a £160 billion deficit to get rid of. Labour increased spending in real terms (common price levels) by 50% in 10 years. You need to grow up and realise that it is not a case of easy come easy go. In bald unadjusted terms spending was £341bn in 2000. In 2010 it was incredibly £673bn - thats nearly double! In 2015 it was £731bn - a 'mere' £58bn, a tiny fraction of Labour's spending increase. If we had carried on spending at the Labour rate spending would be £1 trillion. (ukpublicspendingdotcodotuk) You want to look at it another way - if labour over 10 years had increased spending at the rate Osborne has then total spending would've been some £460 billion in 2010 and £520bn now. Labour massively overspent when the economy did not need it and could not sustain it. I hope the above figures give some indication of the terribly difficult problem the incoming govt faced. This is contrasted with 1997 when Labour inherited spending which was under control and would deliver surpluses.
What Labour should do is find someone who repeatedly made comments about how inevitable their victory was, see who they think is the best leader, and pick someone as far removed as is possible. As I've found Kendall the most interesting of the candidates thus far, I'd therefore advise Labour to steer well clear of her, given my record on predicting success.
Serious question: was Murphy or Miliband more helpful to the SNP?
Better Together probably killed Labour but Murphy twisted the knife. Miliband was pretty much irrelevant, he won't have helped being a privileged London posh boy. But Murphy was such a bad decision.
Murphy's attempt to suck up to West Central Belt footie fans, [edit] and then hop to other bright ideas, is devastatingly critiqued here, for those who haven't seen it (with polling data which are of considerable interest for any discussion of football and politics in Scotland):
Interesting post from Rochdale Pioneers. As that rare bird on PB, a Labour party insider, he/ she seems to confirm my view that there is a strong desire to move away from anyone too closely associate with either Brown or Miliband. That should help my preferred candidate, Liz Kendall, but she has to avoid being pigeon-holed as 'on the right' or as 'Blairite'. Those labels are potentially fatal to her chances - and fwiw, I don't think they're accurate either.
Lord help us all if I'm a "Labour party insider"! I am an elected town councillor and a minor party functionary locally. BTW where I differ from many on this site is that I don't just talk about politics I get out there and do it (and having people say "I'm voting for you" when you knock on the door is very nice...!) - but I don't bet.
A starter for 10. Investment has become a dirty word associated with "subsidy" which in turn suggests "failure". This country is desperate for a massive investment into infrastructure - roads, railways, airports, housing, fibre optics, power generating capacity to name a few. The market doesn't want to step in and do so. Government can borrow money at near 0% interest rates AND investors worldwide are desperate for something solid to spend their money on. All these projects pay a good ROI both in the short term as the money is spent and in the long term as they make our economy stronger and more competitive. In previous generations we would have been investing in all of these things, but this generation won't and no politician wants to challenge the "investment is subsidy is failure" narrative. Why not?
A problem with PB is that a lot of the comments on the Labour party leadership come from Tories and it's painfully obvious that they know nothing about how Labour party members and affiliates think.
Maybe. But the PB Tories told Labour it had picked a duff one with Ed.
Labour should listen to what we say. We are not without experience in picking a duff one as leader ourselves.
Nor without experience in dispatching them, once that was clear.
But very happy for Labour to continue to run in the opposite direction of what we suggest. Hur hur hur....
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 3m3 minutes ago .@MaryCreaghMP :"Venture capitalists have been a dirty word in our party"
2 words not one, but some seem to be very, very keen to ditch Ed Stone and his move to the left. If Labour had got in, the in-fighting at Cabinet level might have been a joy to behold.
@Morris_Dancer I noticed that Guido was linking to a 3D print of The Ed Stone as a prize in the caption competition. Perhaps the Labour leadership contenders might be asked about what they intend to do with it?
calum - Should Labour's London head office be dealing with "the Scotland ball"? Surely that is Scottish Labour and Murphy's job. I thought the problem with SLAB was that it was too much ran from London, so them taking their eye off should give Murphy a time to shine.
If Murphy can't shine, that speaks volumes.
Turd's cannot be polished
Thus speaks living proof...
I see the cockroaches are still with us, back under your rock cretin where you belong.
Cooper would just provide an open goal for the Tory Press, who will constantly imply that Ed2 is pulling her strings. Please no. Burnham would be a bit better, but also comes with baggage. I'm not sure Creagh is really leadership material. Kendall is the one I quite like the look of. Has little baggage and a libertarian streak that appeals to me. A female leader opposite will be a real challenge for Dave and his 'woman problem'.
Cameron does not have a 'woman problem'. Lets hope Labour keep going with that one. I think dealing with Cooper would be child's play considering all the practice Cameron will be getting with Sturgeon. (I hope that comes across right!). To be frank, I think Sturgeon and her hectoring manner is rather queering the pitch for female politicians.
Yes jessie wierdo's like you are scared of woman who can speak
Serious question: was Murphy or Miliband more helpful to the SNP?
Better Together probably killed Labour but Murphy twisted the knife. Miliband was pretty much irrelevant, he won't have helped being a privileged London posh boy. But Murphy was such a bad decision.
Murphy's attempt to suck up to West Central Belt footie fans, [edit] and then hop to other bright ideas, is devastatingly critiqued here, for those who haven't seen it (with polling data which are of considerable interest for any discussion of football and politics in Scotland):
I think Jim Murphy was the worst possible candidate, he was the MSM/Westminster candidate, they'd been better off leaving Sanwar in place. I think once he brought on McTirnen and McDougall SLABs fate was sealed as these guys got to work BT style. Even more sadly his election as leader was in part likely due to Tory activists joining SLAB.
Cooper would just provide an open goal for the Tory Press, who will constantly imply that Ed2 is pulling her strings. Please no. Burnham would be a bit better, but also comes with baggage. I'm not sure Creagh is really leadership material. Kendall is the one I quite like the look of. Has little baggage and a libertarian streak that appeals to me. A female leader opposite will be a real challenge for Dave and his 'woman problem'.
Cameron does not have a 'woman problem'. Lets hope Labour keep going with that one. I think dealing with Cooper would be child's play considering all the practice Cameron will be getting with Sturgeon. (I hope that comes across right!). To be frank, I think Sturgeon and her hectoring manner is rather queering the pitch for female politicians.
Yes jessie wierdo's like you are scared of woman who can speak
Thanks for rising to the bait. ''The former "Iron Lady" of British politics remains a heroine to many Tories on the right. They look back on her glory days in the 1980s with reverential nostalgia, but the party is split over her continued relevance. "She's a very alienating figure for middle-of-the-road voters because she comes across as shrill and strident and bossy and hectoring," Harris said. "She sounds like a figure from another age.'' '' http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2001-08-26/news/0108260415_1_william-hague-british-politics-margaret-thatcher Typical Leftie 'jessie wierdos'.
Comments
Back on topic, I think Cooper is a terrible communicator; Kendall or Creagh beat her hands down - that's assuming that Labour want to play the rather silly gender card.
Given he has a majority and won't be up for re-election in 2020, if repeal of the hunting ban is something Cameron want's to do then he has earned the right to have a go at it.
Yvette Cooper could be Labour's Hilary.
Key to Labour regaining support is adoption of federalism allowing separate policy formulation in different parts of the UK.SLAB needs a change of direction away from the Branch Office of London Labour.SLAB must never ever be Better Together ever again with the Tories.In any future indyref Labour has to fight separately from the Tories.
UK Labour should organise and put up candidates in NI too.
However, a vote would use up a little of Cameron's precious capital, it will just be another thing for the left to obsess about 'nasty Tories'. As such, it might best be left alone.
It's also another thing to keep the outraged left occupied with while Osborne proceeds with the central business of government unmolested.
Harman will be responding to Osborne's emergency budget...
Its spending. With payback. This preposterous debate about debt and deficit has now moved onto "overspending". I haven't seen any evidence that Labour economically overspent prior to the crash, not when debt to GDP fell. But politically its now become accepted - despite Cameron and Osborne in opposition pledging not only to match our "overspending" pound for pound but to go even further so that they could "share in the proceeds of [further] growth" through tax cuts on top.
It is a political failure on an epic scale to allow basic historical facts to be rewritten. It demonstrates how Labour had no narrative post 2010, just fiddling around the edges of the Tory narrative. It surely can't be that hard to do? Reframe the debate. Its not "we will cut slightly less hard than they will" its "here's our vision for society"
What will the SNP do ?
It could be the first test of any sort of EVEL...
Which is some achievement when you consider Morris Dancer posts on a regular basis here
"My frustration is that "One Nation" was the right approach. The battle was always how to bridge the alleged "middle class" (the Mail would INSIST I was middle class. I don't think anyone is) with our declining roots in the public sector and our core vote. One nation could have done that - whilst I am a loud critic of Blair its for what he turned into post 2003 not the New Labour project. We were an extremely effective radical government in the first term - rediscovering that radicalism was the need especially when the deregulated economic system had bust itself."
I agree, and while for 10 years I was New Labour, I left the party very disillusioned in 2004 (the combination of the Iraq war and Milburns NHS privatisations).
What puzzles me is that despite the above, you voiced opposition to Liz Kendall, not sure why. Is it that you oppose her yourself? Or is it that she will be too divisive within the party?
In some ways this contest does seem to have come a bit early for Kendall, but she is 43 and cannot wait forever. 48 is a perfectly respectable age for a PM.
For once I will not snip the original, it is so wonderful.
I do hope that Labour can put together a decent vision for the country. It's not healthy for our politics to be in this state. I'm not an ideological Tory, and I don't want to feel as if I have no option but to vote Conservative, because their opposition is completely incoherent and policy-free.
"Yvette Cooper could be Labour's Hilary."
To paraphrase Hodges;
"he stood staring at his computer screen, just screaming and screaming, it was so bad his family thought he was having a heart attack"
Could be a first SNP whip rebellion...
It is a potential Catch 22 for London. They either sit back and watch Scottish Labour dissolve into chaos or they interfere and the Branch Office claims go back front and centre. I'm not sure which is least damaging.
Evidence 1: Labour ran a boomtime deficit for seven consecutive years prior to the crash.
Evidence 2: Labour increased spending by 50% in real terms.
Accept that or not, but those are facts and that is evidence.
Ukip spy who infiltrated protest group 'tried to encourage abuse of Farage'
Ukip sent a spy to obtain “information from the inside” on an anti-Nigel Farage protest group, where campaigners say he tried to encourage activists to deface posters and heckle outside meetings.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/16/ukip-spy-who-infiltrated-protest-group-tried-to-encourage-abuse-of-farage
The life in the wild of a non husbanded or domesticated animal is one of unremitting desperation for survival and a cruel near starvation existence. As part of that they are selfish and uncaring about what they kill to stay alive. The term 'humanity' has no meaning in their existence. There is nothing more or less humane about fox hunting with hounds as opposed to killing by setting traps of one kind or another.
Chris Bryant to back Yvette
How amazing is it that we are talking about fox hunting for gawd's sake!
Harman as acting LOTO would respond to the budget. Who is Shadow Chancellor? The sad clue is that he ran Browns campaign to be leader in 2007 and Ball's unsuccessful campaign in 2010. He is married to a former special advisor to Gordon Brown. Nothing like a break from the past is there?
Not sure many people have noticed the Lib Dem leadership contest.
I presume the free vote on the Act was another thing that would have been dropped in any coalition talks? Although since it would not pass in such a coalition a situation, perhaps not.
We will either see Farage disposed of in a coup, or stay on in paranoid autocratic isolation. I am not sure which I prefer.
I guess the current strategy is to get all the stuff they expected to trade away to the LibDems voted down by their backbenchers early in the parliament so everyone will have forgotten about it by 2020.
That way they can continue with their bloodlust while saving the population from the badger apocalypse, by far the most dangerous, concerning and ignored threat they face.
Consider the quite outrageously authoritarian provisions of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. By section 3 of that Act, a person may not remove a verminous badger set from his own land, even if it is causing considerable damage to his crops or property. By section 4, a person may not have a live badger under his possession or control, no matter how hungry he is or how lucrative the badger may be if sold. Quite absurd. Then contrast the protection given to animals and humans. By section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, it is an offence for a person negligently to cause unnecessary suffering to an animal. Yet a person may intentionally use any force he likes against another person in his own home, if he irrationally believes that the force is used in his own self-defence and provided the force is not grossly disproportionate to his irrational perception (R v Williams (1984) 78 Cr App R 276 (CA); Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, s. 76(5A)).
Anyone the slightest idea what that record is?
SLAB are now in the spotlight, they are being focused on like never before and the dirty linen will be visible to all. Every sectarian slur, ever sexist smear, every local split, they will be covered in depth and extensively. Can London really not step in when this is being covered not just locally but, possibly, nationally as well. Murphy's potential No-Confidence today is on the national news broadcasts and that's on a Saturday when the national news broadcasts are significantly shorter than other days.
Oh it's going to be fun.
" Yevette Cooper could be Labour's Hilary"
Oh dear Lord ......... Tell me I didn't just see that posted.
The question is whether Labour are just having a run of poor form so no change needed (Burnham, Cooper) or whether there is something fundamental that needs fixing (Kendall, ?Creagh).
I am amused as to how "a deficit" has become (a) a bad thing and (b) a Labour thing. Thatcher and Major governments ran bigger deficits for more years than Labour, yet deficits were apparently invented by Gordon Brown.
Again, I haven't seen evidence of an overspend. Investment that delivers needed infrastructure and drives economic growth is exactly what we need to be doing. That "investment" has become "deficit" has become "wrong" is a large part of the problem.
Frankly, you can ignore the evidence if you wish. That's your prerogative. But Labour will continue to get hammered in England if it does likewise.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3084239/Labour-leadership-contender-Liz-Kendall-reveals-relationship-Inbetweeners-star-Greg-Davies-over.html
I seem to remember a couple of days ago people realised on her that Kendall was dating Davies...it seems not any more.
But, as ever with Labour, bet on the comfort blanket. That basically seems to be what Henry is saying in his piece.
. It's why Labour are unelectable and will remain so as long as they ignore the obvious.
Labour = The Wire in the sense that it is full of characters it is hard to keep track, and even the important ones sometimes get killed off
Lib Dems = Waiting for Godot
I also agree with your point about investment, btw. It's why I strongly support projects such as Crossrail, HS2 and Heathrow expansion (coming soon, I hope).
I kept quails and turkeys and keep bees. There are basic standards of husbandry required to enable them to survive healthily - food, dry conditions etc.. So humans have a duty of care.
But at the same time, if left unchecked they can - and often do - cause chaos -anyone fancy a swarm of bees under their floorboards? Foxes and rats for example are pests.. I don't see much support for banning pest controllers from exterminating rats.
It's all a matter of a balanced viewpoint. Unbalanced people who think that injuring humans because of their own beliefs are a menace and can have long term destructive effects. After all, the British water vole is under threat from mink. The mink were released from captivity by Animal Rights activists.
And grey squirrels are highly destructive of song birds and their young as are magpies... People who oppose culling either appear to be narrow minded .. err idealists - err probably not idealists..
I trap foxes and squirrels not because I enjoy it but because the excess numbers do untold damage to native birds and bumble bees. (Foxes destroy and eat bumble bee nests - not many idealists will tell you that).
from an old case Labour vs LD administration in Islington
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2006/jan/05/localgovernment.politics1
"In a 159-page ruling the tribunal was also outspoken in its criticism of former Labour councillor Mary Creagh, now MP for Wakefield, who made the initial complaint.
It described her as an "insensitive witness, lacking in balanced judgment and one who was prepared to make assumptions about honesty and integrity of others without any proper basis"."The ruling said: "The tribunal considers that her evidence was heavily influenced by her political motives.
She said today she "stood by" what she told the tribunal.
"I blew the whistle because I believed the Liberal Democrats were not meeting the standards we expect from people in public office. I invite people to look at my evidence and draw their own conclusions," Ms Creagh said."
No more "catch and throwback" in other words
https://twitter.com/RosieMKane/status/599541354751008768
I'm surprised it took Murphy so long.
That's 3 gone. Or 4. Farage appears to have become Schrodinger's party leader.
He fundilyfundily must STAY #SaveJim
Serious question: was Murphy or Miliband more helpful to the SNP?
Labour should listen to what we say. We are not without experience in picking a duff one as leader ourselves.
Nor without experience in dispatching them, once that was clear.
But very happy for Labour to continue to run in the opposite direction of what we suggest. Hur hur hur....
(ukpublicspendingdotcodotuk)
You want to look at it another way - if labour over 10 years had increased spending at the rate Osborne has then total spending would've been some £460 billion in 2010 and £520bn now.
Labour massively overspent when the economy did not need it and could not sustain it. I hope the above figures give some indication of the terribly difficult problem the incoming govt faced. This is contrasted with 1997 when Labour inherited spending which was under control and would deliver surpluses.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/how-the-north-was-lost/
#SaveJim
.@MaryCreaghMP :"Venture capitalists have been a dirty word in our party"
2 words not one, but some seem to be very, very keen to ditch Ed Stone and his move to the left. If Labour had got in, the in-fighting at Cabinet level might have been a joy to behold.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b7/Stukeley_fire_at_Avebury.JPG
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11609988/Labours-Ed-Stone-found-hidden-at-an-industrial-estate-called-Westminster.html
http://www.visitcumbria.com/car/king-edward-memorial/
''The former "Iron Lady" of British politics remains a heroine to many Tories on the right. They look back on her glory days in the 1980s with reverential nostalgia, but the party is split over her continued relevance.
"She's a very alienating figure for middle-of-the-road voters because she comes across as shrill and strident and bossy and hectoring," Harris said. "She sounds like a figure from another age.'' ''
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2001-08-26/news/0108260415_1_william-hague-british-politics-margaret-thatcher
Typical Leftie 'jessie wierdos'.
https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/599555935724511233