Don't be so silly. All they are doing is judging whether it is genuinely English only legislation which traditionally they would have abstained on or whether they see cross border issues in which case they will pile in against fox hunting.
What these guys seem to have failed to notice is that the Scottish Tories faced their extinction level event 20 years ago and are showing no signs of recovery, if anything their older voter demographic is gradually dying out.
Hasn't the Scottish Tory vote risen in numbers at each election since 2001? Hardly dying out.
Scottish Tory vote %s and seats - I'm not seeing any positive trend here:
1979 31.4% 22 / 72
1983 28.4% 21 / 72
1987 24.0% 10 / 72
1992 25.8% 11 / 72
1997 17.5% 0 / 72
2001 15.6% 1 / 72
2005 15.8% 1 / 59
2010 16.7% 1 / 59
2015 14.9% 1 / 59
I said in numbers. Your thesis was the Tory party was 'dying out'. Yet in terms of numbers, it is growing.
Isn't 14.9 less than 16.7?
You missed the crucial "%" symbol, Sunil.
14.9% is than 16.7%?
Your lack of comprehension is disturbing..........
Mr. Calum, if the SNP could play a role defeating the motion they could use it to emphasise their power and how they 'care' about the whole UK (even English foxes), perhaps even as an argument against EVEL.
But if the numbers don't stack up, they may not want to vote against and highlight their weakness, and can always claim the moral high ground (it's devolved, doesn't affect us etc etc).
It's politically sticky if they abstain, the environmentalists won't listen to those arguments (or any really). The SNP is the broadest church possible, they risk starting to lose groups if their policies and voting patterns start to clash.
The Tories look to be governing from the centre-right, rather than the centre when looking at proposals on the HRA, fox-hunting, the snoopers' charter, and a number of newcomers to government, such as Priti Patel, Justin Tomlinson, and Caroline Dinnage.
Every single one of those is a fringe issue only of interest to political anoraks.
99% of people wouldn't even have the faintest idea of what the snooper's charter is - let alone how on earth it could affect them in any practical way.
Ditto the HRA - it may affect whether someone on the TV gets deported. It won't affect 99.999% of the population.
Anoraks will get excited. 99% of people won't even be aware of the issues and they will have zero impact at the next GE.
You don't have to rely on me - where did these issues come on the MORI Issues Index? Did any of them register even 1%?
As as @rcs1000 has said, it's less about those issues individually, and more how collectively pandering towards' the grassroots base of the Conservative party affects voters' perception of the party.
At some point you will begin to cotton on to the fact that the so-called pandering to the grassroots base of the Conservative party has a huge overlap with the interests of the voters who win and lose elections.
But hopefully not for a few more elections yet.
If that was the case, the Tories' would have won in 2001, and 2005. The voters who win elections generally aren't hardcore right-wing, they are usually in the centre.
The UK has moved on from 2001/5. The country is rather more right wing, now.
Yes. But the SNP are likely to vote en-bloc for everything. The sort of discipline that can win you big, big favours.
Also, Tartan Tories and all that.
On hunting, as a vegetarian (for animal welfare reasons) who grew up in the countryside, I find the amount of time spent on this issue baffling. I find the 'sport' unpleasant and would never take part (not that I've ever been asked!) but as an animal welfare/rights issue it is vanishingly microscopic in impact compared to factory farming (N.B. this is not an invitation to engage in the vegetarianism debate!).
Fox populations need to be controlled to maintain our ecosystem. I don't understand how chasing and torturing them makes for a fun weekend activity but in the grand scheme I'm not about to lose any sleep over it.
But we'll see what else happens. I don't think Japan will back down over the disputed islands between itself and China.
That's a 3 or even 4 way dispute between much more capable players over a bunch of islands though. It's China vs Taiwan vs S.Korea vs Japan. Though lately there is a tendency of of the non Japan countries to group together against Japan on this issue when Japan has more conservative-nationalist governments.
Kerry's expressed concern about China's desire to grab the South China Sea [seizing territory of many other nations]: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-32762659 However, it'd be hard to see them being stopped.
It's a very practical problem. How do you own a coral reef a thousand miles from the nearest mainland and if you can then who owned it first. China's claims go back to the pre-colonial era at a time when the neighbouring states did not exist, and even if someone disagrees with those claims they don't have the capabilities to claim those reefs for themselves. So in the end the reefs go de-facto to China, since no other is willing or capable to acquire them.
The Tories look to be governing from the centre-right, rather than the centre when looking at proposals on the HRA, fox-hunting, the snoopers' charter, and a number of newcomers to government, such as Priti Patel, Justin Tomlinson, and Caroline Dinnage.
Every single one of those is a fringe issue only of interest to political anoraks.
99% of people wouldn't even have the faintest idea of what the snooper's charter is - let alone how on earth it could affect them in any practical way.
Ditto the HRA - it may affect whether someone on the TV gets deported. It won't affect 99.999% of the population.
Anoraks will get excited. 99% of people won't even be aware of the issues and they will have zero impact at the next GE.
You don't have to rely on me - where did these issues come on the MORI Issues Index? Did any of them register even 1%?
As as @rcs1000 has said, it's less about those issues individually, and more how collectively pandering towards' the grassroots base of the Conservative party affects voters' perception of the party.
At some point you will begin to cotton on to the fact that the so-called pandering to the grassroots base of the Conservative party has a huge overlap with the interests of the voters who win and lose elections.
But hopefully not for a few more elections yet.
If that was the case, the Tories' would have won in 2001, and 2005. The voters who win elections generally aren't hardcore right-wing, they are usually in the centre.
The UK has moved on from 2001/5. The country is rather more right wing, now.
On the issues of immigration and welfare, yes. On other issues - not so much. And even then, I suspect that this country has always been fairly right wing on immigration, it's just that it's become much more of an issue post 2004. So the only real change has been on welfare.
What these guys seem to have failed to notice is that the Scottish Tories faced their extinction level event 20 years ago and are showing no signs of recovery, if anything their older voter demographic is gradually dying out.
Hasn't the Scottish Tory vote risen in numbers at each election since 2001? Hardly dying out.
Scottish Tory vote %s and seats - I'm not seeing any positive trend here:
1979 31.4% 22 / 72
1983 28.4% 21 / 72
1987 24.0% 10 / 72
1992 25.8% 11 / 72
1997 17.5% 0 / 72
2001 15.6% 1 / 72
2005 15.8% 1 / 59
2010 16.7% 1 / 59
2015 14.9% 1 / 59
I said in numbers. Your thesis was the Tory party was 'dying out'. Yet in terms of numbers, it is growing.
Isn't 14.9 less than 16.7?
You missed the crucial "%" symbol, Sunil.
14.9% is than 16.7%?
Your lack of comprehension is disturbing..........
It's a very practical problem. How do you own a coral reef a thousand miles from the nearest mainland and if you can then who owned it first.
China's claims go back to the pre-colonial era at a time when the neighbouring states did not exist, and even if someone disagrees with those claims they don't have the capabilities to claim those reefs for themselves. So in the end the reefs go de-facto to China, since no other is willing or capable to acquire them.
My understanding was that China was not the only country in physical possession of some of the coral reefs in the area. Wikipedia states that there are military forces from Taiwan, Vietnam, the Phillipines and Malaysia occupying one or more of the reefs.
This makes the situation considerably more dangerous then you make out.
It certainly won't be a free vote for the SNP. It is hardly a matter of great individual conscience - just a question of whether you let the Scots haiting arristocracy of England return to one of their favourite pastimes of slaughtering animals in a cruel and a totally reprehensible way.
My guess is that the SNP will find a reason to vote against and scupper the Cameron plans.
After a surprising amount of speculation about SNP and fox hunting - no decision: twitter.com/ARobertsonSNP/status/599648146545868803
Ironic really if fox hunting (or culling really) sets a 'SNP votes on English only laws' hare running.
But that's precisely what they want.
If the SNP can embarrass the government and defeat the Tories over something that matters to them, whatever it is, whilst riling the English by voting on their laws at the same time: they will take it.
That's why the Tories need to either ensure EFVEL is passed first, so the SNP are out for the count, or do a backroom deal to secure their abstention in return for further devolution concessions.
Throughout, stealth was key to the Conservatives’ success. Not only did they know the public polls were wrong, but Tory insiders now admit they deliberately encouraged Labour to build up the myth that Mr Miliband and his union allies had the superior street campaigning machine.
The story ran, to the Tories’ amusement, that Labour had thousands more activists, better trained and motivated, saturating target seats with Labour leaflets and election messages. “But there was never any evidence of them,” one senior Conservative said. “Labour must have been moving imaginary soldiers around or something.”
Every single one of those is a fringe issue only of interest to political anoraks. snip
...As as @rcs1000 has said, it's less about those issues individually, and more how collectively pandering towards' the grassroots base of the Conservative party affects voters' perception of the party.
What is wrong with replacing the HRA with a Bill of Rights which includes the ECHR ? And giving parliament the final say on UK laws. This is what the issue of renegotiation with the EU is all about.
It certainly won't be a free vote for the SNP. It is hardly a matter of great individual conscience - just a question of whether you let the Scots haiting arristocracy of England return to one of their favourite pastimes of slaughtering animals in a cruel and a totally reprehensible way.
My guess is that the SNP will find a reason to vote against and scupper the Cameron plans.
I think this too. The SNP don't really have much to lose from voting against repealing the fox-hunting ban.
My understanding was that China was not the only country in physical possession of some of the coral reefs in the area. Wikipedia states that there are military forces from Taiwan, Vietnam, the Phillipines and Malaysia occupying one or more of the reefs.
This makes the situation considerably more dangerous then you make out.
With 750 small islands I'm sure they can afford to take one or two.
The Tories look to be governing from the centre-right, rather than the centre when looking at proposals on the HRA, fox-hunting, the snoopers' charter, and a number of newcomers to government, such as Priti Patel, Justin Tomlinson, and Caroline Dinnage.
Every single one of those is a fringe issue only of interest to political anoraks.
99% of people wouldn't even have the faintest idea of what the snooper's charter is - let alone how on earth it could affect them in any practical way.
Ditto the HRA - it may affect whether someone on the TV gets deported. It won't affect 99.999% of the population.
Anoraks will get excited. 99% of people won't even be aware of the issues and they will have zero impact at the next GE.
You don't have to rely on me - where did these issues come on the MORI Issues Index? Did any of them register even 1%?
As as @rcs1000 has said, it's less about those issues individually, and more how collectively pandering towards' the grassroots base of the Conservative party affects voters' perception of the party.
At some point you will begin to cotton on to the fact that the so-called pandering to the grassroots base of the Conservative party has a huge overlap with the interests of the voters who win and lose elections.
But hopefully not for a few more elections yet.
If that was the case, the Tories' would have won in 2001, and 2005. The voters who win elections generally aren't hardcore right-wing, they are usually in the centre.
The UK has moved on from 2001/5. The country is rather more right wing, now.
On the issues of immigration and welfare, yes. On other issues - not so much. And even then, I suspect that this country has always been fairly right wing on immigration, it's just that it's become much more of an issue post 2004. So the only real change has been on welfare.
Immigration and welfare have increased in salience, certainly. Don't also forget the growth of marketplace choice, frustration over English laws and devolution, identity politics, taxation and European integration.
The Left are starting to lose most of those arguments. This has been masked by their absolute dominance in London, the broadcasting media and the performing arts. But it is a real trend nonetheless.
It certainly won't be a free vote for the SNP. It is hardly a matter of great individual conscience - just a question of whether you let the Scots haiting arristocracy of England return to one of their favourite pastimes of slaughtering animals in a cruel and a totally reprehensible way.
My guess is that the SNP will find a reason to vote against and scupper the Cameron plans.
Once EVEL goes through, it doesn't matter what the SNP think about hunting in England.
What these guys seem to have failed to notice is that the Scottish Tories faced their extinction level event 20 years ago and are showing no signs of recovery, if anything their older voter demographic is gradually dying out.
Hasn't the Scottish Tory vote risen in numbers at each election since 2001? Hardly dying out.
Scottish Tory vote %s and seats - I'm not seeing any positive trend here:
1979 31.4% 22 / 72
1983 28.4% 21 / 72
1987 24.0% 10 / 72
1992 25.8% 11 / 72
1997 17.5% 0 / 72
2001 15.6% 1 / 72
2005 15.8% 1 / 59
2010 16.7% 1 / 59
2015 14.9% 1 / 59
I said in numbers. Your thesis was the Tory party was 'dying out'. Yet in terms of numbers, it is growing.
Isn't 14.9 less than 16.7?
You missed the crucial "%" symbol, Sunil.
14.9% is than 16.7%?
Your lack of comprehension is disturbing..........
Ooops. 14.9% is Less than 16.7%?
Yes, but I'm talking about numbers of voters. Silly!
Throughout, stealth was key to the Conservatives’ success. Not only did they know the public polls were wrong, but Tory insiders now admit they deliberately encouraged Labour to build up the myth that Mr Miliband and his union allies had the superior street campaigning machine.
The story ran, to the Tories’ amusement, that Labour had thousands more activists, better trained and motivated, saturating target seats with Labour leaflets and election messages. “But there was never any evidence of them,” one senior Conservative said. “Labour must have been moving imaginary soldiers around or something.”
Every single one of those is a fringe issue only of interest to political anoraks. snip
...As as @rcs1000 has said, it's less about those issues individually, and more how collectively pandering towards' the grassroots base of the Conservative party affects voters' perception of the party.
What is wrong with replacing the HRA with a Bill of Rights which includes the ECHR ? And giving parliament the final say on UK laws. This is what the issue of renegotiation with the EU is all about.
The EU and the ECHR are separate entities. (And it's worth noting that the EU's plans to join the ECHR have been halted.) I
{snip} The UK has moved on from 2001/5. The country is rather more right wing, now.
Which is a positive thing for everyone. The best way to keep this momentum up is to throw the Scots out of the Union as quickly as possible. That should make easier our escape from the EU ... and, it seems, the return of proper foxhunting!
Immigration and welfare have increased in salience, certainly. Don't also forget the growth of marketplace choice, frustration over English laws and devolution, identity politics, taxation and European integration.
The Left are starting to lose most of those arguments. This has been masked by their absolute dominance in London, the broadcasting media and the performing arts. But it is a real trend nonetheless.
I'm unclear in what you're referring to in regard to market place choice - if it's in reference to education and health et al, then I have seen hardly any public support for market intervention into public services at all. If anything, on those issues the left is still pretty much winning the argument - I rarely saw any polling data, which showed an endorsement for Michael Gove's education reforms, and it's to Jeremy Hunt's credit that he managed to keep the NHS on the low, given that it's still a problematic issue for those on the right.
I'm not convinced that English laws/devolution is really something that many people care about. I have yet see a MORI index show that's the top of people concerns; I'd say the same in regard to identity politics, too.
Taxation is one I can't agree with either. Labour's polices on the 50p tax cut etc. actually polled pretty well - illustrating there is some desire for a more redistributive tax system.
And for all the unpopular of the EU, and the incompetence of the Left for not making any real cohesive arguments for the EU, many polls still show 'IN' winning.
Is the SNP contemplating shooting their foot along with foxes?
Fancy the "radical left" SNP voting in favour of fox hunting alongside Tories. That will be exhibit A in any Labour counterattack in scotland.
The sad thing is that Labour, UKIP and the LibDems are going to be tied up in knots in their leadership battles, that for the next few months the SNP may as well deputise for Labour as the Official Opposition. The other 3 parties have probably not even given foxes a second thought.
Every single one of those is a fringe issue only of interest to political anoraks. snip
...As as @rcs1000 has said, it's less about those issues individually, and more how collectively pandering towards' the grassroots base of the Conservative party affects voters' perception of the party.
What is wrong with replacing the HRA with a Bill of Rights which includes the ECHR ? And giving parliament the final say on UK laws. This is what the issue of renegotiation with the EU is all about.
The EU and the ECHR are separate entities. (And it's worth noting that the EU's plans to join the ECHR have been halted.) I
Sorry, I know the EU and ECHR are separate (and the halted plans) but the principle of repatriating powers is the same. So I am happy with the logic behind both. We have no details as yet.
I'm an Opinion Polling addict, and, and I've been fighting to get off Polling Data - shut up, TSE! - and, um, since last August. I've been in rehab twice, and I don't wanna be like people like Angus Reid, that were... and stuff like that. I wanna be a survivor.
I mean I died again on Election Night. So, I'm not... I'm not... my cats' lives are out. I... I just wanna say sorry to all the fans and stuff, and uh, I'm glad to be alive, and sorry to me mum as well.
I just want them to know that it's not cool. It's not a cool thing to be an addict. It's not... you know, you're a slave to it, and it took... it's taken everything away from me that I loved, and so I've got to rebuild my life.
I suggest you take a passion for Bollywood and cricket like your compatriots. There is still time to grow into a well rounded Indian.
Time for a little good old fashioned hobby. Dare I suggest an interest in railways...
Well, I did do the Nuneaton to Leicester line for the first time a few weeks back
Leicester has a particularly fine station, a lovely piece of Victorian Gothic.
There's also the old and now disused Great Central station over north of Jewry Wall; is it any good? I don't remember much about it except the massive industrial brick viaducts to the north and south (alas partly demolished even in the 1980s). And a huge underpass lined with white brick like the biggest public loo in the world. But Sunil can take a ride on the Great Central preserved line to recall the only continental gauge line in the UK before HS1 and built in anticipation of the Channel Tunnel ...
And I never checked out the Leicester and Swannington terminus building, if it still existed, though it was a nice walk along the line up to the City Farm ...
My understanding was that China was not the only country in physical possession of some of the coral reefs in the area. Wikipedia states that there are military forces from Taiwan, Vietnam, the Phillipines and Malaysia occupying one or more of the reefs.
This makes the situation considerably more dangerous then you make out.
With 750 small islands I'm sure they can afford to take one or two.
The wikipedia military occupation map suggests that powers other than China hold a considerable number of the islands.
I don't know how these military occupations compare to the Chinese efforts, but it doesn't seem to me as though China is the majority incumbent. The other countries will be more willing to take action to enforce claims that they already hold, because of loss-aversion.
Immigration and welfare have increased in salience, certainly. Don't also forget the growth of marketplace choice, frustration over English laws and devolution, identity politics, taxation and European integration.
The Left are starting to lose most of those arguments. This has been masked by their absolute dominance in London, the broadcasting media and the performing arts. But it is a real trend nonetheless.
I'm unclear in what you're referring to in regard to market place choice - if it's in reference to education and health et al, then I have seen hardly any public support for market intervention into public services at all. If anything, on those issues the left is still pretty much winning the argument - I rarely saw any polling data, which showed an endorsement for Michael Gove's education reforms, and it's to Jeremy Hunt's credit that he managed to keep the NHS on the low, given that it's still a problematic issue for those on the right.
I'm not convinced that English laws/devolution is really something that many people care about. I have yet see a MORI index show that's the top of people concerns; I'd say the same in regard to identity politics, too.
Taxation is one I can't agree with either. Labour's polices on the 50p tax cut etc. actually polled pretty well -illustrating there is some desire for a more redistributive tax system.
And for all the unpopular of the EU, and the incompetence of the Left for not making any real cohesive arguments for the EU, many polls still show 'IN' winning.
What these guys seem to have failed to notice is that the Scottish Tories faced their extinction level event 20 years ago and are showing no signs of recovery, if anything their older voter demographic is gradually dying out.
Hasn't the Scottish Tory vote risen in numbers at each election since 2001? Hardly dying out.
Scottish Tory vote %s and seats - I'm not seeing any positive trend here:
1979 31.4% 22 / 72
1983 28.4% 21 / 72
1987 24.0% 10 / 72
1992 25.8% 11 / 72
1997 17.5% 0 / 72
2001 15.6% 1 / 72
2005 15.8% 1 / 59
2010 16.7% 1 / 59
2015 14.9% 1 / 59
I said in numbers. Your thesis was the Tory party was 'dying out'. Yet in terms of numbers, it is growing.
Isn't 14.9 less than 16.7?
You missed the crucial "%" symbol, Sunil.
14.9% is than 16.7%?
Your lack of comprehension is disturbing..........
Ooops. 14.9% is Less than 16.7%?
Yes, but I'm talking about numbers of voters. Silly!
The exit poll had the Tories making gains in the East Midlands such as Gedling, Nottingham South, Derbyshire NE. It also had them on 316 seats overall. In fact they didn't gain those seats but ended up on 15 seats more than forecast, so they must have done better than expected in other regions such as London, NW, Y&H.
Immigration and welfare have increased in salience, certainly. Don't also forget the growth of marketplace choice, frustration over English laws and devolution, identity politics, taxation and European integration.
The Left are starting to lose most of those arguments. This has been masked by their absolute dominance in London, the broadcasting media and the performing arts. But it is a real trend nonetheless.
I'm unclear in what you're referring to in regard to market place choice - if it's in reference to education and health et al, then I have seen hardly any public support for market intervention into public services at all. If anything, on those issues the left is still pretty much winning the argument - I rarely saw any polling data, which showed an endorsement for Michael Gove's education reforms, and it's to Jeremy Hunt's credit that he managed to keep the NHS on the low, given that it's still a problematic issue for those on the right.
I'm not convinced that English laws/devolution is really something that many people care about. I have yet see a MORI index show that's the top of people concerns; I'd say the same in regard to identity politics, too.
Taxation is one I can't agree with either. Labour's polices on the 50p tax cut etc. actually polled pretty well -illustrating there is some desire for a more redistributive tax system.
And for all the unpopular of the EU, and the incompetence of the Left for not making any real cohesive arguments for the EU, many polls still show 'IN' winning.
That post just shows how much you have to learn.
So, no argument from you on either of my points, but a simply condescending post because I don't sign up to your POV. Oh dear.
Immigration and welfare have increased in salience, certainly. Don't also forget the growth of marketplace choice, frustration over English laws and devolution, identity politics, taxation and European integration.
The Left are starting to lose most of those arguments. This has been masked by their absolute dominance in London, the broadcasting media and the performing arts. But it is a real trend nonetheless.
I'm unclear in what you're referring to in regard to market place choice - if it's in reference to education and health et al, then I have seen hardly any public support for market intervention into public services at all. If anything, on those issues the left is still pretty much winning the argument - I rarely saw any polling data, which showed an endorsement for Michael Gove's education reforms, and it's to Jeremy Hunt's credit that he managed to keep the NHS on the low, given that it's still a problematic issue for those on the right.
I'm not convinced that English laws/devolution is really something that many people care about. I have yet see a MORI index show that's the top of people concerns; I'd say the same in regard to identity politics, too.
Taxation is one I can't agree with either. Labour's polices on the 50p tax cut etc. actually polled pretty well -illustrating there is some desire for a more redistributive tax system.
And for all the unpopular of the EU, and the incompetence of the Left for not making any real cohesive arguments for the EU, many polls still show 'IN' winning.
That post just shows how much you have to learn.
So, no argument from you on either of my points, but a simply condescending post because I don't sign up to your POV. Oh dear.
You just lost an election on your POV.
When you're ready to start listening to other points of view that might explain why, rather than trying to pluck out any piece of any evidence you can find to dismiss them, give me a shout.
The exit poll had the Tories making gains in the East Midlands such as Gedling, Nottingham South, Derbyshire NE. It also had them on 316 seats overall. In fact they didn't gain those seats but ended up on 15 seats more than forecast, so they must have done better than expected in other regions such as London, NW, Y&H.
I was surprised when Derbyshire NE didn't flip tbh.
The exit poll had the Tories making gains in the East Midlands such as Gedling, Nottingham South, Derbyshire NE. It also had them on 316 seats overall. In fact they didn't gain those seats but ended up on 15 seats more than forecast, so they must have done better than expected in other regions such as London, NW, Y&H.
Yes. Near misses. The Tories could have bettered John Major's 1992 total of 336 seats IMHO.
On the other hand, they could got have got unlucky, but probably not unlucky enough to drop below the overall majority threshold.
You'd need a heart of stone.... The ground war Throughout, stealth was key to the Conservatives’ success. Not only did they know the public polls were wrong, but Tory insiders now admit they deliberately encouraged Labour to build up the myth that Mr Miliband and his union allies had the superior street campaigning machine. The story ran, to the Tories’ amusement, that Labour had thousands more activists, better trained and motivated, saturating target seats with Labour leaflets and election messages. “But there was never any evidence of them,” one senior Conservative said. “Labour must have been moving imaginary soldiers around or something.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11609570/Secrets-of-the-Tories-election-war-room.html
Apologies for repeating myself from 4 hours ago but GE2015 inquest? Look at this in the Telegraph re Tory campaign HQ where, ''work began before dawn, and the office was manned until late at night. Mr Crosby chaired his first meeting every day during the campaign at 5.45am, with a handful of senior strategists. Another meeting would follow at 6.30am to draw up firmer plans for the day, before the third meeting at 7.30 each morning, at which Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne would be present, often via conference calls from far flung parts of the country where they would be campaigning. The PM and Chancellor would listen to the plans, make observations of their own and then approve the strategy as recommended by Mr Crosby, who chaired every meeting, even when Mr Cameron was present. A few hundred yards away, at Labour headquarters in Brewer’s Green, Mr Miliband’s team had not yet turned up for work.'' (PS - these nested quotes are getting silly)
The Tories look to be governing from the centre-right, rather than the centre when looking at proposals on the HRA, fox-hunting, the snoopers' charter, and a number of newcomers to government, such as Priti Patel, Justin Tomlinson, and Caroline Dinnage.
Every single one of those is a fringe issue only of interest to political anoraks.
99% of people wouldn't even have the faintest idea of what the snooper's charter is - let alone how on earth it could affect them in any practical way.
Ditto the HRA - it may affect whether someone on the TV gets deported. It won't affect 99.999% of the population.
Anoraks will get excited. 99% of people won't even be aware of the issues and they will have zero impact at the next GE.
You don't have to rely on me - where did these issues come on the MORI Issues Index? Did any of them register even 1%?
As as @rcs1000 has said, it's less about those issues individually, and more how collectively pandering towards' the grassroots base of the Conservative party affects voters' perception of the party.
At some point you will begin to cotton on to the fact that the so-called pandering to the grassroots base of the Conservative party has a huge overlap with the interests of the voters who win and lose elections.
But hopefully not for a few more elections yet.
If that was the case, the Tories' would have won in 2001, and 2005. The voters who win elections generally aren't hardcore right-wing, they are usually in the centre.
There you go again, conflating grassroots base Tories as hardcore right-wing. Actually, they are an extremely diverse group. But I'm guessing you don't know many of the grassroot base Tories?
The Tories look to be governing from the centre-right, rather than the centre when looking at proposals on the HRA, fox-hunting, the snoopers' charter, and a number of newcomers to government, such as Priti Patel, Justin Tomlinson, and Caroline Dinnage.
Every single one of those is a fringe issue only of interest to political anoraks.
99% of people wouldn't even have the faintest idea of what the snooper's charter is - let alone how on earth it could affect them in any practical way.
Ditto the HRA - it may affect whether someone on the TV gets deported. It won't affect 99.999% of the population.
Anoraks will get excited. 99% of people won't even be aware of the issues and they will have zero impact at the next GE.
You don't have to rely on me - where did these issues come on the MORI Issues Index? Did any of them register even 1%?
As as @rcs1000 has said, it's less about those issues individually, and more how collectively pandering towards' the grassroots base of the Conservative party affects voters' perception of the party.
At some point you will begin to cotton on to the fact that the so-called pandering to the grassroots base of the Conservative party has a huge overlap with the interests of the voters who win and lose elections.
But hopefully not for a few more elections yet.
If that was the case, the Tories' would have won in 2001, and 2005. The voters who win elections generally aren't hardcore right-wing, they are usually in the centre.
There you go again, conflating grassroots base Tories as hardcore right-wing. Actually, they are an extremely diverse group. But I'm guessing you don't know many of the grassroot base Tories?
You and I were tearing chunks out of each other barely 10 hours ago over foxhunting.
So, no. He doesn't seem to know grassroots Tories very well at all.
Immigration and welfare have increased in salience, certainly. Don't also forget the growth of marketplace choice, frustration over English laws and devolution, identity politics, taxation and European integration.
The Left are starting to lose most of those arguments. This has been masked by their absolute dominance in London, the broadcasting media and the performing arts. But it is a real trend nonetheless.
I'm unclear in what you're referring to in regard to market place choice - if it's in reference to education and health et al, then I have seen hardly any public support for market intervention into public services at all. If anything, on those issues the left is still pretty much winning the argument - I rarely saw any polling data, which showed an endorsement for Michael Gove's education reforms, and it's to Jeremy Hunt's credit that he managed to keep the NHS on the low, given that it's still a problematic issue for those on the right.
I'm not convinced that English laws/devolution is really something that many people care about. I have yet see a MORI index show that's the top of people concerns; I'd say the same in regard to identity politics, too.
Taxation is one I can't agree with either. Labour's polices on the 50p tax cut etc. actually polled pretty well -illustrating there is some desire for a more redistributive tax system.
And for all the unpopular of the EU, and the incompetence of the Left for not making any real cohesive arguments for the EU, many polls still show 'IN' winning.
That post just shows how much you have to learn.
So, no argument from you on either of my points, but a simply condescending post because I don't sign up to your POV. Oh dear.
You just lost an election on your POV.
When you're ready to start listening to other points of view that might explain why, rather than trying to pluck out any piece of any evidence you can find to dismiss them, give me a shout.
Labour didn't lose an election on my POV; Labour lost an election thanks to Ed Miliband's poor leadership, and lack of economic incompetence.
I listened to your POV; I just didn't agree with it. The trouble with many Conservatives on here right now, is that they expect those on the left to completely sign up to your perspective. They think because they've won an election the public now suddenly agree with them on everything.
Immigration and welfare have increased in salience, certainly. Don't also forget the growth of marketplace choice, frustration over English laws and devolution, identity politics, taxation and European integration.
The Left are starting to lose most of those arguments. This has been masked by their absolute dominance in London, the broadcasting media and the performing arts. But it is a real trend nonetheless.
I'm unclear in what you're referring to in regard to market place choice - if it's in reference to education and health et al, then I have seen hardly any public support for market intervention into public services at all. If anything, on those issues the left is still pretty much winning the argument - I rarely saw any polling data, which showed an endorsement for Michael Gove's education reforms, and it's to Jeremy Hunt's credit that he managed to keep the NHS on the low, given that it's still a problematic issue for those on the right.
A lot of the reflexive distaste for market choice is down to crap privatisation and scandalously poor value PFI contracts (Blair/Brown Labour's one great piece of villainy/incompetence), and the the same old parade of SerCrapAtos 'public' services carried out (in many eyes) by overworked, underpaid and unqualified minions as their fat cat overlords trouser another bulldozer-load of Kruggerands from the public purse and chuckle into their champagne flutes.
Not saying that's how it is, but it's what a lot of people feel.
The Tories look to be governing from the centre-right, rather than the centre when looking at proposals on the HRA, fox-hunting, the snoopers' charter, and a number of newcomers to government, such as Priti Patel, Justin Tomlinson, and Caroline Dinnage.
Every single one of those is a fringe issue only of interest to political anoraks.
99% of people wouldn't even have the faintest idea of what the snooper's charter is - let alone how on earth it could affect them in any practical way.
Ditto the HRA - it may affect whether someone on the TV gets deported. It won't affect 99.999% of the population.
Anoraks will get excited. 99% of people won't even be aware of the issues and they will have zero impact at the next GE.
You don't have to rely on me - where did these issues come on the MORI Issues Index? Did any of them register even 1%?
As as @rcs1000 has said, it's less about those issues individually, and more how collectively pandering towards' the grassroots base of the Conservative party affects voters' perception of the party.
At some point you will begin to cotton on to the fact that the so-called pandering to the grassroots base of the Conservative party has a huge overlap with the interests of the voters who win and lose elections.
But hopefully not for a few more elections yet.
If that was the case, the Tories' would have won in 2001, and 2005. The voters who win elections generally aren't hardcore right-wing, they are usually in the centre.
There you go again, conflating grassroots base Tories as hardcore right-wing. Actually, they are an extremely diverse group. But I'm guessing you don't know many of the grassroot base Tories?
I know quite a few Tories (as in signed up members) actually, I'd describe them all as pretty right-wing.
So, no argument from you on either of my points, but a simply condescending post because I don't sign up to your POV. Oh dear.
.
.
Oh, by all means, please do feel free to disagree with it. A further 10 years of the Conservatives in power would cement many of our reforms "in stone" for the next 30 years, and permanently shift the centre of debate in this country. Probably for good.
Nothing would delight me more, but I do think a healthy opposition is good for democracy. I have posted over the last several days on how I think this could look for the Left. But far too many comfort blankets are still being clung to.
At the end of the day it's not my choice, it's yours.
About half of those who were going to vote Green a few weeks ago probably voted Labour in the end to try to block a Tory government. They probably won't do so again, so I'd expect the party to get at least 7-8% next time.
A lot of the reflexive distaste for market choice is down to crap privatisation and scandalously poor value PFI contracts (Blair/Brown Labour's one great piece of villainy/incompetence), and the the same old parade of SerCrapAtos 'public' services carried out (in many eyes) by overworked, underpaid and unqualified minions as their fat cat overlords trouser another bulldozer-load of Kruggerands from the public purse and chuckle into their champagne flutes.
Not saying that's how it is, but it's what a lot of people feel.
Some truth in that. My point was more that in an internet, price comparison, tripadvisor, instant choice generation people will not accept a "take it or leave it" approach to the provision of public sector services anymore.
Despite what they say about the ideology of the NHS and state Education, they expect to hold power as users of those services, to be treated as individuals, and to be able to go elsewhere, and hold to account those who provide the services, if they are dissatisfied.
So, no argument from you on either of my points, but a simply condescending post because I don't sign up to your POV. Oh dear.
.
.
Oh, by all means, please do feel free to disagree with it. A further 10 years of the Conservatives in power would cement many of our reforms "in stone" for the next 30 years, and permanently shift the centre of debate in this country. Probably for good.
Nothing would delight me more, but I do think a healthy opposition is good for democracy. I have posted over the last several days on how I think this could look for the Left. But far too many comfort blankets are still being clung to.
At the end of the day it's not my choice, it's yours.
The centre of debate in this country hasn't even shifted with the marketisation of public services since the Thatcher and New Labour years, let alone with further Conservative 'reforms'. I also think you seriously underestimate the ability of the political landscape to change.
People may well expect more power in their use of public services, but it's certainly not something en masse supported that they believe market services will give them that power, and that is a pretty key tenet of the Right's arguments.
@MarqueeMark The Conservatives I know best are all extremely sensible, "hardcore right winger" is the last description I'd find... just sensible centre-right types tbh.
You can bet on its narrowing further. It's not quite true that every Irish referendum is more No than the polls; it depends on the nature of the topic. Well-debated issues like Europe poll more accurately, whereas unheard-of innovations tend to be rejected in favour of the status quo.
Ireland is definitely to the right of the UK, religion is more important, farming is more important, there's no NHS and the state doesn't even own the schools, and the only counterpoint is that benefits are much more generous; ignore Europe which isn't an inherently left-right issue.
Making his decision either incomprehensible, as he surely knew what he was getting in to, or far more calculating than he seems in terms of laying the groundwork for a future run, or he thought he had no chance.
About half of those who were going to vote Green a few weeks ago probably voted Labour in the end to try to block a Tory government. They probably won't do so again, so I'd expect the party to get at least 7-8% next time.
But we also know that about half those who were going to vote Green once supported LD!
He has toi get EVEL through first and it will not be plain sailing. No Ulster unionist will vote for it and unless it is thought through (highly unlikely) there will be rebels.
If there is no scandal, then probably he was telling the truth. Or just possibly, it was that he found it harder than he'd expected to get 35 to 50 nominations so pulled out to avoid falling at the first.
Making his decision either incomprehensible, as he surely knew what he was getting in to, or far more calculating than he seems in terms of laying the groundwork for a future run, or he thought he had no chance.
There are two things in that article, that I don't think I would ever say, regardless of the truth...
"Speaking about his decision on Friday to quit the race to replace Ed Miliband, he said: “There is absolutely no skeleton, no information, scandal or otherwise that caused me to make this decision."
That is holding yourself hostage to fortune. If you have lived your life and never ever done anything wrong ever, well you are a very strange individual. I know he is saying something a little more nuanced, but I would have stuck to the reason he gave. If thats the truth, then thats the truth.
Responding to claims he “wheeled out” Alice last weekend for the TV cameras, Mr Umunna said: “Had I known what was going to greet us was going to greet us, then obviously I wouldn’t have brought her with me.”
Really...I mean really....no cameras or photographers going to be there....he is very very stupid man if he honestly though that.
Both for a former lawyer and supposed smart man, I don't think I would have said either of those things.
Most Tories on here are just enjoying the moment of seeing Labour royally stuffed. Nothing is forever, Labour ought to learn quickly from it, but that's not guaranteed.. . but some merriment at the expense of a clueless party that sounds even more clueless about the way forward is giving us much enjoyment.
Even tim has failed to mention Coulson on his twitter feed .. I reckon he must have taken a caning on his GE bets.. He would have been following the polls.
A lot of the reflexive distaste for market choice is down to crap privatisation and scandalously poor value PFI contracts (Blair/Brown Labour's one great piece of villainy/incompetence), and the the same old parade of SerCrapAtos 'public' services carried out (in many eyes) by overworked, underpaid and unqualified minions as their fat cat overlords trouser another bulldozer-load of Kruggerands from the public purse and chuckle into their champagne flutes.
Not saying that's how it is, but it's what a lot of people feel.
Some truth in that. My point was more that in an internet, price comparison, tripadvisor, instant choice generation people will not accept a "take it or leave it" approach to the provision of public sector services anymore.
Despite what they say about the ideology of the NHS and state Education, they expect to hold power as users of those services, to be treated as individuals, and to be able to go elsewhere, and hold to account those who provide the services, if they are dissatisfied.
Immigration and welfare have increased in salience, certainly. Don't also forget the growth of marketplace choice, frustration over English laws and devolution, identity politics, taxation and European integration.
The Left are starting to lose most of those arguments. This has been masked by their absolute dominance in London, the broadcasting media and the performing arts. But it is a real trend nonetheless.
I'm unclear in what you're referring to in regard to market place choice - if it's in reference to education and health et al, then I have seen hardly any public support for market intervention into public services at all. If anything, on those issues the left is still pretty much winning the argument - I rarely saw any polling data, which showed an endorsement for Michael Gove's education reforms, and it's to Jeremy Hunt's credit that he managed to keep the NHS on the low, given that it's still a problematic issue for those on the right.
A lot of the reflexive distaste for market choice is down to crap privatisation and scandalously poor value PFI contracts (Blair/Brown Labour's one great piece of villainy/incompetence), and the the same old parade of SerCrapAtos 'public' services carried out (in many eyes) by overworked, underpaid and unqualified minions as their fat cat overlords trouser another bulldozer-load of Kruggerands from the public purse and chuckle into their champagne flutes.
Not saying that's how it is, but it's what a lot of people feel.
Part of the problem is that privatisation often does not deliver market choice to consumers, let alone a better service. A lot of politicians who fawn over markets do not really understand them. We privatised the water companies, but you can't choose which water comes out of your tap, and nor can a benefits claimant decide whether to be assessed by Atos or Capita.
About half of those who were going to vote Green a few weeks ago probably voted Labour in the end to try to block a Tory government. They probably won't do so again, so I'd expect the party to get at least 7-8% next time.
I disagree, the polls after you adjust the voter turnout in order to get the right Tory-Labour result never had the Greens on 7-8%, it was always around 4.
In this election most of the people who voted Green probably thought that Labour was going to win anyway. After this election I can expect the Green vote to fall as the radical left will try to coalesce around the single issue of stopping the Tories next time instead of moaning that Labour isn't left wing enough. The Greens cost Labour quite a few seats in the marginals and next time their vote will be really squeezed.
People may well expect more power in their use of public services, but it's certainly not something en masse supported that they believe market services will give them that power, and that is a pretty key tenet of the Right's arguments.
Indeed the very acceptance that these services should be public and funded by the state is a left wing view. A right wing society would be campaigning for the abolition of the welfare state, not improving its responsiveness.
Throughout, stealth was key to the Conservatives’ success. Not only did they know the public polls were wrong, but Tory insiders now admit they deliberately encouraged Labour to build up the myth that Mr Miliband and his union allies had the superior street campaigning machine.
The story ran, to the Tories’ amusement, that Labour had thousands more activists, better trained and motivated, saturating target seats with Labour leaflets and election messages. “But there was never any evidence of them,” one senior Conservative said. “Labour must have been moving imaginary soldiers around or something.”
Part of the problem is that privatisation often does not deliver market choice to consumers, let alone a better service. A lot of politicians who fawn over markets do not really understand them. We privatised the water companies, but you can't choose which water comes out of your tap, and nor can a benefits claimant decide whether to be assessed by Atos or Capita.
Why would they decide between the two? The benefits claimant is not the customer regardless of what the glossy poster on the wall might claim to make them feel valued. The government, on behalf of the taxpayer at large, is the client paying for and acting on the assessment.
You can bet on its narrowing further. It's not quite true that every Irish referendum is more No than the polls; it depends on the nature of the topic. Well-debated issues like Europe poll more accurately, whereas unheard-of innovations tend to be rejected in favour of the status quo.
Ireland is definitely to the right of the UK, religion is more important, farming is more important, there's no NHS and the state doesn't even own the schools, and the only counterpoint is that benefits are much more generous; ignore Europe which isn't an inherently left-right issue.
Tories in UK 37% in 2015 Fine Gael in Ireland 36% in 2011
A lot of the reflexive distaste for market choice is down to crap privatisation and scandalously poor value PFI contracts (Blair/Brown Labour's one great piece of villainy/incompetence), and the the same old parade of SerCrapAtos 'public' services carried out (in many eyes) by overworked, underpaid and unqualified minions as their fat cat overlords trouser another bulldozer-load of Kruggerands from the public purse and chuckle into their champagne flutes.
Not saying that's how it is, but it's what a lot of people feel.
Some truth in that. My point was more that in an internet, price comparison, tripadvisor, instant choice generation people will not accept a "take it or leave it" approach to the provision of public sector services anymore.
Despite what they say about the ideology of the NHS and state Education, they expect to hold power as users of those services, to be treated as individuals, and to be able to go elsewhere, and hold to account those who provide the services, if they are dissatisfied.
Part of the problem is that privatisation often does not deliver market choice to consumers, let alone a better service. A lot of politicians who fawn over markets do not really understand them. We privatised the water companies, but you can't choose which water comes out of your tap, and nor can a benefits claimant decide whether to be assessed by Atos or Capita.
Why would they decide between the two? The benefits claimant is not the customer regardless of what the glossy poster on the wall might claim to make them feel valued. The government, on behalf of the taxpayer at large, is the client paying for and acting on the assessment.
The privatisations within the NHS whether PFI or of portering services have largely consisted of the worst aspects of the state (poor customer responsiveness) and the worst of the private sector (corporate greed).
People may well expect more power in their use of public services, but it's certainly not something en masse supported that they believe market services will give them that power, and that is a pretty key tenet of the Right's arguments.
Indeed the very acceptance that these services should be public and funded by the state is a left wing view. A right wing society would be campaigning for the abolition of the welfare state, not improving its responsiveness.
Agreed. Was very impressed by Liz Kendall's ideas (on this issue), I really hope Labour give her a chance. She's the only person in the campaign who appears to have any coherent agenda at all.
A lot of the reflexive distaste for market choice is down to crap privatisation and scandalously poor value PFI contracts (Blair/Brown Labour's one great piece of villainy/incompetence), and the the same old parade of SerCrapAtos 'public' services carried out (in many eyes) by overworked, underpaid and unqualified minions as their fat cat overlords trouser another bulldozer-load of Kruggerands from the public purse and chuckle into their champagne flutes.
Not saying that's how it is, but it's what a lot of people feel.
Some truth in that. My point was more that in an internet, price comparison, tripadvisor, instant choice generation people will not accept a "take it or leave it" approach to the provision of public sector services anymore.
Despite what they say about the ideology of the NHS and state Education, they expect to hold power as users of those services, to be treated as individuals, and to be able to go elsewhere, and hold to account those who provide the services, if they are dissatisfied.
Yes and no. Yes, users want power and a good service. No, what they do not want to do is go elsewhere. What they want is for their local school or hospital to be first class, not to have to travel vast distances. And in many cases, the consumer is not well-placed to compare services in the first place, lacking both information and the ability to assess it. Which hospital is better at the differential diagnosis of gammy knees, and do cancer survival rates correlate with outpatients clinics running to time? School A has better exam results than school B but what happens if the head or the best history teacher leaves in the five years between my child enrolling and taking her GCSEs?
A lot of the reflexive distaste for market choice is down to crap privatisation and scandalously poor value PFI contracts (Blair/Brown Labour's one great piece of villainy/incompetence), and the the same old parade of SerCrapAtos 'public' services carried out (in many eyes) by overworked, underpaid and unqualified minions as their fat cat overlords trouser another bulldozer-load of Kruggerands from the public purse and chuckle into their champagne flutes.
Not saying that's how it is, but it's what a lot of people feel.
Some truth in that. My point was more that in an internet, price comparison, tripadvisor, instant choice generation people will not accept a "take it or leave it" approach to the provision of public sector services anymore.
Despite what they say about the ideology of the NHS and state Education, they expect to hold power as users of those services, to be treated as individuals, and to be able to go elsewhere, and hold to account those who provide the services, if they are dissatisfied.
She's the Labour leader who would worry me most. But I don't expect the party to pick her, possibly for not dissimilar reasons.
Look at the names that put in essays to that compilation; it is a Who's Who of the 2010 intake. Liz has thought a great deal about what she intends to do. She is personally ambitious, but her ambition is much more extensive than that.
Most Tories on here are just enjoying the moment of seeing Labour royally stuffed. Nothing is forever, Labour ought to learn quickly from it, but that's not guaranteed.. . but some merriment at the expense of a clueless party that sounds even more clueless about the way forward is giving us much enjoyment. Even tim has failed to mention Coulson on his twitter feed .. I reckon he must have taken a caning on his GE bets.. He would have been following the polls.
A commentor on a Times article points out ''Yvette Cooper demonstrated in an instant why she is unfit to become Labour leader. Using a classic "straw man" technique, she exhorted; "Don't let anyone tell you that more nurses, doctors and teachers caused Lehman Brothers to fail." Not surprisingly, she received a large ovation ... If even now, a week after the election, senior Labour figures are indulging in such gesture politics, it suggests that Labour has learned very little and would rather stay within its comfort zone''
{snip for readability} The privatisations within the NHS whether PFI or of portering services have largely consisted of the worst aspects of the state (poor customer responsiveness) and the worst of the private sector (corporate greed).
I don't doubt your word that this has been the situation in some cases. But that is an argument against a flawed tendering process, not against the theory.
A lot of the reflexive distaste for market choice is down to crap privatisation and scandalously poor value PFI contracts (Blair/Brown Labour's one great piece of villainy/incompetence), and the the same old parade of SerCrapAtos 'public' services carried out (in many eyes) by overworked, underpaid and unqualified minions as their fat cat overlords trouser another bulldozer-load of Kruggerands from the public purse and chuckle into their champagne flutes.
Not saying that's how it is, but it's what a lot of people feel.
Some truth in that. My point was more that in an internet, price comparison, tripadvisor, instant choice generation people will not accept a "take it or leave it" approach to the provision of public sector services anymore.
Despite what they say about the ideology of the NHS and state Education, they expect to hold power as users of those services, to be treated as individuals, and to be able to go elsewhere, and hold to account those who provide the services, if they are dissatisfied.
Yes and no. Yes, users want power and a good service. No, what they do not want to do is go elsewhere. What they want is for their local school or hospital to be first class, not to have to travel vast distances. And in many cases, the consumer is not well-placed to compare services in the first place, lacking both information and the ability to assess it. Which hospital is better at the differential diagnosis of gammy knees, and do cancer survival rates correlate with outpatients clinics running to time? School A has better exam results than school B but what happens if the head or the best history teacher leaves in the five years between my child enrolling and taking her GCSEs?
Yes, that's true. But it's also true of shopping facilities, leisure options, garages to fix your car and a good pub lunch. Almost all of them are run privately, and it's the market choice mechanism that drives up standards in all, but who wouldn't prefer excellence right on their doorstep?
I don't agree on the consumer not being qualified to compare. On more than one occasion I've challenged an opinion of my GP by querying from what I've read from my own online research. The "experts" can be just as complacent, self-interested and lazy as the rest of us, or just simply occasionally get it wrong.
Sunshine is the great disinfectant, and information the great leveller, and taking your business elsewhere the ultimate sanction, I think people are savvier than perhaps you might give them credit for.
Part of the problem is that privatisation often does not deliver market choice to consumers, let alone a better service. A lot of politicians who fawn over markets do not really understand them. We privatised the water companies, but you can't choose which water comes out of your tap, and nor can a benefits claimant decide whether to be assessed by Atos or Capita.
Why would they decide between the two? The benefits claimant is not the customer regardless of what the glossy poster on the wall might claim to make them feel valued. The government, on behalf of the taxpayer at large, is the client paying for and acting on the assessment.
The privatisations within the NHS whether PFI or of portering services have largely consisted of the worst aspects of the state (poor customer responsiveness) and the worst of the private sector (corporate greed).
Anecdote alert:
The other week I was chatting to a friend who had her baby in Addenbrookes the week before we had ours in Hinchinbrooke. The experiences could not be more different: Addenbrookes treated her awfully. It's the same for other couples I know.
I saw no 'corporate greed' at Hinchinbrooke: only good care. Which is more than could be said for Addenbrookes.
The Left are starting to lose most of those arguments. This has been masked by their absolute dominance in London, the broadcasting media and the performing arts. But it is a real trend nonetheless.
I'm unclear in what you're referring to in regard to market place choice - if it's in reference to education and health et al, then I have seen hardly any public support for market intervention into public services at all. If anything, on those issues the left is still pretty much winning the argument - I rarely saw any polling data, which showed an endorsement for Michael Gove's education reforms, and it's to Jeremy Hunt's credit that he managed to keep the NHS on the low, given that it's still a problematic issue for those on the right.
A lot of the reflexive distaste for market choice is down to crap privatisation and scandalously poor value PFI contracts (Blair/Brown Labour's one great piece of villainy/incompetence), and the the same old parade of SerCrapAtos 'public' services carried out (in many eyes) by overworked, underpaid and unqualified minions as their fat cat overlords trouser another bulldozer-load of Kruggerands from the public purse and chuckle into their champagne flutes.
Not saying that's how it is, but it's what a lot of people feel.
Part of the problem is that privatisation often does not deliver market choice to consumers, let alone a better service. A lot of politicians who fawn over markets do not really understand them. We privatised the water companies, but you can't choose which water comes out of your tap, and nor can a benefits claimant decide whether to be assessed by Atos or Capita.
Trudat.
But gas and electricity offer genuine choice - not just in terms of price, but type of provider too. I'd argue that (with state guidance) privatisation has improved the situation. Few would argue for the renationalisation of these utilities.
What I have a hard time getting to is how market choice will really work in, say, compulsory-age education. Choice already exists - parents can educate their children privately, home-school, start a free school or move to a different catchment area. But how do those without the wherewithal or resources to do any of those things exercise choice if their child is failing at a crappy local school? Market choice isn't an answer to that question.
Though given that you can barely get a fag paper between Labour and Tory positions education policy (with the exception of teacher pay and the grandstanding on free schools) I'm not sure either left or right is winning the argument.
About half of those who were going to vote Green a few weeks ago probably voted Labour in the end to try to block a Tory government. They probably won't do so again, so I'd expect the party to get at least 7-8% next time.
I disagree, the polls after you adjust the voter turnout in order to get the right Tory-Labour result never had the Greens on 7-8%, it was always around 4.
In this election most of the people who voted Green probably thought that Labour was going to win anyway. After this election I can expect the Green vote to fall as the radical left will try to coalesce around the single issue of stopping the Tories next time instead of moaning that Labour isn't left wing enough. The Greens cost Labour quite a few seats in the marginals and next time their vote will be really squeezed.
That is more or less what Conservatives said about UKIP voters in 2205 and after 2010
and we all know how that worked out.
I think we have to be very careful assuming Greens are Lib Dems or Labour voters on holiday. If Labour choose a candidate that takes the Party towards the centre i can easily see the Greens polling 7-8% -if not more in 2020
Comments
Don't be so silly. All they are doing is judging whether it is genuinely English only legislation which traditionally they would have abstained on or whether they see cross border issues in which case they will pile in against fox hunting.
Who wants and can clash with China over some coral reefs in the middle of the ocean?
It's hardly Belgium 1914.
The SNP is the broadest church possible, they risk starting to lose groups if their policies and voting patterns start to clash.
But we'll see what else happens. I don't think Japan will back down over the disputed islands between itself and China.
Also, Tartan Tories and all that.
On hunting, as a vegetarian (for animal welfare reasons) who grew up in the countryside, I find the amount of time spent on this issue baffling. I find the 'sport' unpleasant and would never take part (not that I've ever been asked!) but as an animal welfare/rights issue it is vanishingly microscopic in impact compared to factory farming (N.B. this is not an invitation to engage in the vegetarianism debate!).
Fox populations need to be controlled to maintain our ecosystem. I don't understand how chasing and torturing them makes for a fun weekend activity but in the grand scheme I'm not about to lose any sleep over it.
It's China vs Taiwan vs S.Korea vs Japan.
Though lately there is a tendency of of the non Japan countries to group together against Japan on this issue when Japan has more conservative-nationalist governments.
Of course they like that and will continue to do so whilst it lasts.
UK Tories 37% in 2010
Ireland's Fine Gael 36% in 2011.
This makes the situation considerably more dangerous then you make out.
My guess is that the SNP will find a reason to vote against and scupper the Cameron plans.
The UN can do nothing without the consent of America (Britain and France in it's group), China and Russia.
If the SNP can embarrass the government and defeat the Tories over something that matters to them, whatever it is, whilst riling the English by voting on their laws at the same time: they will take it.
That's why the Tories need to either ensure EFVEL is passed first, so the SNP are out for the count, or do a backroom deal to secure their abstention in return for further devolution concessions.
The ground war
Throughout, stealth was key to the Conservatives’ success. Not only did they know the public polls were wrong, but Tory insiders now admit they deliberately encouraged Labour to build up the myth that Mr Miliband and his union allies had the superior street campaigning machine.
The story ran, to the Tories’ amusement, that Labour had thousands more activists, better trained and motivated, saturating target seats with Labour leaflets and election messages. “But there was never any evidence of them,” one senior Conservative said. “Labour must have been moving imaginary soldiers around or something.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11609570/Secrets-of-the-Tories-election-war-room.html
This is what the issue of renegotiation with the EU is all about.
The Left are starting to lose most of those arguments. This has been masked by their absolute dominance in London, the broadcasting media and the performing arts. But it is a real trend nonetheless.
Mr. M, Vanilla mail waiting for you.
I'm not convinced that English laws/devolution is really something that many people care about. I have yet see a MORI index show that's the top of people concerns; I'd say the same in regard to identity politics, too.
Taxation is one I can't agree with either. Labour's polices on the 50p tax cut etc. actually polled pretty well - illustrating there is some desire for a more redistributive tax system.
And for all the unpopular of the EU, and the incompetence of the Left for not making any real cohesive arguments for the EU, many polls still show 'IN' winning.
And I never checked out the Leicester and Swannington terminus building, if it still existed, though it was a nice walk along the line up to the City Farm ...
I don't know how these military occupations compare to the Chinese efforts, but it doesn't seem to me as though China is the majority incumbent. The other countries will be more willing to take action to enforce claims that they already hold, because of loss-aversion.
When you're ready to start listening to other points of view that might explain why, rather than trying to pluck out any piece of any evidence you can find to dismiss them, give me a shout.
On the other hand, they could got have got unlucky, but probably not unlucky enough to drop below the overall majority threshold.
GE2015 inquest?
Look at this in the Telegraph re Tory campaign HQ where,
''work began before dawn, and the office was manned until late at night. Mr Crosby chaired his first meeting every day during the campaign at 5.45am, with a handful of senior strategists.
Another meeting would follow at 6.30am to draw up firmer plans for the day, before the third meeting at 7.30 each morning, at which Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne would be present, often via conference calls from far flung parts of the country where they would be campaigning.
The PM and Chancellor would listen to the plans, make observations of their own and then approve the strategy as recommended by Mr Crosby, who chaired every meeting, even when Mr Cameron was present.
A few hundred yards away, at Labour headquarters in Brewer’s Green, Mr Miliband’s team had not yet turned up for work.''
(PS - these nested quotes are getting silly)
So, no. He doesn't seem to know grassroots Tories very well at all.
I listened to your POV; I just didn't agree with it. The trouble with many Conservatives on here right now, is that they expect those on the left to completely sign up to your perspective. They think because they've won an election the public now suddenly agree with them on everything.
Not saying that's how it is, but it's what a lot of people feel.
http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/latest-report/british-social-attitudes-32/key-findings/introduction.aspx
I think that the Greens can reasonably be added to the Left wing column, as can the majority of the SNP,PC, LDs and a fair bit of UKIP.
Of course it all depends on where you draw the centre point.
And @Casino_Royale, it's a she, not a he.
Nothing would delight me more, but I do think a healthy opposition is good for democracy. I have posted over the last several days on how I think this could look for the Left. But far too many comfort blankets are still being clung to.
At the end of the day it's not my choice, it's yours.
The Shadow Business Secretary said he has 'nothing to hide', having emerged as a front-runner to replace Ed Miliband
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/chuka-umunna-dismisses-scandal-rumours-5709819
Think we can say nothing coming in the sundays...
Despite what they say about the ideology of the NHS and state Education, they expect to hold power as users of those services, to be treated as individuals, and to be able to go elsewhere, and hold to account those who provide the services, if they are dissatisfied.
Ireland is definitely to the right of the UK, religion is more important, farming is more important, there's no NHS and the state doesn't even own the schools, and the only counterpoint is that benefits are much more generous; ignore Europe which isn't an inherently left-right issue.
He has toi get EVEL through first and it will not be plain sailing. No Ulster unionist will vote for it and unless it is thought through (highly unlikely) there will be rebels.
"Speaking about his decision on Friday to quit the race to replace Ed Miliband, he said: “There is absolutely no skeleton, no information, scandal or otherwise that caused me to make this decision."
That is holding yourself hostage to fortune. If you have lived your life and never ever done anything wrong ever, well you are a very strange individual. I know he is saying something a little more nuanced, but I would have stuck to the reason he gave. If thats the truth, then thats the truth.
Responding to claims he “wheeled out” Alice last weekend for the TV cameras, Mr Umunna said: “Had I known what was going to greet us was going to greet us, then obviously I wouldn’t have brought her with me.”
Really...I mean really....no cameras or photographers going to be there....he is very very stupid man if he honestly though that.
Both for a former lawyer and supposed smart man, I don't think I would have said either of those things.
Chuka Ummuna withdrew from Labour leadership race 'to start a family'
Even tim has failed to mention Coulson on his twitter feed .. I reckon he must have taken a caning on his GE bets.. He would have been following the polls.
http://www.policy-network.net/publications/4746/laying-the-foundations-for-a-labour-century
In this election most of the people who voted Green probably thought that Labour was going to win anyway.
After this election I can expect the Green vote to fall as the radical left will try to coalesce around the single issue of stopping the Tories next time instead of moaning that Labour isn't left wing enough. The Greens cost Labour quite a few seats in the marginals and next time their vote will be really squeezed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/N06000004
How touching.
Fine Gael in Ireland 36% in 2011
''Yvette Cooper demonstrated in an instant why she is unfit to become Labour leader. Using a classic "straw man" technique, she exhorted; "Don't let anyone tell you that more nurses, doctors and teachers caused Lehman Brothers to fail." Not surprisingly, she received a large ovation ... If even now, a week after the election, senior Labour figures are indulging in such gesture politics, it suggests that Labour has learned very little and would rather stay within its comfort zone''
@MrHarryCole: UKIP wars far from over. http://t.co/apxVEBAwOP
@PickardJE: @MrHarryCole Ukip now claiming that Raheem was never the "chief of staff". Rewriting history.
I don't agree on the consumer not being qualified to compare. On more than one occasion I've challenged an opinion of my GP by querying from what I've read from my own online research. The "experts" can be just as complacent, self-interested and lazy as the rest of us, or just simply occasionally get it wrong.
Sunshine is the great disinfectant, and information the great leveller, and taking your business elsewhere the ultimate sanction, I think people are savvier than perhaps you might give them credit for.
The other week I was chatting to a friend who had her baby in Addenbrookes the week before we had ours in Hinchinbrooke. The experiences could not be more different: Addenbrookes treated her awfully. It's the same for other couples I know.
I saw no 'corporate greed' at Hinchinbrooke: only good care. Which is more than could be said for Addenbrookes.
It's a shame BJO no longer seems to post ...
But gas and electricity offer genuine choice - not just in terms of price, but type of provider too. I'd argue that (with state guidance) privatisation has improved the situation. Few would argue for the renationalisation of these utilities.
What I have a hard time getting to is how market choice will really work in, say, compulsory-age education. Choice already exists - parents can educate their children privately, home-school, start a free school or move to a different catchment area. But how do those without the wherewithal or resources to do any of those things exercise choice if their child is failing at a crappy local school? Market choice isn't an answer to that question.
Though given that you can barely get a fag paper between Labour and Tory positions education policy (with the exception of teacher pay and the grandstanding on free schools) I'm not sure either left or right is winning the argument.
and we all know how that worked out.
I think we have to be very careful assuming Greens are Lib Dems or Labour voters on holiday.
If Labour choose a candidate that takes the Party towards the centre i can easily see the Greens polling 7-8% -if not more in 2020