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.
This just goes to show the incoherence of the Conservatives' proposals. The UK Parliament is sovereign. This was not changed by the Human Rights Act 1998, which only obliges the courts to construe legislation in a manner compatible with the Convention where it is possible to do so, and where it is impossible, to declare the legislation incompatible; such declaration having no effect on the effect, operation or enforcement of the legislation. The ECHR is an international treaty, which contains a mechanism, the Strasbourg Court, for its interpretation. That interpretation is authoritative. Putting the ECHR into statute will therefore ensure the Strasbourg Court's interpretation is followed, unless the courts are instructed to ignore Strasbourg decisions, which the Conservatives do not propose.
If these are the Conservatives' proposals, then the British Bill of Rights will change little, and contain all the fundamental flaws of the 1998 Act.
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?
Which hospitals require patients to drink water out of vases?
Your central argument is bogus as well, at least in many cases. For routine problems it holds true; for more complex and/or rare problems then you have to travel to see experts.
The same is not true for education, or at least in the same way.
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.
If that is the SNP's position, the Conservatives should start using their majority in Westminster to amend Scottish legislation in areas where legislative competence has been devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and see how the SNP likes it. The Hunting Act 2004 does not apply to Scotland, and its repeal would have no effect, legal or financial, on Scotland. The SNP cannot vote on a Bill to repeal it without falling into grave hypocrisy.
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?
Which hospitals require patients to drink water out of vases?
Your central argument is bogus as well, at least in many cases. For routine problems it holds true; for more complex and/or rare problems then you have to travel to see experts.
The same is not true for education, or at least in the same way.
It was the Foundation Trust status of Stafford that was the reason the management behaved as they did...
And we still have not heard the end of Musgrove Park:
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.
This just goes to show the incoherence of the Conservatives' proposals. The UK Parliament is sovereign. This was not changed by the Human Rights Act 1998, which only obliges the courts to construe legislation in a manner compatible with the Convention where it is possible to do so, and where it is impossible, to declare the legislation incompatible; such declaration having no effect on the effect, operation or enforcement of the legislation. The ECHR is an international treaty, which contains a mechanism, the Strasbourg Court, for its interpretation. That interpretation is authoritative. Putting the ECHR into statute will therefore ensure the Strasbourg Court's interpretation is followed, unless the courts are instructed to ignore Strasbourg decisions, which the Conservatives do not propose.
If these are the Conservatives' proposals, then the British Bill of Rights will change little, and contain all the fundamental flaws of the 1998 Act.
Dominic Cummings has written an interesting, if (necessarily) convoluted, piece on this issue:
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?
Which hospitals require patients to drink water out of vases?
Your central argument is bogus as well, at least in many cases. For routine problems it holds true; for more complex and/or rare problems then you have to travel to see experts.
The same is not true for education, or at least in the same way.
It was the Foundation Trust status of Stafford that was the reason the management behaved as they did...
And we still have not heard the end of Musgrove Park:
@foxinsoxuk Is precisely the sort of centrist voter Labour need to attract - they'd do well to listen.
I had a long conversation with a friend tonight. What Labour need is a charismatic leader. Chaka was the man. Failing that a solid leader with a punch- Yvette fits that bill.
Liz Kendell might have some good ideas, but she would get hammered by the media in the long term.
Liz is lightweight- neither charismatic nor solid.
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.
I cannot understand the rationale behind water privatisation: it makes no sense (whereas power does).
If you're wondering if there's anything good to watch on telly - I can't recommend 5* right now - 30 Most Shocking TV Moments - it's hilarious. All those things you remember thinking WTF about.
George Osborne has moved to strengthen his personal, political operation by hiring the political editor of the Daily Mail James Chapman as his director of communications.
An excellent analysis, albeit not wholly accurate (conflating, for example, the difficulty of repealing the 1998 Act with its effect viz-a-viz other enactments inconsistent with it and seemingly ignorant of the Supreme Court's speculations in the HS2 case [2014] 1 WLR 324 and Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] 1 WLR 1591 about the EU law and parliamentary sovereignty. The one substantial point he misses is the objectionable nature of the defeasible rights under the Convention, whose effect is to give to judges the power to make decisions which are properly made by Parliament, or occasionally the executive.
Now the dust has settled it is clear the only reason the Tories won a majority was by the gerrymandering of the electoral registration laws on individual voter registration.They basically cheated and one of the first items on the new government's agenda is further gerrymandering of constituency boundaries.The badgers keep changing the goalposts.
@foxinsoxuk Is precisely the sort of centrist voter Labour need to attract - they'd do well to listen.
I had a long conversation with a friend tonight. What Labour need is a charismatic leader. Chaka was the man. Failing that a solid leader with a punch- Yvette fits that bill.
Liz Kendell might have some good ideas, but she would get hammered by the media in the long term.
Liz is lightweight- neither charismatic nor solid.
I think that you would be surprised.
If she is on the ballot she will do very well on the hustings circuit. Her biggest risk is not getting on the ballot in the first place, hence her being first off the mark.
This is a serious decision for Labour and there needs to be a genuine choice. Liz is post-Blairite/Brownite. Labour should trust the process.
If you're wondering if there's anything good to watch on telly - I can't recommend 5* right now - 30 Most Shocking TV Moments - it's hilarious. All those things you remember thinking WTF about.
Now the dust has settled it is clear the only reason the Tories won a majority was by the gerrymandering of the electoral registration laws on individual voter registration.They basically cheated and one of the first items on the new government's agenda is further gerrymandering of constituency boundaries.The badgers keep changing the goalposts.
If you are lucky Labour will have the first female PM next time around ;-)
Now the dust has settled it is clear the only reason the Tories won a majority was by the gerrymandering of the electoral registration laws on individual voter registration.They basically cheated and one of the first items on the new government's agenda is further gerrymandering of constituency boundaries.The badgers keep changing the goalposts.
Now the dust has settled it is clear the only reason the Tories won a majority was by the gerrymandering of the electoral registration laws on individual voter registration.They basically cheated and one of the first items on the new government's agenda is further gerrymandering of constituency boundaries.The badgers keep changing the goalposts.
Utter tosh. Labour taking Cambridge busts the myths for that one I think. The truth is the man in the Nuneaton pub just didn't fancy the Ed and Alex show.
Now the dust has settled it is clear the only reason the Tories won a majority was by the gerrymandering of the electoral registration laws on individual voter registration.They basically cheated and one of the first items on the new government's agenda is further gerrymandering of constituency boundaries.The badgers keep changing the goalposts.
If you are lucky Labour will have the first female PM next time around ;-)
Now the dust has settled it is clear the only reason the Tories won a majority was by the gerrymandering of the electoral registration laws on individual voter registration.They basically cheated and one of the first items on the new government's agenda is further gerrymandering of constituency boundaries.The badgers keep changing the goalposts.
Now the dust has settled it is clear the only reason the Tories won a majority was by the gerrymandering of the electoral registration laws on individual voter registration.They basically cheated and one of the first items on the new government's agenda is further gerrymandering of constituency boundaries.The badgers keep changing the goalposts.
The poor, disenfranchised masses, having to fill out a short form to vote! The hardship of it 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?
Which hospitals require patients to drink water out of vases?
Your central argument is bogus as well, at least in many cases. For routine problems it holds true; for more complex and/or rare problems then you have to travel to see experts.
The same is not true for education, or at least in the same way.
It was the Foundation Trust status of Stafford that was the reason the management behaved as they did...
And we still have not heard the end of Musgrove Park:
One of the problems of the privatisation/Foundation Trust agenda is the concealment from public view.
In the case of the member of my family mistreated by them, it was nothing to do with management or structure. It was to do with bad nursing. In fact, hideous nursing.
Now the dust has settled it is clear the only reason the Tories won a majority was by the gerrymandering of the electoral registration laws on individual voter registration.They basically cheated and one of the first items on the new government's agenda is further gerrymandering of constituency boundaries.The badgers keep changing the goalposts.
Unless they prevented people from registering to vote (and in my area the efforts to remind people to register were extensive), I don't see how you can say they cheated. They changed the rules on how it was done, but we cannot say with any certainty how those who did not register under the new system would have voted - after all, almost everyone assumed the Tories would get a lot less votes with the system as it is than in fact they did - and even if they would have tipped the balance, nothing stopped them from registering as far as I am aware, they apparently chose not to and can have no complaints.
It sounds like a conspiracy theorist answer to what the election was about and why it turned out the way it did.
Future gerrymandering? Definitely needs keeping an eye on at all times no matter what.
Off topic, I think 'It is clear that' is one of my favourite phrases ever. I use it a lot myself* and - forgive me - it is clear that it is often used in situations where things are far from clear, but to make the stated opinion or interpretation seem more authoritative.
*'It is clear that the udnerlying factors favour Labour and that is why they will win' is likely something I said many times in one form or another.
Now the dust has settled it is clear the only reason the Tories won a majority was by the gerrymandering of the electoral registration laws on individual voter registration.They basically cheated and one of the first items on the new government's agenda is further gerrymandering of constituency boundaries.The badgers keep changing the goalposts.
Individual voter registration is not gerrymandering, and the Labour Party support it in principle (see, for example, their reasoned amendment to the Second Reading of the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013). Nor are approximately equal sized constituencies in 596/600 seats in the UK gerrymandering.
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.
This just goes to show the incoherence of the Conservatives' proposals. The UK Parliament is sovereign. This was not changed by the Human Rights Act 1998, which only obliges the courts to construe legislation in a manner compatible with the Convention where it is possible to do so, and where it is impossible, to declare the legislation incompatible; such declaration having no effect on the effect, operation or enforcement of the legislation. The ECHR is an international treaty, which contains a mechanism, the Strasbourg Court, for its interpretation. That interpretation is authoritative. Putting the ECHR into statute will therefore ensure the Strasbourg Court's interpretation is followed, unless the courts are instructed to ignore Strasbourg decisions, which the Conservatives do not propose.
If these are the Conservatives' proposals, then the British Bill of Rights will change little, and contain all the fundamental flaws of the 1998 Act.
Dominic Cummings has written an interesting, if (necessarily) convoluted, piece on this issue:
Why does this need clarification? It is in the Conservative Party manifesto; we have just had an election; surely this was widely debated in the campaign? Or did both parties and the media spend weeks talking about baby-eating and eating bacon sandwiches? Maybe we do get the politicians we deserve.
When it comes the gerrymandering, I think there are degrees. There are some changes to the electoral process (I believe gerrymandering is just about the drawing of electoral districts, but if we could use it more broadly about changes to the system) which might benefit one side over the other, but which would not necessarily be unreasonable, if it was to have the effect of redressing an historic unfair advantage to the other side. This would presumably still be gerrymandering, as it benefits one side over the other, despite being, in theory, to make things more fair than they currently were. If it had the effect of redressing that existing unfairness and going too far in the other direction to confer an advantage on to the other party, that would make it unreasonable.
Lefty posts are full of delusion. Meanwhile the Tories cement their team There is a huge vaccum at the top of the Labour party, Ed has gone and Ed Balls is no longer there Its so reminiscent of the Tories in 1997
The new Labour intake is very left-wing, too -- look at people like Cat Smith, Richard Burgon, and the other signatories of that new letter. Doesn't bode well for the future.
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.
I cannot understand the rationale behind water privatisation: it makes no sense (whereas power does).
[Most of] Wales has ended up with a not-for-profit private water company. It would be interesting to see how it compares to the shareholder-owned entities in England.
Now the dust has settled it is clear the only reason the Tories won a majority was by the gerrymandering of the electoral registration laws on individual voter registration.They basically cheated and one of the first items on the new government's agenda is further gerrymandering of constituency boundaries.The badgers keep changing the goalposts.
C'mon, you're better than that.
(Or if you aren't, then Labour are truly screwed for a generation or more.)
An excellent analysis, albeit not wholly accurate (conflating, for example, the difficulty of repealing the 1998 Act with its effect viz-a-viz other enactments inconsistent with it and seemingly ignorant of the Supreme Court's speculations in the HS2 case [2014] 1 WLR 324 and Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] 1 WLR 1591 about the EU law and parliamentary sovereignty. The one substantial point he misses is the objectionable nature of the defeasible rights under the Convention, whose effect is to give to judges the power to make decisions which are properly made by Parliament, or occasionally the executive.
I recommend you put those points in a comment on the article. He usually takes note and amends accordingly.
@PickardJE: Breaking: A Burnham leadership would execute Uturn over EU referendum and call for Cameron to accelerate it http://t.co/s7dSb4j7TR
Interesting move. I've thought we should have had a vote on it long before now, but I always thought the difficulty for Cameron was how well he would be able to sell a bauble from the EU leaders (and yes, any pedants, by that I mean the bureaucrats and the various heads of government) as something significant enough to justify to enough of his soft Euroskeptic base to vote to stay In, and the sooner the vote the harder that sell would be.
Were there not rumours of Cameron wanting to move it up to 2016 in any case? In which case, Burnham getting ahead of steals his thunder, makes it look like he's bowing to the pressure, and if he doesn't Burnham can attack him for the delay.
You do realise that this site is subject to liable laws.
I am surprised the mods haven't deleted that post.
Out of curiosity, I'm not sure that calling someone gay would be libelous would it? You have to prove reputation damage or harm, I think (IANAL) and thankfully society has moved on
It's weird to think that had Cleggy not lead the LDs into coalition in 2010, he may have been PM now but instead he's gone and his party is down to 8 seats...
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.
I cannot understand the rationale behind water privatisation: it makes no sense (whereas power does).
[Most of] Wales has ended up with a not-for-profit private water company. It would be interesting to see how it compares to the shareholder-owned entities in England.
Ah thanks, didn't know that. It would be good to see a comparison (esp. wrt investment), but such comparisons may be rather difficult due to the nature of the regions the companies serve.
It's weird to think that had Cleggy not lead the LDs into coalition in 2010, he may have been PM now but instead he's gone and his party is down to 8 seats...
I doubt Clegg would have been PM; a lot of that relies on C2s going to the LDs, which is doubtful.
I can see why people are put off politics, papers digging round in one's affairs. "Too old for a girlfriend" decided another hack the other day.
'The revelations about Mr Umunna’s nocturnal activities come as intrigue continues to swirl over the reasons for his withdrawal from the Labour Party leadership contest, just days after throwing his hat into the ring.' Watch the later editions; they've got something.
@PickardJE: Breaking: A Burnham leadership would execute Uturn over EU referendum and call for Cameron to accelerate it http://t.co/s7dSb4j7TR
Interesting move. I've thought we should have had a vote on it long before now, but I always thought the difficulty for Cameron was how well he would be able to sell a bauble from the EU leaders (and yes, any pedants, by that I mean the bureaucrats and the various heads of government) as something significant enough to justify to enough of his soft Euroskeptic base to vote to stay In, and the sooner the vote the harder that sell would be.
Were there not rumours of Cameron wanting to move it up to 2016 in any case? In which case, Burnham getting ahead of steals his thunder, makes it look like he's bowing to the pressure, and if he doesn't Burnham can attack him for the delay.
I think Cameron will just say he is delighted that the Labour Party have decided to trust the voters' judgment.
It's weird to think that had Cleggy not lead the LDs into coalition in 2010, he may have been PM now but instead he's gone and his party is down to 8 seats...
I doubt Clegg would have been PM; a lot of that relies on C2s going to the LDs, which is doubtful.
Anyway at the time he would have looked like a fence-sitter, and the Tories would have got their majority 4.5 years earlier.
The new Labour intake is very left-wing, too -- look at people like Cat Smith, Richard Burgon, and the other signatories of that new letter. Doesn't bode well for the future.
Reminiscent of those elected in the disaster of 1983 like privileged CND-associate Anthony Blair.
It's weird to think that had Cleggy not lead the LDs into coalition in 2010, he may have been PM now but instead he's gone and his party is down to 8 seats...
I doubt Clegg would have been PM; a lot of that relies on C2s going to the LDs, which is doubtful.
Anyway at the time he would have looked like a fence-sitter, and the Tories would have got their majority 4.5 years earlier.
Yep. Really the LDs were stuck in a difficult position in 2010. I think the coalition was the right decision for them, but their political naivety led the LDs to negotiate a pretty poor deal.
I can see why people are put off politics, papers digging round in one's affairs. "Too old for a girlfriend" decided another hack the other day.
'The revelations about Mr Umunna’s nocturnal activities come as intrigue continues to swirl over the reasons for his withdrawal from the Labour Party leadership contest, just days after throwing his hat into the ring.' Watch the later editions; they've got something.
I love the fact that the article reports that the club is so exclusive that Greg Wallace and John Torode weren't allowed to be in it. I respect Greg Wallace as much as the next man, but he's hardly at the pinnacle of the A list. Or maybe, in Daily Mail land, he is. Really, could the Mail scream 'Middlebrow' any louder?
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
Erm, the Tories support an NHS which would be a major step towards socialism in Ireland!
I can see why people are put off politics, papers digging round in one's affairs. "Too old for a girlfriend" decided another hack the other day.
'The revelations about Mr Umunna’s nocturnal activities come as intrigue continues to swirl over the reasons for his withdrawal from the Labour Party leadership contest, just days after throwing his hat into the ring.' Watch the later editions; they've got something.
I love the fact that the article reports that the club is so exclusive that Greg Wallace and John Torode aren't in it. I respect Greg Wallace as much as the next man, but he's hardly at the pinnacle of the A list. Or maybe, in Daily Mail land, he is. really, could the Mail scream 'Middlebrow' any louder?
You don't want Greg Wallace in your club, you never know if he might start a punch up...that or bump into one of his 6 million ex girlfriends / wives
It's weird to think that had Cleggy not lead the LDs into coalition in 2010, he may have been PM now but instead he's gone and his party is down to 8 seats...
I doubt Clegg would have been PM; a lot of that relies on C2s going to the LDs, which is doubtful.
Anyway at the time he would have looked like a fence-sitter, and the Tories would have got their majority 4.5 years earlier.
Yep. Really the LDs were stuck in a difficult position in 2010. I think the coalition was the right decision for them, but their political naivety led the LDs to negotiate a pretty poor deal.
The Lib Dems should have either ended the coalition early - say late 2014 "We need to part ways etc etc", or have gone in fully for Coalition MK2. In the end they were trying to undermine everyone and got hammered for their duplicity losing deep targets like Yeovil and Twickenham to the Tories, ALMOST Orkney to the SNP and about 8 or 9 seats to Labour too.
@PickardJE: Breaking: A Burnham leadership would execute Uturn over EU referendum and call for Cameron to accelerate it http://t.co/s7dSb4j7TR
Interesting move. I've thought we should have had a vote on it long before now, but I always thought the difficulty for Cameron was how well he would be able to sell a bauble from the EU leaders (and yes, any pedants, by that I mean the bureaucrats and the various heads of government) as something significant enough to justify to enough of his soft Euroskeptic base to vote to stay In, and the sooner the vote the harder that sell would be.
Were there not rumours of Cameron wanting to move it up to 2016 in any case? In which case, Burnham getting ahead of steals his thunder, makes it look like he's bowing to the pressure, and if he doesn't Burnham can attack him for the delay.
I think it's a clever move by Burnham. He's clearly hoping to reap the rewards of having "listened" to the British people, but also able to ambush Cameron as a sell-out if he comes up with just a paper-tweaking deal.
Conversely, it also has the added benefit of adding to the political weight on Cameron to deliver, and firming up the pressure on the EU to deliver a deal.
I cannot understand the rationale behind water privatisation: it makes no sense (whereas power does).
[Most of] Wales has ended up with a not-for-profit private water company. It would be interesting to see how it compares to the shareholder-owned entities in England.
Ah thanks, didn't know that. It would be good to see a comparison (esp. wrt investment), but such comparisons may be rather difficult due to the nature of the regions the companies serve.
Yes, that occurred to me too.
Unfortunately, unless the private water companies are so mismanaged that they manage to go bankrupt*, there's no prospect of any change in their ownership structure. It would cost billions to buy out the Australians, Chinese, Canadians, etc, who now own them, and to whom hundreds of millions of pounds in dividends are paid.
Who are 'People Before Profit'? Why the big surge?
An Irish New Left outfit, won two seats in the 2011 Dáil elections and then their two winners split the party; bunch of jokers, comparable to similar fringe left groups in the UK which sometimes do ok in safe Labour seats; this should be understood as a similar case.
It's weird to think that had Cleggy not lead the LDs into coalition in 2010, he may have been PM now but instead he's gone and his party is down to 8 seats...
I doubt Clegg would have been PM; a lot of that relies on C2s going to the LDs, which is doubtful.
Anyway at the time he would have looked like a fence-sitter, and the Tories would have got their majority 4.5 years earlier.
Yep. Really the LDs were stuck in a difficult position in 2010. I think the coalition was the right decision for them, but their political naivety led the LDs to negotiate a pretty poor deal.
The Lib Dems should have either ended the coalition early - say late 2014 "We need to part ways etc etc", or have gone in fully for Coalition MK2. In the end they were trying to undermine everyone and got hammered for their duplicity losing deep targets like Yeovil and Twickenham to the Tories, ALMOST Orkney to the SNP and about 8 or 9 seats to Labour too.
Agreed - their differentiation strategy was a complete failure; and after being joined at the hip with Cameron and co between 2010-14, it looked bizarre to suddenly start opposing the government in late 2014. It was like they were trying to exist as an opposition within government.
@PickardJE: Breaking: A Burnham leadership would execute Uturn over EU referendum and call for Cameron to accelerate it http://t.co/s7dSb4j7TR
Interesting move. I've thought we should have had a vote on it long before now, but I always thought the difficulty for Cameron was how well he would be able to sell a bauble from the EU leaders (and yes, any pedants, by that I mean the bureaucrats and the various heads of government) as something significant enough to justify to enough of his soft Euroskeptic base to vote to stay In, and the sooner the vote the harder that sell would be.
Were there not rumours of Cameron wanting to move it up to 2016 in any case? In which case, Burnham getting ahead of steals his thunder, makes it look like he's bowing to the pressure, and if he doesn't Burnham can attack him for the delay.
I think it's a clever move by Burnham. He's clearly hoping to reap the rewards of having "listened" to the British people, but also able to ambush Cameron as a sell-out if he comes up with just a paper-tweaking deal.
Conversely, it also has the added benefit of adding to the political weight on Cameron to deliver, and firming up the pressure on the EU to deliver a deal.
If the deal's not great, though, what's Burnham going to say? Can't imagine him suddenly advocating withdrawal.
The Lib Dems should have either ended the coalition early - say late 2014 "We need to part ways etc etc", or have gone in fully for Coalition MK2. In the end they were trying to undermine everyone and got hammered for their duplicity losing deep targets like Yeovil and Twickenham to the Tories, ALMOST Orkney to the SNP and about 8 or 9 seats to Labour too.
They should have vetoed any change to tuition fees. The Tories wouldn't negotiate away Trident or raise taxes on the wealthy, so why should the Lib Dems have made an equally fundamental concession? It was stupid, stupid, stupid. And I think Clegg's personal objection to the LD policy made it easier for him to ditch, but it was an act of self-destruction which his party blithely followed.
The Lib Dems should have either ended the coalition early - say late 2014 "We need to part ways etc etc", or have gone in fully for Coalition MK2. In the end they were trying to undermine everyone and got hammered for their duplicity losing deep targets like Yeovil and Twickenham to the Tories, ALMOST Orkney to the SNP and about 8 or 9 seats to Labour too.
They should have vetoed any change to tuition fees. The Tories wouldn't negotiate away Trident or raise taxes on the wealthy, so why should the Lib Dems have made an equally fundamental concession? It was stupid, stupid, stupid. And I think Clegg's personal objection to the LD policy made it easier for him to ditch, but it was an act of self-destruction which his party blithely followed.
The huge Lib Dem problem was that most people fell into one of two categories:
- they liked the Coalition's work and wanted to see its achievements sustained. The Tories owned the achievements and were the obvious choice,
- they disliked the Coalition's work and wanted a change of government. Labour offered an alternative vision.
With the exception of the 'good local MP' narrative the reasons to vote Lib Dem simply weren't there. The big question is whether they can use local messaging to fight back -- the problem they'll find is that Tory MPs work far harder locally than they did in the 1990s.
More interesting is a non-royal calling for National Service to come back. Must be nice as an automatic Captain with no need to work in his life despite a very tenuous claim to being "royalty".
The Lib Dems ... In the end they were trying to undermine everyone and got hammered for their duplicity ....
They should have vetoed any change to tuition fees. ... why should the Lib Dems have made an equally fundamental concession? It was stupid, stupid, stupid. And I think Clegg's personal objection to the LD policy made it easier for him to ditch, but it was an act of self-destruction which his party blithely followed.
The LDs were given the option to abstain in the coalition agreement. Were not the tuition fee proposals the result of a report commissioned by Labour? Didn't the coalition actually make it cheaper for the poorer students?? If this is the level of LD litmus test then there is no hope for them. Of course the real problem was their stupid signing up to the anti petition. In the middle of all this the issue of how to fund higher education when you have a 160bn deficit gets lost.
The Lib Dems ... In the end they were trying to undermine everyone and got hammered for their duplicity ....
They should have vetoed any change to tuition fees. ... why should the Lib Dems have made an equally fundamental concession? It was stupid, stupid, stupid. And I think Clegg's personal objection to the LD policy made it easier for him to ditch, but it was an act of self-destruction which his party blithely followed.
The LDs were given the option to abstain in the coalition agreement. Were not the tuition fee proposals the result of a report commissioned by Labour? Didn't the coalition actually make it cheaper for the poorer students?? If this is the level of LD litmus test then there is no hope for them. Of course the real problem was their stupid signing up to the anti petition. In the middle of all this the issue of how to fund higher education when you have a 160bn deficit gets lost.
I am not saying that the policy was good, I am saying that abandoning it was self-destructive, and obviously so. Trident is hugely expensive too, but nobody would ever expect the Tories to hand it over in a coalition negotiation.
The huge Lib Dem problem was that most people fell into one of two categories:
- they liked the Coalition's work and wanted to see its achievements sustained. The Tories owned the achievements and were the obvious choice,
- they disliked the Coalition's work and wanted a change of government. Labour offered an alternative vision.
With the exception of the 'good local MP' narrative the reasons to vote Lib Dem simply weren't there. The big question is whether they can use local messaging to fight back -- the problem they'll find is that Tory MPs work far harder locally than they did in the 1990s.
Most people have always fallen into one of those two categories, that didn't change. Anyway, it happened because so many left the Lib Dems, so that should be explained first. It was obvious that most Lib Dem MPs facing Labour were toast. There should have been no reason for people to ditch the Lib Dem MPs facing Tories. They did, in part because no Lib Dem policy would have been a reliable outcome of voting for them, at least under Nick Clegg's watch.
If I were a member of the M Den, I would no longer be a member of the M Den if the "manager" is selling stories to the Daily Mail. Seems that club is dead.
EU Referendum? Whatever Cameron negotiates we can be sure Burnham or whoever Labour put up will howl that its not good enough, but some how they will suggest a Yes vote. Of course not long ago they were saying that a referendum would be bad for business confidence. So lets not underestimate the U-Turn. Hey ho. Burnham is a stone cold cast iron certainty isn't he?
Turns out Chuka who is so keen to avoid trash is a member of a trashy club. How ironic.
What is trashy about a ''club behind the Bank of England which sells £150 steaks and cognac up to £4,000''. and ''is so exclusive that MasterChef presenters Gregg Wallace and John Torode had membership applications turned down'' It is so shady and ''exclusive'' and Umuna is so ashamed that he was openly photographed at it's opening last year. This may have been a stupid thing to do for a labour politician but hardly 'trashy'.
EU Referendum? Whatever Cameron negotiates we can be sure Burnham or whoever Labour put up will howl that its not good enough, but some how they will suggest a Yes vote. Of course not long ago they were saying that a referendum would be bad for business confidence. So lets not underestimate the U-Turn. Hey ho. Burnham is a stone cold cast iron certainty isn't he?
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
Erm, the Tories support an NHS which would be a major step towards socialism in Ireland!
But Fine Gael got roughly the same % votes as the Tories did! Unless you think FF, Irish Labour and SF are to the right of the UK Tories?
Just watched The Hunger Games for the first time, on Channel 4. It was like a mixture of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, The Wicker Man, Star Wars, and Lord of the Flies.
Just watched The Hunger Games for the first time, on Channel 4. It was like a mixture of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, The Wicker Man, Star Wars, and Lord of the Flies.
The first film doesnt capture the book, the second and third are much much better.
Just watched The Hunger Games for the first time, on Channel 4. It was like a mixture of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, The Wicker Man, Star Wars, and Lord of the Flies.
Hahah. It's hardly groundbreaking. Wait till you see the second and third one. It just gets worse.
Comments
If these are the Conservatives' proposals, then the British Bill of Rights will change little, and contain all the fundamental flaws of the 1998 Act.
Your central argument is bogus as well, at least in many cases. For routine problems it holds true; for more complex and/or rare problems then you have to travel to see experts.
The same is not true for education, or at least in the same way.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/599675672559235073
And we still have not heard the end of Musgrove Park:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-29627011
One of the problems of the privatisation/Foundation Trust agenda is the concealment from public view.
https://dominiccummings.wordpress.com/2015/05/11/on-the-referendum-1-gove-and-the-human-rights-act-cool-yer-boots-man/
It might take four months but I'd be staggered if he doesn't win.
Kendall impresses me, but I say that as a Tory because she says Tory things.
Liz Kendell might have some good ideas, but she would get hammered by the media in the long term.
Liz is lightweight- neither charismatic nor solid.
Chuka Umunna is a member of the "dark-lit" M Den and has his own £300 cognac locker
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/05/osborne-strengthens-his-media-team/
Somebody is firing up the Quattro....
If she is on the ballot she will do very well on the hustings circuit. Her biggest risk is not getting on the ballot in the first place, hence her being first off the mark.
This is a serious decision for Labour and there needs to be a genuine choice. Liz is post-Blairite/Brownite. Labour should trust the process.
It sounds like a conspiracy theorist answer to what the election was about and why it turned out the way it did.
Future gerrymandering? Definitely needs keeping an eye on at all times no matter what.
Off topic, I think 'It is clear that' is one of my favourite phrases ever. I use it a lot myself* and - forgive me - it is clear that it is often used in situations where things are far from clear, but to make the stated opinion or interpretation seem more authoritative.
*'It is clear that the udnerlying factors favour Labour and that is why they will win' is likely something I said many times in one form or another.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3084239/Labour-leadership-contender-Liz-Kendall-reveals-relationship-Inbetweeners-star-Greg-Davies-over.html
Eastern region:
2015:
Con: 1,445,946 (47.74%)
Lab: 649,320 (21.44%)
UKIP: 558,517 (18.44%)
LD: 243,191 (8.03%)
Greens: 116,274 (3.84%)
Others: 15,374 (0.51%)
TOTAL: 3,028,622
2010:
Con: 1,356,739 (47.12%)
LD: 692,932 (24.07%)
Lab: 564,581 (19.61%)
UKIP: 123,237 (4.28%)
Greens: 42,677 (1.48%)
Others: 98,951 (3.44%)
TOTAL: 2,879,117
Changes:
Con: +0.62%
Lab: +1.83%
UKIP: +14.16%
LD: -16.04%
Greens: +2.36%
Others: -2.93%
Swing, Con to Lab: 0.61%
(Or if you aren't, then Labour are truly screwed for a generation or more.)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3084677/Exposed-Chuck-Chuka-s-shady-secret-Labour-MP-belongs-members-den-300-cognac-locker-bar-named-rattled-leadership-contender.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
Were there not rumours of Cameron wanting to move it up to 2016 in any case? In which case, Burnham getting ahead of steals his thunder, makes it look like he's bowing to the pressure, and if he doesn't Burnham can attack him for the delay.
I'm SHOCKED. Shocked I tell you.
I can see why people are put off politics, papers digging round in one's affairs. "Too old for a girlfriend" decided another hack the other day.
Watch the later editions; they've got something.
"But what took you so long?"
Again small beer.
Yep. Really the LDs were stuck in a difficult position in 2010. I think the coalition was the right decision for them, but their political naivety led the LDs to negotiate a pretty poor deal.
Conversely, it also has the added benefit of adding to the political weight on Cameron to deliver, and firming up the pressure on the EU to deliver a deal.
Unfortunately, unless the private water companies are so mismanaged that they manage to go bankrupt*, there's no prospect of any change in their ownership structure. It would cost billions to buy out the Australians, Chinese, Canadians, etc, who now own them, and to whom hundreds of millions of pounds in dividends are paid.
* Which is what happened with Welsh Water.
Left/right split
Right-wing parties 66.2
Left-wing 25.3
Centrists/other 8.5
- they liked the Coalition's work and wanted to see its achievements sustained. The Tories owned the achievements and were the obvious choice,
- they disliked the Coalition's work and wanted a change of government. Labour offered an alternative vision.
With the exception of the 'good local MP' narrative the reasons to vote Lib Dem simply weren't there. The big question is whether they can use local messaging to fight back -- the problem they'll find is that Tory MPs work far harder locally than they did in the 1990s.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/chuka-umunna-was-in-third-place-in-survey-of-defeated-labour-parliamentary-candidates-poll-reveals-10255799.html
Were not the tuition fee proposals the result of a report commissioned by Labour? Didn't the coalition actually make it cheaper for the poorer students?? If this is the level of LD litmus test then there is no hope for them. Of course the real problem was their stupid signing up to the anti petition. In the middle of all this the issue of how to fund higher education when you have a 160bn deficit gets lost.
Whatever Cameron negotiates we can be sure Burnham or whoever Labour put up will howl that its not good enough, but some how they will suggest a Yes vote.
Of course not long ago they were saying that a referendum would be bad for business confidence. So lets not underestimate the U-Turn. Hey ho.
Burnham is a stone cold cast iron certainty isn't he?
and
''is so exclusive that MasterChef presenters Gregg Wallace and John Torode had membership applications turned down''
It is so shady and ''exclusive'' and Umuna is so ashamed that he was openly photographed at it's opening last year.
This may have been a stupid thing to do for a labour politician but hardly 'trashy'.
Just like Ed.
Just watched The Hunger Games for the first time, on Channel 4. It was like a mixture of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, The Wicker Man, Star Wars, and Lord of the Flies.
I don't have a problem with him being a member of any club he wants to - just don't join a place like this and then bleat about 'working people'.
Liking your work. Are all these figures you're producing filed somewhere? Do you have a blog?