One minute we are Germany's biggest bud, the next they are in league with the French to stitch us up.
One minute Greece is on the verge of a deal with creditors, next minute Grexit is imminent.
Does anybody know what the f8ck is going on in Europe?
Everyone is lying to everyone even to themselves, so now no one knows what is true or what is false, not even the governments. However it's not just to confuse people it's also to cover one's self, it's like you bet on every number on a roulette and if you win you can claim to be an expert.
I blame the Greeks for officially creating the doctrine of creative vagueness a few months ago, although creative vagueness has been a sport for western officials since the dawn of politics and business contracts.
Mr. Owls, a wise choice. Your EICIPM acronym was twice as long as necessary.
On-topic: Burnham still seems number one, which means it's a question of how Cooper or Kendall's supporters would split when one of the ladies is eliminated.
AFAIK few modern missiles are designed to 'hit' the target directly in the air-to-air realm. They mostly want the plane to hit the debris from the missile, as you have a much greater chance of intercepting a fast-moving vehicle.
The jointed rods you mention are quite an old technology now, and quite clever. I think in particular you're referring to the continuous-rod warhead that has been about since the 1950s, I think. I don't know how common it is now when compared to fragmentation types, although I think the AIM-120 uses rods.
Blimey, 1950s. As a young, wide eyed British Aerospace trainee on secondment to the newly formed Matra BAe Dynamics, I had that explained to me as the 'latest and greatest'. As this was in the 90s, they clearly saw me coming...
Could it have been a variant of the tech? The continuous rods have been around that long, and were even used on the 1950s-era Bloodhound missile. But ISTR that some missiles use derivatives, such as multiple rings which form a cone of expanding circles, designed to increase the chance of intercept.
I think. IANAE.
The Continuous Rod (CR) Warhead was conceived at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (NMT), Soccoro, NM during the early 1950’s. Its genesis was from early tests of discrete rods in which the rods were shown capable of slicing through aircraft skin and damaging internal structure
I'd like to say that was it, but I think I was just stitched up. The same chap tried to send me to the workshop for a 'long stand', but fortunately I'd heard that one before.
In the building industry a joke was: "can you go to the stores and get a bubble for the spirit level?"
There were others as well, but I cannot remember them.
TSE Before 'Back to Basics' and sleaze, Tory EU splits deepened further, BSE etc and of course Blair won by about 12/13 points anyway. The Miliband poll was before indyref and Labour had lost half its Scottish voters to the SNP
The sleaze lie was Blair's personal and unique contribution to British political life. Smith wouldn't have risked it because it could of course blow up and bite you back harder, as it now has.
Foot and Kinnock's mid term poll performance against Thatcher was similar to what we saw before 1994.
It is often forgotten that Labour had very little to say about White Wednesday at the time, because ERM membership - at an even worse exchange rate - was their policy, too. They though that if Yerp controlled the UK economy, someone else could be blamed when they crashed it again. They had to blame America in 2008.
In fact, if I'm not mistaken, Labour were sunk in gloom immediately after White Wednesday, because the Tories could now lower interest rates and the economy would then have 4.5 years to recover. This is pretty much what happened, and Blair's strategy for dealing with it was smear.
Labour slags Blair off for two reasons - he was a Tory - and a war criminal .
Does it alarm you that come 2020, the only Labour leader in the last 46 years to win a majority was a Tory and a war criminal?
No - John Smith would have won handsomely in 1997.
April 94, the last ICM before John Smith died, had Labour with a 12% lead (ie just 3 years before an election)
April 12 with ICM, Miliband had a lead of 8%, so in the same time frame, John Smith and Ed Miliband were not that far off.
Remember, John Smith probably cost Labour the 1992 general election with his Shadow Budget
I think Blair gifted Labour an extra 40-50 seats they wouldn't otherwise have had in 1997. But such was the desire to kick the Tories out in 1997, I think Labour would have secured a comfortable majority under virtually any leader.
However, a Smith led Labour government might have been vulnerable to losing its majority in 2001, had it not played its cards right and faced a more effective Tory opposition.
Labour slags Blair off for two reasons - he was a Tory - and a war criminal .
Does it alarm you that come 2020, the only Labour leader in the last 46 years to win a majority was a Tory and a war criminal?
War Criminals and Witches win elections.
Still not having Blair Witch Project
Do you think Burnham or Cooper would become PM in 2020 if they win the leadership?
I am sure Kendall wouldnt.
I am not starting any acronyms ending in PM for any of the LAB candidates TBH
That suggests you don't think Cooper or Burnham would win either. I'm not a signed up Lizzer, and some of what she has said I strongly disagree with, but I think we need to show a break from the past. I think I'm hoping that Creagh will be the surprise package and dazzle in the hustings. Unfortunately, I don't (yet) see a leftward equivalent of Priti.
Part of me is starting to hope Kendall wins. The complete carcrash that her leadership would be might finally get the Blairite virus out of the party's system once and for all.
Blair was the only man who won majorities for the Party since 1974?
What next, Spitfires for the RAF?
Labour want Spitfires but the Tories want Typhoons and F35s. I wonder who wins that battle?
Who would win if all 20,334 Spitfires (and you could throw in 2,556 Seafires too) that were built took on the combined Typhoon/F-35 production?
I'd like to think it might be close, but what was the ratio of Spitfire pilots to airframes produced, and how much (little!) training did they have in combat compared to today's pilots? The Typhoons wouldn't need to get within 10 mlies of the Spits to take them out with modern missiles.
There are nowhere near enough missiles. For instance the Meteor isn't even fully in service yet, and we probably only have a few hundred AIM-120's.Worse, it would soon bankrupt the country: each Meteor costs about a million.
Where they would win is in radar, speed and maneuverability: the modern planes could stay out of range of the Spitfires, see them on radar, and dash in and use the Mauser cannons, then dash out of range. In visual range combat (i.e. up close), a modern jet's ability to climb fast would probably be key (IANAE).
Although if they were all in the air at once there'd probably be more losses to mid-air collisions than combat. ;-)
I'm sure I read an article or book by Eric Brown about working out tactics for RAF EE Lightnings v Mustangs (Indonesian Airforce).
Labour slags Blair off for two reasons - he was a Tory - and a war criminal .
Does it alarm you that come 2020, the only Labour leader in the last 46 years to win a majority was a Tory and a war criminal?
No - John Smith would have won handsomely in 1997.
April 94, the last ICM before John Smith died, had Labour with a 12% lead (ie just 3 years before an election)
April 12 with ICM, Miliband had a lead of 8%, so in the same time frame, John Smith and Ed Miliband were not that far off.
Remember, John Smith probably cost Labour the 1992 general election with his Shadow Budget
I think Blair gifted Labour an extra 40-50 seats they wouldn't otherwise have had in 1997. But such was the desire to kick the Tories out in 1997, I think Labour would have secured a comfortable majority under virtually any leader.
However, a Smith led Labour government might have been vulnerable to losing its majority in 2001, had it not played its cards right and faced a more effective Tory opposition.
A Smith-led Labour government, with Brown and Blair in the background jostling for position, would have been utter, utter anarchy. Totally dysfunctional. The unreconstructed leftism (no Clause 4 abolition, so union leaders into No 10 the day after the GE) would have reversed the economic growth of 1992 to 1997 and they'd have been out in 2001.
There'd then have been a Granita deal in summer 2001.
AFAIK few modern missiles are designed to 'hit' the target directly in the air-to-air realm. They mostly want the plane to hit the debris from the missile, as you have a much greater chance of intercepting a fast-moving vehicle.
The jointed rods you mention are quite an old technology now, and quite clever. I think in particular you're referring to the continuous-rod warhead that has been about since the 1950s, I think. I don't know how common it is now when compared to fragmentation types, although I think the AIM-120 uses rods.
Blimey, 1950s. As a young, wide eyed British Aerospace trainee on secondment to the newly formed Matra BAe Dynamics, I had that explained to me as the 'latest and greatest'. As this was in the 90s, they clearly saw me coming...
Could it have been a variant of the tech? The continuous rods have been around that long, and were even used on the 1950s-era Bloodhound missile. But ISTR that some missiles use derivatives, such as multiple rings which form a cone of expanding circles, designed to increase the chance of intercept.
I think. IANAE.
The Continuous Rod (CR) Warhead was conceived at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (NMT), Soccoro, NM during the early 1950’s. Its genesis was from early tests of discrete rods in which the rods were shown capable of slicing through aircraft skin and damaging internal structure
I'd like to say that was it, but I think I was just stitched up. The same chap tried to send me to the workshop for a 'long stand', but fortunately I'd heard that one before.
In the building industry a joke was: "can you go to the stores and get a bubble for the spirit level?"
There were others as well, but I cannot remember them.
Long stand; I've also heard of it as a long weight (wait)...
A tin of elbow grease.
A tin of tartan paint....
We summer-job students used to get sent for all of them. We generally managed to show the fitters we weren't THAT stupid. Until one of us was tasked with painting a floor with bitumen - and literally managed to paint himself into a corner....
In the six or so hours it took to dry off, everybody in the factory found an excuse to come down and have a laugh at him.
Bond Rubbish Against Hague Smith would have won a 100 seat majority in 2001, Clarke would have split the Tories over Europe down the middle. Remember it was also Smith who introduced One Member One Vote in 1993, he was no union stooge
OK, so I made a cheap gag about Stephen Kinnock endorsing Mary Creagh - but might the fact that he has indicate that her candidacy is not as doomed as the odds suggest?
If she can get nominated she could be the Yvette-without-the-past candidate.
AFAIK few modern missiles are designed to 'hit' the target directly in the air-to-air realm. They mostly want the plane to hit the debris from the missile, as you have a much greater chance of intercepting a fast-moving vehicle.
The jointed rods you mention are quite an old technology now, and quite clever. I think in particular you're referring to the continuous-rod warhead that has been about since the 1950s, I think. I don't know how common it is now when compared to fragmentation types, although I think the AIM-120 uses rods.
Blimey, 1950s. As a young, wide eyed British Aerospace trainee on secondment to the newly formed Matra BAe Dynamics, I had that explained to me as the 'latest and greatest'. As this was in the 90s, they clearly saw me coming...
Could it have been a variant of the tech? The continuous rods have been around that long, and were even used on the 1950s-era Bloodhound missile. But ISTR that some missiles use derivatives, such as multiple rings which form a cone of expanding circles, designed to increase the chance of intercept.
I think. IANAE.
The Continuous Rod (CR) Warhead was conceived at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (NMT), Soccoro, NM during the early 1950’s. Its genesis was from early tests of discrete rods in which the rods were shown capable of slicing through aircraft skin and damaging internal structure
I'd like to say that was it, but I think I was just stitched up. The same chap tried to send me to the workshop for a 'long stand', but fortunately I'd heard that one before.
In the building industry a joke was: "can you go to the stores and get a bubble for the spirit level?"
There were others as well, but I cannot remember them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snipe_hunt A bucket of prop wash and 10 metres of flight line were the two that they tried on me.
OK, so I made a cheap gag about Stephen Kinnock endorsing Mary Creagh - but might the fact that he has indicate that her candidacy is not as doomed as the odds suggest?
If she can get nominated she could be the Yvette-without-the-past candidate.
Yvette without the past (i.e. her experience) takes away the only argument for Yvette.
Bond Thatcher had clear poll leads going into both the 1983 and 1987 elections, Black Wednesday helped destroy the Tory reputation for economic competence for over a decade
Labour slags Blair off for two reasons - he was a Tory - and a war criminal .
Does it alarm you that come 2020, the only Labour leader in the last 46 years to win a majority was a Tory and a war criminal?
War Criminals and Witches win elections.
Still not having Blair Witch Project
Do you think Burnham or Cooper would become PM in 2020 if they win the leadership?
I am sure Kendall wouldnt.
I am not starting any acronyms ending in PM for any of the LAB candidates TBH
That suggests you don't think Cooper or Burnham would win either. I'm not a signed up Lizzer, and some of what she has said I strongly disagree with, but I think we need to show a break from the past. I think I'm hoping that Creagh will be the surprise package and dazzle in the hustings. Unfortunately, I don't (yet) see a leftward equivalent of Priti.
Me neither but I would never vote for LAB under Kendall would prefer a Farron led LD but more likely would vote Green or move to Scotland !
OK, so I made a cheap gag about Stephen Kinnock endorsing Mary Creagh - but might the fact that he has indicate that her candidacy is not as doomed as the odds suggest?
If she can get nominated she could be the Yvette-without-the-past candidate.
Yvette without the past (i.e. her experience) takes away the only argument for Yvette.
But "experience" = "record to defend" too. The chief argument for Yvette seems to be that she is neither Burnham nor Kendall. It's a good argument...
Labour slags Blair off for two reasons - he was a Tory - and a war criminal .
Does it alarm you that come 2020, the only Labour leader in the last 46 years to win a majority was a Tory and a war criminal?
War Criminals and Witches win elections.
Still not having Blair Witch Project
Do you think Burnham or Cooper would become PM in 2020 if they win the leadership?
I am sure Kendall wouldnt.
I am not starting any acronyms ending in PM for any of the LAB candidates TBH
That suggests you don't think Cooper or Burnham would win either. I'm not a signed up Lizzer, and some of what she has said I strongly disagree with, but I think we need to show a break from the past. I think I'm hoping that Creagh will be the surprise package and dazzle in the hustings. Unfortunately, I don't (yet) see a leftward equivalent of Priti.
Me neither but I would never vote for LAB under Kendall would prefer a Farron led LD but more likely would vote Green or move to Scotland !
You passionately care about the NHS, in the lifetime of the NHS, all 68 years and counting, the Tories have run it for about 40 years.
Only a Labour government cut NHS spending, whilst Dave and George will fund it to record levels.
I think you should vote Conservative, you know it makes sense.
OK, so I made a cheap gag about Stephen Kinnock endorsing Mary Creagh - but might the fact that he has indicate that her candidacy is not as doomed as the odds suggest?
If she can get nominated she could be the Yvette-without-the-past candidate.
I wouldn't rule her (or Yvette) out at this stage - she has a genuinely pleasant personality and a reasonable presence too. Needs a USP, but we are all jumping to conclusions, aren't we? - we've had one Kendall interview and speech, one obscure UNITE pontification and a few "why I'm standing" articles, but at present all the action is in the Commons as people try to sign each other up. My advice is to wait till the action opens up to the wider membership before betting or writing anyone off.
Note Harriet's comment that she'd try to ensure that all four get on the ballot. People are up for signing a ballot nomination to ensure choice even if they're not going to vote for them.
OK, so I made a cheap gag about Stephen Kinnock endorsing Mary Creagh - but might the fact that he has indicate that her candidacy is not as doomed as the odds suggest?
If she can get nominated she could be the Yvette-without-the-past candidate.
Note Harriet's comment that she'd try to ensure that all four get on the ballot. People are up for signing a ballot nomination to ensure choice even if they're not going to vote for them.
Nick, I am encouraged by your final sentence. Do you reckon that would also apply if a proper left-wing candidate declared?
Labour slags Blair off for two reasons - he was a Tory - and a war criminal .
Does it alarm you that come 2020, the only Labour leader in the last 46 years to win a majority was a Tory and a war criminal?
No - John Smith would have won handsomely in 1997.
April 94, the last ICM before John Smith died, had Labour with a 12% lead (ie just 3 years before an election)
April 12 with ICM, Miliband had a lead of 8%, so in the same time frame, John Smith and Ed Miliband werent' that far off.
Remember, John Smith probably cost Labour the 1992 general election with his Shadow Budget
I don't share the view that Smith's Shadow Budget cost Labour the 1992 election. Labour did well in London marginals that year despite that being an area most likely to have been adversely affected by the proposals. Re - polls in April/May 1994 - ICM on 7th May just five days before Smith's death gave Labour a 15% lead. For several months Mori had been recording Labour leads of over 20% whilst Gallup and NOP came up with leads of circa 25%. There is no doubt that Labour was storming ahead long before Blair became leader.
I think that any government that's been in power for 17 years is destined to lose against a reasonably competent opposition, simply because people are sick of them by then.
Blair turned a normal defeat into an appalling rout.
Note Harriet's comment that she'd try to ensure that all four get on the ballot. People are up for signing a ballot nomination to ensure choice even if they're not going to vote for them.
Nick - do you think it is now safe to assume that no-one other than the four currently declared runners will enter the race?
Part of me is starting to hope Kendall wins. The complete carcrash that her leadership would be might finally get the Blairite virus out of the party's system once and for all.
Blimey....I don't believe any Tory would talk in such venemous and virulent terms about any past leader and particularly one so electorally triumphant. Were you a party member during his leadership: if so, how you must have suffered in silence!
I liked Blair at the time actually. The problem is the "Blairites" today (and Blair himself since he descended into post-retirement madness) are complete self-parodies of what the Blair goverments actually stood for.
Fair enough but the obvious question is what did YOU think the Blair governments stood for? To many what you saw 1997-2007 was what you got....and in the great scheme of things it didn't amount to much.
Tbh if Labour isn't for helping poor people and good public services then I don't know what on earth the point of it is. bubble.
Enjoying the fruits of office, and rewarding the groups that support them, at the expense of those that don't.
"If documents sent around to national capitals in recent days ahead of Tuesday’s Brussels meeting of EU “sherpas” – the top EU advisers to all 28 prime ministers – are any indication, the report being pulled together may propose little more than a bit of euro housekeeping in the near term. Although more ambitious plans could be included, the leaked documents show they will be relegated to the medium and long term – a tried and true EU tradition that is normally a recipe for bureaucratic burial."
It doesn't seem to have occurred to either the Guardian or the Daily Mail that the Eurozone reform plans may actually have been about the Eurozone rather than about Britain. If much-needed reforms are being postponed to outmanoeuvre Britain, the Eurozone is in deeper trouble than I thought.
Correct. The issue is the eurozone, but for various motives relating to the differing politics of papers and how they want to scare their readers they want to paint it as a disaster for 'Dave'. I find it significant that hysterical PBers are happy to be misled.
Note Harriet's comment that she'd try to ensure that all four get on the ballot. People are up for signing a ballot nomination to ensure choice even if they're not going to vote for them.
Nick - do you think it is now safe to assume that no-one other than the four currently declared runners will enter the race?
One speculation worth a thought is Mrs Balls as leader with Watson as deputy. How many powers behind the throne could poor Mrs Balls cope with? On reflection, isn't this her appeal to anyone likely to vote for her. As well as being the edstone round her neck to the rest.
As recently as the 1980s people looked at the figures for how many households had inside lavatories and how many had fridges. Now virtually every household has these things, so nobody bothers with the information any more. Given all this, how is it that so many pundits and charities talk about widespread poverty in Britain? It dates back to 1962 and the annual conference of the British Sociological Association. Two Left-wing academics, Peter Townsend and Brian Abel-Smith, developed a new way of defining “poverty” based on the income level at which people were entitled to a payment called “supplementary benefit”. One person at the conference reported “a mood of conspiratorial excitement” about the idea of redefining poverty. These are her words, not mine, and they do seem revealing. It is as if some people on the Left were longing to find a way in which poverty had not been “conquered” as Barbara Castle had said. They had found a way in which it would always be possible to use the huge emotional power of the word. The flurry of excitement about redefining poverty concluded with it being defined as 60 per cent of median incomes with adjustment for family size. This definition was eventually accepted by the British government and the European Union. That is the definition which those who talk about poverty in the media are using.
Labour slags Blair off for two reasons - he was a Tory - and a war criminal .
Does it alarm you that come 2020, the only Labour leader in the last 46 years to win a majority was a Tory and a war criminal?
War Criminals and Witches win elections.
Still not having Blair Witch Project
Do you think Burnham or Cooper would become PM in 2020 if they win the leadership?
I am sure Kendall wouldnt.
I am not starting any acronyms ending in PM for any of the LAB candidates TBH
That suggests you don't think Cooper or Burnham would win either. I'm not a signed up Lizzer, and some of what she has said I strongly disagree with, but I think we need to show a break from the past. I think I'm hoping that Creagh will be the surprise package and dazzle in the hustings. Unfortunately, I don't (yet) see a leftward equivalent of Priti.
Me neither but I would never vote for LAB under Kendall would prefer a Farron led LD but more likely would vote Green or move to Scotland !
You passionately care about the NHS, in the lifetime of the NHS, all 68 years and counting, the Tories have run it for about 40 years.
Only a Labour government cut NHS spending, whilst Dave and George will fund it to record levels.
I think you should vote Conservative, you know it makes sense.
Labour slags Blair off for two reasons - he was a Tory - and a war criminal .
Does it alarm you that come 2020, the only Labour leader in the last 46 years to win a majority was a Tory and a war criminal?
No - John Smith would have won handsomely in 1997.
April 94, the last ICM before John Smith died, had Labour with a 12% lead (ie just 3 years before an election)
April 12 with ICM, Miliband had a lead of 8%, so in the same time frame, John Smith and Ed Miliband werent' that far off.
Remember, John Smith probably cost Labour the 1992 general election with his Shadow Budget
I don't share the view that Smith's Shadow Budget cost Labour the 1992 election. Labour did well in London marginals that year despite that being an area most likely to have been adversely affected by the proposals. Re - polls in April/May 1994 - ICM on 7th May just five days before Smith's death gave Labour a 15% lead. For several months Mori had been recording Labour leads of over 20% whilst Gallup and NOP came up with leads of circa 25%. There is no doubt that Labour was storming ahead long before Blair became leader.
I think that any government that's been in power for 17 years is destined to lose against a reasonably competent opposition, simply because people are sick of them by then.
Blair turned a normal defeat into an appalling rout.
I remember that Essex University chappie Anthony King saying on the BBC on election night that the result would have been the same since September 1992. The Tories lost the election on Black Wednesday.
Many people vote Tory even when they don't like them because they believe Tories run the economy better. That day they lost it !
Labour slags Blair off for two reasons - he was a Tory - and a war criminal .
Does it alarm you that come 2020, the only Labour leader in the last 46 years to win a majority was a Tory and a war criminal?
War Criminals and Witches win elections.
Still not having Blair Witch Project
Do you think Burnham or Cooper would become PM in 2020 if they win the leadership?
I am sure Kendall wouldnt.
I am not starting any acronyms ending in PM for any of the LAB candidates TBH
That suggests you don't think Cooper or Burnham would win either. I'm not a signed up Lizzer, and some of what she has said I strongly disagree with, but I think we need to show a break from the past. I think I'm hoping that Creagh will be the surprise package and dazzle in the hustings. Unfortunately, I don't (yet) see a leftward equivalent of Priti.
Me neither but I would never vote for LAB under Kendall would prefer a Farron led LD but more likely would vote Green or move to Scotland !
You passionately care about the NHS, in the lifetime of the NHS, all 68 years and counting, the Tories have run it for about 40 years.
Only a Labour government cut NHS spending, whilst Dave and George will fund it to record levels.
I think you should vote Conservative, you know it makes sense.
Not even for a free Pizza!!
Has Toby Perkins given any reason for his supporting Liz Kendall? Perhaps mistakenly, I always had him as more on the party's left.
Labour slags Blair off for two reasons - he was a Tory - and a war criminal .
Does it alarm you that come 2020, the only Labour leader in the last 46 years to win a majority was a Tory and a war criminal?
War Criminals and Witches win elections.
Still not having Blair Witch Project
Do you think Burnham or Cooper would become PM in 2020 if they win the leadership?
I am sure Kendall wouldnt.
I am not starting any acronyms ending in PM for any of the LAB candidates TBH
That suggests you don't think Cooper or Burnham would win either. I'm not a signed up Lizzer, and some of what she has said I strongly disagree with, but I think we need to show a break from the past. I think I'm hoping that Creagh will be the surprise package and dazzle in the hustings. Unfortunately, I don't (yet) see a leftward equivalent of Priti.
Me neither but I would never vote for LAB under Kendall would prefer a Farron led LD but more likely would vote Green or move to Scotland !
You passionately care about the NHS, in the lifetime of the NHS, all 68 years and counting, the Tories have run it for about 40 years.
Only a Labour government cut NHS spending, whilst Dave and George will fund it to record levels.
I think you should vote Conservative, you know it makes sense.
Not even for a free Pizza!!
It was fine until Thatcher (I make that 17 years of one nation Tories). With Keith Joseph (the Mad Monk) urging her on, she reportedly wanted a private insurance system as per the USA and was only pacified by an internal market. New Labour of course took it on, being keen to pay homage to the Mad Monk.
It wastes £ billions. As does the 2012 HSCA, which leads to a mountain of inter-hospital billing and now it seems that many large transactions must be referred to the competition authorities. For a state-owned *National* Health Service? Yes. FFS.
The only politician who has recently talked much sense on the NHS is Dr. David Owen and the only political party to have suggested a sensible initiative on the NHS in GE-2015 is UKIP (return PFI hospitals to state ownership to save money).
Labour slags Blair off for two reasons - he was a Tory - and a war criminal .
Does it alarm you that come 2020, the only Labour leader in the last 46 years to win a majority was a Tory and a war criminal?
No - John Smith would have won handsomely in 1997.
April 94, the last ICM before John Smith died, had Labour with a 12% lead (ie just 3 years before an election)
April 12 with ICM, Miliband had a lead of 8%, so in the same time frame, John Smith and Ed Miliband werent' that far off.
Remember, John Smith probably cost Labour the 1992 general election with his Shadow Budget
I don't share the view that Smith's Shadow Budget cost Labour the 1992 election. Labour did well in London marginals that year despite that being an area most likely to have been adversely affected by the proposals. Re - polls in April/May 1994 - ICM on 7th May just five days before Smith's death gave Labour a 15% lead. For several months Mori had been recording Labour leads of over 20% whilst Gallup and NOP came up with leads of circa 25%. There is no doubt that Labour was storming ahead long before Blair became leader.
I think that any government that's been in power for 17 years is destined to lose against a reasonably competent opposition, simply because people are sick of them by then.
Blair turned a normal defeat into an appalling rout.
I remember that Essex University chappie Anthony King saying on the BBC on election night that the result would have been the same since September 1992. The Tories lost the election on Black Wednesday.
Many people vote Tory even when they don't like them because they believe Tories run the economy better. That day they lost it !
The 1990s Tories were tired, anachronistic, divided and quite frankly just a bit "crap". Deserved to lose and be out for a decade.
Labour slags Blair off for two reasons - he was a Tory - and a war criminal .
Does it alarm you that come 2020, the only Labour leader in the last 46 years to win a majority was a Tory and a war criminal?
War Criminals and Witches win elections.
Still not having Blair Witch Project
Do you think Burnham or Cooper would become PM in 2020 if they win the leadership?
I am sure Kendall wouldnt.
I am not starting any acronyms ending in PM for any of the LAB candidates TBH
That suggests you don't think Cooper or Burnham would win either. I'm not a signed up Lizzer, and some of what she has said I strongly disagree with, but I think we need to show a break from the past. I think I'm hoping that Creagh will be the surprise package and dazzle in the hustings. Unfortunately, I don't (yet) see a leftward equivalent of Priti.
Me neither but I would never vote for LAB under Kendall would prefer a Farron led LD but more likely would vote Green or move to Scotland !
You passionately care about the NHS, in the lifetime of the NHS, all 68 years and counting, the Tories have run it for about 40 years.
Only a Labour government cut NHS spending, whilst Dave and George will fund it to record levels.
I think you should vote Conservative, you know it makes sense.
Not even for a free Pizza!!
It was fine until Thatcher (I make that 17 years of one nation Tories). With Keith Joseph (the Mad Monk) urging her on, she reportedly wanted a private insurance system as per the USA and was only pacified by an internal market. New Labour of course took it on, being keen to pay homage to the Mad Monk.
It wastes £ billions. As does the 2012 HSCA, which leads to a mountain of inter-hospital billing and now it seems that many large transactions must be referred to the competition authorities. For a state-owned *National* Health Service? Yes. FFS.
The only politician who has recently talked much sense on the NHS is Dr. David Owen and the only political party to have suggested a sensible initiative on the NHS in GE-2015 is UKIP (return PFI hospitals to state ownership to save money).
"return PFI hospitals to state ownership to save money"
How? They'd have to buy them back - where's the money?
(Not that I think the PFI deals were any good in the first place).
As recently as the 1980s people looked at the figures for how many households had inside lavatories and how many had fridges. Now virtually every household has these things, so nobody bothers with the information any more. Given all this, how is it that so many pundits and charities talk about widespread poverty in Britain? It dates back to 1962 and the annual conference of the British Sociological Association. Two Left-wing academics, Peter Townsend and Brian Abel-Smith, developed a new way of defining “poverty” based on the income level at which people were entitled to a payment called “supplementary benefit”. One person at the conference reported “a mood of conspiratorial excitement” about the idea of redefining poverty. These are her words, not mine, and they do seem revealing. It is as if some people on the Left were longing to find a way in which poverty had not been “conquered” as Barbara Castle had said. They had found a way in which it would always be possible to use the huge emotional power of the word. The flurry of excitement about redefining poverty concluded with it being defined as 60 per cent of median incomes with adjustment for family size. This definition was eventually accepted by the British government and the European Union. That is the definition which those who talk about poverty in the media are using.
Of course, based on this definition, it is impossible to defeat poverty unless you achieve a remarkable level of income parity. A socialist dream.
Labour slags Blair off for two reasons - he was a Tory - and a war criminal .
Does it alarm you that come 2020, the only Labour leader in the last 46 years to win a majority was a Tory and a war criminal?
War Criminals and Witches win elections.
Still not having Blair Witch Project
Do you think Burnham or Cooper would become PM in 2020 if they win the leadership?
I am sure Kendall wouldnt.
I am not starting any acronyms ending in PM for any of the LAB candidates TBH
That suggests you don't think Cooper or Burnham would win either. I'm not a signed up Lizzer, and some of what she has said I strongly disagree with, but I think we need to show a break from the past. I think I'm hoping that Creagh will be the surprise package and dazzle in the hustings. Unfortunately, I don't (yet) see a leftward equivalent of Priti.
Me neither but I would never vote for LAB under Kendall would prefer a Farron led LD but more likely would vote Green or move to Scotland !
You passionately care about the NHS, in the lifetime of the NHS, all 68 years and counting, the Tories have run it for about 40 years.
Only a Labour government cut NHS spending, whilst Dave and George will fund it to record levels.
I think you should vote Conservative, you know it makes sense.
Not even for a free Pizza!!
It was fine until Thatcher (I make that 17 years of one nation Tories). With Keith Joseph (the Mad Monk) urging her on, she reportedly wanted a private insurance system as per the USA and was only pacified by an internal market. New Labour of course took it on, being keen to pay homage to the Mad Monk.
It wastes £ billions. As does the 2012 HSCA, which leads to a mountain of inter-hospital billing and now it seems that many large transactions must be referred to the competition authorities. For a state-owned *National* Health Service? Yes. FFS.
The only politician who has recently talked much sense on the NHS is Dr. David Owen and the only political party to have suggested a sensible initiative on the NHS in GE-2015 is UKIP (return PFI hospitals to state ownership to save money).
I agree both LAB and CON are responsible for heaping bureaucracy via GPFH and cost via PFI
I see that Coopers big idea is 'Scandinavian style' universal child care. Free of course and available for 2 year olds.
Will she also be suggesting raises in the general level of taxation to pay for it? Saying that only the top 1% need contribute really doesn't count any more.
Labour slags Blair off for two reasons - he was a Tory - and a war criminal .
Does it alarm you that come 2020, the only Labour leader in the last 46 years to win a majority was a Tory and a war criminal?
No - John Smith would have won handsomely in 1997.
April 94, the last ICM before John Smith died, had Labour with a 12% lead (ie just 3 years before an election)
April 12 with ICM, Miliband had a lead of 8%, so in the same time frame, John Smith and Ed Miliband werent' that far off.
Remember, John Smith probably cost Labour the 1992 general election with his Shadow Budget
I don't share the view that Smith's Shadow Budget cost Labour the 1992 election. Labour did well in London marginals that year despite that being an area most likely to have been adversely affected by the proposals. Re - polls in April/May 1994 - ICM on 7th May just five days before Smith's death gave Labour a 15% lead. For several months Mori had been recording Labour leads of over 20% whilst Gallup and NOP came up with leads of circa 25%. There is no doubt that Labour was storming ahead long before Blair became leader.
I think that any government that's been in power for 17 years is destined to lose against a reasonably competent opposition, simply because people are sick of them by then.
Blair turned a normal defeat into an appalling rout.
Blair sucked in quite a few extra Lib Dem voters into his column, who would not otherwise have voted Labour. That probably cost the Tories quite a few extra seats in the south and Midlands.
As recently as the 1980s people looked at the figures for how many households had inside lavatories and how many had fridges. Now virtually every household has these things, so nobody bothers with the information any more. Given all this, how is it that so many pundits and charities talk about widespread poverty in Britain? It dates back to 1962 and the annual conference of the British Sociological Association. Two Left-wing academics, Peter Townsend and Brian Abel-Smith, developed a new way of defining “poverty” based on the income level at which people were entitled to a payment called “supplementary benefit”. One person at the conference reported “a mood of conspiratorial excitement” about the idea of redefining poverty. These are her words, not mine, and they do seem revealing. It is as if some people on the Left were longing to find a way in which poverty had not been “conquered” as Barbara Castle had said. They had found a way in which it would always be possible to use the huge emotional power of the word. The flurry of excitement about redefining poverty concluded with it being defined as 60 per cent of median incomes with adjustment for family size. This definition was eventually accepted by the British government and the European Union. That is the definition which those who talk about poverty in the media are using.
Of course, based on this definition, it is impossible to defeat poverty unless you achieve a remarkable level of income parity. A socialist dream. I'll dig out the link later but the level of this lovely 'relative poverty' measure fell sharply in 2008 and 2009. No-one at the bottom of the scale was actually better off, but as the City incomes crashed and the economy shrank, everyone else was 'relatively' better off as a result. Complete and utter bollocks.
Edited extra bit: Mr. T and Mr. Sandpit are spot on with the bullshit of 'relative poverty'.
Speaking of capitalism, I've got a new short story out tonight (Kraxon Magazine, that renowned outlet of excellent writing). The subject was corporate fantasy in 1999. Obviously, that wasn't niche enough, so I wrote a corporate fantasy set in 1999 which was also a comedy.
PFI *can* be crap. At other times it can be a justifiable way of managing projects. Just because it is often used where it will not work, does not mean that the idea as a whole is bad.
AFAIK few modern missiles are designed to 'hit' the target directly in the air-to-air realm. They mostly want the plane to hit the debris from the missile, as you have a much greater chance of intercepting a fast-moving vehicle.
The jointed rods you mention are quite an old technology now, and quite clever. I think in particular you're referring to the continuous-rod warhead that has been about since the 1950s, I think. I don't know how common it is now when compared to fragmentation types, although I think the AIM-120 uses rods.
Could it have been a variant of the tech? The continuous rods have been around that long, and were even used on the 1950s-era Bloodhound missile. But ISTR that some missiles use derivatives, such as multiple rings which form a cone of expanding circles, designed to increase the chance of intercept.
I think. IANAE.
The Continuous Rod (CR) Warhead was conceived at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (NMT), Soccoro, NM during the early 1950’s. Its genesis was from early tests of discrete rods in which the rods were shown capable of slicing through aircraft skin and damaging internal structure
I'd like to say that was it, but I think I was just stitched up. The same chap tried to send me to the workshop for a 'long stand', but fortunately I'd heard that one before.
In the building industry a joke was: "can you go to the stores and get a bubble for the spirit level?"
There were others as well, but I cannot remember them.
Long stand; I've also heard of it as a long weight (wait)...
A tin of elbow grease.
A tin of tartan paint....
We summer-job students used to get sent for all of them. We generally managed to show the fitters we weren't THAT stupid. Until one of us was tasked with painting a floor with bitumen - and literally managed to paint himself into a corner....
In the six or so hours it took to dry off, everybody in the factory found an excuse to come down and have a laugh at him.Ha! At school, we (a bunch of 16-year-olds) were in biology class, when a young lad (12, maybe) came in. The evil teacher in the classroom next door had sent him in to ask for some fallopian tubes....
Thanks for that. I''d never seen that before, and it is fascinating.
Edit: it reminds me of an episode in the Simpsons where Sideshow Bob has stolen the Wright Flyer, and a couple of jet fighters are sent after it but the keep on overshooting.
Sandpit..Don't be silly.. It is going to be free...Labour style...
Don't start me! I'm actually pretty centrist, but I probably sound like a died in the wool Tory right now. Labour really don't realise why they just got thumped by the People, do they?
Someone needs to write in big bloody letters on the wall of their HQ that the only leader they've had in the last 40 years that got elected by the public was Tony Blair. Whatever they may think of him now, the electorate is way to the right of the party and most of its candidates, most especially Red Len who's today trying to pull Mr Stafford to the hard left.
I would like to see Kendall of the current Labour candidates as I think she can credibly oppose the new government. I would have loved to have seen Jarvis as he could have worked well with Cameron on the "Really needs doing but can't get elected after doing it" list for a year or two at least.
Edited extra bit: Mr. T and Mr. Sandpit are spot on with the bullshit of 'relative poverty'.
Speaking of capitalism, I've got a new short story out tonight (Kraxon Magazine, that renowned outlet of excellent writing). The subject was corporate fantasy in 1999. Obviously, that wasn't niche enough, so I wrote a corporate fantasy set in 1999 which was also a comedy.
I see that Coopers big idea is 'Scandinavian style' universal child care. Free of course and available for 2 year olds.
How about rewarding people for NOT having children? For NOT being a burden on stretched maternity services. For NOT being a burden on the education system. For NOT putting additional pressures on housing.
That would be a big idea. Not the same old, same old "who can piss the most of other peoples money up a wall" contest....
I see that Coopers big idea is 'Scandinavian style' universal child care. Free of course and available for 2 year olds.
How about rewarding people for NOT having children? For NOT being a burden on stretched maternity services. For NOT being a burden on the education system. For NOT putting additional pressures on housing.
That would be a big idea. Not the same old, same old "who can piss the most of other peoples money up a wall" contest....
Mr. Anorak, it's not but you should absolutely read Zodiac Eclipse [12 x 1,000 word stories, one released per month. The first part is one of the best things I've written].
In addition to that I wrote a short story on the theme of an eclipse, and this new short story, to be released later this evening (usually it's 8-11pm, but I won't be online then).
Thanks for that. I''d never seen that before, and it is fascinating.
Edit: it reminds me of an episode in the Simpsons where Sideshow Bob has stolen the Wright Flyer, and a couple of jet fighters are sent after it but the keep on overshooting.
I see that Coopers big idea is 'Scandinavian style' universal child care. Free of course and available for 2 year olds.
How about rewarding people for NOT having children? For NOT being a burden on stretched maternity services. For NOT being a burden on the education system. For NOT putting additional pressures on housing.
That would be a big idea. Not the same old, same old "who can piss the most of other peoples money up a wall" contest....
£500 for a man to have a vasectomy. £1500 for a woman to be sterilized (more due to its irreversability).
Edited extra bit: Mr. T and Mr. Sandpit are spot on with the bullshit of 'relative poverty'.
Speaking of capitalism, I've got a new short story out tonight (Kraxon Magazine, that renowned outlet of excellent writing). The subject was corporate fantasy in 1999. Obviously, that wasn't niche enough, so I wrote a corporate fantasy set in 1999 which was also a comedy.
The other bit of bullshit I hate is "child poverty" as if there were rich parents with poor children. If a child is poor, it is because its parents are poor so dealing with child poverty means dealing with the poverty of its parents. The "child" word has been added to make the phrase super-emotive.
Ha! At school, we (a bunch of 16-year-olds) were in biology class, when a young lad (12, maybe) came in. The evil teacher in the classroom next door had sent him in to ask for some fallopian tubes....
My father once sent his rather naive young assistant out for a verbal agreement stamp. Brilliantly, he tried four different places for one, where by a sheer fluke a bunch of equally inexperienced and naive assistants spent total of three hours trying to find one, before coming back to nervously report on total failure...
I see that Coopers big idea is 'Scandinavian style' universal child care. Free of course and available for 2 year olds.
How about rewarding people for NOT having children? For NOT being a burden on stretched maternity services. For NOT being a burden on the education system. For NOT putting additional pressures on housing.
That would be a big idea. Not the same old, same old "who can piss the most of other peoples money up a wall" contest....
"Hardworking singletons"?
Sorry mate, you'll have to be in a committed but child-free relationship to earn the cash.
Bond Thatcher had clear poll leads going into both the 1983 and 1987 elections, Black Wednesday helped destroy the Tory reputation for economic competence for over a decade
Nobody's talking about going into the election. I'm talking about mid term poll ratings. Thjose of 1994 were not significantly different to those of 1990 or of 1985.
But you keep telling yourself Smith would have won without Blair's lies. There's nothing I'd like better than for Labour to believe that, airbrush their only winner since 1974 out of it and elect an unelectable bonkers leftie, on the grounds that bonkers lefties aren't really unelectable.
Edited extra bit: Mr. T and Mr. Sandpit are spot on with the bullshit of 'relative poverty'.
Speaking of capitalism, I've got a new short story out tonight (Kraxon Magazine, that renowned outlet of excellent writing). The subject was corporate fantasy in 1999. Obviously, that wasn't niche enough, so I wrote a corporate fantasy set in 1999 which was also a comedy.
The other bit of bullshit I hate is "child poverty" as if there were rich parents with poor children. If a child is poor, it is because its parents are poor so dealing with child poverty means dealing with the poverty of its parents. The "child" word has been added to make the phrase super-emotive.
Don't forget, it is sometimes the mere fact of having children - which are quite expensive to look after (feeding, clothing, extra heating even...) that can push people into poverty. That was the idea behind the old family allowance, although it seems to have got lost over time.
I see that Coopers big idea is 'Scandinavian style' universal child care. Free of course and available for 2 year olds.
How about rewarding people for NOT having children? For NOT being a burden on stretched maternity services. For NOT being a burden on the education system. For NOT putting additional pressures on housing.
That would be a big idea. Not the same old, same old "who can piss the most of other peoples money up a wall" contest....
"Hardworking singletons"?
A rare political discussion between friends in a public house a few years back suggested that the most discriminated against group in the country is the single, white, male, private-sector, higher-rate taxpayer; paying a marginal 40% for almost nothing back.
The fact that everyone around the table was in that category was completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Note Harriet's comment that she'd try to ensure that all four get on the ballot. People are up for signing a ballot nomination to ensure choice even if they're not going to vote for them.
Nick - do you think it is now safe to assume that no-one other than the four currently declared runners will enter the race?
Perhaps if Nick spots a candidate who's apparently given up, he could let us know on here, in time for us all to get on?
AFAIK few modern missiles are designed to 'hit' the target directly in the air-to-air realm. They mostly want the plane to hit the debris from the missile, as you have a much greater chance of intercepting a fast-moving vehicle.
The jointed rods you mention are quite an old technology now, and quite clever. I think in particular you're referring to the continuous-rod warhead that has been about since the 1950s, I think. I don't know how common it is now when compared to fragmentation types, although I think the AIM-120 uses rods.
Could it have been a variant of the tech? The continuous rods have been around that long, and were even used on the 1950s-era Bloodhound missile. But ISTR that some missiles use derivatives, such as multiple rings which form a cone of expanding circles, designed to increase the chance of intercept.
I think. IANAE.
The Continuous Rod (CR) Warhead was conceived at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (NMT), Soccoro, NM during the early 1950’s. Its genesis was from early tests of discrete rods in which the rods were shown capable of slicing through aircraft skin and damaging internal structure
I'd like to say that was it, but I think I was just stitched up. The same chap tried to send me to the workshop for a 'long stand', but fortunately I'd heard that one before.
In the building industry a joke was: "can you go to the stores and get a bubble for the spirit level?"
There were others as well, but I cannot remember them.
Long stand; I've also heard of it as a long weight (wait)...
A tin of elbow grease.
A tin of tartan paint....
We summer-job students used to get sent for all of them. We generally managed to show the fitters we weren't THAT stupid. Until one of us was tasked with painting a floor with bitumen - and literally managed to paint himself into a corner....
In the six or so hours it took to dry off, everybody in the factory found an excuse to come down and have a laugh at him.
Ha! At school, we (a bunch of 16-year-olds) were in biology class, when a young lad (12, maybe) came in. The evil teacher in the classroom next door had sent him in to ask for some fallopian tubes....
As recently as the 1980s people looked at the figures for how many households had inside lavatories and how many had fridges. Now virtually every household has these things, so nobody bothers with the information any more. Given all this, how is it that so many pundits and charities talk about widespread poverty in Britain? It dates back to 1962 and the annual conference of the British Sociological Association. Two Left-wing academics, Peter Townsend and Brian Abel-Smith, developed a new way of defining “poverty” based on the income level at which people were entitled to a payment called “supplementary benefit”. One person at the conference reported “a mood of conspiratorial excitement” about the idea of redefining poverty. These are her words, not mine, and they do seem revealing. It is as if some people on the Left were longing to find a way in which poverty had not been “conquered” as Barbara Castle had said. They had found a way in which it would always be possible to use the huge emotional power of the word. The flurry of excitement about redefining poverty concluded with it being defined as 60 per cent of median incomes with adjustment for family size. This definition was eventually accepted by the British government and the European Union. That is the definition which those who talk about poverty in the media are using.
Of course, based on this definition, it is impossible to defeat poverty unless you achieve a remarkable level of income parity. A socialist dream.
I'll dig out the link later but the level of this lovely 'relative poverty' measure fell sharply in 2008 and 2009. No-one at the bottom of the scale was actually better off, but as the City incomes crashed and the economy shrank, everyone else was 'relatively' better off as a result. Complete and utter bollocks.
Yes, if we all earned nothing there would be no poverty.
As recently as the 1980s people looked at the figures for how many households had inside lavatories and how many had fridges. Now virtually every household has these things, so nobody bothers with the information any more. Given all this, how is it that so many pundits and charities talk about widespread poverty in Britain? It dates back to 1962 and the annual conference of the British Sociological Association. Two Left-wing academics, Peter Townsend and Brian Abel-Smith, developed a new way of defining “poverty” based on the income level at which people were entitled to a payment called “supplementary benefit”. One person at the conference reported “a mood of conspiratorial excitement” about the idea of redefining poverty. These are her words, not mine, and they do seem revealing. It is as if some people on the Left were longing to find a way in which poverty had not been “conquered” as Barbara Castle had said. They had found a way in which it would always be possible to use the huge emotional power of the word. The flurry of excitement about redefining poverty concluded with it being defined as 60 per cent of median incomes with adjustment for family size. This definition was eventually accepted by the British government and the European Union. That is the definition which those who talk about poverty in the media are using.
Of course, based on this definition, it is impossible to defeat poverty unless you achieve a remarkable level of income parity. A socialist dream.
I'll dig out the link later but the level of this lovely 'relative poverty' measure fell sharply in 2008 and 2009. No-one at the bottom of the scale was actually better off, but as the City incomes crashed and the economy shrank, everyone else was 'relatively' better off as a result. Complete and utter bollocks. Here is the link http://www.ifs.org.uk/images/obs/fig_rel_pov_9697.jpg From the IFS report http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/6738 Note that 'relative' poverty takes a massive dive for pensioners and children in 2008 and 2009, while going up for the working population. Almost the only change in those years was that the income of the top earners fell massively while benefits were uprated with inflation. It's all relative bollocks.
Of course, based on this definition, it is impossible to defeat poverty unless you achieve a remarkable level of income parity. A socialist dream.
I know what you mean. But to some extent, it's a consensus. If we define "poverty" as not having an inside loo, then we would be saying that virtually nobody in the West is now poor, and that's not something most people would say, is it? Most people do set a standard vaguely based on what is commonly experienced nowadays in this country, and define "poor" as being way below it. Yeah, we're all rich compared with Mali, but even the right favour doing a bit better than that, even at the bottom of the ladder. Incidentally, I'm old enough to remember canvassing in areas where if you needed a loo it was polite to enquire whether they had one inside the flat - sometimes it was simply on the landing. So I'd concede that there's progress.
Note Harriet's comment that she'd try to ensure that all four get on the ballot. People are up for signing a ballot nomination to ensure choice even if they're not going to vote for them.
Nick - do you think it is now safe to assume that no-one other than the four currently declared runners will enter the race?
No, but I think it would take a collective meltdown of the four candidates (e.g. a hustings where everyone thought they were all rubbish) to prompt someone else. to come forward. Otherwise, anyone else is leaving it a bit late. The exception, maybe, is a left candidate, since people like Jeremy Corbyn haven't nominated anyone yet. Speaking of which...
Note Harriet's comment that she'd try to ensure that all four get on the ballot. People are up for signing a ballot nomination to ensure choice even if they're not going to vote for them.
Nick, I am encouraged by your final sentence. Do you reckon that would also apply if a proper left-wing candidate declared?
I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet, but whereas getting 4*35 nominations with a bit of nudging and arm-twisting should be feasible, 5*35 is harder. My guess (and remember I'm not close to Parliamentary circles now) is that the left are seeing if any current runner will give them some bankable promises before deciding whether to have a go. The mood in the party isn't especially left-wing at the moment IMO - Danny and Sandy are probably fairly typical in saying that they'd put up with some policy defects if the candidate was electable, though they don't want to have post-Blairism without a Blair-quality electable leader to go with it.
I see that Coopers big idea is 'Scandinavian style' universal child care. Free of course and available for 2 year olds.
How about rewarding people for NOT having children? For NOT being a burden on stretched maternity services. For NOT being a burden on the education system. For NOT putting additional pressures on housing.
That would be a big idea. Not the same old, same old "who can piss the most of other peoples money up a wall" contest....
I understand the point you are making. But who 9looks after us when we are old? Children are a good thing. But do Labour have to state-istly insitutionise the process of bringing them up?
Ha! At school, we (a bunch of 16-year-olds) were in biology class, when a young lad (12, maybe) came in. The evil teacher in the classroom next door had sent him in to ask for some fallopian tubes....
My father once sent his rather naive young assistant out for a verbal agreement stamp. Brilliantly, he tried four different places for one, where by a sheer fluke a bunch of equally inexperienced and naive assistants spent total of three hours trying to find one, before coming back to nervously report on total failure...
We have been known to send novices down to supplies to get a Long Stand. Supplies are always rather busy, so ask the novice to hang on and they will get to it when they can...
I see that Coopers big idea is 'Scandinavian style' universal child care. Free of course and available for 2 year olds.
How about rewarding people for NOT having children? For NOT being a burden on stretched maternity services. For NOT being a burden on the education system. For NOT putting additional pressures on housing.
That would be a big idea. Not the same old, same old "who can piss the most of other peoples money up a wall" contest....
I understand the point you are making. But who looks after us when we are old?
Immigrants, of course....
Same as now. Yeah, everyone's kids today are SO keen to look after mum and dad as bits start malfunctioning and they go doo-lally....
This nonsense idea that we must have ever more children to provide for old people is completely insane...and one day a very brave Politician will grasp the nettle and kill off this amazing Ponzi scheme..it will not be easy but it must be done.
I see that Coopers big idea is 'Scandinavian style' universal child care. Free of course and available for 2 year olds.
How about rewarding people for NOT having children? For NOT being a burden on stretched maternity services. For NOT being a burden on the education system. For NOT putting additional pressures on housing.
That would be a big idea. Not the same old, same old "who can piss the most of other peoples money up a wall" contest....
I understand the point you are making. But who looks after us when we are old?
People need to be very, very careful when looking at the Lewis Baston numbers published today.
Remember Baston did an article in 2011 before the Boundary review in the last Parliament - and by an amazing coincidence he said that would only have a minimal effect, namely:
Con -15 Lab -18
That proved to be complete rubbish - per Anthony Wells if the last review had gone through Con would have had a majority of 44 at GE 2015, not 12.
Population change is fairly minimal between 2010 and 2015 - so a new review now would very likely give a result similar to the aborted review in the last Parliament - ie Con majority 44.
Is there any point in Labour being 'particularly left wing' now anyway? Given Scotland is a wipe out and it must be a bit difficult to out-left the SNP, why bother? Just what does the Labour Party want... does it really think weaponising the NHS is clever? Does it really believe the anti tory rubbish it spouts about the NHS? Just when will it engage with the real issues we face in a sensible way? In a nutshell that's what Blair promised. If labour ignore that lesson that's fine with me.
Thank f she's no longer an MP. Domestic violence is not just physical, and physical strength is only one component:
The Government defines domestic violence as
"Any incident of threatening behaviour, violence or abuse (psychological, physical, sexual, financial or emotional) between adults who are or have been intimate partners or family members, regardless of gender or sexuality."
Relative physical strength is only one part of it. It's easy to judge, but a psychologically weak, emotionally damaged and low confidence man with poor self esteem could be vulnerable to all sorts of physical and mental bullying.
The reverse could apply to a physically understrength man with a woman who has higher than average muscle density.
My local, very noisy and persistent Cuckoo has finally gone quiet..he must have found an Oo to Cuck with.
I have a very noisy but persistent chaffinch who I call the Preview Bird because his song goes deedle-deedle-deedle-deedle-PREVIEW. I thought he had gone away because we chopped down "his" tree (it died), but he is back. Luckily he no longer perches quite as close to my bedroom window so he no longer wakes me up at 4:30. The neighbour who has bought a cock is another matter though...
Edited extra bit: Mr. T and Mr. Sandpit are spot on with the bullshit of 'relative poverty'.
Speaking of capitalism, I've got a new short story out tonight (Kraxon Magazine, that renowned outlet of excellent writing). The subject was corporate fantasy in 1999. Obviously, that wasn't niche enough, so I wrote a corporate fantasy set in 1999 which was also a comedy.
The other bit of bullshit I hate is "child poverty" as if there were rich parents with poor children. If a child is poor, it is because its parents are poor so dealing with child poverty means dealing with the poverty of its parents. The "child" word has been added to make the phrase super-emotive.
Don't forget, it is sometimes the mere fact of having children - which are quite expensive to look after (feeding, clothing, extra heating even...) that can push people into poverty. That was the idea behind the old family allowance, although it seems to have got lost over time.
True - but it is the parents' poverty which is the issue not the child's. It's the sentimentalisation of what can be a real problem e.g. the working poor designed to make everyone go "aah!", feel guilty and open their wallets rather than ask some hard questions about why it is that people are in this situation.
Sentimentality in politics is very dangerous and those politicians who go round sentimentalising groups of voters I view with a very beady and mistrustful eye.
Comments
However it's not just to confuse people it's also to cover one's self, it's like you bet on every number on a roulette and if you win you can claim to be an expert.
I blame the Greeks for officially creating the doctrine of creative vagueness a few months ago, although creative vagueness has been a sport for western officials since the dawn of politics and business contracts.
I am not starting any acronyms ending in PM for any of the LAB candidates TBH
Mr. Owls, a wise choice. Your EICIPM acronym was twice as long as necessary.
On-topic: Burnham still seems number one, which means it's a question of how Cooper or Kendall's supporters would split when one of the ladies is eliminated.
In the building industry a joke was: "can you go to the stores and get a bubble for the spirit level?"
There were others as well, but I cannot remember them.
http://www.newstatesman.com/staggers/2015/05/all-leadership-candidates-are-good-theres-something-about-mary
If Britain withdraws, the trade balance will be more favourable to Britain not Germany.
Foot and Kinnock's mid term poll performance against Thatcher was similar to what we saw before 1994.
It is often forgotten that Labour had very little to say about White Wednesday at the time, because ERM membership - at an even worse exchange rate - was their policy, too. They though that if Yerp controlled the UK economy, someone else could be blamed when they crashed it again. They had to blame America in 2008.
In fact, if I'm not mistaken, Labour were sunk in gloom immediately after White Wednesday, because the Tories could now lower interest rates and the economy would then have 4.5 years to recover. This is pretty much what happened, and Blair's strategy for dealing with it was smear.
However, a Smith led Labour government might have been vulnerable to losing its majority in 2001, had it not played its cards right and faced a more effective Tory opposition.
There'd then have been a Granita deal in summer 2001.
Then no Iraq War.
https://defenceoftherealm.wordpress.com/2014/12/11/the-spitfire-the-lightning-how-two-british-icons-met-in-simulated-combat/
There were others as well, but I cannot remember them.
Long stand; I've also heard of it as a long weight (wait)...
A tin of elbow grease.
A tin of tartan paint....
We summer-job students used to get sent for all of them. We generally managed to show the fitters we weren't THAT stupid. Until one of us was tasked with painting a floor with bitumen - and literally managed to paint himself into a corner....
In the six or so hours it took to dry off, everybody in the factory found an excuse to come down and have a laugh at him.
I once got told to go and ask for a left-handed screwdriver....
Silvio Berlusconi.
If she can get nominated she could be the Yvette-without-the-past candidate.
There were others as well, but I cannot remember them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snipe_hunt
A bucket of prop wash and 10 metres of flight line were the two that they tried on me.
You passionately care about the NHS, in the lifetime of the NHS, all 68 years and counting, the Tories have run it for about 40 years.
Only a Labour government cut NHS spending, whilst Dave and George will fund it to record levels.
I think you should vote Conservative, you know it makes sense.
I just remembered the story from last week of the Typhoon in BoB colours.
The difference between how old and modern planes fly can be seen in the relative angles of the two planes flying at the same speed!
https://twitter.com/minimanjim/status/601469562928930817
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11621765/Typhoon-gets-Battle-of-Britain-VC-heros-colours-to-celebrate-The-Few.html
Note Harriet's comment that she'd try to ensure that all four get on the ballot. People are up for signing a ballot nomination to ensure choice even if they're not going to vote for them.
Blair turned a normal defeat into an appalling rout.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11629120/The-reclassification-of-poverty-was-a-con-trick-by-the-Left.html
Many people vote Tory even when they don't like them because they believe Tories run the economy better. That day they lost it !
It wastes £ billions. As does the 2012 HSCA, which leads to a mountain of inter-hospital billing and now it seems that many large transactions must be referred to the competition authorities. For a state-owned *National* Health Service? Yes. FFS.
The only politician who has recently talked much sense on the NHS is Dr. David Owen and the only political party to have suggested a sensible initiative on the NHS in GE-2015 is UKIP (return PFI hospitals to state ownership to save money).
How? They'd have to buy them back - where's the money?
(Not that I think the PFI deals were any good in the first place).
Con lead: -43.5
Has there ever been a worse/better opinion poll for Con/Lab than this?
Saying that only the top 1% need contribute really doesn't count any more.
I'll dig out the link later but the level of this lovely 'relative poverty' measure fell sharply in 2008 and 2009. No-one at the bottom of the scale was actually better off, but as the City incomes crashed and the economy shrank, everyone else was 'relatively' better off as a result.
Complete and utter bollocks.
Edited extra bit: Mr. T and Mr. Sandpit are spot on with the bullshit of 'relative poverty'.
Speaking of capitalism, I've got a new short story out tonight (Kraxon Magazine, that renowned outlet of excellent writing). The subject was corporate fantasy in 1999. Obviously, that wasn't niche enough, so I wrote a corporate fantasy set in 1999 which was also a comedy.
A tin of elbow grease.
A tin of tartan paint....
We summer-job students used to get sent for all of them. We generally managed to show the fitters we weren't THAT stupid. Until one of us was tasked with painting a floor with bitumen - and literally managed to paint himself into a corner....
In the six or so hours it took to dry off, everybody in the factory found an excuse to come down and have a laugh at him.Ha! At school, we (a bunch of 16-year-olds) were in biology class, when a young lad (12, maybe) came in. The evil teacher in the classroom next door had sent him in to ask for some fallopian tubes....
Edit: it reminds me of an episode in the Simpsons where Sideshow Bob has stolen the Wright Flyer, and a couple of jet fighters are sent after it but the keep on overshooting.
Someone needs to write in big bloody letters on the wall of their HQ that the only leader they've had in the last 40 years that got elected by the public was Tony Blair. Whatever they may think of him now, the electorate is way to the right of the party and most of its candidates, most especially Red Len who's today trying to pull Mr Stafford to the hard left.
I would like to see Kendall of the current Labour candidates as I think she can credibly oppose the new government. I would have loved to have seen Jarvis as he could have worked well with Cameron on the "Really needs doing but can't get elected after doing it" list for a year or two at least.
http://www.kraxon.com
Although that doesn't look like the story you're referring to.
That would be a big idea. Not the same old, same old "who can piss the most of other peoples money up a wall" contest....
In addition to that I wrote a short story on the theme of an eclipse, and this new short story, to be released later this evening (usually it's 8-11pm, but I won't be online then).
"Suggest proceed on foot"
What would go wrong?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11630468/France-and-Germany-behind-plans-for-common-EU-corporation-tax.html
It's for the good of the planet.
But you keep telling yourself Smith would have won without Blair's lies. There's nothing I'd like better than for Labour to believe that, airbrush their only winner since 1974 out of it and elect an unelectable bonkers leftie, on the grounds that bonkers lefties aren't really unelectable.
I recommend Butcher BTW.
The fact that everyone around the table was in that category was completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Go to the parts depot and get a sky hook.
Complete and utter bollocks.
Yes, if we all earned nothing there would be no poverty.
Complete and utter bollocks.
Here is the link
http://www.ifs.org.uk/images/obs/fig_rel_pov_9697.jpg
From the IFS report http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/6738
Note that 'relative' poverty takes a massive dive for pensioners and children in 2008 and 2009, while going up for the working population.
Almost the only change in those years was that the income of the top earners fell massively while benefits were uprated with inflation.
It's all relative bollocks.
Incidentally, I'm old enough to remember canvassing in areas where if you needed a loo it was polite to enquire whether they had one inside the flat - sometimes it was simply on the landing. So I'd concede that there's progress. No, but I think it would take a collective meltdown of the four candidates (e.g. a hustings where everyone thought they were all rubbish) to prompt someone else. to come forward. Otherwise, anyone else is leaving it a bit late. The exception, maybe, is a left candidate, since people like Jeremy Corbyn haven't nominated anyone yet. Speaking of which... I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet, but whereas getting 4*35 nominations with a bit of nudging and arm-twisting should be feasible, 5*35 is harder. My guess (and remember I'm not close to Parliamentary circles now) is that the left are seeing if any current runner will give them some bankable promises before deciding whether to have a go. The mood in the party isn't especially left-wing at the moment IMO - Danny and Sandy are probably fairly typical in saying that they'd put up with some policy defects if the candidate was electable, though they don't want to have post-Blairism without a Blair-quality electable leader to go with it.
Same as now. Yeah, everyone's kids today are SO keen to look after mum and dad as bits start malfunctioning and they go doo-lally....
https://twitter.com/LouiseMensch/status/603127491818090496
People need to be very, very careful when looking at the Lewis Baston numbers published today.
Remember Baston did an article in 2011 before the Boundary review in the last Parliament - and by an amazing coincidence he said that would only have a minimal effect, namely:
Con -15
Lab -18
That proved to be complete rubbish - per Anthony Wells if the last review had gone through Con would have had a majority of 44 at GE 2015, not 12.
See Baston article in 2011:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/datablog/2011/jun/06/boundary-change-constituency-lewis-baston
Population change is fairly minimal between 2010 and 2015 - so a new review now would very likely give a result similar to the aborted review in the last Parliament - ie Con majority 44.
The page above is quite good, until it starts saying 'he' all the time. Grrr ...
The reverse could apply to a physically understrength man with a woman who has higher than average muscle density.
Not to mention abuse occurs in gay couples as well, of course.
In the Deputy race, Debbie Abrahams, Jenny Chapman and Dan Jarvis backing Creasy and Holly Lynch-Walker supporting Healey
Anyway, I'm off for a bit now.
Sentimentality in politics is very dangerous and those politicians who go round sentimentalising groups of voters I view with a very beady and mistrustful eye.