On MPs pay, I wonder if they'll ever take a raise. One thing that should be addressed is the fact that Sturgeon gets paid more than the PM.
@matt_dathan: The MPs who say they'll reject their 10% pay rise shows just how out of touch they are - who in the real world would do the same?
If they can afford to do it - it would suggest they are currently over-paid - along, I'd say with thousands of public and local authority management, including those in the NHS. Only when they operate like managers in the private sector should their remunerations be similar - and only then subject to swift demotion and dismissal when they underperform.
Just implement my idea: no-one in public service should receive more pay than the Prime Minister. ;-)
How about no-one, full stop?
Well that would require an authoritarian state with absolute power.
I understand of course that Nats might not see that as a bad thing..
I fail to see how OGH can say Burnham 'is by far the weakest' leadership candidate in terms of broad appeal when the latest yougov has Burnham ahead not only with Labour voters, but with UKIP, LD and even Tory voters too as well as in Scotland in the latest Sun yougov. Labour actually need a leader who can hold their core as well as win back voters who have defected to UKIP, the Tories and the SNP from Labour , not who is popular with staunch Tories https://yougov.co.uk/news/categories/politics/
Polling about people the voters have barely heard of isn't very useful. You'll mostly be getting name recognition.
Isn't the fact Kendall isn't well-known quite telling in itself, though? She's been in the shadow cabinet for 4 years, yet (I would guess) is less well known than Stella Creasy for example. Don't the successful politicians force their way into the public consciousness?
Think of all the Scottish food banks that this trial could have paid for...
How many pairs of tartan trews..?
Or nights in the Peninsula Hotel, Chicago, or more seriously, under privileged students to University because of the Scottish middle class subsidy of free University tuition?
University student numbers are higher under the SNP.
You seem to be conflating the bizarre Labour argument that meaningless half day College courses of no value are related to University places.
EdinTokyo Maybe, but Kendall will need to take the lead in the polls by September to win, both Blair and Cameron and indeed Major, our last 3 elected PMs, were all ahead with voters as a whole in the polls by the time they won their party's leadership
Yes, if Kendall's whole argument is going to be "you may not like my policies but I can win", then she'd better hope she has some evidence that she actually can win by the time the ballot papers go out.
A 'convoy with outriders'? One to remember, next time Scot Plod are moaning about cuts. If they can afford to waste money on stunts such as this, they clearly don't have a problem with funding.
Surely with a co-operative prisoner posing no risk of escape, it would have been faster and cheaper to put him on a commercial flight from London with an officer or two for company?
Probably quicker to use the train, handcuffed to a police officer if necessary. It's not as if they were moving a high risk terrorist or bank robber. Publicity seeking muppets.
I love the way these Labourrhoids try to stitch the contest up by getting more than the required number of nominations. This is clearly so that nobody else can and the general members thus don't get to express a view on the merits of Creagh etc.
Thoroughly typical of the way these losery creeps work. It really speaks volumes that Labour feels so empty without Miliband. The advantage of electing any of these no-marks is that Miliband will instantly assume elder statesman gravitas without having to wait for it.
Interestingly, Kinnock still comes across as a petulant immature student even now. He never did grow up. How wise were the electorate in 1987 and 1992.
Kendall won't appeal to those lost to SNP or Green and probably not to those lost to UKIP, nor will she attract those who don't vote, Burnham is the best at attracting the White working class men and at challenging the narative that they are all the same.
Subdividing the electorate then trying to win with a rainbow type coalition within the Labour party is not a recipe for success.
Labour will win when it realises that the interests of women, BME Britons, the WWC, Scotland, Wales and Middle England are actually fairly closely aligned. There is far more that unites us than divides us. It is putting together a coherent and believable set of policies that needs to be the priority for the new leader, not refighting the 2005-2010 parliament. It is why Kendall is the best candidate, with Andy Burnham second. Incidentally these two seem to get on well together, and I can see that Burnham may make a good shadow CoE. He was good as Chief Sec to the Treasury.
Quite so.
Labour are however, not far from government, despite being unpopular. A gain of 35 Conservative seats would be enough to form a left wing coalition.
Only if the English electorate were happy for the casting vote in such a coalition to be the SNP's. Ah; there's the rub.
Danny565 Indeed, if Kendall does not lead with voters as a whole by then, she risks not only failing to win floating voters, but losing further Labour voters to the SNP, Greens and even a revived leftwing LDs under Tim Farron
Breaking: Interpol issues red notices (alert) for four FIFA officials, including Jack Warner.
I really need to get some more popcorn.
This is not a story about football - or at least that is only the backdrop. It is a story about money and greed and hubris. Like all the best stories. There will be plenty of others caught up in it before it's over, I'll bet.
I've got a little philosophy about this. People will kill someone for a few hundred quid. When people deal with figures of millions, greed is such that many will be tempted to enrich themselves. Preferably legally, but some will do it illegally.
Therefore when you have anything that deals with large sums of money - whether it is sport, banking, politics, business - you need internal systems and rules, and external openness, audits and clarity, to try to deter people from committing fraud. I'd also add equality to that list, as cliques seem to be a significant problem.
Sadly, many of the very largest organisations, and especially international ones, take exactly the opposite view that their dealings need to be kept secret.
Culture, transparency and zero tolerance are what matter.
Rules are helpful, but if they become an end in themselves then they can become counterproductive as people play to the rules rather than the spirit of the legislation.
I am not involved in the banking or finance industries, and have little direct knowledge of them, but is your last sentence really true?
It's the difference between principles-based (UK) and rules-based compliance (US, but increasingly UK as well).
Rules based compliance is fine in theory, but smart people can always come up with something that, prime facie, complies with the rules but is effectively an end run around them. If you set out general principles ("treat your customers fairly" "always behave with integrity") then you can slap people who step out of line.
Quite. Smart people use rules to their advantage (aggressive tax avoidance). Dull people hide behind rules (tick the box mentality).
General principles are often much better. Harder to exploit and makes you think. But rules also have their place - drive on the left.
So I don't have a rule of which is better, - principles or rules. I use the general principle of applying common sense. I am a rule relativist.
I love the way these Labourrhoids try to stitch the contest up by getting more than the required number of nominations. This is clearly so that nobody else can and the general members thus don't get to express a view on the merits of Creagh etc.
Thoroughly typical of the way these losery creeps work. It really speaks volumes that Labour feels so empty without Miliband. The advantage of electing any of these no-marks is that Miliband will instantly assume elder statesman gravitas without having to wait for it.
Interestingly, Kinnock still comes across as a petulant immature student even now. He never did grow up. How wise were the electorate in 1987 and 1992.
Has Sepp Blatter considered standing for the role?
So basically Labour agree to change entirely by electing the most extreme leftie of the bunch, the unions choice and a hangover from the Blair / Brown and Milliband years.
Yup! I can see how that can work ...............
For all the other parties.
So, in what ways is Andy Burnham an extreme leftie? Is it his support for a lowering of the welfare cap, his calls for much tighter immigration controls, his focus on deficit reduction or some other Bolshevik pronouncement that has passed me by.
Burnham is not my choice of Labour leader, but if the Tory strategy is going to be to paint him as an EdM Mark 2 metropolitan lefty they are going to make life very easy for him as, unlike EdM, he is not a metropolitan lefty.
He adopts all those positions with as much sincerity as the fox promises not to eat the occupants if he were put in charge of the henhouse.
The fact is that Labour always wrecks the economy, always drives up unemployment, always boosts racist parties and latterly wrecks pensions and the City as well. What Butcher claims to believe and how he'll behave in office are two quite different things and the only Labour leader to persuade the electorate otherwise since the 1970s has been Blair, who unfortunately was lying just as hard.
There is space for a left of centre political view but increasingly it looks more like it;s going to be an unelectable mosaic of small factions - SNP, rump LD, rump Lab, PC. On the right, meanwhile, Cameron has decisively defeated UKIP by getting a majority from a position of hostility to them and by shooting their referendum fox.
Not a good decade to be a tax and spend leftist envy monkey.
So basically Labour agree to change entirely by electing the most extreme leftie of the bunch, the unions choice and a hangover from the Blair / Brown and Milliband years.
Yup! I can see how that can work ...............
For all the other parties.
So, in what ways is Andy Burnham an extreme leftie? Is it his support for a lowering of the welfare cap, his calls for much tighter immigration controls, his focus on deficit reduction or some other Bolshevik pronouncement that has passed me by.
Burnham is not my choice of Labour leader, but if the Tory strategy is going to be to paint him as an EdM Mark 2 metropolitan lefty they are going to make life very easy for him as, unlike EdM, he is not a metropolitan lefty.
He adopts all those positions with as much sincerity as the fox promises not to eat the occupants if he were put in charge of the henhouse.
The fact is that Labour always wrecks the economy, always drives up unemployment, always boosts racist parties and latterly wrecks pensions and the City as well. What Butcher claims to believe and how he'll behave in office are two quite different things and the only Labour leader to persuade the electorate otherwise since the 1970s has been Blair, who unfortunately was lying just as hard.
There is space for a left of centre political view but increasingly it looks more like it;s going to be an unelectable mosaic of small factions - SNP, rump LD, rump Lab, PC. On the right, meanwhile, Cameron has decisively defeated UKIP by getting a majority from a position of hostility to them and by shooting their referendum fox.
Not a good decade to be a tax and spend leftist envy monkey.
So basically Labour agree to change entirely by electing the most extreme leftie of the bunch, the unions choice and a hangover from the Blair / Brown and Milliband years.
Yup! I can see how that can work ...............
For all the other parties.
So, in what ways is Andy Burnham an extreme leftie? Is it his support for a lowering of the welfare cap, his calls for much tighter immigration controls, his focus on deficit reduction or some other Bolshevik pronouncement that has passed me by.
Burnham is not my choice of Labour leader, but if the Tory strategy is going to be to paint him as an EdM Mark 2 metropolitan lefty they are going to make life very easy for him as, unlike EdM, he is not a metropolitan lefty.
See that's yours and Labours error. It's all about perception. And it's not me you have to convince but everyone else on the doorstep. Mind you someone once said on here that Labour has the best ground game going so it shouldn't be a problem for labour ...Err...Should it?
I agree. As I say, Burnham is not my choice - but I doubt he will come across as an extreme leftie on the doorstep. More of an issue will be whether he is up to the job. I can't see him matching Cameron in the Commons and I have serious doubts about his leadership abilities. He gives the impression not of being a leftie, but of being a bit lightweight.
Maybe but his aims were posted on here a few days ago in bullet points and they looked like more of same to me in fact straight out of Lens playbook
Cameron should be ashamed. It's effing Prime Minister's Questions and he should at least give Harman a fair go to see whether she asks reasonable questions before launching into asking questions back.
Quite. Smart people use rules to their advantage (aggressive tax avoidance). Dull people hide behind rules (tick the box mentality).
General principles are often much better. Harder to exploit and makes you think. But rules also have their place - drive on the left.
So I don't have a rule of which is better, - principles or rules. I use the general principle of applying common sense. I am a rule relativist.
General principles only work if people want them to, and they are very hard to validate.
The system 'as is' at the moment in the financial industry is not working, as can be seen by the massive amounts that institutions are having to pay out for wrongdoing.
If their governance is based on 'general principles', then that system is obviously broken.
General principles only work if people want them to, and they are very hard to validate.
The system 'as is' at the moment in the financial industry is not working, as can be seen by the massive amounts that institutions are having to pay out for wrongdoing.
If their governance is based on 'general principles', then that system is obviously broken.
Their governance is not based on general principles, and most certainly wasn't when nearly all the wrongdoing happened. The regulation (principally under Brown's FSA here in the UK) was a textbook example of how not to do it - reams of utter garbage in terms of box-ticking, all faithfully adhered to, at massive expense, by the banks - and completely missing the big picture.
Conversely, the bit of financial regulation which everyone agrees works very well is the almost totally informal Takeover Panel. In addition, financial regulation of the banks before Gordon Brown screwed it up also worked better.
BJB If Farron's LDs could win back a few more seats Labour could do a deal with them without the SNP, even if just short of a majority, winning back a few SNP seats would help too
On the leadership of course Malcolm Rifkind, David Willets and Alan Duncan all failed to get the nominations required to run in 2005 as Tory leader either
General principles only work if people want them to, and they are very hard to validate.
The system 'as is' at the moment in the financial industry is not working, as can be seen by the massive amounts that institutions are having to pay out for wrongdoing.
If their governance is based on 'general principles', then that system is obviously broken.
Their governance is not based on general principles, and most certainly wasn't when nearly all the wrongdoing happened. The regulation (principally under Brown's FSA here in the UK) was a textbook example of how not to do it - reams of utter garbage in terms of box-ticking, all faithfully adhered to, at massive expense, by the banks - and completely missing the big picture.
Conversely, the bit of financial regulation which everyone agrees works very well is the almost totally informal Takeover Panel. In addition, financial regulation of the banks before Gordon Brown screwed it up also worked better.
Fair enough. I still find it hard to believe that general principles will be any better, though.
BJB SO Is right that the one area Burnham is leftwing, restoring the 50% top tax rate until a surplus is achieved, Burnham is in tune with most voters, where he is changing Labour's message, toughening the line on welfare and immigration, he is more in touch with voters too
Kendall won't appeal to those lost to SNP or Green and probably not to those lost to UKIP, nor will she attract those who don't vote, Burnham is the best at attracting the White working class men and at challenging the narative that they are all the same.
Subdividing the electorate then trying to win with a rainbow type coalition within the Labour party is not a recipe for success.
Labour will win when it realises that the interests of women, BME Britons, the WWC, Scotland, Wales and Middle England are actually fairly closely aligned. There is far more that unites us than divides us. It is putting together a coherent and believable set of policies that needs to be the priority for the new leader, not refighting the 2005-2010 parliament. It is why Kendall is the best candidate, with Andy Burnham second. Incidentally these two seem to get on well together, and I can see that Burnham may make a good shadow CoE. He was good as Chief Sec to the Treasury.
Quite so.
Labour are however, not far from government, despite being unpopular. A gain of 35 Conservative seats would be enough to form a left wing coalition.
Only if the English electorate were happy for the casting vote in such a coalition to be the SNP's. Ah; there's the rub.
That issue is not going away.
Yes, Labour have to get at least parity with the SNP if they ever want to win. The fear of a Lab/SNP government was the Tories trump card.
I fail to see how OGH can say Burnham 'is by far the weakest' leadership candidate in terms of broad appeal when the latest yougov has Burnham ahead not only with Labour voters, but with UKIP, LD and even Tory voters too as well as in Scotland in the latest Sun yougov. Labour actually need a leader who can hold their core as well as win back voters who have defected to UKIP, the Tories and the SNP from Labour , not who is popular with staunch Tories https://yougov.co.uk/news/categories/politics/
Polling about people the voters have barely heard of isn't very useful. You'll mostly be getting name recognition.
Isn't the fact Kendall isn't well-known quite telling in itself, though? She's been in the shadow cabinet for 4 years, yet (I would guess) is less well known than Stella Creasy for example. Don't the successful politicians force their way into the public consciousness?
I imagine that's what she's trying to do now. And most people have rarely heard of any politician beyond leaders, senior ministers, the scandal-hit and Boris/Farage/Skinner type mavericks.
Obama is a decent example of a little-known person with a strong personal appeal moving into leadership quickly.
General principles only work if people want them to, and they are very hard to validate.
The system 'as is' at the moment in the financial industry is not working, as can be seen by the massive amounts that institutions are having to pay out for wrongdoing.
If their governance is based on 'general principles', then that system is obviously broken.
Their governance is not based on general principles, and most certainly wasn't when nearly all the wrongdoing happened. The regulation (principally under Brown's FSA here in the UK) was a textbook example of how not to do it - reams of utter garbage in terms of box-ticking, all faithfully adhered to, at massive expense, by the banks - and completely missing the big picture.
Conversely, the bit of financial regulation which everyone agrees works very well is the almost totally informal Takeover Panel. In addition, financial regulation of the banks before Gordon Brown screwed it up also worked better.
Fair enough. I still find it hard to believe that general principles will be any better, though.
It allows execution based on the spirit of the law rather than the word of the law - this allows laws to be far simpler in drafting and eliminates corner cases. I was once highly sceptical of a principle based tax code but I am now a convert.
BJB SO Is right that the one area Burnham is leftwing, restoring the 50% top tax rate until a surplus is achieved, Burnham is in tune with most voters, where he is changing Labour's message, toughening the line on welfare and immigration, he is more in touch with voters too
You may not have noticed but you lost the election using that very line. Increasing the taxable rate to 50% a few days before the election after 13 years at 40% is not taxing the higher paid. Please though continue to make the same mistake over and over and while you remember that the coalition had this rate higher for longer than labour ever did and have collected more cash as result.
The more you don't learn the better it keeps you further and further from getting anywhere near power every again. As I always said.....anyone just anyone but Labour * and the electorate agreed. Labour are in a very dark place at the moment and despite the jolly laughs on the opposition benches today they know it.
* SNP don't count in this other than the fact the Scottish people woke up and realised Labour were taking the piss out of them as well and had been for generations. They dealt with it with it in 2015 and probably permanently. Kudos to them. Now the Northern Labour fifedoms need to do the same
BJB SO Is right that the one area Burnham is leftwing, restoring the 50% top tax rate until a surplus is achieved, Burnham is in tune with most voters, where he is changing Labour's message, toughening the line on welfare and immigration, he is more in touch with voters too
Ha ha ha ha ha
The 50% rate will not pay off the deficit! Jeez... £90bn worth of extra tax to come from an extra 5% of the incomes of around 0.1% of the population above £150K implies 60,000 people on £30 million plus per year, AND that they will do nothing to avoid this tax.
Agree,the SNP would soon shut up on Asylum and immigration if it started to affect constituencies in Scotland like it is in England with the numbers coming here.
Moses JonC I am not a Labour voter and oppose restoring the 50% top tax rate, this is NOT an economic point or a personal view but a political one, polls show voters opposed cutting the 50% tax in 2012 at a time of austerity and it cost Osborne his 'omnishambles' budget, Labour lost because of Miliband, immigration, Scotland and being seen to have been unwilling to cut spending and welfare NOT because of the 50% rate which even many Tories support
BJB SO Is right that the one area Burnham is leftwing, restoring the 50% top tax rate until a surplus is achieved, Burnham is in tune with most voters, where he is changing Labour's message, toughening the line on welfare and immigration, he is more in touch with voters too
Ha ha ha ha ha
The 50% rate will not pay off the deficit! Jeez... £90bn worth of extra tax to come from an extra 5% of the incomes of around 0.1% of the population above £150K implies 60,000 people on £30 million plus per year, AND that they will do nothing to avoid this tax.
La la land
Quite! As long as it keeps them away from the treasury and No 10 who cares? Perhaps there's a a position for an aspiring Labour chancellor in Mordor?
General principles only work if people want them to, and they are very hard to validate.
The system 'as is' at the moment in the financial industry is not working, as can be seen by the massive amounts that institutions are having to pay out for wrongdoing.
If their governance is based on 'general principles', then that system is obviously broken.
Their governance is not based on general principles, and most certainly wasn't when nearly all the wrongdoing happened. The regulation (principally under Brown's FSA here in the UK) was a textbook example of how not to do it - reams of utter garbage in terms of box-ticking, all faithfully adhered to, at massive expense, by the banks - and completely missing the big picture.
Conversely, the bit of financial regulation which everyone agrees works very well is the almost totally informal Takeover Panel. In addition, financial regulation of the banks before Gordon Brown screwed it up also worked better.
Fair enough. I still find it hard to believe that general principles will be any better, though.
It allows execution based on the spirit of the law rather than the word of the law - this allows laws to be far simpler in drafting and eliminates corner cases. I was once highly sceptical of a principle based tax code but I am now a convert.
Surely all you get are much wider, nebulous corner cases?
But as I said at the start of this, it really isn't my area, so I defer to the wisdom of others. ;-)
Moses His lead is narrower with Tories where Kendall does better, he does best with Labour, LD and UKIP voters and in Scotland, so your implied point is wrong, most of the Tories who like Kendall would never vote Labour anyway, he just needs some Tories who voted for Blair
'The fact is that Labour always wrecks the economy' Utter garbage. In what way was the British economy wrecked in 1970 when Labour left office? The record current account deficit inherited from the Tories in 1964 had become a very big surplus.Throughout the 1964 -1970 period there was no recession. In 1979 Labour bequeathed to Thatcher an inflation rate significantly lower than was inherited from Heath in March 1974. - within a year she succeeded in more than doubling it.
@paulwaugh: No10 political spksman:last Lab govt oversaw 33% rise in ministerial pay frm 1997 to 2010. "I think Andy Burnham was in the last government"
Moses His lead is narrower with Tories where Kendall does better, he does best with Labour, LD and UKIP voters and in Scotland, so your implied point is wrong, most of the Tories who like Kendall would never vote Labour anyway, he just needs some Tories who voted for Blair
But he is not Blair and those Tories that voted for Blair now realise Blair is so toxic even to Labour they won't vote in a similar way for another one on the left again. That ship has long sailed my friend as Scotland proved very decisively whether you like it not . Len and the union fraternity like him so Andy's your man.
Moses His lead is narrower with Tories where Kendall does better, he does best with Labour, LD and UKIP voters and in Scotland, so your implied point is wrong, most of the Tories who like Kendall would never vote Labour anyway, he just needs some Tories who voted for Blair
Those that voted for Blair but just voted for Cameron are those that prefer Kendall over Burnham. Under Kendall Labour might have a shot at government, whereas under Burnham they never will.
Moses His lead is narrower with Tories where Kendall does better, he does best with Labour, LD and UKIP voters and in Scotland, so your implied point is wrong, most of the Tories who like Kendall would never vote Labour anyway, he just needs some Tories who voted for Blair
...most of the Tories who like Kendall would never vote Labour anyway....
How do you know this?
I'm not a diehard Tory, just someone who mostly (though not always) votes Tory. I voted for Blair in 1997, I could easily see myself as voting for Kendall based on what I think she stands for (admittedly she may turn out different to my initial perception of her).
Moses JonC I am not a Labour voter and oppose restoring the 50% top tax rate, this is NOT an economic point or a personal view but a political one, polls show voters opposed cutting the 50% tax in 2012 at a time of austerity and it cost Osborne his 'omnishambles' budget, Labour lost because of Miliband, immigration, Scotland and being seen to have been unwilling to cut spending and welfare NOT because of the 50% rate which even many Tories support
I am always impressed by the objectivity of your comments which never show a trace of prejudice or bias. I don't actually agree with your view re-the 50% tax rate and have always been puzzled that Labour has not made much more of the fact that Thatcher tolerated a top rate of 60% until the 1988 Budget. If that was ok for her Government why cannot Labour do likewise?
Moses He is not Blair, and unlike Kendall he is not the pure Blairite candidate, but he is Blairite enough to win back some Tories who did vote for Blair, and was indeed promoted by Blair and as shown by the fact he still has a narrow lead with those who do vote Tory as to who would be their preferred choice as Labour leader
Sandpit Oh really, so why does yougov have Burnham ahead with Tory voters then? Kendall may be second with Tories, ahead of Cooper, but Burnham still narrowly leads her with Tories
Moses JonC I am not a Labour voter and oppose restoring the 50% top tax rate, this is NOT an economic point or a personal view but a political one, polls show voters opposed cutting the 50% tax in 2012 at a time of austerity and it cost Osborne his 'omnishambles' budget, Labour lost because of Miliband, immigration, Scotland and being seen to have been unwilling to cut spending and welfare NOT because of the 50% rate which even many Tories support
always been puzzled that Labour has not made much more of the fact that Thatcher tolerated a top rate of 60% until the 1988 Budget.
Don’t think “tolerated” has anything to do with it. - Thatcher inherited from Labour a top rate tax of 80%, by the time she left office it was down to 40% and stayed there until Gordon Brown cynically raised it to 50% before the GE2010.
Moses His lead is narrower with Tories where Kendall does better, he does best with Labour, LD and UKIP voters and in Scotland, so your implied point is wrong, most of the Tories who like Kendall would never vote Labour anyway, he just needs some Tories who voted for Blair
Those that voted for Blair but just voted for Cameron are those that prefer Kendall over Burnham. Under Kendall Labour might have a shot at government, whereas under Burnham they never will.
Yes if they really wanted to change then Kendall is the one. She would lack gravitas now but in 5 years could be a formidable threat though unless the SNP screw up badly Scotland will be difficult even for her.
It's not going to happen though a Len has not given his blessing and that's the problem Labour retain. Remember Len said "it's our party" and that's the way it will stay unless he follows through and sets up his own party and splits Labour 3 ways including the Greens.
Cameron still not answering a single question. No change there then.
In all seriousness, why would he be different than any other PM? That's not a criticism of him, it's a criticism of the whole exercise and the political class, so I never get too worked up about him not answering on such occasions (notwithstanding those times when he might do, but the opposition say he hasn't to their satisfaction, another very old tactic from all sides), as he's no worse than anyone else on that.
Moses Sandpit Labour need a leader who can both hold Labour's core and prevent leekage to the Greens and win back a few from the SNP while also winning back voters who have defected to the Tories and UKIP. Kendall may win back a few Tories, but risks losing voters to the Greens and turning off SNP voters, Cooper would hold onto Labour's core but may not win many Tory or UKIP voters, Burnham could appeal to both
Moses JonC I am not a Labour voter and oppose restoring the 50% top tax rate, this is NOT an economic point or a personal view but a political one, polls show voters opposed cutting the 50% tax in 2012 at a time of austerity and it cost Osborne his 'omnishambles' budget, Labour lost because of Miliband, immigration, Scotland and being seen to have been unwilling to cut spending and welfare NOT because of the 50% rate which even many Tories support
always been puzzled that Labour has not made much more of the fact that Thatcher tolerated a top rate of 60% until the 1988 Budget.
Don’t think “tolerated” has anything to do with it. - Thatcher inherited from Labour a top rate tax of 80%, by the time she left office it was down to 40% and stayed there until Gordon Brown cynically raised it to 50% before the GE2010.
But she could have reduced the Top rate to 40% in Howe's first Budget in June 1979.
I fail to see how OGH can say Burnham 'is by far the weakest' leadership candidate in terms of broad appeal when the latest yougov has Burnham ahead not only with Labour voters, but with UKIP, LD and even Tory voters too as well as in Scotland in the latest Sun yougov. Labour actually need a leader who can hold their core as well as win back voters who have defected to UKIP, the Tories and the SNP from Labour , not who is popular with staunch Tories https://yougov.co.uk/news/categories/politics/
Polling about people the voters have barely heard of isn't very useful. You'll mostly be getting name recognition.
Isn't the fact Kendall isn't well-known quite telling in itself, though? She's been in the shadow cabinet for 4 years, yet (I would guess) is less well known than Stella Creasy for example. Don't the successful politicians force their way into the public consciousness?
I imagine that's what she's trying to do now. And most people have rarely heard of any politician beyond leaders, senior ministers, the scandal-hit and Boris/Farage/Skinner type mavericks.
I think that's quite right - she came out as running fo the leadership without equivocating, and tried to stamp a clear impression of where she stood as a bold candidate right away as well. It might not work, but she clearly took as many measures as she could to create an impression right away, recognising a problem facing her with the public and Labour members as a whole.
Disraeli If you only voted Labour in 1997, I assume you voted Tory in 2001 and 2005, you are unlikely to be voting Labour in 2020 unless this government has as many problems as Major's 1992-1997 administration in which case Kermit the frog could lead Labour to victory
Justin124 Thanks, I try not to let my personal views cloud my pb views too much, I think Thatcher had to cut income tax from the high rate she inherited which took time, I agree though she won few extra votes for cutting the top tax rate outside of Chelsea, Thatcher's voters were backing her for other reasons
Some commentators have implied that Labour’s performance last month was a disaster comparable to the 1983/1987 election results. From these figures it is clear that ,at least in England, that is quite an exaggeration. In terms of seats Labour is more than fifty ahead of its position in the 1980s, whilst the Tory lead in % share was lower in 2015 than in both 1992 and 1979. Labour’s disaster in Scotland has served to somewhat distort the impression of its performance more widely.
Cameron still not answering a single question. No change there then.
In all seriousness, why would he be different than any other PM? That's not a criticism of him, it's a criticism of the whole exercise and the political class, so I never get too worked up about him not answering on such occasions (notwithstanding those times when he might do, but the opposition say he hasn't to their satisfaction, another very old tactic from all sides), as he's no worse than anyone else on that.
Most (all?) PMs did at least answer something like the question. It should not be hard given the massive briefing folder the PM has -- it is just a matter of finding the right page.
Disraeli If you only voted Labour in 1997, I assume you voted Tory in 2001 and 2005, you are unlikely to be voting Labour in 2020 unless this government has as many problems as Major's 1992-1997 administration in which case Kermit the frog could lead Labour to victory
HYUFD (what does that mean, incidentally?) Yes, I voted Labour in 1997 only. Not voted Tory/Lab since in a General Election. Voted Tory in local elections, and for Boris for Mayor. I respect Cameron's ability, but I think that he is a weasel on the EU. (But aren't they all). I could easily see myself voting for Kendall, but then I may be projecting too much onto her of my own beliefs. It's a common trap to fall into.
Sandpit Oh really, so why does yougov have Burnham ahead with Tory voters then? Kendall may be second with Tories, ahead of Cooper, but Burnham still narrowly leads her with Tories
I am sure some of the Tory voters are answering the question with blue tinged glasses on. They'd probably prefer Ed or Gordon back too, maybe even Kinnock himself!
BJB SO Is right that the one area Burnham is leftwing, restoring the 50% top tax rate until a surplus is achieved, Burnham is in tune with most voters, where he is changing Labour's message, toughening the line on welfare and immigration, he is more in touch with voters too
The electorate will believe just one of those three pledges, the one that makes people poorer.
Therein lies the problem. Labour are widely perceived outside their client base to be soft and profligate. They just aren't credible.
Disraeli The voters Labour needs to target are those who voted Labour from 1997-2005 then Tory in 2010 and 2015, as well as Labour voters who have switched to the SNP and UKIP, so your vote would be welcome, but you are not in that key target group
Moses JonC I am not a Labour voter and oppose restoring the 50% top tax rate, this is NOT an economic point or a personal view but a political one, polls show voters opposed cutting the 50% tax in 2012 at a time of austerity and it cost Osborne his 'omnishambles' budget, Labour lost because of Miliband, immigration, Scotland and being seen to have been unwilling to cut spending and welfare NOT because of the 50% rate which even many Tories support
always been puzzled that Labour has not made much more of the fact that Thatcher tolerated a top rate of 60% until the 1988 Budget.
Don’t think “tolerated” has anything to do with it. - Thatcher inherited from Labour a top rate tax of 80%, by the time she left office it was down to 40% and stayed there until Gordon Brown cynically raised it to 50% before the GE2010.
But she could have reduced the Top rate to 40% in Howe's first Budget in June 1979.
Really? - I doubt it was possible given the economic state the country at the time. However, in the first budget after Thatcher's election in 79, the top rate tax was reduced from 83% to 60% and again to 40% in the 1988 budget. The basic rate tax was also reduced from 33% to 25% by 1988.
Whatever, your claim that Thatcher 'tolerated' high taxs rates is utterly bogus.
Cameron still not answering a single question. No change there then.
In all seriousness, why would he be different than any other PM? That's not a criticism of him, it's a criticism of the whole exercise and the political class, so I never get too worked up about him not answering on such occasions (notwithstanding those times when he might do, but the opposition say he hasn't to their satisfaction, another very old tactic from all sides), as he's no worse than anyone else on that.
Most (all?) PMs did at least answer something like the question. It should not be hard given the massive briefing folder the PM has -- it is just a matter of finding the right page.
Answering 'something like the question' is a matter of opinion and degree - I've not seen today's, but I've seen countless occasions where the LOTO claims the PM has not answered the question, when I would regard it as answered, at least partly. The same thing happens in interviews, with politicians all the time claiming to have answered a question when they patently have not, instead answering their own question and acting as if that is the same thing.
So I cannot condemn Cameron for it, unless today is a particular egregious example of it, because if Ed M had won he'd do the same, and so would anyone else who got up there, to some extent.
I do not believe all politicians are the same, but that is one area of behaviour that varies in extremity only.
Moses JonC I am not a Labour voter and oppose restoring the 50% top tax rate, this is NOT an economic point or a personal view but a political one, polls show voters opposed cutting the 50% tax in 2012 at a time of austerity and it cost Osborne his 'omnishambles' budget, Labour lost because of Miliband, immigration, Scotland and being seen to have been unwilling to cut spending and welfare NOT because of the 50% rate which even many Tories support
always been puzzled that Labour has not made much more of the fact that Thatcher tolerated a top rate of 60% until the 1988 Budget.
Don’t think “tolerated” has anything to do with it. - Thatcher inherited from Labour a top rate tax of 80%, by the time she left office it was down to 40% and stayed there until Gordon Brown cynically raised it to 50% before the GE2010.
But she could have reduced the Top rate to 40% in Howe's first Budget in June 1979.
Really? - I doubt it was possible given the economic state the country at the time. However, in the first budget after Thatcher's election in 79, the top rate tax was reduced from 83% to 60% and again to 40% in the 1988 budget. The basic rate tax was also reduced from 33% to 25% by 1988.
Whatever, your claim that Thatcher 'tolerated' high taxs rates is utterly bogus.
Mrs Thatcher did tolerate high taxes -- VAT was immediately doubled.
Chestnut Which is why Labour needs to move to a tougher, more contributory approach to welfare, no swing voters in Bolton or Swindon are going to vote Labour because they propose to support the Tories in cutting tax for the rich
Cameron still not answering a single question. No change there then.
In all seriousness, why would he be different than any other PM? That's not a criticism of him, it's a criticism of the whole exercise and the political class, so I never get too worked up about him not answering on such occasions (notwithstanding those times when he might do, but the opposition say he hasn't to their satisfaction, another very old tactic from all sides), as he's no worse than anyone else on that.
Most (all?) PMs did at least answer something like the question. It should not be hard given the massive briefing folder the PM has -- it is just a matter of finding the right page.
Answering 'something like the question' is a matter of opinion and degree - I've not seen today's, but I've seen countless occasions where the LOTO claims the PM has not answered the question, when I would regard it as answered, at least partly. The same thing happens in interviews, with politicians all the time claiming to have answered a question when they patently have not, instead answering their own question and acting as if that is the same thing.
So I cannot condemn Cameron for it, unless today is a particular egregious example of it, because if Ed M had won he'd do the same, and so would anyone else who got up there, to some extent.
I do not believe all politicians are the same, but that is one area of behaviour that varies in extremity only.
Cameron's worst habit -- and the speaker should rein him in so the campaign to cow Bercow seems to have worked -- is asking the LotO questions.
'The fact is that Labour always wrecks the economy' Utter garbage. In what way was the British economy wrecked in 1970 when Labour left office? The record current account deficit inherited from the Tories in 1964 had become a very big surplus.Throughout the 1964 -1970 period there was no recession. In 1979 Labour bequeathed to Thatcher an inflation rate significantly lower than was inherited from Heath in March 1974. - within a year she succeeded in more than doubling it.
Attempts to rewrite history won't work with those of us who lived through it.
Cameron still not answering a single question. No change there then.
In all seriousness, why would he be different than any other PM? That's not a criticism of him, it's a criticism of the whole exercise and the political class, so I never get too worked up about him not answering on such occasions (notwithstanding those times when he might do, but the opposition say he hasn't to their satisfaction, another very old tactic from all sides), as he's no worse than anyone else on that.
Most (all?) PMs did at least answer something like the question. It should not be hard given the massive briefing folder the PM has -- it is just a matter of finding the right page.
Answering 'something like the question' is a matter of opinion and degree - I've not seen today's, but I've seen countless occasions where the LOTO claims the PM has not answered the question, when I would regard it as answered, at least partly. The same thing happens in interviews, with politicians all the time claiming to have answered a question when they patently have not, instead answering their own question and acting as if that is the same thing.
So I cannot condemn Cameron for it, unless today is a particular egregious example of it, because if Ed M had won he'd do the same, and so would anyone else who got up there, to some extent.
I do not believe all politicians are the same, but that is one area of behaviour that varies in extremity only.
Cameron's worst habit -- and the speaker should rein him in so the campaign to cow Bercow seems to have worked -- is asking the LotO questions.
Well, one of those standing up at PMQ's has to, and since Harman was incapable of asking anything even closely resembling a coherent question, it may as well be Cameron, if only to fill time.
Cameron still not answering a single question. No change there then.
In all seriousness, why would he be different than any other PM? That's not a criticism of him, it's a criticism of the whole exercise and the political class, so I never get too worked up about him not answering on such occasions (notwithstanding those times when he might do, but the opposition say he hasn't to their satisfaction, another very old tactic from all sides), as he's no worse than anyone else on that.
Most (all?) PMs did at least answer something like the question. It should not be hard given the massive briefing folder the PM has -- it is just a matter of finding the right page.
Answering 'something like the question' is a matter of opinion and degree - I've not seen today's, but I've seen countless occasions where the LOTO claims the PM has not answered the question, when I would regard it as answered, at least partly. The same thing happens in interviews, with politicians all the time claiming to have answered a question when they patently have not, instead answering their own question and acting as if that is the same thing.
So I cannot condemn Cameron for it, unless today is a particular egregious example of it, because if Ed M had won he'd do the same, and so would anyone else who got up there, to some extent.
I do not believe all politicians are the same, but that is one area of behaviour that varies in extremity only.
Cameron's worst habit -- and the speaker should rein him in so the campaign to cow Bercow seems to have worked -- is asking the LotO questions.
Well, one of those standing up at PMQ's has to, and since Harman was incapable of asking anything even closely resembling a coherent question, it may as well be Cameron, if only to fill time.
At a PMQs just before the election, he gave a clear answer to Ed Miliband, who basically replied with: "Well, I don't believe you!"
Ed then followed it up with similar questions on the same theme.
If straight answers aren't going to be believed, why should he give them?
We are the mocked floating voters. I got off the fence in despair and put money where my vote was in 2012.
I will keep my Tory membership until I die given my dud Tony votes and pointless LibDems one. I'm too old to defy the economy and the Tories do much better at it than all the rest. It's very simple self preservation.
Disraeli The voters Labour needs to target are those who voted Labour from 1997-2005 then Tory in 2010 and 2015, as well as Labour voters who have switched to the SNP and UKIP, so your vote would be welcome, but you are not in that key target group
Moses JonC I am not a Labour voter and oppose restoring the 50% top tax rate, this is NOT an economic point or a personal view but a political one, polls show voters opposed cutting the 50% tax intold me 2012 at a time of austerity and it cost Osborne his 'omnishambles' budget, Labour lost because of Miliband, immigration, Scotland and being seen to have been unwilling to cut spending and welfare NOT because of the 50% rate which even many Tories support
always been puzzled that Labour has not made much more of the fact that Thatcher tolerated a top rate of 60% until the 1988 Budget.
Don’t think “tolerated” has anything to do with it. - Thatcher inherited from Labour a top rate tax of 80%, by the time she left office it was down to 40% and stayed there until Gordon Brown cynically raised it to 50% before the GE2010.
But she could have reduced the Top rate to 40% in Howe's first Budget in June 1979.
Really? - I doubt it was possible given the economic state the country at the time. However, in the first budget after Thatcher's election in 79, the top rate tax was reduced from 83% to 60% and again to 40% in the 1988 budget. The basic rate tax was also reduced from 33% to 25% by 1988.
Whatever, your claim that Thatcher 'tolerated' high taxs rates is utterly bogus.
Mrs Thatcher did tolerate high taxes -- VAT was immediately doubled.
There is a long tradition of the LOTO getting up and asking ... "Has the PM stopped beating his wife?"
The PM goes on to a long sound bite nothing to do with the question and finishes with a question for the LOTO which isn't really a question.
But we all know this anyway.
Well, yes, that is true, but I think today Harman opened with a question about the number of people who owned their home, and Cameron's reply was to ask a question about his policy on right to buy housing association homes.
Quite. Smart people use rules to their advantage (aggressive tax avoidance). Dull people hide behind rules (tick the box mentality).
General principles are often much better. Harder to exploit and makes you think. But rules also have their place - drive on the left.
So I don't have a rule of which is better, - principles or rules. I use the general principle of applying common sense. I am a rule relativist.
General principles only work if people want them to, and they are very hard to validate.
The system 'as is' at the moment in the financial industry is not working, as can be seen by the massive amounts that institutions are having to pay out for wrongdoing.
If their governance is based on 'general principles', then that system is obviously broken.
As Charles said (I think) you also need the right culture and transparency. Our broken system has rules but it also has a poor culture and lack of transparency. It is the culture and transparency that need tackling rather than the rules. Principles and culture go together.
Moses JonC I am not a Labour voter and oppose restoring the 50% top tax rate, this is NOT an economic point or a personal view but a political one, polls show voters opposed cutting the 50% tax intold me 2012 at a time of austerity and it cost Osborne his 'omnishambles' budget, Labour lost because of Miliband, immigration, Scotland and being seen to have been unwilling to cut spending and welfare NOT because of the 50% rate which even many Tories support
always been puzzled that Labour has not made much more of the fact that Thatcher tolerated a top rate of 60% until the 1988 Budget.
Don’t think “tolerated” has anything to do with it. - Thatcher inherited from Labour a top rate tax of 80%, by the time she left office it was down to 40% and stayed there until Gordon Brown cynically raised it to 50% before the GE2010.
But she could have reduced the Top rate to 40% in Howe's first Budget in June 1979.
Really? - I doubt it was possible given the economic state the country at the time. However, in the first budget after Thatcher's election in 79, the top rate tax was reduced from 83% to 60% and again to 40% in the 1988 budget. The basic rate tax was also reduced from 33% to 25% by 1988.
Whatever, your claim that Thatcher 'tolerated' high taxs rates is utterly bogus.
Mrs Thatcher did tolerate high taxes -- VAT was immediately doubled.
I'm not a Labour member and never have been. But as David Steel replied when asked if he'd voted for himself, "it's a secret ballot".
My point here was that Mrs Thatcher was not an unmitigated tax cutter. Income tax was cut but slowly and was mainly higher than it is now. VAT was doubled and extended. It would be interesting to check what happened to the overall tax burden.
There is a long tradition of the LOTO getting up and asking ... "Has the PM stopped beating his wife?"
The PM goes on to a long sound bite nothing to do with the question and finishes with a question for the LOTO which isn't really a question.
But we all know this anyway.
Well, yes, that is true, but I think today Harman opened with a question about the number of people who owned their home, and Cameron's reply was to ask a question about his policy on right to buy housing association homes.
I feel your pain.. Brown never answered any questions and towards the end became deluded enough to answer a question to the effect that he had saved the world.
Sandpit Oh really, so why does yougov have Burnham ahead with Tory voters then? Kendall may be second with Tories, ahead of Cooper, but Burnham still narrowly leads her with Tories
You are not on a serious basis taking any notice of Yougov polls surely, all credibility they had has gone. I can assure you as an ex-Labour middle income earner from the East Midlands voter Burnham holds no appeal and won't do generally. All the three ladies standing may stand some chance but not Burnham.
Whether you like Burnham or not and personally I can't stand him, his past allows too much mud to stick, from Mid Staffs, from friend of Blair to Lenny's choice he is a sitting duck to throw mud at. Hunty gave a mild taste of what would be to come, he would be the Conservatives choice as Labour leader almost 100% just like Eddy was, although due to Burnham's suspect temperament under pressure I think he would go even worse as a leader.
Moses JonC I am not a Labour voter and oppose restoring the 50% top tax rate, this is NOT an economic point or a personal view but a political one, polls show voters opposed cutting the 50% tax in 2012 at a time of austerity and it cost Osborne his 'omnishambles' budget, Labour lost because of Miliband, immigration, Scotland and being seen to have been unwilling to cut spending and welfare NOT because of the 50% rate which even many Tories support
always been puzzled that Labour has not made much more of the fact that Thatcher tolerated a top rate of 60% until the 1988 Budget.
Don’t think “tolerated” has anything to do with it. - Thatcher inherited from Labour a top rate tax of 80%, by the time she left office it was down to 40% and stayed there until Gordon Brown cynically raised it to 50% before the GE2010.
But she could have reduced the Top rate to 40% in Howe's first Budget in June 1979.
Really? - I doubt it was possible given the economic state the country at the time. However, in the first budget after Thatcher's election in 79, the top rate tax was reduced from 83% to 60% and again to 40% in the 1988 budget. The basic rate tax was also reduced from 33% to 25% by 1988.
Whatever, your claim that Thatcher 'tolerated' high taxs rates is utterly bogus.
But on the basis of what Osborne et al have been telling us, reducing the Top rate of tax to 40% would actually boost revenue for the Treasury! Was that not also true in 1979?
'The fact is that Labour always wrecks the economy' Utter garbage. In what way was the British economy wrecked in 1970 when Labour left office? The record current account deficit inherited from the Tories in 1964 had become a very big surplus.Throughout the 1964 -1970 period there was no recession. In 1979 Labour bequeathed to Thatcher an inflation rate significantly lower than was inherited from Heath in March 1974. - within a year she succeeded in more than doubling it.
Attempts to rewrite history won't work with those of us who lived through it.
I lived through it all myself. Which of those facts would you wish to change or contradict?
Comments
@Mrwatford30 – indeed.
I understand of course that Nats might not see that as a bad thing..
You seem to be conflating the bizarre Labour argument that meaningless half day College courses of no value are related to University places.
(Am I the only person who, when they read Sheridan, thinks of Captain Sheridan?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8vA0ANTUM0
Edit: NSFW for mild, but funny, swearing.
Thoroughly typical of the way these losery creeps work. It really speaks volumes that Labour feels so empty without Miliband. The advantage of electing any of these no-marks is that Miliband will instantly assume elder statesman gravitas without having to wait for it.
Interestingly, Kinnock still comes across as a petulant immature student even now. He never did grow up. How wise were the electorate in 1987 and 1992.
That issue is not going away.
Depressing way to start.
General principles are often much better. Harder to exploit and makes you think. But rules also have their place - drive on the left.
So I don't have a rule of which is better, - principles or rules. I use the general principle of applying common sense. I am a rule relativist.
The fact is that Labour always wrecks the economy, always drives up unemployment, always boosts racist parties and latterly wrecks pensions and the City as well. What Butcher claims to believe and how he'll behave in office are two quite different things and the only Labour leader to persuade the electorate otherwise since the 1970s has been Blair, who unfortunately was lying just as hard.
There is space for a left of centre political view but increasingly it looks more like it;s going to be an unelectable mosaic of small factions - SNP, rump LD, rump Lab, PC. On the right, meanwhile, Cameron has decisively defeated UKIP by getting a majority from a position of hostility to them and by shooting their referendum fox.
Not a good decade to be a tax and spend leftist envy monkey.
Maybe but his aims were posted on here a few days ago in bullet points and they looked like more of same to me in fact straight out of Lens playbook
Just answer the damn questions.
The system 'as is' at the moment in the financial industry is not working, as can be seen by the massive amounts that institutions are having to pay out for wrongdoing.
If their governance is based on 'general principles', then that system is obviously broken.
If he truly is re-energised by his majority, then this bodes well...
Conversely, the bit of financial regulation which everyone agrees works very well is the almost totally informal Takeover Panel. In addition, financial regulation of the banks before Gordon Brown screwed it up also worked better.
On the leadership of course Malcolm Rifkind, David Willets and Alan Duncan all failed to get the nominations required to run in 2005 as Tory leader either
The fear of a Lab/SNP government was the Tories trump card.
.@David_Cameron on Charles Kennedy: "At his best he was the best that politics could be and that’s how we should remember him" #PMQs
Obama is a decent example of a little-known person with a strong personal appeal moving into leadership quickly.
The more you don't learn the better it keeps you further and further from getting anywhere near power every again. As I always said.....anyone just anyone but Labour * and the electorate agreed. Labour are in a very dark place at the moment and despite the jolly laughs on the opposition benches today they know it.
* SNP don't count in this other than the fact the Scottish people woke up and realised Labour were taking the piss out of them as well and had been for generations. They dealt with it with it in 2015 and probably permanently. Kudos to them. Now the Northern Labour fifedoms need to do the same
The 50% rate will not pay off the deficit! Jeez... £90bn worth of extra tax to come from an extra 5% of the incomes of around 0.1% of the population above £150K implies 60,000 people on £30 million plus per year, AND that they will do nothing to avoid this tax.
La la land
But as I said at the start of this, it really isn't my area, so I defer to the wisdom of others. ;-)
Utter garbage. In what way was the British economy wrecked in 1970 when Labour left office? The record current account deficit inherited from the Tories in 1964 had become a very big surplus.Throughout the 1964 -1970 period there was no recession.
In 1979 Labour bequeathed to Thatcher an inflation rate significantly lower than was inherited from Heath in March 1974. - within a year she succeeded in more than doubling it.
We always used to get one on the old 'game changer' every time he was in the news previously.
Fetch me my popcorn, this gon' be good.
"I think Andy Burnham was in the last government"
I'm not a diehard Tory, just someone who mostly (though not always) votes Tory. I voted for Blair in 1997, I could easily see myself as voting for Kendall based on what I think she stands for (admittedly she may turn out different to my initial perception of her).
It's not going to happen though a Len has not given his blessing and that's the problem Labour retain. Remember Len said "it's our party" and that's the way it will stay unless he follows through and sets up his own party and splits Labour 3 ways including the Greens.
A dark dark place indeed.
I have been looking at Labour’s performance in England at recent general elections at which it was defeated and have come up with the following data:
2015 % share seats won
Con 40.9 318
Lab 31.6 206
LibDem 8.2 6
UKIP 14.1 1
Grn 4.2 1
2010
Con 39.5 297
Lab 28.1 191
LibDem 24.2 43
UKIP 3.5 0
Grn 1.0 1
1992
Con 45.5 319
Lab 33.9 195
LibDem 19.2 10
1987
Con 46.2 358
Lab 29.5 155
LibSDP 23.8 10
1983
Con 46.0 362
Lab 26.9 148
LibSDP26.4 13
1979
Con 47.2 306
Lab 36.7 203
Lib 14.9 7
Some commentators have implied that Labour’s performance last month was a disaster comparable to the 1983/1987 election results. From these figures it is clear that ,at least in England, that is quite an exaggeration. In terms of seats Labour is more than fifty ahead of its position in the 1980s, whilst the Tory lead in % share was lower in 2015 than in both 1992 and 1979.
Labour’s disaster in Scotland has served to somewhat distort the impression of its performance more widely.
I could easily see myself voting for Kendall, but then I may be projecting too much onto her of my own beliefs. It's a common trap to fall into.
Therein lies the problem. Labour are widely perceived outside their client base to be soft and profligate. They just aren't credible.
Whatever, your claim that Thatcher 'tolerated' high taxs rates is utterly bogus.
So I cannot condemn Cameron for it, unless today is a particular egregious example of it, because if Ed M had won he'd do the same, and so would anyone else who got up there, to some extent.
I do not believe all politicians are the same, but that is one area of behaviour that varies in extremity only.
Ed then followed it up with similar questions on the same theme.
If straight answers aren't going to be believed, why should he give them?
There is a long tradition of the LOTO getting up and asking ... "Has the PM stopped beating his wife?"
The PM goes on to a long sound bite nothing to do with the question and finishes with a question for the LOTO which isn't really a question.
But we all know this anyway.
I will keep my Tory membership until I die given my dud Tony votes and pointless LibDems one. I'm too old to defy the economy and the Tories do much better at it than all the rest. It's very simple self preservation.
In several posts between us, you're very reluctant to actually state your case and gravitate to knocking Tories instead.
Who do you want in HMG, I'm quite confused.
My point here was that Mrs Thatcher was not an unmitigated tax cutter. Income tax was cut but slowly and was mainly higher than it is now. VAT was doubled and extended. It would be interesting to check what happened to the overall tax burden.
Whether you like Burnham or not and personally I can't stand him, his past allows too much mud to stick, from Mid Staffs, from friend of Blair to Lenny's choice he is a sitting duck to throw mud at. Hunty gave a mild taste of what would be to come, he would be the Conservatives choice as Labour leader almost 100% just like Eddy was, although due to Burnham's suspect temperament under pressure I think he would go even worse as a leader.