Is this really the right question "How will you get the better of Osborne in 2020?" Two Eds tried that tack and failed big time. They also lost Scotland. A remarkable achievement!
1. Will it win back 20 seats from the SNP? Answer No. 2. Can any of them create an impresssion of being a competent Govt in waiting through endless nit picking when the majority view in England is that the Govt finances need to be run by credible professionals? Answer No. 3. Will this endless focus on the welfare junkies win back England? Answer No. 4. Will any of these candidates attract back WWC and avoid further losses to parties that have a tougher line on immigration? Answer No. 5. In an era of an aging voter base can any of them make the party one for the over 55s? Answer No.
Quebec nationalists lost 10 seats between the 1993 and 1997 general elections, no reason Labour cannot pick up 10+ seats from the SNP. The focus of the contendors yesterday was on opposing the public sector pay freeze and the exemption of the young from the living wage, not the welfare cuts. Burnham and Kendall certainly could win WWC voters in my view, probably more so than Osborne, they are both at best lower middle class in upbringing and from the provinces, Ed Miliband was upper middle class, North London intelligentsia in upbringing. Osborne is also more metropolitan than Cameron
Labour has never been the party for over 55s, even under Blair, so that is largely irrelevant, to win Labour needs the middle aged and add those to those amongst the young who do turn out to vote for them
Can anyone recall the Tories post 1997 having a complete blindspot about something?
They fought terribly over the EU, but knew they had a problem. They also seemed to know that they'd cranked back public spending too far in too many areas and Labour stole their clothes because the electorate didn't trust them anymore.
I'm finding it really hard to think of a similar level of denial re Spending Too Much five years on.
The point is, though, that what she said resonated more widely. That I exactly what Don is stating.
All parties planted party activists in the QT audiences. It would be astonishing if they did not! But Ed's response was one of the defining moments of the campaign.
The hostile question was to be expected. The problem then was Miliband's answer, and the problem now is the large number of Labour members and activists that still don't believe that his answer was wrong.
Kendall is the only candidate who openly says that Brown spent too much. Which is why the others will make the same mistake as Ed in the QT special.
The truth hurts, and I do not think that Labour members are ready to accept the truth yet.
There is a view that the most important issue for voters is which looks like the more competent Govt. Thus Maggie won 79 - 87 and Major won 92 and not 97. Labour won 97 - 2005 but not 2010 and 2015. Which of these 4 looks like a competent Leader and can they attract enough competent people into their shadow cab team?
The effects of Brown's nepotism and plottings combined with the effects of the all women selections and union backed candidates, has reduced the talent pool of Labour MPs. The Conservative MP talent pool after GE2010 looks far superior to the one that Labour have post GE 2015.
1997 - 2008 shows how difficult it is to oppose a govt when the economy is doing well on the key measures that matter to voters - unemployment, wages and interest rates.
Debt as a % of GDP doesn't lose many votes - well not until the catastrophic crash comes and the nation is left naked as the tide goes out.
The Cons need to be ready for the next downturn - which is likely to be global.
We discourage tobacco - it causes cancer. We discourage alcohol. We encourage sensible eating. We move to ban addictive gambling. Yet when someone is morbidly obese and their life is threatened by it, we actively help them.
Left to their own devices, they'd struggle to get out of bed. So we pay carers to help them access more food. Are they not accessories to a potential death?
I saw the gentleman say it wasn't his fault that he was overweight. Were the carers force-feeding him?
Edit. In Prader Willi syndrome, where eating is compulsive, carers actively take steps to prevent the patient eating too much. Yet a psychological flawed (we used to say greedy) person is allowed full rein.
We also treat alcohol and tobacco related diseases, and many other things that are caused by people making lifestyle decisions. Addiction is an illness. The trick is to help people not make bad choices in the first place - it's cheaper for us and better for them. But when that is attempted, there are always cries of Nanny State.
We don't have any national polls at the moment, but looking at the local polling it seems the Kipper vote is on the slide.. This might have some effect on the EU in out referendum. Looks like the Kipper vote is down to the ex BNP and hardliner BOOers.
The government is in its honeymoon, Greece and the EU referendum when it comes will put the spotlight more on the EU, the best result for UKIP is a close In
I'm not convinced by this thread. My key question is: why is everyone assuming Osborne is 'likely' to be Conservative leader in 2020? He's Cameron's deputy and favourite in the betting. But when was the last time such a person actually became Tory leader? I think you have to go as far back as Eden in 1955, with only two other examples in the last 150 years, to find a parallel.
...
When in government the Chancellor normally succeeds the PM as party leader. Macmillan, Callaghan, John Major, Brown all were Chancellor so that means Osborne is most likely. Indeed, in a Johnson v Osborne battle Johnson is more the Heseltine figure, Osborne as Chancellor more like Major. A conservativehome party membership poll this week had Johnson, Osborne and Javid all tied at the top for the Tory leadership succession.
Home was elected by soundings so under a different system, anyway he was Foreign Secretary at the time so hardly came from nowhere. Thatcher was elected leader in opposition, as indeed were Hague and IDS
I take your point but, Callaghan was a failure as Chancellor. He was then Home Sec and then Foreign Sec. Healey was Chancellor... much good it did him. Likewise Roy Jenkins - he was so respected he left the Party. At the behest of the Unions Callaghan stuffed the proposals by Barbara Castle to try to tame the... er Unions. Thats where the wind lies for Labour.
Off topic: re Greece. Markets seem cheered by the prospect of Greece staying in the Euro and achieving this by accepting a further round of deep austerity and reforms. Which confuses me. Did the Greek people not just empathically reject a milder version of the same? I predict riots.
Labour don't have five years. They have roughly five weeks to disrupt the Conservatives' narrative. If they don't manage that, they'll have to hope events are kind to them.
What is the Tory narrative? It seems to be that everyone is getting a pay rise. A pay rise means having more money to spend and feeling better off. If that turns out to be the case then nothing Labour says or does will make a difference. If, on the other hand, Osborne's claims are not matched by practical experience, then Labour has a chance.
The message isn't aimed at the low paid, so their practical experience is not going to be decisive. The narrative is that the Conservatives can reduce taxes on the middle classes while increasing pay for the poorer. That neither is happening is by the by.
It depends on how you define middle class. If the IFS turns out to be right it will be many more than the poorest who will see a negative effect from this budget. But essentially you are right: cuts that fall disproportionately on the poorest are being used to prop up the lifestyles of Tory voters.
That's philosophically the wrong way round - it implies that benefit recipients have some a priori entitlement to benefits. What's happened is that the government has chosen to take less money from the middle classes and reduced the support it will give to other members of society. This is not the same as taking from the poor to prop up the lifestyles of the middle class.
As I say, it depends on how you define middle class. But, yes, you are right: the Tories have decided to make life much tougher for those who are least likely to vote Tory. That'll teach 'em :-)
No, the Tories have decided to continue to address the government's overspending while, simultaneously, raising taxes
"The significance of that evening was that it stemmed from to one of Labour’s failures post 2010. While the party was absorbed in electing a new leader then the Tories and their Lib Dem buddies were able to establish a narrative of Labour’s mess that needed cleaning up."
Sorry, but Labour need to get stop this - they did leave a mess. The mistake Labour made was pretending that they didn't. What they should have done is pointed out that the Tories supported the bank bailouts and that even if Labour had been running a surplus it wouldn't have made much difference. They should then have argued for tax rises in addition to spending cuts being put forward by the Tories.
Instead of arguing that the Tories were cutting too fast they should have been holding Osborne to account on his promise to get rid of the deficit by 2015. Instead, when we got to the election and Osborne had missed his target massively, not even Labour were shameless enough to pretend that they thought that this mattered given what they had been arguing for the previous five years.
"Burnham said 'The biggest slap in the face for young people in this budget is what George Osborne has done on pay. His flagship proposal of a national living wage only kicks in at 25, but his cuts to tax credits affect people of all ages.'"
This shows what an idiot Burnham is. The under 25s should be grateful that they can undercut the older workforce. The hardest thing is getting a job in the first place and this will give under 25s a better chance of getting a job and getting some experience.
I am not sure the Tories would have bailed out all banks eg Northern Rock had they been in power, after all George W Bush let Lehmans go bust
I'm not convinced by this thread. My key question is: why is everyone assuming Osborne is 'likely' to be Conservative leader in 2020? He's Cameron's deputy and favourite in the betting. But when was the last time such a person actually became Tory leader? I think you have to go as far back as Eden in 1955, with only two other examples in the last 150 years, to find a parallel.
...
When in government the Chancellor normally succeeds the PM as party leader. Macmillan, Callaghan, John Major, Brown all were Chancellor so that means Osborne is most likely. Indeed, in a Johnson v Osborne battle Johnson is more the Heseltine figure, Osborne as Chancellor more like Major. A conservativehome party membership poll this week had Johnson, Osborne and Javid all tied at the top for the Tory leadership succession.
Home was elected by soundings so under a different system, anyway he was Foreign Secretary at the time so hardly came from nowhere. Thatcher was elected leader in opposition, as indeed were Hague and IDS
I take your point but, Callaghan was a failure as Chancellor. He was then Home Sec and then Foreign Sec. Healey was Chancellor... much good it did him. Likewise Roy Jenkins - he was so respected he left the Party. At the behest of the Unions Callaghan stuffed the proposals by Barbara Castle to try to tame the... er Unions. Thats where the wind lies for Labour.
Callaghan certainly made a lot of errors, but he did become PM after being Chancellor when his party was in government and in most popular PM polls he was actually more popular than Thatcher, apart from 1970 when Heath beat Wilson, 1979 is the only time the less popular PM candidate has lost. (Although in 1945 Attlee may also have trailed Churchill if polls measured such things).
Healey ran against Foot for leader in opposition and Jenkins also left the party in opposition
Off topic: re Greece. Markets seem cheered by the prospect of Greece staying in the Euro and achieving this by accepting a further round of deep austerity and reforms. Which confuses me. Did the Greek people not just empathically reject a milder version of the same? I predict riots.
Indeed – The new austerity plan goes further and cuts deeper than the measure on offer prior to the referendum. The NO result was a resounding two fingers to austerity. PM Tsipras will have a tough sell convincing the Greeks that the new deal is in the best interests of Greece.
Can anyone recall the Tories post 1997 having a complete blindspot about something?
They fought terribly over the EU, but knew they had a problem. They also seemed to know that they'd cranked back public spending too far in too many areas and Labour stole their clothes because the electorate didn't trust them anymore.
I'm finding it really hard to think of a similar level of denial re Spending Too Much five years on.
The point is, though, that what she said resonated more widely. That I exactly what Don is stating.
All parties planted party activists in the QT audiences. It would be astonishing if they did not! But Ed's response was one of the defining moments of the campaign.
The hostile question was to be expected. The problem then was Miliband's answer, and the problem now is the large number of Labour members and activists that still don't believe that his answer was wrong.
Kendall is the only candidate who openly says that Brown spent too much. Which is why the others will make the same mistake as Ed in the QT special.
The truth hurts, and I do not think that Labour members are ready to accept the truth yet.
There is a view that the most important issue for voters is which looks like the more competent Govt. Thus Maggie won 79 - 87 and Major won 92 and not 97. Labour won 97 - 2005 but not 2010 and 2015. Which of these 4 looks like a competent Leader and can they attract enough competent people into their shadow cab team?
The effects of Brown's nepotism and plottings combined with the effects of the all women selections and union backed candidates, has reduced the talent pool of Labour MPs. The Conservative MP talent pool after GE2010 looks far superior to the one that Labour have post GE 2015.
....
The Cons need to be ready for the next downturn - which is likely to be global.
If in late 2018 or early 2019 the UK economy remains in reasonable shape and the Tories are competitive in the polls (if they have been rehabilitated by then)/local elections etc, then George Osborne will become Conservative leader and PM, conceivably without a contest (yes, shades of Gordon).
Labour don't have five years. They have roughly five weeks to disrupt the Conservatives' narrative. If they don't manage that, they'll have to hope events are kind to them.
What is the Tory narrative? It seems to be that everyone is getting a pay rise. A pay rise means having more money to spend and feeling better off. If that turns out to be the case then nothing Labour says or does will make a difference. If, on the other hand, Osborne's claims are not matched by practical experience, then Labour has a chance.
The message isn't aimed at the low paid, so their practical experience is not going to be decisive. The narrative is that the Conservatives can reduce taxes on the middle classes while increasing pay for the poorer. That neither is happening is by the by.
It depends on how you define middle class. If the IFS turns out to be right it will be many more than the poorest who will see a negative effect from this budget. But essentially you are right: cuts that fall disproportionately on the poorest are being used to prop up the lifestyles of Tory voters.
That's philosophically the wrong way round - it implies that benefit recipients have some a priori entitlement to benefits. What's happened is that the government has chosen to take less money from the middle classes and reduced the support it will give to other members of society. This is not the same as taking from the poor to prop up the lifestyles of the middle class.
As I say, it depends on how you define middle class. But, yes, you are right: the Tories have decided to make life much tougher for those who are least likely to vote Tory. That'll teach 'em :-)
No, the Tories have decided to continue to address the government's overspending while, simultaneously, raising taxes
And they have chosen to do it in a way that leaves the poorest (and least likely to vote Tory) shouldering the heaviest burden.
The point is, though, that what she said resonated more widely. That I exactly what Don is stating.
All parties planted party activists in the QT audiences. It would be astonishing if they did not! But Ed's response was one of the defining moments of the campaign.
The hostile question was to be expected. The problem then was Miliband's answer, and the problem now is the large number of Labour members and activists that still don't believe that his answer was wrong.
Kendall is the only candidate who openly says that Brown spent too much. Which is why the others will make the same mistake as Ed in the QT special.
The truth hurts, and I do not think that Labour members are ready to accept the truth yet.
Which is why Labour need to elect Kendall now, and hope that Cameron's successor is from the right wing of his party, if they want to stand any chance in 2020. We are now at the equivalent of 1983.
I find it intriguing that the membership spew out their hate for Blair, when he is the only man in living memory that took the party to a clear majority. How many of us here voted for him in 1997, yet are now clearly in Cameron's camp?"
Labour won more seats and votes than 1987 let alone 1983 and Thatcher had a majority of over 100 then. Labour also did better than the Tories did in 2001. This was a worse result for Labour than 1992 but this was not 1983. As I said only 1 government has won an election after 10 or more years in power, the Tories in 1992 under Major which seemed a new government to Thatcher's, so unless Labour elect Corbyn they cannot be ruled out
Local election results last night seem to suggest a decline in UKIP and Green support. With the Assembly elections less than a year away this could be good news for Wales Labour. They have been very worried about the UKIP surge in the valleys. Perhaps things will not be as bad as I thought after the GE.
I'm not convinced by this thread. My key question is: why is everyone assuming Osborne is 'likely' to be Conservative leader in 2020? *SNIP* A more likely scenario is that Osborne finds a middle-ranking minister with an attractive backstory and puts them forward as, in effect, his nominee. There are ways that could go wrong, but a ticket of Javid and Osborne, or even Truss and Osborne, would seem to me a much more formidable combination than Osborne PM and somebody else trying to hold a second base (Johnson or Hammond, perhaps). My suspicion is that the Conservative membership will see it that way too.
So the question may not be exactly, 'how do you beat Osborne', but, 'how do you beat a Conservative party leader backed up by Osborne?' And that's a question I can't see any of the three making a meaningful effort to answer.
Agree entirely. Osborne is setting himself up in the role Mandleson made his own for 15 years. He knows he's not the guy for the top job, same as Michael Gove admitted a few years ago and IDS understood after his defeat.
I'm starting to lay Osborne now as next leader, to add to a huge (for me) lay on Boris.
Had Mandelson been Chancellor, not Brown, he would have been favourite to succeed Blair as Osborne is to succeed Cameron
Is this really the right question "How will you get the better of Osborne in 2020?" Two Eds tried that tack and failed big time. They also lost Scotland. A remarkable achievement!
1. Will it win back 20 seats from the SNP? Answer No. 2. Can any of them create an impresssion of being a competent Govt in waiting through endless nit picking when the majority view in England is that the Govt finances need to be run by credible professionals? Answer No. 3. Will this endless focus on the welfare junkies win back England? Answer No. 4. Will any of these candidates attract back WWC and avoid further losses to parties that have a tougher line on immigration? Answer No. 5. In an era of an aging voter base can any of them make the party one for the over 55s? Answer No.
Quebec nationalists lost 10 seats between the 1993 and 1997 general elections, no reason Labour cannot pick up 10+ seats from the SNP.
Next year SLAB look to be heading to another round of reductions in their tax payer funded activits in Scotland when they lose more MSPs. Also union funding in Scotland will no longer be solely directed to SLAB, they will have to share it with the SNP. How will they have a viable base to take MP seats in 2020?
I was at an Andy hustings the other day and I was not convinced that he has the right vision to take on the Tories. Having said that, the dismantling of Osborne's claims at the budget may just give him, and the other candidates an opportunity to gain some credibility with not only Labour members, but the general public.
School children should take a 'Life in the UK' test to ensure they have the same understanding of British values as immigrants, Labour's Tristram Hunt said today.
The shadow education secretary called for a 'proper National baccalaureate qualification' in which all pupils are tested on British history and values before leaving school.
He said because immigrants are required to take a UK citizenship test so should British school children.
Is this really the right question "How will you get the better of Osborne in 2020?" Two Eds tried that tack and failed big time. They also lost Scotland. A remarkable achievement!
1. Will it win back 20 seats from the SNP? Answer No. 2. Can any of them create an impresssion of being a competent Govt in waiting through endless nit picking when the majority view in England is that the Govt finances need to be run by credible professionals? Answer No. 3. Will this endless focus on the welfare junkies win back England? Answer No. 4. Will any of these candidates attract back WWC and avoid further losses to parties that have a tougher line on immigration? Answer No. 5. In an era of an aging voter base can any of them make the party one for the over 55s? Answer No.
Quebec nationalists lost 10 seats between the 1993 and 1997 general elections, no reason Labour cannot pick up 10+ seats from the SNP.
Next year SLAB look to be heading to another round of reductions in their tax payer funded activits in Scotland when they lose more MSPs. Also union funding in Scotland will no longer be solely directed to SLAB, they will have to share it with the SNP. How will they have a viable base to take MP seats in 2020?
Quebec nationalists won provincial elections in that time too and had a big lead in funding and activists, that did not stop them losing 10 of the 54 seats they won at the 1993 Canadian general election in 1997. Remember too in 2015 Labour said a vote for the SNP was a vote for a Tory majority and it was!
...when Ed Miliband was ambushed by Tory activists in the BBC Question Time audience ...
WTF? Comments like this go to the very heart of why Labour is in such a deep deep hole. I was watching. What actually happened was that a woman who owned a business in Sheffield asked Miliband if he thought the previous Labour government had spent too much. ....
The point is, though, that what she said resonated more widely. That I exactly what Don is stating.
All parties planted party activists in the QT audiences. It would be astonishing if they did not! But Ed's response was one of the defining moments of the campaign.
The hostile question was to be expected. The problem then was Miliband's answer, and the problem now is the large number of Labour members and activists that still don't believe that his answer was wrong.
Kendall is the only candidate who openly says that Brown spent too much. Which is why the others will make the same mistake as Ed in the QT special. The truth hurts, and I do not think that Labour members are ready to accept the truth yet.
Precisely. The usual response tends to be that because they were spending all that borrowed dosh on schools and hospitals then this somehow justified the excess. It never appears to cross their minds that the borrowing created a problem for future generations, who will also need to build schools and hospitals.
That impression is yet more spendy Labour bollocks. There was almost no public spending on schools and hospitals at all, as the vast majority of building projects were under PFI rather than departmental spending to keep them off the books. The overspending was IN ADDITION to the new schools and hospitals.
Correct. Between 2000 and 2010 Brown increased spending by 50% in real terms. A massive increase never seen in peacetime that could not be sustained. In virtually all those years he ran deficits even though we had growth. I think these figures go some way to explain the difficulty of reducing the deficit and the folly of the spending. In the following 5 years the govt increased spending by (from memory) 5% and we saw the deficit fall.
The hollowness of Brown is shown in the 2010 Labour manifesto where he/Labour said that because NHS spending had been increased so massively it was now alright to look for £20bn in efficiency savings.
As I say, it depends on how you define middle class. But, yes, you are right: the Tories have decided to make life much tougher for those who are least likely to vote Tory. That'll teach 'em :-)
I know you were tongue in cheek, but it's a very common meme amongst left-wingers nonetheless.
It's a bad habit that should be broken. I generally vote conservative; that doesn't mean I either look down on the poor, or feel that people should be punished because they didn't enjoy the advantages that many of us had (and probably took for granted, like fully engaged parents who spent time with us etc).
However, I _do_ think the priority has to be getting UK finances in order. I'd support tax rises and reduced pensioner benefits (if well targeted ofc) in order to achieve that - so I'm disappointed (if unsurprised) that Osborne didn't address the latter.
As I've written before, we'll spend a quarter of a trillion pounds, give or take, on simply servicing the national debt in this parliament. That's a lot of hospitals, schools, roads, rail improvements etc that we'll have sacrificed.
I'll be impressed by any Labour candidate who actually sets out a plan for restoring our finances. Instead they seem to be hand-wringing over whether to admit Blair/Brown spent too much money in their second/third terms. Simple answer; yes they did. Move on and address the current situation - that'll be far more beneficial than arguing about the past.
School children should take a 'Life in the UK' test to ensure they have the same understanding of British values as immigrants, Labour's Tristram Hunt said today.
The shadow education secretary called for a 'proper National baccalaureate qualification' in which all pupils are tested on British history and values before leaving school.
He said because immigrants are required to take a UK citizenship test so should British school children.
Off topic: re Greece. Markets seem cheered by the prospect of Greece staying in the Euro and achieving this by accepting a further round of deep austerity and reforms. Which confuses me. Did the Greek people not just empathically reject a milder version of the same? I predict riots.
Indeed – The new austerity plan goes further and cuts deeper than the measure on offer prior to the referendum. The NO result was a resounding two fingers to austerity. PM Tsipras will have a tough sell convincing the Greeks that the new deal is in the best interests of Greece.
It will depend if the rest of the EU can beat the Germans into submission over debt relief. Something along the lines of the 1953 London Agreement. If they can't then the whole thing is a waste of time anyway as the austerity alone will not pull Greece out of the hole. In that case this is simply a slightly more sophisticated can kicking exercise.
Is this really the right question "How will you get the better of Osborne in 2020?" Two Eds tried that tack and failed big time. They also lost Scotland. A remarkable achievement!
1. Will it win back 20 seats from the SNP? Answer No. 2. Can any of them create an impresssion of being a competent Govt in waiting through endless nit picking when the majority view in England is that the Govt finances need to be run by credible professionals? Answer No. 3. Will this endless focus on the welfare junkies win back England? Answer No. 4. Will any of these candidates attract back WWC and avoid further losses to parties that have a tougher line on immigration? Answer No. 5. In an era of an aging voter base can any of them make the party one for the over 55s? Answer No.
Labour has never been the party for over 55s, even under Blair, so that is largely irrelevant, to win Labour needs the middle aged and add those to those amongst the young who do turn out to vote for them
Errrr More than 60% of the electorate (and an even higher proportion of those who voted) are over 55 years old. This vote share will just grow. Are Labour just going to chase 35% of the voters under 55 in future elections.
Off topic: re Greece. Markets seem cheered by the prospect of Greece staying in the Euro and achieving this by accepting a further round of deep austerity and reforms. Which confuses me. Did the Greek people not just empathically reject a milder version of the same? I predict riots.
Indeed – The new austerity plan goes further and cuts deeper than the measure on offer prior to the referendum. The NO result was a resounding two fingers to austerity. PM Tsipras will have a tough sell convincing the Greeks that the new deal is in the best interests of Greece.
Tsipras never had any intention of voluntarily leaving the Euro, unfortunately. I think he wants out and his acceptance of a harsher deal will see Syriza split.
Hopefully the new terms include that they reintroduce immigration controls such as detention centres as well as block Syriza's intended amnesty of 170k illegals who would promptly flooded here.
Kebabs are the food of the Gods. I am very overweight. There may be a connection. I love them sober or not. But you can't get good ones outside London.
Some of the best Kebabs i've ever had were in Bath and Edinburgh.
Is this really the right question "How will you get the better of Osborne in 2020?" Two Eds tried that tack and failed big time. They also lost Scotland. A remarkable achievement!
1. Will it win back 20 seats from the SNP? Answer No. 2. Can any of them create an impresssion of being a competent Govt in waiting through endless nit picking when the majority view in England is that the Govt finances need to be run by credible professionals? Answer No. 3. Will this endless focus on the welfare junkies win back England? Answer No. 4. Will any of these candidates attract back WWC and avoid further losses to parties that have a tougher line on immigration? Answer No. 5. In an era of an aging voter base can any of them make the party one for the over 55s? Answer No.
Quebec nationalists lost 10 seats between the 1993 and 1997 general elections, no reason Labour cannot pick up 10+ seats from the SNP.
Next year SLAB look to be heading to another round of reductions in their tax payer funded activits in Scotland when they lose more MSPs. Also union funding in Scotland will no longer be solely directed to SLAB, they will have to share it with the SNP. How will they have a viable base to take MP seats in 2020?
Quebec nationalists won provincial elections in that time too and had a big lead in funding and activists, that did not stop them losing 10 of the 54 seats they won at the 1993 Canadian general election in 1997. Remember too in 2015 Labour said a vote for the SNP was a vote for a Tory majority and it was!
Complacent. Just like SLAB.
There is also another "heartland", Wales, Labour have lost a quarter of its vote share in under 25 years (and 40% of its vote share since 1966). So far it has not significantly affected its seat count, though it is drifting down.
Is this really the right question "How will you get the better of Osborne in 2020?" Two Eds tried that tack and failed big time. They also lost Scotland. A remarkable achievement!
1. Will it win back 20 seats from the SNP? Answer No. 2. Can any of them create an impresssion of being a competent Govt in waiting through endless nit picking when the majority view in England is that the Govt finances need to be run by credible professionals? Answer No. 3. Will this endless focus on the welfare junkies win back England? Answer No. 4. Will any of these candidates attract back WWC and avoid further losses to parties that have a tougher line on immigration? Answer No. 5. In an era of an aging voter base can any of them make the party one for the over 55s? Answer No.
Labour has never been the party for over 55s, even under Blair, so that is largely irrelevant, to win Labour needs the middle aged and add those to those amongst the young who do turn out to vote for them
Errrr More than 60% of the electorate (and an even higher proportion of those who voted) are over 55 years old. This vote share will just grow. Are Labour just going to chase 35% of the voters under 55 in future elections.
They may be able to make some progress with the under 65s who are still working and in effect really still middle aged now, but the over 65 and pensioner vote will always be Tory (and people will still die even if life expectancy increases)
Guido seems to have ID'd the Cooper supporter trolling Kendall.
Meow.
Whoops! That was always going to happen, Yvette needs to have this sort of thing shut down quickly before it gets out of hand. In this respect Guido has done her a favour by exposing the person responsible now, rather than later in the campaign.
We discourage tobacco - it causes cancer. We discourage alcohol. We encourage sensible eating. We move to ban addictive gambling. Yet when someone is morbidly obese and their life is threatened by it, we actively help them.
Left to their own devices, they'd struggle to get out of bed. So we pay carers to help them access more food. Are they not accessories to a potential death?
I saw the gentleman say it wasn't his fault that he was overweight. Were the carers force-feeding him?
Edit. In Prader Willi syndrome, where eating is compulsive, carers actively take steps to prevent the patient eating too much. Yet a psychological flawed (we used to say greedy) person is allowed full rein.
We also treat alcohol and tobacco related diseases, and many other things that are caused by people making lifestyle decisions. Addiction is an illness. The trick is to help people not make bad choices in the first place - it's cheaper for us and better for them. But when that is attempted, there are always cries of Nanny State.
My colleague "can't believe she's gone back up to 9 8".
The root cause is basically sugar, and the US food industry being complicit in blocking attempts to change the level of sugar in processed food.
Fructose is found in fruit, sucrose (table sugar) and in high fructose corn syrup. It is a simple sugar and is sweeter than glucose. Sucrose (the sugar that we commonly add to food) is made up of 50 per cent glucose and 50 per cent fructose. High fructose corn syrup (containing more fructose than glucose) commonly replaces sucrose in the US food industry because it is both sweeter and cheaper. In the UK, it can also be labelled as ‘glucose-fructose syrup’ or ‘HFCS’. Because it causes a lower blood sugar spike than sucrose or glucose, and therefore has a low glycaemic index, manufacturers are allowed to claim that fructose is ‘healthier’ than the other two. But some scientists claim the problem with fructose is twofold. Firstly, there is no hormone to remove fructose from our bloodstream (unlike glucose, which stimulates insulin production). It is therefore left to the liver to remove it. When the liver is overwhelmed it converts fructose to liver fat, which ups our chances of developing insulin resistance (a precursor to diabetes), hardened arteries and heart disease. Secondly, fructose suppresses the hormone leptin, which tells you when you’re full. In other words, your brain lets you consume it without limit. A US study last year carried out by the University of California found that for every 150 calories of extra sugar people had each day, the prevalence of diabetes in the country rose by 1 per cent in the population.
Is this really the right question "How will you get the better of Osborne in 2020?" Two Eds tried that tack and failed big time. They also lost Scotland. A remarkable achievement!
1. Will it win back 20 seats from the SNP? Answer No. 2. Can any of them create an impresssion of being a competent Govt in waiting through endless nit picking when the majority view in England is that the Govt finances need to be run by credible professionals? Answer No. 3. Will this endless focus on the welfare junkies win back England? Answer No. 4. Will any of these candidates attract back WWC and avoid further losses to parties that have a tougher line on immigration? Answer No. 5. In an era of an aging voter base can any of them make the party one for the over 55s? Answer No.
Quebec nationalists lost 10 seats between the 1993 and 1997 general elections, no reason Labour cannot pick up 10+ seats from the SNP.
Next year SLAB look to be heading to another round of reductions in their tax payer funded activits in Scotland when they lose more MSPs. Also union funding in Scotland will no longer be solely directed to SLAB, they will have to share it with the SNP. How will they have a viable base to take MP seats in 2020?
Quebec nationalists won provincial elections in that time too and had a big lead in funding and activists, that did not stop them losing 10 of the 54 seats they won at the 1993 Canadian general election in 1997. Remember too in 2015 Labour said a vote for the SNP was a vote for a Tory majority and it was!
Complacent. Just like SLAB.
There is also another "heartland", Wales, Labour have lost a quarter of its vote share in under 25 years (and 40% of its vote share since 1966). So far it has not significantly affected its seat count, though it is drifting down.
There is nothing complacent about it, what would be complacent is for the SNP to assume they have every seat in Scotland for ever more, Quebec proves that is not the case. Labour have won every general election in Wales since 1918 and they actually did worse in Wales in 1983 than they did in 2015
Is this really the right question "How will you get the better of Osborne in 2020?" Two Eds tried that tack and failed big time. They also lost Scotland. A remarkable achievement!
1. Will it win back 20 seats from the SNP? Answer No. 2. Can any of them create an impresssion of being a competent Govt in waiting through endless nit picking when the majority view in England is that the Govt finances need to be run by credible professionals? Answer No. 3. Will this endless focus on the welfare junkies win back England? Answer No. 4. Will any of these candidates attract back WWC and avoid further losses to parties that have a tougher line on immigration? Answer No. 5. In an era of an aging voter base can any of them make the party one for the over 55s? Answer No.
Labour has never been the party for over 55s, even under Blair, so that is largely irrelevant, to win Labour needs the middle aged and add those to those amongst the young who do turn out to vote for them
Errrr More than 60% of the electorate (and an even higher proportion of those who voted) are over 55 years old. This vote share will just grow. Are Labour just going to chase 35% of the voters under 55 in future elections.
They may be able to make some progress with the under 65s who are still working and in effect really still middle aged now, but the over 65 and pensioner vote will always be Tory (and people will still die even if life expectancy increases)
If that's true then demographic changes mean that Labour won't win again.
Dan's article is depressingly revealing: It's all about 'undermining' and 'damaging' Osborne, an admission of his hegemony.
Labour really have nothing to say, do they? This is not surprising: it goes back to Brown's ludicrous 'Labour investment vs Tory cuts' nonsense, the contradictions of which wrecked Ed Miliband's position. It is extraordinary that they are still supporting welfare savings in principle but opposing them in practice.
Instead they are reduced to absurdities such as glorying in his “living wage” kleptomania.
It's all very satisfactory, from the Conservatives' point of view.
Is this really the right question "How will you get the better of Osborne in 2020?" Two Eds tried that tack and failed big time. They also lost Scotland. A remarkable achievement!
1. Will it win back 20 seats from the SNP? Answer No. 2. Can any of them create an impresssion of being a competent Govt in waiting through endless nit picking when the majority view in England is that the Govt finances need to be run by credible professionals? Answer No. 3. Will this endless focus on the welfare junkies win back England? Answer No. 4. Will any of these candidates attract back WWC and avoid further losses to parties that have a tougher line on immigration? Answer No. 5. In an era of an aging voter base can any of them make the party one for the over 55s? Answer No.
Labour has never been the party for over 55s, even under Blair, so that is largely irrelevant, to win Labour needs the middle aged and add those to those amongst the young who do turn out to vote for them
Errrr More than 60% of the electorate (and an even higher proportion of those who voted) are over 55 years old. This vote share will just grow. Are Labour just going to chase 35% of the voters under 55 in future elections.
They may be able to make some progress with the under 65s who are still working and in effect really still middle aged now, but the over 65 and pensioner vote will always be Tory (and people will still die even if life expectancy increases)
If that's true then demographic changes mean that Labour won't win again.
I don't think that's true.
No elections are won with the middle aged and still will be, just middle aged now under 65
Is this really the right question "How will you get the better of Osborne in 2020?" Two Eds tried that tack and failed big time. They also lost Scotland. A remarkable achievement!
1. Will it win back 20 seats from the SNP? Answer No. 2. Can any of them create an impresssion of being a competent Govt in waiting through endless nit picking when the majority view in England is that the Govt finances need to be run by credible professionals? Answer No. 3. Will this endless focus on the welfare junkies win back England? Answer No. 4. Will any of these candidates attract back WWC and avoid further losses to parties that have a tougher line on immigration? Answer No. 5. In an era of an aging voter base can any of them make the party one for the over 55s? Answer No.
Labour has never been the party for over 55s, even under Blair, so that is largely irrelevant, to win Labour needs the middle aged and add those to those amongst the young who do turn out to vote for them
Errrr More than 60% of the electorate (and an even higher proportion of those who voted) are over 55 years old. This vote share will just grow. Are Labour just going to chase 35% of the voters under 55 in future elections.
They may be able to make some progress with the under 65s who are still working and in effect really still middle aged now, but the over 65 and pensioner vote will always be Tory (and people will still die even if life expectancy increases)
If that's true then demographic changes mean that Labour won't win again.
I don't think that's true.
No elections are won with the middle aged and still will be, just middle aged now under 65
No, elections are won with a coalition of voters that must appeal across the spectrum. If you right off a large bloc of voters tgen you're going to lose. Furthermore those in their early 60s are concerned with elderly issues as they see themselves there soon even if not there yet. Hence the traditional 55 split.
We discourage tobacco - it causes cancer. We discourage alcohol. We encourage sensible eating. We move to ban addictive gambling. Yet when someone is morbidly obese and their life is threatened by it, we actively help them.
Left to their own devices, they'd struggle to get out of bed. So we pay carers to help them access more food. Are they not accessories to a potential death?
I saw the gentleman say it wasn't his fault that he was overweight. Were the carers force-feeding him?
Edit. In Prader Willi syndrome, where eating is compulsive, carers actively take steps to prevent the patient eating too much. Yet a psychological flawed (we used to say greedy) person is allowed full rein.
We don't really encourage sensible eating, we encourage a grossly simplistic approach to nutrition and a politically correct diet that really stems from the corporate takeover of the FDA in the US in the 20th century. That is what's making people ill, and why levels of intolerances, allergies, cancer and other chronic diseases are through the roof.
Our answer to obesity is to put people on a calorie restricted diet, but all this generally does is get them eating more fractionated, skeletonised, processed foods, feeling hungrier, get an unsatisfactory fat loss result, fall off the wagon, and go back to being obese.
What people should be doing is eating more butter, cultured or raw dairy, soaked sprouted or sour leven grains, and organic meats, and fermented vegetables, and less to zero processed sugar, pasteurised dairy and fruit juices, processed carbohydrates, and unsoaked grains. As our ancestors did, and they weren't fat. Obesity is a symptom of our poor health, not a cause of it.
Off topic: re Greece. Markets seem cheered by the prospect of Greece staying in the Euro and achieving this by accepting a further round of deep austerity and reforms. Which confuses me. Did the Greek people not just empathically reject a milder version of the same? I predict riots.
Indeed – The new austerity plan goes further and cuts deeper than the measure on offer prior to the referendum. The NO result was a resounding two fingers to austerity. PM Tsipras will have a tough sell convincing the Greeks that the new deal is in the best interests of Greece.
If he gets a third large loan (E50b?) and a major restructuring of the existing debt and the banks reopen, he'll be a hero.
watching QT last night it confirmed that post May 7 everyone is all over the shop - the audience cheering, by turn, Chuka, the UKIP-er, whom I liked, Anna S and even, god help us, Tommy Shepherd. (Rachel Johnson, meanwhile, was moronic.)
No one is sure what they should want on education, welfare, or most anything else and the issue that Lab continues to face, and which Chuka continued to avoid was: "what would you do?"
It is the rhetorical equivalent of Dave pulling out Liam's note.
Until and unless they have a credible answer then they will forever be beholden to GO's narrative. And that's assuming the GBP decide don't already believe they are a lost cause.
Off topic: re Greece. Markets seem cheered by the prospect of Greece staying in the Euro and achieving this by accepting a further round of deep austerity and reforms. Which confuses me. Did the Greek people not just empathically reject a milder version of the same? I predict riots.
Indeed – The new austerity plan goes further and cuts deeper than the measure on offer prior to the referendum. The NO result was a resounding two fingers to austerity. PM Tsipras will have a tough sell convincing the Greeks that the new deal is in the best interests of Greece.
If he gets a third large loan (E50b?) and a major restructuring of the existing debt and the banks reopen, he'll be a hero.
Negotiating with Syriza is like playing chess with a pigeon. The pigeon knocks over all the pieces, craps on the board, then struts around like it won the game. They will get a worse deal than if they had have negotiated in good faith, meanwhile their economy and banking system have collapsed.
Marxist academics should stay in their universities.
Still not sure the Germans will agree, a lot just want the Greeks out, and rightly so.
Mr. Flag, not paying close attention, but it does seem that Syriza's approach is bizarre.
1) Reject bailout 2) Hold referendum on deal that is withdrawn 3) Win a No vote 4) Banks stay shut, wreaking havoc with the economy 5) Negotiate a worse deal than the rejected bailout 6) Try and get that through Parliament
7A) It goes through and is accepted by the eurozone, ensuring a worse deal than the one the Greek people voted against 7B) It does not go through, and the Government is seen to have failed. Greece leaves the eurozone
Off topic: re Greece. Markets seem cheered by the prospect of Greece staying in the Euro and achieving this by accepting a further round of deep austerity and reforms. Which confuses me. Did the Greek people not just empathically reject a milder version of the same? I predict riots.
Indeed – The new austerity plan goes further and cuts deeper than the measure on offer prior to the referendum. The NO result was a resounding two fingers to austerity. PM Tsipras will have a tough sell convincing the Greeks that the new deal is in the best interests of Greece.
If he gets a third large loan (E50b?) and a major restructuring of the existing debt and the banks reopen, he'll be a hero.
A whole lot of ‘ifs’ in that statement, nor is it wise to assume the general populace are economically literate enough to appreciate the situation, it is they who will feel the brunt of the pending austerity what ever the out come. Afterall, more Greeks will know the meaning of betrayal rather than, Post Neo-classical Endogenous Growth Theory.
Fox hunting isn't being voted on though - a technicality to bring the law into line with !Scotland! of all places is, so far as I'm aware. I think properly made law is more important than a poor fudge which attempts to wrongfoot and elephant trap the SNP !
Personally I'm not in favour, but the whole "2 or unlimited" dogs to flush out foxes for 'pest control' just sounds like a badly drafted lawyer's paradise. Either ban hunting, or allow it. No more fudge !
Mr. Flag, not paying close attention, but it does seem that Syriza's approach is bizarre.
1) Reject bailout 2) Hold referendum on deal that is withdrawn 3) Win a No vote 4) Banks stay shut, wreaking havoc with the economy 5) Negotiate a worse deal than the rejected bailout 6) Try and get that through Parliament
7A) It goes through and is accepted by the eurozone, ensuring a worse deal than the one the Greek people voted against 7B) It does not go through, and the Government is seen to have failed. Greece leaves the eurozone
You're missing something in step 5, MD: the concessions are much of a muchness with the rejected one, indeed arguably they are showing more flexibility. But what they getting in return is very different, so overall they may view themselves as well up on the deal. (In particular, what they've really wanted is to re-link the bailout/reforms negotiations with debt forgiveness, something which their partners were very keen to avoid. Keep your eye on the prize. Whether that actually materialises is a different matter, but only looking at the "concessions" side is missing half the equation.)
" Labour has been left in 'complete disarray' by the Budget, according to former Labour chancellor Alistair Darling. The party was struggling because it did not have a "credible economic policy", he warned. While the shadow chancellor Chris Leslie appeared to suggest there was much he could agree with three of those vying to succeed Ed Miliband as Labour leader, Andy Burnham, Liz Kendall and Yvette Cooper, came out against the four year public sector pay freeze,
Mr Darling said: "The opposition is in complete disarray at the moment because we don't have a leader. We are paying the price of not having a credible economic policy. We should have made a virtue of our legacy - the fact is the economy was growing in 2010. If you don't have that credibility you are open to the charge you would only have borrowed more and taxed more.
Look at what George Osborne did yesterday - he's borrowing more, he's taxing more, and yet it is alright. "
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP): The shadow Chancellor may remember that during the Scottish referendum debate last year I described Alistair Darling as “a Tory front-man”. Given what we have heard this morning, might there have been a grain of truth in that remark?
Chris Leslie: I have not read the comments by the former Chancellor, although I keep hearing about them from Members. I will have a good look at them,
This from Hansard - Just about sums things up really.
'The significance of that evening was that it stemmed from to one of Labour’s failures post 2010. While the party was absorbed in electing a new leader then the Tories and their Lib Dem buddies were able to establish a narrative of Labour’s mess that needed cleaning up.'
The narrative was already established without the Tories and Lib Dem help and was plain for all to see.The worst economic crash for 80 years,public spending out of control and a total failure of bank regulation.
A fifth of Tories opposed to repeal fits with the estimate a Tory MP gave me this week (40 Tory MPs to vote against), which would certainly defeat the proposal.
The question is whether the fudge will change anything - animal protection people think it's hunting by the back door as a full pack employed to flush out a fox can't be easily restrained from going for the kill. I don't get the impression that the proposal has many enthusiasts on either side - hunters think it's backsliding, anti-hunters think it's deceptive.
A fifth of Tories opposed to repeal fits with the estimate a Tory MP gave me this week (40 Tory MPs to vote against), which would certainly defeat the proposal.
The question is whether the fudge will change anything - animal protection people think it's hunting by the back door as a full pack employed to flush out a fox can't be easily restrained from going for the kill. I don't get the impression that the proposal has many enthusiasts on either side - hunters think it's backsliding, anti-hunters think it's deceptive.
" Labour has been left in 'complete disarray' by the Budget, according to former Labour chancellor Alistair Darling. The party was struggling because it did not have a "credible economic policy", he warned. While the shadow chancellor Chris Leslie appeared to suggest there was much he could agree with three of those vying to succeed Ed Miliband as Labour leader, Andy Burnham, Liz Kendall and Yvette Cooper, came out against the four year public sector pay freeze,
Mr Darling said: "The opposition is in complete disarray at the moment because we don't have a leader. We are paying the price of not having a credible economic policy. We should have made a virtue of our legacy - the fact is the economy was growing in 2010. If you don't have that credibility you are open to the charge you would only have borrowed more and taxed more.
Look at what George Osborne did yesterday - he's borrowing more, he's taxing more, and yet it is alright. "
That's about it. As was argued on here during the last five years, Labour needed to make its economic case, especially because it is counter-intuitive to oppose "household economics". Labour did not lose because it was too left-wing or too right-wing. It was nothing.
" Labour has been left in 'complete disarray' by the Budget, according to former Labour chancellor Alistair Darling. The party was struggling because it did not have a "credible economic policy", he warned. While the shadow chancellor Chris Leslie appeared to suggest there was much he could agree with three of those vying to succeed Ed Miliband as Labour leader, Andy Burnham, Liz Kendall and Yvette Cooper, came out against the four year public sector pay freeze,
Mr Darling said: "The opposition is in complete disarray at the moment because we don't have a leader. We are paying the price of not having a credible economic policy. We should have made a virtue of our legacy - the fact is the economy was growing in 2010. If you don't have that credibility you are open to the charge you would only have borrowed more and taxed more.
Look at what George Osborne did yesterday - he's borrowing more, he's taxing more, and yet it is alright. "
That's about it. As was argued on here during the last five years, Labour needed to make its economic case, especially because it is counter-intuitive to oppose "household economics". Labour did not lose because it was too left-wing or too right-wing. It was nothing.
The economic case of having a cyclical Keynesian economic policy was impossible for Labour to make because they didn't follow it during the good times.
'The significance of that evening was that it stemmed from to one of Labour’s failures post 2010. While the party was absorbed in electing a new leader then the Tories and their Lib Dem buddies were able to establish a narrative of Labour’s mess that needed cleaning up.'
The narrative was already established without the Tories and Lib Dem help and was plain for all to see.The worst economic crash for 80 years,public spending out of control and a total failure of bank regulation.
It was plain for all to see that it was a global financial crash, not just a British one. The clue is in the name. Establishing a false narrative was a great Tory achievement and Labour failure.
'The significance of that evening was that it stemmed from to one of Labour’s failures post 2010. While the party was absorbed in electing a new leader then the Tories and their Lib Dem buddies were able to establish a narrative of Labour’s mess that needed cleaning up.'
The narrative was already established without the Tories and Lib Dem help and was plain for all to see.The worst economic crash for 80 years,public spending out of control and a total failure of bank regulation.
It was plain for all to see that it was a global financial crash, not just a British one. The clue is in the name. Establishing a false narrative was a great Tory achievement and Labour failure.
The bank crash was a global one. The British deficit was a uniquely British one. The British deficit in 2010 was the worst in the OECD - to blame that on the globe shows utter denial and contempt for the public.
'The significance of that evening was that it stemmed from to one of Labour’s failures post 2010. While the party was absorbed in electing a new leader then the Tories and their Lib Dem buddies were able to establish a narrative of Labour’s mess that needed cleaning up.'
The narrative was already established without the Tories and Lib Dem help and was plain for all to see.The worst economic crash for 80 years,public spending out of control and a total failure of bank regulation.
It was plain for all to see that it was a global financial crash, not just a British one. The clue is in the name. Establishing a false narrative was a great Tory achievement and Labour failure.
The bank crash was a global one. The British deficit was a uniquely British one. The British deficit in 2010 was the worst in the OECD - to blame that on the globe shows utter denial and contempt for the public.
The economy was recovering under Labour by 2010. Osborne flat-lined it under Plan A until his unannounced move to what was also called Plan A. Of course there was a large deficit in 2010 due to the collapse in tax revenue from the City and the cost of QE -- all of which can be directly attributed to the crash. If it weren't for these, we'd now be in a lot worse place. You might note, incidentally, that QE continued under Osborne.
'The significance of that evening was that it stemmed from to one of Labour’s failures post 2010. While the party was absorbed in electing a new leader then the Tories and their Lib Dem buddies were able to establish a narrative of Labour’s mess that needed cleaning up.'
The narrative was already established without the Tories and Lib Dem help and was plain for all to see.The worst economic crash for 80 years,public spending out of control and a total failure of bank regulation.
It was plain for all to see that it was a global financial crash, not just a British one. The clue is in the name. Establishing a false narrative was a great Tory achievement and Labour failure.
The bank crash was a global one. The British deficit was a uniquely British one. The British deficit in 2010 was the worst in the OECD - to blame that on the globe shows utter denial and contempt for the public.
The economy was recovering under Labour by 2010. Osborne flat-lined it under Plan A until his unannounced move to what was also called Plan A. Of course there was a large deficit in 2010 due to the collapse in tax revenue from the City and the cost of QE -- all of which can be directly attributed to the crash. If it weren't for these, we'd now be in a lot worse place. You might note, incidentally, that QE continued under Osborne.
Nonsense pure and simple. A so-called "recovery" with a 13% annual deficit is no recovery at all. Which is why not a single other OECD nation had a deficit approaching it. Osborne secured recovery while lowering the deficit.
We discourage tobacco - it causes cancer. We discourage alcohol. We encourage sensible eating. We move to ban addictive gambling. Yet when someone is morbidly obese and their life is threatened by it, we actively help them.
Left to their own devices, they'd struggle to get out of bed. So we pay carers to help them access more food. Are they not accessories to a potential death?
I saw the gentleman say it wasn't his fault that he was overweight. Were the carers force-feeding him?
Edit. In Prader Willi syndrome, where eating is compulsive, carers actively take steps to prevent the patient eating too much. Yet a psychological flawed (we used to say greedy) person is allowed full rein.
We don't really encourage sensible eating, we encourage a grossly simplistic approach to nutrition and a politically correct diet that really stems from the corporate takeover of the FDA in the US in the 20th century. That is what's making people ill, and why levels of intolerances, allergies, cancer and other chronic diseases are through the roof.
Our answer to obesity is to put people on a calorie restricted diet, but all this generally does is get them eating more fractionated, skeletonised, processed foods, feeling hungrier, get an unsatisfactory fat loss result, fall off the wagon, and go back to being obese.
What people should be doing is eating more butter, cultured or raw dairy, soaked sprouted or sour leven grains, and organic meats, and fermented vegetables, and less to zero processed sugar, pasteurised dairy and fruit juices, processed carbohydrates, and unsoaked grains. As our ancestors did, and they weren't fat. Obesity is a symptom of our poor health, not a cause of it.
While I agree with much of what you're saying, I do think that people who have never really monitored their diets struggle with an overload of information. A simple focus on avoiding eating large amounts of fat and sugar is a good start for them. If they struggle with doing that, they will then be motivated to finding out more nuances.
'The significance of that evening was that it stemmed from to one of Labour’s failures post 2010. While the party was absorbed in electing a new leader then the Tories and their Lib Dem buddies were able to establish a narrative of Labour’s mess that needed cleaning up.'
The narrative was already established without the Tories and Lib Dem help and was plain for all to see.The worst economic crash for 80 years,public spending out of control and a total failure of bank regulation.
It was plain for all to see that it was a global financial crash, not just a British one. The clue is in the name. Establishing a false narrative was a great Tory achievement and Labour failure.
There you lefties go again. Labour WAS at fault for exposing us to the next recession by borrowing so damned much. "oh - we are blameless because we didn't cause the global financial crash' is a horseshit argument. We agree you didn't cause it. But you did destroy our balance sheet and make us horribly vulnerable. You didn't make it rain. You did fail to mend the roof.
Politically - the more you keep going on about 'false' arguments while actually yourselves deliberately pushing a false rebuttal makes normal people who see very clearly that Labour grossly overspent (public spending +50%!!!!) a bit annoyed. Labour needs to man up and say 'we didn't cause the crisis but we did spend all the money and when the crisis came were had nothing left'. That would at least be an honest starting point for a journey back to economic trust.
'The significance of that evening was that it stemmed from to one of Labour’s failures post 2010. While the party was absorbed in electing a new leader then the Tories and their Lib Dem buddies were able to establish a narrative of Labour’s mess that needed cleaning up.'
The narrative was already established without the Tories and Lib Dem help and was plain for all to see.The worst economic crash for 80 years,public spending out of control and a total failure of bank regulation.
It was plain for all to see that it was a global financial crash, not just a British one. The clue is in the name. Establishing a false narrative was a great Tory achievement and Labour failure.
The bank crash was a global one. The British deficit was a uniquely British one. The British deficit in 2010 was the worst in the OECD - to blame that on the globe shows utter denial and contempt for the public.
The economy was recovering under Labour by 2010. Osborne flat-lined it under Plan A until his unannounced move to what was also called Plan A. Of course there was a large deficit in 2010 due to the collapse in tax revenue from the City and the cost of QE -- all of which can be directly attributed to the crash. If it weren't for these, we'd now be in a lot worse place. You might note, incidentally, that QE continued under Osborne.
Except there was a very large structural deficit, not just a cyclical one.
'The significance of that evening was that it stemmed from to one of Labour’s failures post 2010. While the party was absorbed in electing a new leader then the Tories and their Lib Dem buddies were able to establish a narrative of Labour’s mess that needed cleaning up.'
The narrative was already established without the Tories and Lib Dem help and was plain for all to see.The worst economic crash for 80 years,public spending out of control and a total failure of bank regulation.
It was plain for all to see that it was a global financial crash, not just a British one. The clue is in the name. Establishing a false narrative was a great Tory achievement and Labour failure.
The bank crash was a global one. The British deficit was a uniquely British one. The British deficit in 2010 was the worst in the OECD - to blame that on the globe shows utter denial and contempt for the public.
The economy was recovering under Labour by 2010. Osborne flat-lined it under Plan A until his unannounced move to what was also called Plan A. Of course there was a large deficit in 2010 due to the collapse in tax revenue from the City and the cost of QE -- all of which can be directly attributed to the crash. If it weren't for these, we'd now be in a lot worse place. You might note, incidentally, that QE continued under Osborne.
Recovering, in the sense that borrowing 160bn and printing the same again for a couple of years can be seen as recovering. Any recovery in 2009 and 2010 was purely on the back of Brown's massive pre-election spending binge - for which we are still paying now and will be for years to come.
We discourage tobacco - it causes cancer. We discourage alcohol. We encourage sensible eating. We move to ban addictive gambling. Yet when someone is morbidly obese and their life is threatened by it, we actively help them.
Left to their own devices, they'd struggle to get out of bed. So we pay carers to help them access more food. Are they not accessories to a potential death?
I saw the gentleman say it wasn't his fault that he was overweight. Were the carers force-feeding him?
Edit. In Prader Willi syndrome, where eating is compulsive, carers actively take steps to prevent the patient eating too much. Yet a psychological flawed (we used to say greedy) person is allowed full rein.
We don't really encourage sensible eating, we encourage a grossly simplistic approach to nutrition and a politically correct diet that really stems from the corporate takeover of the FDA in the US in the 20th century. That is what's making people ill, and why levels of intolerances, allergies, cancer and other chronic diseases are through the roof.
Our answer to obesity is to put people on a calorie restricted diet, but all this generally does is get them eating more fractionated, skeletonised, processed foods, feeling hungrier, get an unsatisfactory fat loss result, fall off the wagon, and go back to being obese.
What people should be doing is eating more butter, cultured or raw dairy, soaked sprouted or sour leven grains, and organic meats, and fermented vegetables, and less to zero processed sugar, pasteurised dairy and fruit juices, processed carbohydrates, and unsoaked grains. As our ancestors did, and they weren't fat. Obesity is a symptom of our poor health, not a cause of it.
While I agree with much of what you're saying, I do think that people who have never really monitored their diets struggle with an overload of information. A simple focus on avoiding eating large amounts of fat and sugar is a good start for them. If they struggle with doing that, they will then be motivated to finding out more nuances.
Whilst I agree with the principal of avoiding too much fat and sugar, in practice that isn't all that easy.
"Diet" and fat-free foods marketed as healthy and specifically for dieting are stuffed full of sugar. They take the fat out and replace with sugar, which makes the food worse for you, but sold as a healthy alternative.
Quick pb quiz - who wrote this paragraph, and who is being described?
“Self-indulgent”. “Arrogant”. “Delusional”. “In-denial”. “A c–––ish c––t”. These are some of the more printable, and unprintable, words used to describe him.
Quick pb quiz - who wrote this paragraph, and who is being described?
“Self-indulgent”. “Arrogant”. “Delusional”. “In-denial”. “A c–––ish c––t”. These are some of the more printable, and unprintable, words used to describe him.
Quick pb quiz - who wrote this paragraph, and who is being described?
“Self-indulgent”. “Arrogant”. “Delusional”. “In-denial”. “A c–––ish c––t”. These are some of the more printable, and unprintable, words used to describe him.
Quick pb quiz - who wrote this paragraph, and who is being described?
“Self-indulgent”. “Arrogant”. “Delusional”. “In-denial”. “A c–––ish c––t”. These are some of the more printable, and unprintable, words used to describe him.
Off topic: re Greece. Markets seem cheered by the prospect of Greece staying in the Euro and achieving this by accepting a further round of deep austerity and reforms. Which confuses me. Did the Greek people not just empathically reject a milder version of the same? I predict riots.
I don't, at least not so serious as to cause genuine problems. Their government will tell them they won a grand victory over the arrogant creditors, and the EU it seems will act as though they have reluctantly bowed to the wishes of the Greek people, and enough people will be satisified at being told how they stuck one to the EU and co to care if they actually have done it or not.
Comments
Labour has never been the party for over 55s, even under Blair, so that is largely irrelevant, to win Labour needs the middle aged and add those to those amongst the young who do turn out to vote for them
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/21/obesity-africas-new-crisis
Where the USA leads, we follow, with the rest of the world doing much the same.
Obesity is a class issue too.
Debt as a % of GDP doesn't lose many votes - well not until the catastrophic crash comes and the nation is left naked as the tide goes out.
The Cons need to be ready for the next downturn - which is likely to be global.
At the behest of the Unions Callaghan stuffed the proposals by Barbara Castle to try to tame the... er Unions. Thats where the wind lies for Labour.
Healey ran against Foot for leader in opposition and Jenkins also left the party in opposition
If they aren't, he won't ...even stand.
Meow.
http://home.bt.com/news/uk-news/tory-budget-branded-regressive-11363991371814
"She was a Tory activist:
http://labourlist.org/2015/05/about-that-question-time-audience/
The point is, though, that what she said resonated more widely. That I exactly what Don is stating.
All parties planted party activists in the QT audiences. It would be astonishing if they did not! But Ed's response was one of the defining moments of the campaign.
The hostile question was to be expected. The problem then was Miliband's answer, and the problem now is the large number of Labour members and activists that still don't believe that his answer was wrong.
Kendall is the only candidate who openly says that Brown spent too much. Which is why the others will make the same mistake as Ed in the QT special.
The truth hurts, and I do not think that Labour members are ready to accept the truth yet.
Which is why Labour need to elect Kendall now, and hope that Cameron's successor is from the right wing of his party, if they want to stand any chance in 2020. We are now at the equivalent of 1983.
I find it intriguing that the membership spew out their hate for Blair, when he is the only man in living memory that took the party to a clear majority. How many of us here voted for him in 1997, yet are now clearly in Cameron's camp?"
Labour won more seats and votes than 1987 let alone 1983 and Thatcher had a majority of over 100 then. Labour also did better than the Tories did in 2001. This was a worse result for Labour than 1992 but this was not 1983. As I said only 1 government has won an election after 10 or more years in power, the Tories in 1992 under Major which seemed a new government to Thatcher's, so unless Labour elect Corbyn they cannot be ruled out
With the Assembly elections less than a year away this could be good news for Wales Labour.
They have been very worried about the UKIP surge in the valleys. Perhaps things will not be as bad as I thought after the GE.
Having said that, the dismantling of Osborne's claims at the budget may just give him, and the other candidates an opportunity to gain some credibility with not only Labour members, but the general public.
In the following 5 years the govt increased spending by (from memory) 5% and we saw the deficit fall.
The hollowness of Brown is shown in the 2010 Labour manifesto where he/Labour said that because NHS spending had been increased so massively it was now alright to look for £20bn in efficiency savings.
It's a bad habit that should be broken. I generally vote conservative; that doesn't mean I either look down on the poor, or feel that people should be punished because they didn't enjoy the advantages that many of us had (and probably took for granted, like fully engaged parents who spent time with us etc).
However, I _do_ think the priority has to be getting UK finances in order. I'd support tax rises and reduced pensioner benefits (if well targeted ofc) in order to achieve that - so I'm disappointed (if unsurprised) that Osborne didn't address the latter.
As I've written before, we'll spend a quarter of a trillion pounds, give or take, on simply servicing the national debt in this parliament. That's a lot of hospitals, schools, roads, rail improvements etc that we'll have sacrificed.
I'll be impressed by any Labour candidate who actually sets out a plan for restoring our finances. Instead they seem to be hand-wringing over whether to admit Blair/Brown spent too much money in their second/third terms. Simple answer; yes they did. Move on and address the current situation - that'll be far more beneficial than arguing about the past.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3155136/Thousands-teenagers-force-terrified-families-Scottish-beach-fight-drink-drugs-sex.html
Alexander Kristoff Each way at 7s.
The slight uphill finish should suit.
Hopefully the new terms include that they reintroduce immigration controls such as detention centres as well as block Syriza's intended amnesty of 170k illegals who would promptly flooded here.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/09/george-osborne-budget-new-labour-thatcherite?CMP=share_btn_tw
Since most of Labour seems happy to cede this ground to the Conservatives, he may be right.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-bc7d54e7-88f6-4026-9faa-2a36d3359bb0
http://wemakeitfly.airbusgroup.com/
There is also another "heartland", Wales, Labour have lost a quarter of its vote share in under 25 years (and 40% of its vote share since 1966). So far it has not significantly affected its seat count, though it is drifting down.
That was always going to happen, Yvette needs to have this sort of thing shut down quickly before it gets out of hand. In this respect Guido has done her a favour by exposing the person responsible now, rather than later in the campaign.
Now why would the wife of McBride's best mate Balls ever be involved in this?
http://order-order.com/#_@/vS-BrjTxj9rT9Q
I saw a good film/doc about the US obesity crisis a few weeks back:
Fed Up (review in daily mail)
The root cause is basically sugar, and the US food industry being complicit in blocking attempts to change the level of sugar in processed food.
I don't think that's true.
Labour really have nothing to say, do they? This is not surprising: it goes back to Brown's ludicrous 'Labour investment vs Tory cuts' nonsense, the contradictions of which wrecked Ed Miliband's position. It is extraordinary that they are still supporting welfare savings in principle but opposing them in practice.
Instead they are reduced to absurdities such as glorying in his “living wage” kleptomania.
It's all very satisfactory, from the Conservatives' point of view.
Our answer to obesity is to put people on a calorie restricted diet, but all this generally does is get them eating more fractionated, skeletonised, processed foods, feeling hungrier, get an unsatisfactory fat loss result, fall off the wagon, and go back to being obese.
What people should be doing is eating more butter, cultured or raw dairy, soaked sprouted or sour leven grains, and organic meats, and fermented vegetables, and less to zero processed sugar, pasteurised dairy and fruit juices, processed carbohydrates, and unsoaked grains. As our ancestors did, and they weren't fat. Obesity is a symptom of our poor health, not a cause of it.
No one is sure what they should want on education, welfare, or most anything else and the issue that Lab continues to face, and which Chuka continued to avoid was: "what would you do?"
It is the rhetorical equivalent of Dave pulling out Liam's note.
Until and unless they have a credible answer then they will forever be beholden to GO's narrative. And that's assuming the GBP decide don't already believe they are a lost cause.
twitter.com/PlatoSays/status/619434397012480000
Marxist academics should stay in their universities.
Still not sure the Germans will agree, a lot just want the Greeks out, and rightly so.
1) Reject bailout
2) Hold referendum on deal that is withdrawn
3) Win a No vote
4) Banks stay shut, wreaking havoc with the economy
5) Negotiate a worse deal than the rejected bailout
6) Try and get that through Parliament
7A) It goes through and is accepted by the eurozone, ensuring a worse deal than the one the Greek people voted against
7B) It does not go through, and the Government is seen to have failed. Greece leaves the eurozone
Personally I'm not in favour, but the whole "2 or unlimited" dogs to flush out foxes for 'pest control' just sounds like a badly drafted lawyer's paradise. Either ban hunting, or allow it. No more fudge !
None of the Greek documents submitted to Brussels and IMF contain any mention of debt relief. Curious.
Is he going to ask the Greek Parliament to vote on a different proposal than the one submitted to Brussels?
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/dugdale-challenges-snp-to-set-out-how-party-will-protect-scots-from-torie.131582335
" Labour has been left in 'complete disarray' by the Budget, according to former Labour chancellor Alistair Darling. The party was struggling because it did not have a "credible economic policy", he warned. While the shadow chancellor Chris Leslie appeared to suggest there was much he could agree with three of those vying to succeed Ed Miliband as Labour leader, Andy Burnham, Liz Kendall and Yvette Cooper, came out against the four year public sector pay freeze,
Mr Darling said: "The opposition is in complete disarray at the moment because we don't have a leader. We are paying the price of not having a credible economic policy. We should have made a virtue of our legacy - the fact is the economy was growing in 2010. If you don't have that credibility you are open to the charge you would only have borrowed more and taxed more.
Look at what George Osborne did yesterday - he's borrowing more, he's taxing more, and yet it is alright. "
Just saying
(Gordon) (SNP): The shadow Chancellor
may remember that during the Scottish referendum
debate last year I described Alistair Darling as “a Tory
front-man”. Given what we have heard this morning,
might there have been a grain of truth in that remark?
Chris Leslie:
I have not read the comments by the
former Chancellor, although I keep hearing about them
from Members. I will have a good look at them,
This from Hansard - Just about sums things up really.
The narrative was already established without the Tories and Lib Dem help and was plain for all to see.The worst economic crash for 80 years,public spending out of control and a total failure of bank regulation.
The question is whether the fudge will change anything - animal protection people think it's hunting by the back door as a full pack employed to flush out a fox can't be easily restrained from going for the kill. I don't get the impression that the proposal has many enthusiasts on either side - hunters think it's backsliding, anti-hunters think it's deceptive.
What does the fox say?
What a start
I like that. Thank you.
Dan Liebke @LiebCricket Jun 11
Is Watson's spot in sufficient peril for him to score a century here? Or will we need to wait for, like, the Second Ashes Test? #WIvAUS
Tom Evans @TomEvansEcho Jun 11
@LiebCricket He'll be back in Watson LBW Broad 30 mode by the Ashes.
New ball due soon too
New ball is in 5 ovs, should be good to take out the tail.
Politically - the more you keep going on about 'false' arguments while actually yourselves deliberately pushing a false rebuttal makes normal people who see very clearly that Labour grossly overspent (public spending +50%!!!!) a bit annoyed. Labour needs to man up and say 'we didn't cause the crisis but we did spend all the money and when the crisis came were had nothing left'. That would at least be an honest starting point for a journey back to economic trust.
Any recovery in 2009 and 2010 was purely on the back of Brown's massive pre-election spending binge - for which we are still paying now and will be for years to come.
"Diet" and fat-free foods marketed as healthy and specifically for dieting are stuffed full of sugar. They take the fat out and replace with sugar, which makes the food worse for you, but sold as a healthy alternative.
It's criminal, it really is.
“Self-indulgent”. “Arrogant”. “Delusional”. “In-denial”. “A c–––ish c––t”. These are some of the more printable, and unprintable, words used to describe him.
Or is it me on Mark Reckless?