@anjemchoudary: When the Shari'ah comes to UK/France/US/Russia/China we'll ban
Alcohol Gambling Fornication Pornography Usury Democracy Freedom The UN etc
fun?
One thing that pleases me whenever we hear about these claims from Islamists is that the gay pride flag flying in Mecca is far more likely to happen one day than an Islamist flag flying from Buckingham Palace.
I often wondered if that expression was related to the out of the blue desires one gets. I haven't eaten boiled eggs in months, then suddenly had the desire to rustle up a couple three breakfasts running.
Now, I'm off them again. Is that my body telling me to eat something or just my imagination?
Which is why you have food regulation, forcing every packet to have on its front with both sugar and fat listed as LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH or VERY HIGH.
Tbh I do not find this traffic light nonsense very useful and far prefer the nutrients per 100g tables. Others differ, of course. I am doing my bit to support makers of television sets, if not the balance of payments, by hurling a brick through the screen every time a smug doctor is wheeled out who just says we should "eat a balanced diet".
As my mother would say "a little of what you fancy does you good"
And remember John Mortimer's aphorism. "No pleasure is worth forgoing for an extra few years in the geriatric ward"
We should all eat more eggs, they're one of nature's superfoods. Free range and organic are obviously best, ideally when the chickens have had the chance to scratch around and eat grubs and things.
I often wondered if that expression was related to the out of the blue desires one gets. I haven't eaten boiled eggs in months, then suddenly had the desire to rustle up a couple three breakfasts running.
Now, I'm off them again. Is that my body telling me to eat something or just my imagination?
Which is why you have food regulation, forcing every packet to have on its front with both sugar and fat listed as LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH or VERY HIGH.
Tbh I do not find this traffic light nonsense very useful and far prefer the nutrients per 100g tables. Others differ, of course. I am doing my bit to support makers of television sets, if not the balance of payments, by hurling a brick through the screen every time a smug doctor is wheeled out who just says we should "eat a balanced diet".
As my mother would say "a little of what you fancy does you good"
And remember John Mortimer's aphorism. "No pleasure is worth forgoing for an extra few years in the geriatric ward"
@anjemchoudary: When the Shari'ah comes to UK/France/US/Russia/China we'll ban
Alcohol Gambling Fornication Pornography Usury Democracy Freedom The UN etc
Wonder why he doesn't just head straight out to Syria so he can live in his ideal world right now? Then again, if he is that keen on banning freedom, maybe we could do him a favour and bang him up.
One thing that pleases me whenever we hear about these claims from Islamists is that the gay pride flag flying in Mecca is far more likely to happen one day than an Islamist flag flying from Buckingham Palace.
Ironically it's much easier for two men to walk around holding hands in Saudi Arabia than it is in the UK.
...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. A very sensible and simple question that goes to the heart of the disaster that 13 years of New Labour unleashed upon the country. It's the gorilla in the corner of British politics - as much today as ever. Labour have a 100% track record of ruining the public finances. It seems a reasonable question to ask a man who aspires to govern us. People were worried Labour have not learned their financial lessons. But...this is 'ambushed by activists'? FFS! If Labour are ever to have a chance they need to lance the economic incompetence boil. And that means starting with an honest appraisal of past failures.
Labour Governments since 1945 have run a Budget Surplus much more often than Tory Governments!
@anjemchoudary: When the Shari'ah comes to UK/France/US/Russia/China we'll ban
Alcohol Gambling Fornication Pornography Usury Democracy Freedom The UN etc
Life would get a great deal more tedious.
I'll say it again. In Muslim countries you have no or very little alcohol, gambling or fornicatoring.
No wonder they are so frustrated and angry.
Saudi Arabia needs a version of Politicalbetting.com and the world will be so much better.
From what I have read and heard of Saudi Arabia, there's plenty of all of them behind closed doors (ok, probably not freedom and democracy). I think I agree with the person who said a key difference between Christianity and Islam is that the former is about conscience - right and wrong, and the latter is about outward observance - honour and shame.
Yep - and the hotels of Dubai will be filled with Saudis next weekend for the Eid holiday. Not just for the drink and the ladies of dubious virtue I'm sure, but...
DavidL '. At the moment the employment market for those over 25 is buoyant with virtually full employment and not much more than frictional unemployment in quite wide parts of the country.' Is it seriously to be suggested that 1.8million unemployed is compatible with any definition of full employment? Back in the 1950s and 1960s unemployment levels of 500,000 were seen as far too high and were politically toxic. We are nowhere near such conditions. In reality many of those who have come off the register are only in part-time work -and ,therefore, partly unemployed. If the data was compiled on an FTE basis we would still be looking at an unemployment level well in excess of 2 million.
I believe that most economists today would give a figure of around 1 to 1.5m people out of work as 'full employment' in the UK - not least because of population growth since the 50's and the very different patterns with regard to working women.
Either way the current figures are so much better than under Labour and those predicted by Labour and their supporters.
@anjemchoudary: When the Shari'ah comes to UK/France/US/Russia/China we'll ban
Alcohol Gambling Fornication Pornography Usury Democracy Freedom The UN etc
Life would get a great deal more tedious.
I'll say it again. In Muslim countries you have no or very little alcohol, gambling or fornicatoring.
No wonder they are so frustrated and angry.
Saudi Arabia needs a version of Politicalbetting.com and the world will be so much better.
From what I have read and heard of Saudi Arabia, there's plenty of all of them behind closed doors (ok, probably not freedom and democracy). I think I agree with the person who said a key difference between Christianity and Islam is that the former is about conscience - right and wrong, and the latter is about outward observance - honour and shame.
Yep - and the hotels of Dubai will be filled with Saudis next weekend for the Eid holiday. Not just for the drink and the ladies of dubious virtue I'm sure, but...
I prefer the term "Ladies of negotiable affection"
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.
I am not persuaded by that - during the summer months people are simply not listening to politics particularly in an immediate post-election period. What did for Labour post-2010 was their failure to even try to counter the blatant lies being peddled by the Coalition. Had they taken the argument on month by month using historical data to highlight - as an example - the fact that Tory Governments have found it more difficult to generate a Budget Surplus than Labour Governments they would probably had some success. There is always a strong tendency for new Governments to blame their predecessors for 'the mess we inherited' - as Labour did in 1964 and 1974. In 2010 Labour was also hampered by the fact that the Libdems had a political interest in going along with the same message - though Vince Cable and Shirley Williams have now admitted that they did not believe it.
Lord. Where do begin with turd like this? ...the fact that Tory Governments have found it more difficult to generate a Budget Surplus than Labour Governments... Did you stop to think for a nanosecond the circumstances incoming Tory adminstrations inherit vs the ones incoming Labour administrations do? Why, pray tell, has George Osborne added so much to our national debt? Because he wasn't making cuts nearly as fast as Labour wanted? FFS! Simply look at a chart of deficit over time vs who was in power when and then try to find your own arse with both hands in the dark.
@anjemchoudary: When the Shari'ah comes to UK/France/US/Russia/China we'll ban
Alcohol Gambling Fornication Pornography Usury Democracy Freedom The UN etc
Wonder why he doesn't just head straight out to Syria so he can live in his ideal world right now?
I guess he sees his role as proselytizer for such a world, rather than 'enjoying' it for himself. Which conveniently means he can enjoy all sorts of terrible things, should he be tempted of course, like freedom, at the same time.
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.
But what if the urge to eat fat is genuinely because your body is asking for the essential mix of nutrients (vitamin K etc.) that come with butter, or beef, or olive oil, and you respond to the craving by eating a rancid processed unsaturated hydrocarbon like margarine or sunflower oil? Clearly you haven't given your body what it wanted, so it will carry on craving it, and you'll eat more.
Likewise when you crave sugar, the body is essentially asking for a fruit or vegetable at its maximum ripeness, when all its vitamins and minerals are at their best. Instead you give it can of coke or a chocolate bar, where the sugar has been stripped from its original source from the fibre, minerals, etc. that would have ensured its digestion and assimilation, and also limited the amount you could consume in one sitting.
In my opinion the body is not stupid, and we should listen to it when it asks us for something rather than ignoring it. That's why I think low calorie isn't a good idea - it pits you against your body. But we must also understand that it's not psychic, so it doesn't understand that we've created fake foods that won't work.
People with wealth and abundance still got fat before processed food: just look at Henry VII. The body isn't stupid, but it did evolved over millions of years whereas farmed agriculture has only existed for 10,000. Some of its cravings are thus a bit off. What matters is not "low calorie" but "balanced calories". Yes, the choices of food that makes those calorie levels easier matters, but it's the second stage in knowledge. Most people are so ignorant that just them being aware how much really terrible stuff they're eating would be a big leap forward.
Well yes, but to take your example of Henry, he drink far too much wine (sweet concentrated fruit & alcohol), indulged in lots of sugar (the tudors loved candying things) etc. The trend of rich in bygone eras being less healthy and having worse teeth than the simple folk could as well be down to being able to afford different types of food then being able to afford plenty of food.
...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. A very sensible and simple question that goes to the heart of the disaster that 13 years of New Labour unleashed upon the country. It's the gorilla in the corner of British politics - as much today as ever. Labour have a 100% track record of ruining the public finances. It seems a reasonable question to ask a man who aspires to govern us. People were worried Labour have not learned their financial lessons. But...this is 'ambushed by activists'? FFS! If Labour are ever to have a chance they need to lance the economic incompetence boil. And that means starting with an honest appraisal of past failures.
My recollection was that the person was asked the initial question on spending too much was a man and the business owning woman added her thoughts during the segment ? Anyone have the video? I do agree though that framing it as being ambushed by Tories would for labour rather miss the point, as that would not be a problem unless the public also agree.
Setting out how to set a narrative against the Tories is sensible enough, but they would need to avoid thinking that having a weakness exposed was a Tory plot essentially, even if it was, as that comfort might make them miss something crucial bow to defend against a new narrative against them which is indeed what they need to do
Re- the Question Time Debate. Milliband was right in essence but it was far too late to start presenting that argument to a public which is overwhelmingly illiterate with regard to macroeconomics.
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.
Weren't people making that argument in 2014 as the macroeconomic figures were good but doubts about how they were translating into people's wallets.
Something about a cost of living crisis?
I'm not sure Labour want to be in a position where they're essentially sitting back, fingers crossed.
Isn't that the point of the article? Labour can't just sit back, they have to start saying now why this budget is not what Osborne claims it to be. I agree with that. But it seems to me that in marching onto Labour territory Osborne has given Labour a lot to play with - especially if the reality does not match the rhetoric.
But even if they're saying anything about the budget, it's still falling into the trap they fell into before the election. They were saying all sorts of stuff about the recovery before the election, all sorts of barely thought through slogans.
At the heart of it, they were still basically relying on things they had no control on and what you're suggesting would be a repeat of that.
I do not think that is wise.
That is the nature of opposition. You are reliant on events.
The better oppositions aren't.
Who do you think was the most effective Opposition leader? I'd say there haven't been any since Blair, which supports the "reliant on events" hypothesis.
Harold Wilson was very good back in 1963/64 - but rather less so post 1970.
And pre-crash, under Brown, there was either a surplus or a deficit smaller than run by the previous Conservative government. The plain fact is the deficit under whatever party had sod all to do with causing the global financial crisis.
That's simply not true. 2003 to 2007 all had bigger deficits than in 1996. Even with you arbitrarily cherry-picking by removing recession years and post-recession years from Labour's term, and including them for the Tories' term.
What I am trying to point out is that deficits were manageable and low by historical and international comparisons, and have been a fact of life for decades, including under Conservatives, all of which shows they do not matter very much.
The last bit doesn't follow from the first. Low and manageable budget deficits do not show that massive deficits five times larger don't matter. Labour try to have two inconsistent positions here:
(1) The massive deficit after the recession does not matter, because we should have a cyclical fiscal policy. (2) The medium deficits before the recession do not matter, because the Conservatives have sometimes had similar sized deficits after recessions.
Either you accept that we can get by with small to medium deficits in perpetuity, in which case we need to cut down the massive deficit right now, or you accept that we should have a cyclical fiscal policy, with big deficits in recoveries and surpluses during booms. Labour try to have it both ways.
Seriously, just look at this graph. The overall picture clearly shows that, cross-cycle, the Labour govenment was far more debt binging than anything else before:
Steven Bonnar; Scottish National Party (SNP) 1,555 Hugh Gaffney; Scottish Labour Party 1,410 Meghan Gallacher; Scottish Conservative and Unionist 149 Patrick Pearse McAleer; Scottish Green Party 51 Liam McCabe; Scottish Socialist Party 81 Craig Smith; Scottish Christian Party “Proclaiming Christ’s Lordship” 33 Matt Williams; UK Independence Party (UKIP) 29
Thorniewood final:
Steven Bonnar; Scottish National Party (SNP) 1,647 Hugh Gaffney; Scottish Labour Party 1,517
...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. A very sensible and simple question that goes to the heart of the disaster that 13 years of New Labour unleashed upon the country. It's the gorilla in the corner of British politics - as much today as ever. Labour have a 100% track record of ruining the public finances. It seems a reasonable question to ask a man who aspires to govern us. People were worried Labour have not learned their financial lessons. But...this is 'ambushed by activists'? FFS! If Labour are ever to have a chance they need to lance the economic incompetence boil. And that means starting with an honest appraisal of past failures.
Setting out how to set a narrative against the Tories is sensible enough, but they would need to avoid thinking that having a weakness exposed was a Tory plot essentially, even if it was, as that comfort might make them miss something crucial bow to defend against a new narrative against them which is indeed what they need to do
Re- the Question Time Debate. Milliband was right in essence but it was far too late to start presenting that argument to a public which is overwhelmingly illiterate with regard to macroeconomics.
Far too late whether he was right or wrong, indeed. I thought it interesting that in one of those long pieces analysing the Labour defeat that apparently the prepared answer to a question like that was some usual political waffle to lead in to saying, in essence, 'and that's why, on balance, no I don't', but by leading with it bluntly, it shocked people, visibly shocked them, as the battle had been lost on the overspending argument, it needed qualifying and preparing the audience if he wanted to not disown his own legacy.
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.
Quite so - and that is what makes them so evil . An affront to any sense of human decency.
Oh dear - all this nasty, evil baby-eating Tories guff -for a budget supported by the general public. It must be so hard to be Labour these days.
Steven Bonnar; Scottish National Party (SNP) 1,555 Hugh Gaffney; Scottish Labour Party 1,410 Meghan Gallacher; Scottish Conservative and Unionist 149 Patrick Pearse McAleer; Scottish Green Party 51 Liam McCabe; Scottish Socialist Party 81 Craig Smith; Scottish Christian Party “Proclaiming Christ’s Lordship” 33 Matt Williams; UK Independence Party (UKIP) 29
Thorniewood final:
Steven Bonnar - Scottish National Party (SNP) 1,647 Hugh Gaffney - Scottish Labour Party 1,517
...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. A very sensible and simple question that goes to the heart of the disaster that 13 years of New Labour unleashed upon the country. It's the gorilla in the corner of British politics - as much today as ever. Labour have a 100% track record of ruining the public finances. It seems a reasonable question to ask a man who aspires to govern us. People were worried Labour have not learned their financial lessons. But...this is 'ambushed by activists'? FFS! If Labour are ever to have a chance they need to lance the economic incompetence boil. And that means starting with an honest appraisal of past failures.
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?
Because he was a Tory - according to William Hague - and a war criminal. Indeed as the years have passed it becomes obvious that Blair was pure evil.
One thing that pleases me whenever we hear about these claims from Islamists is that the gay pride flag flying in Mecca is far more likely to happen one day than an Islamist flag flying from Buckingham Palace.
Ironically it's much easier for two men to walk around holding hands in Saudi Arabia than it is in the UK.
"“The job of the party leader is to beat your opponent not your predecessor” or he might have added your leadership rival"
But unless you beat your rival you don't get to take on your opponent.
In any case, Osborne won't lead the Tories into 2020, though as likely election and political strategist, his will still be the campaign (if not the opponent) to beat.
In my view Osborne will now almost certainly lead the Tories in 2020 and be PM in 2019. Now the Tories have won a majority he can claim much of the credit for it, Javid is one of his closest allies and will not challenge him and Boris is becoming a declining force now his Mayoral term is drawing to a close. His best chance was a Tory defeat.
The Budget on Wednesday was broadly welcomed by the public but there was some opposition to the public sector pay cap and ending of maintenance grants and Labour should focus their fire on policies like that
A lot of that surely depends on how the Tories are performing at the time. If by that time The Government is losing by elections and not far off becoming a minority Administration I suspects that Osborne's prospects will dim significantly. Frankly much of this speculation is pretty pointless - it is simply far too far off to know!
...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. A very sensible and simple question that goes to the heart of the disaster that 13 years of New Labour unleashed upon the country. It's the gorilla in the corner of British politics - as much today as ever. Labour have a 100% track record of ruining the public finances. It seems a reasonable question to ask a man who aspires to govern us. People were worried Labour have not learned their financial lessons. But...this is 'ambushed by activists'? FFS! If Labour are ever to have a chance they need to lance the economic incompetence boil. And that means starting with an honest appraisal of past failures.
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?
Because he was a Tory - according to William Hague - and a war criminal. Indeed as the years have passed it becomes obvious that Blair was pure evil.
You're quite free and easy with labelling others as "evil" today... I would hope it is simple hyperbole, but I fear you actually mean it.
@anjemchoudary: When the Shari'ah comes to UK/France/US/Russia/China we'll ban
Alcohol Gambling Fornication Pornography Usury Democracy Freedom The UN etc
But they are in favour of Forced marriage to legalise sexual assault Rape of non believers Instant divorce on the say so of the man Death if you renounce the religion etc, etc
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?
Because he was a Tory - according to William Hague - and a war criminal. Indeed as the years have passed it becomes obvious that Blair was pure evil.
Why was it though that so many Labour supporters loved Blair so much though, before the evil showed through? Leaving aside the labelling of evil, I did hear people even before Iraq and so on who were willing to say Blair and Lab won by 'becoming Tories', though how prevalent or even accurate that is I am not qualified to judge, but it must be weird for Labour to think they could only win by being led by a Tory.
UKIP -> Green Christian -> Green UKIP -> Labour Christian -> Socialist party; Green -> Conservative UKIP -> Socialist Socialist -> Conservative Christian -> SNP UKIP -> SNP Conservative -> SNP
...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. A very sensible and simple question that goes to the heart of the disaster that 13 years of New Labour unleashed upon the country. It's the gorilla in the corner of British politics - as much today as ever. Labour have a 100% track record of ruining the public finances. It seems a reasonable question to ask a man who aspires to govern us. People were worried Labour have not learned their financial lessons. But...this is 'ambushed by activists'? FFS! If Labour are ever to have a chance they need to lance the economic incompetence boil. And that means starting with an honest appraisal of past failures.
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?
Because he was a Tory - according to William Hague - and a war criminal. Indeed as the years have passed it becomes obvious that Blair was pure evil.
Lol - Tory cuts are evil - now Blair is evil - and presumably Kendall, etc, etc - it must be getting quite lonely on your little mountain of good.
...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. A very sensible and simple question that goes to the heart of the disaster that 13 years of New Labour unleashed upon the country. It's the gorilla in the corner of British politics - as much today as ever. Labour have a 100% track record of ruining the public finances. It seems a reasonable question to ask a man who aspires to govern us. People were worried Labour have not learned their financial lessons. But...this is 'ambushed by activists'? FFS! If Labour are ever to have a chance they need to lance the economic incompetence boil. And that means starting with an honest appraisal of past failures.
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?
In 1983 the Tories had a majority of 144 compared with just 12 in 2015. That's quite a difference - and Labour was stronger in England in 2015 than it was in 1992 - never mind 1983. If accepting your base date Labour manages a 1987 scale advance next time by just winning 20 seats that might well suffice to remove the Tories from office simply because no party outside Ulster would wish to support them.
“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”
'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.
That is really not what happened. And by the way, if you look closely you will see Labour inherited a deficit from the Conservatives. Somehow deficit hawks don't seem to worry about Conservative deficits. Why is that, do you think?
Because the deficit was getting smaller every year in 1997, and was on course to disappear. You went into surplus following Tory spending plans, remember?
And pre-crash, under Brown, there was either a surplus or a deficit smaller than run by the previous Conservative government. The plain fact is the deficit under whatever party had sod all to do with causing the global financial crisis.
Just not true. Pre-crash there was a significant deficit each of the seven years before the recession. Which meant inevitably as soon as the recession happened we had the worst deficit for decades and worst in the OECD globally. A purely Labour problem, not a global problem.
Keep sticking your head in the sand if you wish. Until you realise why you left us the worst deficit in the OECD you won't be electable. Denying reality doesn't make your fictions true.
In 1983 the Tories had a majority of 144 compared with just 12 in 2015. That's quite a difference - and Labour was stronger in England in 2015 than it was in 1992 - never mind 1983. If accepting your base date Labour manages a 1987 scale advance next time by just winning 20 seats that might well suffice to remove the Tories from office simply because no party outside Ulster would wish to support them.
A 20 seat swing would leave Labour on 252 and the Tories on 310.
If Labour were to form a coalition of the losers from there then they would pay a major price the election after, its just not plausible.It would again rely upon being propped up by the SNP with all that entails. Plus that's assuming there's no boundary reforms.
...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 in Sheffield asked Miliband if he thought the previous Labour government had spent too much. A very sensible and simple question that goes to the heart of the disaster that 13 years of New Labour unleashed upon the country. It's the gorilla in the corner of British politics - as much today as ever. Labour have a 100% track record of ruining the public finances. It seems a reasonable question to ask a man who aspires to govern us. People were worried Labour have not learned their financial lessons. But...this is 'ambushed by activists'? FFS! If Labour are ever to have a chance they need to lance the economic incompetence boil. And that means starting with an honest appraisal of past failures.
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?
Because he was a Tory - according to William Hague - and a war criminal. Indeed as the years have passed it becomes obvious that Blair was pure evil.
a pure evil war criminal who won three elections, the third of which was after his war criminality.
And now we've only gone and voted in the baby eaters.
I'm sure you must despair at the great British public. If only we all had your insight.
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.
Actually I suspect it would be good for Labour to do quite badly there next year on the basis that being in office in the Assembly appears to weaken it at Westminster elections. Unfortunately it is rather difficult to see Labour doing so badly that it no longer forms part of the administration . Devolution has proved to be a curse for Labour in Wales.
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.
Actually I suspect it would be good for Labour to do quite badly there next year on the basis that being in office in the Assembly appears to weaken it at Westminster elections. Unfortunately it is rather difficult to see Labour doing so badly that it no longer forms part of the administration . Devolution has proved to be a curse for Labour in Wales.
Fifty years ago this summer Edward Heath won the first ever Tory leadership election. Five years later he defied the pollsters to win the 1970 general election.
As Prime Minister he changed his country, taking Britain into what became the European Union. He also presided over some of the most turbulent years in post-war British history. It was a time of strikes, of power cuts and the three-day week. And that proved his downfall.
To mark the 50th anniversary of Heath’s arrival as leader, Jo Coburn presents Edward Heath Night on BBC Parliament, from 7pm on Sunday 26 July.
Through archive programming and new films made with his contemporaries, Edward Heath Night will look back over the life and times of one of our most distinctive Prime Ministers.
In Heath Time Jo Coburn chairs a discussion with Ken Clarke MP, Lord Donoughue, a former key adviser to Harold Wilson, and political scientist Professor Tim Bale.
No thanks. I prefer my e-numbers. At least, they've been tested. The most dangerous and toxic things in nature are the "organic" things - they've been developed over years to be so.
"Chemicals" tend to be purer and their toxicological profile is known.
And I like preservatives; I'm always suspicious of organic foods - you can almost see them rotting in situ.
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.
Actually I suspect it would be good for Labour to do quite badly there next year on the basis that being in office in the Assembly appears to weaken it at Westminster elections. Unfortunately it is rather difficult to see Labour doing so badly that it no longer forms part of the administration . Devolution has proved to be a curse for Labour in Wales.
Filtered milk is the work of the Devil. I forgot to put 2L in the fridge [it somehow ended up in the cupboard] and 10 days later - it was still fine. I stuck it in the fridge and it last another 3 weeks before turning. Incredible.
No thanks. I prefer my e-numbers. At least, they've been tested. The most dangerous and toxic things in nature are the "organic" things - they've been developed over years to be so.
"Chemicals" tend to be purer and their toxicological profile is known.
And I like preservatives; I'm always suspicious of organic foods - you can almost see them rotting in situ.
In 1983 the Tories had a majority of 144 compared with just 12 in 2015. That's quite a difference - and Labour was stronger in England in 2015 than it was in 1992 - never mind 1983. If accepting your base date Labour manages a 1987 scale advance next time by just winning 20 seats that might well suffice to remove the Tories from office simply because no party outside Ulster would wish to support them.
A 20 seat swing would leave Labour on 252 and the Tories on 310.
If Labour were to form a coalition of the losers from there then they would pay a major price the election after, its just not plausible.It would again rely upon being propped up by the SNP with all that entails. Plus that's assuming there's no boundary reforms.
Not to mention that on those figures, the Tories would still have a comfortable majority in England - and provided EVEL has been established by then could thwart much of the legislative program of a Rainbow coalition.
And pre-crash, under Brown, there was either a surplus or a deficit smaller than run by the previous Conservative government. The plain fact is the deficit under whatever party had sod all to do with causing the global financial crisis.
Just not true. Pre-crash there was a significant deficit each of the seven years before the recession. Which meant inevitably as soon as the recession happened we had the worst deficit for decades and worst in the OECD globally. A purely Labour problem, not a global problem.
Keep sticking your head in the sand if you wish. Until you realise why you left us the worst deficit in the OECD you won't be electable. Denying reality doesn't make your fictions true.
In 18 years of Conservative governments under Mrs Thatcher and John Major, there was a budget surplus in only two years. The largest deficits run by the Conservatives were greater than those run under Labour before the global crash.
...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. ....
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.
In 1983 the Tories had a majority of 144 compared with just 12 in 2015. That's quite a difference - and Labour was stronger in England in 2015 than it was in 1992 - never mind 1983. If accepting your base date Labour manages a 1987 scale advance next time by just winning 20 seats that might well suffice to remove the Tories from office simply because no party outside Ulster would wish to support them.
A 20 seat swing would leave Labour on 252 and the Tories on 310.
If Labour were to form a coalition of the losers from there then they would pay a major price the election after, its just not plausible.It would again rely upon being propped up by the SNP with all that entails. Plus that's assuming there's no boundary reforms.
It would not be easy but I see no way that any of the small parties beyond Unionists and UKIP would prop the Tories up. Does anyone really believe that Farron and the LibDems would support them?
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.
Of course you need to target voters of all ages but the young vote Labour, the old Tory in general it is the middle aged swing voters you need to win
"“The job of the party leader is to beat your opponent not your predecessor” or he might have added your leadership rival"
But unless you beat your rival you don't get to take on your opponent.
In any case, Osborne won't lead the Tories into 2020, though as likely election and political strategist, his will still be the campaign (if not the opponent) to beat.
In my view Osborne will now almost certainly lead the Tories in 2020 and be PM in 2019. Now the Tories have won a majority he can claim much of the credit for it, Javid is one of his closest allies and will not challenge him and Boris is becoming a declining force now his Mayoral term is drawing to a close. His best chance was a Tory defeat.
The Budget on Wednesday was broadly welcomed by the public but there was some opposition to the public sector pay cap and ending of maintenance grants and Labour should focus their fire on policies like that
A lot of that surely depends on how the Tories are performing at the time. If by that time The Government is losing by elections and not far off becoming a minority Administration I suspects that Osborne's prospects will dim significantly. Frankly much of this speculation is pretty pointless - it is simply far too far off to know!
There is no way Labour is going to form any minority government, especially with the SNP. They will allow the Tories to run their full 5 year term and hope for a majority in 2020
Comments
Wonder why he doesn't just head straight out to Syria so he can live in his ideal world right now?
Then again, if he is that keen on banning freedom, maybe we could do him a favour and bang him up.
Either way the current figures are so much better than under Labour and those predicted by Labour and their supporters.
(1) The massive deficit after the recession does not matter, because we should have a cyclical fiscal policy.
(2) The medium deficits before the recession do not matter, because the Conservatives have sometimes had similar sized deficits after recessions.
Either you accept that we can get by with small to medium deficits in perpetuity, in which case we need to cut down the massive deficit right now, or you accept that we should have a cyclical fiscal policy, with big deficits in recoveries and surpluses during booms. Labour try to have it both ways.
Seriously, just look at this graph. The overall picture clearly shows that, cross-cycle, the Labour govenment was far more debt binging than anything else before:
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/3/20/1363802502484/Deficits-by-chancellor-001.jpg
Thorniewood final:
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/07/09/osbornes-first-all-tory-budget-initial-scorecard/
I would hope it is simple hyperbole, but I fear you actually mean it.
Forced marriage to legalise sexual assault
Rape of non believers
Instant divorce on the say so of the man
Death if you renounce the religion
etc, etc
UKIP -> Green
Christian -> Green
UKIP -> Labour
Christian -> Socialist party;
Green -> Conservative
UKIP -> Socialist
Socialist -> Conservative
Christian -> SNP
UKIP -> SNP
Conservative -> SNP
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Keep sticking your head in the sand if you wish. Until you realise why you left us the worst deficit in the OECD you won't be electable. Denying reality doesn't make your fictions true.
22/2
erk
It's an unbeatable combination.
If Labour were to form a coalition of the losers from there then they would pay a major price the election after, its just not plausible.It would again rely upon being propped up by the SNP with all that entails. Plus that's assuming there's no boundary reforms.
That should alarm Labour.
And now we've only gone and voted in the baby eaters.
I'm sure you must despair at the great British public. If only we all had your insight.
BBC PARLIAMENT
BBC PARLIAMENT
Edward Heath Night
Fifty years ago this summer Edward Heath won the first ever Tory leadership election. Five years later he defied the pollsters to win the 1970 general election.
As Prime Minister he changed his country, taking Britain into what became the European Union. He also presided over some of the most turbulent years in post-war British history. It was a time of strikes, of power cuts and the three-day week. And that proved his downfall.
To mark the 50th anniversary of Heath’s arrival as leader, Jo Coburn presents Edward Heath Night on BBC Parliament, from 7pm on Sunday 26 July.
Through archive programming and new films made with his contemporaries, Edward Heath Night will look back over the life and times of one of our most distinctive Prime Ministers.
In Heath Time Jo Coburn chairs a discussion with Ken Clarke MP, Lord Donoughue, a former key adviser to Harold Wilson, and political scientist Professor Tim Bale.
Sunday 26 July
7.00pm-12 midnight
BBC PARLIAMENT
NEW
"Free range and organic are obviously best."
No thanks. I prefer my e-numbers. At least, they've been tested. The most dangerous and toxic things in nature are the "organic" things - they've been developed over years to be so.
"Chemicals" tend to be purer and their toxicological profile is known.
And I like preservatives; I'm always suspicious of organic foods - you can almost see them rotting in situ.
I am wearing a hat and it is indeed doffed.
Spin on to try and slow up the runs?
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.