@oxfordsimon I don't agree with Cooper on the economy issue, and I think that will be a problem for her leadership - something she will, I think have to change tact in the long-term. However, in the next five years or so, the government will have to defend its own record as opposed to always referencing Labour's record in office. By 2020, it'll have been ten years since Labour were last in government, so I doubt the debate will centre on what Ed Balls'/Yvette Cooper (or indeed Burnham, as he was also in the treasury) did more than ten years ago.
How on earth did right of Labour think Kendall could ever be their saviour??
Labour can't win Tory voters by pretending to be Tories - Labour has to make a case for something better
As the Apocalypse has been saying, even Blair grasped that you actually had to oppose the Tories. He would never endorsed anything like the two-child limit when he was in opposition.
People are misremembering his stance on rightly rejecting some of the 1980s Bennite crap, and thinking he just agreed lock stock and barrel with everything the Tories did - not the case.
I spent yesterday at Lords watching the Test. Given what's happened I think I was there the best day!
Yes, you chose the right day to be there. Although sadly not much of a choice from the England fan's perspective.
After the high of last weekend in Cardiff it's back to the drawing board, following on (pun intended) from what was in reality an innings defeat and then some.
By 2020, it'll have been ten years since Labour were last in government, so I doubt the debate will centre on what Ed Balls'/Yvette Cooper (or indeed Burnham, as he was also in the treasury) did more than ten years ago.
I've lost count of the times I've seen the footage of Black Wednesday with David Cameron in the background - of course, it didn't stop him winning one/two general elections.
@oxfordsimon I don't agree with Cooper on the economy issue, and I think that will be a problem for her leadership - something she will, I think have to change tact in the long-term. However, in the next five years or so, the government will have to defend its own record as opposed to always referencing Labour's record in office. By 2020, it'll have been ten years since Labour were last in government, so I doubt the debate will centre on what Ed Balls'/Yvette Cooper (or indeed Burnham, as he was also in the treasury) did more than ten years ago.
Given how often many in the Labour Party still trot out the word 'Thatcher', I still think the Brown/Balls/Miliband/Cooper/Burnham time at the Treasury will get some traction. Maybe not significant - but enough to undermine any half-hearted attempts to reclaim any shred of economic competence.
Chuka Ummuna, an ultra-blairite, really? He voted for Ed Miliband, I doubt he's an ultra-Blairite. The party may well reject the approach of Blairites, but he won three elections. The left of the party are hardly producing any future rising stars, either. I'm not someone who agrees with everything Blairites, of Blair himself say/have said, but it would be unwise to outcast the likes of Chuka.
Do most voters even care about Ed Balls? Do most even really know of his record in government, which is realistically the thing which would make the Cooper-Balls connection, a potent argument? On top of that, it's practically accusing Cooper of not being her own woman, which I don't think is a wise route to go down.
Agree that it would not be a wise route to go down.
The misery-filled offence-taking horde in general and feminazis in particular would fire up the Outrage Bus and there'd be more whining than a jet engine at full revs.
'Feminazis'? Oh dear, I feel like I've been transported to the Telegraph comment section. Somehow, I doubt it'll just be the evil feminists that dislike the notion a woman doesn't have her own mind.
Yvette Cooper has refused to say Labour spent too much, unlike Burnham and wants to restore the 50p top tax rate until a surplus is achieved and her position on spending puts her to Burnham's left in my view. Given Burnham seems to be ahead of Cooper on first preferences and Kendall's voters are just as likely to back Burnham on preferences I doubt she will win. She also has lower favourables than both Burnham and Kendall with the public, though better than Corbyn
Why effing polling has done favourability ratings. I know of none such.
How much longer is the farce of the Labour Leadership election going to go on for?
If you had followed this, which you clearly haven't, a timetable was set out in May and was widely reported and Tweeted. That you find something a farce is irrelevant.
This is a massive election - effectively choosing the person LAB will put up as the alternative PM. It is also the current biggest political betting market.
There will be many more posts on here before the result is announced on September 12th. Get used to it.
It may be irrelevant, or it might not be. (but I accept the betting implications) None of the candidates are stellar, and I seem to recall you bigging up Ed Miliband as having been the best choice.. Actually he was an ffing disaster and why anyone thinks Labour had a good campaign is beyond me.
What airtime did any of the candidates have during the GE, in which they said anything memorable that helped Labour ? I am struggling to recall anything. The only memorable thing of the entire Labour campaign was Ed M saying Labour didn't spend too much money, and that fffffffffffecked Labour good and proper.
How on earth did right of Labour think Kendall could ever be their saviour??
Labour can't win Tory voters by pretending to be Tories - Labour has to make a case for something better
As the Apocalypse has been saying, even Blair grasped that you actually had to oppose the Tories. He would never endorsed anything like the two-child limit when he was in opposition.
People are misremembering his stance on rightly rejecting some of the 1980s Bennite crap, and thinking he just agreed lock stock and barrel with everything the Tories did - not the case.
Indeed LOTO clue in the title.
Kendall must think shadow ministers have to shadow Govt policies.
As the Apocalypse has been saying, even Blair grasped that you actually had to oppose the Tories. He would never endorsed anything like the two-child limit when he was in opposition.
The question you need to ask is "would Blair, Mandelson et al oppose the two-child tax credit limit if they were running the Labour Party today?"
@oxfordsimon I don't agree with Cooper on the economy issue, and I think that will be a problem for her leadership - something she will, I think have to change tact in the long-term. However, in the next five years or so, the government will have to defend its own record as opposed to always referencing Labour's record in office. By 2020, it'll have been ten years since Labour were last in government, so I doubt the debate will centre on what Ed Balls'/Yvette Cooper (or indeed Burnham, as he was also in the treasury) did more than ten years ago.
Given how often many in the Labour Party still trot out the word 'Thatcher', I still think the Brown/Balls/Miliband/Cooper/Burnham time at the Treasury will get some traction. Maybe not significant - but enough to undermine any half-hearted attempts to reclaim any shred of economic competence.
Well, Labour trot out 'Thatcher' yes - but only activists/die-hard supporters actually care. It doesn't really resonate with swing voters (who voted for Thatcher) tbh.
By 2020, it'll have been ten years since Labour were last in government, so I doubt the debate will centre on what Ed Balls'/Yvette Cooper (or indeed Burnham, as he was also in the treasury) did more than ten years ago.
I've lost count of the times I've seen the footage of Black Wednesday with David Cameron in the background - of course, it didn't stop him winning one/two general elections.
Cameron was a very junior member of staff in 1992, rather than a Secretary of State in the Treasury when the sh!t hit the fan as were Balls, Cooper and Burnham.
By 2020, it'll have been ten years since Labour were last in government, so I doubt the debate will centre on what Ed Balls'/Yvette Cooper (or indeed Burnham, as he was also in the treasury) did more than ten years ago.
I've lost count of the times I've seen the footage of Black Wednesday with David Cameron in the background - of course, it didn't stop him winning one/two general elections.
Exactly. It's now known that Cameron was an adviser to Lamont at the time of Black Wednesday, which had a very negative effect on the Tories' image of economic competence.
Yvette Cooper has refused to say Labour spent too much, unlike Burnham and wants to restore the 50p top tax rate until a surplus is achieved and her position on spending puts her to Burnham's left in my view. Given Burnham seems to be ahead of Cooper on first preferences and Kendall's voters are just as likely to back Burnham on preferences I doubt she will win. She also has lower favourables than both Burnham and Kendall with the public, though better than Corbyn
Why effing polling has done favourability ratings. I know of none such.
How much longer is the farce of the Labour Leadership election going to go on for?
If you had followed this, which you clearly haven't, a timetable was set out in May and was widely reported and Tweeted. That you find something a farce is irrelevant.
This is a massive election - effectively choosing the person LAB will put up as the alternative PM. It is also the current biggest political betting market.
There will be many more posts on here before the result is announced on September 12th. Get used to it.
It may be irrelevant, or it might not be. (but I accept the betting implications) None of the candidates are stellar, and I seem to recall you bigging up Ed Miliband as having been the best choice..
To stand up for Mike here, he was "bigging up" Ed as being the value in the betting, rather than as the best candidate to lead the party. And a lot of us here will be very grateful for that insight as it was awfully profitable.
Yvette Cooper has refused to say Labour spent too much, unlike Burnham and wants to restore the 50p top tax rate until a surplus is achieved and her position on spending puts her to Burnham's left in my view. Given Burnham seems to be ahead of Cooper on first preferences and Kendall's voters are just as likely to back Burnham on preferences I doubt she will win. She also has lower favourables than both Burnham and Kendall with the public, though better than Corbyn
Why effing polling has done favourability ratings. I know of none such.
How much longer is the farce of the Labour Leadership election going to go on for?
If you had followed this, which you clearly haven't, a timetable was set out in May and was widely reported and Tweeted. That you find something a farce is irrelevant.
This is a massive election - effectively choosing the person LAB will put up as the alternative PM. It is also the current biggest political betting market.
There will be many more posts on here before the result is announced on September 12th. Get used to it.
It may be irrelevant, or it might not be. (but I accept the betting implications) None of the candidates are stellar, and I seem to recall you bigging up Ed Miliband as having been the best choice..
To stand up for Mike here, he was "bigging up" Ed as being the value in the betting, rather than as the best candidate to lead the party. And a lot of us here will be very grateful for that insight as it was awfully profitable.
Yvette Cooper has refused to say Labour spent too much, unlike Burnham and wants to restore the 50p top tax rate until a surplus is achieved and her position on spending puts her to Burnham's left in my view. Given Burnham seems to be ahead of Cooper on first preferences and Kendall's voters are just as likely to back Burnham on preferences I doubt she will win. She also has lower favourables than both Burnham and Kendall with the public, though better than Corbyn
Why effing polling has done favourability ratings. I know of none such.
How much longer is the farce of the Labour Leadership election going to go on for?
If you had followed this, which you clearly haven't, a timetable was set out in May and was widely reported and Tweeted. That you find something a farce is irrelevant.
This is a massive election - effectively choosing the person LAB will put up as the alternative PM. It is also the current biggest political betting market.
There will be many more posts on here before the result is announced on September 12th. Get used to it.
In the 2010 general election, politicalbetting.com did a good job of recording the odds immediately prior to the election. But in 2015 this was not the case: so much time was spent on discussing polls that although there were occasional screenshots of SPIN, odds were mostly neglected.
So: can anybody point me to a site that records the odds on or before May 7th? Many sites do individual odds but tracking down the full book for a given bookie is mighty hard
Check my Twitter feed. Throughout the campaign I was doing several Tweets a day in order that there could be records.
You certainly were doing several tweets a day: I've just been thru your twitter feed from May 8 to May 2nd. God, my mouse finger hurts...:-(
The vast majority (>90%?) of your tweets for the period were on polling data. You were kind enough to tweet approximately once a day the SPIN seat estimates. But when it came to odds from bookies, whether classical (Ladbrokes, william Hill, Coral, etc) or exchanges (Betfair Exchange), they were effectively nonexistent: you tweeted only two odds (not two full books: two single odds) - betfair exchange tories 80%[1] most seats and lab 4/1 most seats[2]. To put this in context that is the same number of odds as those you retweeted for the odds of a person voting Conservative if her name was Charlotte.
PB is an excellent resource and I am glad it exists. We owe a lot to you and your sterling efforts. But I wish its coverage of bookie odds was more comprehensive in the last week. There is a whacking great hole in records of full books in the last week (try googling it: not as easy as it sounds...) and I don't know if I'll be able to fill it
[1] see twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/595992494678089728 [2] see twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/596060741175771136
Farron does come over as irritating at times, but I'll forgive him as he's religious.
Corbyn's interview on Channel Four was hilarious - he may be as mad as a box of frogs but he deserves a good kicking.
I think Labour are stuck with Burnham or Yvette - the natural runners up if they had a decent candidate. Liz, of course, is far too likely to attract floating voters, as Blair did.
I wrote earlier that some of Kendalls comments in her 5 live interview nearly made me crash the car.
I am glad to see the actual car crash was Kendalls performance on DP
She is truly God-awful.
Never mind being leader, I'm not sure I see why her and the other ultra-Blairites (Chuka, Tristram Hunt) should even be in the shadow cabinet and steering policy, when it's clear the party totally rejects their approach.
And at the GE the electorate rejected the approach of the other three candidates.
No wonder Chilcot is being delayed. Money for old rope !
To be fair to Chilcot himself, that is a pretty reasonable day rate for a man of his experience - if he had reported a couple of years ago.
One assumes (bad idea?) that he is paid only for the days he attends the 'office', rather than every day regardless, given that for the last two years there's been only a few days' work done by him.
Does one of our legal eagles know if there is any way he can be compelled to answer questions under Parliamentary Privilege as to why the report is so delayed?
Farron does come over as irritating at times, but I'll forgive him as he's religious.
Corbyn's interview on Channel Four was hilarious - he may be as mad as a box of frogs but he deserves a good kicking.
I think Labour are stuck with Burnham or Yvette - the natural runners up if they had a decent candidate. Liz, of course, is far too likely to attract floating voters, as Blair did.
Cameron really is a lucky general.
Except she has now come out against the inheritance tax cut and the new union laws
I wrote earlier that some of Kendalls comments in her 5 live interview nearly made me crash the car.
I am glad to see the actual car crash was Kendalls performance on DP
She is truly God-awful.
Never mind being leader, I'm not sure I see why her and the other ultra-Blairites (Chuka, Tristram Hunt) should even be in the shadow cabinet and steering policy, when it's clear the party totally rejects their approach.
And at the GE the electorate rejected the approach of the other three candidates.
Burnham as well as Kendall have now said Labour spent too much, Miliband did not
Farron does come over as irritating at times, but I'll forgive him as he's religious.
Corbyn's interview on Channel Four was hilarious - he may be as mad as a box of frogs but he deserves a good kicking.
I think Labour are stuck with Burnham or Yvette - the natural runners up if they had a decent candidate. Liz, of course, is far too likely to attract floating voters, as Blair did.
Cameron really is a lucky general.
Why is Kendall likely to attract more floating voters than she loses natural Labour voters?
No wonder Chilcot is being delayed. Money for old rope !
To be fair to Chilcot himself, that is a pretty reasonable day rate for a man of his experience - if he had reported a couple of years ago.
One assumes (bad idea?) that he is paid only for the days he attends the 'office', rather than every day regardless, given that for the last two years there's been only a few days' work done by him.
Does one of our legal eagles know if there is any way he can be compelled to answer questions under Parliamentary Privilege as to why the report is so delayed?
If memory serves, Parliament can compel anybody to attend and testify, under pain of jail.
Re Chilcot. If its legally possible, he needs to be made to disclose who is refusing to respond or dodging the questions.
Exactly! Hence why it would have to be done in Parliament; Chilcot needs to be able to talk freely about who is holding him up.
It's clear that one or more people are trying to either drown him in lawyers or refusing to make mandated responses, otherwise we would have had the report a couple of years ago.
The longer it takes, the more it looks like a 3rd world whitewash.
Come out of the sun Tyson. I agree with most of what you've said including 'labour need a blairite but not bonkers liz Kendal' but when I got to Ed Balls........just because the Tories loath him doesn't make him a towering figure. Same with portillo. Because he's a fine presenter of Mediterranian art and culture we're fooled into thinking he was an important politician. Brown was a colossus. Very few others
Farron does come over as irritating at times, but I'll forgive him as he's religious.
Corbyn's interview on Channel Four was hilarious - he may be as mad as a box of frogs but he deserves a good kicking.
I think Labour are stuck with Burnham or Yvette - the natural runners up if they had a decent candidate. Liz, of course, is far too likely to attract floating voters, as Blair did.
Cameron really is a lucky general.
Why is Kendall likely to attract more floating voters than she loses natural Labour voters?
She is no Blair
I nearly compared Kendall to Hannibal in this thread.
That's how poor her strategy and tactics have been.
Labour are going to have to wait until Dan Jarvis is ready to run.
No wonder Chilcot is being delayed. Money for old rope!
To be fair to Chilcot himself, that is a pretty reasonable day rate for a man of his experience - if he had reported a couple of years ago.
One assumes (bad idea?) that he is paid only for the days he attends the 'office', rather than every day regardless, given that for the last two years there's been only a few days' work done by him.
Does one of our legal eagles know if there is any way he can be compelled to answer questions under Parliamentary Privilege as to why the report is so delayed?
If memory serves, Parliament can compel anybody to attend and testify, under pain of jail.
That was my recollection also. But whom in Parliament would be responsible for calling him; the Speaker, the PM, another Minister, Committee Chair or official?
No wonder Chilcot is being delayed. Money for old rope !
To be fair to Chilcot himself, that is a pretty reasonable day rate for a man of his experience - if he had reported a couple of years ago.
One assumes (bad idea?) that he is paid only for the days he attends the 'office', rather than every day regardless, given that for the last two years there's been only a few days' work done by him.
Does one of our legal eagles know if there is any way he can be compelled to answer questions under Parliamentary Privilege as to why the report is so delayed?
If memory serves, Parliament can compel anybody to attend and testify, under pain of jail.
That was my recollection also. But whom in Parliament is responsible; is it the Speaker, the PM, another Minister, Committee Chair or official?
Don't know. But I think it's a Parliament thing, as opposed to a Government thing, so it would be a Committee chair demanding that Mr X attend that Committee hearing and give testimony
Come out of the sun Tyson. I agree with most of what you've said including 'labour need a blairite but not bonkers liz Kendal' but when I got to Ed Balls........just because the Tories loath him doesn't make him a towering figure. Same with portillo. Because he's a fine presenter of Mediterranian art and culture we're fooled into thinking he was an important politician. Brown was a colossus. Very few others
A colossal shit, devoid of any human emotion. A shit of such epic proportion that he should never have been allowed anywhere near No 10. That Labour allowed it is to their eternal shame.
Farron does come over as irritating at times, but I'll forgive him as he's religious.
Corbyn's interview on Channel Four was hilarious - he may be as mad as a box of frogs but he deserves a good kicking.
I think Labour are stuck with Burnham or Yvette - the natural runners up if they had a decent candidate. Liz, of course, is far too likely to attract floating voters, as Blair did.
Cameron really is a lucky general.
Why is Kendall likely to attract more floating voters than she loses natural Labour voters?
She is no Blair
That's a clear point. This is no 1997 when past conservative voters looked at the Tory party in disgust at their corruption and incompetence and the country really had enough, even Foot would have won the 1997 election.
This time the Tory party is not yet producing the same amounts of corruption and incompetence, they have essentially transformed into the old Liberal party which means there is not much space in the centre for Labour, the LD have only 8% which is the same as the SNP and the Greens on the left of Labour.
Labour economic policies can't radically change without Labour no longer being Labour. So the only promising terrain for Labour is the UKIP terrain of euroskepticism and immigration as shown in focus groups of past Labour voters that voted Tory in May in marginal seats. We all know that if Labour was not so much pro-immigration and so pro-EU they would have alleviated some of the working and middle class anxiety towards them.
Ps. And Blair of course. The first genuinely liberal 'androgynous' political leader we've ever had and therefore in my book the best. The complete opposite of Thatcher in fact
“Jeremy Corbyn has shown “no loyalty” to Labour’s leadership in the past and does not deserve members’ votes now, says the MP who holds Tony Blair’s former constituency.
Phil Wilson, Labour MP for Sedgefield, said Mr Corbyn’s aim to drag the party to the left would mean disaster at the polls in 2020 was unavoidable as he urged people to back Liz Kendall.”
The list of Labour MPs personally attacking Jeremy Corbyn in print is getting longer by the day and no doubt set to get longer – Hope he doesn’t hold a grudge against them should he win, as forming a shadow government might get a tad difficult.
Francois Hollande calls for eurozone government - French president wants eurozone government to strengthen political and economic union, saying answer to Greek crisis is ‘more Europe, not less’
“Jeremy Corbyn has shown “no loyalty” to Labour’s leadership in the past and does not deserve members’ votes now, says the MP who holds Tony Blair’s former constituency.
Phil Wilson, Labour MP for Sedgefield, said Mr Corbyn’s aim to drag the party to the left would mean disaster at the polls in 2020 was unavoidable as he urged people to back Liz Kendall.”
The list of Labour MPs personally attacking Jeremy Corbyn in print is getting longer by the day and no doubt set to get longer – Hope he doesn’t hold a grudge against them should he win, as forming a shadow government might get a tad difficult.
“Jeremy Corbyn has shown “no loyalty” to Labour’s leadership in the past and does not deserve members’ votes now, says the MP who holds Tony Blair’s former constituency.
I think the reply for that is that opposing the Iraq War is hardly a minus for Corbyn unlike Wilson who actually worked for Blair for the majority of his life. "No loyalty" to Tony Blair is a vote winner.
No wonder Chilcot is being delayed. Money for old rope !
To be fair to Chilcot himself, that is a pretty reasonable day rate for a man of his experience - if he had reported a couple of years ago.
One assumes (bad idea?) that he is paid only for the days he attends the 'office', rather than every day regardless, given that for the last two years there's been only a few days' work done by him.
Does one of our legal eagles know if there is any way he can be compelled to answer questions under Parliamentary Privilege as to why the report is so delayed?
If memory serves, Parliament can compel anybody to attend and testify, under pain of jail.
That was my recollection also. But whom in Parliament is responsible; is it the Speaker, the PM, another Minister, Committee Chair or official?
Don't know. But I think it's a Parliament thing, as opposed to a Government thing, so it would be a Committee chair demanding that Mr X attend that Committee hearing and give testimony
Thanks, I was thinking along the same lines. Might do some more detailled research tomorrow, see if a letter can be sent to the appropriate person.
Farron does come over as irritating at times, but I'll forgive him as he's religious.
Corbyn's interview on Channel Four was hilarious - he may be as mad as a box of frogs but he deserves a good kicking.
I think Labour are stuck with Burnham or Yvette - the natural runners up if they had a decent candidate. Liz, of course, is far too likely to attract floating voters, as Blair did.
Cameron really is a lucky general.
Why is Kendall likely to attract more floating voters than she loses natural Labour voters?
She is no Blair
I nearly compared Kendall to Hannibal in this thread.
That's how poor her strategy and tactics have been.
Labour are going to have to wait until Dan Jarvis is ready to run.
Blair grew into the role in very easy circumstances - the way the Tories were operating after being totally torn apart by Europe - something that is still festering.
So far the CON majority government is operating in a much better manner.
Francois Hollande calls for eurozone government - French president wants eurozone government to strengthen political and economic union, saying answer to Greek crisis is ‘more Europe, not less’
“Jeremy Corbyn has shown “no loyalty” to Labour’s leadership in the past and does not deserve members’ votes now, says the MP who holds Tony Blair’s former constituency.
Phil Wilson, Labour MP for Sedgefield, said Mr Corbyn’s aim to drag the party to the left would mean disaster at the polls in 2020 was unavoidable as he urged people to back Liz Kendall.”
The list of Labour MPs personally attacking Jeremy Corbyn in print is getting longer by the day and no doubt set to get longer – Hope he doesn’t hold a grudge against them should he win, as forming a shadow government might get a tad difficult.
“Jeremy Corbyn has shown “no loyalty” to Labour’s leadership in the past and does not deserve members’ votes now, says the MP who holds Tony Blair’s former constituency.
I think the reply for that is that opposing the Iraq War is hardly a minus for Corbyn unlike Wilson who actually worked for Blair for the majority of his life. "No loyalty" to Tony Blair is a vote winner.
Having rebelled against the party line over 500 times in your parliamentary career does show a determinedly independent spirit - but it is almost impossible to demand parliamentary discipline when your track record is like that.
“Jeremy Corbyn has shown “no loyalty” to Labour’s leadership in the past and does not deserve members’ votes now, says the MP who holds Tony Blair’s former constituency.
Phil Wilson, Labour MP for Sedgefield, said Mr Corbyn’s aim to drag the party to the left would mean disaster at the polls in 2020 was unavoidable as he urged people to back Liz Kendall.”
The list of Labour MPs personally attacking Jeremy Corbyn in print is getting longer by the day and no doubt set to get longer – Hope he doesn’t hold a grudge against them should he win, as forming a shadow government might get a tad difficult.
Francois Hollande calls for eurozone government - French president wants eurozone government to strengthen political and economic union, saying answer to Greek crisis is ‘more Europe, not less’
“I have proposed to revive the idea of [former European Commission chief] Jacques Delors for a government of the eurozone, and to add a specific budget and a parliament to ensure its democratic control,”
Thankfully Hollande will be ex-President in 22 months, until then he will continue to try to destroy europe with his ideas. Until then NO NO NO.
Francois Hollande calls for eurozone government - French president wants eurozone government to strengthen political and economic union, saying answer to Greek crisis is ‘more Europe, not less’
As for Corbyn and "loyalty", I don't recall IDS showing much loyalty to the Major Government but it didn't stop him becoming leader. Perhaps Corbyn is Labour's IDS...
“Jeremy Corbyn has shown “no loyalty” to Labour’s leadership in the past and does not deserve members’ votes now, says the MP who holds Tony Blair’s former constituency.
I think the reply for that is that opposing the Iraq War is hardly a minus for Corbyn unlike Wilson who actually worked for Blair for the majority of his life. "No loyalty" to Tony Blair is a vote winner.
Odd how the name of the 3 times general election winner is almost on a par with Thatcher's.
Come out of the sun Tyson. I agree with most of what you've said including 'labour need a blairite but not bonkers liz Kendal' but when I got to Ed Balls........just because the Tories loath him doesn't make him a towering figure. Same with portillo. Because he's a fine presenter of Mediterranian art and culture we're fooled into thinking he was an important politician. Brown was a colossus. Very few others
Roger- there are very few remarkable politicians. We can maybe argue the toss on some rather than others; the same with actors or directors, or artists I guess- all comes down to subjectivity. I think Balls is incredibly bright, and really quite personable. And for that he has rather set himself apart from his lacklustre colleagues.
Brown was a colossus, but hopelessly flawed. I like your point before on Blair- a politician almost uniquely devoid of ideology but incredibly gifted. I very much doubt Cameron will get much of a legacy- Osborne will get all the credit (good or bad) for this period in the long run.
And yes- it is hot here. The hottest summer so far for 140 years with no sign of cooling....
Francois Hollande calls for eurozone government - French president wants eurozone government to strengthen political and economic union, saying answer to Greek crisis is ‘more Europe, not less’
What a complete idiot this man is, no wonder the Germans have no time for him. I can't believe France elected this disaster of a man into office.
*Yep, I really don't like Hollande.*
Well he is a better disaster that his predecessor, although he is still a disaster. But that's France, they are switching between crooks, liars and idiots since De Gaulle died, and their strong presidential system means there are no checks and balances.
“Jeremy Corbyn has shown “no loyalty” to Labour’s leadership in the past and does not deserve members’ votes now, says the MP who holds Tony Blair’s former constituency.
I think the reply for that is that opposing the Iraq War is hardly a minus for Corbyn unlike Wilson who actually worked for Blair for the majority of his life. "No loyalty" to Tony Blair is a vote winner.
Odd how the name of the 3 times general election winner is almost on a par with Thatcher's.
"It's the end that counts, not the beginning." Total accumulated wisdom of the ancient greek statesman Solon, inventor of democracy.
Thatcher started as a disaster, but she produced results beyond anyone could have anticipated by her end. Blair started as a saint and ended up as a devil.
“Jeremy Corbyn has shown “no loyalty” to Labour’s leadership in the past and does not deserve members’ votes now, says the MP who holds Tony Blair’s former constituency.
I think the reply for that is that opposing the Iraq War is hardly a minus for Corbyn unlike Wilson who actually worked for Blair for the majority of his life. "No loyalty" to Tony Blair is a vote winner.
Odd how the name of the 3 times general election winner is almost on a par with Thatcher's.
"It's the end that counts, not the beginning." Total accumulated wisdom of the ancient greek statesman Solon, inventor of democracy.
Thatcher started as a disaster, but she produced results beyond anyone could have anticipated by her end. Blair started as a saint and ended up as a devil.
And that is why so many Labour party members don't like him.
Come out of the sun Tyson. I agree with most of what you've said including 'labour need a blairite but not bonkers liz Kendal' but when I got to Ed Balls........just because the Tories loath him doesn't make him a towering figure. Same with portillo. Because he's a fine presenter of Mediterranian art and culture we're fooled into thinking he was an important politician. Brown was a colossus. Very few others
Roger- there are very few remarkable politicians. We can maybe argue the toss on some rather than others; the same with actors or directors, or artists I guess- all comes down to subjectivity. I think Balls is incredibly bright, and really quite personable. And for that he has rather set himself apart from his lacklustre colleagues.
Brown was a colossus, but hopelessly flawed. I like your point before on Blair- a politician almost uniquely devoid of ideology but incredibly gifted. I very much doubt Cameron will get much of a legacy- Osborne will get all the credit (good or bad) for this period in the long run.
And yes- it is hot here. The hottest summer so far for 140 years with no sign of cooling....
The idea that Brown was a colossus is ludicrous. Gordon was, is and always will be a moron. No left wing revisionism will ever change that.
Francois Hollande calls for eurozone government - French president wants eurozone government to strengthen political and economic union, saying answer to Greek crisis is ‘more Europe, not less’ http://bit.ly/1Og0dWZ
What a complete idiot this man is, no wonder the Germans have no time for him. I can't believe France elected this disaster of a man into office. *Yep, I really don't like Hollande.*
Well he is a better disaster that his predecessor, although he is still a disaster. But that's France, they are switching between crooks, liars and idiots since De Gaulle died, and their strong presidential system means there are no checks and balances.
Hollande is yet another socialist idiot. But of course he is right about the Eurozone - for it to work it needs more centralisation. More of Greece doing as it its told. More of Scotland doing what its told if it becomes - ha ha - 'independent'. Of course to be fair to Hollande, his idea of 'more Europe' is all of Europe doing more of what France wants.
Francois Hollande calls for eurozone government - French president wants eurozone government to strengthen political and economic union, saying answer to Greek crisis is ‘more Europe, not less’ http://bit.ly/1Og0dWZ
What a complete idiot this man is, no wonder the Germans have no time for him. I can't believe France elected this disaster of a man into office. *Yep, I really don't like Hollande.*
Well he is a better disaster that his predecessor, although he is still a disaster. But that's France, they are switching between crooks, liars and idiots since De Gaulle died, and their strong presidential system means there are no checks and balances.
Hollande is yet another socialist idiot. But of course he is right about the Eurozone - for it to work it needs more centralisation. More of Greece doing as it its told. More of Scotland doing what its told if it becomes - ha ha - 'independent'. Of course to be fair to Hollande, his idea of 'more Europe' is all of Europe doing more of what France wants.
The last thing the eurozone needs is more of the same. For a europe that is economically diverse, centralization means collapse as the eurozone has proved.
Francois Hollande calls for eurozone government - French president wants eurozone government to strengthen political and economic union, saying answer to Greek crisis is ‘more Europe, not less’
I detest Hollande but he is correct about the eurozone. It can only work with a common tax regimes and fiscal transfers - in other words the end of sovereign states and for that you need a United States of Eurozone or something very close to it. Of course Hollande would like that to be dominated by France and Germany but I'm not sure it would work out that way and I therefore doubt if itis a runner.
I wrote earlier that some of Kendalls comments in her 5 live interview nearly made me crash the car.
I am glad to see the actual car crash was Kendalls performance on DP
She is truly God-awful.
Never mind being leader, I'm not sure I see why her and the other ultra-Blairites (Chuka, Tristram Hunt) should even be in the shadow cabinet and steering policy, when it's clear the party totally rejects their approach.
No wonder Chilcot is being delayed. Money for old rope !
To be fair to Chilcot himself, that is a pretty reasonable day rate for a man of his experience - if he had reported a couple of years ago.
One assumes (bad idea?) that he is paid only for the days he attends the 'office', rather than every day regardless, given that for the last two years there's been only a few days' work done by him.
Does one of our legal eagles know if there is any way he can be compelled to answer questions under Parliamentary Privilege as to why the report is so delayed?
If memory serves, Parliament can compel anybody to attend and testify, under pain of jail.
That was my recollection also. But whom in Parliament is responsible; is it the Speaker, the PM, another Minister, Committee Chair or official?
Don't know. But I think it's a Parliament thing, as opposed to a Government thing, so it would be a Committee chair demanding that Mr X attend that Committee hearing and give testimony
Thanks, I was thinking along the same lines. Might do some more detailled research tomorrow, see if a letter can be sent to the appropriate person.
Can help you there.
IIRC Scargill refused to appear before a Parliamentary committee and was threatened with being hunted down by the Sergeant at Arms like a recalcitrant warthog. And then appeared to avoid the embarrassment.
Also Committees can place witnesses on oath. That was a power used by Margaret Hodge to try and intimidate an HMRC lawyer called Inglese in 2011.
Or the HOC can examine witnesses at the Bar of the House ie just inside the door.
Last happened to John Junor of the Daily Express in 1955 when he published an article about expenses fiddling by MPs. He was made to apologise for impugning the integrity of the House. ROFL. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17912253
They could certainly try and do it as the HoC but I'd expect a dirty tricks campaign to undermine the move.
@oxfordsimon I don't agree with Cooper on the economy issue, and I think that will be a problem for her leadership - something she will, I think have to change tact in the long-term. However, in the next five years or so, the government will have to defend its own record as opposed to always referencing Labour's record in office. By 2020, it'll have been ten years since Labour were last in government, so I doubt the debate will centre on what Ed Balls'/Yvette Cooper (or indeed Burnham, as he was also in the treasury) did more than ten years ago.
I do agree with Cooper on the economy. Of the contenders she is the only one with an economics background and is well aware that the Budget Deficit in 2007 - on the eve of the worldwide crash- was smaller as a % of GDP than when the Tories left office in 1997. I have been persuaded to sign up as a supporter to vote for her.
Watching the Labour leader TV debate. Just grandiloquently depressing for Lefties. It's not the mediocrity of the candidates, its the blind, flailing attempt to find an economic narrative.
It was our fault, no it wasn't, Yes it was but it wasn't, No it wasn't but we should say sorry anyway, Oh God let's vote for Jeremy.
Francois Hollande calls for eurozone government - French president wants eurozone government to strengthen political and economic union, saying answer to Greek crisis is ‘more Europe, not less’
I detest Hollande but he is correct about the eurozone. It can only work with a common tax regimes and fiscal transfers - in other words the end of sovereign states and for that you need a United States of Eurozone or something very close to it. Of course Hollande would like that to be dominated by France and Germany but I'm not sure it would work out that way and I therefore doubt if itis a runner.
Hollande thinks that it will be dominated by France and Germany. The reality is that the power difference will be similar to the UK and USA.
Yvette Cooper has refused to say Labour spent too much, unlike Burnham and wants to restore the 50p top tax rate until a surplus is achieved and her position on spending puts her to Burnham's left in my view. Given Burnham seems to be ahead of Cooper on first preferences and Kendall's voters are just as likely to back Burnham on preferences I doubt she will win. She also has lower favourables than both Burnham and Kendall with the public, though better than Corbyn
Why effing polling has done favourability ratings. I know of none such.
How much longer is the farce of the Labour Leadership election going to go on for?
If you had followed this, which you clearly haven't, a timetable was set out in May and was widely reported and Tweeted. That you find something a farce is irrelevant.
This is a massive election - effectively choosing the person LAB will put up as the alternative PM. It is also the current biggest political betting market.
There will be many more posts on here before the result is announced on September 12th. Get used to it.
The only memorable thing of the entire Labour campaign was Ed M saying Labour didn't spend too much money, and that fffffffffffecked Labour good and proper.
But that is because Labour had failed to make that case over the preceding four and a half years given that 95% of the electorate are economically illiterate.Very many professional economists totally agreed with Milliband.
Francois Hollande calls for eurozone government - French president wants eurozone government to strengthen political and economic union, saying answer to Greek crisis is ‘more Europe, not less’ http://bit.ly/1Og0dWZ
What a complete idiot this man is, no wonder the Germans have no time for him. I can't believe France elected this disaster of a man into office. *Yep, I really don't like Hollande.*
Well he is a better disaster that his predecessor, although he is still a disaster. But that's France, they are switching between crooks, liars and idiots since De Gaulle died, and their strong presidential system means there are no checks and balances.
Hollande is yet another socialist idiot. But of course he is right about the Eurozone - for it to work it needs more centralisation. More of Greece doing as it its told. More of Scotland doing what its told if it becomes - ha ha - 'independent'. Of course to be fair to Hollande, his idea of 'more Europe' is all of Europe doing more of what France wants.
The last thing the eurozone needs is more of the same. For a europe that is economically diverse, centralization means collapse as the eurozone has proved.
Yes but in that case it needs to ditch the Euro and they seem unlikely to do that. Basically it's one or t'other.
Yvette Cooper has refused to say Labour spent too much, unlike Burnham and wants to restore the 50p top tax rate until a surplus is achieved and her position on spending puts her to Burnham's left in my view. Given Burnham seems to be ahead of Cooper on first preferences and Kendall's voters are just as likely to back Burnham on preferences I doubt she will win. She also has lower favourables than both Burnham and Kendall with the public, though better than Corbyn
Why effing polling has done favourability ratings. I know of none such.
How much longer is the farce of the Labour Leadership election going to go on for?
If you had followed this, which you clearly haven't, a timetable was set out in May and was widely reported and Tweeted. That you find something a farce is irrelevant.
This is a massive election - effectively choosing the person LAB will put up as the alternative PM. It is also the current biggest political betting market.
There will be many more posts on here before the result is announced on September 12th. Get used to it.
The only memorable thing of the entire Labour campaign was Ed M saying Labour didn't spend too much money, and that fffffffffffecked Labour good and proper.
But that is because Labour had failed to make that case over the preceding four and a half years given that 95% of the electorate are economically illiterate.Very many professional economists totally agreed with Milliband.
Luckily, economists have no more influence in the elections of this country than any other voter. If they did, we'd all be doomed....
Yvette Cooper has refused to say Labour spent too much, unlike Burnham and wants to restore the 50p top tax rate until a surplus is achieved and her position on spending puts her to Burnham's left in my view. Given Burnham seems to be ahead of Cooper on first preferences and Kendall's voters are just as likely to back Burnham on preferences I doubt she will win. She also has lower favourables than both Burnham and Kendall with the public, though better than Corbyn
Why effing polling has done favourability ratings. I know of none such.
How much longer is the farce of the Labour Leadership election going to go on for?
If you had followed this, which you clearly haven't, a timetable was set out in May and was widely reported and Tweeted. That you find something a farce is irrelevant.
This is a massive election - effectively choosing the person LAB will put up as the alternative PM. It is also the current biggest political betting market.
There will be many more posts on here before the result is announced on September 12th. Get used to it.
The only memorable thing of the entire Labour campaign was Ed M saying Labour didn't spend too much money, and that fffffffffffecked Labour good and proper.
But that is because Labour had failed to make that case over the preceding four and a half years given that 95% of the electorate are economically illiterate.Very many professional economists totally agreed with Milliband.
But surely this undermines your reason for supporting Cooper. If the electorate weren't convinced by the approach first time round, why should 5 more years of pushing the same line make any difference at all?
It is not as simple as changing the messenger. The message has to change. It cannot be 'more of the same' - and that is precisely what Cooper appears to be advocating.
(And for however many economists you claim supported the Miliband economic approach, there is an equal, if not greater, who disagree with it. Economists are the last people who should ever be running an economy)
" I like your point before on Blair- a politician almost uniquely devoid of ideology but incredibly gifted."
I think it was more that. He seemed completely non judgemental. In an age when Thatcher and co had spent so much energy hating blacks gays union members gypsies Catholics (Irish ones) women the poor the needy foxes....in fact anyone she couldn't describe as 'One of Us' he was a breath of fresh air .
To suddenly be presented with a leader who clearly had no prejudices whtsoever was something that made him special if not unique.
No wonder Chilcot is being delayed. Money for old rope !
To be fair to Chilcot himself, that is a pretty reasonable day rate for a man of his experience - if he had reported a couple of years ago.
One assumes (bad idea?) that he is paid only for the days he attends the 'office', rather than every day regardless, given that for the last two years there's been only a few days' work done by him.
Does one of our legal eagles know if there is any way he can be compelled to answer questions under Parliamentary Privilege as to why the report is so delayed?
If memory serves, Parliament can compel anybody to attend and testify, under pain of jail.
That was my recollection also. But whom in Parliament is responsible; is it the Speaker, the PM, another Minister, Committee Chair or official?
Don't know. But I think it's a Parliament thing, as opposed to a Government thing, so it would be a Committee chair demanding that Mr X attend that Committee hearing and give testimony
Thanks, I was thinking along the same lines. Might do some more detailled research tomorrow, see if a letter can be sent to the appropriate person.
Can help you there.
IIRC Scargill refused to appear before a Parliamentary committee and was threatened with being hunted down by the Sergeant at Arms like a recalcitrant warthog. And then appeared to avoid the embarrassment.
Also Committees can place witnesses on oath. That was a power used by Margaret Hodge to try and intimidate an HMRC lawyer called Inglese in 2011.
Or the HOC can examine witnesses at the Bar of the House ie just inside the door.
Last happened to John Junor of the Daily Express in 1955 when he published an article about expenses fiddling by MPs. He was made to apologise for impugning the integrity of the House. ROFL. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17912253
They could certainly try and do it as the HoC but I'd expect a dirty tricks campaign to undermine the move.
@oxfordsimon I don't agree with Cooper on the economy issue, and I think that will be a problem for her leadership - something she will, I think have to change tact in the long-term. However, in the next five years or so, the government will have to defend its own record as opposed to always referencing Labour's record in office. By 2020, it'll have been ten years since Labour were last in government, so I doubt the debate will centre on what Ed Balls'/Yvette Cooper (or indeed Burnham, as he was also in the treasury) did more than ten years ago.
I do agree with Cooper on the economy. Of the contenders she is the only one with an economics background and is well aware that the Budget Deficit in 2007 - on the eve of the worldwide crash- was smaller as a % of GDP than when the Tories left office in 1997. I have been persuaded to sign up as a supporter to vote for her.
It took a long time for the 'winter of discontent' to fade from people's minds.....
Yvette Cooper has refused to say Labour spent too much, unlike Burnham and wants to restore the 50p top tax rate until a surplus is achieved and her position on spending puts her to Burnham's left in my view. Given Burnham seems to be ahead of Cooper on first preferences and Kendall's voters are just as likely to back Burnham on preferences I doubt she will win. She also has lower favourables than both Burnham and Kendall with the public, though better than Corbyn
Why effing polling has done favourability ratings. I know of none such.
How much longer is the farce of the Labour Leadership election going to go on for?
If you had followed this, which you clearly haven't, a timetable was set out in May and was widely reported and Tweeted. That you find something a farce is irrelevant.
This is a massive election - effectively choosing the person LAB will put up as the alternative PM. It is also the current biggest political betting market.
There will be many more posts on here before the result is announced on September 12th. Get used to it.
The only memorable thing of the entire Labour campaign was Ed M saying Labour didn't spend too much money, and that fffffffffffecked Labour good and proper.
But that is because Labour had failed to make that case over the preceding four and a half years given that 95% of the electorate are economically illiterate.Very many professional economists totally agreed with Milliband.
But surely this undermines your reason for supporting Cooper. If the electorate weren't convinced by the approach first time round, why should 5 more years of pushing the same line make any difference at all?
It is not as simple as changing the messenger. The message has to change. It cannot be 'more of the same' - and that is precisely what Cooper appears to be advocating.
(And for however many economists you claim supported the Miliband economic approach, there is an equal, if not greater, who disagree with it. Economists are the last people who should ever be running an economy)
As an economist herself she will be very capable of making the case and not leave it until the last moment as Milliband did during the election campaign. She is also likely to focus on other issues such as the UK's appalling Balance of payments position and be able to highlight how far this has deteriorated under Osborne's 'Plan'. I suspect things will have gone tits up on the economy again long before we get to 2020 and Cooper will be well placed to take advantage of that.
@oxfordsimon I don't agree with Cooper on the economy issue, and I think that will be a problem for her leadership - something she will, I think have to change tact in the long-term. However, in the next five years or so, the government will have to defend its own record as opposed to always referencing Labour's record in office. By 2020, it'll have been ten years since Labour were last in government, so I doubt the debate will centre on what Ed Balls'/Yvette Cooper (or indeed Burnham, as he was also in the treasury) did more than ten years ago.
I do agree with Cooper on the economy. Of the contenders she is the only one with an economics background and is well aware that the Budget Deficit in 2007 - on the eve of the worldwide crash- was smaller as a % of GDP than when the Tories left office in 1997. I have been persuaded to sign up as a supporter to vote for her.
What a meaningless comparison, revisionism of the worst kind.
In 2007 there had been 15 years of growth, tax receipts were higher than ever thanks to the City that Labour deregulated, massive public spending was transferred to the never-never of PFI yet STILL the government could only raise 90% of their spending from taxes and had to borrow the rest - despite warnings from the IMF for five years previous.
It was a massive mess entirely of Gordon Brown's making, of which the refusal of Labour to accept responsibility cost them the last two elections.
@oxfordsimon I don't agree with Cooper on the economy issue, and I think that will be a problem for her leadership - something she will, I think have to change tact in the long-term. However, in the next five years or so, the government will have to defend its own record as opposed to always referencing Labour's record in office. By 2020, it'll have been ten years since Labour were last in government, so I doubt the debate will centre on what Ed Balls'/Yvette Cooper (or indeed Burnham, as he was also in the treasury) did more than ten years ago.
Given how often many in the Labour Party still trot out the word 'Thatcher', I still think the Brown/Balls/Miliband/Cooper/Burnham time at the Treasury will get some traction. Maybe not significant - but enough to undermine any half-hearted attempts to reclaim any shred of economic competence.
The one shred of comfort Labour can glean from their current mess is that James Gordon Brown is no longer in Parliament and no longer a force in British (and in particular Labour) politics. The downside is that neither are 58 other Scottish Labour MPs. Given the nature of Scottish Labour that might not be a bad thing either.
Kendall is completely right when she says "if we claim that making money, building a business, earning a profit, are Tory values, then we will be in Opposition for ever".
She nails it. Shame, for Labour, that she is (therefore?) unelectable.
Precisely. Tristram Hunt made similar remarks himself. The disdain that Labour hold those who live by their own profits is similar to the Conservatives sometimes have for the public sector.
A lot of it is perception, but perception is powerful. Constituencies will be full of individuals who have set up local businesses and are now actually relatively quite wealthy. #succesful small business owners like builders, plumbers and mechanics can quite easily have accumulated a million pounds in assets, theyve done it by hard graft. When Labour treats them with contempt you have to wonder why they would bother to vote for them.
The perception out there is that Labour represent the workshy and public sector (and many in the private sector, somewhat unfairly, think there is a massive correlation between the two).
Yvette Cooper has refused to say Labour spent too much, unlike Burnham and wants to restore the 50p top tax rate until a surplus is achieved and her position on spending puts her to Burnham's left in my view. Given Burnham seems to be ahead of Cooper on first preferences and Kendall's voters are just as likely to back Burnham on preferences I doubt she will win. She also has lower favourables than both Burnham and Kendall with the public, though better than Corbyn
Why effing polling has done favourability ratings. I know of none such.
How much longer is the farce of the Labour Leadership election going to go on for?
If you had followed this, which you clearly haven't, a timetable was set out in May and was widely reported and Tweeted. That you find something a farce is irrelevant.
This is a massive election - effectively choosing the person LAB will put up as the alternative PM. It is also the current biggest political betting market.
There will be many more posts on here before the result is announced on September 12th. Get used to it.
The only memorable thing of the entire Labour campaign was Ed M saying Labour didn't spend too much money, and that fffffffffffecked Labour good and proper.
But that is because Labour had failed to make that case over the preceding four and a half years given that 95% of the electorate are economically illiterate.Very many professional economists totally agreed with Milliband.
That last sentence is a total killer and a keeper - which professional economist forecast 5m unemployed as a result of the Coalition austerity?
" I like your point before on Blair- a politician almost uniquely devoid of ideology but incredibly gifted."
I think it was more that. He seemed completely non judgemental. In an age when Thatcher and co had spent so much energy hating blacks gays union members gypsies Catholics (Irish ones) women the poor the needy foxes....in fact anyone she couldn't describe as 'One of Us' he was a breath of fresh air .
To suddenly be presented with a leader who clearly had no prejudices whtsoever was something that made him special if not unique.
@oxfordsimon I don't agree with Cooper on the economy issue, and I think that will be a problem for her leadership - something she will, I think have to change tact in the long-term. However, in the next five years or so, the government will have to defend its own record as opposed to always referencing Labour's record in office. By 2020, it'll have been ten years since Labour were last in government, so I doubt the debate will centre on what Ed Balls'/Yvette Cooper (or indeed Burnham, as he was also in the treasury) did more than ten years ago.
I do agree with Cooper on the economy. Of the contenders she is the only one with an economics background and is well aware that the Budget Deficit in 2007 - on the eve of the worldwide crash- was smaller as a % of GDP than when the Tories left office in 1997. I have been persuaded to sign up as a supporter to vote for her.
What a meaningless comparison, revisionism of the worst kind.
In 2007 there had been 15 years of growth, tax receipts were higher than ever thanks to the City that Labour deregulated, massive public spending was transferred to the never-never of PFI yet STILL the government could only raise 90% of their spending from taxes and had to borrow the rest - despite warnings from the IMF for five years previous.
It was a massive mess entirely of Gordon Brown's making, of which the refusal of Labour to accept responsibility cost them the last two elections.
The Labour Government did run a Budget Surplus for 3 of its 13 years in office. The previous Tory Govt was only able to manage 2 years of Budget Surplus over 18 years.
@oxfordsimon I don't agree with Cooper on the economy issue, and I think that will be a problem for her leadership - something she will, I think have to change tact in the long-term. However, in the next five years or so, the government will have to defend its own record as opposed to always referencing Labour's record in office. By 2020, it'll have been ten years since Labour were last in government, so I doubt the debate will centre on what Ed Balls'/Yvette Cooper (or indeed Burnham, as he was also in the treasury) did more than ten years ago.
I do agree with Cooper on the economy. Of the contenders she is the only one with an economics background and is well aware that the Budget Deficit in 2007 - on the eve of the worldwide crash- was smaller as a % of GDP than when the Tories left office in 1997. I have been persuaded to sign up as a supporter to vote for her.
What a meaningless comparison, revisionism of the worst kind.
In 2007 there had been 15 years of growth, tax receipts were higher than ever thanks to the City that Labour deregulated, massive public spending was transferred to the never-never of PFI yet STILL the government could only raise 90% of their spending from taxes and had to borrow the rest - despite warnings from the IMF for five years previous.
It was a massive mess entirely of Gordon Brown's making, of which the refusal of Labour to accept responsibility cost them the last two elections.
The Labour Government did run a Budget Surplus for 3 of its 13 years in office. The previous Tory Govt was only able to manage 2 years of Budget Surplus over 18 years.
I'm loving the idea that Cooper, as an economist, can win the argument on the economy which her hubby, also an economist, spent the last 5 years losing. Besides which the world has moved on - Labour are now seen as the party of benefits and immigrants - with an extra dollop of benefits for immigrants - and they have lost Scotland. Cooper has no answers on these.
@oxfordsimon I don't agree with Cooper on the economy issue, and I think that will be a problem for her leadership - something she will, I think have to change tact in the long-term. However, in the next five years or so, the government will have to defend its own record as opposed to always referencing Labour's record in office. By 2020, it'll have been ten years since Labour were last in government, so I doubt the debate will centre on what Ed Balls'/Yvette Cooper (or indeed Burnham, as he was also in the treasury) did more than ten years ago.
I do agree with Cooper on the economy. Of the contenders she is the only one with an economics background and is well aware that the Budget Deficit in 2007 - on the eve of the worldwide crash- was smaller as a % of GDP than when the Tories left office in 1997. I have been persuaded to sign up as a supporter to vote for her.
What a meaningless comparison, revisionism of the worst kind.
In 2007 there had been 15 years of growth, tax receipts were higher than ever thanks to the City that Labour deregulated, massive public spending was transferred to the never-never of PFI yet STILL the government could only raise 90% of their spending from taxes and had to borrow the rest - despite warnings from the IMF for five years previous.
It was a massive mess entirely of Gordon Brown's making, of which the refusal of Labour to accept responsibility cost them the last two elections.
The Labour Government did run a Budget Surplus for 3 of its 13 years in office. The previous Tory Govt was only able to manage 2 years of Budget Surplus over 18 years.
Ironically it was the years it stuck to Tory plans, though Ken Clarke later admitted that he didnt think he could have kept to them.
The issue in 2007 wasn the scale of the deficit it was that spending had been increased substantially and it was funded by a booming financial sector and property market. When they both went simultaneously 'pop' a gigantic chasm opened up, the type you would expect during a world war.
Yvette Cooper has refused to say Labour spent too much, unlike Burnham and wants to restore the 50p top tax rate until a surplus is achieved and her position on spending puts her to Burnham's left in my view. Given Burnham seems to be ahead of Cooper on first preferences and Kendall's voters are just as likely to back Burnham on preferences I doubt she will win. She also has lower favourables than both Burnham and Kendall with the public, though better than Corbyn
Why effing polling has done favourability ratings. I know of none such.
How much longer is the farce of the Labour Leadership election going to go on for?
If you had followed this, which you clearly haven't, a timetable was set out in May and was widely reported and Tweeted. That you find something a farce is irrelevant.
This is a massive election - effectively choosing the person LAB will put up as the alternative PM. It is also the current biggest political betting market.
There will be many more posts on here before the result is announced on September 12th. Get used to it.
The only memorable thing of the entire Labour campaign was Ed M saying Labour didn't spend too much money, and that fffffffffffecked Labour good and proper.
But that is because Labour had failed to make that case over the preceding four and a half years given that 95% of the electorate are economically illiterate.Very many professional economists totally agreed with Milliband.
That last sentence is a total killer and a keeper - which professional economist forecast 5m unemployed as a result of the Coalition austerity?
And blocks people in twitter when it is pointed out.
@oxfordsimon I don't agree with Cooper on the economy issue, and I think that will be a problem for her leadership - something she will, I think have to change tact in the long-term. However, in the next five years or so, the government will have to defend its own record as opposed to always referencing Labour's record in office. By 2020, it'll have been ten years since Labour were last in government, so I doubt the debate will centre on what Ed Balls'/Yvette Cooper (or indeed Burnham, as he was also in the treasury) did more than ten years ago.
I do agree with Cooper on the economy. Of the contenders she is the only one with an economics background and is well aware that the Budget Deficit in 2007 - on the eve of the worldwide crash- was smaller as a % of GDP than when the Tories left office in 1997. I have been persuaded to sign up as a supporter to vote for her.
What a meaningless comparison, revisionism of the worst kind.
In 2007 there had been 15 years of growth, tax receipts were higher than ever thanks to the City that Labour deregulated, massive public spending was transferred to the never-never of PFI yet STILL the government could only raise 90% of their spending from taxes and had to borrow the rest - despite warnings from the IMF for five years previous.
It was a massive mess entirely of Gordon Brown's making, of which the refusal of Labour to accept responsibility cost them the last two elections.
The Labour Government did run a Budget Surplus for 3 of its 13 years in office. The previous Tory Govt was only able to manage 2 years of Budget Surplus over 18 years.
Ironically it was the years it stuck to Tory plans, though Ken Clarke later admitted that he didnt think he could have kept to them.
The issue in 2007 wasn the scale of the deficit it was that spending had been increased substantially and it was funded by a booming financial sector and property market. When they both went simultaneously 'pop' a gigantic chasm opened up, the type you would expect during a world war.
I agree with that - the deficit was caused by the collapse in Tax Revenues rather than surging Government Spending per se.
@oxfordsimon I don't agree with Cooper on the economy issue, and I think that will be a problem for her leadership - something she will, I think have to change tact in the long-term. However, in the next five years or so, the government will have to defend its own record as opposed to always referencing Labour's record in office. By 2020, it'll have been ten years since Labour were last in government, so I doubt the debate will centre on what Ed Balls'/Yvette Cooper (or indeed Burnham, as he was also in the treasury) did more than ten years ago.
I do agree with Cooper on the economy. Of the contenders she is the only one with an economics background and is well aware that the Budget Deficit in 2007 - on the eve of the worldwide crash- was smaller as a % of GDP than when the Tories left office in 1997. I have been persuaded to sign up as a supporter to vote for her.
What a meaningless comparison, revisionism of the worst kind.
In 2007 there had been 15 years of growth, tax receipts were higher than ever thanks to the City that Labour deregulated, massive public spending was transferred to the never-never of PFI yet STILL the government could only raise 90% of their spending from taxes and had to borrow the rest - despite warnings from the IMF for five years previous.
It was a massive mess entirely of Gordon Brown's making, of which the refusal of Labour to accept responsibility cost them the last two elections.
The Labour Government did run a Budget Surplus for 3 of its 13 years in office. The previous Tory Govt was only able to manage 2 years of Budget Surplus over 18 years.
Again, revisionism. Technically you are correct but the statistic you quote is meaningless - the point of reference needs to be the economic cycle rather than the political cycle. Brown said he had abolished the former, and after 2001 raised spending massively in excess of tax revenues - which is why the UK had the largest deficit in the G7 BEFORE the recession struck.
Everyone else was fixing the roof while the sun was shining, Brown decided as it was sunny to sit outside and have another beer. Or two. Or three. With coke and hookers.
@oxfordsimon I don't agree with Cooper on the economy issue, and I think that will be a problem for her leadership - something she will, I think have to change tact in the long-term. However, in the next five years or so, the government will have to defend its own record as opposed to always referencing Labour's record in office. By 2020, it'll have been ten years since Labour were last in government, so I doubt the debate will centre on what Ed Balls'/Yvette Cooper (or indeed Burnham, as he was also in the treasury) did more than ten years ago.
I do agree with Cooper on the economy. Of the contenders she is the only one with an economics background and is well aware that the Budget Deficit in 2007 - on the eve of the worldwide crash- was smaller as a % of GDP than when the Tories left office in 1997. I have been persuaded to sign up as a supporter to vote for her.
What a meaningless comparison, revisionism of the worst kind.
In 2007 there had been 15 years of growth, tax receipts were higher than ever thanks to the City that Labour deregulated, massive public spending was transferred to the never-never of PFI yet STILL the government could only raise 90% of their spending from taxes and had to borrow the rest - despite warnings from the IMF for five years previous.
It was a massive mess entirely of Gordon Brown's making, of which the refusal of Labour to accept responsibility cost them the last two elections.
The Labour Government did run a Budget Surplus for 3 of its 13 years in office. The previous Tory Govt was only able to manage 2 years of Budget Surplus over 18 years.
it was following tory spending plans when it did it. And selling off the G3 mobile phone bandwidth as well.
How much longer is the farce of the Labour Leadership election going to go on for?
The only memorable thing of the entire Labour campaign was Ed M saying Labour didn't spend too much money, and that fffffffffffecked Labour good and proper.
But that is because Labour had failed to make that case over the preceding four and a half years given that 95% of the electorate are economically illiterate.Very many professional economists totally agreed with Milliband.
But surely this undermines your reason for supporting Cooper. If the electorate weren't convinced by the approach first time round, why should 5 more years of pushing the same line make any difference at all?
It is not as simple as changing the messenger. The message has to change. It cannot be 'more of the same' - and that is precisely what Cooper appears to be advocating.
(And for however many economists you claim supported the Miliband economic approach, there is an equal, if not greater, who disagree with it. Economists are the last people who should ever be running an economy)
As an economist herself she will be very capable of making the case and not leave it until the last moment as Milliband did during the election campaign. She is also likely to focus on other issues such as the UK's appalling Balance of payments position and be able to highlight how far this has deteriorated under Osborne's 'Plan'. I suspect things will have gone tits up on the economy again long before we get to 2020 and Cooper will be well placed to take advantage of that.
Sorry - but that is just wishful thinking. Let's look at one of her past policy 'achievements' - HIPS. A complete disaster. Bad in concept and awful in implementation. And she completely failed to make the case for it.
She is no presentational expert. Her tone is often shrill and patronizing. To imagine that she will turn this round (after being in the front line of British politics for a very long time) is rather too hopeful on your part.
And in no real sense of the word is she an economist. She went from Oxford to become a Labour party wonk, did some postgraduate study and spent time as a journalist. That does not make her an economist.
@oxfordsimon I don't agree with Cooper on the economy issue, and I think that will be a problem for her leadership - something she will, I think have to change tact in the long-term. However, in the next five years or so, the government will have to defend its own record as opposed to always referencing Labour's record in office. By 2020, it'll have been ten years since Labour were last in government, so I doubt the debate will centre on what Ed Balls'/Yvette Cooper (or indeed Burnham, as he was also in the treasury) did more than ten years ago.
I do agree with Cooper on the economy. Of the contenders she is the only one with an economics background and is well aware that the Budget Deficit in 2007 - on the eve of the worldwide crash- was smaller as a % of GDP than when the Tories left office in 1997. I have been persuaded to sign up as a supporter to vote for her.
What a meaningless comparison, revisionism of the worst kind.
In 2007 there had been 15 years of growth, tax receipts were higher than ever thanks to the City that Labour deregulated, massive public spending was transferred to the never-never of PFI yet STILL the government could only raise 90% of their spending from taxes and had to borrow the rest - despite warnings from the IMF for five years previous.
It was a massive mess entirely of Gordon Brown's making, of which the refusal of Labour to accept responsibility cost them the last two elections.
The Labour Government did run a Budget Surplus for 3 of its 13 years in office. The previous Tory Govt was only able to manage 2 years of Budget Surplus over 18 years.
Again, revisionism. Technically you are correct but the statistic you quote is meaningless. The point of reference needs to be the economic cycle rather than the political cycle. Brown said he had abolished the former, and after 2001 raised spending massively in excess of tax revenues - which is why the UK had the largest deficit in the G7 BEFORE the recession struck.
Everyone else was fixing the roof while the sun was shining, Brown decided as it was sunny to sit outside and have another beer or two. Or three. With coke and hookers.
That doubtless explains why Osborne & Cameron committed themselves to matching Labour's spending plans prior to the 2008 crash.
@oxfordsimon I don't agree with Cooper on the economy issue, and I think that will be a problem for her leadership - something she will, I think have to change tact in the long-term. However, in the next five years or so, the government will have to defend its own record as opposed to always referencing Labour's record in office. By 2020, it'll have been ten years since Labour were last in government, so I doubt the debate will centre on what Ed Balls'/Yvette Cooper (or indeed Burnham, as he was also in the treasury) did more than ten years ago.
I do agree with Cooper on the economy. Of the contenders she is the only one with an economics background and is well aware that the Budget Deficit in 2007 - on the eve of the worldwide crash- was smaller as a % of GDP than when the Tories left office in 1997. I have been persuaded to sign up as a supporter to vote for her.
What a meaningless comparison, revisionism of the worst kind.
In 2007 there had been 15 years of growth, tax receipts were higher than ever thanks to the City that Labour deregulated, massive public spending was transferred to the never-never of PFI yet STILL the government could only raise 90% of their spending from taxes and had to borrow the rest - despite warnings from the IMF for five years previous.
It was a massive mess entirely of Gordon Brown's making, of which the refusal of Labour to accept responsibility cost them the last two elections.
The Labour Government did run a Budget Surplus for 3 of its 13 years in office. The previous Tory Govt was only able to manage 2 years of Budget Surplus over 18 years.
Again, revisionism. Technically you are correct but the statistic you quote is meaningless. The point of reference needs to be the economic cycle rather than the political cycle. Brown said he had abolished the former, and after 2001 raised spending massively in excess of tax revenues - which is why the UK had the largest deficit in the G7 BEFORE the recession struck.
Everyone else was fixing the roof while the sun was shining, Brown decided as it was sunny to sit outside and have another beer or two. Or three. With coke and hookers.
That doubtless explains why Osborne & Cameron committed themselves to matching Labour's spending plans prior to the 2008 crash.
People say all sorts of crap in opposition - you might want to ponder that 'Cooper is an economist' for example.
How much longer is the farce of the Labour Leadership election going to go on for?
The only memorable thing of the entire Labour campaign was Ed M saying Labour didn't spend too much money, and that fffffffffffecked Labour good and proper.
But that is because Labour had failed to make that case over the preceding four and a half years given that 95% of the electorate are economically illiterate.Very many professional economists totally agreed with Milliband.
But surely this undermines your reason for supporting Cooper. If the electorate weren't convinced by the approach first time round, why should 5 more years of pushing the same line make any difference at all?
It is not as simple as changing the messenger. The message has to change. It cannot be 'more of the same' - and that is precisely what Cooper appears to be advocating.
(And for however many economists you claim supported the Miliband economic approach, there is an equal, if not greater, who disagree with it. Economists are the last people who should ever be running an economy)
As an economist herself she will be very capable of making the case and not leave it until the last moment as Milliband did during the election campaign. She is also likely to focus on other issues such as the UK's appalling Balance of payments position and be able to highlight how far this has deteriorated under Osborne's 'Plan'. I suspect things will have gone tits up on the economy again long before we get to 2020 and Cooper will be well placed to take advantage of that.
Sorry - but that is just wishful thinking. Let's look at one of her past policy 'achievements' - HIPS. A complete disaster. Bad in concept and awful in implementation. And she completely failed to make the case for it.
She is no presentational expert. Her tone is often shrill and patronizing. To imagine that she will turn this round (after being in the front line of British politics for a very long time) is rather too hopeful on your part.
And in no real sense of the word is she an economist. She went from Oxford to become a Labour party wonk, did some postgraduate study and spent time as a journalist. That does not make her an economist.
I believe she was an economics correspondent. To say that she has been at the front line of UK politics for a long time seriously overstates matters - the general public have barely heard of her at all!
@oxfordsimon I don't agree with Cooper on the economy issue, and I think that will be a problem for her leadership - something she will, I think have to change tact in the long-term. However, in the next five years or so, the government will have to defend its own record as opposed to always referencing Labour's record in office. By 2020, it'll have been ten years since Labour were last in government, so I doubt the debate will centre on what Ed Balls'/Yvette Cooper (or indeed Burnham, as he was also in the treasury) did more than ten years ago.
I do agree with Cooper on the economy. Of the contenders she is the only one with an economics background and is well aware that the Budget Deficit in 2007 - on the eve of the worldwide crash- was smaller as a % of GDP than when the Tories left office in 1997. I have been persuaded to sign up as a supporter to vote for her.
What a meaningless comparison, revisionism of the worst kind.
In 2007 there had been 15 years of growth, tax receipts were higher than ever thanks to the City that Labour deregulated, massive public spending was transferred to the never-never of PFI yet STILL the government could only raise 90% of their spending from taxes and had to borrow the rest - despite warnings from the IMF for five years previous.
It was a massive mess entirely of Gordon Brown's making, of which the refusal of Labour to accept responsibility cost them the last two elections.
The Labour Government did run a Budget Surplus for 3 of its 13 years in office. The previous Tory Govt was only able to manage 2 years of Budget Surplus over 18 years.
Again, revisionism. Technically you are correct but the statistic you quote is meaningless. The point of reference needs to be the economic cycle rather than the political cycle. Brown said he had abolished the former, and after 2001 raised spending massively in excess of tax revenues - which is why the UK had the largest deficit in the G7 BEFORE the recession struck.
Everyone else was fixing the roof while the sun was shining, Brown decided as it was sunny to sit outside and have another beer or two. Or three. With coke and hookers.
That doubtless explains why Osborne & Cameron committed themselves to matching Labour's spending plans prior to the 2008 crash.
They certainly didn't commit to matching Labour's 40bn hole in the budget at the top of the boom.
Watching the Labour leader TV debate. Just grandiloquently depressing for Lefties. It's not the mediocrity of the candidates, its the blind, flailing attempt to find an economic narrative.
It was our fault, no it wasn't, Yes it was but it wasn't, No it wasn't but we should say sorry anyway, Oh God let's vote for Jeremy.
Who do you think is the best least bad?
Honestly?
Burnham, at a pinch. In four years time people will have forgotten his chaotic answers today.
Yvette is just too feeble and hampered by the past, Kendall (tho her analysis is correct) is too shrill and will divide the party, Corbyn is a magnificent joke (please elect him!), the one who might worry Tories is Burnham - northern, plausible, could appeal to Scots and the WWC as well as southerners - the Holy Grail for the next Labour leader.
The prospect for Labour is not bright, but Burnham could cut through, especially against a posho Tory party roiled by Europe.
Agree on that Sean, that is why I also think Burnham is Labour's best bet. Mainly because he is the only candidate who could potentially win back voters from the Tories and UKIP and the SNP while also holding the party's core. The other 3 may attract some of those groups but will turn off the others.
@oxfordsimon I don't agree with Cooper on the economy issue, and I think that will be a problem for her leadership - something she will, I think have to change tact in the long-term. However, in the next five years or so, the government will have to defend its own record as opposed to always referencing Labour's record in office. By 2020, it'll have been ten years since Labour were last in government, so I doubt the debate will centre on what Ed Balls'/Yvette Cooper (or indeed Burnham, as he was also in the treasury) did more than ten years ago.
I do agree with Cooper on the economy. Of the contenders she is the only one with an economics background and is well aware that the Budget Deficit in 2007 - on the eve of the worldwide crash- was smaller as a % of GDP than when the Tories left office in 1997. I have been persuaded to sign up as a supporter to vote for her.
What a meaningless comparison, revisionism of the worst kind.
In 2007 there had been 15 years of growth, tax receipts were higher than ever thanks to the City that Labour deregulated, massive public spending was transferred to the never-never of PFI yet STILL the government could only raise 90% of their spending from taxes and had to borrow the rest - despite warnings from the IMF for five years previous.
It was a massive mess entirely of Gordon Brown's making, of which the refusal of Labour to accept responsibility cost them the last two elections.
The Labour Government did run a Budget Surplus for 3 of its 13 years in office. The previous Tory Govt was only able to manage 2 years of Budget Surplus over 18 years.
Ironically it was the years it stuck to Tory plans, though Ken Clarke later admitted that he didnt think he could have kept to them.
The issue in 2007 wasn the scale of the deficit it was that spending had been increased substantially and it was funded by a booming financial sector and property market. When they both went simultaneously 'pop' a gigantic chasm opened up, the type you would expect during a world war.
I agree with that - the deficit was caused by the collapse in Tax Revenues rather than surging Government Spending per se.
Im trying not to swear.... Public spending was raised based on these revenues coming in in perpetuity. It was not a stable tax base. When they went you had the double whammy of all the bad stuff that happens when you have a recession, plus 4% of extra public spending that has no tax base.
@oxfordsimon I don't agree with Cooper on the economy issue, and I think that will be a problem for her leadership - something she will, I think have to change tact in the long-term. However, in the next five years or so, the government will have to defend its own record as opposed to always referencing Labour's record in office. By 2020, it'll have been ten years since Labour were last in government, so I doubt the debate will centre on what Ed Balls'/Yvette Cooper (or indeed Burnham, as he was also in the treasury) did more than ten years ago.
I do agree with Cooper on the economy. Of the contenders she is the only one with an economics background and is well aware that the Budget Deficit in 2007 - on the eve of the worldwide crash- was smaller as a % of GDP than when the Tories left office in 1997. I have been persuaded to sign up as a supporter to vote for her.
What a meaningless comparison, revisionism of the worst kind.
In 2007 there had been 15 years of growth, tax receipts were higher than ever thanks to the City that Labour deregulated, massive public spending was transferred to the never-never of PFI yet STILL the government could only raise 90% of their spending from taxes and had to borrow the rest - despite warnings from the IMF for five years previous.
It was a massive mess entirely of Gordon Brown's making, of which the refusal of Labour to accept responsibility cost them the last two elections.
The Labour Government did run a Budget Surplus for 3 of its 13 years in office. The previous Tory Govt was only able to manage 2 years of Budget Surplus over 18 years.
Again, revisionism. Technically you are correct but the statistic you quote is meaningless. The point of reference needs to be the economic cycle rather than the political cycle. Brown said he had abolished the former, and after 2001 raised spending massively in excess of tax revenues - which is why the UK had the largest deficit in the G7 BEFORE the recession struck.
Everyone else was fixing the roof while the sun was shining, Brown decided as it was sunny to sit outside and have another beer or two. Or three. With coke and hookers.
That doubtless explains why Osborne & Cameron committed themselves to matching Labour's spending plans prior to the 2008 crash.
They certainly didn't commit to matching Labour's 40bn hole in the budget at the top of the boom.
But logically that is what they were going to face unless they planned to raise taxes! How likely was that?
But surely this undermines your reason for supporting Cooper. If the electorate weren't convinced by the approach first time round, why should 5 more years of pushing the same line make any difference at
In no way is she unknown. She was in the Brown cabinet and held 2 senior jobs in the Miliband shadow team. She has made frequent appearances in media for more than a decade.
She is right at the heart of the Labour metropolitan elite - even if she puts on a cod working class accent from time to time. She is no outsider.
@oxfordsimon I don't agree with Cooper on the economy issue, and I think that will be a problem for her leadership - something she will, I think have to change tact in the long-term. However, in the next five years or so, the government will have to defend its own record as opposed to always referencing Labour's record in office. By 2020, it'll have been ten years since Labour were last in government, so I doubt the debate will centre on what Ed Balls'/Yvette Cooper (or indeed Burnham, as he was also in the treasury) did more than ten years ago.
I do agree with Cooper on the economy. Of the contenders she is the only one with an economics background and is well aware that the Budget Deficit in 2007 - on the eve of the worldwide crash- was smaller as a % of GDP than when the Tories left office in 1997. I have been persuaded to sign up as a supporter to vote for her.
What a meaningless comparison, revisionism of the worst kind.
In 2007 there had been 15 years of growth, tax receipts were higher than ever thanks to the City that Labour deregulated, massive public spending was transferred to the never-never of PFI yet STILL the government could only raise 90% of their spending from taxes and had to borrow the rest - despite warnings from the IMF for five years previous.
It was a massive mess entirely of Gordon Brown's making, of which the refusal of Labour to accept responsibility cost them the last two elections.
The Labour Government did run a Budget Surplus for 3 of its 13 years in office. The previous Tory Govt was only able to manage 2 years of Budget Surplus over 18 years.
Again, revisionism. Technically you are correct but the statistic you quote is meaningless. The point of reference needs to be the economic cycle rather than the political cycle. Brown said he had abolished the former, and after 2001 raised spending massively in excess of tax revenues - which is why the UK had the largest deficit in the G7 BEFORE the recession struck.
Everyone else was fixing the roof while the sun was shining, Brown decided as it was sunny to sit outside and have another beer or two. Or three. With coke and hookers.
That doubtless explains why Osborne & Cameron committed themselves to matching Labour's spending plans prior to the 2008 crash.
They certainly didn't commit to matching Labour's 40bn hole in the budget at the top of the boom.
And some of us (me, specifically) said the deficit was a major problem (but manageable) and could quickly explode.
Comments
Labour can't win Tory voters by pretending to be Tories - Labour has to make a case for something better
I was also at Lytham St Annes to see Sevvie win the Open the last and only time it was played on a Monday in 1988.
People are misremembering his stance on rightly rejecting some of the 1980s Bennite crap, and thinking he just agreed lock stock and barrel with everything the Tories did - not the case.
Mike- out of curiosity how many units did you put away during the day?
After the high of last weekend in Cardiff it's back to the drawing board, following on (pun intended) from what was in reality an innings defeat and then some.
What airtime did any of the candidates have during the GE, in which they said anything memorable that helped Labour ? I am struggling to recall anything.
The only memorable thing of the entire Labour campaign was Ed M saying Labour didn't spend too much money, and that fffffffffffecked Labour good and proper.
Kendall must think shadow ministers have to shadow Govt policies.
KICWNBPM or LOTO
The vast majority (>90%?) of your tweets for the period were on polling data. You were kind enough to tweet approximately once a day the SPIN seat estimates. But when it came to odds from bookies, whether classical (Ladbrokes, william Hill, Coral, etc) or exchanges (Betfair Exchange), they were effectively nonexistent: you tweeted only two odds (not two full books: two single odds) - betfair exchange tories 80%[1] most seats and lab 4/1 most seats[2]. To put this in context that is the same number of odds as those you retweeted for the odds of a person voting Conservative if her name was Charlotte.
PB is an excellent resource and I am glad it exists. We owe a lot to you and your sterling efforts. But I wish its coverage of bookie odds was more comprehensive in the last week. There is a whacking great hole in records of full books in the last week (try googling it: not as easy as it sounds...) and I don't know if I'll be able to fill it
[1] see twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/595992494678089728
[2] see twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/596060741175771136
Farron does come over as irritating at times, but I'll forgive him as he's religious.
Corbyn's interview on Channel Four was hilarious - he may be as mad as a box of frogs but he deserves a good kicking.
I think Labour are stuck with Burnham or Yvette - the natural runners up if they had a decent candidate. Liz, of course, is far too likely to attract floating voters, as Blair did.
Cameron really is a lucky general.
One assumes (bad idea?) that he is paid only for the days he attends the 'office', rather than every day regardless, given that for the last two years there's been only a few days' work done by him.
Does one of our legal eagles know if there is any way he can be compelled to answer questions under Parliamentary Privilege as to why the report is so delayed?
She is no Blair
It's clear that one or more people are trying to either drown him in lawyers or refusing to make mandated responses, otherwise we would have had the report a couple of years ago.
The longer it takes, the more it looks like a 3rd world whitewash.
Come out of the sun Tyson. I agree with most of what you've said including 'labour need a blairite but not bonkers liz Kendal' but when I got to Ed Balls........just because the Tories loath him doesn't make him a towering figure. Same with portillo. Because he's a fine presenter of Mediterranian art and culture we're fooled into thinking he was an important politician. Brown was a colossus. Very few others
That's how poor her strategy and tactics have been.
Labour are going to have to wait until Dan Jarvis is ready to run.
This is no 1997 when past conservative voters looked at the Tory party in disgust at their corruption and incompetence and the country really had enough, even Foot would have won the 1997 election.
This time the Tory party is not yet producing the same amounts of corruption and incompetence, they have essentially transformed into the old Liberal party which means there is not much space in the centre for Labour, the LD have only 8% which is the same as the SNP and the Greens on the left of Labour.
Labour economic policies can't radically change without Labour no longer being Labour.
So the only promising terrain for Labour is the UKIP terrain of euroskepticism and immigration as shown in focus groups of past Labour voters that voted Tory in May in marginal seats.
We all know that if Labour was not so much pro-immigration and so pro-EU they would have alleviated some of the working and middle class anxiety towards them.
“Jeremy Corbyn has shown “no loyalty” to Labour’s leadership in the past and does not deserve members’ votes now, says the MP who holds Tony Blair’s former constituency.
Phil Wilson, Labour MP for Sedgefield, said Mr Corbyn’s aim to drag the party to the left would mean disaster at the polls in 2020 was unavoidable as he urged people to back Liz Kendall.”
The list of Labour MPs personally attacking Jeremy Corbyn in print is getting longer by the day and no doubt set to get longer – Hope he doesn’t hold a grudge against them should he win, as forming a shadow government might get a tad difficult.
http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/jeremy-corbyn-shown-no-loyalty-9687074#ICID=sharebar_twitter
http://bit.ly/1Og0dWZ
I think the reply for that is that opposing the Iraq War is hardly a minus for Corbyn unlike Wilson who actually worked for Blair for the majority of his life.
"No loyalty" to Tony Blair is a vote winner.
So far the CON majority government is operating in a much better manner.
*Yep, I really don't like Hollande.*
The Whips Office would have a breakdown!
So 11 of 206 Constituency parties agree with Peter (finger on the pulse) Wilson about the best candidate.
Thankfully Hollande will be ex-President in 22 months, until then he will continue to try to destroy europe with his ideas. Until then NO NO NO.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tetk_ayO1x4
As for Corbyn and "loyalty", I don't recall IDS showing much loyalty to the Major Government but it didn't stop him becoming leader. Perhaps Corbyn is Labour's IDS...
Where's that volume control ?
Brown was a colossus, but hopelessly flawed. I like your point before on Blair- a politician almost uniquely devoid of ideology but incredibly gifted. I very much doubt Cameron will get much of a legacy- Osborne will get all the credit (good or bad) for this period in the long run.
And yes- it is hot here. The hottest summer so far for 140 years with no sign of cooling....
Well he is a better disaster that his predecessor, although he is still a disaster.
But that's France, they are switching between crooks, liars and idiots since De Gaulle died, and their strong presidential system means there are no checks and balances.
Total accumulated wisdom of the ancient greek statesman Solon, inventor of democracy.
Thatcher started as a disaster, but she produced results beyond anyone could have anticipated by her end.
Blair started as a saint and ended up as a devil.
Of course to be fair to Hollande, his idea of 'more Europe' is all of Europe doing more of what France wants.
For a europe that is economically diverse, centralization means collapse as the eurozone has proved.
IIRC Scargill refused to appear before a Parliamentary committee and was threatened with being hunted down by the Sergeant at Arms like a recalcitrant warthog. And then appeared to avoid the embarrassment.
Also Committees can place witnesses on oath. That was a power used by Margaret Hodge to try and intimidate an HMRC lawyer called Inglese in 2011.
Or the HOC can examine witnesses at the Bar of the House ie just inside the door.
Last happened to John Junor of the Daily Express in 1955 when he published an article about expenses fiddling by MPs. He was made to apologise for impugning the integrity of the House. ROFL.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17912253
They could certainly try and do it as the HoC but I'd expect a dirty tricks campaign to undermine the move.
It is not as simple as changing the messenger. The message has to change. It cannot be 'more of the same' - and that is precisely what Cooper appears to be advocating.
(And for however many economists you claim supported the Miliband economic approach, there is an equal, if not greater, who disagree with it. Economists are the last people who should ever be running an economy)
" I like your point before on Blair- a politician almost uniquely devoid of ideology but incredibly gifted."
I think it was more that. He seemed completely non judgemental. In an age when Thatcher and co had spent so much energy hating blacks gays union members gypsies Catholics (Irish ones) women the poor the needy foxes....in fact anyone she couldn't describe as 'One of Us' he was a breath of fresh air .
To suddenly be presented with a leader who clearly had no prejudices whtsoever was something that made him special if not unique.
http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/griechenland-warren-buffett-kauft-insel-agios-thomas-a-1044357.html
Isn't that what some Germans told the Greeks to do when the crisis blew up in 2009, to sort out their debt?
In 2007 there had been 15 years of growth, tax receipts were higher than ever thanks to the City that Labour deregulated, massive public spending was transferred to the never-never of PFI yet STILL the government could only raise 90% of their spending from taxes and had to borrow the rest - despite warnings from the IMF for five years previous.
It was a massive mess entirely of Gordon Brown's making, of which the refusal of Labour to accept responsibility cost them the last two elections.
A lot of it is perception, but perception is powerful. Constituencies will be full of individuals who have set up local businesses and are now actually relatively quite wealthy. #succesful small business owners like builders, plumbers and mechanics can quite easily have accumulated a million pounds in assets, theyve done it by hard graft. When Labour treats them with contempt you have to wonder why they would bother to vote for them.
The perception out there is that Labour represent the workshy and public sector (and many in the private sector, somewhat unfairly, think there is a massive correlation between the two).
The issue in 2007 wasn the scale of the deficit it was that spending had been increased substantially and it was funded by a booming financial sector and property market. When they both went simultaneously 'pop' a gigantic chasm opened up, the type you would expect during a world war.
revenues - which is why the UK had the largest deficit in the G7 BEFORE the recession struck.
Everyone else was fixing the roof while the sun was shining, Brown decided as it was sunny to sit outside and have another beer. Or two. Or three. With coke and hookers.
She is no presentational expert. Her tone is often shrill and patronizing. To imagine that she will turn this round (after being in the front line of British politics for a very long time) is rather too hopeful on your part.
And in no real sense of the word is she an economist. She went from Oxford to become a Labour party wonk, did some postgraduate study and spent time as a journalist. That does not make her an economist.
To say that she has been at the front line of UK politics for a long time seriously overstates matters - the general public have barely heard of her at all!
We wont even get onto Labour's stimulus package.
Kendall
Cooper
Burnham
Corbyn
Aim: Cooper win leading Labour back to safe ground in a similar vein to Howard 2003-5. Kendall decent showing secures her shadow Home Sec.
But surely this undermines your reason for supporting Cooper. If the electorate weren't convinced by the approach first time round, why should 5 more years of pushing the same line make any difference at
In no way is she unknown. She was in the Brown cabinet and held 2 senior jobs in the Miliband shadow team. She has made frequent appearances in media for more than a decade.
She is right at the heart of the Labour metropolitan elite - even if she puts on a cod working class accent from time to time. She is no outsider.
http://simonnricketts.tumblr.com/post/124334692582/youre-already-dead