politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why we won’t be hearing much from the Tories this summer

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why we won’t be hearing much from the Tories this summer

Probably the most successful Lynton Crosby message in the run-up to May 7th was the warning of “confusion and chaos” if Labour was returned.

Read the full story here

Scott_P

First

dr_spyn

Never interrupt your opponent when he is making a mistake.

Philip_Thompson

Makes sense, we have "quietly and competently getting on with the job" versus a car crash happening in slow-motion. What could Tory ministers have to add that isn't already visible?

Posted this at the end of the last thread, would others agree with the description of this Labour leadership election as essentially a voodoo poll now?

Cromwell said:

If it hadn't been for Corbyn -mania I was confident that Cooper would have won this race as the compromise candidate and least objectionable ; after all, she would be the first female leader of the LP and with Merkel , Helle Schmitt and Hillary , female leadership is very much in the zeitgeist ..indeed , it is my contention that if you take , say, 30 random Labour voters together then Cooper nearly always remains the last one standing as the compromise , unfortunately Corbyn seems to have changed that

I don't think Corbyn's changed it, I think that the Labour leadership being a glorified voodoo poll has changed it. Cooper may be least objectionable to Labour members but this isn't a poll of Labour members its a poll of Labour members, plus whoever the union's get to sign up, plus whoever else wants to vote.

This is a glorified voodoo poll and Labour will get the result it deserves.

taffys

I suppose it helps if your opponents end up showing that your criticisms of them weren't just slogans.

Sandpit

dr_spyn said:

Never interrupt your opponent when he is making a mistake.

Yep, politics 101.

What could the Conservatives possibly add to Labour's current 'conversation' with the public this summer? Much better to watch them tear themselves apart and then end up with either Mr Mid Staffs or Mr Marx as the new leader seven weeks down the line.

Only 48 days to go of this contest, coming up to the half way point since nominations opened.

TheWhiteRabbit

One article, I forget where, said that Cameron was making radical reforms under cover of making mild improvements. I think there is some truth in that.

Luckyguy1983

JEO said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Plato said:

I've watched a few US docs on supermax prisons and golly - most prisoners here would faint at the prospect. Most supermax seem to follow the regime you mention. No socialising, up to 1hr a day walking in a circle in a concrete lined bunker with no views of anything, no entertainment, not even plastic cutlery to eat your food, no chit-chat with guards, no window.

If you're on suicide watch - no clothes, lights on with CCTV 24/7 and no bedding to strangle yourself with.

Sean_F said:

taffys said:

''Support for the death penalty has fallen to below 50% for the first time according to the most recent British Social Attitudes survey:''

I sometimes wonder if really bad lifers should be offered the choice of a death sentence. Reading accounts of a lifetime in a maximum security prison with no chance of remission, it almost seems like a worse punishment. And it must be a huge strain on the prison officers.

Belgium now gives them the option of committing suicide.

Most whole-lifers don't have bad conditions in this country. If I were a whole-lifer in a US maximum security prison, I would regard being executed as the more humane alternative. There's a new prison in Colorado for the most dangerous prisoners, where you're confined to a concrete cell, 23 and a half hours a day, without any form of recreation at all. If you behave really well, you might get a black and white TV, giving access to religious programmes and the Disney Channel.

As I always say, we should simply lease space in African prisons for our highest security prisoners. It's one economic activity I would be happy to offshore.

Given the bribery rampant in many African countries, that could end with prison not being much of a punishment at all.

Well I suppose that's an issue, but I still think the benefits (to the Exchequer for one thing) would far outweigh the drawbacks. I'd envisage it being quite a traditional prison life - not Snooker and Sky, more Birch, Bible and Bars (iron ones).

TheWhiteRabbit

''Support for the death penalty has fallen to below 50% for the first time according to the most recent British Social Attitudes survey:''

Fell below 50% for murderers in general a while ago. But well above that for child/mass/terrorist murderers still.

Possibly the only subject where parliamentary and public opinion have been so divided for so long.

TGOHF

dr_spyn said:

Never interrupt your opponent when he is making a mistake.

It was the Sun Tzu wot won it !

dr_spyn

For 'tis the sport to have the enginer
Hoist with his own petard,

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/lord-sewel/house-of-lords_b_7808916.html

Tykejohnno

Well the BBC doing a good job on bringing the Tories into labours leadership race,they had story of Tories supporters joining labour membership so they could vote for corbyn on radio 5 this morning.

dr_spyn

TGOHF said:

dr_spyn said:

Never interrupt your opponent when he is making a mistake.

It was the Sun Tzu wot won it !

very good.

JosiasJessop

This makes a fair bit of sense: let the media concentrate on Labour's woes.

As for mid-Staffs: if Burnham becomes leader, it should hang over him like a curse. He's scum.

ABIS

Plato

*claps*

TGOHF said:

dr_spyn said:

Never interrupt your opponent when he is making a mistake.

It was the Sun Tzu wot won it !

SimonStClare

Surely this is just basic manners – strikes me as remarkably courteous of the Tories not to attempt to upstage the Labour Leadership contest.

Slackbladder

Good idea, Don't point out when your enemy is making a mistake.

Edit: which was made as a point already...

felix

Agreed - and the LDs seem to be following the same strategy - where George leads......:)

Slackbladder

Not to mention the fact they're all probably on a well deserved (post election) holiday...

dr_spyn

I suppose that Harman hadn't read Hamlet either - boasting on May 18th about 30K members joining Labour after May 7th.

http://labourlist.org/2015/05/harman-says-public-will-play-a-crucial-role-in-labour-leadership-election/

Hamlet:
There's letters seal'd, and my two schoolfellows,
Whom I will trust as I will adders fang'd—
They bear the mandate, they must sweep my way
And marshal me to knavery. Let it work;
For 'tis the sport to have the enginer
Hoist with his own petard, an't shall go hard
But I will delve one yard below their mines
And blow them at the moon.

The generous open voting contest without a cut off date was asking for trolls to sign up.

logical_song

SimonStClare said:

Surely this is just basic manners – strikes me as remarkably courteous of the Tories not to attempt to upstage the Labour Leadership contest.

It may be even more courteous to let them choose their leader.
By the way, does the Tory party allow its members and councillors to be members of another party?

JosiasJessop

This will not end well:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33675760

Recidivist

I still don't buy the Corbynmania story. Blair increased Labour Party membership by over a hundred thousand. So far even with lower barriers to entry the party has only put on about 60,000 with current contest - Corbyn might well be popular but he is hardly driving all before him. And there is no indication whatever that it has or will resonate with the wider public. There is still plenty of time for things to calm down and one of the business as usual candidates to pull ahead, particularly if it doesn't look like ordinary voters find any of this particularly interesting.

RobD

Recidivist said:

I still don't buy the Corbynmania story. Blair increased Labour Party membership by over a hundred thousand. So far even with lower barriers to entry the party has only put on about 60,000 with current contest - Corbyn might well be popular but he is hardly driving all before him. And there is no indication whatever that it has or will resonate with the wider public. There is still plenty of time for things to calm down and one of the business as usual candidates to pull ahead, particularly if it doesn't look like ordinary voters find any of this particularly interesting.

The Times projects 140,000 - http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1585822.ece

TGOHF

JosiasJessop said:

This will not end well:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33675760

Start and the middle haven't been much fun to be fair.

RobD

logical_song said:

SimonStClare said:

Surely this is just basic manners – strikes me as remarkably courteous of the Tories not to attempt to upstage the Labour Leadership contest.

It may be even more courteous to let them choose their leader.
By the way, does the Tory party allow its members and councillors to be members of another party?

Maybe they'll overlook it?

SimonStClare

logical_song said:

SimonStClare said:

Surely this is just basic manners – strikes me as remarkably courteous of the Tories not to attempt to upstage the Labour Leadership contest.

It may be even more courteous to let them choose their leader.
By the way, does the Tory party allow its members and councillors to be members of another party?

Can’t help I’m afraid, never been a Tory party member - or any other party for that matter.

Casino_Royale

Slackbladder said:

Not to mention the fact they're all probably on a well deserved (post election) holiday...

Taking a good break is probably the best thing senior Conservatives can do right now. After all, it's not as if they can sneak any legislation through whilst Labour self-destructs.

The autumn will be very interesting.

HurstLlama

JosiasJessop said:

This will not end well:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33675760

Asking for a meeting under article 4 is one thing, the problem would come if Turkey requests assistance under article 5 because then NATO would be shown to all the world be the hollow paper tiger that it is. I doubt Turkey will go that far and the war in the Middle East will be allowed to rumble on indefinitely.

runnymede

'It's very frustrating'...how disappointing for the Beeb that a party doesn't want to play their silly games.

JEO

This BBC article lists what Osborne is trying to achieve in EU reform talks:

It includes:
- An opt-out on the core EU aim of "ever closer union"
- The sovereignty of national parliaments to be boosted, so groups of them can block proposed EU legislation
- Safeguard the City of London and other financial centres outside the eurozone
- Curb EU immigration by cutting benefits
- Make the EU more streamlined and competitive

I really do think this has become a very paltry list. I note the word "include", however, so let's hope they are going for something rather more substantive. Cutting benefits for three years for EU immigrants will not make much effect on immigration. Protections for the non-Eurozone need to cover much more than just the financial sector, after the worrying new development of bloc votes for the Eurozone spending EU money. Plus, what happened to repatriations? We've previously heard suggestions about opting out of CAP or the Social Chapter. We really need more opt-outs, if only to set more precedents that we can opt-out from more in future.

SandyRentool

Most of the growth in 'proper' party membership occurred between the GE and Corbyn entering the contest. From my conversations with new members in our patch, their views range from Blairite to Bennite.

It is the union sign-ups and £3 fellow travellers who are the recent additions and predominantly there to back JC.

If we had used the membership register as of GE day to set the electorate for the leadership election, it would have been fairer, and delivered a result reflecting the views of the membership.

Charles

RobD said:

Recidivist said:

I still don't buy the Corbynmania story. Blair increased Labour Party membership by over a hundred thousand. So far even with lower barriers to entry the party has only put on about 60,000 with current contest - Corbyn might well be popular but he is hardly driving all before him. And there is no indication whatever that it has or will resonate with the wider public. There is still plenty of time for things to calm down and one of the business as usual candidates to pull ahead, particularly if it doesn't look like ordinary voters find any of this particularly interesting.

The Times projects 140,000 - http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1585822.ece

Extrapolates, please, not projects.

You should know better.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Jessop, indeed. Quite predictable given the last couple of days. If true, and it may well be, Turkish involvement might help ISIS more than it harms it [although the Western forces flying from Turkey will hit only IS].

On-topic: is this better or worse than IDS versus Ken Clarke?

Financier

logical_song said:

SimonStClare said:

Surely this is just basic manners – strikes me as remarkably courteous of the Tories not to attempt to upstage the Labour Leadership contest.

It may be even more courteous to let them choose their leader.
By the way, does the Tory party allow its members and councillors to be members of another party?

It is (presumably) a free country and you can join as many clubs and societies as you wish as long as you pay their fees and do not contravene (publicly) their rules.

MTimT

FPT @ The_Apocalypse

Just finishing up a chapter for a book being published by Imperial on wmd around the world. Not surprisingly, my chapter is on Iraq's BW programme. I address such issues as why it the programme's success was limited, and why, although the presumption that they had BW did impact the strategy of the coalition in 1991 and again in 2003, it did not (as intended by Saddam) affect in any way the strategic outcomes of either Gulf war or the war with Iran.

Then it's on to a major book on all Iraq's wmd programmes, looking at it from all perspectives - the West's, the inspectors/UN, Iraq's and Russia's. Although Iraq had a strategy for gaming the Security Council's decisions through NAM and China (and later Russia and France), the NAM/China positions were really immaterial to any developments, so we won't really treat that. The book will, inter alia, look at why the entire intelligence community (including Russia, France and Germany, not just the Anglosphere) got it wrong on Iraq. We are helped in making better assessments now as we have access to the Saddam Tapes (like Nixon, he recorded key meetings with his top advisors) and the Duelfer Report (Charlie lead the Iraq Action Group which interviewed all the key Iraqi wmd players in the years after the fall of Baghdad. Alas his efforts were curtailed when his convoy was hit by an IED and several of his protection unit were killed.

In my view, Blair did get ahead of the intelligence. He was doing what politicians do - simplifying things to make better sound bites, and using the arguments most likely to persuade key constituencies to his proposed plan of action, rather than the soundest arguments. He lost me with the 40 minutes claim, but I don't fault him anywhere near as much as his detractors on the rest.

volcanopete

SandyRentool said:

Most of the growth in 'proper' party membership occurred between the GE and Corbyn entering the contest. From my conversations with new members in our patch, their views range from Blairite to Bennite.

It is the union sign-ups and £3 fellow travellers who are the recent additions and predominantly there to back JC.

If we had used the membership register as of GE day to set the electorate for the leadership election, it would have been fairer, and delivered a result reflecting the views of the membership.

Those with supporter status need to transfer to full membership as JC has suggested as a good thing to encourage a mass membership party.

SquareRoot

JEO said:

This BBC article lists what Osborne is trying to achieve in EU reform talks:

It includes:
- An opt-out on the core EU aim of "ever closer union"
- The sovereignty of national parliaments to be boosted, so groups of them can block proposed EU legislation
- Safeguard the City of London and other financial centres outside the eurozone
- Curb EU immigration by cutting benefits
- Make the EU more streamlined and competitive

I really do think this has become a very paltry list. I note the word "include", however, so let's hope they are going for something rather more substantive. Cutting benefits for three years for EU immigrants will not make much effect on immigration. Protections for the non-Eurozone need to cover much more than just the financial sector, after the worrying new development of bloc votes for the Eurozone spending EU money. Plus, what happened to repatriations? We've previously heard suggestions about opting out of CAP or the Social Chapter. We really need more opt-outs, if only to set more precedents that we can opt-out from more in future.

The Boy George is doing a fine job.. another one off the dole who will be performing a service to lots of people.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3174922/NHS-boob-job-scrounger-Josie-Cunningham-says-game-George-Osborne-slashed-benefits.html

blackburn63

The conservative party is a ruthless, calculating machine. To some degree or other labour, libs and ukip are in a state of flux, the tories have no need to say or do anything remotely controversial, better to stay silent and let others mess around.

Frustrating but effective.

logical_song

blackburn63 said:

The conservative party is a ruthless, calculating machine. To some degree or other labour, libs and ukip are in a state of flux, the tories have no need to say or do anything remotely controversial, better to stay silent and let others mess around.

Frustrating but effective.

But will it hold as the EU referendum approaches?

taffys

''The conservative party is a ruthless, calculating machine. ''

Maybe it is at the moment, but things always go wobbly when any party is out of sorts with the electorate.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. T, interesting comment. I fear your view, though better informed than the vast majority, will sway almost no-one on Blair.

Edited extra bit: views have been largely settled on, I think.

AlastairMeeks

Occasionally politics is incredibly easy. For the Conservatives, this is one of those moments.

logical_song

Financier said:

logical_song said:

SimonStClare said:

Surely this is just basic manners – strikes me as remarkably courteous of the Tories not to attempt to upstage the Labour Leadership contest.

It may be even more courteous to let them choose their leader.
By the way, does the Tory party allow its members and councillors to be members of another party?

It is (presumably) a free country and you can join as many clubs and societies as you wish as long as you pay their fees and do not contravene (publicly) their rules.

That doesn't answer my (genuine) question.
I understand that "Labour Party rules prohibit members from campaigning for other parties or candidates in any elections."
What about the Tories? I'd be surprised if a political party openly condoned membership of a rival party.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-party-expels-members-who-tweeted-support-for-scottish-nationalist-party-during-general-election-10286638.html

taffys

''Occasionally politics is incredibly easy. For the Conservatives, this is one of those moments.''

The first Blair government is perhaps another example...??

Casino_Royale

MTimT said:

FPT @ The_Apocalypse

Just finishing up a chapter for a book being published by Imperial on wmd around the world. Not surprisingly, my chapter is on Iraq's BW programme. I address such issues as why it the programme's success was limited, and why, although the presumption that they had BW did impact the strategy of the coalition in 1991 and again in 2003, it did not (as intended by Saddam) affect in any way the strategic outcomes of either Gulf war or the war with Iran.

Then it's on to a major book on all Iraq's wmd programmes, looking at it from all perspectives - the West's, the inspectors/UN, Iraq's and Russia's. Although Iraq had a strategy for gaming the Security Council's decisions through NAM and China (and later Russia and France), the NAM/China positions were really immaterial to any developments, so we won't really treat that. The book will, inter alia, look at why the entire intelligence community (including Russia, France and Germany, not just the Anglosphere) got it wrong on Iraq. We are helped in making better assessments now as we have access to the Saddam Tapes (like Nixon, he recorded key meetings with his top advisors) and the Duelfer Report (Charlie lead the Iraq Action Group which interviewed all the key Iraqi wmd players in the years after the fall of Baghdad. Alas his efforts were curtailed when his convoy was hit by an IED and several of his protection unit were killed.

In my view, Blair did get ahead of the intelligence. He was doing what politicians do - simplifying things to make better sound bites, and using the arguments most likely to persuade key constituencies to his proposed plan of action, rather than the soundest arguments. He lost me with the 40 minutes claim, but I don't fault him anywhere near as much as his detractors on the rest.

Good for you. Sounds a terrific and historically valuable piece of work you're doing.

I don't need to tell you that what you're up against is that plenty of people have already reached their own conclusions about what happened here, and won't take kindly to any facts or evidence to the contrary.

dr_spyn

blackburn63 said:

The conservative party is a ruthless, calculating machine. To some degree or other labour, libs and ukip are in a state of flux, the tories have no need to say or do anything remotely controversial, better to stay silent and let others mess around.

Frustrating but effective.

1991-2010 it played catch up. For some reason it couldn't adapt quickly enough to deal with Blair's New Labour.

blackburn63

logical_song said:

blackburn63 said:

The conservative party is a ruthless, calculating machine. To some degree or other labour, libs and ukip are in a state of flux, the tories have no need to say or do anything remotely controversial, better to stay silent and let others mess around.

Frustrating but effective.

But will it hold as the EU referendum approaches?

I hope not, the party leadership and grass roots are at odds as you are no doubt aware. But for now they're essentially governing with two fingers up at the rest of us.

Sandpit

SandyRentool said:

It is the union sign-ups and £3 fellow travellers who are the recent additions and predominantly there to back JC.

If we had used the membership register as of GE day to set the electorate for the leadership election, it would have been fairer, and delivered a result reflecting the views of the membership.

That would have made much more sense. The idea that absolutely anyone can vote in the contest was always going to be an issue, especially given that the signup is open until the day before the ballots are posted!

Given the assumption that Labour don't have membership lists for other parties (how would they?) they will struggle to identify the genuine supporters from the opponents. It should be easy to weed out opposition councillors and obviously rightwing journalists (Toby Young, Harry Cole and associated troublemakers) and there may be notes from canvass returns about certain addresses displaying posters from opposing parties etc. - but if they have a couple of hundred thousand applications to trawl through at the last minute...

felix

blackburn63 said:

The conservative party is a ruthless, calculating machine. To some degree or other labour, libs and ukip are in a state of flux, the tories have no need to say or do anything remotely controversial, better to stay silent and let others mess around.

Frustrating but effective.

While the other parties are selfless, honourable and would never exploit their opponents' weaknesses. and you forgot of course - the Conservatives eat babies!

MarqueeMark

blackburn63 said:

The conservative party is a ruthless, calculating machine. To some degree or other labour, libs and ukip are in a state of flux, the tories have no need to say or do anything remotely controversial, better to stay silent and let others mess around.

Frustrating but effective.

I was telling people here for years before the May election that they massively underestimated the desire of Cameron and Osborne - and the wider Party - to stay put and get the job done. They employed the people and spent the money (very effectively I have to say) to make that happen.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Royale, quite agree.

Tissue_Price

antifrank said:

Occasionally politics is incredibly easy. For the Conservatives, this is one of those moments.

The welfare vote went even better than they could have anticipated.

To take up OGH's contention in the header, it does currently look like a misjudgement from Burnham - on the assumption that Corbyn makes the final two, he could (a) beat Burnham in the run-off, or (b) allow Cooper to beat Burnham at the 2nd elimination.

But, should the Corbyn polling be wrong, the Corbyn second preferences [from new entrants into the electorate] might prove decisive in a Burnham-Cooper run-off.

Or Burnham might persuade Corbyn to pull out.

MTimT

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. T, interesting comment. I fear your view, though better informed than the vast majority, will sway almost no-one on Blair.

Edited extra bit: views have been largely settled on, I think.

Mr Dancer. You are right. The sponsor's purpose in having the book written is to counter the incorrectly qualified view, which is gaining currency, that there never were wmd in Iraq. Of course there were, it was that there were none after UNSCOM and IAEA dismantled the programmes that needs to be explained and understood if we are to have better intelligence next time around. In that regard, the Saddam Tapes are priceless, even if actual discussion of wmd is limited, they do give a pretty definitive picture of what Saddam thought about them and the decisions he made. Of course, his decisions were not always implemented, or were not always clearly transmitted all the way down the line - another surprise for that type of regime (which in retrospect should not have been a surprise - all clandestine wmd programmes have suffered the same problems, as constrained communications are vital to secrecy)

dr_spyn

Former Independent Mayoral Candidate found shot in Salford.

http://www.itv.com/news/2015-07-27/man-shot-dead-in-targeted-attack-in-salford/

MarqueeMark

SquareRoot said:

JEO said:

This BBC article lists what Osborne is trying to achieve in EU reform talks:

It includes:
- An opt-out on the core EU aim of "ever closer union"
- The sovereignty of national parliaments to be boosted, so groups of them can block proposed EU legislation
- Safeguard the City of London and other financial centres outside the eurozone
- Curb EU immigration by cutting benefits
- Make the EU more streamlined and competitive

I really do think this has become a very paltry list. I note the word "include", however, so let's hope they are going for something rather more substantive. Cutting benefits for three years for EU immigrants will not make much effect on immigration. Protections for the non-Eurozone need to cover much more than just the financial sector, after the worrying new development of bloc votes for the Eurozone spending EU money. Plus, what happened to repatriations? We've previously heard suggestions about opting out of CAP or the Social Chapter. We really need more opt-outs, if only to set more precedents that we can opt-out from more in future.

The Boy George is doing a fine job.. another one off the dole who will be performing a service to lots of people.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3174922/NHS-boob-job-scrounger-Josie-Cunningham-says-game-George-Osborne-slashed-benefits.html

I think even Jeremy Corbyn is going to struggle to make the argument that somebody should be able to lead a champagne, celebrity lifestyle on benefits..... Poor dear.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. T, down the line, your work may well alter people's perceptions. Hope so, anyway.

Sean_F

TheWhiteRabbit said:

''Support for the death penalty has fallen to below 50% for the first time according to the most recent British Social Attitudes survey:''

Fell below 50% for murderers in general a while ago. But well above that for child/mass/terrorist murderers still.

Possibly the only subject where parliamentary and public opinion have been so divided for so long.

Immigration and the EU are probably others. I doubt if more than 20% of MPs, at most, favour leaving the EU.

blackburn63

felix said:

blackburn63 said:

The conservative party is a ruthless, calculating machine. To some degree or other labour, libs and ukip are in a state of flux, the tories have no need to say or do anything remotely controversial, better to stay silent and let others mess around.

Frustrating but effective.

While the other parties are selfless, honourable and would never exploit their opponents' weaknesses. and you forgot of course - the Conservatives eat babies!

I was making the point with grudging respect, no idea who is responsible but right now thy have few if any dissenters.

Sandpit

SquareRoot said:

JEO said:

This BBC article lists what Osborne is trying to achieve in EU reform talks:

It includes:
- An opt-out on the core EU aim of "ever closer union"
- The sovereignty of national parliaments to be boosted, so groups of them can block proposed EU legislation
- Safeguard the City of London and other financial centres outside the eurozone
- Curb EU immigration by cutting benefits
- Make the EU more streamlined and competitive

I really do think this has become a very paltry list. I note the word "include", however, so let's hope they are going for something rather more substantive. Cutting benefits for three years for EU immigrants will not make much effect on immigration. Protections for the non-Eurozone need to cover much more than just the financial sector, after the worrying new development of bloc votes for the Eurozone spending EU money. Plus, what happened to repatriations? We've previously heard suggestions about opting out of CAP or the Social Chapter. We really need more opt-outs, if only to set more precedents that we can opt-out from more in future.

The Boy George is doing a fine job.. another one off the dole who will be performing a service to lots of people.
l

Am I the only one who think that newspapers need to be very careful how they deal with certain people who may be, let's say, a few cards short of a full deck?

MTimT

off topic. For those betting on the US election, time for a flutter on Biden at the right price?

http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/26/3-reasons-why-joe-biden-will-run-for-president/

blackburn63

MarqueeMark said:

blackburn63 said:

The conservative party is a ruthless, calculating machine. To some degree or other labour, libs and ukip are in a state of flux, the tories have no need to say or do anything remotely controversial, better to stay silent and let others mess around.

Frustrating but effective.

I was telling people here for years before the May election that they massively underestimated the desire of Cameron and Osborne - and the wider Party - to stay put and get the job done. They employed the people and spent the money (very effectively I have to say) to make that happen.

Quite, I witnessed at first hand that they were prepared to go to almost any lengths. Frankly they're making the rest look like amateurs, everything they do and say is calculated and planned. I hope the EU rattles them.

calum

Sandpit said:

SandyRentool said:

It is the union sign-ups and £3 fellow travellers who are the recent additions and predominantly there to back JC.

If we had used the membership register as of GE day to set the electorate for the leadership election, it would have been fairer, and delivered a result reflecting the views of the membership.

That would have made much more sense. The idea that absolutely anyone can vote in the contest was always going to be an issue, especially given that the signup is open until the day before the ballots are posted!

Given the assumption that Labour don't have membership lists for other parties (how would they?) they will struggle to identify the genuine supporters from the opponents. It should be easy to weed out opposition councillors and obviously rightwing journalists (Toby Young, Harry Cole and associated troublemakers) and there may be notes from canvass returns about certain addresses displaying posters from opposing parties etc. - but if they have a couple of hundred thousand applications to trawl through at the last minute...

At the end of the day to have any chance in 2020 Labour does need to win back some of its on holiday with other parties supporters. There's a risk that by weeding out apparent supporters of other parties at GE2015 that Labour end up turning away genuine switchers. I think they also plan to turn down supporter applications from those folks not on the voters roll - thereby excluding many younger voters and those not registered - the very groups which could help them in 2020.

JohnO

SimonStClare said:

logical_song said:

SimonStClare said:

Surely this is just basic manners – strikes me as remarkably courteous of the Tories not to attempt to upstage the Labour Leadership contest.

It may be even more courteous to let them choose their leader.
By the way, does the Tory party allow its members and councillors to be members of another party?

Can’t help I’m afraid, never been a Tory party member - or any other party for that matter.

Absolutely not in allowing membership of other parties.

And all Councillors must be party members.

SandyRentool

I thought that Cooper would get a majority of Corbyn second preferences, as on policy she has been positioning herself a bit to the left of Burnham. However, in our CLP nomination vote (reported on Friday evening's thread), the Corbyn 2nd preferences broke very much for Burnham, and that's how he won. OK, a tiny sample size, but real votes from real party members.

taffys

''I think even Jeremy Corbyn is going to struggle to make the argument that somebody should be able to lead a champagne, celebrity lifestyle on benefits..... Poor dear. ''

Allowing themselves to be de facto on the side of the 'me toos' of the welfare system has been one of the gravest mistakes labour have made.

If they truly stand for the most vulnerable in society should they not be angrier at these people than anybody else?

TheKrakenAwakes

Helped a bit too that Cameron, Osborne and Gove all went on the record and lied about cutting Tax Credits http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02q82yj

Sandpit

calum said:

Sandpit said:

SandyRentool said:

It is the union sign-ups and £3 fellow travellers who are the recent additions and predominantly there to back JC.

If we had used the membership register as of GE day to set the electorate for the leadership election, it would have been fairer, and delivered a result reflecting the views of the membership.

That would have made much more sense. The idea that absolutely anyone can vote in the contest was always going to be an issue, especially given that the signup is open until the day before the ballots are posted!

Given the assumption that Labour don't have membership lists for other parties (how would they?) they will struggle to identify the genuine supporters from the opponents. It should be easy to weed out opposition councillors and obviously rightwing journalists (Toby Young, Harry Cole and associated troublemakers) and there may be notes from canvass returns about certain addresses displaying posters from opposing parties etc. - but if they have a couple of hundred thousand applications to trawl through at the last minute...

At the end of the day to have any chance in 2020 Labour does need to win back some of its on holiday with other parties supporters. There's a risk that by weeding out apparent supporters of other parties at GE2015 that Labour end up turning away genuine switchers. I think they also plan to turn down supporter applications from those folks not on the voters roll - thereby excluding many younger voters and those not registered - the very groups which could help them in 2020.

I don't often agree with you, but you're right there. By throwing the baby out with the bathwater they could end up alienating potential supporters. But it is a mess of their own making, brought about as you know by the shambles that happened in Falkirk.

I did think about signing up to vote but can't be bothered now, as the party is going away from the direction that would appeal to me - towards Corbyn and away from the centre.

TGOHF

antifrank said:

Occasionally politics is incredibly easy. For the Conservatives, this is one of those moments.

Indeed - the Labour party's future looks less promising than Bill Cosby's.

TheKrakenAwakes

"I think even Jeremy Corbyn is going to struggle to make the argument that somebody should be able to lead a champagne, celebrity lifestyle on benefits..... Poor dear.

Not so sure when 3 million families find out next April that they are going to be losing a sizeable chunk out of their family income in tax credit cuts

MTimT

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. T, down the line, your work may well alter people's perceptions. Hope so, anyway.

Let's hope so. There have been a number of very good publications in the last few years on the issue of wmd programmes. Two books have contributed in a big way to understanding such programmes and hence where intelligence and counter-proliferation efforts should focus: Ray Zilinskas' massive tome on the Soviet BW programme and Sonia Ben Ouaghram-Gormley's book comparing clandestine BW programmes (which concentrates on understanding the problems secrecy creates for developing and sharing tacit knowledge in major scientific and engineering projects).

AlastairMeeks

Here's a Labour supporter who is very definitely not happy right now:

http://publicpolicypast.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/how-on-earth-did-labour-sink-so-low.html

Sandpit

Today's DT politics cartoon is on topic and good as always.
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03387/ADAMS20150727_3387990k.jpg

john_zims

@JosiasJessop

'As for mid-Staffs: if Burnham becomes leader, it should hang over him like a curse. He's scum.'


Not just Mid-Staffs but also Hinchingbrooke and not forgetting when he was Undersecretary for Health he privatized the entire NHS logistics.

dr_spyn

Lib Dems report Lord Sewel - can Tim Farron recall John 8:7?

felix

TheKrakenAwakes said:

"I think even Jeremy Corbyn is going to struggle to make the argument that somebody should be able to lead a champagne, celebrity lifestyle on benefits..... Poor dear.

Not so sure when 3 million families find out next April that they are going to be losing a sizeable chunk out of their family income in tax credit cuts



....and do better if they increase their work beyond 16 hours - not forgetting the tax allowance rise - it's all about reducing welfare dependency and rewarding work.

EICIPM

felix said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

"I think even Jeremy Corbyn is going to struggle to make the argument that somebody should be able to lead a champagne, celebrity lifestyle on benefits..... Poor dear.

Not so sure when 3 million families find out next April that they are going to be losing a sizeable chunk out of their family income in tax credit cuts

....and do better if they increase their work beyond 16 hours - not forgetting the tax allowance rise - it's all about reducing welfare dependency and rewarding work.

And the people already working full time?

felix

TheKrakenAwakes said:

"I think even Jeremy Corbyn is going to struggle to make the argument that somebody should be able to lead a champagne, celebrity lifestyle on benefits..... Poor dear.

Not so sure when 3 million families find out next April that they are going to be losing a sizeable chunk out of their family income in tax credit cuts



Also weren't we told something about 3m unemployed and the end of the NHS at the start of the coalition years? All these dire predictions it's astonishing really .... and yet the Conservatives just won an election.

felix

dr_spyn said:

Lib Dems report Lord Sewel - can Tim Farron recall John 8:7?

That'll help the merger negotiations

DavidL

antifrank said:

Here's a Labour supporter who is very definitely not happy right now:

http://publicpolicypast.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/how-on-earth-did-labour-sink-so-low.html

Yet another wail of despair.

The more of this sort of thing I read the more I think a Corbyn led Labour party could genuinely disintegrate.

felix

EICIPM said:

felix said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

"I think even Jeremy Corbyn is going to struggle to make the argument that somebody should be able to lead a champagne, celebrity lifestyle on benefits..... Poor dear.

Not so sure when 3 million families find out next April that they are going to be losing a sizeable chunk out of their family income in tax credit cuts

....and do better if they increase their work beyond 16 hours - not forgetting the tax allowance rise - it's all about reducing welfare dependency and rewarding work.

And the people already working full time?

They get the full benefit of the tax cuts and the increase in free childcare - do keep up

The_Apocalypse

MTimT said:

FPT @ The_Apocalypse

Just finishing up a chapter for a book being published by Imperial on wmd around the world. Not surprisingly, my chapter is on Iraq's BW programme. I address such issues as why it the programme's success was limited, and why, although the presumption that they had BW did impact the strategy of the coalition in 1991 and again in 2003, it did not (as intended by Saddam) affect in any way the strategic outcomes of either Gulf war or the war with Iran.

Then it's on to a major book on all Iraq's wmd programmes, looking at it from all perspectives - the West's, the inspectors/UN, Iraq's and Russia's. Although Iraq had a strategy for gaming the Security Council's decisions through NAM and China (and later Russia and France), the NAM/China positions were really immaterial to any developments, so we won't really treat that. The book will, inter alia, look at why the entire intelligence community (including Russia, France and Germany, not just the Anglosphere) got it wrong on Iraq. We are helped in making better assessments now as we have access to the Saddam Tapes (like Nixon, he recorded key meetings with his top advisors) and the Duelfer Report (Charlie lead the Iraq Action Group which interviewed all the key Iraqi wmd players in the years after the fall of Baghdad. Alas his efforts were curtailed when his convoy was hit by an IED and several of his protection unit were killed.

In my view, Blair did get ahead of the intelligence. He was doing what politicians do - simplifying things to make better sound bites, and using the arguments most likely to persuade key constituencies to his proposed plan of action, rather than the soundest arguments. He lost me with the 40 minutes claim, but I don't fault him anywhere near as much as his detractors on the rest.

Thanks for the response. Good luck with your book!

My own criticism of Blair centred not only on the issue of WMD's but how he handled the actual invasion of Iraq (I formed this view while reading Andrew Rawnsley's The End of the Party).

felix

dr_spyn said:

Lib Dems report Lord Sewel - can Tim Farron recall John 8:7?

Do you mean Farron the 'we're all sinners' when talking about gay marriage? Can't be ..surely not...

TCPoliticalBetting

In looking at the mess that Ed Miliband has left the Labour party in, starting with the Leadership election rules, I shudder at the mess the man would have made if he had become PM. Thankfully we avoided a terrible PM.

Sandpit

felix said:

felix said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

"I think even Jeremy Corbyn is going to struggle to make the argument that somebody should be able to lead a champagne, celebrity lifestyle on benefits..... Poor dear.

Not so sure when 3 million families find out next April that they are going to be losing a sizeable chunk out of their family income in tax credit cuts

....and do better if they increase their work beyond 16 hours - not forgetting the tax allowance rise - it's all about reducing welfare dependency and rewarding work.

It is going to be very interesting to watch how the welfare reforms work out over the next couple of years. It appears that they are well thought through, for example by raising the income tax allowance and using the Universal Credit program to get rid of arbitrary points like the 16 hours a week limit on work hours in order to claim certain other benefits.

There's never a good time for reform like this, and some people will undoubtedly lose out - but structural govt spending is way more than tax receipts and has to come down somehow. Unemployment is low and falling, growth is rising and the hope politically will be that general economic improvement will be able to make up the majority of the withdrawn benefits.

Mortimer

Are people still banging on about the '3m' on who will 'lose out' if they continue to work just 16hrs a week.

Just wow. In what world is it acceptable to heavily subsidise (nay, encourage) such poor work ethic. I frequently work 16hr days....and more to the point, so do a lot of labour voters...Or should I say future Con/Ukip voters

MTimT

This is an excellent article and describes so much of what is wrong with the US approach to policing at the moment, and why we are reading so many cases of death by cop:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-iraq-i-raided-insurgents-in-virginia-the-police-raided-me/2015/07/24/2e114e54-2b02-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html

AlastairMeeks

One of Ed Miliband's most eye-catching policies has been taken up on a local level in Birmingham:

http://thebighoot.co.uk/

I can see three from the window where I'm sitting right now.

felix

Sandpit said:

felix said:

felix said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

"I think even Jeremy Corbyn is going to struggle to make the argument that somebody should be able to lead a champagne, celebrity lifestyle on benefits..... Poor dear.

Not so sure when 3 million families find out next April that they are going to be losing a sizeable chunk out of their family income in tax credit cuts

....and do better if they increase their work beyond 16 hours - not forgetting the tax allowance rise - it's all about reducing welfare dependency and rewarding work.

It is going to be very interesting to watch how the welfare reforms work out over the next couple of years. It appears that they are well thought through, for example by raising the income tax allowance and using the Universal Credit program to get rid of arbitrary points like the 16 hours a week limit on work hours in order to claim certain other benefits.

There's never a good time for reform like this, and some people will undoubtedly lose out - but structural govt spending is way more than tax receipts and has to come down somehow. Unemployment is low and falling, growth is rising and the hope politically is that general economic improvement will be able to make up the majority of the withdrawn benefits.

Absolutely - the faux outrage that spending cuts mean people lose out would be bearable if the left had ever, just once actually supported any cuts of any kind...that was and remains one of their biggest errors of judgement.

MTimT

The_Apocalypse said:

MTimT said:

FPT @ The_Apocalypse

Just finishing up a chapter for a book being published by Imperial on wmd around the world. Not surprisingly, my chapter is on Iraq's BW programme. I address such issues as why it the programme's success was limited, and why, although the presumption that they had BW did impact the strategy of the coalition in 1991 and again in 2003, it did not (as intended by Saddam) affect in any way the strategic outcomes of either Gulf war or the war with Iran.

Then it's on to a major book on all Iraq's wmd programmes, looking at it from all perspectives - the West's, the inspectors/UN, Iraq's and Russia's. Although Iraq had a strategy for gaming the Security Council's decisions through NAM and China (and later Russia and France), the NAM/China positions were really immaterial to any developments, so we won't really treat that. The book will, inter alia, look at why the entire intelligence community (including Russia, France and Germany, not just the Anglosphere) got it wrong on Iraq. We are helped in making better assessments now as we have access to the Saddam Tapes (like Nixon, he recorded key meetings with his top advisors) and the Duelfer Report (Charlie lead the Iraq Action Group which interviewed all the key Iraqi wmd players in the years after the fall of Baghdad. Alas his efforts were curtailed when his convoy was hit by an IED and several of his protection unit were killed.

In my view, Blair did get ahead of the intelligence. He was doing what politicians do - simplifying things to make better sound bites, and using the arguments most likely to persuade key constituencies to his proposed plan of action, rather than the soundest arguments. He lost me with the 40 minutes claim, but I don't fault him anywhere near as much as his detractors on the rest.

Thanks for the response. Good luck with your book!

My own criticism of Blair centred not only on the issue of WMD's but how he handled the actual invasion of Iraq (I formed this view while reading Andrew Rawnsley's The End of the Party).

Thanks. I'll have a look at Rawnsley's book.

calum

I think if Corbyn does win by a narrow margin with the nonbelieving £3ers having potentially made the difference, I wonder if the NEC has the power to declare the result null and void?

Writing off a Labour led by Corbyn could be a mistake, he has plenty of scope for populist policies e.g. he could announce he would cancel all student debt and slash tuition fees paid for by cancelling Trident etc.

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01079/SN01079.pdf

TheKrakenAwakes

felix said:

EICIPM said:

felix said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

"I think even Jeremy Corbyn is going to struggle to make the argument that somebody should be able to lead a champagne, celebrity lifestyle on benefits..... Poor dear.

Not so sure when 3 million families find out next April that they are going to be losing a sizeable chunk out of their family income in tax credit cuts

....and do better if they increase their work beyond 16 hours - not forgetting the tax allowance rise - it's all about reducing welfare dependency and rewarding work.

And the people already working full time?

They get the full benefit of the tax cuts and the increase in free childcare - do keep up

You are so wrong...it's embarassing. Those receiving tax credits are going to be losing up to 79% of everything they earn. A couple earning £32,000 with three kids will lose £1,981 (after income tax reductions).

If that wasn't bad enough for every pound that they work to make up that £1,981 they will lose 79 pence. An effective marginal rate of tax of 79%

. How the hell does that reward work. If you don't believe me here is conformation from the IFS who emailed me this morning

"Your calculation of the effective marginal tax rate is correct: this results from the basic income tax rate of 20% plus the main National Insurance Contribution rate of 12% plus the tax credit taper rate of 48%."

You have no idea what a time-bomb Osborne has planted - next April it will go off.

Plato

Unfortunately, Labour are claiming that they're vetting the applications - so if they give you a ballot and take your money in return - they can't claim retrospectively that you weren't eligible.

calum said:

I think if Corbyn does win by a narrow margin with the nonbelieving £3ers having potentially made the difference, I wonder if the NEC has the power to declare the result null and void?

Writing off a Labour led by Corbyn could be a mistake, he has plenty of scope for populist policies e.g. he could announce he would cancel all student debt and slash tuition fees paid for by cancelling Trident etc.

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01079/SN01079.pdf

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Awakes, could you clarify the 79% tax rate?

Edited extra bit: ahem, sorry, missed it the first time.

Income tax and National Insurance apply to everyone.

Presumably tax credit taper is related to getting less from the state in benefits as more is earned?

Plato

https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/625673514620702720

Sandpit

MTimT said:

This is an excellent article and describes so much of what is wrong with the US approach to policing at the moment, and why we are reading so many cases of death by cop:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-iraq-i-raided-insurgents-in-virginia-the-police-raided-me/2015/07/24/2e114e54-2b02-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html

Very Good. Gen Petraeus had the right attitude. The US police are downright scary and seem to enjoy it a little bit too much.

I feel proud of the British police by comparison, they still patrol and raid pretty much armed only with a baton and the occasional can of Mace.

Tissue_Price

Stephen Bush thinks Corbyn is going to do it, and adds a lovely anecdote:

At one contest there were just 25 ballots: nine for Jeremy Corbyn, eight for Andy Burnham, four for Yvette Cooper, and one simply reading “Fuck Kendall”.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/07/im-more-convinced-ever-jeremy-corbyn-going-win

Danny565

I am now so close to giving Jezza a "fuck it, what's the worst that can happen?" vote.

SimonStClare

Which CLPs are nominating whom?

Jeremy Corbyn (112)
Andy Burnham (101)
Yvette Cooper (87)
Liz Kendall (14)

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/07/which-clps-are-nominating-who-labour-leadership-contest

Sandpit

TheKrakenAwakes said:

You are so wrong...it's embarassing. Those receiving tax credits are going to be losing up to 79% of everything they earn. A couple earning £32,000 with three kids will lose £1,981 (after income tax reductions).

We are paying benefits out to people earning £32,000 a year? What the....!

TheKrakenAwakes

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Awakes, could you clarify the 79% tax rate?

Edited extra bit: ahem, sorry, missed it the first time.

Income tax and National Insurance apply to everyone.

Presumably tax credit taper is related to getting less from the state in benefits as more is earned?

Morris..If the recipient is in receipt of the entitlement in tax credits then for every £100 they earn they will lose £20 in tax, 11% in NIC and 48% loss of tax credits.