If Corbyn stands down, what happens to the Deputy leader - likely to be Tom Watson? He becomes leader, until a new one is elected?
Can you be Deputy and run for the leadership, thus creating a domino election? And does a guaranteed male leader mean a female must get the job anyway?
Labour run by Tom Watson... goody.
I think Beckett did in 1994. It hasn't really arisen since, as Blair stayed on until Brown was elected appointed and Harman doesn't appear to want to be leader.
George Brown as well was the acting leader after Gaitskell died in 1963, and Wilson's main rival in the election itself.
Acting indeed, I doubt he was ever sober enough to do anything such as lead his party
It is astonishing that Brown was considered leadership material (even if the Peru story is untrue), but it does show that division and strange candidates are nothing new in the Labour party!
Well quite. If Anyone But Corbyn was leading the ballot - none of the MPs would be making a noise at all.
Labour's £3 members are just a symptom of the problem. UNITE members and CWU members may be Tories too. They are given free votes to participate. £3 Tories are surely a tiny fraction of a %. Personally, I can't see which is less acceptable a Tory voting for Kendall or a SWPer voting for Corbyn? Or vice versa.
It's a bugger's muddle, but The Wrong Sort of Membership seems to be the complaint as they're not picking ABC so far.
G: - Labour leadership vote: Harriet Harman asks MPs to vet new party members
“Move follows concerns that votes for Jeremy Corbyn from trade unionists as well as bogus rightwing applicants could undermine integrity of party ballot”
I wonder if this anxiety would still apply if Jeremy Corbyn was languishing at the bottom?
The betting has 1) Burnham 40% 2) Corbyn 28% 3) Cooper 27%
but I think it should be
1) Corbyn 45% 2) Cooper 30% 3) Burnham 25%
Something like that.
Round 1 will likely be something like this:
Corbyn 38 Burnham 27 Cooper 25 Kendall 10
Let's assume 20% of each round does not transfer. And let say the remainder of Kendall splits 2:1 to Cooper.
Round 2 will therefore be
Corbyn 39 Cooper 31 Burnham 30
Remembering 20% does not transfer, let's split the Burnham 3:1 in favour of Cooper and we get:
Cooper 52 Corbyn 48
But here's the thing. It's very close in Round 2; and if Burnham beats Cooper, then I think the Cooper votes split only 2:1 in favour of Burnham. Which means Corbyn wins 52:48.
The value - therefore - is on Corbyn and Cooper. And Burnham should be sold.
G: - Labour leadership vote: Harriet Harman asks MPs to vet new party members
“Move follows concerns that votes for Jeremy Corbyn from trade unionists as well as bogus rightwing applicants could undermine integrity of party ballot”
I wonder if this anxiety would still apply if Jeremy Corbyn was languishing at the bottom?
I don’t see how this is going to end well for the Labour party.
If the result is close, and some voters are “excluded” for being "trade unionists" or "bogus right-wingers” or “entryists", then surely this is going to end up in court.
You can’t change the rules half way through the election, and start excluding what appear to be legitimate and legal voters.
Honestly, Mr. Doethur Vs Mr. Wisemann is almost as one-sided as myself versus Mr. Eagles on the matter of Hannibal and Caesar.
Besides, at least your exchanges are good-humoured - I'm more than a little tired of JWiseman's petulance and refusal to engage with the material I am providing, while repeatedly abusing me in what I can only describe as childish terms for not having read it myself (when I have).
Take that last comment on socialist policies that would have been out of place in a Labour manifesto. I provide examples and he immediately says, 'well, they don't count because the circumstances were different.' OF COURSE, they were different. That's why they were not in, er, a Labour manifesto, which was what I was asked for (although interestingly some form of both would likely have been in a Liberal manifesto in 1915 - but I digress). Because they would not have been voted for in Britain, because with a the exception of admittedly a fairly large but geographically concentrated minority the people blah blah
Have a good morning everyone!
Not really goalpost moving. The conditions in the UK had already changed to address the issues that the Spanish and Chileans faced, so the reason that such policies weren't in labour manifestos was because they weren't necessary, not because they would be out of place in social democratic policies full stop. (Note I said wouldn't be out of place, not that they matched labour manifestos word for word) Complete non sequiturs. You also failed to address why exactly a drive towards secularisation is peculiarly socialist as opposed to something that could just as easily happen under an economically rightist government. You called both governments Stalinist, which is patently untrue. You are getting annoyed because you know you are wrong and are resorting to the PB Tory favourite - blind condescension.
I don't know what your specialism is but you clearly know very little about twentieth century third world history, something I do know a lot about. If you call the Spanish Republicans and Allende socialist, you'd have to call the first Portugese Republic, Mossadegh in Iran, Arbenz in Guatemala, Goulart in Brazil, Jagan in Guyana, Correa in Ecuador, Morales in Bolivia, Chavez in Venezuela, and many others, socialist, as they all shared aspects of the first two, and in reality 95% of their policies wouldnt be out of place in an old labour manifesto. If you do call them socialist you'll have to admit your original statement that only four socialist governments had been elected was flat out wrong.
Note that all of the above were either violently overthrown by or saw intense assaults from right wing elites, showing the true lessons of twentieth century democracy - the right hated it.
Honestly, Mr. Doethur Vs Mr. Wisemann is almost as one-sided as myself versus Mr. Eagles on the matter of Hannibal and Caesar.
Mr Wisemann has previously claimed the British government funded the Taliban and that Hezbollah are a minor militia. But what he lacks in historical knowledge he makes up for in extreme rudeness.
The Taliban formed from the Pashtun component of the Mujahadin, who were armed by the UK government. If anything the rest of the Mujahadin were actually even worse than the Taliban, hence why they initially found a good deal of general support when the Mujahadin fell into fratricidal war. A rose by any other name etc.
Hezbollah are a minor regional militia with no influence outside of Lebanon and Syria, who by your admittance have 1000 fighters.
Rudeness = pointing out that PB Tories are almost always wrong.
I'm also amused that Spain was supposedly semi-feudal in the 1930s. That's a remarkable feat seeing that Spain (after the crushing of the Visigoths) never had feudalism: the unique (along with Portugal) nature of its state formation due to the reconquista meant power was always held centrally by the monarchy.
Actually feudalism in various forms occurred in many parts of Spain. Clearly by use of the term 'semi-feudal' I was referring to something not actually feudal but closely related to aspects of the above - a largely agricultural economy with most land ownership concentrated in a very few powerful hands, in this case aggressively supported by a medieval-era unreformed Church.
A lot of assumptions about the state of the leadership race seem to be based on single YouGov poll, it could be the case that Burnham has a decent lead over Cooper in 2nd or that Corbyn isn't that far ahead of the other two. I think Corbyn being ahead is the only thing we can be reasonably sure about.
Despite popular conceptions, the 70's were actually quite a good decade for most Brits, with rising incomes and consumerism, reductions in inequality etc. That is not to say that there weren't a few problems too! At risk of annoying our historians further I can commend Dominc Sandbrooks series on the subject:
I'm also amused that Spain was supposedly semi-feudal in the 1930s. That's a remarkable feat seeing that Spain (after the crushing of the Visigoths) never had feudalism: the unique (along with Portugal) nature of its state formation due to the reconquista meant power was always held centrally by the monarchy.
Actually feudalism in various forms occurred in many parts of Spain. Clearly by use of the term 'semi-feudal' I was referring to something not actually feudal but closely related to aspects of the above - a largely agricultural economy with most land ownership concentrated in a very few powerful hands, in this case aggressively supported by a medieval-era unreformed Church.
There is a case for saying that parts of Spain were actually semi-feudal until the early 80s. Thousands of jornaleros were still working in Andalucia, Extremadura and other parts of the south of Spain for an absolute pittance and at the whim of landlords that owned thousands and thousands of acres of land well after the death of Franco.
I don’t see how this is going to end well for the Labour party.
If the result is close, and some voters are “excluded” for being "trade unionists" or "bogus right-wingers” or “entryists", then surely this is going to end up in court.
You can’t change the rules half way through the election, and start excluding what appear to be legitimate and legal voters.
It’s a bit of a Horlicks I’ll admit, although I believe motivated by best intentions. The rules of the leadership race however were flawed from the outset and appear purpose built to be gamed by vested interests.
For instance, not only do 2.3m pro Corbyn affiliated union members get a vote for free, but Labour also built a front door into the rule book to let them walk in and take it. Seems a little late in the day to complain, just because the token candidate appears to be in with a chance of winning.
Despite popular conceptions, the 70's were actually quite a good decade for most Brits, with rising incomes and consumerism, reductions in inequality etc. That is not to say that there weren't a few problems too! At risk of annoying our historians further I can commend Dominc Sandbrooks series on the subject:
If I was Cameron I'd rather Burnham win than Corbyn. He is a lightweight tainted by failure and devoid of ideas, Corbyn is a crackpot, they never have anything to lose or any fear of failure.
Despite popular conceptions, the 70's were actually quite a good decade for most Brits, with rising incomes and consumerism, reductions in inequality etc. That is not to say that there weren't a few problems too! At risk of annoying our historians further I can commend Dominc Sandbrooks series on the subject:
Indeed. Sandbrook's stuff on the 70s is very interesting. His take on the strikes is also perceptive - they were never about imposing militant socialism, they were much more about wanting to keep up with high rates of inflation, maintain differentials and ensure access to all the new consumer goods that were becoming available. In short, they were aspirational rather than political. That also helps to explain why so many trade unionists ended up voting Tory in the 79 election and during the 80s.
It's hard to reconcile that Sandbrook with the bloke who regularly writes inflammatory right wing essays for the Daily Mail.
I'm also amused that Spain was supposedly semi-feudal in the 1930s. That's a remarkable feat seeing that Spain (after the crushing of the Visigoths) never had feudalism: the unique (along with Portugal) nature of its state formation due to the reconquista meant power was always held centrally by the monarchy.
Are you sure on that, Mr. JEO? I don't claim more than a passing knowledge of the history of Spain and Portugal (at least not before the Peninsula War) but did not Spanish nobleman hold great tracts of land from the crown and rule them as masters under the crown? I rather thought they did.
As for the reconquista deciding the nature of Spanish government, was not the reconquista a process that took many centuries to play out rather than an event? I also thought that Spain did not actually become a united Kingdom until 1496, by which time the reconquista was nearly over (and feudalism in England was already dead).
Perhaps we are working to different definitions here but I would be grateful if you would explain your position a little more as I am genuinely interested.
That sounds a lot like the sort of deliberate signalling by some councils when they got their budgets cuts e.g. We are going to close all public toilets to save £x00,000, but we aren't going to even try to make any saving in x or y department that look like ideal low hanging stuff.
Despite popular conceptions, the 70's were actually quite a good decade for most Brits, with rising incomes and consumerism, reductions in inequality etc. That is not to say that there weren't a few problems too! At risk of annoying our historians further I can commend Dominc Sandbrooks series on the subject:
I loved the 70s. I moved from 6 to 16, fell in love for the first time, enjoyed brilliant music and fantastic gigs, watched telly in colour for the first time, ate my first pizza and kebab, went to football for 25 pence, played loads of sport, was able to walk to school on my own from the age of 8, play out all day, and so on. They were absolutely great times to grow up in. I remember the power cuts and the candles, and vaguely remember the winter of discontent, but it was all happening in the background. Great days.
Despite popular conceptions, the 70's were actually quite a good decade for most Brits, with rising incomes and consumerism, reductions in inequality etc. That is not to say that there weren't a few problems too! At risk of annoying our historians further I can commend Dominc Sandbrooks series on the subject:
A Turkish couple spent their wedding day feeding 4,000 Syrian refugees.
It was the groom's father, Ali Üzümcüoğlu, who originally had the idea to share a bit of wedding joy with those less fortunate.
"I thought that sharing a big delicious dinner with our family and friends was unnecessary, knowing that there are so many people in need living next door. So I came up with this idea and shared it with my son. I’m very happy that he accepted it and they started their new happy journey with such a selfless action."
Bride Esra Polat told i100.co.uk:
"I was shocked when Fethullah first told me about the idea but afterwards I was won over by it. It was such a wonderful experience. I’m happy that we had the opportunity to share our wedding meal with the people who are in real need."
The wedding guests banded together to operate the food trucks and share the banquet with refugee families.
I'm also amused that Spain was supposedly semi-feudal in the 1930s. That's a remarkable feat seeing that Spain (after the crushing of the Visigoths) never had feudalism: the unique (along with Portugal) nature of its state formation due to the reconquista meant power was always held centrally by the monarchy.
Actually feudalism in various forms occurred in many parts of Spain. Clearly by use of the term 'semi-feudal' I was referring to something not actually feudal but closely related to aspects of the above - a largely agricultural economy with most land ownership concentrated in a very few powerful hands, in this case aggressively supported by a medieval-era unreformed Church.
There is a case for saying that parts of Spain were actually semi-feudal until the early 80s. Thousands of jornaleros were still working in Andalucia, Extremadura and other parts of the south of Spain for an absolute pittance and at the whim of landlords that owned thousands and thousands of acres of land well after the death of Franco.
There's a film called Marshland based in that part of the world, as that era was fading, that looks rather superb.
I don’t see how this is going to end well for the Labour party.
If the result is close, and some voters are “excluded” for being "trade unionists" or "bogus right-wingers” or “entryists", then surely this is going to end up in court.
You can’t change the rules half way through the election, and start excluding what appear to be legitimate and legal voters.
It’s a bit of a Horlicks I’ll admit, although I believe motivated by best intentions. The rules of the leadership race however were flawed from the outset and appear purpose built to be gamed by vested interests.
For instance, not only do 2.3m pro Corbyn affiliated union members get a vote for free, but Labour also built a front door into the rule book to let them walk in and take it. Seems a little late in the day to complain, just because the token candidate appears to be in with a chance of winning.
What i don't understand is that MPs were given a lock on the process - not enough nominations then someone doesn't get to stand. Them's the rules. Put in place for a reason. Why on earth did some MPs think it was a good idea to try and get around them by lending nominations? They say it was to allow a full and frank debate. Well, they've certainly got that.
Cammo just loves giving aid, usually to the undeserved. And now £3 million down the drain. Could it be a new way to bung wealth to supporters? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33787201
Cammo just loves giving aid, usually to the undeserved. And now £3 million down the drain. Could it be a new way to bung wealth to supporters? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33787201
To be fair, Kids Company was the darling of many at one point, left and right. Just look at the outraged articles in the Guardian when there was talk that the government wouldn't continue to fund it. There was even defence of known practices that were very dodgy like handing out cash, it only really turned when there was announcement that there was police investigation into child protection issues.
Despite popular conceptions, the 70's were actually quite a good decade for most Brits, with rising incomes and consumerism, reductions in inequality etc. That is not to say that there weren't a few problems too! At risk of annoying our historians further I can commend Dominc Sandbrooks series on the subject:
I loved the 70s. I moved from 6 to 16, fell in love for the first time, enjoyed brilliant music and fantastic gigs, watched telly in colour for the first time, ate my first pizza and kebab, went to football for 25 pence, played loads of sport, was able to walk to school on my own from the age of 8, play out all day, and so on. They were absolutely great times to grow up in. I remember the power cuts and the candles, and vaguely remember the winter of discontent, but it was all happening in the background. Great days.
I loved the 70s too. I had a fantastic time with a great job that I loved and which paid me more beer vouchers than I could spend on my modest pursuits of playing sport, drinking beer and chasing pretty girls (who I could catch surprisingly often). My oppos dad was a wealthy London publican and when we were on leave we had the use of a luxury flat in Wigmore Street and a Triumph Stag garaged under the Portman Hotel. Great days.
Of course the country's economy was going to hell in a handbasket but that was something else.
I'm also amused that Spain was supposedly semi-feudal in the 1930s. That's a remarkable feat seeing that Spain (after the crushing of the Visigoths) never had feudalism: the unique (along with Portugal) nature of its state formation due to the reconquista meant power was always held centrally by the monarchy.
Actually feudalism in various forms occurred in many parts of Spain. Clearly by use of the term 'semi-feudal' I was referring to something not actually feudal but closely related to aspects of the above - a largely agricultural economy with most land ownership concentrated in a very few powerful hands, in this case aggressively supported by a medieval-era unreformed Church.
There is a case for saying that parts of Spain were actually semi-feudal until the early 80s. Thousands of jornaleros were still working in Andalucia, Extremadura and other parts of the south of Spain for an absolute pittance and at the whim of landlords that owned thousands and thousands of acres of land well after the death of Franco.
There's a film called Marshland based in that part of the world, as that era was fading, that looks rather superb.
Spain's transformation is one of the most extraordinary stories of the late 20th century. I first went there in 1978 (to Madrid) and that country is almost entirely unrecognisable today. Back then the drive from the airport to the city centre was through open country - now it is built up just about all the way. I have a little collection of travel books written about the country in the late 60s and early 70s, and they describe a country that is endemically poor, where nothing works and in which many people in the countryside still get about on mules and in horse drawn carts.
Despite popular conceptions, the 70's were actually quite a good decade for most Brits, with rising incomes and consumerism, reductions in inequality etc. That is not to say that there weren't a few problems too! ... snip ...
Revisionist blots out: the three day week, the successful miners' strike, the who rules Britain? election, the record inflation and unemployment following the monetary incontinence of the Barber boom ("dash for growth"), the prices and incomes fiasco, the fraudulent prospectus for EC membership, all culminating in the winter of discontent. But he was young then, so what did it matter?
Honestly, Mr. Doethur Vs Mr. Wisemann is almost as one-sided as myself versus Mr. Eagles on the matter of Hannibal and Caesar.
Mr Wisemann has previously claimed the British government funded the Taliban and that Hezbollah are a minor militia. But what he lacks in historical knowledge he makes up for in extreme rudeness.
Thank you JEO. Even though we've had our run-ins on other matters, I thought I ought to say I appreciate your input.
By the time we get to 2020 - the UK will have likely been through:
- 4/5 years of austerity - a bruising EU ref - higher interest rates - another recession - Tory leadership battle - MSM influence continuing to diminish - an avalanche of historic "establishment" scandals - a house price wobble or full blown crash
I could go on, suffice to say the electorate could be ready for something different !!
Despite popular conceptions, the 70's were actually quite a good decade for most Brits, with rising incomes and consumerism, reductions in inequality etc. That is not to say that there weren't a few problems too! ... snip ...
Revisionist blots out: the three day week, the successful miners' strike, the who rules Britain? election, the record inflation and unemployment following the monetary incontinence of the Barber boom ("dash for growth"), the prices and incomes fiasco, the fraudulent prospectus for EC membership, all culminating in the winter of discontent. But he was young then, so what did it matter?
Despite popular conceptions, the 70's were actually quite a good decade for most Brits, with rising incomes and consumerism, reductions in inequality etc. That is not to say that there weren't a few problems too! ... snip ...
Revisionist blots out: the three day week, the successful miners' strike, the who rules Britain? election, the record inflation and unemployment following the monetary incontinence of the Barber boom ("dash for growth"), the prices and incomes fiasco, the fraudulent prospectus for EC membership, all culminating in the winter of discontent. But he was young then, so what did it matter?
Each decade has its problems! And I do remember the 3 day week etc.
The New Economics Foundation report does show that for many Brits, not just the young, the seventies were pretty good.
And most Brits consider joining the EEC a good thing ;-)
Despite popular conceptions, the 70's were actually quite a good decade for most Brits, with rising incomes and consumerism, reductions in inequality etc. That is not to say that there weren't a few problems too! ... snip ...
Revisionist blots out: the three day week, the successful miners' strike, the who rules Britain? election, the record inflation and unemployment following the monetary incontinence of the Barber boom ("dash for growth"), the prices and incomes fiasco, the fraudulent prospectus for EC membership, all culminating in the winter of discontent. But he was young then, so what did it matter?
If Corbyn stands down, what happens to the Deputy leader - likely to be Tom Watson? He becomes leader, until a new one is elected?
Can you be Deputy and run for the leadership, thus creating a domino election? And does a guaranteed male leader mean a female must get the job anyway?
Labour run by Tom Watson... goody.
I think Beckett did in 1994. It hasn't really arisen since, as Blair stayed on until Brown was elected appointed and Harman doesn't appear to want to be leader.
George Brown as well was the acting leader after Gaitskell died in 1963, and Wilson's main rival in the election itself.
Blair was PM at the time of his resignation. So could not resign before recommending a successor to the Queen. The internal election and temporary leadership of the Labour Party would not have affected his position as PM.
Mr. Jonathan, not really. It's easy shorthand, the same way eras in the past (Golden Age of Imperial Rome, Crisis of the Third Century etc) are dubbed.
At university, one of the most interesting things I read about was theories of racism. One suggested it was basically a processing short-cut, whereby we have a detailed, unique set of opinions about someone we know well, but form a basic, crude opinion of groups (the French, people of varying ethnicity, etc).
There was also a Marxist view, that it was derived from power inequality, and, lacking the ability to kick those at the top, those who feel inferior kick the vulnerable (a minority). Well, I think that was the theory, it's a while since I read it.
Despite popular conceptions, the 70's were actually quite a good decade for most Brits, with rising incomes and consumerism, reductions in inequality etc. That is not to say that there weren't a few problems too! ... snip ...
Revisionist blots out: the three day week, the successful miners' strike, the who rules Britain? election, the record inflation and unemployment following the monetary incontinence of the Barber boom ("dash for growth"), the prices and incomes fiasco, the fraudulent prospectus for EC membership, all culminating in the winter of discontent. But he was young then, so what did it matter?
Each decade has its problems! And I do remember the 3 day week etc.
The New Economics Foundation report does show that for many Brits, not just the young, the seventies were pretty good.
And most Brits consider joining the EEC a good thing ;-)
There is no doubt the 70s saw living standards improve dramatically.
Despite popular conceptions, the 70's were actually quite a good decade for most Brits, with rising incomes and consumerism, reductions in inequality etc. That is not to say that there weren't a few problems too! At risk of annoying our historians further I can commend Dominc Sandbrooks series on the subject:
Depressing to see David Herdson et al on here discussing the prospects for the 2030 election, while others are discussing how good the 70s were. The tempus is fugiting again.
Despite popular conceptions, the 70's were actually quite a good decade for most Brits, with rising incomes and consumerism, reductions in inequality etc. That is not to say that there weren't a few problems too! ... snip ...
Revisionist blots out: the three day week, the successful miners' strike, the who rules Britain? election, the record inflation and unemployment following the monetary incontinence of the Barber boom ("dash for growth"), the prices and incomes fiasco, the fraudulent prospectus for EC membership, all culminating in the winter of discontent. But he was young then, so what did it matter?
Each decade has its problems! And I do remember the 3 day week etc.
The New Economics Foundation report does show that for many Brits, not just the young, the seventies were pretty good.
I think that's a fair comment. Of course, the other classic example is the 1930s. The Left remembers the 2-3 million unemployed, the Jarrow march, the collapse of shipbuilding, the failure to fully rearm, the timidity of the Snowden budgets. The right point to rapid growth in new industries in the south (particularly radios, cars and electricity) the growth in wages in a time of low inflation, and the fact that more houses were built in the 1930s than in any other decade of the 20th century (astonishingly, including the 1950s when many bomb-damaged cities were still being rebuilt).
It largely depends on where you were and what you were doing as to how you experienced each decade. The 1960s were a pretty good time in the West Midlands, a desperate one in Newcastle. The 1980s were happy days in much of London, not so much fun in the Welsh Valleys. Similarly, I imagine anyone living in Aberdeen would remember the 1970s as a time of great prosperity on the back of the oil boom (although I don't know exactly how or when it affected Aberdeen directly) while somebody in Oxford would remember the three day week more clearly.
Because Britain's always had quite a diverse economy, it makes it quite hard to generalise about its performance and the social trends that go with it (although this has not of course stopped people trying). If we were talking about say, Botswana, with its heavy emphasis on one key commodity, it would be easier.
Overall the 70s were bad for the country. Strikes, power cuts, inflation, the failures of the England football team from 71 onwards.... A once great nation reduced to an IMF loan under (as usual) a Labour government. Dead unburied, rubbish not collected. Romance and music were the only good things.
I'm also amused that Spain was supposedly semi-feudal in the 1930s. That's a remarkable feat seeing that Spain (after the crushing of the Visigoths) never had feudalism: the unique (along with Portugal) nature of its state formation due to the reconquista meant power was always held centrally by the monarchy.
Actually feudalism in various forms occurred in many parts of Spain. Clearly by use of the term 'semi-feudal' I was referring to something not actually feudal but closely related to aspects of the above - a largely agricultural economy with most land ownership concentrated in a very few powerful hands, in this case aggressively supported by a medieval-era unreformed Church.
There is a case for saying that parts of Spain were actually semi-feudal until the early 80s. Thousands of jornaleros were still working in Andalucia, Extremadura and other parts of the south of Spain for an absolute pittance and at the whim of landlords that owned thousands and thousands of acres of land well after the death of Franco.
There's a film called Marshland based in that part of the world, as that era was fading, that looks rather superb.
Spain's transformation is one of the most extraordinary stories of the late 20th century. I first went there in 1978 (to Madrid) and that country is almost entirely unrecognisable today. Back then the drive from the airport to the city centre was through open country - now it is built up just about all the way. I have a little collection of travel books written about the country in the late 60s and early 70s, and they describe a country that is endemically poor, where nothing works and in which many people in the countryside still get about on mules and in horse drawn carts.
Who would have thought that 40 years later:
- Spain would be the second largest maker of cars in Europe, making 50% more per year than the French, Italians or Brits - Spain would have two world leading tech companies (Amadeus, which does backends the entire airline industry, and Indra, which is number one in air traffic software) - Spain would be home to the biggest clothing retailer in the world - Spanish banks and telecoms companies would dominate South America, and would have great positions in the UK and other places
I'm also amused that Spain was supposedly semi-feudal in the 1930s. That's a remarkable feat seeing that Spain (after the crushing of the Visigoths) never had feudalism: the unique (along with Portugal) nature of its state formation due to the reconquista meant power was always held centrally by the monarchy.
Actually feudalism in various forms occurred in many parts of Spain. Clearly by use of the term 'semi-feudal' I was referring to something not actually feudal but closely related to aspects of the above - a largely agricultural economy with most land ownership concentrated in a very few powerful hands, in this case aggressively supported by a medieval-era unreformed Church.
There is a case for saying that parts of Spain were actually semi-feudal until the early 80s. Thousands of jornaleros were still working in Andalucia, Extremadura and other parts of the south of Spain for an absolute pittance and at the whim of landlords that owned thousands and thousands of acres of land well after the death of Franco.
There's a film called Marshland based in that part of the world, as that era was fading, that looks rather superb.
Spain's transformation is one of the most extraordinary stories of the late 20th century. I first went there in 1978 (to Madrid) and that country is almost entirely unrecognisable today. Back then the drive from the airport to the city centre was through open country - now it is built up just about all the way. I have a little collection of travel books written about the country in the late 60s and early 70s, and they describe a country that is endemically poor, where nothing works and in which many people in the countryside still get about on mules and in horse drawn carts.
Who would have thought that 40 years later:
- Spain would be the second largest maker of cars in Europe, making 50% more per year than the French, Italians or Brits - Spain would have two world leading tech companies (Amadeus, which does backends the entire airline industry, and Indra, which is number one in air traffic software) - Spain would be home to the biggest clothing retailer in the world - Spanish banks and telecoms companies would dominate South America, and would have great positions in the UK and other places
You should also check out Fractus, based in Barcelona.
Depressing to see David Herdson et al on here discussing the prospects for the 2030 election, while others are discussing how good the 70s were. The tempus is fugiting again.
Sorry, you're wrong there, Burning. Tempus has stood stock still for many of our esteemed contributors.
Despite popular conceptions, the 70's were actually quite a good decade for most Brits, with rising incomes and consumerism, reductions in inequality etc. That is not to say that there weren't a few problems too! ... snip ...
Revisionist blots out: the three day week, the successful miners' strike, the who rules Britain? election, the record inflation and unemployment following the monetary incontinence of the Barber boom ("dash for growth"), the prices and incomes fiasco, the fraudulent prospectus for EC membership, all culminating in the winter of discontent. But he was young then, so what did it matter?
It cured me of socialism by 1979. The country was in a terrible state and at times became almost ungovernable. Looking back sunny Jim Callaghan had served up his just desserts when the unions destroyed his chances at GE1979. A suitable "reward" for Callaghan undermining Barbara Castle's big attempt to reform the unions some years earlier.
Despite popular conceptions, the 70's were actually quite a good decade for most Brits, with rising incomes and consumerism, reductions in inequality etc. That is not to say that there weren't a few problems too! ... snip ...
Revisionist blots out: the three day week, the successful miners' strike, the who rules Britain? election, the record inflation and unemployment following the monetary incontinence of the Barber boom ("dash for growth"), the prices and incomes fiasco, the fraudulent prospectus for EC membership, all culminating in the winter of discontent. But he was young then, so what did it matter?
It cured me of socialism by 1979. The country was in a terrible state and at times became almost ungovernable. Looking back sunny Jim Callaghan had served up his just desserts when the unions destroyed his chances at GE1979. A suitable "reward" for Callaghan undermining Barbara Castle's big attempt to reform the unions some years earlier.
And I agree that individuals perceptions of decades does vary. My dad was working in Manchester and London and his description of the Sixties was "a very depressing time, everyone was fed up and trying to emigrate"
By the time we get to 2020 - the UK will have likely been through: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I could go on, suffice to say the electorate could be ready for something different !!
You omitted a major SNP scandal in their 3rd term.
I'm also amused that Spain was supposedly semi-feudal in the 1930s. That's a remarkable feat seeing that Spain (after the crushing of the Visigoths) never had feudalism: the unique (along with Portugal) nature of its state formation due to the reconquista meant power was always held centrally by the monarchy.
Actually feudalism in various forms occurred in many parts of Spain. Clearly by use of the term 'semi-feudal' I was referring to something not actually feudal but closely related to aspects of the above - a largely agricultural economy with most land ownership concentrated in a very few powerful hands, in this case aggressively supported by a medieval-era unreformed Church.
There's a film called Marshland based in that part of the world, as that era was fading, that looks rather superb.
Spain's transformation is one of the most extraordinary stories of the late 20th century. I first went there in 1978 (to Madrid) and that country is almost entirely unrecognisable today. Back then the drive from the airport to the city centre was through open country - now it is built up just about all the way. I have a little collection of travel books written about the country in the late 60s and early 70s, and they describe a country that is endemically poor, where nothing works and in which many people in the countryside still get about on mules and in horse drawn carts.
Who would have thought that 40 years later:
- Spain would be the second largest maker of cars in Europe, making 50% more per year than the French, Italians or Brits - Spain would have two world leading tech companies (Amadeus, which does backends the entire airline industry, and Indra, which is number one in air traffic software) - Spain would be home to the biggest clothing retailer in the world - Spanish banks and telecoms companies would dominate South America, and would have great positions in the UK and other places
You should also check out Fractus, based in Barcelona.
I miss the old Spain very much, but I doubt many Spaniards do.
Even by the 1970s, Spain had modernised to a considerable extent. Areas like Catalonia, Asturia, Navarre, and the Levante had long been economically advanced, and the economy grew at a tremendous pace after the mid 1950s. Andalusia remained very backward.
I don’t see how this is going to end well for the Labour party.
If the result is close, and some voters are “excluded” for being "trade unionists" or "bogus right-wingers” or “entryists", then surely this is going to end up in court.
You can’t change the rules half way through the election, and start excluding what appear to be legitimate and legal voters.
It’s a bit of a Horlicks I’ll admit, although I believe motivated by best intentions. The rules of the leadership race however were flawed from the outset and appear purpose built to be gamed by vested interests.
For instance, not only do 2.3m pro Corbyn affiliated union members get a vote for free, but Labour also built a front door into the rule book to let them walk in and take it. Seems a little late in the day to complain, just because the token candidate appears to be in with a chance of winning.
What i don't understand is that MPs were given a lock on the process - not enough nominations then someone doesn't get to stand. Them's the rules. Put in place for a reason. Why on earth did some MPs think it was a good idea to try and get around them by lending nominations? They say it was to allow a full and frank debate. Well, they've certainly got that.
The MPs decided that a broader debate was more important than requiring all leadership contenders have significant levels of parliamentary support. As you say, the rules were made to ensure the latter, but apparently enough MPs either disagreed with those rules or just changed their minds on what was more important to include. I don't recall any Lab Mps being brave enough to argue at the time that the whole point of the process was to screen candidates to present to the public (in the same way the Tory rules allow anyone to get on the ballot, essentially, but the public only get a say once MPs have screened them via narrowing down to the final two), and that is definitely on their heads if they are now regretting the flouting of that rule.
The move to Burnham in the markets doesn't make sense to me. There's a strong chance he'll finish third / be eliminated second.
Now, it may well be true that if it's a Corbyn-Cooper fight, then Corbyn is likely to do better in transfers from Burnham than he would if it's a Corbyn-Burnham battle with a redistribution from Cooper - but the effect is probably marginal: the bearded one won't get much either way.
So in terms of winning overall, there's probably very little in it between Cooper and Burnham. As I think that Corbyn is still underpriced anyway, the best bet now is therefore to lay Burnham.
Logically, if you were a Cooper or a Burnham supporter and you wanted your candidate to have the chance of another bite of the cherry in the future, you would have Corbyn as your second preference i.e if Corbyn wins, there is a good chance he does not last until 2020, whereas if one of Cooper / Burnham wins, it is likely the winner will be there for the next GE.
I know there are arguments about whether Labour would survive until a JC leadership, but if I was a diehard YC/AB fan, then a JC win is better for my candidate's long-term prospects than the other one winning.
I do not think that we will have any of the defeated candidates run again, not even LK who has rather been wrongfooted by Corbynmania.
Corbyn has grown on me quite a bit, and I can see that if he doesn't win then he will be very close. Benn was narrowly defeated by Healey in the early eighties deputy contest, but it just seemed to make the Bennites stronger.
The Falklands was out of the blue and a gamechanger. Until then Maggie looked completely out of her depth. It was very depressing watching the news in 81-82 with each day another round of factory closures and redundancies. It was a major harrowing of the North, and in large part a direct result of Maggies high interest rates and overvalued pound.
How old were you when you were watching this news? You need to get things into contect and realise how bad things had got, Union power was strangling the economy, over manning in non jobs was commonplace, in the end bodies were not being buried and rubbish stacked several metres high
Maggie did the right thing.
I was in my late teens. The crisis of 79 was bad, but in many ways Maggie in 81-82 was making things worse.
Tackling the Unions did not require the high interest rates that decimated British manufacturing industry.
Despite popular conceptions, the 70's were actually quite a good decade for most Brits, with rising incomes and consumerism, reductions in inequality etc. That is not to say that there weren't a few problems too! At risk of annoying our historians further I can commend Dominc Sandbrooks series on the subject:
I loved the 70s. I moved from 6 to 16, fell in love for the first time, enjoyed brilliant music and fantastic gigs, watched telly in colour for the first time, ate my first pizza and kebab, went to football for 25 pence, played loads of sport, was able to walk to school on my own from the age of 8, play out all day, and so on. They were absolutely great times to grow up in. I remember the power cuts and the candles, and vaguely remember the winter of discontent, but it was all happening in the background. Great days.
I loved the 70s too. I had a fantastic time with a great job that I loved and which paid me more beer vouchers than I could spend on my modest pursuits of playing sport, drinking beer and chasing pretty girls (who I could catch surprisingly often). My oppos dad was a wealthy London publican and when we were on leave we had the use of a luxury flat in Wigmore Street and a Triumph Stag garaged under the Portman Hotel. Great days.
Of course the country's economy was going to hell in a handbasket but that was something else.
I sometimes wonder if for similar reasons in part I was mostly forgiving to the government during the last parliament, even when the economy was not doing well - I started my first full time job at the beginning of the parliament, and through changes along the way am doing better now than I ever have done. I don't put that down to this government doing things to help me, specfically, but if my situation were less positive I surely would be more inclined to be critical (even though it is perfectly true that many people are able to personally do well and still be criticial, or do poorly and still support the government).
I'm also amused that Spain was supposedly semi-feudal in the 1930s. That's a remarkable feat seeing that Spain (after the crushing of the Visigoths) never had feudalism: the unique (along with Portugal) nature of its state formation due to the reconquista meant power was always held centrally by the monarchy.
Actually feudalism in various forms occurred in many parts of Spain. Clearly by use of the term 'semi-feudal' I was referring to something not actually feudal but closely related to aspects of the above - a largely agricultural economy with most land ownership concentrated in a very few powerful hands, in this case aggressively supported by a medieval-era unreformed Church.
There's a film called Marshland based in that part of the world, as that era was fading, that looks rather superb.
Spain's transformation is one of the most extraordinary stories of the late 20th century. I first went there in 1978 (to Madrid) and that country is almost entirely unrecognisable today. Back then the drive from the airport to the city centre was through open country - now it is built up just about all the way. I have a little collection of travel books written about the country in the late 60s and early 70s, and they describe a country that is endemically poor, where nothing works and in which many people in the countryside still get about on mules and in horse drawn carts.
Who would have thought that 40 years later:
- Spain would be the second largest maker of cars in Europe, making 50% more per year than the French, Italians or Brits - Spain would have two world leading tech companies (Amadeus, which does backends the entire airline industry, and Indra, which is number one in air traffic software) - Spain would be home to the biggest clothing retailer in the world - Spanish banks and telecoms companies would dominate South America, and would have great positions in the UK and other places
You should also check out Fractus, based in Barcelona.
I miss the old Spain very much, but I doubt many Spaniards do.
Even by the 1970s, Spain had modernised to a considerable extent. Areas like Catalonia, Asturia, Navarre, and the Levante had long been economically advanced, and the economy grew at a tremendous pace after the mid 1950s. Andalusia remained very backward.
Yep, I remember the cardboard & corrugated iron townships around Madrid and Barcelona full of immigrants from other parts of Spain looking for the promised land.
I'm also amused that Spain was supposedly semi-feudal in the 1930s. That's a remarkable feat seeing that Spain (after the crushing of the Visigoths) never had feudalism: the unique (along with Portugal) nature of its state formation due to the reconquista meant power was always held centrally by the monarchy.
Are you sure on that, Mr. JEO? I don't claim more than a passing knowledge of the history of Spain and Portugal (at least not before the Peninsula War) but did not Spanish nobleman hold great tracts of land from the crown and rule them as masters under the crown? I rather thought they did.
As for the reconquista deciding the nature of Spanish government, was not the reconquista a process that took many centuries to play out rather than an event? I also thought that Spain did not actually become a united Kingdom until 1496, by which time the reconquista was nearly over (and feudalism in England was already dead).
Perhaps we are working to different definitions here but I would be grateful if you would explain your position a little more as I am genuinely interested.
It is definitional. If you define feudalism as meaning a society in which rich landowners exercise widespread economic and political power, then that would be true of Southern Spain till fairly recently, as well as places like Sicily, Southern Italy, pre-war Eastern Germany, even parts of the UK pre-war.
If you define it as being a society in which overlords and vassals exchanged oaths of homage and protection, then that was long gone.
@isam: I saw your response to me last night. Thank you. For reasons best known to itself my iPad won't let me login to PB. .
Do you attempt to log in to standard politicalbetting.com, or the politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com? I was unable to log on via my iPad with the former, but can for the latter
"There was also a Marxist view, that it was derived from power inequality,"
I remember that. One Irish Marxist complaining that Ulster would never be communist while "tuppence halfpenny looked down on tuppence".
There's a lot of evidence that scientific theories outlive their usefulness because scientists become wedded to it, and look, not for evidence that they're wrong, but for evidence that the alternative is wrong. Marxism, although not even scientific, has survived for that very reason.
Racism surely is derived from "different folks, different strokes" but what do I know?
@IsabelHardman: Kids Company reportedly closing tonight - here’s the leaked cache of emails about how it spent its extra govt money http://t.co/yLmYAkdpbK
The sudden closure of the Kids Company is rather symptomatic of charities that rely on volunteers but use funds to pay their professionals very well. However, Letwin and Hancock could have spoiled any reputations they have left.
The sudden closure of the Kids Company is rather symptomatic of charities that rely on volunteers but use funds to pay their professionals very well. However, Letwin and Hancock could have spoiled any reputations they have left.
I've yet to get into the details of this. But I'm wondering why ministers are involved at all in the details of an individual charity?
Some very hard-headed financiers were looking at the Kids Company recently to see if it could be saved. They turned away because of what they saw. I'm surprised that nonetheless Ministers gave a direction for the money to be paid. By that stage there were red flags all over the place.
There has already been some talk that the founder has not been entirely accurate about her qualifications. I suspect more will come out in due course and that we will find that this is what happens when people get blinded by a charismatic individual, good at making friends and telling a nice story to journalists but with nothing really behind the curtain. One telling detail: whenever journalists tried to speak to any of the children actually helped by this charity, they never could but were always directed to the founder. That should have been a red flag in itself. The F word (not that one) is what came to mind when I first heard what was going on.
(Now, if we could only link it to Mr Heath - there must be a police force somewhere that could investigate - we could have another enjoyable rerun of yesterday!!)
I sometimes wonder if for similar reasons in part I was mostly forgiving to the government during the last parliament, even when the economy was not doing well - I started my first full time job at the beginning of the parliament, and through changes along the way am doing better now than I ever have done. I don't put that down to this government doing things to help me, specfically, but if my situation were less positive I surely would be more inclined to be critical (even though it is perfectly true that many people are able to personally do well and still be criticial, or do poorly and still support the government).
A curious fact about recessions is that many people are doing better at the end than before: plenty of people bag a promotion or a pay rise, move on to a better job, or even find their first job after a spell of unemployment. The flip side is that those who do worse tend do much worse, e.g. losing a job, having to radically change their lifestyle to fit their new circumstances, and never being able to get back into that career. On average, during a bust, people do worse; on average, during a boom, people do better. But there are still folks whose business goes belly-up or whose career stumbles during the good times. The number of "winners" and "losers" during any period is actually quite finely balanced, and exhibits regional variation (as someone said downthread).
A Turkish couple spent their wedding day feeding 4,000 Syrian refugees.
It was the groom's father, Ali Üzümcüoğlu, who originally had the idea to share a bit of wedding joy with those less fortunate.
"I thought that sharing a big delicious dinner with our family and friends was unnecessary, knowing that there are so many people in need living next door. So I came up with this idea and shared it with my son. I’m very happy that he accepted it and they started their new happy journey with such a selfless action."
Bride Esra Polat told i100.co.uk:
"I was shocked when Fethullah first told me about the idea but afterwards I was won over by it. It was such a wonderful experience. I’m happy that we had the opportunity to share our wedding meal with the people who are in real need."
The wedding guests banded together to operate the food trucks and share the banquet with refugee families.
@IsabelHardman: Kids Company reportedly closing tonight - here’s the leaked cache of emails about how it spent its extra govt money http://t.co/yLmYAkdpbK
The sudden closure of the Kids Company is rather symptomatic of charities that rely on volunteers but use funds to pay their professionals very well. However, Letwin and Hancock could have spoiled any reputations they have left.
The sudden closure of the Kids Company is rather symptomatic of charities that rely on volunteers but use funds to pay their professionals very well. However, Letwin and Hancock could have spoiled any reputations they have left.
I've yet to get into the details of this. But I'm wondering why ministers are involved at all in the details of an individual charity?
Some very hard-headed financiers were looking at the Kids Company recently to see if it could be saved. They turned away because of what they saw. I'm surprised that nonetheless Ministers gave a direction for the money to be paid. By that stage there were red flags all over the place.
There has already been some talk that the founder has not been entirely accurate about her qualifications. I suspect more will come out in due course and that we will find that this is what happens when people get blinded by a charismatic individual, good at making friends and telling a nice story to journalists but with nothing really behind the curtain. One telling detail: whenever journalists tried to speak to any of the children actually helped by this charity, they never could but were always directed to the founder. That should have been a red flag in itself. The F word (not that one) is what came to mind when I first heard what was going on.
(Now, if we could only link it to Mr Heath - there must be a police force somewhere that could investigate - we could have another enjoyable rerun of yesterday!!)
Mr. K, whilst Evans is a good candidate for UKIP, I'd be flabbergasted were she actually to win.
I'd rate her chances at better than 50-1 though.
You're normally more hard-headed than that, Sean. If she was running for Mayor of Havering, then "better than 50-1" would be reasonable. For Mayor of all of London? Admittedly she wouldn't need to carry every borough, but she would need a decent performance in at least half of them and I can't see where that could come from even in the most optimistic outlook. Perhaps you know something I don't. (As MD, I think she would be a good candidate in the wrong race.)
Mr. CD13, aye, science has always been influenced by politics.
Hence capitalist countries viewing the brain as neat little compartments each doing their own job, and communist countries viewing the brain as a collection of identical cells all doing work equally (the truth is actually in between, with areas specialising but also a great degree of plasticity).
That's one of the reasons I've been so dubious of man-made global warming as a theory. That, and it's religious a priori 'reasoning'. Predictions get proved false, hockey stick gets shown to be nonsense, doubt is cast over impartiality of 'evidence', but none of it shakes the faith of true believers.
That Mirror article is from 2013. It just mentions "Research by economists" not saying who, but if it is the whippersnappers at the New Economics Foundation they fail on the economics. The Mirror's happy recollections about Mick Jagger etc may be enjoyable for their readership, but that is all. I was analysing and forecasting the UK economy at the OECD at the time, and I can assure you that we were seen as a basket case by other countries.
@isam: I saw your response to me last night. Thank you. For reasons best known to itself my iPad won't let me login to PB. .
Do you attempt to log in to standard politicalbetting.com, or the politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com? I was unable to log on via my iPad with the former, but can for the latter
Yes I do. I will try that. Thank you. The funny thing is that I've managed it before but then it stopped working.
On topic, if we're flying blind, logically we should lay the favourite.
Personally I think we can discount Liz Kendall, so you could as an alternative back Jeremy Corbyn and Yvette Cooper. Which, not by coincidence, is what I have done.
Am I right to think a dual forecast is any order, and a straight forecast in the order given?
Straight forecast is in the order specified. Reverse forecast is in either order. Dual forecast was a Tote bet in either order but iirc was scrapped and replaced by the Tote exacta. Tote exacta is in the order specified.
Am I right to think a dual forecast is any order, and a straight forecast in the order given?
Straight forecast is in the order specified. Reverse forecast is in either order. Dual forecast was a Tote bet in either order but iirc was scrapped and replaced by the Tote exacta. Tote exacta is in the order specified.
I only say because Ladbrokes will give me a "dual forecast" on the Premier League - at shorter odds than their straight forecast, which would make sense...
Tim Worstall loathes, absolutely loathes, Richard Murphy from whom Corbyn gets some of his economic/tax advice. Murphy is another character with limited knowledge and experience who is always popping up on the TV and radio as some sort of self-proclaimed expert but who largely talks fluent rubbish.
Am I right to think a dual forecast is any order, and a straight forecast in the order given?
Straight forecast is in the order specified. Reverse forecast is in either order. Dual forecast was a Tote bet in either order but iirc was scrapped and replaced by the Tote exacta. Tote exacta is in the order specified.
I only say because Ladbrokes will give me a "dual forecast" on the Premier League - at shorter odds than their straight forecast, which would make sense...
Yes, dual forecast = forecast in either order.
It's similar to a reverse forecast except that it's one bet at one price (whereas a £5 reverse forecast is actually 2 x £5 bets, struck/settled at different prices).
If I were Ukip, I'd make Suzanne leader and get Nigel Farage to stand for Mayor - on the basis they need a pointless sacrifice and he's used to losing.
I'm a big fan of Suzanne Evans but Ukip should be 1000/1 to win the Mayor of London, we have no chance. However she'll get great publicity which will stand Ukip in good stead in future elections elsewhere.
That Mirror article is from 2013. It just mentions "Research by economists" not saying who, but if it is the whippersnappers at the New Economics Foundation they fail on the economics. The Mirror's happy recollections about Mick Jagger etc may be enjoyable for their readership, but that is all. I was analysing and forecasting the UK economy at the OECD at the time, and I can assure you that we were seen as a basket case by other countries.
The pdf is the first one when you search for mdp on their website, not sure that this link works:
That Mirror article is from 2013. It just mentions "Research by economists" not saying who, but if it is the whippersnappers at the New Economics Foundation they fail on the economics. The Mirror's happy recollections about Mick Jagger etc may be enjoyable for their readership, but that is all. I was analysing and forecasting the UK economy at the OECD at the time, and I can assure you that we were seen as a basket case by other countries.
I think one of Vince Cable's spads said of nef that they were "Not economics, frankly".
I had some professional dealings with a neffer. Typical think-tank wonk with a PhD in political science, the writing style of a sociologist, and no attempt to hide his political bias (or affiliation, to use a more neutral term, though in the sense that it spewed over into his opinions and moreover his personal and professional objectives, then "bias" is fair enough) to "The Left".
"You can prove anything with statistics", and that's exactly what he wanted to do, though only for a convenient type of "anything". He wasn't the guy responsible for it, but he reminded me of nef's famous report that "redefined the notion of 'value-added'" so that they could prove street cleaners had a higher "value-added" that financial workers.
Britain's intractable issues with productivity could clearly all be sold by arming the ne'er-do-wells in the City of London with a set of brooms, and get them to apply their MBAs and PhDs to the issue of chewing gum on the pavement.
Incidentally the neffer of my acquaintance was fairly proud that he didn't know anything about economics, though you might think from his think tank's name that this didn't sound quite right. Economics is basically wrong, apparently, so it didn't matter if you didn't know "conventional" economics. They could just make up some new economics instead. Ho hum, but not sure why they expected the Treasury or Bank of England or the serious custodians of economic and financial levers to pay any attention to them.
If I were Ukip, I'd make Suzanne leader and get Nigel Farage to stand for Mayor - on the basis they need a pointless sacrifice and he's used to losing.
Well, they did try the first part...it just didn't quite work.
The Kids Company decision would have been a very difficult one to take. Clearly they had little to no internal audit or management systems which controlled the money. Equally clearly they do help a lot of extremely deprived kids who would suffer greatly if their support was withdrawn overnight without any transitional provision.
In these circumstances I can well understand why Civil Servants felt obligated to give the advice that they did and I can equally understand why Ministers decided that a grant to facilitate restructuring was worth the risk.
It is a good example of a more general problem. We don't like our Charities to be professionalised with well paid managers soaking up a lot of the funds we feel should be going to the front line. On the other hand Charities that are so beholden to the public purse have to account for how the money is spent and to operate performance indicators that show the taxpayer is getting value for money. It's a conundrum.
Mr. K, whilst Evans is a good candidate for UKIP, I'd be flabbergasted were she actually to win.
I'd rate her chances at better than 50-1 though.
It's an AV vote, so UKIP has to be in the first two. It also has to be transfer friendly from the third, fourth and fifth placed parties.
UKIP is transfer unfriendly from LibDems, and Green. It is transfer friendly from Conservatives.
Therefore you need to have Suzanne Evans outpolling the Conservatives to get into the last two, otherwise UKIP is without a chance.
I'd need 125-1, to put money on. And am happy to take bets at 65-1.
Pedant Alert - but technically it isn't AV, it's SV - which means that not only does UKIP need to be in the top 2, but also people that are transferring to you need to guess that you will be...
Mr. K, whilst Evans is a good candidate for UKIP, I'd be flabbergasted were she actually to win.
I'd rate her chances at better than 50-1 though.
It's an AV vote, so UKIP has to be in the first two. It also has to be transfer friendly from the third, fourth and fifth placed parties.
UKIP is transfer unfriendly from LibDems, and Green. It is transfer friendly from Conservatives.
Therefore you need to have Suzanne Evans outpolling the Conservatives to get into the last two, otherwise UKIP is without a chance.
I'd need 125-1, to put money on. And am happy to take bets at 65-1.
Pedant Alert - but technically it isn't AV, it's SV - which means that not only does UKIP need to be in the top 2, but also people that are transferring to you need to guess that you will be...
Comments
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/2015-mid-season-review.html
There's an interesting comment, actually, which raises a potential point I'd missed entirely.
Just under three weeks until Spa, so I'll probably stop plugging the mid-season piece in a day or two.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/book-review--intrigue-infighting-and-cold-sausage-rolls-jeremy-paxman-on-george-brown-whose-career-was-a-triumph-of-chippiness--tired-and-emotional-the-life-of-lord-george-brown--peter-paterson-chatto--windus-20-pounds-2323025.html
Labour's £3 members are just a symptom of the problem. UNITE members and CWU members may be Tories too. They are given free votes to participate. £3 Tories are surely a tiny fraction of a %. Personally, I can't see which is less acceptable a Tory voting for Kendall or a SWPer voting for Corbyn? Or vice versa.
It's a bugger's muddle, but The Wrong Sort of Membership seems to be the complaint as they're not picking ABC so far.
Corbyn 38
Burnham 27
Cooper 25
Kendall 10
Let's assume 20% of each round does not transfer. And let say the remainder of Kendall splits 2:1 to Cooper.
Round 2 will therefore be
Corbyn 39
Cooper 31
Burnham 30
Remembering 20% does not transfer, let's split the Burnham 3:1 in favour of Cooper and we get:
Cooper 52
Corbyn 48
But here's the thing. It's very close in Round 2; and if Burnham beats Cooper, then I think the Cooper votes split only 2:1 in favour of Burnham. Which means Corbyn wins 52:48.
The value - therefore - is on Corbyn and Cooper. And Burnham should be sold.
@TheCommonSpace: #Corbyn: I would form "supply arrangement" with SNP in event of Labour minority govt in 2020 https://t.co/1QidnrfhQr http://t.co/wxI1fKs8cs
If the result is close, and some voters are “excluded” for being "trade unionists" or "bogus right-wingers” or “entryists", then surely this is going to end up in court.
You can’t change the rules half way through the election, and start excluding what appear to be legitimate and legal voters.
I don't know what your specialism is but you clearly know very little about twentieth century third world history, something I do know a lot about.
If you call the Spanish Republicans and Allende socialist, you'd have to call the first Portugese Republic, Mossadegh in Iran, Arbenz in Guatemala, Goulart in Brazil, Jagan in Guyana, Correa in Ecuador, Morales in Bolivia, Chavez in Venezuela, and many others, socialist, as they all shared aspects of the first two, and in reality 95% of their policies wouldnt be out of place in an old labour manifesto. If you do call them socialist you'll have to admit your original statement that only four socialist governments had been elected was flat out wrong.
Note that all of the above were either violently overthrown by or saw intense assaults from right wing elites, showing the true lessons of twentieth century democracy - the right hated it.
UK government. If anything the rest of the Mujahadin were actually even worse than the Taliban, hence why they initially found a good deal of general support when the Mujahadin fell into fratricidal war. A rose by any other name etc.
Hezbollah are a minor regional militia with no influence outside of Lebanon and Syria, who by your admittance have 1000 fighters.
Rudeness = pointing out that PB Tories are almost always wrong.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9208952/The-70s-BBC-Two-review.html
For instance, not only do 2.3m pro Corbyn affiliated union members get a vote for free, but Labour also built a front door into the rule book to let them walk in and take it. Seems a little late in the day to complain, just because the token candidate appears to be in with a chance of winning.
It's hard to reconcile that Sandbrook with the bloke who regularly writes inflammatory right wing essays for the Daily Mail.
As for the reconquista deciding the nature of Spanish government, was not the reconquista a process that took many centuries to play out rather than an event? I also thought that Spain did not actually become a united Kingdom until 1496, by which time the reconquista was nearly over (and feudalism in England was already dead).
Perhaps we are working to different definitions here but I would be grateful if you would explain your position a little more as I am genuinely interested.
Good use of understatement as a comic tool.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2117115/Dancing-Queen-Raleigh-Choppers-space-hoppers-How-1976-best-summer-child-Britain.html
And this survey argues the case too:
http://m.csmonitor.com/2004/0331/p01s03-woeu.html
Good times!
http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/a-turkish-couple-spent-their-wedding-day-feeding-4000-syrian-refugees--ZJKtZfieVl
A Turkish couple spent their wedding day feeding 4,000 Syrian refugees.
It was the groom's father, Ali Üzümcüoğlu, who originally had the idea to share a bit of wedding joy with those less fortunate.
"I thought that sharing a big delicious dinner with our family and friends was unnecessary, knowing that there are so many people in need living next door. So I came up with this idea and shared it with my son. I’m very happy that he accepted it and they started their new happy journey with such a selfless action."
Bride Esra Polat told i100.co.uk:
"I was shocked when Fethullah first told me about the idea but afterwards I was won over by it. It was such a wonderful experience. I’m happy that we had the opportunity to share our wedding meal with the people who are in real need."
The wedding guests banded together to operate the food trucks and share the banquet with refugee families.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33787201
Of course the country's economy was going to hell in a handbasket but that was something else.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/stratolaunch-biggest-plane-in-the-world-to-take-off-next-year-10438265.html
But he was young then, so what did it matter?
- 4/5 years of austerity
- a bruising EU ref
- higher interest rates
- another recession
- Tory leadership battle
- MSM influence continuing to diminish
- an avalanche of historic "establishment" scandals
- a house price wobble or full blown crash
I could go on, suffice to say the electorate could be ready for something different !!
I don't associate the 70s with anything very nice. Perhaps not having a Chopper or Space Hopper damaged me. Where should I send my compensation claim?
The New Economics Foundation report does show that for many Brits, not just the young, the seventies were pretty good.
And most Brits consider joining the EEC a good thing ;-)
At university, one of the most interesting things I read about was theories of racism. One suggested it was basically a processing short-cut, whereby we have a detailed, unique set of opinions about someone we know well, but form a basic, crude opinion of groups (the French, people of varying ethnicity, etc).
There was also a Marxist view, that it was derived from power inequality, and, lacking the ability to kick those at the top, those who feel inferior kick the vulnerable (a minority). Well, I think that was the theory, it's a while since I read it.
It largely depends on where you were and what you were doing as to how you experienced each decade. The 1960s were a pretty good time in the West Midlands, a desperate one in Newcastle. The 1980s were happy days in much of London, not so much fun in the Welsh Valleys. Similarly, I imagine anyone living in Aberdeen would remember the 1970s as a time of great prosperity on the back of the oil boom (although I don't know exactly how or when it affected Aberdeen directly) while somebody in Oxford would remember the three day week more clearly.
Because Britain's always had quite a diverse economy, it makes it quite hard to generalise about its performance and the social trends that go with it (although this has not of course stopped people trying). If we were talking about say, Botswana, with its heavy emphasis on one key commodity, it would be easier.
- Spain would be the second largest maker of cars in Europe, making 50% more per year than the French, Italians or Brits
- Spain would have two world leading tech companies (Amadeus, which does backends the entire airline industry, and Indra, which is number one in air traffic software)
- Spain would be home to the biggest clothing retailer in the world
- Spanish banks and telecoms companies would dominate South America, and would have great positions in the UK and other places
http://www.fractus.com/
I miss the old Spain very much, but I doubt many Spaniards do.
Anyway, as always, I enjoyed the debate.
I've got my quid on!
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/1976-britians-best-ever-year-2070469
And I agree that individuals perceptions of decades does vary. My dad was working in Manchester and London and his description of the Sixties was "a very depressing time, everyone was fed up and trying to emigrate"
I've got my quid on!
If the odds were 5,000-1 that might just be a value bet.
If you define it as being a society in which overlords and vassals exchanged oaths of homage and protection, then that was long gone.
"There was also a Marxist view, that it was derived from power inequality,"
I remember that. One Irish Marxist complaining that Ulster would never be communist while "tuppence halfpenny looked down on tuppence".
There's a lot of evidence that scientific theories outlive their usefulness because scientists become wedded to it, and look, not for evidence that they're wrong, but for evidence that the alternative is wrong. Marxism, although not even scientific, has survived for that very reason.
Racism surely is derived from "different folks, different strokes" but what do I know?
Surely Labour has a good chance whoever stands, and Zac (as a Conservative) also has a strong chance. But UKIP? They're weak in London.
There has already been some talk that the founder has not been entirely accurate about her qualifications. I suspect more will come out in due course and that we will find that this is what happens when people get blinded by a charismatic individual, good at making friends and telling a nice story to journalists but with nothing really behind the curtain. One telling detail: whenever journalists tried to speak to any of the children actually helped by this charity, they never could but were always directed to the founder. That should have been a red flag in itself. The F word (not that one) is what came to mind when I first heard what was going on.
(Now, if we could only link it to Mr Heath - there must be a police force somewhere that could investigate - we could have another enjoyable rerun of yesterday!!)
Am I right to think a dual forecast is any order, and a straight forecast in the order given?
Hence capitalist countries viewing the brain as neat little compartments each doing their own job, and communist countries viewing the brain as a collection of identical cells all doing work equally (the truth is actually in between, with areas specialising but also a great degree of plasticity).
That's one of the reasons I've been so dubious of man-made global warming as a theory. That, and it's religious a priori 'reasoning'. Predictions get proved false, hockey stick gets shown to be nonsense, doubt is cast over impartiality of 'evidence', but none of it shakes the faith of true believers.
Personally I think we can discount Liz Kendall, so you could as an alternative back Jeremy Corbyn and Yvette Cooper. Which, not by coincidence, is what I have done.
Reverse forecast is in either order.
Dual forecast was a Tote bet in either order but iirc was scrapped and replaced by the Tote exacta.
Tote exacta is in the order specified.
UKIP is transfer unfriendly from LibDems, and Green.
It is transfer friendly from Conservatives.
Therefore you need to have Suzanne Evans outpolling the Conservatives to get into the last two, otherwise UKIP is without a chance.
I'd need 125-1, to put money on. And am happy to take bets at 65-1.
It's similar to a reverse forecast except that it's one bet at one price (whereas a £5 reverse forecast is actually 2 x £5 bets, struck/settled at different prices).
If I were Ukip, I'd make Suzanne leader and get Nigel Farage to stand for Mayor - on the basis they need a pointless sacrifice and he's used to losing.
http://www.neweconomics.org/search
I had some professional dealings with a neffer. Typical think-tank wonk with a PhD in political science, the writing style of a sociologist, and no attempt to hide his political bias (or affiliation, to use a more neutral term, though in the sense that it spewed over into his opinions and moreover his personal and professional objectives, then "bias" is fair enough) to "The Left".
"You can prove anything with statistics", and that's exactly what he wanted to do, though only for a convenient type of "anything". He wasn't the guy responsible for it, but he reminded me of nef's famous report that "redefined the notion of 'value-added'" so that they could prove street cleaners had a higher "value-added" that financial workers.
Britain's intractable issues with productivity could clearly all be sold by arming the ne'er-do-wells in the City of London with a set of brooms, and get them to apply their MBAs and PhDs to the issue of chewing gum on the pavement.
Incidentally the neffer of my acquaintance was fairly proud that he didn't know anything about economics, though you might think from his think tank's name that this didn't sound quite right. Economics is basically wrong, apparently, so it didn't matter if you didn't know "conventional" economics. They could just make up some new economics instead. Ho hum, but not sure why they expected the Treasury or Bank of England or the serious custodians of economic and financial levers to pay any attention to them.
In these circumstances I can well understand why Civil Servants felt obligated to give the advice that they did and I can equally understand why Ministers decided that a grant to facilitate restructuring was worth the risk.
It is a good example of a more general problem. We don't like our Charities to be professionalised with well paid managers soaking up a lot of the funds we feel should be going to the front line. On the other hand Charities that are so beholden to the public purse have to account for how the money is spent and to operate performance indicators that show the taxpayer is getting value for money. It's a conundrum.