I've felt right from the start that Corbyn doesn't want to be Prime Minister or lead Labour into the next election. He wants to shake things up, change the agenda, show other potential Labour leaders how to challenge the Tories, how to enthuse followers etc. He is succeeding in that but run for PM - no, I don't think so.
My guess is that he will form a close partnership with Burnham. Together they will develop a distinctive leftish set of policies with a vivid story that challenges Osborne's narrative, and at the right moment, with Corbyn's support, Burnham will take over the leadership to fight the next General Election and become the next PM after Cameron. I'm on at 22 on Betfair.
Blimey.
There's wishful thinking and then there is this.
Well, it could happen. But 22s. Nah. More likely is five years of bloody civil war.
Looking at the process that the Tories went through in the naughties, I think Labour will turn to Burnham as a unity candidate in 2018, as the Tories turned to Howard, but like Howard, Burnham's role will be damage limitation. The leader after Burnham will be Labour's next PM.
I've felt right from the start that Corbyn doesn't want to be Prime Minister or lead Labour into the next election. He wants to shake things up, change the agenda, show other potential Labour leaders how to challenge the Tories, how to enthuse followers etc. He is succeeding in that but run for PM - no, I don't think so.
My guess is that he will form a close partnership with Burnham. Together they will develop a distinctive leftish set of policies with a vivid story that challenges Osborne's narrative, and at the right moment, with Corbyn's support, Burnham will take over the leadership to fight the next General Election and become the next PM after Cameron. I'm on at 22 on Betfair.
Interesting. Pre-Corbynmania, I suggested that Burnham was Labour's IDS. Nothing I've seen in this leadership contest has caused me to revise that opinion upwards.
Re-reading my piece, maybe 1979 is the best parallel to 2015 after all :-)
1979 is even a contender – a return to Conservative majority government forced the underlying left-right tensions within Labour out into the open with disastrous electoral effects. Neither parallel can be written off but the Tories’ position today is nowhere near as strong as it was then.
I've felt right from the start that Corbyn doesn't want to be Prime Minister or lead Labour into the next election. He wants to shake things up, change the agenda, show other potential Labour leaders how to challenge the Tories, how to enthuse followers etc. He is succeeding in that but run for PM - no, I don't think so.
My guess is that he will form a close partnership with Burnham. Together they will develop a distinctive leftish set of policies with a vivid story that challenges Osborne's narrative, and at the right moment, with Corbyn's support, Burnham will take over the leadership to fight the next General Election and become the next PM after Cameron. I'm on at 22 on Betfair.
Blimey.
There's wishful thinking and then there is this.
Well, it could happen. But 22s. Nah. More likely is five years of bloody civil war.
Well lets not be too hasty here. Having a sock puppet as PM might be appealing.
"4h4 hours ago Gráinne Maguire @GrainneMaguire I would encourage Labour members to join Tories to vote for most ridiculously alienating right wing candidate but he's already the leader"
Make a list of the enemies of Britain and the British way of life - chances are Jeremy is a fan.
Err... Hezbollah and Hamas have nothing to do with the UK, in fact both are enemies of ISIS who ARE actually enemies of the UK and who were armed by the Tories in Syria and Libya. If you consider israel and the UK's interests to align, maybe, 70% of the population disagree though.
The Tories armed Islamic extremists in Syria, Libya, Afghanistan and many more, all of whom pose a grave threat to normal UK citizens. Jeremy chatted to some people who represent no threat to the UK at all.
He hasn't just met them. He's described them as his friends, and one as an honoured citizen. You can keep on claiming that he "just" met them, but I'll keep on correcting you.
And I'm sure Hamas and Hezbollah are big fans of liberal democratic values.
Jezbollah is going to be the most anti-Western leader any major party in the UK has even chosen.
Sorry but why should we give a flying proverbial if he's anti-'Western'? Anti-British (which he may well be) is a problem. Anti a meaningless but constantly repeated geographical expression meaning everyone who does what America says, is not. In fact, it's refreshing, and considering the inevitable shifts in world status, perhaps diplomatically useful.
Anti-Western is a problem if it means moving us away from the civilised world and cosying up to Putin.
Mr luckyguy is a conspiracy junky, anti-american racist.
How could I have missed this little gem? You really are full of sanity aren't you? Nothing says 'stable' like someone tossing around accusations of racism and saying they 'despise' people etc.
And @ThreeQuidder are China and Russia uncivilised peoples who we should be antagonising, or are they for all their undoubted faults essential parts of the multi-polar world that is developing around us whilst we're still clinging to Uncle Sam's apron strings?
As America clearly realises, it's dog eat dog out there. The only time 'The West' gets invoked is when we're expected to tow the line. It's the new 'special relationship'.
The Conservatives have, and continue to use, the deficit as cover for implementing ideological policies to fundamentally change the role of the state - small government (eternal 'austerity'), unaffordable income tax cuts, increases to VAT, pension increases, increasing student fees, cutting student support etc.
Why would the Tories need cover for implementing their ideology? They got voted in with a majority precisely because that was the ideology that the electorate wanted.
People want a smaller state with lower spending, they also want the deficit to be reduced. The Tories are providing them with a double win.
I can't understand the lefty outrage at the Tories enacting policies from their manifesto on which they got voted into power.
On the contrary, that's neither how they ran their campaign nor how they presented themselves in their manifesto. Indeed, I actually read all the manifestos and don't simply makes assumptions about what they say!
As I've said previously, what are the first things the Conservatives did getting into power? 1. Private Royal Mail 2. Remove support for the poorest at University 3. Gut the BBC 4. Cut Corporation Tax 5. Remove tax credits to push children into poverty
How many of these were in the Conservative manifesto? None. Zero. Zilch.
The Conservatives run on one platform, presenting themselves in a certain way, and then do something quite different.
Your stuff about “moving might and main” to oppose the Tories is pure guff. The fact is that an Opposition that isn’t led by a potential Prime Minister and which isn’t seriously looking to replace the Government becomes a weak and ineffectual Opposition. You may oppose austerity, cuts and anti-trade union laws but if don’t pose a real threat to the Tories you end up colluding with policies that will damage millions of people.
The flaw in this argument is, when the government has a majority of just 6, it very much IS possible to stop Tory policies happening. All he has to do is whip up enough public outcry about various policies to force a few Tory MPs in marginal seats to go wobbly (in the way that UKIP did in the last parliament). But unfortunately, with the current leadership, grassroots members are sceptical of whether they can trust them to have the guts to try to make the arguments to apply that pressure, or indeed, after the Welfare Bill, not sure if they can trust them to even vote against Tory policies themselves.
But what if by electing Corbyn the member for say Gower (maj 13) is instilled with confidence that barring meltdown over Europe (possible true) or another crash (China?) and quite possibly even then, his chances of being elected again are hugely greater because Corbyn is LOTO as Corbyn will be seen by middle England as simply too extreme? It's not about packing halls in Camden full of ex TUSC or Greens or 19 year old politics students where 2020 will be won. It's among the vaguely disinterested pottering along with their lives in the likes of Bury, the outer West Mids, and the Medway towns.
Add too that the DUP are probably more likely to give the Tories an easier ride in terms of Parliamentary votes given J Corbyn has not exactly been their best mate since 1983 has he?
It still seems bloody odd that a friend of Hamas could become Leader of the Opposition.
Spring time for UKIP? If Farage had toddled off it would be. Even with him, they have a perfect match for Corbyn's Labour when it comes to immigration.
?? Are you seriously suggesting that people should vote UKIP and pave the way for Corbyn as PM?
The deficit has indeed been cut; from 11% of GDP in the year to 31/3/2010 to 4% of GDP in the year to 31/3/2015.
Using percentage of GDP is highly misleading in this context. In recessions, GDP falls and government spending rises. You would naturally expect deficit as proportion of GDP to naturally decrease at the UK exited recession without any government intervention.
The national debt has of course increased over that period, because the deficit had not, for most of that period, been cut to the point where the national debt began falling as a percentage of GDP. Starting from an 11% deficit, the government would have had to implement enormous tax rises/and or spending cuts, to reduce the debt to GDP ratio from day one. I don't know whether or not you're arguing in favour of such a policy.
I don't have the figures at hand (I'm trying to find them to no avail) but I imagine raising VAT, not cutting income and corporation taxes and freezing pensions would have almost certainly had a greater effect on the deficit than the policies the government did carry out, and that's without swinging government spending cuts.
Looking at it in absolute terms, the deficit went from £160bn to £90bn over five years.
The I this morning reports that, if Mr Corbyn becomes leader, he will expect a show of unity from the party's MPs. He may well get it - Labour does set a high value on loyalty - but I am dismayed at the 'Do as I say, not as I do' approach.
Earlier it was reported (I forget where I saw it) that he would allow MPs a free vote on every division, and that would have been right & proper given his own record of going his own way. That would have been the approach of a man of principle.
I find what is happening to the Labour party very distressing. I'm not a member; you might call me a well-wisher. I want to be able to vote Labour. I sometimes post the odd comment on Labour-Uncut, but really, what is happening now - what might be about to happen now - has me feeling I can only stand silently by in sorrow, as when the funeral procession of some loved public figure passes.
I hope it all resolves itself into a storm in a teacup.
It still seems bloody odd that a friend of Hamas could become Leader of the Opposition.
Spring time for UKIP? If Farage had toddled off it would be. Even with him, they have a perfect match for Corbyn's Labour when it comes to immigration.
?? Are you seriously suggesting that people should vote UKIP and pave the way for Corbyn as PM?
If you vote UKIP - you get UKIP Only in seats where they are second to Labour obviously :P
The deficit has indeed been cut; from 11% of GDP in the year to 31/3/2010 to 4% of GDP in the year to 31/3/2015.
Using percentage of GDP is highly misleading in this context. In recessions, GDP falls and government spending rises. You would naturally expect deficit as proportion of GDP to naturally decrease at the UK exited recession without any government intervention.
The national debt has of course increased over that period, because the deficit had not, for most of that period, been cut to the point where the national debt began falling as a percentage of GDP. Starting from an 11% deficit, the government would have had to implement enormous tax rises/and or spending cuts, to reduce the debt to GDP ratio from day one. I don't know whether or not you're arguing in favour of such a policy.
I don't have the figures at hand (I'm trying to find them to no avail) but I imagine raising VAT, not cutting income and corporation taxes and freezing pensions would have almost certainly had a greater effect on the deficit than the policies the government did carry out, and that's without swinging government spending cuts.
Looking at it in absolute terms, the deficit went from £160bn to £90bn over five years. And that £90bn is significantly higher than all but one year under Labour and Brown, a party that the Tories and Tory-supporters repeatedly say spent too much!
And that's despite huge, swingeing government cuts.
Why have the Tories failed to get the deficit and debt under control, when it was supposed to be their #1 priority (or was that the credit rating, I forget)?
Are you seriously suggesting that people should vote UKIP and pave the way for Corbyn as PM?
More that the socially-conservative and patriotic, old school, working class part of the remaining Labour vote will have to find a different home, surely?
If it can't stomach the Tories, and doesn't like ultra-leftie-ism like the Greens, it leaves three options:
Miss JGP, also not a Labour member, but we do need a proper Opposition so that people feel they have a legitimate choice at the election and during the term the Government has someone to keep it on its toes.
Mr. F, just glanced at the last thread.
I'd attribute the loss of territory to Chosroes II being a close ally/friend of Maurice. Flavius Phocas' usurpation gave the Persian king the just cause/pretext to make war and end the prolonged truce with the Empire.
It doesn't reach 3 figures- and I'm not saying anything more. I blame my mom who took some horrible prescription meds when she was gestating me. I have no sense of direction, I cannot do an anagram to save my life, I have no spatial awareness, I am completely absent minded- I found my car keys today at the top of the fridge, I lose everything all of the time. My nickname at home was Frank (after Frank Spencer) and my wife still finds the similarities so uncanny that she cannot bear to watch the programme because it is too close to home.
But I learnt to read before I could speak, and I sailed effortlessly through grammar school top of the top stream, and University likewise hardly needing to study at all.
I think if all did an IQ test, IMO pbCOMers (past and present) with the highest IQ would be a toss between Snowflake and RodCrosby, with perhaps JackW challenging. Dr Nick Palmer is astronomically bright too, as is Tissue Price who I've met.
I've got straight A's at O's and A's three Masters degrees, have written two novels locked in drawers, financially self made, was a very young Director of Service at work- all done pretty effortlessly I must say (I wrote a highly scored and original 12,000 word MBA thesis- from to finish in 4 days) - and I have a such a ridiculously low IQ that I'm embarrassed to say.
As I've said previously, what are the first things the Conservatives did getting into power? 1. Private Royal Mail 2. Remove support for the poorest at University 3. Gut the BBC 4. Cut Corporation Tax 5. Remove tax credits to push children into poverty
How many of these were in the Conservative manifesto? None. Zero. Zilch.
Really?
The two items in your list which relate to real things which the Conservatives have actually done (either in coalition or in this term), i.e. 1 and 4, were in the 2010/2015 manifestos or already announced.
The deficit has indeed been cut; from 11% of GDP in the year to 31/3/2010 to 4% of GDP in the year to 31/3/2015.
Using percentage of GDP is highly misleading in this context. In recessions, GDP falls and government spending rises. You would naturally expect deficit as proportion of GDP to naturally decrease at the UK exited recession without any government intervention.
The national debt has of course increased over that period, because the deficit had not, for most of that period, been cut to the point where the national debt began falling as a percentage of GDP. Starting from an 11% deficit, the government would have had to implement enormous tax rises/and or spending cuts, to reduce the debt to GDP ratio from day one. I don't know whether or not you're arguing in favour of such a policy.
I don't have the figures at hand (I'm trying to find them to no avail) but I imagine raising VAT, not cutting income and corporation taxes and freezing pensions would have almost certainly had a greater effect on the deficit than the policies the government did carry out, and that's without swinging government spending cuts.
Looking at it in absolute terms, the deficit went from £160bn to £90bn over five years.
And that £90bn is significantly higher than all but one year under Labour and Brown, a party that the Tories and Tory-supporters repeatedly say spent too much!
And that's despite huge, swingeing government cuts.
Why have the Tories failed to get the deficit and debt under control, when it was supposed to be their #1 priority (or was that the credit rating, I forget)?
Yeah that one year Labour had a higher deficit happened to be their last.
I can't understand how you're calling for higher spending and a lower deficit at the same time. Where's the extra money going to come from?
Sean T - The problem with this is that Lab's electoral coalition contains 4 main blocks: The white working class, ethnic minority voters,public sector workers and young people/students.
UKIP might do well with the white working class A Respect type party might do well with ethnic minority voters The LDs might do well with public sector workers The Greens might do well with young people/students
It is unlikely thought that any of these parties can do well with all 4 groups.
Let's look at a seat like Leeds NE: Lab 48%, Con 33%, UKIP 8%, LD 5%, Green 5%
If Lab was to do badly here the most likely result would be some of Lab's voters not turning out, others going to multiple different parties and Con coming through the middle
Mr. Tyson, you're doing rather better than me, I suspect. IQ isn't intelligence anyway, it's more logical thinking [which is helpful, but only to a point].
I'm also spatially rubbish. My old watch was on the verge, before it broke down, of needing replacing because I'd cracked the plastic/glass cover so many times I doubted its integrity. And I'm horrendously absent-minded for certain things.
The Conservatives have, and continue to use, the deficit as cover for implementing ideological policies to fundamentally change the role of the state - small government (eternal 'austerity'), unaffordable income tax cuts, increases to VAT, pension increases, increasing student fees, cutting student support etc.
Why would the Tories need cover for implementing their ideology? They got voted in with a majority precisely because that was the ideology that the electorate wanted.
People want a smaller state with lower spending, they also want the deficit to be reduced. The Tories are providing them with a double win.
I can't understand the lefty outrage at the Tories enacting policies from their manifesto on which they got voted into power.
On the contrary, that's neither how they ran their campaign nor how they presented themselves in their manifesto. Indeed, I actually read all the manifestos and don't simply makes assumptions about what they say!
As I've said previously, what are the first things the Conservatives did getting into power? 1. Private Royal Mail 2. Remove support for the poorest at University 3. Gut the BBC 4. Cut Corporation Tax 5. Remove tax credits to push children into poverty
How many of these were in the Conservative manifesto? None. Zero. Zilch.
The Conservatives run on one platform, presenting themselves in a certain way, and then do something quite different.
You should try reading it before you post. Corporation Tax cuts are in black and white on p.20, welfare caps and reductions on p.30 and a review of the BBC charter on p.44:
It doesn't reach 3 figures- and I'm not saying anything more. I blame my mom who took some horrible prescription meds when she was gestating me. I have no sense of direction, I cannot do an anagram to save my life, I have no spatial awareness, I am completely absent minded- I found my car keys today at the top of the fridge, I lose everything all of the time. My nickname at home was Frank (after Frank Spencer) and my wife still finds the similarities so uncanny that she cannot bear to watch the programme because it is too close to home.
But I learnt to read before I could speak, and I sailed effortlessly through grammar school top of the top stream, and University likewise hardly needing to study at all.
I think if all did an IQ test, IMO pbCOMers (past and present) with the highest IQ would be a toss between Snowflake and RodCrosby, with perhaps JackW challenging. Dr Nick Palmer is astronomically bright too, as is Tissue Price who I've met.
I've got straight A's at O's and A's three Masters degrees, have written two novels locked in drawers, financially self made, was a very young Director of Service at work- all done pretty effortlessly I must say (I wrote a highly scored and original 12,000 word MBA thesis- from to finish in 4 days) - and I have a such a ridiculously low IQ that I'm embarrassed to say.
Looking at the process that the Tories went through in the naughties, I think Labour will turn to Burnham as a unity candidate in 2018, as the Tories turned to Howard, but like Howard, Burnham's role will be damage limitation. The leader after Burnham will be Labour's next PM.
I've felt right from the start that Corbyn doesn't want to be Prime Minister or lead Labour into the next election. He wants to shake things up, change the agenda, show other potential Labour leaders how to challenge the Tories, how to enthuse followers etc. He is succeeding in that but run for PM - no, I don't think so.
My guess is that he will form a close partnership with Burnham. Together they will develop a distinctive leftish set of policies with a vivid story that challenges Osborne's narrative, and at the right moment, with Corbyn's support, Burnham will take over the leadership to fight the next General Election and become the next PM after Cameron. I'm on at 22 on Betfair.
If you were to be proved correct re-Burnham in 2018 - I doubt it myself! - and he does as well as Howard with Labour gaining 30 - 35 seats to reach circa 265 in 2020 he is likely to become PM.
Jimmy Carter giving a press conference in Atlanta, reveals cancer has spread to his brain...
Do you really think the ill health of a 90 year old is remotely news worthy. Obviously those still in public positions- yes (Queen etc..). Jimmy Carter should be celebrating the fact that he reached the age of 90- and even at that age, old age is more likely to kill him than cancer that still spreads slowly at that age. Why is this anyone's business other than his own?
It doesn't reach 3 figures- and I'm not saying anything more. I blame my mom who took some horrible prescription meds when she was gestating me. I have no sense of direction, I cannot do an anagram to save my life, I have no spatial awareness, I am completely absent minded- I found my car keys today at the top of the fridge, I lose everything all of the time. My nickname at home was Frank (after Frank Spencer) and my wife still finds the similarities so uncanny that she cannot bear to watch the programme because it is too close to home.
But I learnt to read before I could speak, and I sailed effortlessly through grammar school top of the top stream, and University likewise hardly needing to study at all.
Tyson, I feel both your pain and comfort on this - the spatial awareness part of my IQ was 36 points below the more mentally based tests.
The I this morning reports that, if Mr Corbyn becomes leader, he will expect a show of unity from the party's MPs. He may well get it - Labour does set a high value on loyalty - but I am dismayed at the 'Do as I say, not as I do' approach.
Earlier it was reported (I forget where I saw it) that he would allow MPs a free vote on every division, and that would have been right & proper given his own record of going his own way. That would have been the approach of a man of principle.
I find what is happening to the Labour party very distressing. I'm not a member; you might call me a well-wisher. I want to be able to vote Labour. I sometimes post the odd comment on Labour-Uncut, but really, what is happening now - what might be about to happen now - has me feeling I can only stand silently by in sorrow, as when the funeral procession of some loved public figure passes.
I hope it all resolves itself into a storm in a teacup.
It won't. I've come to believe that Corbyn's imminent election spells the end of the Labour Party. Unfortunately FPTP means splitting is not an option but I don't see how I can remain long term in a party led by that idiot. The current voting system means that any realignment of the left may take a generation to achieve, so we will have one-party government for a long long time. Possibly 30 years. The Tories are intent on making sure that only they are funded properly too and will continue to do whatever they can go ensure they achieve perpetual majorities on around a third of the vote.
This will be very bad for democracy and the UK in general.
The deficit has indeed been cut; from 11% of GDP in the year to 31/3/2010 to 4% of GDP in the year to 31/3/2015.
Using percentage of GDP is highly misleading in this context. In recessions, GDP falls and government spending rises. You would naturally expect deficit as proportion of GDP to naturally decrease at the UK exited recession without any government intervention.
The national debt has of course increased over that period, because the deficit had not, for most of that period, been cut to the point where the national debt began falling as a percentage of GDP. Starting from an 11% deficit, the government would have had to implement enormous tax rises/and or spending cuts, to reduce the debt to GDP ratio from day one. I don't know whether or not you're arguing in favour of such a policy.
I don't have the figures at hand (I'm trying to find them to no avail) but I imagine raising VAT, not cutting income and corporation taxes and freezing pensions would have almost certainly had a greater effect on the deficit than the policies the government did carry out, and that's without swinging government spending cuts.
Looking at it in absolute terms, the deficit went from £160bn to £90bn over five years.
And that £90bn is significantly higher than all but one year under Labour and Brown, a party that the Tories and Tory-supporters repeatedly say spent too much!
And that's despite huge, swingeing government cuts.
Why have the Tories failed to get the deficit and debt under control, when it was supposed to be their #1 priority (or was that the credit rating, I forget)?
The difference being that Labour inherited a small deficit, and the Conservatives inherited a deficit of £160bn. If the Conservatives had inherited a deficit of £90bn and five years later, it was still £90bn, then clearly they would have failed. But, that wasn't the starting point.
Mr. Tyson, you're doing rather better than me, I suspect. IQ isn't intelligence anyway, it's more logical thinking [which is helpful, but only to a point].
I'm also spatially rubbish. My old watch was on the verge, before it broke down, of needing replacing because I'd cracked the plastic/glass cover so many times I doubted its integrity. And I'm horrendously absent-minded for certain things.
I really wouldn't take IQ seriously.
Isn't this a male thing?*
I can't find a bloody thing in my house and have to ask my wife for anything not staring me in the face. The only thing I can out spot her on is her own glasses, which she seems completely blind towards even when right in front of her.
Jimmy Carter giving a press conference in Atlanta, reveals cancer has spread to his brain...
Do you really think the ill health of a 90 year old is remotely news worthy. Obviously those still in public positions- yes (Queen etc..). Jimmy Carter should be celebrating the fact that he reached the age of 90- and even at that age, old age is more likely to kill him than cancer that still spreads slowly at that age. Why is this anyone's business other than his own?
Well, Mr. Carter is still in a public position, very active doing good works, both at home and abroad.
His decision to go public about his illness seems to be intended to give hope to others, which is surely no bad thing?
By damage limitation I mean holding Labour afloat at the 200 mark following the boundary review. I do not envisage any Labour advance at all at the next election- but with Corbyn Labour would lose possibly 50-70 seats.
The reason why I think Burnham will replace Jezza is because the bad blood required to get rid of Corbyn will be horribly decisive. Labour will need someone after who has some kind of cross party appeal, and a safe pair of hands.
Looking at the process that the Tories went through in the naughties, I think Labour will turn to Burnham as a unity candidate in 2018, as the Tories turned to Howard, but like Howard, Burnham's role will be damage limitation. The leader after Burnham will be Labour's next PM.
I've felt right from the start that Corbyn doesn't want to be Prime Minister or lead Labour into the next election. He wants to shake things up, change the agenda, show other potential Labour leaders how to challenge the Tories, how to enthuse followers etc. He is succeeding in that but run for PM - no, I don't think so.
My guess is that he will form a close partnership with Burnham. Together they will develop a distinctive leftish set of policies with a vivid story that challenges Osborne's narrative, and at the right moment, with Corbyn's support, Burnham will take over the leadership to fight the next General Election and become the next PM after Cameron. I'm on at 22 on Betfair.
If you were to be proved correct re-Burnham in 2018 - I doubt it myself! - and he does as well as Howard with Labour gaining 30 - 35 seats to reach circa 265 in 2020 he is likely to become PM.
Your stuff about “moving might and main” to oppose the Tories is pure guff. The fact is that an Opposition that isn’t led by a potential Prime Minister and which isn’t seriously looking to replace the Government becomes a weak and ineffectual Opposition. You may oppose austerity, cuts and anti-trade union laws but if don’t pose a real threat to the Tories you end up colluding with policies that will damage millions of people.
The flaw in this argument is, when the government has a majority of just 6, it very much IS possible to stop Tory policies happening. All he has to do is whip up enough public outcry about various policies to force a few Tory MPs in marginal seats to go wobbly (in the way that UKIP did in the last parliament). But unfortunately, with the current leadership, grassroots members are sceptical of whether they can trust them to have the guts to try to make the arguments to apply that pressure, or indeed, after the Welfare Bill, not sure if they can trust them to even vote against Tory policies themselves. Are you totally doolally? Tory MPs in marginal seats would be signing their own death warrant in 2020 by supporting the opposition and effectively making the opposition believable instead of incoherent. Dream on. The majority is not 6 anyway - take 330 from 650 gives 320. 330-320 = 10. But effectively the majority is nearer 19 I think. But in any event by all means try and create an alliance - with the SNP. That should be fun.
You should try reading it before you post. Corporation Tax cuts are in black and white on p.20, welfare caps and reductions on p.30 and a review of the BBC charter on p.44:
The Corporation Tax cuts on page 20 is talking about the previous government, page 30 is all about immigration, is says nothing about the BBC funding TV licenses for over-75s.
Miss JGP, also not a Labour member, but we do need a proper Opposition so that people feel they have a legitimate choice at the election and during the term the Government has someone to keep it on its toes.
Mr. F, just glanced at the last thread.
I'd attribute the loss of territory to Chosroes II being a close ally/friend of Maurice. Flavius Phocas' usurpation gave the Persian king the just cause/pretext to make war and end the prolonged truce with the Empire.
Maurice exacted a very high price, for helping to put Chosroes II on the throne. He had to cede massive territories to the Roman Empire. Almost certainly, any Persian King would have tried to recover them. But, Maurice's murder gave him the perfect excuse to go to war.
Chosroes' problem was he didn't know when to stop. He tried to conquer the whole Roman Empire. And, it turned out to one of those wars that was disastrous for both sides, as the Arabs made huge gains from both.
Mr. F, quite, although I'd add that Heraclius had rescued the situation and Byzantium had its boot on Chosroes' increasingly mad throat by the time that chap Mohammed and his chums starting taking huge lumps out of the two exhausted empires.
Your stuff about “moving might and main” to oppose the Tories is pure guff. The fact is that an Opposition that isn’t led by a potential Prime Minister and which isn’t seriously looking to replace the Government becomes a weak and ineffectual Opposition. You may oppose austerity, cuts and anti-trade union laws but if don’t pose a real threat to the Tories you end up colluding with policies that will damage millions of people.
The flaw in this argument is, when the government has a majority of just 6, it very much IS possible to stop Tory policies happening. All he has to do is whip up enough public outcry about various policies to force a few Tory MPs in marginal seats to go wobbly (in the way that UKIP did in the last parliament). But unfortunately, with the current leadership, grassroots members are sceptical of whether they can trust them to have the guts to try to make the arguments to apply that pressure, or indeed, after the Welfare Bill, not sure if they can trust them to even vote against Tory policies themselves.
Are you totally doolally? Tory MPs in marginal seats would be signing their own death warrant in 2020 by supporting the opposition and effectively making the opposition believable instead of incoherent. Dream on. The majority is not 6 anyway - take 330 from 650 gives 320. 330-320 = 10. But effectively the majority is nearer 19 I think. But in any event by all means try and create an alliance - with the SNP. That should be fun.
Except even now we're already seeing Tory MPs protesting against tax credit cuts.
You should try reading it before you post. Corporation Tax cuts are in black and white on p.20, welfare caps and reductions on p.30 and a review of the BBC charter on p.44:
The Corporation Tax cuts on page 20 is talking about the previous government, page 30 is all about immigration, is says nothing about the BBC funding TV licenses for over-75s.
Nice try, though!
It actually says "In the next parliament, we want to maintain the most competitive tax regime in the G20". It is not unreasonable to infer that keeping at the 2015 level may result in another country undercutting us.
By damage limitation I mean holding Labour afloat at the 200 mark following the boundary review. I do not envisage any Labour advance at all at the next election- but with Corbyn Labour would lose possibly 50-70 seats.
The reason why I think Burnham will replace Jezza is because the bad blood required to get rid of Corbyn will be horribly decisive. Labour will need someone after who has some kind of cross party appeal, and a safe pair of hands.
Looking at the process that the Tories went through in the naughties, I think Labour will turn to Burnham as a unity candidate in 2018, as the Tories turned to Howard, but like Howard, Burnham's role will be damage limitation. The leader after Burnham will be Labour's next PM.
I've felt right from the start that Corbyn doesn't want to be Prime Minister or lead Labour into the next election. He wants to shake things up, change the agenda, show other potential Labour leaders how to challenge the Tories, how to enthuse followers etc. He is succeeding in that but run for PM - no, I don't think so.
My guess is that he will form a close partnership with Burnham. Together they will develop a distinctive leftish set of policies with a vivid story that challenges Osborne's narrative, and at the right moment, with Corbyn's support, Burnham will take over the leadership to fight the next General Election and become the next PM after Cameron. I'm on at 22 on Betfair.
If you were to be proved correct re-Burnham in 2018 - I doubt it myself! - and he does as well as Howard with Labour gaining 30 - 35 seats to reach circa 265 in 2020 he is likely to become PM.
Excuse me - did you really say Andy Burnham, a safe pair of hands?
Labour turning to a guy who is a serial loser is certainly one way to go into the next election...
Your stuff about “moving might and main” to oppose the Tories is pure guff. The fact is that an Opposition that isn’t led by a potential Prime Minister and which isn’t seriously looking to replace the Government becomes a weak and ineffectual Opposition. You may oppose austerity, cuts and anti-trade union laws but if don’t pose a real threat to the Tories you end up colluding with policies that will damage millions of people.
The flaw in this argument is, when the government has a majority of just 6, it very much IS possible to stop Tory policies happening. All he has to do is whip up enough public outcry about various policies to force a few Tory MPs in marginal seats to go wobbly (in the way that UKIP did in the last parliament). But unfortunately, with the current leadership, grassroots members are sceptical of whether they can trust them to have the guts to try to make the arguments to apply that pressure, or indeed, after the Welfare Bill, not sure if they can trust them to even vote against Tory policies themselves.
Are you totally doolally? Tory MPs in marginal seats would be signing their own death warrant in 2020 by supporting the opposition and effectively making the opposition believable instead of incoherent. Dream on. The majority is not 6 anyway - take 330 from 650 gives 320. 330-320 = 10. But effectively the majority is nearer 19 I think. But in any event by all means try and create an alliance - with the SNP. That should be fun.
The Government's "Working Majority" is 16 - as set out on the House of Commons official website:
You should try reading it before you post. Corporation Tax cuts are in black and white on p.20, welfare caps and reductions on p.30 and a review of the BBC charter on p.44:
The Corporation Tax cuts on page 20 is talking about the previous government, page 30 is all about immigration, is says nothing about the BBC funding TV licenses for over-75s.
Nice try, though!
It actually says "In the next parliament, we want to maintain the most competitive tax regime in the G20". It is not unreasonable to infer that keeping at the 2015 level may result in another country undercutting us.
.. not to mention that the 2010 manifesto said (page 19):
"initially, we will cut the headline rate of corporation tax to 25p and the small companies’ rate to 20p, funded by reducing complex reliefs and allowances. Over time, we hope to reduce these rates further. Our ambition is to create the most competitive tax system in the G20 within five years".
Your stuff about “moving might and main” to oppose the Tories is pure guff. The fact is that an Opposition that isn’t led by a potential Prime Minister and which isn’t seriously looking to replace the Government becomes a weak and ineffectual Opposition. You may oppose austerity, cuts and anti-trade union laws but if don’t pose a real threat to the Tories you end up colluding with policies that will damage millions of people.
The flaw in this argument is, when the government has a majority of just 6, it very much IS possible to stop Tory policies happening. All he has to do is whip up enough public outcry about various policies to force a few Tory MPs in marginal seats to go wobbly (in the way that UKIP did in the last parliament). But unfortunately, with the current leadership, grassroots members are sceptical of whether they can trust them to have the guts to try to make the arguments to apply that pressure, or indeed, after the Welfare Bill, not sure if they can trust them to even vote against Tory policies themselves.
Are you totally doolally? Tory MPs in marginal seats would be signing their own death warrant in 2020 by supporting the opposition and effectively making the opposition believable instead of incoherent. Dream on. The majority is not 6 anyway - take 330 from 650 gives 320. 330-320 = 10. But effectively the majority is nearer 19 I think. But in any event by all means try and create an alliance - with the SNP. That should be fun.
The Government's "Working Majority" is 16 - as set out on the House of Commons official website:
OK, so only 8 Tory rebels needed - very possible with a competent Opposition leader who can whip up the public and get them to put pressure on their MPs.
You should try reading it before you post. Corporation Tax cuts are in black and white on p.20, welfare caps and reductions on p.30 and a review of the BBC charter on p.44:
The Corporation Tax cuts on page 20 is talking about the previous government, page 30 is all about immigration, is says nothing about the BBC funding TV licenses for over-75s.
Nice try, though!
The BBC is mentioned on page 42 or (45/84 on my browser navigator). Nice try, though!
OK, so only 8 Tory rebels needed - very possible with a competent Opposition leader who can whip up the public and get them to put pressure on their MPs.
It says it all about how dire Burnham's campaign has been that I was one of the approx 12 people to give him a first preference in 2010, yet I'm umming and ahhing about whether to do so this time.
I can't understand how you're calling for higher spending and a lower deficit at the same time. Where's the extra money going to come from?
The rich. It's always the rich.
It would be a useful experiment for Labour to assess every one of their spending pledges and ask themselves: would it still be right to implement this if one third of the cost had to come from the poorest half of society?
Looking at the process that the Tories went through in the naughties, I think Labour will turn to Burnham as a unity candidate in 2018, as the Tories turned to Howard, but like Howard, Burnham's role will be damage limitation. The leader after Burnham will be Labour's next PM.
I've felt right from the start that Corbyn doesn't want to be Prime Minister or lead Labour into the next election. He wants to shake things up, change the agenda, show other potential Labour leaders how to challenge the Tories, how to enthuse followers etc. He is succeeding in that but run for PM - no, I don't think so.
My guess is that he will form a close partnership with Burnham. Together they will develop a distinctive leftish set of policies with a vivid story that challenges Osborne's narrative, and at the right moment, with Corbyn's support, Burnham will take over the leadership to fight the next General Election and become the next PM after Cameron. I'm on at 22 on Betfair.
If Labour get a Howard-style unity candidate it won't be Burnham. Howard was not a contender in the 2001 election which is why he was a credible unity candidate. Burnham as a [by then] twice-defeated leadership contender would not be a credible unity candidate.
If Labour go down the Howard route then it will be someone who hasn't stood this time. An "old Pope" who'd be expected to resign after the election. If he was still an MP it could be for example Alastair Darling, I'm not sure who it would be now.
Your stuff about “moving might and main” to oppose the Tories is pure guff. The fact is that an Opposition that isn’t led by a potential Prime Minister and which isn’t seriously looking to replace the Government becomes a weak and ineffectual Opposition. You may oppose austerity, cuts and anti-trade union laws but if don’t pose a real threat to the Tories you end up colluding with policies that will damage millions of people.
The flaw in this argument is, when the government has a majority of just 6, it very much IS possible to stop Tory policies happening. All he has to do is whip up enough public outcry about various policies to force a few Tory MPs in marginal seats to go wobbly (in the way that UKIP did in the last parliament). But unfortunately, with the current leadership, grassroots members are sceptical of whether they can trust them to have the guts to try to make the arguments to apply that pressure, or indeed, after the Welfare Bill, not sure if they can trust them to even vote against Tory policies themselves.
Are you totally doolally? Tory MPs in marginal seats would be signing their own death warrant in 2020 by supporting the opposition and effectively making the opposition believable instead of incoherent. Dream on. The majority is not 6 anyway - take 330 from 650 gives 320. 330-320 = 10. But effectively the majority is nearer 19 I think. But in any event by all means try and create an alliance - with the SNP. That should be fun.
The Government's "Working Majority" is 16 - as set out on the House of Commons official website:
I can't understand how you're calling for higher spending and a lower deficit at the same time. Where's the extra money going to come from?
That's not what I'm arguing. In fact, I'm pretty sure I haven't even discussed about what the country should do about the deficit - in fact, I imagine my opinion on the matter would surprise you!
My problem is that the Conservatives present themselves as prioritising cutting the deficit when what they are really focusing on is reduce revenue by lowering taxes and spending money by increasing pensions instead. That's the problem.
I can't understand how you're calling for higher spending and a lower deficit at the same time. Where's the extra money going to come from?
That's not what I'm arguing. In fact, I'm pretty sure I haven't even discussed about what the country should do about the deficit - in fact, I imagine my opinion on the matter would surprise you!
My problem is that the Conservatives present themselves as prioritising cutting the deficit when what they are really focusing on is reduce revenue by lowering taxes and spending money by increasing pensions instead. That's the problem.
Revenue has gone up under the Conservatives so you're again factually incorrect.
Your stuff about “moving might and main” to oppose the Tories is pure guff. The fact is that an Opposition that isn’t led by a potential Prime Minister and which isn’t seriously looking to replace the Government becomes a weak and ineffectual Opposition. You may oppose austerity, cuts and anti-trade union laws but if don’t pose a real threat to the Tories you end up colluding with policies that will damage millions of people.
The flaw in this argument is, when the government has a majority of just 6, it very much IS possible to stop Tory policies happening. All he has to do is whip up enough public outcry about various policies to force a few Tory MPs in marginal seats to go wobbly (in the way that UKIP did in the last parliament). But unfortunately, with the current leadership, grassroots members are sceptical of whether they can trust them to have the guts to try to make the arguments to apply that pressure, or indeed, after the Welfare Bill, not sure if they can trust them to even vote against Tory policies themselves.
Are you totally doolally? Tory MPs in marginal seats would be signing their own death warrant in 2020 by supporting the opposition and effectively making the opposition believable instead of incoherent. Dream on. The majority is not 6 anyway - take 330 from 650 gives 320. 330-320 = 10. But effectively the majority is nearer 19 I think. But in any event by all means try and create an alliance - with the SNP. That should be fun.
The Government's "Working Majority" is 16 - as set out on the House of Commons official website:
OK, so only 8 Tory rebels needed - very possible with a competent Opposition leader who can whip up the public and get them to put pressure on their MPs.
Be interesting to follow Carswell's voting record this Parliament. I suspect he will vote pretty much with the Govt.....
It says it all about how dire Burnham's campaign has been that I was one of the approx 12 people to give him a first preference in 2010, yet I'm umming and ahhing about whether to do so this time.
Ed Miliband's period of leadership looks like the sunlit uplands/halycon days for Labour.
@Casino I do think of myself as quite dumb though irrespective of how poorly I performed on several IQ tests. For instance I cannot follow a James Bond Film. They drive me to distraction.
I am struck by people's intelligence. I met Tissue Price briefly and you could sense that hyper intelligence he possesses. Also, when you read Tissue's leads, they are exceptionally well written and clever. Similarly, Sean Fear- his posts are often just one liners but he manages to get his whole argument in those few words.
RodCrosby is clearly too intelligent for his own good- he could do with being a bit dumber and his life would be easier. JackW writes beautifully. SeanT is incredibly creative. Nick Palmer's understated and polite demeanour hides his intelligence. I'd love to see Nick unshackled and really tell us how it it. He'll never do it though. You Casino, strike me as being successful in what you do.
I like pbCOM because you get intelligent people here. All of us are politically misguided to a greater or lesser extent. It is what makes it such an entertaining site.
My point was you clearly are intelligent, if politically misguided. It sounds like you just aren't good at a certain type of IQ test.
That isn't the be all and end all, as you demonstrate.
I can't understand how you're calling for higher spending and a lower deficit at the same time. Where's the extra money going to come from?
That's not what I'm arguing. In fact, I'm pretty sure I haven't even discussed about what the country should do about the deficit - in fact, I imagine my opinion on the matter would surprise you!
My problem is that the Conservatives present themselves as prioritising cutting the deficit when what they are really focusing on is reduce revenue by lowering taxes and spending money by increasing pensions instead. That's the problem.
Looking at the process that the Tories went through in the naughties, I think Labour will turn to Burnham as a unity candidate in 2018, as the Tories turned to Howard, but like Howard, Burnham's role will be damage limitation. The leader after Burnham will be Labour's next PM.
I've felt right from the start that Corbyn doesn't want to be Prime Minister or lead Labour into the next election. He wants to shake things up, change the agenda, show other potential Labour leaders how to challenge the Tories, how to enthuse followers etc. He is succeeding in that but run for PM - no, I don't think so.
My guess is that he will form a close partnership with Burnham. Together they will develop a distinctive leftish set of policies with a vivid story that challenges Osborne's narrative, and at the right moment, with Corbyn's support, Burnham will take over the leadership to fight the next General Election and become the next PM after Cameron. I'm on at 22 on Betfair.
If Labour get a Howard-style unity candidate it won't be Burnham. Howard was not a contender in the 2001 election which is why he was a credible unity candidate. Burnham as a [by then] twice-defeated leadership contender would not be a credible unity candidate.
If Labour go down the Howard route then it will be someone who hasn't stood this time. An "old Pope" who'd be expected to resign after the election. If he was still an MP it could be for example Alastair Darling, I'm not sure who it would be now.
It would be Harriet.
Experienced. Safe pair of hands (relatively speaking)
The I this morning reports that, if Mr Corbyn becomes leader, he will expect a show of unity from the party's MPs. He may well get it - Labour does set a high value on loyalty - but I am dismayed at the 'Do as I say, not as I do' approach.
Earlier it was reported (I forget where I saw it) that he would allow MPs a free vote on every division, and that would have been right & proper given his own record of going his own way. That would have been the approach of a man of principle.
I find what is happening to the Labour party very distressing. I'm not a member; you might call me a well-wisher. I want to be able to vote Labour. I sometimes post the odd comment on Labour-Uncut, but really, what is happening now - what might be about to happen now - has me feeling I can only stand silently by in sorrow, as when the funeral procession of some loved public figure passes.
I hope it all resolves itself into a storm in a teacup.
It won't. I've come to believe that Corbyn's imminent election spells the end of the Labour Party. Unfortunately FPTP means splitting is not an option but I don't see how I can remain long term in a party led by that idiot. The current voting system means that any realignment of the left may take a generation to achieve, so we will have one-party government for a long long time. Possibly 30 years. The Tories are intent on making sure that only they are funded properly too and will continue to do whatever they can go ensure they achieve perpetual majorities on around a third of the vote.
This will be very bad for democracy and the UK in general.
Agreed. Govts need sensible oppositions to scrutinise, to keep them on their toes, and to be a credible alternative. Without the latter, the governing party's (of whatever stripe) loons tend to escape out of their straightjackets and start having influence because there's no reasonable alternative. It's not good for any of us.
The problem is for Labour that the three "sensible" candidates on offer are either just not being listened to by Labour (Kendall) or are the epitome of the spadocracy honed to say sod all (BJO's tea/coffee analogy) in the hope they sneak over the line. The party is bored/in mourning (I agree with Gordo there!) and looking for any balm that soothes the pain. Sadly for labour (and by extension us all), certain MP's (the morons) decided to let one of the loons free with a jar of balm snake oil, and we are now where we seem to be.
The deficit has indeed been cut; from 11% of GDP in the year to 31/3/2010 to 4% of GDP in the year to 31/3/2015.
Using percentage of GDP is highly misleading in this context. In recessions, GDP falls and government spending rises. You would naturally expect deficit as proportion of GDP to naturally decrease at the UK exited recession without any government intervention.
The national debt has of course increased over that period, because the deficit had not, for most of that period, been cut to the point where the national debt began falling as a percentage of GDP. Starting from an 11% deficit, the government would have had to implement enormous tax rises/and or spending cuts, to reduce the debt to GDP ratio from day one. I don't know whether or not you're arguing in favour of such a policy.
I don't have the figures at hand (I'm trying to find them to no avail) but I imagine raising VAT, not cutting income and corporation taxes and freezing pensions would have almost certainly had a greater effect on the deficit than the policies the government did carry out, and that's without swinging government spending cuts.
The government did raise VAT - to 20% from 17.5%. What figure did you have in mind? Or were you suggesting it should go on food and child clothing and books and newspapers? The deficit has come down by half in cash terms. In terms of cuts and the over hyped austerity - The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that the actual real-terms cut for non-ringfenced departments that have been, or will be asked for, will be 12.6%. This is a far cry for headlines of between 25 and 40% real-terms reductions in their so-called resource budgets of ring fenced departments. The resource budget in fact only encompasses some Whitehall spending, excluding for example capital spending, which is significant for some departments.
The truth is - as opposed to Labour lies and Corbynite hysteria that in real terms – 2013-14 prices – spending will rise from £724bn this year to £746.5bn in 2020-21, an increase over and above inflation of 3%. Do bear in mind that between 2000 and 2010 Brown increased spending in real terms by 50% - far less than the Tories will over 10 years.
I can't understand how you're calling for higher spending and a lower deficit at the same time. Where's the extra money going to come from?
The rich. It's always the rich.
It would be a useful experiment for Labour to assess every one of their spending pledges and ask themselves: would it still be right to implement this if one third of the cost had to come from the poorest half of society?
First of all, I'm not Labour. In fact, I'd argue that SeanT and Plato are more Labour than me, both being registered supporters!
But my belief is that the deficit and debt has to be cleared and policies like VAT increases, income tax rises and state pension freezes which would also affect the poorest half of society. This would allow debts to be cut while also protecting public services.
I can't understand how you're calling for higher spending and a lower deficit at the same time. Where's the extra money going to come from?
The rich. It's always the rich.
It would be a useful experiment for Labour to assess every one of their spending pledges and ask themselves: would it still be right to implement this if one third of the cost had to come from the poorest half of society?
First of all, I'm not Labour. In fact, I'd argue that SeanT and Plato are more Labour than me, both being registered supporters!
But my belief is that the deficit and debt has to be cleared and policies like VAT increases, income tax rises and state pension freezes which would also affect the poorest half of society. This would allow debts to be cut while also protecting public services.
We did have a VAT rise. It's now up to 20%. Much higher and you'd just make a huge black market. The income tax rate was increased to 50% under Labour, and it hardly brought in any money, so there's no way we could clear the deficit there.
You have a point on the state pension, but that wouldn't be enough.
The government did raise VAT - to 20% from 17.5%. What figure did you have in mind? Or were you suggesting it should go on food and child clothing and books and newspapers? The deficit has come down by half in cash terms.
They did - but the government frittered that money away on giveaways rather than using it to clear the deficit as promised.
In terms of cuts and the over hyped austerity - The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that the actual real-terms cut for non-ringfenced departments that have been, or will be asked for, will be 12.6%.
12.6% is a lot - and, of course, that's only the beginning.
The truth is - as opposed to Labour lies and Corbynite hysteria that in real terms – 2013-14 prices – spending will rise from £724bn this year to £746.5bn in 2020-21, an increase over and above inflation of 3%.
I assume that includes the huge pension increase. Also, the population is predicted to increase by 4%, so that's a real-terms cut.
It says it all about how dire Burnham's campaign has been that I was one of the approx 12 people to give him a first preference in 2010, yet I'm umming and ahhing about whether to do so this time.
I'm just waiting for Andy Burnham to buy a fake beard, so he can put it on and take it off each day, depending on how Corbyn is doing in the latest poll.
It's like Christmas has come early! Greek Election - 20th September Canadian Election - 19th October Polish Election - 25th October Spanish Election - 20th December (or earlier)
@Casino I do think of myself as quite dumb though irrespective of how poorly I performed on several IQ tests. For instance I cannot follow a James Bond Film. They drive me to distraction.
I am struck by people's intelligence. I met Tissue Price briefly and you could sense that hyper intelligence he possesses. Also, when you read Tissue's leads, they are exceptionally well written and clever. Similarly, Sean Fear- his posts are often just one liners but he manages to get his whole argument in those few words.
RodCrosby is clearly too intelligent for his own good- he could do with being a bit dumber and his life would be easier. JackW writes beautifully. SeanT is incredibly creative. Nick Palmer's understated and polite demeanour hides his intelligence. I'd love to see Nick unshackled and really tell us how it it. He'll never do it though. You Casino, strike me as being successful in what you do.
I like pbCOM because you get intelligent people here. All of us are politically misguided to a greater or lesser extent. It is what makes it such an entertaining site.
My point was you clearly are intelligent, if politically misguided. It sounds like you just aren't good at a certain type of IQ test.
That isn't the be all and end all, as you demonstrate.
Many thanks. You shouldn't underestimate yourself. IQ tests aren't very important.
One consequence of JC win, that I don't think has been commented on, is that a new policy process, actively involving the membership etc etc, will mean throwing out all the work undertaken by Crudas and co and starting a massive four year navel gazing process.
I imagine not, because Syriza is likely to split (it's a coalition anyway), and that would mean they'd lose the curious bonus seats which the top-placed party gets. But who knows?
The Conservatives have, and continue to use, the deficit as cover for implementing ideological policies to fundamentally change the role of the state - small government (eternal 'austerity'), unaffordable income tax cuts, increases to VAT, pension increases, increasing student fees, cutting student support etc.
Why would the Tories need cover for implementing their ideology? They got voted in with a majority precisely because that was the ideology that the electorate wanted.
People want a smaller state with lower spending, they also want the deficit to be reduced. The Tories are providing them with a double win.
I can't understand the lefty outrage at the Tories enacting policies from their manifesto on which they got voted into power.
On the contrary, that's neither how they ran their campaign nor how they presented themselves in their manifesto. Indeed, I actually read all the manifestos and don't simply makes assumptions about what they say!
As I've said previously, what are the first things the Conservatives did getting into power? 1. Private Royal Mail 2. Remove support for the poorest at University 3. Gut the BBC 4. Cut Corporation Tax 5. Remove tax credits to push children into poverty
How many of these were in the Conservative manifesto? None. Zero. Zilch.
The Conservatives run on one platform, presenting themselves in a certain way, and then do something quite different.
1. Privatising the Royal Mail has been bipartisan government policy for a decade 2. No support for the poorest has been removed. Eventually high earning students will have to pay more, but those that are currently and will remain poor are not paying anything. 3. I have noticed zero impact in the output of the BBC in the last five years. 4. Cutting corporate tax will allow more companies to move here and ultimately see higher receipts. 5. The tax credit system had got out of control, and were incentivising people not to work.
The I this morning reports that, if Mr Corbyn becomes leader, he will expect a show of unity from the party's MPs. He may well get it - Labour does set a high value on loyalty - but I am dismayed at the 'Do as I say, not as I do' approach.
Earlier it was reported (I forget where I saw it) that he would allow MPs a free vote on every division, and that would have been right & proper given his own record of going his own way. That would have been the approach of a man of principle.
I find what is happening to the Labour party very distressing. I'm not a member; you might call me a well-wisher. I want to be able to vote Labour. I sometimes post the odd comment on Labour-Uncut, but really, what is happening now - what might be about to happen now - has me feeling I can only stand silently by in sorrow, as when the funeral procession of some loved public figure passes.
I hope it all resolves itself into a storm in a teacup.
It won't. I've come to believe that Corbyn's imminent election spells the end of the Labour Party. Unfortunately FPTP means splitting is not an option but I don't see how I can remain long term in a party led by that idiot. The current voting system means that any realignment of the left may take a generation to achieve, so we will have one-party government for a long long time. Possibly 30 years. The Tories are intent on making sure that only they are funded properly too and will continue to do whatever they can go ensure they achieve perpetual majorities on around a third of the vote.
This will be very bad for democracy and the UK in general.
Agreed. Govts need sensible oppositions to scrutinise, to keep them on their toes, and to be a credible alternative. Without the latter, the governing party's (of whatever stripe) loons tend to escape out of their straightjackets and start having influence because there's no reasonable alternative. It's not good for any of us.
The problem is for Labour that the three "sensible" candidates on offer are either just not being listened to by Labour (Kendall) or are the epitome of the spadocracy honed to say sod all (BJO's tea/coffee analogy) in the hope they sneak over the line. The party is bored/in mourning (I agree with Gordo there!) and looking for any balm that soothes the pain. Sadly for labour (and by extension us all), certain MP's (the morons) decided to let one of the loons free with a jar of balm snake oil, and we are now where we seem to be.
Yup. I'm a delegate to conference this year. That'll be interesting. In the Chinese proverb sense of the word.
I keep coming back to the fact that a fractured political landscape desperately needs some form of PR. Then we could all vote for who we liked and Corbyn and his £3 zombies could go and form their own party.
I can't understand how you're calling for higher spending and a lower deficit at the same time. Where's the extra money going to come from?
The rich. It's always the rich.
It would be a useful experiment for Labour to assess every one of their spending pledges and ask themselves: would it still be right to implement this if one third of the cost had to come from the poorest half of society?
First of all, I'm not Labour. In fact, I'd argue that SeanT and Plato are more Labour than me, both being registered supporters!
But my belief is that the deficit and debt has to be cleared and policies like VAT increases, income tax rises and state pension freezes which would also affect the poorest half of society. This would allow debts to be cut while also protecting public services.
We did have a VAT rise. It's now up to 20%. Much higher and you'd just make a huge black market. The income tax rate was increased to 50% under Labour, and it hardly brought in any money, so there's no way we could clear the deficit there.
You have a point on the state pension, but that wouldn't be enough.
The VAT rise money was used to pay for income tax cuts, corporation tax cuts and state pension increase. These are policies which I do not agree with and I believe had a negative impact on cutting the deficit and the national debt.
I fundamentally believe in reducing deficits and debts so the country is not at the whims of financial markets.
Via Guido - Jezza vs Mrs T youtube.com/watch?v=UhEPyjolGQQ
Not for a minute suggesting Thatcher should have done so here, but wouldn't it be great if the PM, just for once, said "yeah, fair point" when an opposition MP pulled them up
Mr. F, quite, although I'd add that Heraclius had rescued the situation and Byzantium had its boot on Chosroes' increasingly mad throat by the time that chap Mohammed and his chums starting taking huge lumps out of the two exhausted empires.
It demonstrates how much the Empire depended on having good emperors. It contradicts the view that history turns on economic changes and trends in society.
There was a very good run of Emperors in the Sixth Century, Anastasius, Justininan, Tiberius Constantine, and Maurice, followed by Heraclius in the Seventh. But one brutal idiot, Phocas, was able to bring the Empire to the brink of ruin.
It says it all about how dire Burnham's campaign has been that I was one of the approx 12 people to give him a first preference in 2010, yet I'm umming and ahhing about whether to do so this time.
Indeed. I believe Burnham, Cooper and Kendall are all crap candidates who have run crap campaigns. Corbyn is a far better candidate who has run a good campaign.
I honestly think some people here are underestimating Corbyn. He's likeable, at that goes a long way. I can see his messages resonating and I think Corbyn would do a far better job at defending Labour's policies and positions.
I think there's a belief among politics fans that the typical voter is far more ideological than they actually are.
I can't understand how you're calling for higher spending and a lower deficit at the same time. Where's the extra money going to come from?
That's not what I'm arguing. In fact, I'm pretty sure I haven't even discussed about what the country should do about the deficit - in fact, I imagine my opinion on the matter would surprise you!
My problem is that the Conservatives present themselves as prioritising cutting the deficit when what they are really focusing on is reduce revenue by lowering taxes and spending money by increasing pensions instead. That's the problem.
There was a need for austerity because, analagously to 1997 when sleaze had overtaken the Cons and everyone was sick of it, by 2010 everyone was sick of the excess spending.
As, it seems, you are aware, governments have and arguably should run manageable deficits. The narrative in 2010 was that we needed austerity, the electorate agreed we needed cleansing and thus the Cons won.
Look on it as we went on the 5:2 diet. We did indeed have two years of austerity, after which it was quietly abandoned and we are three years through our five of non-austerity.
The crux of the argument was and is the size of the state, not the size of the deficit. Cons should (I do) want a smaller state than the behemoth that GB had created. I agree all the credit rating stuff was fluff (for a country which issues its own currency and especially in a low inflationary environment) but sometimes the public hears what it wants to hear.
I think I stumbled on one of your old posts about the WW2- and had this to add for reading material.
JK Galbraith did some great analysis on the military economy in Nazi Germany, and found it severely lacking.
BTW- I'm just coming to the end of a superb novel- Ostland by David Thomas. Apart from being outstanding brilliant, it gets a close as I think possible to the mindset of a middle ranking Nazi official committing the most atrocious acts. It makes you consider what would you do in similar circumstances- an uncomfortable question indeed.
I am struck by people's intelligence. I met Tissue Price briefly and you could sense that hyper intelligence he possesses. Also, when you read Tissue's leads, they are exceptionally well written and clever. Similarly, Sean Fear- his posts are often just one liners but he manages to get his whole argument in those few words.
RodCrosby is clearly too intelligent for his own good- he could do with being a bit dumber and his life would be easier. JackW writes beautifully. SeanT is incredibly creative. Nick Palmer's understated and polite demeanour hides his intelligence. I'd love to see Nick unshackled and really tell us how it it. He'll never do it though. You Casino, strike me as being successful in what you do.
I like pbCOM because you get intelligent people here. All of us are politically misguided to a greater or lesser extent. It is what makes it such an entertaining site.
I'm blushing, tyson. I agree with you, that is the best feature of pb. There's only a minimal amount of persuading going on, but some beautiful argument from all sides.
By damage limitation I mean holding Labour afloat at the 200 mark following the boundary review. I do not envisage any Labour advance at all at the next election- but with Corbyn Labour would lose possibly 50-70 seats.
The reason why I think Burnham will replace Jezza is because the bad blood required to get rid of Corbyn will be horribly decisive. Labour will need someone after who has some kind of cross party appeal, and a safe pair of hands.
Looking at the process that the Tories went through in the naughties, I think Labour will turn to Burnham as a unity candidate in 2018, as the Tories turned to Howard, but like Howard, Burnham's role will be damage limitation. The leader after Burnham will be Labour's next PM.
I've felt right from the start that Corbyn doesn't want to be Prime Minister or lead Labour into the next election. He wants to shake things up, change the agenda, show other potential Labour leaders how to challenge the Tories, how to enthuse followers etc. He is succeeding in that but run for PM - no, I don't think so.
My guess is that he will form a close partnership with Burnham. Together they will develop a distinctive leftish set of policies with a vivid story that challenges Osborne's narrative, and at the right moment, with Corbyn's support, Burnham will take over the leadership to fight the next General Election and become the next PM after Cameron. I'm on at 22 on Betfair.
If you were to be proved correct re-Burnham in 2018 - I doubt it myself! - and he does as well as Howard with Labour gaining 30 - 35 seats to reach circa 265 in 2020 he is likely to become PM.
Look at the probablilities:
Prob Burnham is elected LOTO 20% (Betfair)
Prob Corbyn is elected LOTO 70% (Betfair) Prob Corbyn hands over to Burnham before next GE say 40%. (Put your own figure in here)
So Prob Burnham is LOTO at next GE is 20% plus 70%x40% say 50% chance.
Probability CON lose majority with Burnham as LOTO - say 50% (Betfair suggests 45%). It only needs the LibDems to take back say 10 seats.
So overall probability Burnham is next PM leading a minority LAB government (assuming Cameron doesn't step down before the next election) is 50% x 50% i.e. 25% or 5s on Betfair.
For 22s to be "skinny" there needs to be a less than 5% chance that Burnham will be next PM. There is a 20% chance that Burnham is elected LOTO according to Betfair. If you assume that there is only a 25% chance that the Tories could be deprived of their majority with Burnham as LOTO that still gives a 5% chance overall. And that is disregarding the possibility of Corbyn winning and then handing over to Burnham.
Yeah, or some hybrid system (a la Germany/Wales/Scotland) as long as it was possible to actually win a majority in a "good year" like 83,87,97,01. FPTP is not really fit for purpose when we have a fractured landscape, as long as we are sure that landscape itself is going to last and not just a phase of realignment like say the 1920's.
Blair won a maj of 65 in 2005 with 36% or so and a lead of under 3% if I recall. He even got 90 odd seats more in England having lost (just) the popular vote. Madness, and wrong. How much better might we (and Labour for that matter now) all have been if Gordon had had to listen to coalition partner Vince Cable tugging at his elbow in 2005-8 saying "you're getting over reliant on taxes from banks, it's too narrow , expand you tax base, and rein in the spending a bit"?
Looking at the process that the Tories went through in the naughties, I think Labour will turn to Burnham as a unity candidate in 2018, as the Tories turned to Howard, but like Howard, Burnham's role will be damage limitation. The leader after Burnham will be Labour's next PM.
I've felt right from the start that Corbyn doesn't want to be Prime Minister or lead Labour into the next election. He wants to shake things up, change the agenda, show other potential Labour leaders how to challenge the Tories, how to enthuse followers etc. He is succeeding in that but run for PM - no, I don't think so.
My guess is that he will form a close partnership with Burnham. Together they will develop a distinctive leftish set of policies with a vivid story that challenges Osborne's narrative, and at the right moment, with Corbyn's support, Burnham will take over the leadership to fight the next General Election and become the next PM after Cameron. I'm on at 22 on Betfair.
If Labour get a Howard-style unity candidate it won't be Burnham. Howard was not a contender in the 2001 election which is why he was a credible unity candidate. Burnham as a [by then] twice-defeated leadership contender would not be a credible unity candidate.
If Labour go down the Howard route then it will be someone who hasn't stood this time. An "old Pope" who'd be expected to resign after the election. If he was still an MP it could be for example Alastair Darling, I'm not sure who it would be now.
It would be Harriet.
Experienced. Safe pair of hands (relatively speaking)
And knows where the bodies are buried.
Not after how she has cocked up this time it won't!
Perhaps the most obvious thing that arises from the Labour leadership election is what a complete and utter waste of time and space Ed was. 5 years after losing power Labour really had nothing to say, no economic policy, no clear priorities, nothing but vacuous soundbites and the odd bandwagon.
I think this has severely hampered the mainstream candidates that were part of that shadow cabinet. If they had, or had been allowed to develop clear and sensible policies in their areas of responsibility then they would have had a base from which it was possible to set out their priorities, Labour's priorities and the principles that had informed them. Instead they had nothing, nothing to work from and nothing to say leaving the field open to Corbyn.
Labour seem to have wasted 5 years as well as losing Scotland putting them in a weaker position than when Brown stood down. And they seem determined to start the road back with yet another detour.
I keep coming back to the fact that a fractured political landscape desperately needs some form of PR. Then we could all vote for who we liked and Corbyn and his £3 zombies could go and form their own party.
Or the landscape shows why we desperately need to keep FPTP and that it helps ensure that election winning parties that form the government are the broadchurch coalitions with sensible people in control.
The British electorate is very good at working FPTP to get the result that overall over time the country does well out of and can tolerate. I'd rather we didn't go down the route of PR nations like Greece and Israel.
Comments
October 20th, 2007
"4h4 hours ago
Gráinne Maguire @GrainneMaguire
I would encourage Labour members to join Tories to vote for most ridiculously alienating right wing candidate but he's already the leader"
And @ThreeQuidder are China and Russia uncivilised peoples who we should be antagonising, or are they for all their undoubted faults essential parts of the multi-polar world that is developing around us whilst we're still clinging to Uncle Sam's apron strings?
Where was 'The West' when America was going through it's 'reset' phase with Russia a few years back, and against the will of her Majesty's Government, America gave Russia the serial numbers of all our nukes? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8304654/WikiLeaks-cables-US-agrees-to-tell-Russia-Britains-nuclear-secrets.html
As America clearly realises, it's dog eat dog out there. The only time 'The West' gets invoked is when we're expected to tow the line. It's the new 'special relationship'.
As I've said previously, what are the first things the Conservatives did getting into power?
1. Private Royal Mail
2. Remove support for the poorest at University
3. Gut the BBC
4. Cut Corporation Tax
5. Remove tax credits to push children into poverty
How many of these were in the Conservative manifesto? None. Zero. Zilch.
The Conservatives run on one platform, presenting themselves in a certain way, and then do something quite different.
But what if by electing Corbyn the member for say Gower (maj 13) is instilled with confidence that barring meltdown over Europe (possible true) or another crash (China?) and quite possibly even then, his chances of being elected again are hugely greater because Corbyn is LOTO as Corbyn will be seen by middle England as simply too extreme? It's not about packing halls in Camden full of ex TUSC or Greens or 19 year old politics students where 2020 will be won. It's among the vaguely disinterested pottering along with their lives in the likes of Bury, the outer West Mids, and the Medway towns.
Add too that the DUP are probably more likely to give the Tories an easier ride in terms of Parliamentary votes given J Corbyn has not exactly been their best mate since 1983 has he?
Are you seriously suggesting that people should vote UKIP and pave the way for Corbyn as PM?
Looking at it in absolute terms, the deficit went from £160bn to £90bn over five years.
Earlier it was reported (I forget where I saw it) that he would allow MPs a free vote on every division, and that would have been right & proper given his own record of going his own way. That would have been the approach of a man of principle.
I find what is happening to the Labour party very distressing. I'm not a member; you might call me a well-wisher. I want to be able to vote Labour. I sometimes post the odd comment on Labour-Uncut, but really, what is happening now - what might be about to happen now - has me feeling I can only stand silently by in sorrow, as when the funeral procession of some loved public figure passes.
I hope it all resolves itself into a storm in a teacup.
Only in seats where they are second to Labour obviously :P
And that £90bn is significantly higher than all but one year under Labour and Brown, a party that the Tories and Tory-supporters repeatedly say spent too much!
And that's despite huge, swingeing government cuts.
Why have the Tories failed to get the deficit and debt under control, when it was supposed to be their #1 priority (or was that the credit rating, I forget)?
If it can't stomach the Tories, and doesn't like ultra-leftie-ism like the Greens, it leaves three options:
1) UKIP; 2) Lib Dems 3) Won't bother anymore;
Mr. F, just glanced at the last thread.
I'd attribute the loss of territory to Chosroes II being a close ally/friend of Maurice. Flavius Phocas' usurpation gave the Persian king the just cause/pretext to make war and end the prolonged truce with the Empire.
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/fall-rise-and-defeat-of-chosroes.html
But I learnt to read before I could speak, and I sailed effortlessly through grammar school top of the top stream, and University likewise hardly needing to study at all.
The two items in your list which relate to real things which the Conservatives have actually done (either in coalition or in this term), i.e. 1 and 4, were in the 2010/2015 manifestos or already announced.
And that's despite huge, swingeing government cuts.
Why have the Tories failed to get the deficit and debt under control, when it was supposed to be their #1 priority (or was that the credit rating, I forget)?
Yeah that one year Labour had a higher deficit happened to be their last.
I can't understand how you're calling for higher spending and a lower deficit at the same time. Where's the extra money going to come from?
UKIP might do well with the white working class
A Respect type party might do well with ethnic minority voters
The LDs might do well with public sector workers
The Greens might do well with young people/students
It is unlikely thought that any of these parties can do well with all 4 groups.
Let's look at a seat like Leeds NE: Lab 48%, Con 33%, UKIP 8%, LD 5%, Green 5%
If Lab was to do badly here the most likely result would be some of Lab's voters not turning out, others going to multiple different parties and Con coming through the middle
I'm also spatially rubbish. My old watch was on the verge, before it broke down, of needing replacing because I'd cracked the plastic/glass cover so many times I doubted its integrity. And I'm horrendously absent-minded for certain things.
I really wouldn't take IQ seriously.
https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto
That isn't the be all and end all, as you demonstrate.
Jimmy Carter should be celebrating the fact that he reached the age of 90- and even at that age, old age is more likely to kill him than cancer that still spreads slowly at that age. Why is this anyone's business other than his own?
This will be very bad for democracy and the UK in general.
And that's despite huge, swingeing government cuts.
Why have the Tories failed to get the deficit and debt under control, when it was supposed to be their #1 priority (or was that the credit rating, I forget)?
The difference being that Labour inherited a small deficit, and the Conservatives inherited a deficit of £160bn. If the Conservatives had inherited a deficit of £90bn and five years later, it was still £90bn, then clearly they would have failed. But, that wasn't the starting point.
I can't find a bloody thing in my house and have to ask my wife for anything not staring me in the face. The only thing I can out spot her on is her own glasses, which she seems completely blind towards even when right in front of her.
(*Please don't try and pull me up for sexism)
His decision to go public about his illness seems to be intended to give hope to others, which is surely no bad thing?
The reason why I think Burnham will replace Jezza is because the bad blood required to get rid of Corbyn will be horribly decisive. Labour will need someone after who has some kind of cross party appeal, and a safe pair of hands.
Are you totally doolally?
Tory MPs in marginal seats would be signing their own death warrant in 2020 by supporting the opposition and effectively making the opposition believable instead of incoherent. Dream on.
The majority is not 6 anyway - take 330 from 650 gives 320. 330-320 = 10. But effectively the majority is nearer 19 I think.
But in any event by all means try and create an alliance - with the SNP. That should be fun.
Nice try, though!
Chosroes' problem was he didn't know when to stop. He tried to conquer the whole Roman Empire. And, it turned out to one of those wars that was disastrous for both sides, as the Arabs made huge gains from both.
Tory MPs in marginal seats would be signing their own death warrant in 2020 by supporting the opposition and effectively making the opposition believable instead of incoherent. Dream on.
The majority is not 6 anyway - take 330 from 650 gives 320. 330-320 = 10. But effectively the majority is nearer 19 I think.
But in any event by all means try and create an alliance - with the SNP. That should be fun.
Except even now we're already seeing Tory MPs protesting against tax credit cuts.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/polls-biden-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-jeb-bush-2015-8?r=US&IR=T
Labour turning to a guy who is a serial loser is certainly one way to go into the next election...
Tory MPs in marginal seats would be signing their own death warrant in 2020 by supporting the opposition and effectively making the opposition believable instead of incoherent. Dream on.
The majority is not 6 anyway - take 330 from 650 gives 320. 330-320 = 10. But effectively the majority is nearer 19 I think.
But in any event by all means try and create an alliance - with the SNP. That should be fun.
The Government's "Working Majority" is 16 - as set out on the House of Commons official website:
http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/current-state-of-the-parties/
"initially, we will cut the headline rate of corporation tax to 25p and the small companies’ rate to 20p, funded by reducing complex reliefs and allowances. Over time, we hope to reduce these rates further. Our ambition is to create the most competitive tax system in the G20 within five years".
http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/current-state-of-the-parties/
OK, so only 8 Tory rebels needed - very possible with a competent Opposition leader who can whip up the public and get them to put pressure on their MPs.
If Labour go down the Howard route then it will be someone who hasn't stood this time. An "old Pope" who'd be expected to resign after the election. If he was still an MP it could be for example Alastair Darling, I'm not sure who it would be now.
http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/current-state-of-the-parties/
Isabel Hardman pointed out that were Labour to elect Corbyn, the Tory majority goes up from 16 to 36.
As there's no way the DUP and UUP will align themselves with Labour and will not do anything that heralds a Labour led government.
My problem is that the Conservatives present themselves as prioritising cutting the deficit when what they are really focusing on is reduce revenue by lowering taxes and spending money by increasing pensions instead. That's the problem.
Be interesting to follow Carswell's voting record this Parliament. I suspect he will vote pretty much with the Govt.....
I do think of myself as quite dumb though irrespective of how poorly I performed on several IQ tests. For instance I cannot follow a James Bond Film. They drive me to distraction.
I am struck by people's intelligence. I met Tissue Price briefly and you could sense that hyper intelligence he possesses. Also, when you read Tissue's leads, they are exceptionally well written and clever. Similarly, Sean Fear- his posts are often just one liners but he manages to get his whole argument in those few words.
RodCrosby is clearly too intelligent for his own good- he could do with being a bit dumber and his life would be easier. JackW writes beautifully. SeanT is incredibly creative. Nick Palmer's understated and polite demeanour hides his intelligence. I'd love to see Nick unshackled and really tell us how it it. He'll never do it though.
You Casino, strike me as being successful in what you do.
I like pbCOM because you get intelligent people here. All of us are politically misguided to a greater or lesser extent. It is what makes it such an entertaining site.
My point was you clearly are intelligent, if politically misguided. It sounds like you just aren't good at a certain type of IQ test.
That isn't the be all and end all, as you demonstrate.
More Northern Tests now!
and eat your words:-)
Experienced. Safe pair of hands (relatively speaking)
And knows where the bodies are buried.
The problem is for Labour that the three "sensible" candidates on offer are either just not being listened to by Labour (Kendall) or are the epitome of the spadocracy honed to say sod all (BJO's tea/coffee analogy) in the hope they sneak over the line. The party is bored/in mourning (I agree with Gordo there!) and looking for any balm that soothes the pain. Sadly for labour (and by extension us all), certain MP's (the morons) decided to let one of the loons free with a jar of balm snake oil, and we are now where we seem to be.
The government did raise VAT - to 20% from 17.5%. What figure did you have in mind? Or were you suggesting it should go on food and child clothing and books and newspapers? The deficit has come down by half in cash terms.
In terms of cuts and the over hyped austerity - The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that the actual real-terms cut for non-ringfenced departments that have been, or will be asked for, will be 12.6%.
This is a far cry for headlines of between 25 and 40% real-terms reductions in their so-called resource budgets of ring fenced departments. The resource budget in fact only encompasses some Whitehall spending, excluding for example capital spending, which is significant for some departments.
http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002114.html#more
The truth is - as opposed to Labour lies and Corbynite hysteria that in real terms – 2013-14 prices – spending will rise from £724bn this year to £746.5bn in 2020-21, an increase over and above inflation of 3%.
Do bear in mind that between 2000 and 2010 Brown increased spending in real terms by 50% - far less than the Tories will over 10 years.
But my belief is that the deficit and debt has to be cleared and policies like VAT increases, income tax rises and state pension freezes which would also affect the poorest half of society. This would allow debts to be cut while also protecting public services.
You have a point on the state pension, but that wouldn't be enough.
http://www.cityam.com/222737/greek-stocks-suffer-amid-speculation-prime-minister-alexis-tsipras-will-call-snap-elections
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhEPyjolGQQ
Greek Election - 20th September
Canadian Election - 19th October
Polish Election - 25th October
Spanish Election - 20th December (or earlier)
Tsipras to win and increase majority maybe ?
That isn't the be all and end all, as you demonstrate.
Many thanks. You shouldn't underestimate yourself. IQ tests aren't very important.
2. No support for the poorest has been removed. Eventually high earning students will have to pay more, but those that are currently and will remain poor are not paying anything.
3. I have noticed zero impact in the output of the BBC in the last five years.
4. Cutting corporate tax will allow more companies to move here and ultimately see higher receipts.
5. The tax credit system had got out of control, and were incentivising people not to work.
I keep coming back to the fact that a fractured political landscape desperately needs some form of PR. Then we could all vote for who we liked and Corbyn and his £3 zombies could go and form their own party.
I fundamentally believe in reducing deficits and debts so the country is not at the whims of financial markets.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/08/20/uk-eurozone-greece-tsipras-idUKKCN0QP16020150820
As you know, nothing major happens when Mike goes on holiday
Must be tempting to go off and earn loads more money somewhere else rather than endure a shambles and lose again in 2020?
There was a very good run of Emperors in the Sixth Century, Anastasius, Justininan, Tiberius Constantine, and Maurice, followed by Heraclius in the Seventh. But one brutal idiot, Phocas, was able to bring the Empire to the brink of ruin.
Corporation tax receipts: Up
I'll grant you that state pensions were increased a little.
I honestly think some people here are underestimating Corbyn. He's likeable, at that goes a long way. I can see his messages resonating and I think Corbyn would do a far better job at defending Labour's policies and positions.
I think there's a belief among politics fans that the typical voter is far more ideological than they actually are.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/08/16/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-jeremy/
As, it seems, you are aware, governments have and arguably should run manageable deficits. The narrative in 2010 was that we needed austerity, the electorate agreed we needed cleansing and thus the Cons won.
Look on it as we went on the 5:2 diet. We did indeed have two years of austerity, after which it was quietly abandoned and we are three years through our five of non-austerity.
The crux of the argument was and is the size of the state, not the size of the deficit. Cons should (I do) want a smaller state than the behemoth that GB had created. I agree all the credit rating stuff was fluff (for a country which issues its own currency and especially in a low inflationary environment) but sometimes the public hears what it wants to hear.
I think I stumbled on one of your old posts about the WW2- and had this to add for reading material.
JK Galbraith did some great analysis on the military economy in Nazi Germany, and found it severely lacking.
BTW- I'm just coming to the end of a superb novel- Ostland by David Thomas. Apart from being outstanding brilliant, it gets a close as I think possible to the mindset of a middle ranking Nazi official committing the most atrocious acts. It makes you consider what would you do in similar circumstances- an uncomfortable question indeed.
Prob Burnham is elected LOTO 20% (Betfair)
Prob Corbyn is elected LOTO 70% (Betfair)
Prob Corbyn hands over to Burnham before next GE say 40%. (Put your own figure in here)
So Prob Burnham is LOTO at next GE is 20% plus 70%x40% say 50% chance.
Probability CON lose majority with Burnham as LOTO - say 50% (Betfair suggests 45%). It only needs the LibDems to take back say 10 seats.
So overall probability Burnham is next PM leading a minority LAB government (assuming Cameron doesn't step down before the next election) is 50% x 50% i.e. 25% or 5s on Betfair.
For 22s to be "skinny" there needs to be a less than 5% chance that Burnham will be next PM. There is a 20% chance that Burnham is elected LOTO according to Betfair. If you assume that there is only a 25% chance that the Tories could be deprived of their majority with Burnham as LOTO that still gives a 5% chance overall. And that is disregarding the possibility of Corbyn winning and then handing over to Burnham.
Yeah, or some hybrid system (a la Germany/Wales/Scotland) as long as it was possible to actually win a majority in a "good year" like 83,87,97,01. FPTP is not really fit for purpose when we have a fractured landscape, as long as we are sure that landscape itself is going to last and not just a phase of realignment like say the 1920's.
Blair won a maj of 65 in 2005 with 36% or so and a lead of under 3% if I recall. He even got 90 odd seats more in England having lost (just) the popular vote. Madness, and wrong. How much better might we (and Labour for that matter now) all have been if Gordon had had to listen to coalition partner Vince Cable tugging at his elbow in 2005-8 saying "you're getting over reliant on taxes from banks, it's too narrow , expand you tax base, and rein in the spending a bit"?
And if Cameron stands down before the GE its a loser
I think this has severely hampered the mainstream candidates that were part of that shadow cabinet. If they had, or had been allowed to develop clear and sensible policies in their areas of responsibility then they would have had a base from which it was possible to set out their priorities, Labour's priorities and the principles that had informed them. Instead they had nothing, nothing to work from and nothing to say leaving the field open to Corbyn.
Labour seem to have wasted 5 years as well as losing Scotland putting them in a weaker position than when Brown stood down. And they seem determined to start the road back with yet another detour.
Tsipiras remains personally popular, so I suspect he will win. But this is Greece, so who knows..
If Corbyn becomes the next Labour leader, I'll HAPPILY go 6-4 for you for Andy to be the next Labour party leader (Up to a ton)
The British electorate is very good at working FPTP to get the result that overall over time the country does well out of and can tolerate. I'd rather we didn't go down the route of PR nations like Greece and Israel.
"The Labour Party could end up splitting if Jeremy Corbyn is elected leader, Yvette Cooper has claimed."
You don't say...