The Conservatives have done a great job in power the last few years, but there's some big things I'd like to see them still do:
- Get a proper renegotiation out of the EU, or otherwise recommend leaving - Get rid of the licence fee and install some proper balance at the BBC - Reform our council house system, so the state no longer subsidises below market rents for the non-poor - Combined employee NI and income tax - Get rid of employers NI - Build a hell of a lot more housing - Make all benefits contributory
A good starting point.
It will take a decade to do Housing Reform. Tories are still scared of Nimbys. Council Housing is unacceptable due to conflicts of interest.
They also need to address Higher Education and Charity Reform.
It seems to be a constant theme of Mr Herdson´s (and others) that "the Lib Dems have moved left under Farron". I wonder what evidence he has for asserting that.
The Lib Dems are the party as a whole, not the MPs. And policy is decided by the party conference, not by the leader personally. Of course the leader in turn will choose to emphasise some aspects of policy rather than others, but it does not mean that the "followers" start thinking any differently.
It was very clear, during the years of the Coalition Government, that Nick Clegg put far more emphasis on government policy (influenced by Conservative values), rather than pure Lib Dem policy. But Lib Dems didn´t change then, and haven´t now. Why does Mr Herdson think that Lib Dem supporters, let alone activists, were a bit grumpy during all this period?
Now, free from the shackles of working with the Tories, Lib Dem values and policies are coming to the fore once again. The difference will not be noticed overnight. But the Tories will start to feel the impact in the country of sustained Lib Dem criticism.
Mr Cameron, up until now, has been a lucky general, but I still think that he has been grossly over-rated, especially by the PB Tories. He is going to have enormous difficulty in keeping his Conservative coalition together. We shall see.
What I found profoundly depressing was last night's AQ. Polly and Corbyn were on advocating £1m for everyone especially sainted nurses, and let's take all economic migrants because that'd be nice too.
It's so incredibly childish - yet that's the dumbed down level of *debate* we can expect for the next few years. Tories will never have been so evil since Fatcher. Again. Yawn.
Miliband's electoral failure was in part due to the perception by some that he was a foreign "Polish" judeobolshevist. Corbyn does not suffer from the same handicap.
It seems to be a constant theme of Mr Herdson´s (and others) that "the Lib Dems have moved left under Farron". I wonder what evidence he has for asserting that.
The Lib Dems are the party as a whole, not the MPs. And policy is decided by the party conference, not by the leader personally. Of course the leader in turn will choose to emphasise some aspects of policy rather than others, but it does not mean that the "followers" start thinking any differently.
It was very clear, during the years of the Coalition Government, that Nick Clegg put far more emphasis on government policy (influenced by Conservative values), rather than pure Lib Dem policy. But Lib Dems didn´t change then, and haven´t now. Why does Mr Herdson think that Lib Dem supporters, let alone activists, were a bit grumpy during all this period?
Now, free from the shackles of working with the Tories, Lib Dem values and policies are coming to the fore once again. The difference will not be noticed overnight. But the Tories will start to feel the impact in the country of sustained Lib Dem criticism.
Mr Cameron, up until now, has been a lucky general, but I still think that he has been grossly over-rated, especially by the PB Tories. He is going to have enormous difficulty in keeping his Conservative coalition together. We shall see.
Cameron may well get more credit now because he got very little before, including from a noisy part of his own party, which was proven wrong ( even luck generals need to not mess things up, and thus play some role in their own success).
I take your point about whether the lds have moved left or not. But if it is case that they appeared different due to the focus on government not LD policy and now only the latter will be seen from them, then the. Perception they have moved left will exist, which for electoral purposes is the same as actually moving left.
Whilst there are things on my Parly Bucket List that I'd love to see happen, I'd happily sacrifice most of them to keep Labour out, and the Tories popular enough to win in GE2020 and possibly in GE2025.
The union dues/strike thresholds is already on the cards, the BBC in their sights too - I hope the TVLF will be abolished, and I will object most strongly at any attempts to roll it into general taxation. Merging NICS and IC the big one I'd really like - along with a simplification of the whole tax system.
I'd like to see State boarding schools for those kids who'd really benefit from a change of home environment, and big push on foster caring rather than group homes. Ditto removing mental health issues from prisons into other institutions. I think we really threw the baby out with the bathwater under Care in the Community.
If you want to radically reform the country, the priority surely must be to get the third term. Change takes time, and even if you succeed in reforms, they can all too easily be reversed if they are not fully bedded-in. So I don't think it's a choice between remodelling the country and getting a third term: you need the third term to remodel the country.
Of course that doesn't mean that the government should be reckless in spending political capital; like Maggie in her prime, governments should take on the right battles, and be careful not to give too much ammunition to opponents, especially on non-core issues.
I suppose the point is that if Corbyn is elected, outside of making the cock-up to end all cock-ups or a personal scandal which destroys the leadership (and even that is probably recoverable), you can probably guarantee the third term, it's a free pass - a Labour party either led by Corbyn, or which has to spend years trying to make itself plausible again while dealing with the splits on the left any defenestration would cause won't win in 2020. Horrific to say this as a Labour member (for how much longer?) but what you're thinking about is the fourth term. Chances are, at some point in the next ten years the ordure will hit the fan and the Tories will become wildly unpopular, but if that happens before 2020, it's likely you'll still get in if the alternative is Corbyn, or get a stonking majority in 2020 and it could be virtually impossible for Labour to win in 2025.
Which is why the Corbyn surge is so dispiriting - it could literally stop any chance of a Labour government until 2030 yet his supporters don't seem to realise the seppuku they're committing.
-snip- The same Pareto-inefficiency is true of negotiations over the EU and Scotland or abolishing the BBC in effect, none of which is win-win, while migration is intrinsically tied to the EU; it's not really asylum seekers but living beside Poles, Romanians and Muslims that gets some people angry, so try stop that without Brexit.
Excellent straw man argument to end with. Definitely not the increase on the demand side equation of [housing, nhs, education, emergency services, etc.] People recognise that our population cannot increase indefinitely and want a sustainable settlement for the country. [Without population density rising to the point that living standards inevitably decrease]
I don't think people are much bothered by Polish immigrants.
In some places they very much are.
Considering the numbers, I do not think they are. Much more bothered by the few thousand at Calais.
Also many of the people who do grumble never vote.
There have been large Polish communities here since at least the 1930s 1940s.
They assimilate and share much of a common culture
There has been a substantial Polish community in Leics since the war, and I think that has certainly helped newer migrants integrate. In a few years only the problems of spelling names will remain, but otherwise integration will be pretty complete.
Miliband's electoral failure was in part due to the perception by some that he was a foreign "Polish" judeobolshevist. Corbyn does not suffer from the same handicap.
I have trouble believing that was a mainstream enough view to impact the result in a significant way. If it were having that type of impact, it'd have been seen a lot more than it was even among the ridiculous stuff.
Whilst there are things on my Parly Bucket List that I'd love to see happen, I'd happily sacrifice most of them to keep Labour out, and the Tories popular enough to win in GE2020 and possibly in GE2025.
The union dues/strike thresholds is already on the cards, the BBC in their sights too - I hope the TVLF will be abolished, and I will object most strongly at any attempts to roll it into general taxation. Merging NICS and IC the big one I'd really like - along with a simplification of the whole tax system.
I'd like to see State boarding schools for those kids who'd really benefit from a change of home environment, and big push on foster caring rather than group homes. Ditto removing mental health issues from prisons into other institutions. I think we really threw the baby out with the bathwater under Care in the Community.
If you want to radically reform the country, the priority surely must be to get the third term. Change takes time, and even if you succeed in reforms, they can all too easily be reversed if they are not fully bedded-in. So I don't think it's a choice between remodelling the country and getting a third term: you need the third term to remodel the country.
Of course that doesn't mean that the government should be reckless in spending political capital; like Maggie in her prime, governments should take on the right battles, and be careful not to give too much ammunition to opponents, especially on non-core issues.
Which is why the Corbyn surge is so dispiriting - it could literally stop any chance of a Labour government until 2030 yet his supporters don't seem to realise the seppuku they're committing.
Such people are impervious to reason, impervious to the facts. Always have been.
Whilst there are things on my Parly Bucket List that I'd love to see happen, I'd happily sacrifice most of them to keep Labour out, and the Tories popular enough to win in GE2020 and possibly in GE2025.
The union dues/strike thresholds is already on the cards, the BBC in their sights too - I hope the TVLF will be abolished, and I will object most strongly at any attempts to roll it into general taxation. Merging NICS and IC the big one I'd really like - along with a simplification of the whole tax system.
I'd like to see State boarding schools for those kids who'd really benefit from a change of home environment, and big push on foster caring rather than group homes. Ditto removing mental health issues from prisons into other institutions. I think we really threw the baby out with the bathwater under Care in the Community.
Of course that doesn't mean that the government should be reckless in spending political capital; like Maggie in her prime, governments should take on the right battles, and be careful not to give too much ammunition to opponents, especially on non-core issues.
I suppose the point is that if Corbyn is elected, outside of making the cock-up to end all cock-ups or a personal scandal which destroys the leadership (and even that is probably recoverable), you can probably guarantee the third term, it's a free pass - a Labour party either led by Corbyn, or which has to spend years trying to make itself plausible again while dealing with the splits on the left any defenestration would cause won't win in 2020. Horrific to say this as a Labour member (for how much longer?) but what you're thinking about is the fourth term. Chances are, at some point in the next ten years the ordure will hit the fan and the Tories will become wildly unpopular, but if that happens before 2020, it's likely you'll still get in if the alternative is Corbyn, or get a stonking majority in 2020 and it could be virtually impossible for Labour to win in 2025.
Which is why the Corbyn surge is so dispiriting - it could literally stop any chance of a Labour government until 2030 yet his supporters don't seem to realise the seppuku they're committing.
I struggle to believe Labour could fall so low as to virtually assure losses for several elections to come. The floor of labour support is too high, the ceiling of Tory support to low, such that even if Corbyn hurt them badly, they'd be able to challenge again swiftly.
This government, particularly Osborne and Cameron have always acknowledged Blair as the political master. This is not surprising because he absolutely dominated the formative years of their careers and he was spectacularly successful. As long as these two are in charge there is really no chance of the Tory party gallivanting off somewhere silly.
And there is so much to do in the centre ground. IDS's reforms need to be embedded, Gove's reforms in education need to continued and developed, Scotland and EVEL need a long lasting solution after the make do of the Blair years, the EU is incredibly demanding and complicated, May is trying hard to get the police out of the 20th century, the economy still needs much, much more rebalancing with an emphasis on exports, we have a housing crisis in large parts, if not all, of our country, our infrastructure, particularly for transport, is inadequate, in an ever more dangerous world our armed forces are run down well below a safe level, I could go on and on.
What this country really needs is a very long period of safe, competent, efficient government. Without any opposition worthy of the name that is going to take an extraordinary amount of focus and discipline. There is no need to be radical, there is a massive need to provide the kind of governance we need.
All I know about Mr Kitcat is that his council managed to put up the rates, piss off a load of residents, fight with each other and there was a hoo-haa about bin collections. It really was a complete eff-up. Gloriously so.
...There have been some silly gimmicks reminiscent of the 1980s loony left: a proposed ‘meat-free Monday’ in council-run staff canteens (reversed when the bin men demanded their bacon back), gender-neutral toilets, and allowing people to identify as Mr, Mrs or Mx on council forms (Mx means Mixter, meaning someone who doesn’t define as male or female — not to be confused with the MX, which was a nuclear missile in the Cold War). Many of their mistakes are due to naivety. Faced with cuts, council leader Jason Kitcat proposed a 4.75 per cent tax increase to be endorsed in a referendum. Labour called it a silly political stunt, as the cost of the vote — estimated at £900,000 — would itself plug many of the gaps. The idea was quashed.
Such is their incompetence that the Greens often hurt the very causes they push. While I was staggered to find that I might face a £50,000 fine if I put something plastic in the paper-only recycling bin outside my house, I was amused to discover that most people just ignore the warnings and dump away — with the result that Green Brighton now ranks 302nd out of 326 councils for its recycling record. The problem is a mix of poor information, a strange recycling collection programme open to abuse, and ceaseless disruptions to the service that mean people have given up trying to do ‘the right thing’.
Last year, the Greens failed to prevent a strike among bin men, with the result that Brighton underwent its very own winter of discontent. Gulls feasted amid the piled-high rubbish. Inevitably, some of the Greens sympathised with the oppressed refuse collectors and joined them on the picket line. There’s an intra-party split every 30 seconds among the eco-comrades.
>But if Corbyn doesn't run a proper whipping operation (and he is on record as being against whips), then party management will disintegrate and thus the political landscape is radically transformed.
There's a thouight.
The Brighton Green Party as a model for Corbynite Labour.
But isn't Corbynite some kind of explosive or perhaps implosive?
It is a pity that the the AQ chair (BBC lefty) did not ask Polly how many economic migrants she was going to house at her Tuscan villa! Of course we know the answer - zero, and she would not want them living near her either.
What I found profoundly depressing was last night's AQ. Polly and Corbyn were on advocating £1m for everyone especially sainted nurses, and let's take all economic migrants because that'd be nice too.
It's so incredibly childish - yet that's the dumbed down level of *debate* we can expect for the next few years. Tories will never have been so evil since Fatcher. Again. Yawn.
What about the Daily Mail's article about the son (Red Ed) being in the image of his father, or the Sun's front page spread on the day before the GE entitled "Save our bacon". It created the perception that EM was not "one of us". The same cannot be said of Corbyn.
Miliband's electoral failure was in part due to the perception by some that he was a foreign "Polish" judeobolshevist. Corbyn does not suffer from the same handicap.
Whilst there are things on my Parly Bucket List that I'd love to see happen, I'd happily sacrifice most of them to keep Labour out, and the Tories popular enough to win in GE2020 and possibly in GE2025.
The union dues/strike thresholds is already on the cards, the BBC in their sights too - I hope the TVLF will be abolished, and I will object most strongly at any attempts to roll it into general taxation. Merging NICS and IC the big one I'd really like - along with a simplification of the whole tax system.
I'd like to see State boarding schools for those kids who'd really benefit from a change of home environment, and big push on foster caring rather than group homes. Ditto removing mental health issues from prisons into other institutions. I think we really threw the baby out with the bathwater under Care in the Community.
Of course that doesn't mean that the government should be reckless in spending political capital; like Maggie in her prime, governments should take on the right battles, and be careful not to give too much ammunition to opponents, especially on non-core issues.
I suppose the point is that if Corbyn is elected, outside of making the cock-up to end all cock-ups or a personal scandal which destroys the leadership (and even that is probably recoverable), you can probably guarantee the third term, it's a free pass - a Labour party either led by Corbyn, or which has to spend years trying to make itself plausible again while dealing with the splits on the left any defenestration would cause won't win in 2020. Horrific to say this as a Labour member (for how much longer?) but what you're thinking about is the fourth term. Chances are, at some point in the next ten years the ordure will hit the fan and the Tories will become wildly unpopular, but if that happens before 2020, it's likely you'll still get in if the alternative is Corbyn, or get a stonking majority in 2020 and it could be virtually impossible for Labour to win in 2025.
Which is why the Corbyn surge is so dispiriting - it could literally stop any chance of a Labour government until 2030 yet his supporters don't seem to realise the seppuku they're committing.
I struggle to believe Labour could fall so low as to virtually assure losses for several elections to come. The floor of labour support is too high, the ceiling of Tory support to low, such that even if Corbyn hurt them badly, they'd be able to challenge again swiftly.
True. There is a core votes for both main parties which should keep them above 25% even in a disaster year. My guess would be Labour in 2020 on current form around 27%, winning perhaps 180 seats. We shall have to ask JackW to give a more informed projection.
The Privy Council Oath (unchanged since ~1250, except for gender)
"You do swear by Almighty God to be a true and faithful Servant unto The Queen's Majesty as one of Her Majesty's Privy Council. You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done or spoken against Her Majesty's Person, Honour, Crown or Dignity Royal, but you will lett and withstand the same to the uttermost of your power, and either cause it to be revealed to Her Majesty Herself, or to such of Her Privy Council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same. You will in all things to be moved, treated and debated in Council, faithfully and truly declare your Mind and Opinion, according to your Heart and Conscience; and will keep secret all matters committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated of secretly in Council. And if any of the said Treaties or Counsels shall touch any of the Counsellors you will not reveal it unto him but will keep the same until such time as, by the consent of Her Majesty or of the Council, Publication shall be made thereof. You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance to the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all civil and temporal Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty so help you God."
One question that hasn't been much discussed - will Corbyn be able to get security clearance? (maybe actually irrelevant if briefings have to be done on Privy Council terms).
Cameron may actually have to brief others in the Labour Party on condition that they keep their leader out of the loop...!
If a party leader can't be cleared (or more realistically, is given only a low level of clearance), then that will affect the security clearance of the entire party. It would undermine the entire notion of what a parliamentary party is for members other than the leader to be told things on condition that theey're kept from the leader.
From what I've read of Corbyn, he would never get through the Developed Vetting process, if he was applying for a job that required one. It will be a difficult issue that I wouldn't want to deal with when he becomes LOTO. How can they brief him on sensitive issues in dealing with the middle east without there being a strong possibility he will leak?
Miliband's electoral failure was in part due to the perception by some that he was a foreign "Polish" judeobolshevist. Corbyn does not suffer from the same handicap.
I have never even heard anyone comment on his Polishness until your post. I find it entirely non-credible that his Polishness mattered. Or his Jewishness, since we had an ethnic Jew as Prime Minister more than a century ago.
The fact he was a socialist did not help, however. But Corbyn is doubling down on that.
What about the Daily Mail's article about the son (Red Ed) being in the image of his father, or the Sun's front page spread on the day before the GE entitled "Save our bacon". It created the perception that EM was not "one of us". The same cannot be said of Corbyn.
The stuff about being the image of his father was more about sharing his supposedly distasteful politics, though implying his dad hated Britain and so ed did as well partly fits your premise. Not a concerted stream of attack though, because it was ridiculous. (Not as much as that other piece about his former lovers - ed m is such a weirdo...also look at these accomplished, intelligent attractive women he used to date)
The bacon picture being overused was because he looked unfortunate in it. The theme was he was weird, not let's get rid of the Polish Jew.
Corbyn can easily be attacked as not 'one of us'. In effect he already is as he's been accused of automatically taking his foreign policy decisions as whatever is contrary to British positioning.
MK So are you saying the great British people would accept Corbyns principles without challenging him..y,know..like getting rid of NATO, being buddy buddy with the avowed enemies of our country, getting rid of Queenie, reducing our defences..etc.... those sort of principles..I don't think so. The man does not have the interests of those same people at the very core of his being..he actually seems to hate them..and it shows....
You turnip, our government is always dealing with avowed enemies and sometimes funding them as well. Few defences to cut and after Lizzie most people will be happy to be rid of the parasites. Your dewy eyed view of the "great British people" marks you out as someone who chooses not to live in the country.
The Conservatives have done a great job in power the last few years, but there's some big things I'd like to see them still do:
- Get a proper renegotiation out of the EU, or otherwise recommend leaving - Get rid of the licence fee and install some proper balance at the BBC - Reform our council house system, so the state no longer subsidises below market rents for the non-poor - Combined employee NI and income tax - Get rid of employers NI - Build a hell of a lot more housing - Make all benefits contributory
A good starting point.
It will take a decade to do Housing Reform. Tories are still scared of Nimbys. Council Housing is unacceptable due to conflicts of interest.
They also need to address Higher Education and Charity Reform.
I don't think the proposal was to abolish Council Housing.
I think the big political (as opposed to logistical/practical) problem with merging tax and NI is that it would immediately highlight the fact that our "tax" system isn't quite as "progressive" as many believe. Assuming done on its most basic level, the basic rate of tax would increase to 34% with the higher rate increasing to 41%. What you do with employer's NI is also another mystery. Theoretically you just transfer it to income tax and expect employers to pass over the difference in increased pay,but that would be a difficult sell...
More generally, Tories are just as capable of joining "internal feedback loops" as the left.
Miliband's electoral failure was in part due to the perception by some that he was a foreign "Polish" judeobolshevist. Corbyn does not suffer from the same handicap.
I have never even heard anyone comment on his Polishness until your post. I find it entirely non-credible that his Polishness mattered. Or his Jewishness, since we had an ethnic Jew as Prime Minister more than a century ago.
The fact he was a socialist did not help, however. But Corbyn is doubling down on that.
LOL, Miliband a socialist , what are you smoking. He was just a closet Tory.
It is a pity that the the AQ chair (BBC lefty) did not ask Polly how many economic migrants she was going to house at her Tuscan villa! Of course we know the answer - zero, and she would not want them living near her either.
What I found profoundly depressing was last night's AQ. Polly and Corbyn were on advocating £1m for everyone especially sainted nurses, and let's take all economic migrants because that'd be nice too.
It's so incredibly childish - yet that's the dumbed down level of *debate* we can expect for the next few years. Tories will never have been so evil since Fatcher. Again. Yawn.
I can't actually believe what's going on in British politics at the moment.
Someone bring back Blair vs Cameron, circa 2006.
Perhaps someone will bring a private prosecution for High Treason against JC, Polly T and anyone else Tory Peebies dislike.
Perhaps the government should give the Beeb to Murdoch (and Channel 4 to the Daily Mail - no need to bother with Parliament, an Order in Council will be much quicker.
Perhaps it should also stop all access to pensions and NHS services to lefties.
And, of course, Richard Dodd's self-importance is entirely justified: anyone who disagrees should be shot out of hand (why waste police time)?
I can certainly see Sir Humphrey and Mi5 having a chat about what they did in the 70s here.
I mentioned the other day that an ordinary bod wouldn't get a job as a senior plod with friends like Jezza's. So I can only assume that there'll be a lot of meetings that JC isn't invited too, and the rest largely anodyne ones.
One question that hasn't been much discussed - will Corbyn be able to get security clearance? (maybe actually irrelevant if briefings have to be done on Privy Council terms).
Cameron may actually have to brief others in the Labour Party on condition that they keep their leader out of the loop...!
Podium 1: Well, Alexander, this is a very hard board for me but I'll take a risk and say that the famous Englishman who is prime minister of the UK is David Cameron.
Alexander: So, you're saying that David Cameron is prime minister of the UK. Lets see how many of our 100 said that.
(Music: piddly diddly dum - "49")
Alexander: "49". Well, Richard, I was expecting a higher score than that!
Miliband's electoral failure was in part due to the perception by some that he was a foreign "Polish" judeobolshevist. Corbyn does not suffer from the same handicap.
I think that had little to do with it, just as Howard being a descendant of Romanian Jews or Portillo being from Spanish republican stock were never real issues. Nick Clegg had no discernable impairment from having Dutch heritage and a Spanish wife, neither did Nigel Farage from having a German wife or a fling with a Latvian. Britons are really quite tolerant of these things, unlike in Russia whose politics you may be more familiar with.
Miliband's electoral failure was in part due to the perception by some that he was a foreign "Polish" judeobolshevist. Corbyn does not suffer from the same handicap.
I have never even heard anyone comment on his Polishness until your post. I find it entirely non-credible that his Polishness mattered. Or his Jewishness, since we had an ethnic Jew as Prime Minister more than a century ago.
The fact he was a socialist did not help, however. But Corbyn is doubling down on that.
LOL, Miliband a socialist , what are you smoking. He was just a closet Tory.
As we've learned this summer, a surprising number of people apparently are, even when they intensely opposed the Tories for decades. You could be a Tory right now and not even know it!
Whilst there are things on my Parly Bucket List that I'd love to see happen, I'd happily sacrifice most of them to keep Labour out, and the Tories popular enough to win in GE2020 and possibly in GE2025.
The union dues/strike thresholds is already on the cards, the BBC in their sights too - I hope the TVLF will be abolished, and I will object most strongly at any attempts to roll it into general taxation. Merging NICS and IC the big one I'd really like - along with a simplification of the whole tax system.
I'd like to see State boarding schools for those kids who'd really benefit from a change of home environment, and big push on foster caring rather than group homes. Ditto removing mental health issues from prisons into other institutions. I think we really threw the baby out with the bathwater under Care in the Community.
I suppose the point is that if Corbyn is elected, outside of making the cock-up to end all cock-ups or a personal scandal which destroys the leadership (and even that is probably recoverable), you can probably guarantee the third term, it's a free pass - a Labour party either led by Corbyn, or which has to spend years trying to make itself plausible again while dealing with the splits on the left any defenestration would cause won't win in 2020. Horrific to say this as a Labour member (for how much longer?) but what you're thinking about is the fourth term. Chances are, at some point in the next ten years the ordure will hit the fan and the Tories will become wildly unpopular, but if that happens before 2020, it's likely you'll still get in if the alternative is Corbyn, or get a stonking majority in 2020 and it could be virtually impossible for Labour to win in 2025.
Which is why the Corbyn surge is so dispiriting - it could literally stop any chance of a Labour government until 2030 yet his supporters don't seem to realise the seppuku they're committing.
I struggle to believe Labour could fall so low as to virtually assure losses for several elections to come. The floor of labour support is too high, the ceiling of Tory support to low, such that even if Corbyn hurt them badly, they'd be able to challenge again swiftly.
But the big danger isn't just that they find themselves in a near-term irreversible position electorally, but that Corbyn institutes all sorts of internal party "reforms" that a future leader then has to spend several years undoing. So, as in the eighties, spends as much or more time fighting internal party battles than the Government.
Corbyn is not siding with the enemies of what he perceives the British state should stand for. A united Ireland is a reasonable objective. Hamas and Hezbollah are not enemies of the UK. They are the enemies of Zionism.
As for NATO, it has transmogrified since 1991 into an expansionist aggressive force from its original purpose of defending Western Europe against the Soviet threat. Corbyn has some very sensible views about the consequences of the current Drang nach Osten, a long-standing imperial German policy later adopted by the Third Reich and subsequently by the EU/NATO.
Good morning all. I've been away for a couple of days with my son's family in Bath. Nice to have a break however short.
However, Dow, Nasdaq plunge 3% (531 points) into correction, says CNBC. But is it simply a correction - the DOW was still falling and the end of the session, which is unusual - or the start of a new China induced recession?
Probably not. A recession is 2 successive quarters of negative growth. The economic cycle consists of variations in growth rates, so economic slowdowns are not necessarily negative growth. Our own jobs market has been pretty strong. A slowdown in China and any devaluations will not make their exports more expensive so our inflation hardly looks like taking off. Low inflation, more in work than ever modest pay rises. Why not think we might have a benign future for a change?
MK So are you saying the great British people would accept Corbyns principles without challenging him..y,know..like getting rid of NATO, being buddy buddy with the avowed enemies of our country, getting rid of Queenie, reducing our defences..etc.... those sort of principles..I don't think so. The man does not have the interests of those same people at the very core of his being..he actually seems to hate them..and it shows....
There's also no guile about him: he's spent his life saying what he thinks. That's not going to stop.
Whilst there are things on my Parly Bucket List that I'd love to see happen, I'd happily sacrifice most of them to keep Labour out, and the Tories popular enough to win in GE2020 and possibly in GE2025.
I'd like to see State boarding schools for those kids who'd really benefit from a change of home environment, and big push on foster caring rather than group homes. Ditto removing mental health issues from prisons into other institutions. I think we really threw the baby out with the bathwater under Care in the Community.
I suppose the point is that if Corbyn is elected, outside of making the cock-up to end all cock-ups or a personal scandal which destroys the leadership (and even that is probably recoverable), you can probably guarantee the third term, it's a free pass - a Labour party either led by Corbyn, or which has to spend years trying to make itself plausible again while dealing with the splits on the left any defenestration would cause won't win in 2020. Horrific to say this as a Labour member (for how much longer?) but what you're thinking about is the fourth term. Chances are, at some point in the next ten years the ordure will hit the fan and the Tories will become wildly unpopular, but if that happens before 2020, it's likely you'll still get in if the alternative is Corbyn, or get a stonking majority in 2020 and it could be virtually impossible for Labour to win in 2025.
Which is why the Corbyn surge is so dispiriting - it could literally stop any chance of a Labour government until 2030 yet his supporters don't seem to realise the seppuku they're committing.
I struggle to believe Labour could fall so low as to virtually assure losses for several elections to come. The floor of labour support is too high, the ceiling of Tory support to low, such that even if Corbyn hurt them badly, they'd be able to challenge again swiftly.
But the big danger isn't just that they find themselves in a near-term irreversible position electorally, but that Corbyn institutes all sorts of internal party "reforms" that a future leader then has to spend several years undoing. So, as in the eighties, spends as much or more time fighting internal party battles than the Government.
A risk I suppose, but the government had less far to fall than in the 80s - perhaps that would focus Corbyn or any malcontents from trying anything too radical internally, knowing if they keep their crap together they could still win this.
Miliband's electoral failure was in part due to the perception by some that he was a foreign "Polish" judeobolshevist. Corbyn does not suffer from the same handicap.
I have never even heard anyone comment on his Polishness until your post. I find it entirely non-credible that his Polishness mattered. Or his Jewishness, since we had an ethnic Jew as Prime Minister more than a century ago.
The fact he was a socialist did not help, however. But Corbyn is doubling down on that.
LOL, Miliband a socialist , what are you smoking. He was just a closet Tory.
As we've learned this summer, a surprising number of people apparently are, even when they intensely opposed the Tories for decades. You could be a Tory right now and not even know it!
LOL, I am an SNP Tory equivalent, ie a Tory with a heart. I followed the yellow brick road and got mended.
The Privy Council Oath (unchanged since ~1250, except for gender)
"You do swear by Almighty God to be a true and faithful Servant unto The Queen's Majesty as one of Her Majesty's Privy Council. You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done or spoken against Her Majesty's Person, Honour, Crown or Dignity Royal, but you will lett and withstand the same to the uttermost of your power, and either cause it to be revealed to Her Majesty Herself, or to such of Her Privy Council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same. You will in all things to be moved, treated and debated in Council, faithfully and truly declare your Mind and Opinion, according to your Heart and Conscience; and will keep secret all matters committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated of secretly in Council. And if any of the said Treaties or Counsels shall touch any of the Counsellors you will not reveal it unto him but will keep the same until such time as, by the consent of Her Majesty or of the Council, Publication shall be made thereof. You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance to the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all civil and temporal Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty so help you God."
Presumably anybody taking the oath is also given a translation?
Miliband's electoral failure was in part due to the perception by some that he was a foreign "Polish" judeobolshevist. Corbyn does not suffer from the same handicap.
I have never even heard anyone comment on his Polishness until your post. I find it entirely non-credible that his Polishness mattered. Or his Jewishness, since we had an ethnic Jew as Prime Minister more than a century ago.
The fact he was a socialist did not help, however. But Corbyn is doubling down on that.
LOL, Miliband a socialist , what are you smoking. He was just a closet Tory.
Corbyn makes quite a contrast with the Royalist, pro-NATO, rich man toadying SNP. That's for sure.
It seems to be a constant theme of Mr Herdson´s (and others) that "the Lib Dems have moved left under Farron". I wonder what evidence he has for asserting that.
The Lib Dems are the party as a whole, not the MPs. And policy is decided by the party conference, not by the leader personally. Of course the leader in turn will choose to emphasise some aspects of policy rather than others, but it does not mean that the "followers" start thinking any differently.
It was very clear, during the years of the Coalition Government, that Nick Clegg put far more emphasis on government policy (influenced by Conservative values), rather than pure Lib Dem policy. But Lib Dems didn´t change then, and haven´t now. Why does Mr Herdson think that Lib Dem supporters, let alone activists, were a bit grumpy during all this period?
Now, free from the shackles of working with the Tories, Lib Dem values and policies are coming to the fore once again. The difference will not be noticed overnight. But the Tories will start to feel the impact in the country of sustained Lib Dem criticism.
Mr Cameron, up until now, has been a lucky general, but I still think that he has been grossly over-rated, especially by the PB Tories. He is going to have enormous difficulty in keeping his Conservative coalition together. We shall see.
The idea that Lib Dem policy is set by party members is nonsense, irrespective of what the party rules may say. The reality - as shown over the last five years - is that it's set in parliament, in a dialogue between the leader, his front bench and the wider parliamentary party (not that there is a wider parliamentary party these days). The membership might get to veto a policy once ih a blue moon but that's all.
As for moving left, as Lib Dem policy is irrelevant now the party is no longer a meaningful presence, the best measure is how the party positions itself against thebig two. There, th Lib Dems have gone from being Tory allies to constant critics, as that is Farron's nature.
It's true that Cameron has been a lucky leader but it's also true that to a large extent you make your ow luck. The luck of Labour's leadership election flows directly from his electoral success, and that flows from conscious campaigning and strategy decisions.
Miliband's electoral failure was in part due to the perception by some that he was a foreign "Polish" judeobolshevist. Corbyn does not suffer from the same handicap.
I have never even heard anyone comment on his Polishness until your post. I find it entirely non-credible that his Polishness mattered. Or his Jewishness, since we had an ethnic Jew as Prime Minister more than a century ago.
The fact he was a socialist did not help, however. But Corbyn is doubling down on that.
You obviously weren't around when PB went through its great 'son of a UK hating, Marxist rootless cosmopolitan' spasm.
Corbyn is not siding with the enemies of what he perceives the British state should stand for. A united Ireland is a reasonable objective. Hamas and Hezbollah are not enemies of the UK. They are the enemies of Zionism.
As for NATO, it has transmogrified since 1991 into an expansionist aggressive force from its original purpose of defending Western Europe against the Soviet threat. Corbyn has some very sensible views about the consequences of the current Drang nach Osten, a long-standing imperial German policy later adopted by the Third Reich and subsequently by the EU/NATO.
Not a single nation in Eastern Europe has been added to NATO by force. Countries are desperate to get in. To compare this to German imperialism is very ugly. In addition, Hamas and Hezbollah stand full square against what the British state stands for. If Corbyn's views on what Britain should stand for don't include opposition to aims of ethnic cleansing, then it shows how alien his mindset is.
MG Sorry...I don't have the time to waste with clowns..
Jog on loser, you are unable to debate anything. Jingoistic halfwit who can only resort to personal insults when his drivel is exposed.
Talking about yourself again, eh, Malcolm?
Dickie's lap dog is sent to the rescue, , what scintillating sarcasm and rapid repartee he deploys in serving his master. I am cut to the bone , how will I be able to continue posting pearls of wisdom when assailed by such a wit.
One may as well say that Stanley Baldwin was underrated. No he wasn't, he just took over control of the government, and eventually No 10, after Labour oversaw a great depression, and after nearly a decade his legacy was a whistle in the wind as it was overturned by all his opponents from Churchill to Attlee.
Puzzled by this EPG. You do know that Baldwin became Prime Minister in 1923, before Labour had even held power? He also won a huge election victory in 1924. Any major impact he had on Britain - that is to say, things that happened because of him that would not have happened without him - was in the next five years, up to 1929. After 1931 (which I think is what you are referring to) even though he was co-head of the national government as Lord President of the Council and leader of the party that provided 80% of its MPs, he enacted very little that was new - one of the key criticisms of his government was that it was literally drifting. Many of the most significant economic improvements were enacted by Snowden (a former Labour chancellor, mostly active before the NG was formed) and Chamberlain (who like Brown was pretty much answerable to himself at the Exchequer).
In 1935-37, just about his only significant achievement was handling the abdication crisis effectively. Most of the legacy of the 1920s was gone by 1945 anyway - the Labour government merely read the last rites over it. Ironically, it has been suggested his greatest and most lasting legacy was the Labour party itself - had he not allowed it to take power twice in the 1920s, it is unlikely it would have been so readily accepted in Churchill's government in the 1940s, and thence into power on its own in 1945.
Of course, Baldwin was lucky to be there in the first place, in the sense that he was the only member of the House of Commons in 1923 who could lead a majority government, despite his inexperience and relatively undistinguished record. But I'm not quite clear what point you are trying to make about his luck vs. being underrated.
The key similarity between Cameron and Baldwin, I would suggest, is that they both tend to give more energetic colleagues their heads when formulating policy - Gove, Osborne, May for Cameron, Neville Chamberlain, Churchill and Joynson-Hicks (1920s) for Baldwin. The risk is that it leads to confusion and incoherence at the heart of government because nobody is co-ordinating things properly. That damaged Baldwin's administrations and the risk of being radical in this term is that it could damage Cameron's as well unless he or Osborne keeps a fairly tight rein.
Good morning all. I've been away for a couple of days with my son's family in Bath. Nice to have a break however short.
However, Dow, Nasdaq plunge 3% (531 points) into correction, says CNBC. But is it simply a correction - the DOW was still falling and the end of the session, which is unusual - or the start of a new China induced recession?
Probably not. A recession is 2 successive quarters of negative growth. The economic cycle consists of variations in growth rates, so economic slowdowns are not necessarily negative growth. Our own jobs market has been pretty strong. A slowdown in China and any devaluations will not make their exports more expensive so our inflation hardly looks like taking off. Low inflation, more in work than ever modest pay rises. Why not think we might have a benign future for a change?
The future is unknowable. However there are certain indications of possible futures. And benign? Not a chance!
I find it incredible in Greece that Syriza may shortly win a clear mandate to impose the measures needed to meet creditor demands after initally being elected with a mandate to do anything but that. Has any party done such a 180 and still been rewarded by the electorate?
Miliband's electoral failure was in part due to the perception by some that he was a foreign "Polish" judeobolshevist. Corbyn does not suffer from the same handicap.
I have never even heard anyone comment on his Polishness until your post. I find it entirely non-credible that his Polishness mattered. Or his Jewishness, since we had an ethnic Jew as Prime Minister more than a century ago.
The fact he was a socialist did not help, however. But Corbyn is doubling down on that.
You obviously weren't around when PB went through its great 'son of a UK hating, Marxist rootless cosmopolitan' spasm.
That sounds more like opposition to his socialism and his father's commitment to international socialism than anything to do with Poland.
The Privy Council Oath (unchanged since ~1250, except for gender)
"You do swear by Almighty God to be a true and faithful Servant unto The Queen's Majesty as one of Her Majesty's Privy Council. You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done or spoken against Her Majesty's Person, Honour, Crown or Dignity Royal, but you will lett and withstand the same to the uttermost of your power, and either cause it to be revealed to Her Majesty Herself, or to such of Her Privy Council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same. You will in all things to be moved, treated and debated in Council, faithfully and truly declare your Mind and Opinion, according to your Heart and Conscience; and will keep secret all matters committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated of secretly in Council. And if any of the said Treaties or Counsels shall touch any of the Counsellors you will not reveal it unto him but will keep the same until such time as, by the consent of Her Majesty or of the Council, Publication shall be made thereof. You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance to the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all civil and temporal Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty so help you God."
Presumably anybody taking the oath is also given a translation?
They are all to soft in the head to understand it anyway so matters not a jot that they hear all that mumbo jumbo, their only concern is the future free drink and scoff for life benefits.
If No were to win the EU referendum, would the Conservatives see that as a failure, or would they own it, and enthusiastically endorse the No vote in 2020?
>But if Corbyn doesn't run a proper whipping operation (and he is on record as being against whips), then party management will disintegrate and thus the political landscape is radically transformed.
There's a thouight. The Brighton Green Party as a model for Corbynite Labour. But isn't Corbynite some kind of explosive or perhaps implosive?
Perhaps your thinking of Cavorite - a substance sans gravitas, which loses its grip on solid earth when exposed to sunlight and floats you off to the moon. Mmmmm.
Miliband's electoral failure was in part due to the perception by some that he was a foreign "Polish" judeobolshevist. Corbyn does not suffer from the same handicap.
Miliband's electoral failure was in part due to the perception by some that he was a foreign "Polish" judeobolshevist. Corbyn does not suffer from the same handicap.
I have never even heard anyone comment on his Polishness until your post. I find it entirely non-credible that his Polishness mattered. Or his Jewishness, since we had an ethnic Jew as Prime Minister more than a century ago.
The fact he was a socialist did not help, however. But Corbyn is doubling down on that.
You obviously weren't around when PB went through its great 'son of a UK hating, Marxist rootless cosmopolitan' spasm.
The Privy Council Oath (unchanged since ~1250, except for gender)
"You do swear by Almighty God to be a true and faithful Servant unto The Queen's Majesty as one of Her Majesty's Privy Council. You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done or spoken against Her Majesty's Person, Honour, Crown or Dignity Royal, but you will lett and withstand the same to the uttermost of your power, and either cause it to be revealed to Her Majesty Herself, or to such of Her Privy Council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same. You will in all things to be moved, treated and debated in Council, faithfully and truly declare your Mind and Opinion, according to your Heart and Conscience; and will keep secret all matters committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated of secretly in Council. And if any of the said Treaties or Counsels shall touch any of the Counsellors you will not reveal it unto him but will keep the same until such time as, by the consent of Her Majesty or of the Council, Publication shall be made thereof. You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance to the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all civil and temporal Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty so help you God."
Presumably anybody taking the oath is also given a translation?
God save the Queen (and since he isn't around much these days do your best for her).
Miliband's electoral failure was in part due to the perception by some that he was a foreign "Polish" judeobolshevist. Corbyn does not suffer from the same handicap.
I have never even heard anyone comment on his Polishness until your post. I find it entirely non-credible that his Polishness mattered. Or his Jewishness, since we had an ethnic Jew as Prime Minister more than a century ago.
The fact he was a socialist did not help, however. But Corbyn is doubling down on that.
LOL, Miliband a socialist , what are you smoking. He was just a closet Tory.
Corbyn makes quite a contrast with the Royalist, pro-NATO, rich man toadying SNP. That's for sure.
The Privy Council Oath (unchanged since ~1250, except for gender)
"You do swear by Almighty God to be a true and faithful Servant unto The Queen's Majesty as one of Her Majesty's Privy Council. You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done or spoken against Her Majesty's Person, Honour, Crown or Dignity Royal, but you will lett and withstand the same to the uttermost of your power, and either cause it to be revealed to Her Majesty Herself, or to such of Her Privy Council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same. You will in all things to be moved, treated and debated in Council, faithfully and truly declare your Mind and Opinion, according to your Heart and Conscience; and will keep secret all matters committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated of secretly in Council. And if any of the said Treaties or Counsels shall touch any of the Counsellors you will not reveal it unto him but will keep the same until such time as, by the consent of Her Majesty or of the Council, Publication shall be made thereof. You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance to the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all civil and temporal Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty so help you God."
Presumably anybody taking the oath is also given a translation?
Since it would originally have been administered in Latin, and then French, that is a translation!
I can't help but feel there is a large number of religious extremists in these migrant flows who want to benefit from Europe's wealth, but will remain hostile to our values and fail to integrate. Germany and Sweden are storing up huge problems for the future.
The Privy Council Oath (unchanged since ~1250, except for gender)
"You do swear by Almighty God to be a true and faithful Servant unto The Queen's Majesty as one of Her Majesty's Privy Council. You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done or spoken against Her Majesty's Person, Honour, Crown or Dignity Royal, but you will lett and withstand the same to the uttermost of your power, and either cause it to be revealed to Her Majesty Herself, or to such of Her Privy Council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same. You will in all things to be moved, treated and debated in Council, faithfully and truly declare your Mind and Opinion, according to your Heart and Conscience; and will keep secret all matters committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated of secretly in Council. And if any of the said Treaties or Counsels shall touch any of the Counsellors you will not reveal it unto him but will keep the same until such time as, by the consent of Her Majesty or of the Council, Publication shall be made thereof. You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance to the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all civil and temporal Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty so help you God."
Presumably anybody taking the oath is also given a translation?
Is this not a translation? Presume the original would be in Latin or Norman-French?
The Privy Council Oath (unchanged since ~1250, except for gender)
"You do swear by Almighty God to be a true and faithful Servant unto The Queen's Majesty as one of Her Majesty's Privy Council. You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done or spoken against Her Majesty's Person, Honour, Crown or Dignity Royal, but you will lett and withstand the same to the uttermost of your power, and either cause it to be revealed to Her Majesty Herself, or to such of Her Privy Council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same. You will in all things to be moved, treated and debated in Council, faithfully and truly declare your Mind and Opinion, according to your Heart and Conscience; and will keep secret all matters committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated of secretly in Council. And if any of the said Treaties or Counsels shall touch any of the Counsellors you will not reveal it unto him but will keep the same until such time as, by the consent of Her Majesty or of the Council, Publication shall be made thereof. You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance to the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all civil and temporal Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty so help you God."
Presumably anybody taking the oath is also given a translation?
God save the Queen (and since he isn't around much these days do your best for her).
Heh. Reminds me of deciding bishops in. Yes pm. How does the Holy Ghost make his views known? By drawing lots.
Sounds like you're saying, "yes, but they were not real votes."
I happily admit that most governments think they have far more of a mandate from the electorate than they actually do, but that is the same for all governments, including the previous 4 Labour governments.
However, the legal measure is seats won based on votes, not 'real votes'.
I'm not remotely saying they're not real votes. A vote is a vote is a vote.
My point is that, for someone who was so grudging that they waited until the last minute to decide they were going Tory, it's not going to take much for them to decide in future they don't want to vote for them. They're not someone who can be relied on to definitely vote Tory for the next one or two elections as some people seem to be bizarrely suggesting when they project more wins for the Tories as in the bag.
The Tory majority in the seven most marginal seats (Gower, Derby N, Croydon C, Vale of Clywd, Bury N, Morley and O, Plymouth Sutton) totalled 1793 ranging from Gower at 27 to Plymouth Sutton at 523.
If 900 people had voted the other way in these 7 seats the Torys would not have had a majority.
These 900 most marginal people who could easily have voted the other way (out of the total of about 300,000 who voted in these 7 constituencies) are, by definition of most marginal, the most wibbly-wobbly uncertain voters. The Tory majority and so called mandate depends on these 900 people. The "mandate" is as marginal and ephemeral as that.
The Privy Council Oath (unchanged since ~1250, except for gender)
"You do swear by Almighty God to be a true and faithful Servant unto The Queen's Majesty as one of Her Majesty's Privy Council. You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done or spoken against Her Majesty's Person, Honour, Crown or Dignity Royal, but you will lett and withstand the same to the uttermost of your power, and either cause it to be revealed to Her Majesty Herself, or to such of Her Privy Council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same. You will in all things to be moved, treated and debated in Council, faithfully and truly declare your Mind and Opinion, according to your Heart and Conscience; and will keep secret all matters committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated of secretly in Council. And if any of the said Treaties or Counsels shall touch any of the Counsellors you will not reveal it unto him but will keep the same until such time as, by the consent of Her Majesty or of the Council, Publication shall be made thereof. You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance to the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all civil and temporal Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty so help you God."
Presumably anybody taking the oath is also given a translation?
Is this not a translation? Presume the original would be in Latin or Norman-French?
Back to 1250 is the BBC's assertion, but the Privy Council website says Tudor times. And that looks very much like Tudor English to me.
I find it incredible in Greece that Syriza may shortly win a clear mandate to impose the measures needed to meet creditor demands after initally being elected with a mandate to do anything but that. Has any party done such a 180 and still been rewarded by the electorate?
Tsipras has double-crossed his party and the electorate. I wonder how much he is getting from the EU coffers for this betrayal?
Will he win a personal mandate? Only with the help of his chief opposition rivals, but Syriza as a party is as near to perishing as last weeks butter.
Sounds like you're saying, "yes, but they were not real votes."
I happily admit that most governments think they have far more of a mandate from the electorate than they actually do, but that is the same for all governments, including the previous 4 Labour governments.
However, the legal measure is seats won based on votes, not 'real votes'.
I'm not remotely saying they're not real votes. A vote is a vote is a vote.
My point is that, for someone who was so grudging that they waited until the last minute to decide they were going Tory, it's not going to take much for them to decide in future they don't want to vote for them. They're not someone who can be relied on to definitely vote Tory for the next one or two elections as some people seem to be bizarrely suggesting when they project more wins for the Tories as in the bag.
The Tory majority in the seven most marginal seats (Gower, Derby N, Croydon C, Vale of Clywd, Bury N, Morley and O, Plymouth Sutton) totalled 1793 ranging from Gower at 27 to Plymouth Sutton at 523.
If 900 people had voted the other way in these 7 seats the Torys would not have had a majority.
These 900 most marginal people who could easily have voted the other way (out of the total of about 300,000 who voted in these 7 constituencies) are, by definition of most marginal, the most wibbly-wobbly uncertain voters. The Tory majority and so called mandate depends on these 900 people. The mandate is as marginal and ephemeral as that.
Indeed. So they need to seize ground from labour at the cost of not doing the more rAdical things they want which will put off those people, or go radical and maybe lose them but make real changes.
Sounds like you're saying, "yes, but they were not real votes."
I happily admit that most governments think they have far more of a mandate from the electorate than they actually do, but that is the same for all governments, including the previous 4 Labour governments.
However, the legal measure is seats won based on votes, not 'real votes'.
I'm not remotely saying they're not real votes. A vote is a vote is a vote.
My point is that, for someone who was so grudging that they waited until the last minute to decide they were going Tory, it's not going to take much for them to decide in future they don't want to vote for them. They're not someone who can be relied on to definitely vote Tory for the next one or two elections as some people seem to be bizarrely suggesting when they project more wins for the Tories as in the bag.
The Tory majority in the seven most marginal seats (Gower, Derby N, Croydon C, Vale of Clywd, Bury N, Morley and O, Plymouth Sutton) totalled 1793 ranging from Gower at 27 to Plymouth Sutton at 523.
If 900 people had voted the other way in these 7 seats the Torys would not have had a majority.
These 900 most marginal people who could easily have voted the other way (out of the total of about 300,000 who voted in these 7 constituencies) are, by definition of most marginal, the most wibbly-wobbly uncertain voters. The Tory majority and so called mandate depends on these 900 people. The mandate is as marginal and ephemeral as that.
Indeed. So they need to seize ground from labour at the cost of not doing the more rAdical things they want which will put off those people, or go radical and maybe lose them but make real changes.
Labour really need to sit down and ask themselves why those 900 'most marginal people' voted the way they did, rather than simply say the Tories have no mandate.
I managed about 15 mins of it and couldn't stand it any longer. I finally hit the off button when in Polly and Jerry talked about how reasonable the Tube drivers demands were and that nurses ought to be paid the same or more. And that stupid member of the audience thought having unions as belligerent as the RMT were a good idea *as then everyone would be paid more".
Ms Truss just kept her mouth largely shut as it really wasn't worth even bothering to have a grown-up input by that point.
It is a pity that the the AQ chair (BBC lefty) did not ask Polly how many economic migrants she was going to house at her Tuscan villa! Of course we know the answer - zero, and she would not want them living near her either.
What I found profoundly depressing was last night's AQ. Polly and Corbyn were on advocating £1m for everyone especially sainted nurses, and let's take all economic migrants because that'd be nice too.
It's so incredibly childish - yet that's the dumbed down level of *debate* we can expect for the next few years. Tories will never have been so evil since Fatcher. Again. Yawn.
I struggle to believe Labour could fall so low as to virtually assure losses for several elections to come. The floor of labour support is too high, the ceiling of Tory support to low, such that even if Corbyn hurt them badly, they'd be able to challenge again swiftly.
But the big danger isn't just that they find themselves in a near-term irreversible position electorally, but that Corbyn institutes all sorts of internal party "reforms" that a future leader then has to spend several years undoing. So, as in the eighties, spends as much or more time fighting internal party battles than the Government.
A risk I suppose, but the government had less far to fall than in the 80s - perhaps that would focus Corbyn or any malcontents from trying anything too radical internally, knowing if they keep their crap together they could still win this.
I don't know, I get the impression that internal party reforms are possibly Corbyn's no1 priority. It allows him to rationalise his seeking a leadership that he almost certainly doesn't want. I doubt very much he wants to be Prime Minister. Internal party reforms are fundamental to allowing him to step down in a few years leaving a legacy of reviving and empowering the left within the Labour Party*.
Reforms to the method of electing the leader will also be interesting. It is quite likely that he will seek to push a reform that makes MPs even more irrelevant to the whole thing. For him to present his leadership as legitimate, he has to effectively dismiss the uncomfortable truth that he was only on the ballot by accident. The nominations process did not work as the system intended. But if it had worked as intended then the "membership" would have been denied their choice. So the obvious reform (from a Corbynite perspective) is to get rid of the nominations stage.
*my big idea for Corbynite reforms - build on the "success" of the £3 sign-ups by instituting regular votes on party policy. Get a vote for £3 a pop! Membership having value as providing a season ticket to vote on everything!
Whilst there are things on my Parly Bucket List that I'd love to see happen, I'd happily sacrifice most of them to keep Labour out, and the Tories popular enough to win in GE2020 and possibly in GE2025.
The union dues/strike thresholds is already on the cards, the BBC in their sights too - I hope the TVLF will be abolished, and I will object most strongly at any attempts to roll it into general taxation. Merging NICS and IC the big one I'd really like - along with a simplification of the whole tax system.
I'd like to see State boarding schools for those kids who'd really benefit from a change of home environment, and big push on foster caring rather than group homes. Ditto removing mental health issues from prisons into other institutions. I think we really threw the baby out with the bathwater under Care in the Community.
Of course that doesn't mean that the government should be reckless in spending political capital; like Maggie in her prime, governments should take on the right battles, and be careful not to give too much ammunition to opponents, especially on non-core issues.
I struggle to believe Labour could fall so low as to virtually assure losses for several elections to come. The floor of labour support is too high, the ceiling of Tory support to low, such that even if Corbyn hurt them badly, they'd be able to challenge again swiftly.
It took three additional elections to win again after 1983, and with Corbyn that may well be where we are in 2020, as he makes Michael Foot, who let's not forget was a universally respected parliamentary figure who'd served in cabinet and who backed the Falklands War, look like Tony Blair. If Labour really badly mess 2020 up, which under Corbyn looks pretty likely then you're looking at a fairly decent Tory majority plus, unless a miracle happens the Scottish problem (that although the SNP seats reduce the Tory majority, they actively reduce the chance of a Lab government because they're a) not Labour seats and b) England doesn't like the idea of being governed by Scottish Nationalists in a coalition). Given what we know about the electoral map and the likely swing required that could, even on an optimistic reading make 2025 an election where Labour turns the tide but can't get all the way back into power.
Ot but in holiday. I see England are really rubbing the aussies noses in losing the ashes by showing how badly they've done to manage to lose against our batting line up. Cunning..
Podium 1: Well, Alexander, this is a very hard board for me but I'll take a risk and say that the famous Englishman who is prime minister of the UK is David Cameron.
Alexander: So, you're saying that David Cameron is prime minister of the UK. Lets see how many of our 100 said that.
(Music: piddly diddly dum - "49")
Alexander: "49". Well, Richard, I was expecting a higher score than that!
Miliband's electoral failure was in part due to the perception by some that he was a foreign "Polish" judeobolshevist. Corbyn does not suffer from the same handicap.
I have never even heard anyone comment on his Polishness until your post. I find it entirely non-credible that his Polishness mattered. Or his Jewishness, since we had an ethnic Jew as Prime Minister more than a century ago.
The fact he was a socialist did not help, however. But Corbyn is doubling down on that.
LOL, Miliband a socialist , what are you smoking. He was just a closet Tory.
As we've learned this summer, a surprising number of people apparently are, even when they intensely opposed the Tories for decades. You could be a Tory right now and not even know it!
I've attempted to answer your Cabinet question on the previous thread on the previous thread
Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply. Is cabinet just the ministers of department, however? It seems like there have always been cabinets without porfolios.
You've made me think about my question a bit more. I guess I should be asking the following:
- When did the Privy Council become merely a ceremonial thing with little role in governance? - When did collective decision making by cabinet and cabinet responsibility become a thing?
I had a quick Google and found this http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/RP04-82/RP04-82.pdf . It's a House of Commons Library Research Paper 04/82 (RP04-82, dated 15 November 2004) entitled "The collective responsibility of Ministers: an outline of the issues". You could say collective responsibility dated back to 1746 (when the Cabinet collectively resigned), but the article discusses it better than I
All absolute monarchs have had practical limits to their power King John and Henry VI come to mind and Charles I pushed his luck as well. And all monarchs to some degree relied on advisers who lasted as long as they were useful. Controlling the kings council was always important - politics of one kind or another has always been with us. Monarchs and advisers that were better at politics were more successful.
The Tory majority in the seven most marginal seats (Gower, Derby N, Croydon C, Vale of Clywd, Bury N, Morley and O, Plymouth Sutton) totalled 1793 ranging from Gower at 27 to Plymouth Sutton at 523.
If 900 people had voted the other way in these 7 seats the Torys would not have had a majority.
These 900 most marginal people who could easily have voted the other way (out of the total of about 300,000 who voted in these 7 constituencies) are, by definition of most marginal, the most wibbly-wobbly uncertain voters. The Tory majority and so called mandate depends on these 900 people. The "mandate" is as marginal and ephemeral as that.
Alternatively, in the seven most marginal seats the other way; Chester, Ealing Central and Acton, Brentford and Isleworth, Wirral West, Halifax, Ilford North and Newcastle Under Lyme*; the combined Labour majority is 2906. So 1470 votes changing hands in these seats, most of which have been held by the Tories fairly recently, would deliver them a majority of around 30.
It is not unreasonable to expect them to pick up a number of seats due to extensive social changes taking place there. Gower is one example from last time, Delyn may be one next time around (although if Delyn goes blue, Chester may well stay red). Newcastle under Lyme also looks vulnerable to me, at the price of Labour tightening its hold on much of Stoke, as more affluent voters move further afield. Morley and Outwood might be consolidated next time around, especially if the Conservatives appear to be slipping back in Leeds itself.
So the mandate's pretty narrow, but there is room for consolidation and improvement if they get things right this time (big 'if', of course).
And if Jeremy Corbyn is elected Labour leader - well, let's just say I don't think any Labour MP outside the South Wales valleys and London will be feeling too safe.
*Ynys Mon is in third place on the list, Cambridge sixth, but there Labour are fighting other parties and the Tories are a fair way back.
All absolute monarchs have had practical limits to their power King John and Henry VI come to mind and Charles I pushed his luck as well. And all monarchs to some degree relied on advisers who lasted as long as they were useful. Controlling the kings council was always important - politics of one kind or another has always been with us. Monarchs and advisers that were better at politics were more successful.
In the middle ages, the power of the church was also a significant block to the absolute power of the monarch - look at the shambles John caused when he tried to go against it. I read one biography of Henry VIII which argued he was 'the apogee of personal monarchy in England' because he shattered the power of the church, seized all its wealth and nobody was able to cite precedents and financial considerations to stop him as a result. That argument seemed pretty convincing to me. Not that Henry was exactly an advert for an absolute monarchy, but still.
I suppose the point is that if Corbyn is elected, outside of making the cock-up to end all cock-ups or a personal scandal which destroys the leadership (and even that is probably recoverable), you can probably guarantee the third term, it's a free pass - a Labour party either led by Corbyn, or which has to spend years trying to make itself plausible again while dealing with the splits on the left any defenestration would cause won't win in 2020. Horrific to say this as a Labour member (for how much longer?) but what you're thinking about is the fourth term. Chances are, at some point in the next ten years the ordure will hit the fan and the Tories will become wildly unpopular, but if that happens before 2020, it's likely you'll still get in if the alternative is Corbyn, or get a stonking majority in 2020 and it could be virtually impossible for Labour to win in 2025.
Which is why the Corbyn surge is so dispiriting - it could literally stop any chance of a Labour government until 2030 yet his supporters don't seem to realise the seppuku they're committing.
I struggle to believe Labour could fall so low as to virtually assure losses for several elections to come. The floor of labour support is too high, the ceiling of Tory support to low, such that even if Corbyn hurt them badly, they'd be able to challenge again swiftly.
True. There is a core votes for both main parties which should keep them above 25% even in a disaster year. My guess would be Labour in 2020 on current form around 27%, winning perhaps 180 seats. We shall have to ask JackW to give a more informed projection.
The floor for both main parties is now considerably below 20%. The emergence of the Greens and UKIP as genuinely national parties, combined with the SNP in Scotland creates a threat to Labour in a way that hasn't existed post-war. For the Tories, again, UKIP is a much more potent threat than it was under Major, Hague and IDS. There simply is not the broad level of party identification that there was twenty, never mind fifty, years ago. The consumer society applies to politics too.
Whilst there are things on my Parly Bucket List that I'd love to see happen, I'd happily sacrifice most of them to keep Labour out, and the Tories popular enough to win in GE2020 and possibly in GE2025.
The union dues/strike thresholds is already on the cards, the BBC in their sights too - I hope the TVLF will be abolished, and I will object most strongly at any attempts to roll it into general taxation. Merging NICS and IC the big one I'd really like - along with a simplification of the whole tax system.
I'd like to see State boarding schools for those kids who'd really benefit from a change of home environment, and big push on foster caring rather than group homes. Ditto removing mental health issues from prisons into other institutions. I think we really threw the baby out with the bathwater under Care in the Community.
Of course that doesn't mean that the government should be reckless in spending political capital; like Maggie in her prime, governments should take on the right battles, and be careful not to give too much ammunition to opponents, especially on non-core issues.
I struggle to believe Labour could fall so low as to virtually assure losses for several elections to come. The floor of labour support is too high, the ceiling of Tory support to low, such that even if Corbyn hurt them badly, they'd be able to challenge again swiftly.
It took three additional elections to win again after 1983, and with Corbyn that may well be where we are in 2020, as he makes Michael Foot, who let's not forget was a universally respected parliamentary figure who'd served in cabinet and who backed the Falklands War, look like Tony Blair. If Labour really badly mess 2020 up, which under Corbyn looks pretty likely then you're looking at a fairly decent Tory majority plus, unless a miracle happens the Scottish problem (that although the SNP seats reduce the Tory majority, they actively reduce the chance of a Lab government because they're a) not Labour seats and b) England doesn't like the idea of being governed by Scottish Nationalists in a coalition). Given what we know about the electoral map and the likely swing required that could, even on an optimistic reading make 2025 an election where Labour turns the tide but can't get all the way back into power.
Foot worked with Powell to stop Lords reform didn't he?
I find it incredible in Greece that Syriza may shortly win a clear mandate to impose the measures needed to meet creditor demands after initally being elected with a mandate to do anything but that. Has any party done such a 180 and still been rewarded by the electorate?
Tsipras has double-crossed his party and the electorate. I wonder how much he is getting from the EU coffers for this betrayal?
Will he win a personal mandate? Only with the help of his chief opposition rivals, but Syriza as a party is as near to perishing as last weeks butter.
What Greece needs is a leader who will say he will achieve something or resign - and keep his word.
Miliband's electoral failure was in part due to the perception by some that he was a foreign "Polish" judeobolshevist. Corbyn does not suffer from the same handicap.
I have never even heard anyone comment on his Polishness until your post. I find it entirely non-credible that his Polishness mattered. Or his Jewishness, since we had an ethnic Jew as Prime Minister more than a century ago.
The fact he was a socialist did not help, however. But Corbyn is doubling down on that.
LOL, Miliband a socialist , what are you smoking. He was just a closet Tory.
Corbyn makes quite a contrast with the Royalist, pro-NATO, rich man toadying SNP. That's for sure.
Cuckoo, Cuckoo
Dear Sir Fred, Grovel,grovel,grovel. Yours until you're in trouble, Alex.
One question that hasn't been much discussed - will Corbyn be able to get security clearance? (maybe actually irrelevant if briefings have to be done on Privy Council terms).
Cameron may actually have to brief others in the Labour Party on condition that they keep their leader out of the loop...!
If a party leader can't be cleared (or more realistically, is given only a low level of clearance), then that will affect the security clearance of the entire party. It would undermine the entire notion of what a parliamentary party is for members other than the leader to be told things on condition that theey're kept from the leader.
From what I've read of Corbyn, he would never get through the Developed Vetting process, if he was applying for a job that required one. It will be a difficult issue that I wouldn't want to deal with when he becomes LOTO. How can they brief him on sensitive issues in dealing with the middle east without there being a strong possibility he will leak?
AIUI, the briefing of the LOTO is a courtesy - and an attempt to secure prior agreement on the most sensitive aspects of foreign and defence policy - before it is discussed publicly.
There is actually no *need* for these briefings to take place.
Hence I suspect that they simply won't occur. And certainly the Americans would be very unwilling to allow us to share any of their sourced intelligence with Corbyn.
t took three additional elections to win again after 1983, and with Corbyn that may well be where we are in 2020, as he makes Michael Foot, who let's not forget was a universally respected parliamentary figure who'd served in cabinet and who backed the Falklands War, look like Tony Blair. If Labour really badly mess 2020 up, which under Corbyn looks pretty likely then you're looking at a fairly decent Tory majority plus, unless a miracle happens the Scottish problem (that although the SNP seats reduce the Tory majority, they actively reduce the chance of a Lab government because they're a) not Labour seats and b) England doesn't like the idea of being governed by Scottish Nationalists in a coalition). Given what we know about the electoral map and the likely swing required that could, even on an optimistic reading make 2025 an election where Labour turns the tide but can't get all the way back into power.
Foot worked with Powell to stop Lords reform didn't he?
Quite correct, but Powell was a bit of an iconoclast and was out in the cold by 1968 - don't forget he was so divorced from party allegiance he voted Labour in 1974. They also disagreed on the ultimate goal, while being united in condemning the specific proposed reform (Powell wanted no change, Foot abolition).
Miliband's electoral failure was in part due to the perception by some that he was a foreign "Polish" judeobolshevist. Corbyn does not suffer from the same handicap.
Hamas is a national liberation movement that believes in the liberation of Dar-al-Islam from oppressive colonial occupation by what it perceives as a foreign infidel entity.
Neither you nor I may agree with Hamas, but that doesn't make it immoral, or anti-British.
The UK (probably only England and Wales in the medium-term) needs to get used to being an unimportant medium-sized state on the fringes of Europe, recognise that its imperial pretensions are history and stop posturing on the world stage; it doesn't need and cannot afford a Trident replacement.
The latest active intervention (in Libya) and indirect support of the Syrian rebels via the criminal Saudi regime has created 2 failed states on the fringes of Europe and exacerbated the current refugee crisis.
Corbyn has an enlightened view about Britain's place in the world.
All absolute monarchs have had practical limits to their power King John and Henry VI come to mind and Charles I pushed his luck as well. And all monarchs to some degree relied on advisers who lasted as long as they were useful. Controlling the kings council was always important - politics of one kind or another has always been with us. Monarchs and advisers that were better at politics were more successful.
In the middle ages, the power of the church was also a significant block to the absolute power of the monarch - look at the shambles John caused when he tried to go against it. I read one biography of Henry VIII which argued he was 'the apogee of personal monarchy in England' because he shattered the power of the church, seized all its wealth and nobody was able to cite precedents and financial considerations to stop him as a result. That argument seemed pretty convincing to me. Not that Henry was exactly an advert for an absolute monarchy, but still.
I have the theory that the development of constitutionalism in Western Europe was a large part due to the unusual religious situation of Catholicism. The Pope was a powerful source of authority beyond the King's control that nobles could appeal to when unhappy with their lord. That meant nobles could get religious backing for protections against the King without having to fully replace him.
The Privy Council Oath (unchanged since ~1250, except for gender)
"You do swear by Almighty God to be a true and faithful Servant unto The Queen's Majesty as one of Her Majesty's Privy Council. You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done or spoken against Her Majesty's Person, Honour, Crown or Dignity Royal, but you will lett and withstand the same to the uttermost of your power, and either cause it to be revealed to Her Majesty Herself, or to such of Her Privy Council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same. You will in all things to be moved, treated and debated in Council, faithfully and truly declare your Mind and Opinion, according to your Heart and Conscience; and will keep secret all matters committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated of secretly in Council. And if any of the said Treaties or Counsels shall touch any of the Counsellors you will not reveal it unto him but will keep the same until such time as, by the consent of Her Majesty or of the Council, Publication shall be made thereof. You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance to the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all civil and temporal Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty so help you God."
Presumably anybody taking the oath is also given a translation?
Is this not a translation? Presume the original would be in Latin or Norman-French?
Back to 1250 is the BBC's assertion, but the Privy Council website says Tudor times. And that looks very much like Tudor English to me.
IIRC, the oath is of Tudor origins but the Council itself emerged in the Middle Ages.
The floor for both main parties is now considerably below 20%. The emergence of the Greens and UKIP as genuinely national parties, combined with the SNP in Scotland creates a threat to Labour in a way that hasn't existed post-war. For the Tories, again, UKIP is a much more potent threat than it was under Major, Hague and IDS. There simply is not the broad level of party identification that there was twenty, never mind fifty, years ago. The consumer society applies to politics too.
Not sure. I agree that the floor is very low in a PR election, but elections under FPTP are obviously different. When people talk about FPTP being a two party system, they tend to focus on the national level. FPTP is fundamentally about individual constituencies, what happens at national level (the presumed increased chance of coalition/minority Government) is merely a consequence of the variation of parties in contention at a local level. And what is important at local level is to be (clearly) one of the two main parties in contention in any individual seat (it is why the number of second places racked up by UKIP in 2015 is perceived as important).
It is also I think, incidentally, the big problem for any prospective LibDem recovery. In many of their former "heartlands" they have lost their status as either incumbent, or undisputed challenger. A status which in many cases seemed to owe more to history going back over a century, rather than any obvious match between LibDem policies and the electorate. In many of these areas (especially where they have little remaining local Govt base) they may never recover, because there is no reason for them to, no natural correlation with the electorate once the history is taken away. And to try and challenge that will be seen centrally as a waste of scarce resources.
All absolute monarchs have had practical limits to their power King John and Henry VI come to mind and Charles I pushed his luck as well. And all monarchs to some degree relied on advisers who lasted as long as they were useful. Controlling the kings council was always important - politics of one kind or another has always been with us. Monarchs and advisers that were better at politics were more successful.
In the middle ages, the power of the church was also a significant block to the absolute power of the monarch - look at the shambles John caused when he tried to go against it. I read one biography of Henry VIII which argued he was 'the apogee of personal monarchy in England' because he shattered the power of the church, seized all its wealth and nobody was able to cite precedents and financial considerations to stop him as a result. That argument seemed pretty convincing to me. Not that Henry was exactly an advert for an absolute monarchy, but still.
I have the theory that the development of constitutionalism in Western Europe was a large part due to the unusual religious situation of Catholicism. The Pope was a powerful source of authority beyond the King's control that nobles could appeal to when unhappy with their lord. That meant nobles could get religious backing for protections against the King without having to fully replace him.
A not unreasonable theory, and of course it happened a lot. The Pope was also quite happy to bless invasions of the countries of recalcitrant monarchs, if asked to - that included John, but the most famous example would surely be Hastings, 1066. That in itself might help to keep monarchs in check.
I don't know enough one way or another to support your theory, but it's definitely an interesting one.
Marvellous, the amount of money that can be made out of politics. Obviously Sedgefield was out of his league.
"Tony Blair's fondness for hobnobbing on the private yachts of business tycoons is well known.
But after years of relying on the hospitality of others, the moneybags former PM (whose wealth is estimated at over £100 million) has finally joined the ranks of the global super rich.
For Blair has been holidaying with wife Cherie in the exclusive Aeolian islands, off the coast of Sicily, in his very own glistening super yacht, which he chartered at a cost of £22,000 a week." (D Mail)
Back to 1250 is the BBC's assertion, but the Privy Council website says Tudor times. And that looks very much like Tudor English to me.
IIRC, the oath is of Tudor origins but the Council itself emerged in the Middle Ages.
If that's correct, and I wouldn't know because I don't actually know a huge amount about the Tudors, I would guess that it was changed as part of Henry VIII and Thomas Cromwell reforming the machinery of government in the aftermath of the break with Rome, to strengthen allegiance to the crown.
The Privy Council itself goes right back to the reign of at least Henry III, when it was responsible for administering the realm during his minority (chaired by the justiciar and de facto regent, Hubert de Burgh, earl of Kent) and I would suggest probably evolved from earlier groups of advisers around the monarch possibly back to the time of Alfred.
I take your point about whether the lds have moved left or not. But if it is case that they appeared different due to the focus on government not LD policy and now only the latter will be seen from them, then the. Perception they have moved left will exist, which for electoral purposes is the same as actually moving left.
In other words, "moved back" as opposed to "moved towards the Tories", which leaves out the "left" and "right" nonsense. Fair enough. I think the important thing is the values that the Lib Dems hold, and the policies that stem from them. If these become clear again, it will boost Lib Dem support in the country, and be damaging to Tory hopes.
One question that hasn't been much discussed - will Corbyn be able to get security clearance? (maybe actually irrelevant if briefings have to be done on Privy Council terms).
Cameron may actually have to brief others in the Labour Party on condition that they keep their leader out of the loop...!
If a party leader can't be cleared (or more realistically, is given only a low level of clearance), then that will affect the security clearance of the entire party. It would undermine the entire notion of what a parliamentary party is for members other than the leader to be told things on condition that theey're kept from the leader.
From what I've read of Corbyn, he would never get through the Developed Vetting process, if he was applying for a job that required one. It will be a difficult issue that I wouldn't want to deal with when he becomes LOTO. How can they brief him on sensitive issues in dealing with the middle east without there being a strong possibility he will leak?
AIUI, the briefing of the LOTO is a courtesy - and an attempt to secure prior agreement on the most sensitive aspects of foreign and defence policy - before it is discussed publicly.
There is actually no *need* for these briefings to take place.
Hence I suspect that they simply won't occur. And certainly the Americans would be very unwilling to allow us to share any of their sourced intelligence with Corbyn.
There is no "need", but a LOTO kept outside of the loop can cause a lot of trouble for the government.
Comments
It will take a decade to do Housing Reform. Tories are still scared of Nimbys. Council Housing is unacceptable due to conflicts of interest.
They also need to address Higher Education and Charity Reform.
The Lib Dems are the party as a whole, not the MPs. And policy is decided by the party conference, not by the leader personally. Of course the leader in turn will choose to emphasise some aspects of policy rather than others, but it does not mean that the "followers" start thinking any differently.
It was very clear, during the years of the Coalition Government, that Nick Clegg put far more emphasis on government policy (influenced by Conservative values), rather than pure Lib Dem policy. But Lib Dems didn´t change then, and haven´t now. Why does Mr Herdson think that Lib Dem supporters, let alone activists, were a bit grumpy during all this period?
Now, free from the shackles of working with the Tories, Lib Dem values and policies are coming to the fore once again. The difference will not be noticed overnight. But the Tories will start to feel the impact in the country of sustained Lib Dem criticism.
Mr Cameron, up until now, has been a lucky general, but I still think that he has been grossly over-rated, especially by the PB Tories. He is going to have enormous difficulty in keeping his Conservative coalition together. We shall see.
What I found profoundly depressing was last night's AQ. Polly and Corbyn were on advocating £1m for everyone especially sainted nurses, and let's take all economic migrants because that'd be nice too.
It's so incredibly childish - yet that's the dumbed down level of *debate* we can expect for the next few years. Tories will never have been so evil since Fatcher. Again. Yawn.
Miliband's electoral failure was in part due to the perception by some that he was a foreign "Polish" judeobolshevist. Corbyn does not suffer from the same handicap.
I take your point about whether the lds have moved left or not. But if it is case that they appeared different due to the focus on government not LD policy and now only the latter will be seen from them, then the. Perception they have moved left will exist, which for electoral purposes is the same as actually moving left.
Which is why the Corbyn surge is so dispiriting - it could literally stop any chance of a Labour government until 2030 yet his supporters don't seem to realise the seppuku they're committing.
And there is so much to do in the centre ground. IDS's reforms need to be embedded, Gove's reforms in education need to continued and developed, Scotland and EVEL need a long lasting solution after the make do of the Blair years, the EU is incredibly demanding and complicated, May is trying hard to get the police out of the 20th century, the economy still needs much, much more rebalancing with an emphasis on exports, we have a housing crisis in large parts, if not all, of our country, our infrastructure, particularly for transport, is inadequate, in an ever more dangerous world our armed forces are run down well below a safe level, I could go on and on.
What this country really needs is a very long period of safe, competent, efficient government. Without any opposition worthy of the name that is going to take an extraordinary amount of focus and discipline. There is no need to be radical, there is a massive need to provide the kind of governance we need.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9342592/brighton-has-become-an-object-lesson-in-why-it-is-a-disaster-to-vote-green/
What about the Daily Mail's article about the son (Red Ed) being in the image of his father, or the Sun's front page spread on the day before the GE entitled "Save our bacon". It created the perception that EM was not "one of us". The same cannot be said of Corbyn.
City A.M. @CityAM 13m13 minutes ago
US oil crashes below $40 for first time in six years http://dlvr.it/BwhJz8
"You do swear by Almighty God to be a true and faithful Servant unto The Queen's Majesty as one of Her Majesty's Privy Council. You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done or spoken against Her Majesty's Person, Honour, Crown or Dignity Royal, but you will lett and withstand the same to the uttermost of your power, and either cause it to be revealed to Her Majesty Herself, or to such of Her Privy Council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same. You will in all things to be moved, treated and debated in Council, faithfully and truly declare your Mind and Opinion, according to your Heart and Conscience; and will keep secret all matters committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated of secretly in Council. And if any of the said Treaties or Counsels shall touch any of the Counsellors you will not reveal it unto him but will keep the same until such time as, by the consent of Her Majesty or of the Council, Publication shall be made thereof. You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance to the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all civil and temporal Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty so help you God."
The fact he was a socialist did not help, however. But Corbyn is doubling down on that.
The bacon picture being overused was because he looked unfortunate in it. The theme was he was weird, not let's get rid of the Polish Jew.
Corbyn can easily be attacked as not 'one of us'. In effect he already is as he's been accused of automatically taking his foreign policy decisions as whatever is contrary to British positioning.
I think the big political (as opposed to logistical/practical) problem with merging tax and NI is that it would immediately highlight the fact that our "tax" system isn't quite as "progressive" as many believe. Assuming done on its most basic level, the basic rate of tax would increase to 34% with the higher rate increasing to 41%. What you do with employer's NI is also another mystery. Theoretically you just transfer it to income tax and expect employers to pass over the difference in increased pay,but that would be a difficult sell...
More generally, Tories are just as capable of joining "internal feedback loops" as the left.
Perhaps the government should give the Beeb to Murdoch (and Channel 4 to the Daily Mail - no need to bother with Parliament, an Order in Council will be much quicker.
Perhaps it should also stop all access to pensions and NHS services to lefties.
And, of course, Richard Dodd's self-importance is entirely justified: anyone who disagrees should be shot out of hand (why waste police time)?
I mentioned the other day that an ordinary bod wouldn't get a job as a senior plod with friends like Jezza's. So I can only assume that there'll be a lot of meetings that JC isn't invited too, and the rest largely anodyne ones.
Alexander: So, you're saying that David Cameron is prime minister of the UK. Lets see how many of our 100 said that.
(Music: piddly diddly dum - "49")
Alexander: "49". Well, Richard, I was expecting a higher score than that!
Richard: Yep! It makes you think, doesn't it?
Congrats on today's Godwin Award.
This leadership election is like winning the Lottery to him. An exotic holiday talking to fellow travelers and getting applauded for it.
As for moving left, as Lib Dem policy is irrelevant now the party is no longer a meaningful presence, the best measure is how the party positions itself against thebig two. There, th Lib Dems have gone from being Tory allies to constant critics, as that is Farron's nature.
It's true that Cameron has been a lucky leader but it's also true that to a large extent you make your ow luck. The luck of Labour's leadership election flows directly from his electoral success, and that flows from conscious campaigning and strategy decisions.
I also lost a bet with him over the GE, which I will happily pay should he request me to do so.
In 1935-37, just about his only significant achievement was handling the abdication crisis effectively. Most of the legacy of the 1920s was gone by 1945 anyway - the Labour government merely read the last rites over it. Ironically, it has been suggested his greatest and most lasting legacy was the Labour party itself - had he not allowed it to take power twice in the 1920s, it is unlikely it would have been so readily accepted in Churchill's government in the 1940s, and thence into power on its own in 1945.
Of course, Baldwin was lucky to be there in the first place, in the sense that he was the only member of the House of Commons in 1923 who could lead a majority government, despite his inexperience and relatively undistinguished record. But I'm not quite clear what point you are trying to make about his luck vs. being underrated.
The key similarity between Cameron and Baldwin, I would suggest, is that they both tend to give more energetic colleagues their heads when formulating policy - Gove, Osborne, May for Cameron, Neville Chamberlain, Churchill and Joynson-Hicks (1920s) for Baldwin. The risk is that it leads to confusion and incoherence at the heart of government because nobody is co-ordinating things properly. That damaged Baldwin's administrations and the risk of being radical in this term is that it could damage Cameron's as well unless he or Osborne keeps a fairly tight rein.
https://youtu.be/CgF30MFYXLg
I can't help but feel there is a large number of religious extremists in these migrant flows who want to benefit from Europe's wealth, but will remain hostile to our values and fail to integrate. Germany and Sweden are storing up huge problems for the future.
If 900 people had voted the other way in these 7 seats the Torys would not have had a majority.
These 900 most marginal people who could easily have voted the other way (out of the total of about 300,000 who voted in these 7 constituencies) are, by definition of most marginal, the most wibbly-wobbly uncertain voters. The Tory majority and so called mandate depends on these 900 people. The "mandate" is as marginal and ephemeral as that.
Will he win a personal mandate? Only with the help of his chief opposition rivals, but Syriza as a party is as near to perishing as last weeks butter.
Ms Truss just kept her mouth largely shut as it really wasn't worth even bothering to have a grown-up input by that point.
Reforms to the method of electing the leader will also be interesting. It is quite likely that he will seek to push a reform that makes MPs even more irrelevant to the whole thing. For him to present his leadership as legitimate, he has to effectively dismiss the uncomfortable truth that he was only on the ballot by accident. The nominations process did not work as the system intended. But if it had worked as intended then the "membership" would have been denied their choice. So the obvious reform (from a Corbynite perspective) is to get rid of the nominations stage.
*my big idea for Corbynite reforms - build on the "success" of the £3 sign-ups by instituting regular votes on party policy. Get a vote for £3 a pop! Membership having value as providing a season ticket to vote on everything!
It is not unreasonable to expect them to pick up a number of seats due to extensive social changes taking place there. Gower is one example from last time, Delyn may be one next time around (although if Delyn goes blue, Chester may well stay red). Newcastle under Lyme also looks vulnerable to me, at the price of Labour tightening its hold on much of Stoke, as more affluent voters move further afield. Morley and Outwood might be consolidated next time around, especially if the Conservatives appear to be slipping back in Leeds itself.
So the mandate's pretty narrow, but there is room for consolidation and improvement if they get things right this time (big 'if', of course).
And if Jeremy Corbyn is elected Labour leader - well, let's just say I don't think any Labour MP outside the South Wales valleys and London will be feeling too safe.
*Ynys Mon is in third place on the list, Cambridge sixth, but there Labour are fighting other parties and the Tories are a fair way back.
Grovel,grovel,grovel.
Yours until you're in trouble,
Alex.
There is actually no *need* for these briefings to take place.
Hence I suspect that they simply won't occur. And certainly the Americans would be very unwilling to allow us to share any of their sourced intelligence with Corbyn.
Hamas is a national liberation movement that believes in the liberation of Dar-al-Islam from oppressive colonial occupation by what it perceives as a foreign infidel entity.
Neither you nor I may agree with Hamas, but that doesn't make it immoral, or anti-British.
The UK (probably only England and Wales in the medium-term) needs to get used to being an unimportant medium-sized state on the fringes of Europe, recognise that its imperial pretensions are history and stop posturing on the world stage; it doesn't need and cannot afford a Trident replacement.
The latest active intervention (in Libya) and indirect support of the Syrian rebels via the criminal Saudi regime has created 2 failed states on the fringes of Europe and exacerbated the current refugee crisis.
Corbyn has an enlightened view about Britain's place in the world.
It is also I think, incidentally, the big problem for any prospective LibDem recovery. In many of their former "heartlands" they have lost their status as either incumbent, or undisputed challenger. A status which in many cases seemed to owe more to history going back over a century, rather than any obvious match between LibDem policies and the electorate. In many of these areas (especially where they have little remaining local Govt base) they may never recover, because there is no reason for them to, no natural correlation with the electorate once the history is taken away. And to try and challenge that will be seen centrally as a waste of scarce resources.
I don't know enough one way or another to support your theory, but it's definitely an interesting one.
Wonder if Ricciardo will be 3rd again.
"Tony Blair's fondness for hobnobbing on the private yachts of business tycoons is well known.
But after years of relying on the hospitality of others, the moneybags former PM (whose wealth is estimated at over £100 million) has finally joined the ranks of the global super rich.
For Blair has been holidaying with wife Cherie in the exclusive Aeolian islands, off the coast of Sicily, in his very own glistening super yacht, which he chartered at a cost of £22,000 a week." (D Mail)
The Privy Council itself goes right back to the reign of at least Henry III, when it was responsible for administering the realm during his minority (chaired by the justiciar and de facto regent, Hubert de Burgh, earl of Kent) and I would suggest probably evolved from earlier groups of advisers around the monarch possibly back to the time of Alfred.