Even the son of Viktor Yanukovych allegedly had a net worth of $300 million plus. The top man himself more than ten billion dollars, though how much of that is now frozen or confiscated I don't know.
On the subject of PMs sons who became very wealthy, we cannot miss out that charismatic highly successful businessman: Mark Thatcher.
It's is not just Blair and Heath who wound up rich.
This sort of thing is why the Corbyns of the world gather support. The relationship between political power and money stinks.
Is David Miliband the only ex-politician to go to New York to work for a refugee charity rather than generic JPMorgan type relationship bank? That choice signals something about his future desires.
While his premierships are not particularly noteworthy (the economic revival in the thirties was down to Chamberlain for example), Baldwin very successfully modernised the Conservative party, after a prolonged period in opposition. He adapted an aristocratic party to become a party that won elections on the basis of a universal franchise. After Baldwin the party was thriving on the basis of a property owning middle class.
Whether the railway anecdote in this article is true or not, I think that Baldwin shared the personal modesty that the British were once known for:
Even the son of Viktor Yanukovych allegedly had a net worth of $300 million plus. The top man himself more than ten billion dollars, though how much of that is now frozen or confiscated I don't know.
On the subject of PMs sons who became very wealthy, we cannot miss out that charismatic highly successful businessman: Mark Thatcher.
It's is not just Blair and Heath who wound up rich.
This sort of thing is why the Corbyns of the world gather support. The relationship between political power and money stinks.
Is David Miliband the only ex-politician to go to New York to work for a refugee charity rather than generic JPMorgan type relationship bank? That choice signals something about his future desires.
Does it? What is his benefit package as head of this charity?
Even the son of Viktor Yanukovych allegedly had a net worth of $300 million plus. The top man himself more than ten billion dollars, though how much of that is now frozen or confiscated I don't know.
On the subject of PMs sons who became very wealthy, we cannot miss out that charismatic highly successful businessman: Mark Thatcher.
It's is not just Blair and Heath who wound up rich.
This sort of thing is why the Corbyns of the world gather support. The relationship between political power and money stinks.
Is David Miliband the only ex-politician to go to New York to work for a refugee charity rather than generic JPMorgan type relationship bank? That choice signals something about his future desires.
He is on £300k per year plus benefits. That is pretty hefty money making as far as I am concerned!
In one year as an MP, his outside income was £288k on top of his £65K salary.
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.
Of the 20 most marginal seats Tory & Labour have 9 each:
But do carry on - rationalising why Labour didn't really 'lose' is much appreciated.
No - Labour lost heavily - because of the SNP, not the Tories. The Tories won very marginally because of their thrashing of the LibDems - not of Labour.
The point I was making is that the Tory "mandate" is very tenuous. They can't claim to have the support of most of the country. Neither, of course, can Labour.
David Cameron would be PM under any vote system .
That may be so. I'm not claiming the Tories don't have a majority and the power that goes with it. I'm disputing the claim made by some that the "country" supported the Tories and that they therefore have a mandate to make push through right wing policies.
They might have the power to - we'll see. But it will provoke a reaction from the majority who do not support them. I still see a potent multi-party anti-Tory campaign in 2020 against a Tory party with few friends in other parties and a tenuous grip on power.
Even the son of Viktor Yanukovych allegedly had a net worth of $300 million plus. The top man himself more than ten billion dollars, though how much of that is now frozen or confiscated I don't know.
On the subject of PMs sons who became very wealthy, we cannot miss out that charismatic highly successful businessman: Mark Thatcher.
It's is not just Blair and Heath who wound up rich.
This sort of thing is why the Corbyns of the world gather support. The relationship between political power and money stinks.
Is David Miliband the only ex-politician to go to New York to work for a refugee charity rather than generic JPMorgan type relationship bank? That choice signals something about his future desires.
He is on £300k per year plus benefits. That is pretty hefty money making as far as I am concerned!
In one year as an MP, his outside income was £288k on top of his £65K salary.
Miliband, D. and money are very well acquainted
International rescue does seem to be involved in the refugee crisis on Lesbos:
I wouldn't be very concerned; the former IRA men are now taking Her Majesty's shilling as her Government in Northern Ireland.
They seem to be content to be in government at Stormont alongside their nemesis, the DUP, but reluctant to take their seats at Westminster, where there are (one would think) a not insignificant number of MPs who may be sympathetic to Irish Unity.
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.
Of the 20 most marginal seats Tory & Labour have 9 each:
But do carry on - rationalising why Labour didn't really 'lose' is much appreciated.
No - Labour lost heavily - because of the SNP, not the Tories. The Tories won very marginally because of their thrashing of the LibDems - not of Labour.
The point I was making is that the Tory "mandate" is very tenuous. They can't claim to have the support of most of the country. Neither, of course, can Labour.
David Cameron would be PM under any vote system .
That may be so. I'm not claiming the Tories don't have a majority and the power that goes with it. I'm disputing the claim made by some that the "country" supported the Tories and that they therefore have a mandate to make push through right wing policies.
They might have the power to - we'll see. But it will provoke a reaction from the majority who do not support them. I still see a potent multi-party anti-Tory campaign in 2020 against a Tory party with few friends in other parties and a tenuous grip on power.
OK, but do tell us which government in modern times did have the majority of the electorate on their side? Which government, by your rules, did have a mandate to push through their policies?
Even the son of Viktor Yanukovych allegedly had a net worth of $300 million plus. The top man himself more than ten billion dollars, though how much of that is now frozen or confiscated I don't know.
On the subject of PMs sons who became very wealthy, we cannot miss out that charismatic highly successful businessman: Mark Thatcher.
It's is not just Blair and Heath who wound up rich.
This sort of thing is why the Corbyns of the world gather support. The relationship between political power and money stinks.
Is David Miliband the only ex-politician to go to New York to work for a refugee charity rather than generic JPMorgan type relationship bank? That choice signals something about his future desires.
He is on £300k per year plus benefits. That is pretty hefty money making as far as I am concerned!
In one year as an MP, his outside income was £288k on top of his £65K salary.
Miliband, D. and money are very well acquainted
International rescue does seem to be involved in the refugee crisis on Lesbos:
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.
Six of those seats would be Labour now had there been no Green candidate on the ballot paper. The same would be true of Brighton - Kemptown.
The Tories, in 2005, claimed they had lost 30 seats because of the UKIP vote. But they probably hadn't - because those voters would in all likelihood not have voted had UKIP not stood (or spoiled their ballot paper, which amounts to the same thing).
I think it's a bit doubtful to say 'if X hadn't stood, Y would have won.' After all, were Green voters really attracted by the Green message, or put off by the Labour one? Difficult to say, without asking, but I'm guessing if they liked the sound of Bennett (garden sheds and all) enough to vote for her, they wouldn't have been willing to vote for Miliband.
I do not assume for a minute that all Green voters would otherwise have voted Labour - far from it. It is reasonable to assume, however, that such voters would have favoured Labour disproportionately in relation to the Tories. Gower,Derby North & Croydon Central had Green votes of 1600, 1160 and 1450 respectively with Tory majorities of just 27, 41 & 165. Very difficult not to believe that they cost Labour those seats.Plymouth Sutton and Brighton Kemptown had Green votes of circa 3400 and 3200 with Tory majorities of 520 & 690. Again Labour probably lost both due to Green candidatures. The slightly more doubtful seats are Bury North and Morley & Outwood where the Greens polled 1140 and 1260 with Tory majorities of circa 400 in both seats.Without a Green I suspect a labour win would have been odds on there - if not certain.
On topic. The tories need a well pegged down tent first. Its manifesto looks radical enough for me for now. Otherwise I think the tories tent will have a wide door and a suitable welcome mat. I think the important thing is that it is not a revolving door.
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.
Of the 20 most marginal seats Tory & Labour have 9 each:
But do carry on - rationalising why Labour didn't really 'lose' is much appreciated.
No - Labour lost heavily - because of the SNP, not the Tories. The Tories won very marginally because of their thrashing of the LibDems - not of Labour.
The point I was making is that the Tory "mandate" is very tenuous. They can't claim to have the support of most of the country. Neither, of course, can Labour.
David Cameron would be PM under any vote system .
That may be so. I'm not claiming the Tories don't have a majority and the power that goes with it. I'm disputing the claim made by some that the "country" supported the Tories and that they therefore have a mandate to make push through right wing policies.
They might have the power to - we'll see. But it will provoke a reaction from the majority who do not support them. I still see a potent multi-party anti-Tory campaign in 2020 against a Tory party with few friends in other parties and a tenuous grip on power.
You might consider that you have got 'potent' and 'tenuous' the wrong way round.
I wouldn't be very concerned; the former IRA men are now taking Her Majesty's shilling as her Government in Northern Ireland.
They seem to be content to be in government at Stormont alongside their nemesis, the DUP, but reluctant to take their seats at Westminster, where there are (one would think) a not insignificant number of MPs who may be sympathetic to Irish Unity.
>But I would question Blair being worth £100 million. We must assume he was only worth a modest sum in 2007. So in less than 10 years he has acquired a worth of £100m? That's more than £10m a year. Well more. After 50% tax?
Wasn't it 40% tax for the duration of the Labour Government, until March 2010?
At least until Gordon was ejected.
Apart from Berlusconi and perhaps Bill Clinton Blair must now be the richest former world leader alive and to think that Harold Wilson spent his retirement in the Scilly Isles!
Did he? I thought I'd seen a reference to Wilson (and his wife/widow) living in "genteel poverty" in Westminster.
Wilson suffered dementia like symptoms. He wrote his memoirs and then effectively retired from all public life. I think the theory is he felt it coming on and thats why he retired so suddenly.
We are in for quite a strange period of politics, where political parties are potentially far more radical than the public really desires them to be.
Corbyn is different to both Brown, and Miliband in the sense that there was never any real organised political will to get rid of them. Brown's ascendance to role of PM was as result of a political will to get rid of Tony Blair, and by 2009 the candidate who MPs would have rallied around chickened out in the last minute. When Ed Miliband became Labour leader there was too a lack of political will to get rid of him. Firstly, because of the shock that his election was. Secondly, because the polls had shown Labour - especially in 2012 - having significant leads. Thirdly, because the only one who it seemed really had a will to get rid of Ed Miliband was John Mann. Fourthly, because the candidate that MPs could potentially rally around - Alan Johnson - was reluctant to assume a leadership role. And lastly, because in late 2014, to early 2015 the cross-over expected to have for the Tories never came to fruition in the polls, which gave MPs some hope that they could win, even with Ed. I also think many were in denial about Scotland, too.
Now, there is a definitely a political will, even before he's been elected to get rid of Corbyn - that did not exist for either Brown or Miliband. To such a degree that MPs are even planning strategies - of course, they have to decide upon one, one way or another. They also have to find a candidate to rally around, which will probably be Labour's biggest challenge in attempting to depose of Corbyn. But Labour will not have the comfort blanket of polls to dismiss concerns - indeed, now Corbyn's own personal ratings will be more important than ever. Because while VI polls proved incorrect, polls on personal ratings were still spot on. I also wouldn't put it past Corbyn's detractors to hire private pollsters, and Labour's own private pollsters also ended up right. There's also the issue of elections in May. If doubts spread about Ed Miliband's medicore performance in 2011, then doubts will explode for Corbyn 2016. Given how left-wing Corbyn is, it'll look pretty bad if he cannot salvage anything from Holyrood 2016. If the party elect Khan, then they'll lose the Mayoral contest. And they'll most likely get destroyed at in the council elections.
In terms of Labour's position being less secure than in the 20th century, I'd argue the rise of the SNP is more of an anomaly than a foretelling of what is to come. It is a result of Labour's base not feeling the party is in touch, but also a viable alternative coming along with people who proved their competent to govern, were credible to the Scottish electorate and had a powerful message. In Scotland there is also a bizarre situation were it looks like the SNP literally have no opposition - all the Westminster parties have been discredited there.
In England, there is no 'SNP' like challenger for Labour. UKIP, rather than building on their success in the Euro 2014 election, have gone on to have a disappointing election campaign - facing the issues that most smaller parties have faced - making vote share count for something in seat share. Their own leader failed in his second consecutive bid to gain a seat, despite all the previous assurances from UKIP that he would win. They lost a seat (Mark Reckless). And even Carswell's majority was reduced. The overall campaign was pretty poor, and post-GE UKIP exploded into a series of infighting, and their leader became something of a joke. He isn't even trusted on his main subject - the EU - by the electorate. UKIP, as seen on Thursday night are continuing to lose elections - rather than consolidate any base they have, and have yet to make hay in regard to the Calais crisis. Given the laughing stock that Labour are now, that is pretty telling.
The Green party aren't doing anything noteworthy anytime soon. They are popular with a part of the electorate (18-24 year olds) which is notorious for not turning out to vote, and will have a hard-time trying to out-left Corbyn. They, even more so than UKIP suffer from wasted-vote syndrome.
The Conservatives risk, as @Danny565 points out reading the situation as a huge endorsement for their party, as opposed to a choice which is more like would you rather step in vomit or poo? Both main parties after all, have yet to deal with, and offer solutions to the country's most chronic issues. Indeed, on the issue which concerns the public the most - immigration - neither party really has any solution. There is also the problem that the Corbyn narrative will be from the get-go, that he cannot and will not win. Part of the reason why many turned out to vote Tory, in the south-west and other areas was that a Miliband-SNP coalition seemed a real threat. It was also because the coalition, and David Cameron made the Tories appear more moderate than they actually were. If Corbyn is not deemed a threat, in any way then compulsion to go on and vote against him (that is, of course if he is still there by 2020 - he may be gone) may not be presence. Osborne, the expected next Conservative leader is also far more radical minded than Cameron, but also lacks his personal traits which can make Cameron seem like a statesmen, amiable, and moderate. There is also the potential for Tory MPs to fall into a sense of complacency as a result of feeling there is no opposition. If they weren't afraid to not toe the party-line on issues such as the British Bill of Rights previously, then they certainly won't while nothing is a stake with Corbyn as Labour leader.
So, I predict that pretty much both political parties will self-destruct in the next five years. And then it'll be a question of which mess of party gains power in 2020.
Sounds like you're saying, "yes, but they were not real votes."
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.
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.
Of the 20 most marginal seats Tory & Labour have 9 each:
But do carry on - rationalising why Labour didn't really 'lose' is much appreciated.
No - Labour lost heavily - because of the SNP, not the Tories. The Tories won very marginally because of their thrashing of the LibDems - not of Labour.
The point I was making is that the Tory "mandate" is very tenuous. They can't claim to have the support of most of the country. Neither, of course, can Labour.
David Cameron would be PM under any vote system .
That may be so. I'm not claiming the Tories don't have a majority and the power that goes with it. I'm disputing the claim made by some that the "country" supported the Tories and that they therefore have a mandate to make push through right wing policies.
They might have the power to - we'll see. But it will provoke a reaction from the majority who do not support them. I still see a potent multi-party anti-Tory campaign in 2020 against a Tory party with few friends in other parties and a tenuous grip on power.
OK, but do tell us which government in modern times did have the majority of the electorate on their side? Which government, by your rules, did have a mandate to push through their policies?
You could argue that the last coalition government had the majority of the electorate on its side (31% + 23%) to start with, though the 23% evaporated pretty quickly. The reason I favour coalitions is that they often do represent a majority and have to pursue policies favoured by all parties in the coalition.
The problem for majority governments based on 30 - 40% of the vote is that if they pursue more extreme policies, not favoured by the majority of the electorate, there will be blowback.
That is my answer to Davd's question. If you take the "radical reformer" route you will suffer the consequences at the next election. A big tent approach is more likely to give long term success.
These images from Macedonia are incredible. I don't know if there's a better word to use than swarming.
I think you are right, but let me repeat (again) that the issue of migration begins far far away from Macedonia. This is what Cameron added to his word 'swarm'. He pointed out it was a world wide issue. Unlike say China we know that Europe is civilised so the migration from these far flung places is inevitably drawn in our direction. If we cannot resolve the issues in these far away places then we will not resolve the migration issue.
Sounds like you're saying, "yes, but they were not real votes."
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.
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.
Of the 20 most marginal seats Tory & Labour have 9 each:
But do carry on - rationalising why Labour didn't really 'lose' is much appreciated.
No - Labour lost heavily - because of the SNP, not the Tories. The Tories won very marginally because of their thrashing of the LibDems - not of Labour.
The point I was making is that the Tory "mandate" is very tenuous. They can't claim to have the support of most of the country. Neither, of course, can Labour.
David Cameron would be PM under any vote system .
That may be so. I'm not claiming the Tories don't have a majority and the power that goes with it. I'm disputing the claim made by some that the "country" supported the Tories and that they therefore have a mandate to make push through right wing policies.
They might have the power to - we'll see. But it will provoke a reaction from the majority who do not support them. I still see a potent multi-party anti-Tory campaign in 2020 against a Tory party with few friends in other parties and a tenuous grip on power.
OK, but do tell us which government in modern times did have the majority of the electorate on their side? Which government, by your rules, did have a mandate to push through their policies?
You could argue that the last coalition government had the majority of the electorate on its side (31% + 23%) to start with, though the 23% evaporated pretty quickly. The reason I favour coalitions is that they often do represent a majority and have to pursue policies favoured by all parties in the coalition.
The problem for majority governments based on 30 - 40% of the vote is that if they pursue more extreme policies, not favoured by the majority of the electorate, there will be blowback.
That is my answer to Davd's question. If you take the "radical reformer" route you will suffer the consequences at the next election. A big tent approach is more likely to give long term success.
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?
But do carry on - rationalising why Labour didn't really 'lose' is much appreciated.
No - Labour lost heavily - because of the SNP, not the Tories. The Tories won very marginally because of their thrashing of the LibDems - not of Labour.
The point I was making is that the Tory "mandate" is very tenuous. They can't claim to have the support of most of the country. Neither, of course, can Labour.
David Cameron would be PM under any vote system .
...
OK, but do tell us which government in modern times did have the majority of the electorate on their side? Which government, by your rules, did have a mandate to push through their policies?
You could argue that the last coalition government had the majority of the electorate on its side (31% + 23%) to start with, though the 23% evaporated pretty quickly. The reason I favour coalitions is that they often do represent a majority and have to pursue policies favoured by all parties in the coalition.
The problem for majority governments based on 30 - 40% of the vote is that if they pursue more extreme policies, not favoured by the majority of the electorate, there will be blowback.
That is my answer to Davd's question. If you take the "radical reformer" route you will suffer the consequences at the next election. A big tent approach is more likely to give long term success.
You seem to have shot yourself in the foot several times. The coalition had a significant % of votes and a good working majority and a good say in the cabinet for the LDs. But then a great chunk of that %age which was just an aimless protest vote ran away at the sight of govt. So despite coalitions by your argument being good, the LDs, also by your argument should have run away from the govt as demanded by its voters. And once a govt loses opinion poll and by election support - then what? Your logic is a thin and miserable gruel to chew on.
>But I would question Blair being worth £100 million. We must assume he was only worth a modest sum in 2007. So in less than 10 years he has acquired a worth of £100m? That's more than £10m a year. Well more. After 50% tax?
Wasn't it 40% tax for the duration of the Labour Government, until March 2010?
At least until Gordon was ejected.
Apart from Berlusconi and perhaps Bill Clinton Blair must now be the richest former world leader alive and to think that Harold Wilson spent his retirement in the Scilly Isles!
Did he? I thought I'd seen a reference to Wilson (and his wife/widow) living in "genteel poverty" in Westminster.
Wilson suffered dementia like symptoms. He wrote his memoirs and then effectively retired from all public life. I think the theory is he felt it coming on and thats why he retired so suddenly.
On returning to office in March 1974 Wilson indicated to confidants that he intended to step down in 1975 or 1976 - and this also explains why he did not move back into No 10 in his second term. After retiring he chaired a Commission into the City of London as well as completing his final volume of memoirs.It has been suggested that he was badly affected by anaesthetic during a cancer operation in 1980, but did not really show signs of dementia until the second half of the 1980s - the condition becoming severe in his last five years.Loss of memory in the 70s probably reflected the natural ageing process - with most people being less quick in their 60s than twenty years earlier.
Even the son of Viktor Yanukovych allegedly had a net worth of $300 million plus. The top man himself more than ten billion dollars, though how much of that is now frozen or confiscated I don't know.
This sort of thing is why the Corbyns of the world gather support. The relationship between political power and money stinks.
I'm not sure the Mail were smart publishing a pic of Corbyn's house - mid-terrace seventies maisonette by the looks of it - 'looks like where I might live' sort of place - unlike the Dartmouth Park Grandeur of the demonstrably wealthy Milibands
>But I would question Blair being worth £100 million. We must assume he was only worth a modest sum in 2007. So in less than 10 years he has acquired a worth of £100m? That's more than £10m a year. Well more. After 50% tax?
Wasn't it 40% tax for the duration of the Labour Government, until March 2010?
At least until Gordon was ejected.
Apart from Berlusconi and perhaps Bill Clinton Blair must now be the richest former world leader alive and to think that Harold Wilson spent his retirement in the Scilly Isles!
Did he? I thought I'd seen a reference to Wilson (and his wife/widow) living in "genteel poverty" in Westminster.
Wilson maintained a flat in Westminster but spent much of his retirement in the Scillies
She's a much better politician than Kendall IMO - I don't agree with most of what she says (especially the rubbish about "paying down the debt"), but she atleast gives fluent and coherent answers. Unlike Kendall and her limited collection of contrived slogans which she parrots while clearly not having understood or thought deeply about the issues at all.
>But I would question Blair being worth £100 million. We must assume he was only worth a modest sum in 2007. So in less than 10 years he has acquired a worth of £100m? That's more than £10m a year. Well more. After 50% tax?
Wasn't it 40% tax for the duration of the Labour Government, until March 2010?
At least until Gordon was ejected.
Apart from Berlusconi and perhaps Bill Clinton Blair must now be the richest former world leader alive and to think that Harold Wilson spent his retirement in the Scilly Isles!
You are miles and miles off. Plenty of super-rich businessmen have become leaders in parts of the world that aren't particularly rich... or become mysteriously or unexpectedly rich (or their kids have, and family fortunes count too) during their time in office.
Thaksin Shinawatra is a billionaire, for example, easily surpassing the Blairs.
I should perhaps have qualified it by western world leaders as plenty of developing world leaders have become rich, particularly through looting the nations they were supposed to be leading
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.
Six of those seats would be Labour now had there been no Green candidate on the ballot paper. The same would be true of Brighton - Kemptown.
Ah - the whatifery of psephology - garbage - leave it to Topol, at least he had a good tune.
Kezia Dugdale obviously doesn't follow PB.com as she is still on about there being a 50% gender balance among SLAB Holyrood candidates. To further upset the chaps she is moving the policy up a gear - now at least 50% of the candidates will be women:
" And she said that at least half of Scottish Labour’s new candidates for next year’s Holyrood election will be women. But she told the GMB event: “We need more than that. "
Kezia Dugdale obviously doesn't follow PB.com as she is still on about there being a 50% gender balance among SLAB Holyrood candidates. To further upset the chaps she is moving the policy up a gear - now at least 50% of the candidates will be women:
" And she said that at least half of Scottish Labour’s new candidates for next year’s Holyrood election will be women. But she told the GMB event: “We need more than that. "
Comments
While his premierships are not particularly noteworthy (the economic revival in the thirties was down to Chamberlain for example), Baldwin very successfully modernised the Conservative party, after a prolonged period in opposition. He adapted an aristocratic party to become a party that won elections on the basis of a universal franchise. After Baldwin the party was thriving on the basis of a property owning middle class.
Whether the railway anecdote in this article is true or not, I think that Baldwin shared the personal modesty that the British were once known for:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1997/uk_politics/stanley_baldwin/40729.stm
In one year as an MP, his outside income was £288k on top of his £65K salary.
Miliband, D. and money are very well acquainted
They might have the power to - we'll see. But it will provoke a reaction from the majority who do not support them. I still see a potent multi-party anti-Tory campaign in 2020 against a Tory party with few friends in other parties and a tenuous grip on power.
http://www.rescue.org/press-releases/limiting-humanitarian-response-not-discouraging-refugees-making-dangerous-journey-gre
I couldn't see anything on how IRC help with resettlement in Europe, though they seem to have a USA resettlement programme.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfIAKj3Gl1E
The tories need a well pegged down tent first.
Its manifesto looks radical enough for me for now.
Otherwise I think the tories tent will have a wide door and a suitable welcome mat. I think the important thing is that it is not a revolving door.
That's not a knock, just a statement.
Corbyn is different to both Brown, and Miliband in the sense that there was never any real organised political will to get rid of them. Brown's ascendance to role of PM was as result of a political will to get rid of Tony Blair, and by 2009 the candidate who MPs would have rallied around chickened out in the last minute. When Ed Miliband became Labour leader there was too a lack of political will to get rid of him. Firstly, because of the shock that his election was. Secondly, because the polls had shown Labour - especially in 2012 - having significant leads. Thirdly, because the only one who it seemed really had a will to get rid of Ed Miliband was John Mann. Fourthly, because the candidate that MPs could potentially rally around - Alan Johnson - was reluctant to assume a leadership role. And lastly, because in late 2014, to early 2015 the cross-over expected to have for the Tories never came to fruition in the polls, which gave MPs some hope that they could win, even with Ed. I also think many were in denial about Scotland, too.
Now, there is a definitely a political will, even before he's been elected to get rid of Corbyn - that did not exist for either Brown or Miliband. To such a degree that MPs are even planning strategies - of course, they have to decide upon one, one way or another. They also have to find a candidate to rally around, which will probably be Labour's biggest challenge in attempting to depose of Corbyn. But Labour will not have the comfort blanket of polls to dismiss concerns - indeed, now Corbyn's own personal ratings will be more important than ever. Because while VI polls proved incorrect, polls on personal ratings were still spot on. I also wouldn't put it past Corbyn's detractors to hire private pollsters, and Labour's own private pollsters also ended up right. There's also the issue of elections in May. If doubts spread about Ed Miliband's medicore performance in 2011, then doubts will explode for Corbyn 2016. Given how left-wing Corbyn is, it'll look pretty bad if he cannot salvage anything from Holyrood 2016. If the party elect Khan, then they'll lose the Mayoral contest. And they'll most likely get destroyed at in the council elections.
In terms of Labour's position being less secure than in the 20th century, I'd argue the rise of the SNP is more of an anomaly than a foretelling of what is to come. It is a result of Labour's base not feeling the party is in touch, but also a viable alternative coming along with people who proved their competent to govern, were credible to the Scottish electorate and had a powerful message. In Scotland there is also a bizarre situation were it looks like the SNP literally have no opposition - all the Westminster parties have been discredited there.
The Green party aren't doing anything noteworthy anytime soon. They are popular with a part of the electorate (18-24 year olds) which is notorious for not turning out to vote, and will have a hard-time trying to out-left Corbyn. They, even more so than UKIP suffer from wasted-vote syndrome.
The Conservatives risk, as @Danny565 points out reading the situation as a huge endorsement for their party, as opposed to a choice which is more like would you rather step in vomit or poo? Both main parties after all, have yet to deal with, and offer solutions to the country's most chronic issues. Indeed, on the issue which concerns the public the most - immigration - neither party really has any solution. There is also the problem that the Corbyn narrative will be from the get-go, that he cannot and will not win. Part of the reason why many turned out to vote Tory, in the south-west and other areas was that a Miliband-SNP coalition seemed a real threat. It was also because the coalition, and David Cameron made the Tories appear more moderate than they actually were. If Corbyn is not deemed a threat, in any way then compulsion to go on and vote against him (that is, of course if he is still there by 2020 - he may be gone) may not be presence. Osborne, the expected next Conservative leader is also far more radical minded than Cameron, but also lacks his personal traits which can make Cameron seem like a statesmen, amiable, and moderate. There is also the potential for Tory MPs to fall into a sense of complacency as a result of feeling there is no opposition. If they weren't afraid to not toe the party-line on issues such as the British Bill of Rights previously, then they certainly won't while nothing is a stake with Corbyn as Labour leader.
So, I predict that pretty much both political parties will self-destruct in the next five years. And then it'll be a question of which mess of party gains power in 2020.
And with that, as herself has again gone out for the afternoon, I am back to the time machine. Fourteenth century London here I come.
Thanks all for the conversation today.
The problem for majority governments based on 30 - 40% of the vote is that if they pursue more extreme policies, not favoured by the majority of the electorate, there will be blowback.
That is my answer to Davd's question. If you take the "radical reformer" route you will suffer the consequences at the next election. A big tent approach is more likely to give long term success.
The coalition had a significant % of votes and a good working majority and a good say in the cabinet for the LDs.
But then a great chunk of that %age which was just an aimless protest vote ran away at the sight of govt. So despite coalitions by your argument being good, the LDs, also by your argument should have run away from the govt as demanded by its voters.
And once a govt loses opinion poll and by election support - then what?
Your logic is a thin and miserable gruel to chew on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koEFHyxfKb4
She's a much better politician than Kendall IMO - I don't agree with most of what she says (especially the rubbish about "paying down the debt"), but she atleast gives fluent and coherent answers. Unlike Kendall and her limited collection of contrived slogans which she parrots while clearly not having understood or thought deeply about the issues at all.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34027260
" And she said that at least half of Scottish Labour’s new candidates for next year’s Holyrood election will be women. But she told the GMB event: “We need more than that. "
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/kezia-dugdale-scottish-labour-needs-fresh-talent-1-3865989