Britain will take in more net migration as it has done almost every year since the war, and it will continue to do fine, as one of the best countries in the world, a country in which people want to bring children into the world, while anti-immigrant countries like Japan die out.
It's simply untrue that Britain has taken in more net migration every year since the war.
You really don't get it, whatever you think "it" actually is
AS was no longer FM at the GE, Nippy Sweetie was, She was the one voters were afraid would be controlling PM Miliband by the short and curlies. She was the one being painted as the scarlet devil/temptress by the English Tory media.
No she wasn't. All posters and stories were about Salmond, for one simple reason - Salmond was going to be an MP, Sturgeon wasn't. Therefore, Salmond could be in the cabinet, but Sturgeon couldn't. I know he was only going to be a backbench MP, not even on the SNP's own list of spokesmen, but he was the only SNP politician most English people had ever actually heard of (Angus Robertson having all the profile you would expect of a rather disengaged place man at the head of five other MPs) and therefore he attracted the publicity. Moreover, given his profile and experience, to assume he would be given a top job in a coalition, conceivably CotE, was neither unrealistic nor stupid.
The fact that he was also seen, whether accurately or not, as a dogmatic anti-English xenophobe with a penchant for demanding more and more money for Scotland over and above what was already seen in England as an excessively generous settlement did not exactly help matters.
Sturgeon's public profile in England isn't glowing, but it's minuscule compared to Salmond's, and therefore there was no point in running a scare campaign based on her.
Interesting that German citizenship requires "you are committed to the free democratic constitutional order of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany".
"I, [JEO], swear by Almighty God that, on becoming a British citizen, I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors according to law." Pledge: "I will give my loyalty to the United Kingdom and respect its rights and freedoms. I will uphold its democratic values. I will observe its laws faithfully and fulfil my duties and obligations as a British citizen."
Thanks for the advice on tenancies - the solicitor has surrendered at last (blames the delay on secretary being on holiday - didn't know anyone still had people to type for them) and says she'll send the protected tenancy agreement today. Seems they do still exist though exceedingly rare. (Yes, reduces sale price by ca. £15K after tax, but money isn't everything.)
Burnham gets it on Corbyn's policy views - Corbyn is personally against NATO (though he sounds less in favour of actually leaving), but doesn't think the policy should just be decided by the leader. I'd expect the conference to go for staying in NATO, but the point that you can disagree with Corbyn on something without ruling yourself out of the Shadow Cabinet is an important get out of jail card for people who don't want to throw the toys out of the pram on September 12 but disagree on specific policies. Corbyn also helpfully condemns supporters who abuse rivals. I'd think that Burnham in the Shadow Cabinet is a certainty, and Cooper doesn't seem to have ruled it out recently either.
It's also a welcome innovation, within reason - even people with impeccably centrist views are absolutely fed up with the idea that the moment the leadership expresses an opinion, it's party policy and everyone has to be in favour or they're treacherous pig-dogs who must resign at once. And that's not just a Labour thing - all parties have the same issue, notably UKIP but the Tories too. There is a practical issue that you can't decide everything by annual conferences, but the cult of leadership is overdone.
Err, it's not the case that in Germany immigrants get citizenship after 8 years of residence. It is the case that 8 years of residence is the minimum time which allows an immigrant to apply for citizenship: http://www.bamf.de/EN/Einbuergerung/InDeutschland/indeutschland-node.html In practice it's quite hard to get German citizenship, which is why so few of the 1.5 million or so Turkish citizens living in Germany have done so.
Its quite good of you to be a counterpoint to the madcap hysteria that is as usual prevalent here. So (I'm guessing here) it seems harder to get German citizenship than British citizenship.
Trust you now know your BLTs from your BTLs. Tenants are not caterpillars. Mainly.
*blush*
Actually I am not in that line of business at all, although Mrs Indigo keeps bugging me about it, at least the recent changes have let me bury that idea for the moment.
Its more that I had an whole evening of getting my ear bent on the subject by a very pissed off WWC guy with a couple of modest properties who was voicing serious doubts about why he voted Tory this time, and I believe will be a sure fire kipper next time around.
He is a higher rate tax payer? UKIP are going to reverse the policy?
Who knows. He's still a lost vote and other's like him. Perhaps he figures that if the Tories are going to shaft his business he wont be voting for them and might as well vote for a party that wants to stop so many people competing for his day job. You really are the worst kind of patronising Tory some times, every though about a career in marketing?
And this is why, @NickPalmer, the idea of collective responsibility was introduced in the first place. If one senior person says one thing, another says something contradictory and then somebody criticises them both, you end up looking like not a political party, still less a government in waiting, but an argument. More to the point, you look like a bunch of idiots.
The suggestion that somehow Corbyn's lack of discipline and willingness to tolerate open dissent from his line could be turned to advantage is a novel one. But I'm afraid I don't find it very convincing.
Err, it's not the case that in Germany immigrants get citizenship after 8 years of residence. It is the case that 8 years of residence is the minimum time which allows an immigrant to apply for citizenship: http://www.bamf.de/EN/Einbuergerung/InDeutschland/indeutschland-node.html In practice it's quite hard to get German citizenship, which is why so few of the 1.5 million or so Turkish citizens living in Germany have done so.
Its quite good of you to be a counterpoint to the madcap hysteria that is as usual prevalent here. So (I'm guessing here) it seems harder to get German citizenship than British citizenship.
No-one is being hysterical. We're discussing it quite calmly. I still do not see what is so difficult from that list than in the UK. The only difference seems to be the ban on dual citizenship.
The quota of migrants, if we were to take one, would inevitably be put in with the poorest in our existing society. The existing poor would then find themselves competing for jobs with the new influx, finding their already miserable living conditions worsened by the arrival of a large group of people from the third world, complain about it, get called racist, get frustrated etc etc
If we must take our fair share, then let's house them in the Cotswolds, Cornwall, Devon, the posh parts of Scotland, or allocate two dozen migrants for each quaint country village where the schools and standard of living are already higher quality than the over crowded city ghettos. Places where there are no immigrants now. A progressive immigrant housing policy is the only way to ease the burden on the already struggling working class, who suffer the effects of immigration and then are chastised for mentioning it by those who profit from it without living with the downside
This is completely unpopular but the so-called poor in this country don't know the meaning of the word "miserable living conditions" compared to most of the globe including these migrants.
That may well be true but they have as much right to try to protect their own living standards as anyone else. Where they're earning an honest living, I'd largely support them in that too.
It reads like its actually trouble for BB if they have proved unable to manage the project properly. They are still responsible for design, so that cannot be pinned on Network Rail. So why else should they leave if it is not that their costs are too high and their reliability too low?
It's also a welcome innovation, within reason - even people with impeccably centrist views are absolutely fed up with the idea that the moment the leadership expresses an opinion, it's party policy and everyone has to be in favour or they're treacherous pig-dogs who must resign at once.
Hmm, I think the practicalities are likely to prove a bit more tricky than you think. Take Trident, for example. Suppose the party decides it is in favour of renewal. Will Comrade Leader Corbyn break the habit of a lifetime and vote (with the Tories) in favour, or will he be the first leader in political history to rebel against his own party?
Looks like Lucas is horse trading even before Corbyn is elected.
The offer of standing down Green candidates at elections where it would help Labour, in return for introducing PR is many things, but 'Progressive' it is not.
Expecting them to all come here once they get a residence card.
They'd need a passport rather than just a residence card, I think. I wouldn't expect them all to come here, but if the rest of the EU accepts 1-1.5 million a year, I think we would certainly be seeing about 10% migrating across to the UK within a few years. That entirely uses up our net immigration target before we even get to the migration we already have.
We really need to secure some major limits on immigration. Cameron has just got a major headache.
You’re from an EEA country or Switzerland You can enter the UK with either a valid passport or a national identity card issued by a EEA country. It must be valid for the whole of your stay.
@ocheye it's not 'simplistic' it's obvious. The alex in your pocket meme was there right from the start, and it was potent because it was true. To be fair you had to add to it the utter pointlessness of the LDs. And of course in reverse it should have propped up the scottish labour vote since clearly an SNP vote was a wasted vote in that the very presence of the SNP ensured that labour lost and the SNP would exert no influence.
If you want 'simplistic' --- the SNP are being propped up by Labours loony toon anti nuclear fringe. Thats what drives their desire for independence. They see it as a way to undermine the western alliance. Thats why the lefty nutjobs are supporting Corbyn and I'm sure they will love him north of the border too.
You really don't get it, whatever you think "it" actually is
AS was no longer FM at the GE, Nippy Sweetie was, She was the one voters were afraid would be controlling PM Miliband by the short and curlies. She was the one being painted as the scarlet devil/temptress by the English Tory media.
The SNP are not just "being propped up by Labours loony toon anti nuclear fringe" although admittedly they are part. There are a heck of lot more ex-Tory voters in the North East and lowlands, ex-LibDems everywhere as well as centrist ex-Labour . The SNP are a very broad church whose religion is based on "Independence". At the moment, the Glasgow wing is in the ascendent, but the North East is where the money comes from, and that tap can be turned off. And as for the SWP supporting Corbyn, the influence of them and many other ultra left supporters are as limited as the numbers of their total joint membership. As soon as they get more than three members they spit into 4 new parties.Mostly they can't even be bothered infiltrating local constituency parties - too much like hard work and extremely boring especially when they start talking about class warfare amongst themselves - every body else having left, resigned and quit. Mind you, it is good scare tactics from those who have no other ways of denigrating Corbyn. Pity, it seems that whenever it is tried now, it is seen for exactly what it is. Fake!
The very first poster was of AS. Actually it was Miliband in Alex's pocket to get the analogy right. Whoever was used the point was that labour would be beholden to the SNP (clearly at the expense of England) and that was the claim the SNP made. And it was a leftie SNP. You take what you want away with you from the SNP indy campaign. What I saw firing it up was the desire to impose hard left policies which labour could not . Now with the economic case in ruins there is little left but dogma. Who mentioned the SWP?
Interestingly, iSam's approach to housing refugees was tried in the Netherlands and was one of the things that caused Somalis to move to the UK, where they could live in Somali communities:
"From 1989 to 1998, the Netherlands was the second-most common European destination for Somali asylum-seekers, only slightly behind the United Kingdom and more than double the total of the next-most common destination, Denmark.[3] However, between 2000 and 2005, there was a significant outflow of Somalis from the Netherlands to the United Kingdom, unofficially estimated to be as large as 20,000 people.[4] Factors mentioned as driving forces behind the exodus included... Somali opposition to housing policies which forced them to live scattered in small groups all over various cities rather than in a larger agglomerated community."
It reminds me of the mother of the Charlie Hebdo murderers, who had moved from France to the UK for a "more Islamic environment".
''Labour will be a laughing stock under Corbyn. ''
I am suddenly wondering about local level. Will labour councils be obliged to implement Corbynite policies from day One? Could this have a meaningful impact in some of our cities?
I doubt that the public are going to understand the nuances of a policy position of a party that is led by a man who is personally against NATO but which would loyally remain part of that mutual defence organisation with a policy that an attack on one is an attack on all.
All that will happen is that the murderous mess - the politics, the war, the violence - of the Middle East will move to Europe.
Haven't IS stated that they would flood Europe with refugees? Looks as if what you suggest is part of their plan.
Yes, we have Cameron bombing Libya to open up the dam, then guardianistas demanding we take in the flood of migrants despite the state that beheads Christians for breakfast telling us they will be infiltrating that swarm...
Farage has been pointing this out all year, probably why the virtue signallers are demanding we let everyone in and vote to stay in the EU
Actually its worse than that - ISIS are flooding Europe with stupid comments on the interweb. It saves all that wearisome travelling.
One of the bigger pre election stories, occasioning several premature ejaculations on here, was the leak of Sturgeon's supposed conversation with the French ambassador, sod all to do with Salmond.
''Labour will be a laughing stock under Corbyn. ''
I am suddenly wondering about local level. Will labour councils be obliged to implement Corbynite policies from day One? Could this have a meaningful impact in some of our cities?
In practice most local councils don't have a lot of discretion about what they can do. An interesting exception though will be the 'northern powerhouse', where the intention is to give the local (Labour-controlled) local authorities a lot of devolved power. Trouble ahead, I think, although I'm not sure for whom.
It's also a welcome innovation, within reason - even people with impeccably centrist views are absolutely fed up with the idea that the moment the leadership expresses an opinion, it's party policy and everyone has to be in favour or they're treacherous pig-dogs who must resign at once.
Hmm, I think the practicalities are likely to prove a bit more tricky than you think. Take Trident, for example. Suppose the party decides it is in favour of renewal. Will Comrade Leader Corbyn break the habit of a lifetime and vote (with the Tories) in favour, or will he be the first leader in political history to rebel against his own party?
''Labour will be a laughing stock under Corbyn. ''
I am suddenly wondering about local level. Will labour councils be obliged to implement Corbynite policies from day One? Could this have a meaningful impact in some of our cities?
In practice most local councils don't have a lot of discretion about what they can do. An interesting exception though will be the 'northern powerhouse', where the intention is to give the local (Labour-controlled) local authorities a lot of devolved power. Trouble ahead, I think, although I'm not sure for whom.
Classic Osborne play tbh - hopefully the councils will use their newfound power wisely, though I won't hold my breath.
Thanks for the advice on tenancies - the solicitor has surrendered at last (blames the delay on secretary being on holiday - didn't know anyone still had people to type for them) and says she'll send the protected tenancy agreement today. Seems they do still exist though exceedingly rare. (Yes, reduces sale price by ca. £15K after tax, but money isn't everything.)
Passing over the possibility that it is already an assured/protected tenancy, i.e.
created between 1989 and 1997 (and a Section 20 notice not issued or incorrectly issued), or created before 1989...
it is my understanding that an assured tenancy can be created by a simple notice from the landlord to tenant.
"Dear Tenant
please take note that from xx/xx/xx your tenancy agreement dated zz/zz/zz is no longer an assured shorthold tenancy, but is an assured tenancy.
Classic Osborne play tbh - hopefully the councils will use their newfound power wisely, though I won't hold my breath.
Actually the indications are quite good on that. They certainly seem to be seeing it as a genuine opportunity for the Manchester area rather than playing party-political games.
One of the bigger pre election stories, occasioning several premature ejaculations on here, was the leak of Sturgeon's supposed conversation with the French ambassador, sod all to do with Salmond.
The FA conversation was about what she would like, not what she would do, for the simple reason that she could do very little.
South of the border, although Sturgeon was on the debates, the talk was about Salmond. Has it occurred to you that living in Scotland, you might have got a skewed view of what was happening?
EDIT - of course the acronym EICIPMISP was quite popular with our alphabet soup man - ISP stood for 'in Salmond's pocket', which was also the image on the posters.
Britain will take in more net migration as it has done almost every year since the war, and it will continue to do fine, as one of the best countries in the world, a country in which people want to bring children into the world, while anti-immigrant countries like Japan die out.
You sound very similar to a poster that used to post on here on the Japan bollocks,why don't you mention that Britains birth rate has gone up while your at it.
I doubt that the public are going to understand the nuances of a policy position of a party that is led by a man who is personally against NATO but which would loyally remain part of that mutual defence organisation with a policy that an attack on one is an attack on all.
One of the bigger pre election stories, occasioning several premature ejaculations on here, was the leak of Sturgeon's supposed conversation with the French ambassador, sod all to do with Salmond.
The FA conversation was about what she would like, not what she would do, for the simple reason that she could do very little.
South of the border, although Sturgeon was on the debates, the talk was about Salmond. Has it occurred to you that living in Scotland, you might have got a skewed view of what was happening?
EDIT - of course the acronym EICIPMISP was quite popular with our alphabet soup man - ISP stood for 'in Salmond's pocket', which was also the image on the posters.
And this is why, @NickPalmer, the idea of collective responsibility was introduced in the first place. If one senior person says one thing, another says something contradictory and then somebody criticises them both, you end up looking like not a political party, still less a government in waiting, but an argument. More to the point, you look like a bunch of idiots.
The suggestion that somehow Corbyn's lack of discipline and willingness to tolerate open dissent from his line could be turned to advantage is a novel one. But I'm afraid I don't find it very convincing.
No, you're conflating collective discipline on agreed decisions, which I accept as much as anyone (perhaps more than most here - who's the former Communist, eh?) with the idea that the leader can make up policy on the hoof and everyone has to pretend to agree.
A reasonable approach would be that the leadership decides day-to-day votes broadly in line with policy ("Do we vote for Bill X which does most of what we wanted but not all?"), the NEC or equivalent decides not so urgent new ideas that don't totally change direction ("Should we support an HS3?") and the annual conference decides major changes in direction ("Should we leave NATO?"). A Corbynite leader would express his view, without normally making it a back-me-or-sack-me issue, and go along with the decision if he didn't consider it totally unacceptable.
There is a long tradition of this on the left (it used to be the norm, hence things like Gaitskell's battles over nuclear weapons), though with more strident leaders it always leads to trouble. With an emollient leader, perhaps less so - it'll be interesting to see. It's not ideal and will cause frequent arguments in public, but it's healthier than the leader-is-God approach.
All Labour leadership candidates rule out any legal challenge....
Legal challenge surely likely for members that paid 3 quid for a vote and were subsequently denied one.
Yeah, but their redress would be to get their £3 back rather than invalidate the result. I rather suspect that Labour will end up returning the £3 to everyone who failed the ducking-stool test: it'll be less trouble (and cheaper) than arguing.
And this is why, @NickPalmer, the idea of collective responsibility was introduced in the first place. If one senior person says one thing, another says something contradictory and then somebody criticises them both, you end up looking like not a political party, still less a government in waiting, but an argument. More to the point, you look like a bunch of idiots.
The suggestion that somehow Corbyn's lack of discipline and willingness to tolerate open dissent from his line could be turned to advantage is a novel one. But I'm afraid I don't find it very convincing.
No, you're conflating collective discipline on agreed decisions, which I accept as much as anyone (perhaps more than most here - who's the former Communist, eh?) with the idea that the leader can make up policy on the hoof and everyone has to pretend to agree.
A reasonable approach would be that the leadership decides day-to-day votes broadly in line with policy ("Do we vote for Bill X which does most of what we wanted but not all?"), the NEC or equivalent decides not so urgent new ideas that don't totally change direction ("Should we support an HS3?") and the annual conference decides major changes in direction ("Should we leave NATO?"). A Corbynite leader would express his view, without normally making it a back-me-or-sack-me issue, and go along with the decision if he didn't consider it totally unacceptable.
There is a long tradition of this on the left (it used to be the norm, hence things like Gaitskell's battles over nuclear weapons), though with more strident leaders it always leads to trouble. With an emollient leader, perhaps less so - it'll be interesting to see. It's not ideal and will cause frequent arguments in public, but it's healthier than the leader-is-God approach.
Not sure you can class electoral pacts as policy. Tactics maybe. Either way Greens will need to discuss and pass at conference for this to actually happen. It will be a waste of time IMHO as Labour will never agree to a pact.
One of the bigger pre election stories, occasioning several premature ejaculations on here, was the leak of Sturgeon's supposed conversation with the French ambassador, sod all to do with Salmond.
The FA conversation was about what she would like, not what she would do, for the simple reason that she could do very little.
South of the border, although Sturgeon was on the debates, the talk was about Salmond. Has it occurred to you that living in Scotland, you might have got a skewed view of what was happening?
EDIT - of course the acronym EICIPMISP was quite popular with our alphabet soup man - ISP stood for 'in Salmond's pocket', which was also the image on the posters.
'All posters and stories were about Salmond'
Kudos for admitting you were wrong.
The debates were not posters, nor were they stories. The Nikileaks saga assumed monstrous proportions in the eyes of the SNP, but to be honest at the time I pretty much missed it completely which gives some idea of how heavily the media here promoted it.
But if you wish to just try and prove the impossible - that Nicola Sturgeon was a meaningful presence in the election scenarios put forward - please don't let me stop you.
No, you're conflating collective discipline on agreed decisions, which I accept as much as anyone (perhaps more than most here - who's the former Communist, eh?) with the idea that the leader can make up policy on the hoof and everyone has to pretend to agree.
A reasonable approach would be that the leadership decides day-to-day votes broadly in line with policy ("Do we vote for Bill X which does most of what we wanted but not all?"), the NEC or equivalent decides not so urgent new ideas that don't totally change direction ("Should we support an HS3?") and the annual conference decides major changes in direction ("Should we leave NATO?"). A Corbynite leader would express his view, without normally making it a back-me-or-sack-me issue, and go along with the decision if he didn't consider it totally unacceptable.
There is a long tradition of this on the left (it used to be the norm, hence things like Gaitskell's battles over nuclear weapons), though with more strident leaders it always leads to trouble. With an emollient leader, perhaps less so - it'll be interesting to see. It's not ideal and will cause frequent arguments in public, but it's healthier than the leader-is-God approach.
While I agree that any discussion is healthier than the Leader-is-God approach, I think again you are being optimistic about the likely impact of such 'discussion', particularly in a party as fractious as Labour (just because Corbyn has officially 'condemned' his madder outriders isn't going to bring them into line). Apart from anything else, do you honestly think that it will lead to a publicly agreed line? Because after this divisive election, it seems most unlikely.
You mention the 1950s as a good example of this kind of politics. There were three elections in the 1950s, or four if you count 1950 itself. At each one, the Labour party got a progressively smaller share of votes and seats partly because it was viewed as riven by competing factions. Only when Gaitskell put an end to the factionalism and forced his party to unite under his leadership, helped by a couple of (entirely coincidental) deaths could Labour recover. Not a very happy parallel - and Gaitskell was a thousand times the politician Corbyn will ever be.
All Labour leadership candidates rule out any legal challenge....
Legal challenge surely likely for members that paid 3 quid for a vote and were subsequently denied one.
Yeah, but their redress would be to get their £3 back rather than invalidate the result. I rather suspect that Labour will end up returning the £3 to everyone who failed the ducking-stool test: it'll be less trouble (and cheaper) than arguing.
If they use canvassing data in the purge, a data protection case may succeed, as data can only be used for the purpose for which it was collected, or expressly authorised by the data subject.
All Labour leadership candidates rule out any legal challenge....
Legal challenge surely likely for members that paid 3 quid for a vote and were subsequently denied one.
Yeah, but their redress would be to get their £3 back rather than invalidate the result. I rather suspect that Labour will end up returning the £3 to everyone who failed the ducking-stool test: it'll be less trouble (and cheaper) than arguing.
If they use canvassing data in the purge, a data protection case may succeed, as data can only be used for the purpose for which it was collected, or expressly authorised by the data subject.
Wouldn't data canvassed for an election be considered a 'way of gauging the political views of the respondent'? Because this might be considered an extension of that, and therefore still used for the original purpose. It couldn't of course be passed to a third party, but I don't think Labour were planning to do that (or would the ERS count as a third party for such purposes)?
Thanks for the advice on tenancies - the solicitor has surrendered at last (blames the delay on secretary being on holiday - didn't know anyone still had people to type for them) and says she'll send the protected tenancy agreement today. Seems they do still exist though exceedingly rare. (Yes, reduces sale price by ca. £15K after tax, but money isn't everything.)
Passing over the possibility that it is already an assured/protected tenancy, i.e.
created between 1989 and 1997 (and a Section 20 notice not issued or incorrectly issued), or created before 1989...
it is my understanding that an assured tenancy can be created by a simple notice from the landlord to tenant.
"Dear Tenant
please take note that from xx/xx/xx your tenancy agreement dated zz/zz/zz is no longer an assured shorthold tenancy, but is an assured tenancy.
Regards Landlord"
should do.
You should also be aware that the only difference between an assured and assured shorthold tenancy is that, in the former, a Section-21 notice requiring possession cannot be issued.
A Section 8 notice can still be issued, however, meaning an assured tenancy is only slightly more "secure" than an AST.
All Labour leadership candidates rule out any legal challenge....
Legal challenge surely likely for members that paid 3 quid for a vote and were subsequently denied one.
Yeah, but their redress would be to get their £3 back rather than invalidate the result. I rather suspect that Labour will end up returning the £3 to everyone who failed the ducking-stool test: it'll be less trouble (and cheaper) than arguing.
If they use canvassing data in the purge, a data protection case may succeed, as data can only be used for the purpose for which it was collected, or expressly authorised by the data subject.
They'd be best off just barring any publicly elected officials of other parties, and non persons (cats etc). As soon as they head off into trying to read someone's thoughts they are in murky territory, particularly if they're using canvassing data as you say.
No, you're conflating collective discipline on agreed decisions, which I accept as much as anyone (perhaps more than most here - who's the former Communist, eh?) with the idea that the leader can make up policy on the hoof and everyone has to pretend to agree.
A reasonable approach would be that the leadership decides day-to-day votes broadly in line with policy ("Do we vote for Bill X which does most of what we wanted but not all?"), the NEC or equivalent decides not so urgent new ideas that don't totally change direction ("Should we support an HS3?") and the annual conference decides major changes in direction ("Should we leave NATO?"). A Corbynite leader would express his view, without normally making it a back-me-or-sack-me issue, and go along with the decision if he didn't consider it totally unacceptable.
There is a long tradition of this on the left (it used to be the norm, hence things like Gaitskell's battles over nuclear weapons), though with more strident leaders it always leads to trouble. With an emollient leader, perhaps less so - it'll be interesting to see. It's not ideal and will cause frequent arguments in public, but it's healthier than the leader-is-God approach.
I'm not sure which 'left' you had in mind but it was certainly not a feature of the Labour Party in the 1940s and 50s and 60s. The Attlee Government and throughout the 1950s, party discipline, sanctioned by the NEC and conference (the unions until Frank Cousins took over the TGWU leadership in 1956 were loyalist bulwarks) was uncompromising and an iron hand in an iron glove. When Ernie Bevin was given a list of rebels on a vote, he muttered, 'I'll crush 'im after each name! Many dissident (left wing) MPs lost the whip, including Nye Bevan himself for a period.
Gaitskell's battle against the unilateralists in 1960 was unique in that it was probably the first time that the leader defied a party conference vote. Had be been defeated again in 1961, he would have resigned notwithstanding a convincing majority in the PLP. Only later, starting with Wilson were conference defeats shrugged off nonchantly.
If they use canvassing data in the purge, a data protection case may succeed, as data can only be used for the purpose for which it was collected, or expressly authorised by the data subject.
If that were the case it would simply mean that Labour had broken the law, and possibly have to pay compensation. Looks a very remote possibility to me, but in any case it wouldn't invalidate the result or give grounds to challenge it.
I think a slightly stronger argument is that the intention of using canvassing data wasn't signalled before taking people's £3. If they had meant that only people who'd told canvassers they'd vote Labour were eligible, they should have said so.
But mostly, their problem is not one of legalities, it is that the whole thing is a farce.
One of the bigger pre election stories, occasioning several premature ejaculations on here, was the leak of Sturgeon's supposed conversation with the French ambassador, sod all to do with Salmond.
The FA conversation was about what she would like, not what she would do, for the simple reason that she could do very little.
South of the border, although Sturgeon was on the debates, the talk was about Salmond. Has it occurred to you that living in Scotland, you might have got a skewed view of what was happening?
EDIT - of course the acronym EICIPMISP was quite popular with our alphabet soup man - ISP stood for 'in Salmond's pocket', which was also the image on the posters.
'All posters and stories were about Salmond'
Kudos for admitting you were wrong.
The debates were not posters, nor were they stories. The Nikileaks saga assumed monstrous proportions in the eyes of the SNP, but to be honest at the time I pretty much missed it completely which gives some idea of how heavily the media here promoted it.
But if you wish to just try and prove the impossible - that Nicola Sturgeon was a meaningful presence in the election scenarios put forward - please don't let me stop you.
If you want to put yourself forward as the arbiter of the zeitgeist, I definitely can't be arsed arguing with such self importance.
One of the bigger pre election stories, occasioning several premature ejaculations on here, was the leak of Sturgeon's supposed conversation with the French ambassador, sod all to do with Salmond.
The FA conversation was about what she would like, not what she would do, for the simple reason that she could do very little.
South of the border, although Sturgeon was on the debates, the talk was about Salmond. Has it occurred to you that living in Scotland, you might have got a skewed view of what was happening?
EDIT - of course the acronym EICIPMISP was quite popular with our alphabet soup man - ISP stood for 'in Salmond's pocket', which was also the image on the posters.
'All posters and stories were about Salmond'
Kudos for admitting you were wrong.
The debates were not posters, nor were they stories. The Nikileaks saga assumed monstrous proportions in the eyes of the SNP, but to be honest at the time I pretty much missed it completely which gives some idea of how heavily the media here promoted it.
But if you wish to just try and prove the impossible - that Nicola Sturgeon was a meaningful presence in the election scenarios put forward - please don't let me stop you.
If you want to put yourself forward as the arbiter of the zeitgeist, I definitely can't be arsed arguing with such self importance.
If they use canvassing data in the purge, a data protection case may succeed, as data can only be used for the purpose for which it was collected, or expressly authorised by the data subject.
If that were the case it would simply mean that Labour had broken the law, and possibly have to pay compensation. Looks a very remote possibility to me, but in any case it wouldn't invalidate the result or give grounds to challenge it.
I think a slightly stronger argument is that the intention of using canvassing data wasn't signalled before taking people's £3. If they had meant that only people who'd told canvassers they'd vote Labour were eligible, they should have said so.
But mostly, their problem is not one of legalities, it is that the whole thing is a farce.
Would It not mean they had to count votes where they had used illegal means to obtain the data? Although I imagine each individual £3er might have to challenge their individual disqualification
You mention the 1950s as a good example of this kind of politics. There were three elections in the 1950s, or four if you count 1950 itself. At each one, the Labour party got a progressively smaller share of votes and seats partly because it was viewed as riven by competing factions. Only when Gaitskell put an end to the factionalism and forced his party to unite under his leadership, helped by a couple of (entirely coincidental) deaths could Labour recover. Not a very happy parallel - and Gaitskell was a thousand times the politician Corbyn will ever be.
-----
I'm a great admirer of Gaitskell, but don't forget that the party did unite after the 1955 defeat - Bevan became Shadow Foreign Secretary and denounced the unilateralists in his 1957 'naked in the conference chamber' speech but that didn't prevent Labour from a catastrophic defeat in 1959. Then the splits all re-opened on Clause IV and unilateralism and it wasn't really until 1961/62 that his leadership was again secure and apparently on course for victory. Whether he would have secured a larger majority in 1964 than Wilson is an interesting counter-factual.
AIUI from Hattie this morning, she's saying that its the NEC who are vetting for The Wrong Sort Of Supporter.
Now that's contrary to statements made by various MPs who've been handed hundreds of applications to vet themselves. Barry Sheerman said it wasn't possible for him to do it.
If Labour are simply weeding supporters out - there's no handing of the data off to a third party, however as you note - using canvassing data without explicit permission/reference to the £3 transaction is messy here.
The goalposts have shifted so many times, frankly I'm totally lost what criteria are being used and by whom. And be very surprised if everyone is doing it the same way.
If they use canvassing data in the purge, a data protection case may succeed, as data can only be used for the purpose for which it was collected, or expressly authorised by the data subject.
If that were the case it would simply mean that Labour had broken the law, and possibly have to pay compensation. Looks a very remote possibility to me, but in any case it wouldn't invalidate the result or give grounds to challenge it.
I think a slightly stronger argument is that the intention of using canvassing data wasn't signalled before taking people's £3. If they had meant that only people who'd told canvassers they'd vote Labour were eligible, they should have said so.
But mostly, their problem is not one of legalities, it is that the whole thing is a farce.
AIUI from Hattie this morning, she's saying that its the NEC who are vetting for The Wrong Sort Of Supporter.
Now that's contrary to statements made by various MPs who've been handed hundreds of applications to vet themselves. Barry Sheerman said it wasn't possible for him to do it.
If Labour are simply weeding supporters out - there's no handing of the data off to a third party, however as you note - using canvassing data without explicit permission/reference to the £3 transaction is messy here.
The goalposts have shifted so many times, frankly I'm totally lost what criteria are being used and by whom. And be very surprised if everyone is doing it the same way.
If they use canvassing data in the purge, a data protection case may succeed, as data can only be used for the purpose for which it was collected, or expressly authorised by the data subject.
If that were the case it would simply mean that Labour had broken the law, and possibly have to pay compensation. Looks a very remote possibility to me, but in any case it wouldn't invalidate the result or give grounds to challenge it.
I think a slightly stronger argument is that the intention of using canvassing data wasn't signalled before taking people's £3. If they had meant that only people who'd told canvassers they'd vote Labour were eligible, they should have said so.
But mostly, their problem is not one of legalities, it is that the whole thing is a farce.
More amusing/tragic because presumably a non-trivial proportion of the 500-600k [sic!] new members joined precisely to get away from the "bad old politics" which this whole farce seems to be the very epitome of.
Would It not mean they had to count votes where they had used illegal means to obtain the data? Although I imagine each individual £3er might have to challenge their individual disqualification
No, the challenger is not a party to any contract which says his vote has to be counted. He might be owed his £3 back on the basis that he didn't get what he'd paid for (the opportunity to vote), and in theory he might be eligible for compensation under the Data Protection Act if there was a breach of the Act, but it's hard to see that any individual had actually suffered any significant loss or distress.
Chilcot risks becoming 'never ending', former head of longest inquiry in British history says Lord Saville, the chairman of the 12 year long inquiry into Bloody Sunday, warns that Sir John Chilcot's inquiry could 'go on forever'
I am now of the opinion that more damage will be done if he is not elected. The expectations being dashed in such a way with the thoughts that some of his supporters were "eliminated" will be nuclear.
You mention the 1950s as a good example of this kind of politics. There were three elections in the 1950s, or four if you count 1950 itself. At each one, the Labour party got a progressively smaller share of votes and seats partly because it was viewed as riven by competing factions. Only when Gaitskell put an end to the factionalism and forced his party to unite under his leadership, helped by a couple of (entirely coincidental) deaths could Labour recover. Not a very happy parallel - and Gaitskell was a thousand times the politician Corbyn will ever be.
-----
I'm a great admirer of Gaitskell, but don't forget that the party did unite after the 1955 defeat - Bevan became Shadow Foreign Secretary and denounced the unilateralists in his 1957 'naked in the conference chamber' speech but that didn't prevent Labour from a catastrophic defeat in 1959. Then the splits all re-opened on Clause IV and unilateralism and it wasn't really until 1961/62 that his leadership was again secure and apparently on course for victory. Whether he would have secured a larger majority in 1964 than Wilson is an interesting counter-factual.
I am not particularly knowledgeable about Labour in the 1950s, so I will accept your judgement. The stuff I had read suggested that there were still substantial factions, just somewhat outside the mainstream, and that Gaitskell had great difficulty getting his leadership accepted even with Bevan's support. I was trying to visualise what would be the result if it was the leadership completely at odds with the party (which Gaitskell I think was at times) and, in an added complication, with the country (which Gaitskell wasn't). I can't see it ending well, particularly not, as Roger has pointed out, given some of the distinctly unsavoury characters hanging out on Corbyn's coat-tails and launching attacks on his critics.
(On counter-factuals - I don't think it would have made a lot of difference. Maybe a slightly larger majority - but if Gaitskell had still been leader, would Home have been the choice or would Macmillan, whatever his private misgivings, have gone for Butler as his successor? Another interesting counterfactual!)
I am now of the opinion that more damage will be done if he is not elected. The expectations being dashed in such a way with the thoughts that some of his supporters were "eliminated" will be nuclear.
Stuffed either way really. Win or lose.
Labour would have a centrist leader and the hard left would probably give up on Labour and go elsewhere. What's the downside?
Interestingly, iSam's approach to housing refugees was tried in the Netherlands and was one of the things that caused Somalis to move to the UK, where they could live in Somali communities:
"From 1989 to 1998, the Netherlands was the second-most common European destination for Somali asylum-seekers, only slightly behind the United Kingdom and more than double the total of the next-most common destination, Denmark.[3] However, between 2000 and 2005, there was a significant outflow of Somalis from the Netherlands to the United Kingdom, unofficially estimated to be as large as 20,000 people.[4] Factors mentioned as driving forces behind the exodus included... Somali opposition to housing policies which forced them to live scattered in small groups all over various cities rather than in a larger agglomerated community."
It reminds me of the mother of the Charlie Hebdo murderers, who had moved from France to the UK for a "more Islamic environment".
AIUI from Hattie this morning, she's saying that its the NEC who are vetting for The Wrong Sort Of Supporter.
Now that's contrary to statements made by various MPs who've been handed hundreds of applications to vet themselves. Barry Sheerman said it wasn't possible for him to do it.
If Labour are simply weeding supporters out - there's no handing of the data off to a third party, however as you note - using canvassing data without explicit permission/reference to the £3 transaction is messy here.
The goalposts have shifted so many times, frankly I'm totally lost what criteria are being used and by whom. And be very surprised if everyone is doing it the same way.
If they use canvassing data in the purge, a data protection case may succeed, as data can only be used for the purpose for which it was collected, or expressly authorised by the data subject.
If that were the case it would simply mean that Labour had broken the law, and possibly have to pay compensation. Looks a very remote possibility to me, but in any case it wouldn't invalidate the result or give grounds to challenge it.
I think a slightly stronger argument is that the intention of using canvassing data wasn't signalled before taking people's £3. If they had meant that only people who'd told canvassers they'd vote Labour were eligible, they should have said so.
But mostly, their problem is not one of legalities, it is that the whole thing is a farce.
On your reference to goalposts, I feel as though Labour are playing hockey, but have decided only to use the rules of golf. Therefore, they are wandering around the pitch in great puzzlement looking for a hole to put the puck in, ignoring two great big humungous goals at either end and causing enormous bewilderment among their opponents. At the same time, the team captain has arbitrarily decided to sin bin four people, but unfortunately keeps picking the wrong four and sending off those who are trying to play hockey instead of those who want to play tennis.
OK, maybe a touch surreal. But the whole Labour leadership process is so far beyond surreal that it must be causing Rory Bremner to wonder if he should retire on the grounds that, to quote the great Tom Lehrer, satire is dead.
The Labour party used to be clear on this stuff. Zero-tolerance of racism. Zero-tolerance of apologists for racism. No platform for racism.
And now that’s gone. It’s all gone. Holocaust deniers. Blood Libelers. Anti-semitic conspiracy theorists. Terrorist sympathisers. Terrorists. We are Labour. How wide and how high would you like your platform to be?
I have been one of the Labour Party’s fiercest critics. But I never thought I’d see this day: the day Labour started to launder prejudice. The day its commitment to standing against all forms of bigotry was so casually slaughtered on the altar of political ideology and expediency.
Soon Jeremy Corbyn will become Labour leader. When he does, his supporters will cheer his victory. And Paul Eisen and Stephen Sizer and Raed Salah and Dyab Abou Jahjah will pause a while from Holocaust denial, and conspiracy theories and Blood Libel and dreams of dead British soldiers. And they will stand at the very top of their platforms. And they will cheer his victory too.
That Labour's amassed c600k members - and she expected the selectorate to be *about half a million*. But that only 3000 had been rejected so far, as ringers or not on the electoral roll.
That's a huge gap - are up to 100k playing silly buggers??
AIUI from Hattie this morning, she's saying that its the NEC who are vetting for The Wrong Sort Of Supporter.
Now that's contrary to statements made by various MPs who've been handed hundreds of applications to vet themselves. Barry Sheerman said it wasn't possible for him to do it.
If Labour are simply weeding supporters out - there's no handing of the data off to a third party, however as you note - using canvassing data without explicit permission/reference to the £3 transaction is messy here.
The goalposts have shifted so many times, frankly I'm totally lost what criteria are being used and by whom. And be very surprised if everyone is doing it the same way.
If they use canvassing data in the purge, a data protection case may succeed, as data can only be used for the purpose for which it was collected, or expressly authorised by the data subject.
If that were the case it would simply mean that Labour had broken the law, and possibly have to pay compensation. Looks a very remote possibility to me, but in any case it wouldn't invalidate the result or give grounds to challenge it.
I think a slightly stronger argument is that the intention of using canvassing data wasn't signalled before taking people's £3. If they had meant that only people who'd told canvassers they'd vote Labour were eligible, they should have said so.
But mostly, their problem is not one of legalities, it is that the whole thing is a farce.
More amusing/tragic because presumably a non-trivial proportion of the 500-600k [sic!] new members joined precisely to get away from the "bad old politics" which this whole farce seems to be the very epitome of.
Chilcot risks becoming 'never ending', former head of longest inquiry in British history says Lord Saville, the chairman of the 12 year long inquiry into Bloody Sunday, warns that Sir John Chilcot's inquiry could 'go on forever'
As with builders - should have got him to quote for the job not by the day.
The Labour party used to be clear on this stuff. Zero-tolerance of racism. Zero-tolerance of apologists for racism. No platform for racism.
And now that’s gone. It’s all gone. Holocaust deniers. Blood Libelers. Anti-semitic conspiracy theorists. Terrorist sympathisers. Terrorists. We are Labour. How wide and how high would you like your platform to be?
I have been one of the Labour Party’s fiercest critics. But I never thought I’d see this day: the day Labour started to launder prejudice. The day its commitment to standing against all forms of bigotry was so casually slaughtered on the altar of political ideology and expediency.
Soon Jeremy Corbyn will become Labour leader. When he does, his supporters will cheer his victory. And Paul Eisen and Stephen Sizer and Raed Salah and Dyab Abou Jahjah will pause a while from Holocaust denial, and conspiracy theories and Blood Libel and dreams of dead British soldiers. And they will stand at the very top of their platforms. And they will cheer his victory too.
As a student in the 80s I remember the policy many student unions adopted of "No Platform for Racists or Fascists" which basically meant not listening to anyone the left didn't agree with. Certainly the idea being put about by Corbyn that you should talk to everybody wasn't current then.
You have to laugh at the BBC - its reporting that labour are being infiltrated by conservatives ...! Whilst poor honest labourites are being excluded. Leaving aside jolly LDs like our good host who have signed up - the real £3 entryists are loopy lefties.
The BBC is incapable of addressing the issue honestly.
I am not sure about Labour in the 1950s or the effect the wider membership had on policy but when I started looking at Atlee's 1945-50 administration what struck me was how Atlee was forced by his cabinet to accept policies with which he disagreed. As a PM he was very much first amongst equals and held office in a very different way from more modern prime ministers.
Quite when the change to a presidential-style leader was started I am not sure. Blair certainly completed it but when did it start?
I am now of the opinion that more damage will be done if he is not elected. The expectations being dashed in such a way with the thoughts that some of his supporters were "eliminated" will be nuclear.
Stuffed either way really. Win or lose.
Labour would have a centrist leader and the hard left would probably give up on Labour and go elsewhere. What's the downside?
Kendall and Cooper poll worse than Corbyn in today's Comres and Burnham the same maybe better to elect Corbyn and if he fails replace him in 3 years with Alan Johnson
I am not sure about Labour in the 1950s or the effect the wider membership had on policy but when I started looking at Atlee's 1945-50 administration what struck me was how Atlee was forced by his cabinet to accept policies with which he disagreed. As a PM he was very much first amongst equals and held office in a very different way from more modern prime ministers.
Quite when the change to a presidential-style leader was started I am not sure. Blair certainly completed it but when did it start?
My reading of Heath's tenure was that he was a first amongst equals.
The Labour party used to be clear on this stuff. Zero-tolerance of racism. Zero-tolerance of apologists for racism. No platform for racism.
And now that’s gone. It’s all gone. Holocaust deniers. Blood Libelers. Anti-semitic conspiracy theorists. Terrorist sympathisers. Terrorists. We are Labour. How wide and how high would you like your platform to be?
I have been one of the Labour Party’s fiercest critics. But I never thought I’d see this day: the day Labour started to launder prejudice. The day its commitment to standing against all forms of bigotry was so casually slaughtered on the altar of political ideology and expediency.
Soon Jeremy Corbyn will become Labour leader. When he does, his supporters will cheer his victory. And Paul Eisen and Stephen Sizer and Raed Salah and Dyab Abou Jahjah will pause a while from Holocaust denial, and conspiracy theories and Blood Libel and dreams of dead British soldiers. And they will stand at the very top of their platforms. And they will cheer his victory too.
'its commitment to standing against all forms of bigotry'
Dan is wrong there, Labour has always thrived on its class war bigotry.
On topic I am now of the opinion that more damage will be done if he is not elected. The expectations being dashed in such a way with the thoughts that some of his supporters were "eliminated" will be nuclear. Stuffed either way really. Win or lose.
AIUI from Hattie this morning, she's saying that its the NEC who are vetting for The Wrong Sort Of Supporter.
Now that's contrary to statements made by various MPs who've been handed hundreds of applications to vet themselves. Barry Sheerman said it wasn't possible for him to do it.
If Labour are simply weeding supporters out - there's no handing of the data off to a third party, however as you note - using canvassing data without explicit permission/reference to the £3 transaction is messy here.
The goalposts have shifted so many times, frankly I'm totally lost what criteria are being used and by whom. And be very surprised if everyone is doing it the same way.
If they use canvassing data in the purge, a data protection case may succeed, as data can only be used for the purpose for which it was collected, or expressly authorised by the data subject.
If that were the case it would simply mean that Labour had broken the law, and possibly have to pay compensation. Looks a very remote possibility to me, but in any case it wouldn't invalidate the result or give grounds to challenge it.
I think a slightly stronger argument is that the intention of using canvassing data wasn't signalled before taking people's £3. If they had meant that only people who'd told canvassers they'd vote Labour were eligible, they should have said so.
But mostly, their problem is not one of legalities, it is that the whole thing is a farce.
BBC News at One led with 'It is thought some Conservatives have got onto the list of registered supporters eligible to vote' as a headline. Are Labour and the BBC not worried about the Greens and others who may have undertaken the same process?
Terrible reporting.
And surely the whole idea of the process was to get a wider selectorate?
Instead of a meeting between Harriet and the four candidates discussing the selectorate, perhaps they should be discussing why only one of them is in any way compelling, and he only became a candidate through a sympathy vote.
I am now of the opinion that more damage will be done if he is not elected. The expectations being dashed in such a way with the thoughts that some of his supporters were "eliminated" will be nuclear.
Stuffed either way really. Win or lose.
Labour would have a centrist leader and the hard left would probably give up on Labour and go elsewhere. What's the downside?
Kendall and Cooper poll worse than Corbyn in today's Comres and Burnham the same maybe better to elect Corbyn and if he fails replace him in 3 years with Alan Johnson
Great idea, until Alan Johnson looks at the smouldering wreckage of the Labour Party, and thinks 'No thanks'.
BBC News at One led with 'It is thought some Conservatives have got onto the list of registered supporters eligible to vote' as a headline. Are Labour and the BBC not worried about the Greens and others who may have undertaken the same process?
I am not sure about Labour in the 1950s or the effect the wider membership had on policy but when I started looking at Atlee's 1945-50 administration what struck me was how Atlee was forced by his cabinet to accept policies with which he disagreed. As a PM he was very much first amongst equals and held office in a very different way from more modern prime ministers.
Quite when the change to a presidential-style leader was started I am not sure. Blair certainly completed it but when did it start?
To be pedantic, the very first time someone was able to be referred to as a PM was surely when presidential styles started, in that one person was recognised as first even among equals, they were the primary face of the government. I leave to others an actual answer though.
How presidential a PM is Cameron though I wonder? Certainly the pitch to the electorate was very much about Cameron vs Ed (notwithstanding the Tory manifesto picture being about a strong team), nothing about wider merits of either side just a straight contest between leaders, but he's always given the impression of giving Ministers a lot of free rein and time to do their thing.
Not really. True, he ran the war effort pretty much as a dictator but the non-military aspects of the WWII coalition (and they did a lot of work which eventually was implemented largely under Attlee) was much more delegated and collegiate.
"Muslim immigration: the most radical change in European history By Ed West: August 24th, 2009
I know I go on about Christopher Caldwell's Reflections on the Revolution in Europe a bit much, but it's only because I believe it's going to be one of the most influential political books of the next two decades. The benefits of mass immigration are the Emperor's New Clothes and Caldwell is the little boy who sees the truth, which is why I urge everyone to read it. A friend of mine, who was initially less sceptical than I was about immigration, said the book was so well-written and eye-opening it filled a void in his life that had been left by his finishing The Sopranos and The Wire.
At a time when the Muslim world in the Middle East is riven with violence and extremism it is utter madness to let into Europe even more from such an unstable area and culture. Even if they are not all IS people, there are problems anyway with the integration of Muslim communities and we owe it to ourselves here,(all of us, Muslim and non-Muslim alike) to deal with the issues and problems we have now rather than make them even worse.
Sorry - I'm being brutal again - but the Middle East needs to sort itself out not export its problems to Europe so that Europe becomes as bad as the Middle East now is.
I was emailed this morning by a friend in Lyons who said that the main synagogue there (which survived WW2) is guarded day and night by 4 heavily armed French soldiers. As are the smaller synagogues. And his daughter's school could not have its annual open day because the police said that the risk to the Jewish children was such that there would have to soldiers on site all day. This is Europe in 2015. This is the problem that France has with its Arab population - see Andrew Hussey's recent book "The French Intifada".
We need to be much more tough minded about who we let in, what the risks are, what the benefit to us is and be prepared to say no to the rest and enforce that decision. Nor can we let our risks be determined by the weakest bit of Europe.
I am not sure about Labour in the 1950s or the effect the wider membership had on policy but when I started looking at Atlee's 1945-50 administration what struck me was how Atlee was forced by his cabinet to accept policies with which he disagreed. As a PM he was very much first amongst equals and held office in a very different way from more modern prime ministers.
Quite when the change to a presidential-style leader was started I am not sure. Blair certainly completed it but when did it start?
I'd be interested in some examples of Attlee being overruled by his Cabinet. I'm trying and struggling to think what issues they may have been. His Government was certainly replete with big beasts (Bevin, Bevan, Shinwell, Morrison, Dalton, Cripps etc etc) but he was an unsentimental butcher in dismissing Ministers for not being up to the job. More generally, RHS Crossman and John Macintosh were talking about Prime Ministerial (Presidential) government as opposed to that by Cabinet in the early 1960s.
For the first time in months - I glanced at the comments under that article. The vast majority are saying "Ha! Well you called everyone who objected to Labour policies racists, so suck it up"
The Labour party used to be clear on this stuff. Zero-tolerance of racism. Zero-tolerance of apologists for racism. No platform for racism.
And now that’s gone. It’s all gone. Holocaust deniers. Blood Libelers. Anti-semitic conspiracy theorists. Terrorist sympathisers. Terrorists. We are Labour. How wide and how high would you like your platform to be?
I have been one of the Labour Party’s fiercest critics. But I never thought I’d see this day: the day Labour started to launder prejudice. The day its commitment to standing against all forms of bigotry was so casually slaughtered on the altar of political ideology and expediency.
Soon Jeremy Corbyn will become Labour leader. When he does, his supporters will cheer his victory. And Paul Eisen and Stephen Sizer and Raed Salah and Dyab Abou Jahjah will pause a while from Holocaust denial, and conspiracy theories and Blood Libel and dreams of dead British soldiers. And they will stand at the very top of their platforms. And they will cheer his victory too.
'its commitment to standing against all forms of bigotry'
Dan is wrong there, Labour has always thrived on its class war bigotry.
Not really. True, he ran the war effort pretty much as a dictator but the non-military aspects of the WWII coalition (and they did a lot of work which eventually was implemented largely under Attlee) was much more delegated and collegiate.
"Muslim immigration: the most radical change in European history By Ed West: August 24th, 2009
I know I go on about Christopher Caldwell's Reflections on the Revolution in Europe a bit much, but it's only because I believe it's going to be one of the most influential political books of the next two decades. The benefits of mass immigration are the Emperor's New Clothes and Caldwell is the little boy who sees the truth, which is why I urge everyone to read it. A friend of mine, who was initially less sceptical than I was about immigration, said the book was so well-written and eye-opening it filled a void in his life that had been left by his finishing The Sopranos and The Wire.
Sorry - I'm being brutal again - but the Middle East needs to sort itself out
I would add that they and we cannot fall into the trap of blaming the problems as they are now on colonial legacies - while not to be ignored, it has been a long time since then and if the issues are still not resolved, one cannot fall back on blaming the past indefinitely, as it prevents fixes now.
I can't find a reference for this memory - so perhaps another PBer will recall it too. There was a longish period in Mrs T's reign when the Telegraph referred to her as Premier, not Prime Minister.
This was around the mid-80s. It always struck me as a peculiar way to address her and I didn't like it's imperial overtones one bit.
I am now of the opinion that more damage will be done if he is not elected. The expectations being dashed in such a way with the thoughts that some of his supporters were "eliminated" will be nuclear.
Stuffed either way really. Win or lose.
Labour would have a centrist leader and the hard left would probably give up on Labour and go elsewhere. What's the downside?
Kendall and Cooper poll worse than Corbyn in today's Comres and Burnham the same maybe better to elect Corbyn and if he fails replace him in 3 years with Alan Johnson
Great idea, until Alan Johnson looks at the smouldering wreckage of the Labour Party, and thinks 'No thanks'.
He has said he would stay loyal to the party if Corbyn was elected and not form a rebel group but it would depend if Corbyn failed but none of the other candidates do better than Corbyn in this Comres poll today anyway and Kendall and Cooper do worse
The Labour party used to be clear on this stuff. Zero-tolerance of racism. Zero-tolerance of apologists for racism. No platform for racism.
And now that’s gone. It’s all gone. Holocaust deniers. Blood Libelers. Anti-semitic conspiracy theorists. Terrorist sympathisers. Terrorists. We are Labour. How wide and how high would you like your platform to be?
I have been one of the Labour Party’s fiercest critics. But I never thought I’d see this day: the day Labour started to launder prejudice. The day its commitment to standing against all forms of bigotry was so casually slaughtered on the altar of political ideology and expediency.
Soon Jeremy Corbyn will become Labour leader. When he does, his supporters will cheer his victory. And Paul Eisen and Stephen Sizer and Raed Salah and Dyab Abou Jahjah will pause a while from Holocaust denial, and conspiracy theories and Blood Libel and dreams of dead British soldiers. And they will stand at the very top of their platforms. And they will cheer his victory too.
If Labour elect Corbyn they will have utterly trashed any claim to the moral high ground when it comes to racism, sexism, homophobia, liberal values. They will truly be the Nasty Party.
I am not sure about Labour in the 1950s or the effect the wider membership had on policy but when I started looking at Atlee's 1945-50 administration what struck me was how Atlee was forced by his cabinet to accept policies with which he disagreed. As a PM he was very much first amongst equals and held office in a very different way from more modern prime ministers.
Quite when the change to a presidential-style leader was started I am not sure. Blair certainly completed it but when did it start?
To be pedantic, the very first time someone was able to be referred to as a PM was surely when presidential styles started, in that one person was recognised as first even among equals, they were the primary face of the government. I leave to others an actual answer though.
How presidential a PM is Cameron though I wonder? Certainly the pitch to the electorate was very much about Cameron vs Ed (notwithstanding the Tory manifesto picture being about a strong team), nothing about wider merits of either side just a straight contest between leaders, but he's always given the impression of giving Ministers a lot of free rein and time to do their thing.
I think the first official use of the words 'Prime Minister' were actually on the deeds gifting Chequers to the nation, whenever that was, although it had of course been in unofficial use for a long time before that.
In terms of one man being the clearly dominant figure in the government, Pitt the Younger's first ministry probably marked the transition from 'equals with a chairman' to 'first among equals'. But there were a number of occasions as late as the 1930s when who the Prime Minister was wasn't always clear-cut - e.g. it was often suggested that Baldwin, in the early 1930s, had more influence than Macdonald, although I'm personally a bit doubtful about that claim. Certainly Campbell-Bannerman was a less prominent figure in his own cabinet than Asquith, which is where the Relugas compact idea came from. By the time Chamberlain and Churchill came along though, that idea had pretty much gone and the party leader/PM was seen as setting the character of the administration.
If Attlee was therefore more collegiate he would have been a bit of a throwback, in that sense, maybe because he was surrounded by a number of forceful and independently popular ministers (Bevan, Bevin, Dalton etc) in a way few other PMs have been.
"Muslim immigration: the most radical change in European history By Ed West: August 24th, 2009
I know I go on about Christopher Caldwell's Reflections on the Revolution in Europe a bit much, but it's only because I believe it's going to be one of the most influential political books of the next two decades. The benefits of mass immigration are the Emperor's New Clothes and Caldwell is the little boy who sees the truth, which is why I urge everyone to read it. A friend of mine, who was initially less sceptical than I was about immigration, said the book was so well-written and eye-opening it filled a void in his life that had been left by his finishing The Sopranos and The Wire.
At a time when the Muslim world in the Middle East is riven with violence and extremism it is utter madness to let into Europe even more from such an unstable area and culture. Even if they are not all IS people, there are problems anyway with the integration of Muslim communities and we owe it to ourselves here,(all of us, Muslim and non-Muslim alike) to deal with the issues and problems we have now rather than make them even worse.
Sorry - I'm being brutal again - but the Middle East needs to sort itself out not export its problems to Europe so that Europe becomes as bad as the Middle East now is.
I was emailed this morning by a friend in Lyons who said that the main synagogue there (which survived WW2) is guarded day and night by 4 heavily armed French soldiers. As are the smaller synagogues. And his daughter's school could not have its annual open day because the police said that the risk to the Jewish children was such that there would have to soldiers on site all day. This is Europe in 2015. This is the problem that France has with its Arab population - see Andrew Hussey's recent book "The French Intifada".
We need to be much more tough minded about who we let in, what the risks are, what the benefit to us is and be prepared to say no to the rest and enforce that decision. Nor can we let our risks be determined by the weakest bit of Europe.
I've just ordered it, maybe it will be a book that I start and actually finish. A rare occurrence
I am very pessimistic about the future of the UK and Europe. I fear only a horrific terrorist incident will wake people up. There are still a majority in the areas where decisions are made that are crossing their fingers and hoping it will just go away.
I am not sure about Labour in the 1950s or the effect the wider membership had on policy but when I started looking at Atlee's 1945-50 administration what struck me was how Atlee was forced by his cabinet to accept policies with which he disagreed. As a PM he was very much first amongst equals and held office in a very different way from more modern prime ministers.
Quite when the change to a presidential-style leader was started I am not sure. Blair certainly completed it but when did it start?
To be pedantic, the very first time someone was able to be referred to as a PM was surely when presidential styles started, in that one person was recognised as first even among equals, they were the primary face of the government. I leave to others an actual answer though.
How presidential a PM is Cameron though I wonder? Certainly the pitch to the electorate was very much about Cameron vs Ed (notwithstanding the Tory manifesto picture being about a strong team), nothing about wider merits of either side just a straight contest between leaders, but he's always given the impression of giving Ministers a lot of free rein and time to do their thing.
I am not sure that Cameron does give ministers that much free rein. It is certainly spun that he does but look at Gove's demotion. Cameron will not tolerate ministers who do things with which he does not agree.
Mr. Nabavi, suggests, rather obviously and glibly, that Thatcher was the first party leader to kick off the presidential style. I think that certainly into her third administration she was very intolerant of dissent but was she the mould breaker? I am not so sure.
Mr. Jessop puts forward Churchill and I think he has a very good case for the war years, Pm who was also Sec of state for defence and very obviously the national leader. However, there were lots of other things going on in government during the war (the NHS was not invented out of thin air) and a lot of planning for the post war years (mostly fudged, bodged and genrally fecked up by Atlee but leave that for now). Churchill's focus was the war and he seemed not to have lead in those other matters.
Didn't Maggie famously sum up one cabinet discussion by saying '21 votes against, one in favour: the resolution is adopted' ?
It seems unlikely - it sounds more like an anecdote to illustrate a point by Ian Gilmour - but it's not impossible. She certainly said, in 1980, when asked if she admired Ministers with their courage of their convictions, 'I want them to have the courage of MY convictions.'
Not really. True, he ran the war effort pretty much as a dictator but the non-military aspects of the WWII coalition (and they did a lot of work which eventually was implemented largely under Attlee) was much more delegated and collegiate.
He was PM and Defence (or War) Minister as well. I'm not nsure how you can fight a total war 'collegiately'. Of course in reality everyone had the same aim and motive so it was not really difficult.
I'm not sure that at any time we have moved to a presidential style of govt. Anyone who suggests 'Thatcher' clearly forgets Whitelaw (and Maggie's famous 'Every PM needs a Willie' comment). Furthermore anyone using the phrase 'presidential' will I suspect be thinking of the USA - the same USA where there are 3 legs to govt. President (ie elected King), Congress and Supreme Court. Presidential powers are limited and do not imply totalitarianism. The whole argument / comparison is rubbish from top to bottom. Its caused by too close an exposure to corbynite.
I am not sure about Labour in the 1950s or the effect the wider membership had on policy but when I started looking at Atlee's 1945-50 administration what struck me was how Atlee was forced by his cabinet to accept policies with which he disagreed. As a PM he was very much first amongst equals and held office in a very different way from more modern prime ministers.
Quite when the change to a presidential-style leader was started I am not sure. Blair certainly completed it but when did it start?
To be pedantic, the very first time someone was able to be referred to as a PM was surely when presidential styles started, in that one person was recognised as first even among equals, they were the primary face of the government. I leave to others an actual answer though.
How presidential a PM is Cameron though I wonder? Certainly the pitch to the electorate was very much about Cameron vs Ed (notwithstanding the Tory manifesto picture being about a strong team), nothing about wider merits of either side just a straight contest between leaders, but he's always given the impression of giving Ministers a lot of free rein and time to do their thing.
I am not sure that Cameron does give ministers that much free rein. It is certainly spun that he does but look at Gove's demotion. Cameron will not tolerate ministers who do things with which he does not agree.
Mr. Nabavi, suggests, rather obviously and glibly, that Thatcher was the first party leader to kick off the presidential style. I think that certainly into her third administration she was very intolerant of dissent but was she the mould breaker? I am not so sure.
Mr. Jessop puts forward Churchill and I think he has a very good case for the war years, Pm who was also Sec of state for defence and very obviously the national leader. However, there were lots of other things going on in government during the war (the NHS was not invented out of thin air) and a lot of planning for the post war years (mostly fudged, bodged and genrally fecked up by Atlee but leave that for now). Churchill's focus was the war and he seemed not to have lead in those other matters.
Was Wilson the first of the "modern" leaders?
Eden perhaps? He was notoriously bad at delegating and tried to micromanage every part of his government (including, according to Heath, the whips' office) while remaining de facto foreign secretary.
It was one reason why his premiership collapsed in total ruin so quickly.
I am not sure about Labour in the 1950s or the effect the wider membership had on policy but when I started looking at Atlee's 1945-50 administration what struck me was how Atlee was forced by his cabinet to accept policies with which he disagreed. As a PM he was very much first amongst equals and held office in a very different way from more modern prime ministers.
Quite when the change to a presidential-style leader was started I am not sure. Blair certainly completed it but when did it start?
To be pedantic, the very first time someone was able to be referred to as a PM was surely when presidential styles started, in that one person was recognised as first even among equals, they were the primary face of the government. I leave to others an actual answer though.
How presidential a PM is Cameron though I wonder? Certainly the pitch to the electorate was very much about Cameron vs Ed (notwithstanding the Tory manifesto picture being about a strong team), nothing about wider merits of either side just a straight contest between leaders, but he's always given the impression of giving Ministers a lot of free rein and time to do their thing.
I am not sure that Cameron does give ministers that much free rein. It is certainly spun that he does but look at Gove's demotion. Cameron will not tolerate ministers who do things with which he does not agree.
You may be right that is is just spin, part of Cameron's image as being a sort of genial minded chairman, but I had thought Gove being demoted was because he was seen as growing toxic, and that was harming the reforms, so he was sacked to quiet things down while not actually changing (and that he's been brought in to Justice to do the same thing - stir things up, set things in motion, then can be 'sacrificed' to mollify complainers without actually changing direction), or was that also just spin? Im so confused.
Comments
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/my-message-to-jeremy-corbyn-i-can-help-you-build-a-progressive-majority-10469934.html
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/resources/chdltmigrationestimates_tcm77-354471.png
The fact that he was also seen, whether accurately or not, as a dogmatic anti-English xenophobe with a penchant for demanding more and more money for Scotland over and above what was already seen in England as an excessively generous settlement did not exactly help matters.
Sturgeon's public profile in England isn't glowing, but it's minuscule compared to Salmond's, and therefore there was no point in running a scare campaign based on her.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/268021/oathofallegiance.pdf
"I, [JEO], swear by Almighty God that, on becoming a British
citizen, I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her
Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors
according to law."
Pledge:
"I will give my loyalty to the United Kingdom and respect its
rights and freedoms. I will uphold its democratic values. I
will observe its laws faithfully and fulfil my duties and
obligations as a British citizen."
This is more than Corbyn is prepared to do.
The hustings debate is reported in full here:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/aug/25/radio-5-live-holds-labour-leadership-hustings-after-charles-clarke-brands-election-a-disaster-politics-live
Burnham gets it on Corbyn's policy views - Corbyn is personally against NATO (though he sounds less in favour of actually leaving), but doesn't think the policy should just be decided by the leader. I'd expect the conference to go for staying in NATO, but the point that you can disagree with Corbyn on something without ruling yourself out of the Shadow Cabinet is an important get out of jail card for people who don't want to throw the toys out of the pram on September 12 but disagree on specific policies. Corbyn also helpfully condemns supporters who abuse rivals. I'd think that Burnham in the Shadow Cabinet is a certainty, and Cooper doesn't seem to have ruled it out recently either.
It's also a welcome innovation, within reason - even people with impeccably centrist views are absolutely fed up with the idea that the moment the leadership expresses an opinion, it's party policy and everyone has to be in favour or they're treacherous pig-dogs who must resign at once. And that's not just a Labour thing - all parties have the same issue, notably UKIP but the Tories too. There is a practical issue that you can't decide everything by annual conferences, but the cult of leadership is overdone.
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2015/08/25/greens-row-back-from-electoral-pact-with-jeremy-corbyn
The suggestion that somehow Corbyn's lack of discipline and willingness to tolerate open dissent from his line could be turned to advantage is a novel one. But I'm afraid I don't find it very convincing.
Labour will be a laughing stock under Corbyn.
Must be a new policy. Chatted in 2001 with a Chinese chap who also had German citizenship (which allowed him to have several children).
The offer of standing down Green candidates at elections where it would help Labour, in return for introducing PR is many things, but 'Progressive' it is not.
You take what you want away with you from the SNP indy campaign. What I saw firing it up was the desire to impose hard left policies which labour could not .
Now with the economic case in ruins there is little left but dogma.
Who mentioned the SWP?
I am suddenly wondering about local level. Will labour councils be obliged to implement Corbynite policies from day One? Could this have a meaningful impact in some of our cities?
http://tinyurl.com/p73e8db
One of the bigger pre election stories, occasioning several premature ejaculations on here, was the leak of Sturgeon's supposed conversation with the French ambassador, sod all to do with Salmond.
Even better, he uses a wide vocabulary, so I learn a few new words from time to time.
created between 1989 and 1997 (and a Section 20 notice not issued or incorrectly issued), or
created before 1989...
it is my understanding that an assured tenancy can be created by a simple notice from the landlord to tenant.
"Dear Tenant
please take note that from xx/xx/xx your tenancy agreement dated zz/zz/zz is no longer an assured shorthold tenancy, but is an assured tenancy.
Regards Landlord"
should do.
"Sometimes Labour voters forget there is an election on"...
South of the border, although Sturgeon was on the debates, the talk was about Salmond. Has it occurred to you that living in Scotland, you might have got a skewed view of what was happening?
EDIT - of course the acronym EICIPMISP was quite popular with our alphabet soup man - ISP stood for 'in Salmond's pocket', which was also the image on the posters.
Kudos for admitting you were wrong.
A reasonable approach would be that the leadership decides day-to-day votes broadly in line with policy ("Do we vote for Bill X which does most of what we wanted but not all?"), the NEC or equivalent decides not so urgent new ideas that don't totally change direction ("Should we support an HS3?") and the annual conference decides major changes in direction ("Should we leave NATO?"). A Corbynite leader would express his view, without normally making it a back-me-or-sack-me issue, and go along with the decision if he didn't consider it totally unacceptable.
There is a long tradition of this on the left (it used to be the norm, hence things like Gaitskell's battles over nuclear weapons), though with more strident leaders it always leads to trouble. With an emollient leader, perhaps less so - it'll be interesting to see. It's not ideal and will cause frequent arguments in public, but it's healthier than the leader-is-God approach.
But if you wish to just try and prove the impossible - that Nicola Sturgeon was a meaningful presence in the election scenarios put forward - please don't let me stop you.
@CarolineLucas @GeorgeMonbiot Happy to sign up to the progressive alliance for electoral reform, Caroline. Our joint amendments were fab!
You mention the 1950s as a good example of this kind of politics. There were three elections in the 1950s, or four if you count 1950 itself. At each one, the Labour party got a progressively smaller share of votes and seats partly because it was viewed as riven by competing factions. Only when Gaitskell put an end to the factionalism and forced his party to unite under his leadership, helped by a couple of (entirely coincidental) deaths could Labour recover. Not a very happy parallel - and Gaitskell was a thousand times the politician Corbyn will ever be.
A Section 8 notice can still be issued, however, meaning an assured tenancy is only slightly more "secure" than an AST.
Gaitskell's battle against the unilateralists in 1960 was unique in that it was probably the first time that the leader defied a party conference vote. Had be been defeated again in 1961, he would have resigned notwithstanding a convincing majority in the PLP. Only later, starting with Wilson were conference defeats shrugged off nonchantly.
I think a slightly stronger argument is that the intention of using canvassing data wasn't signalled before taking people's £3. If they had meant that only people who'd told canvassers they'd vote Labour were eligible, they should have said so.
But mostly, their problem is not one of legalities, it is that the whole thing is a farce.
'All posters and stories were about Salmond'
But again, kudos for admitting you were wrong.
You mention the 1950s as a good example of this kind of politics. There were three elections in the 1950s, or four if you count 1950 itself. At each one, the Labour party got a progressively smaller share of votes and seats partly because it was viewed as riven by competing factions. Only when Gaitskell put an end to the factionalism and forced his party to unite under his leadership, helped by a couple of (entirely coincidental) deaths could Labour recover. Not a very happy parallel - and Gaitskell was a thousand times the politician Corbyn will ever be.
-----
I'm a great admirer of Gaitskell, but don't forget that the party did unite after the 1955 defeat - Bevan became Shadow Foreign Secretary and denounced the unilateralists in his 1957 'naked in the conference chamber' speech but that didn't prevent Labour from a catastrophic defeat in 1959. Then the splits all re-opened on Clause IV and unilateralism and it wasn't really until 1961/62 that his leadership was again secure and apparently on course for victory. Whether he would have secured a larger majority in 1964 than Wilson is an interesting counter-factual.
Now that's contrary to statements made by various MPs who've been handed hundreds of applications to vet themselves. Barry Sheerman said it wasn't possible for him to do it.
If Labour are simply weeding supporters out - there's no handing of the data off to a third party, however as you note - using canvassing data without explicit permission/reference to the £3 transaction is messy here.
The goalposts have shifted so many times, frankly I'm totally lost what criteria are being used and by whom. And be very surprised if everyone is doing it the same way.
I am now of the opinion that more damage will be done if he is not elected. The expectations being dashed in such a way with the thoughts that some of his supporters were "eliminated" will be nuclear.
Stuffed either way really. Win or lose.
(On counter-factuals - I don't think it would have made a lot of difference. Maybe a slightly larger majority - but if Gaitskell had still been leader, would Home have been the choice or would Macmillan, whatever his private misgivings, have gone for Butler as his successor? Another interesting counterfactual!)
Helps keep their business contacts nearby
https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/636137224879235072
OK, maybe a touch surreal. But the whole Labour leadership process is so far beyond surreal that it must be causing Rory Bremner to wonder if he should retire on the grounds that, to quote the great Tom Lehrer, satire is dead.
I've read quite a few articles on this topic today. A good opposition would be piling in if even some of these reports are true.
Even as a right wing tory, this gives me some cause for concern...
That Labour's amassed c600k members - and she expected the selectorate to be *about half a million*. But that only 3000 had been rejected so far, as ringers or not on the electoral roll.
That's a huge gap - are up to 100k playing silly buggers??
Leaving aside jolly LDs like our good host who have signed up - the real £3 entryists are loopy lefties.
The BBC is incapable of addressing the issue honestly.
Quite when the change to a presidential-style leader was started I am not sure. Blair certainly completed it but when did it start?
Wilson, though, seems otherwise.
Dan is wrong there, Labour has always thrived on its class war bigotry.
Terrible reporting.
And surely the whole idea of the process was to get a wider selectorate?
Instead of a meeting between Harriet and the four candidates discussing the selectorate, perhaps they should be discussing why only one of them is in any way compelling, and he only became a candidate through a sympathy vote.
Labour claim they've blocked "400 are members or supporters of the Conservatives and 1,900 members or supporters of the Green Party."
How presidential a PM is Cameron though I wonder? Certainly the pitch to the electorate was very much about Cameron vs Ed (notwithstanding the Tory manifesto picture being about a strong team), nothing about wider merits of either side just a straight contest between leaders, but he's always given the impression of giving Ministers a lot of free rein and time to do their thing.
At a time when the Muslim world in the Middle East is riven with violence and extremism it is utter madness to let into Europe even more from such an unstable area and culture. Even if they are not all IS people, there are problems anyway with the integration of Muslim communities and we owe it to ourselves here,(all of us, Muslim and non-Muslim alike) to deal with the issues and problems we have now rather than make them even worse.
Sorry - I'm being brutal again - but the Middle East needs to sort itself out not export its problems to Europe so that Europe becomes as bad as the Middle East now is.
I was emailed this morning by a friend in Lyons who said that the main synagogue there (which survived WW2) is guarded day and night by 4 heavily armed French soldiers. As are the smaller synagogues. And his daughter's school could not have its annual open day because the police said that the risk to the Jewish children was such that there would have to soldiers on site all day. This is Europe in 2015. This is the problem that France has with its Arab population - see Andrew Hussey's recent book "The French Intifada".
We need to be much more tough minded about who we let in, what the risks are, what the benefit to us is and be prepared to say no to the rest and enforce that decision. Nor can we let our risks be determined by the weakest bit of Europe.
It's almost like the most elegant bit of karma. 'its commitment to standing against all forms of bigotry'
Dan is wrong there, Labour has always thrived on its class war bigotry.
This was around the mid-80s. It always struck me as a peculiar way to address her and I didn't like it's imperial overtones one bit.
In terms of one man being the clearly dominant figure in the government, Pitt the Younger's first ministry probably marked the transition from 'equals with a chairman' to 'first among equals'. But there were a number of occasions as late as the 1930s when who the Prime Minister was wasn't always clear-cut - e.g. it was often suggested that Baldwin, in the early 1930s, had more influence than Macdonald, although I'm personally a bit doubtful about that claim. Certainly Campbell-Bannerman was a less prominent figure in his own cabinet than Asquith, which is where the Relugas compact idea came from. By the time Chamberlain and Churchill came along though, that idea had pretty much gone and the party leader/PM was seen as setting the character of the administration.
If Attlee was therefore more collegiate he would have been a bit of a throwback, in that sense, maybe because he was surrounded by a number of forceful and independently popular ministers (Bevan, Bevin, Dalton etc) in a way few other PMs have been.
I am very pessimistic about the future of the UK and Europe. I fear only a horrific terrorist incident will wake people up. There are still a majority in the areas where decisions are made that are crossing their fingers and hoping it will just go away.
Mr. Nabavi, suggests, rather obviously and glibly, that Thatcher was the first party leader to kick off the presidential style. I think that certainly into her third administration she was very intolerant of dissent but was she the mould breaker? I am not so sure.
Mr. Jessop puts forward Churchill and I think he has a very good case for the war years, Pm who was also Sec of state for defence and very obviously the national leader. However, there were lots of other things going on in government during the war (the NHS was not invented out of thin air) and a lot of planning for the post war years (mostly fudged, bodged and genrally fecked up by Atlee but leave that for now). Churchill's focus was the war and he seemed not to have lead in those other matters.
Was Wilson the first of the "modern" leaders?
Of course in reality everyone had the same aim and motive so it was not really difficult.
I'm not sure that at any time we have moved to a presidential style of govt. Anyone who suggests 'Thatcher' clearly forgets Whitelaw (and Maggie's famous 'Every PM needs a Willie' comment).
Furthermore anyone using the phrase 'presidential' will I suspect be thinking of the USA - the same USA where there are 3 legs to govt. President (ie elected King), Congress and Supreme Court. Presidential powers are limited and do not imply totalitarianism.
The whole argument / comparison is rubbish from top to bottom. Its caused by too close an exposure to corbynite.
It was one reason why his premiership collapsed in total ruin so quickly.
If you are in the military and you lose a limb, then the MOD gives you great care.
If you lose a limb in the military and then leave, then the NHS has a special fund to buy good prosthetics.
If you are a civilian, you do not have access to this fund and get worse prosthetics from the NHS.