Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » An authoritarian Tory government will undo Cameron’s early
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » An authoritarian Tory government will undo Cameron’s early work
Ten years ago David Cameron’s victory speech as the newly elected leader of the Conservative Party argued against Thatcher’s famous remark insisting “there is such a thing as society, it’s just not the same as the state.” His vision for a Big Society never proved a campaign hit in its own right, but helped set the tone of a party that was keen to hear many flourish within civil society and for that to d…
0
Comments
Oh ....
British voters remain highly receptive to a modernising Labour approach that shows it is in touch with the way the country and the world have changed and are changing. Whether Labour offers them that is what the party must now decide in its leadership contest. In the absence of such an offer from Labour, however, Osborne’s budget will seem to many voters like a logical and not wholly unreasonable alternative.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/09/george-osborne-budget-new-labour-thatcherite
that'd be on the Boundary Commission, surely?
Should I successfully land this bet, would I first of all be handed by OGH the position of life honorary president of PB.com in recognition of having placed the greatest political bet ever and second, five years hence, will both the UK and the USA be led by individuals both having Hil[l]ary as their first name ..... that alone surely has to be at least a 949/1 shot.
Apparently the big headline in the San is "Corbyn to abolish army". Tomorrow "Corbyn to tax all foreigners living abroad", Wednesday "Corbyn to kill the first born male child in every household".
I was told that the press were going to destroy Corbyn. Ludicrous headline that even a San reader can see through helps do the opposite.
Hubris.....
Possibly. Luckily, we have the opposition to hold them to account.
"Overall, the survey underscored the degree of dissatisfaction toward government and politics that is shaping the campaign. More than 7 in 10 Americans say people in politics cannot be trusted. More than 6 in 10 say the political system is dysfunctional. Sizable majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents agree with those assessments.
"But Democrats and Republicans part ways over the kind of experience they are looking for in the next president. Nearly 6 in 10 Republicans say they prefer the next president to have experience that comes from outside the political establishment. Only about a quarter of Democrats say the same."
The year of the anti-politician.
In fact, there were a few names that emerged late last night that seem to have gone quiet: Del Piero, Woodcock, Bryant... Makes one wonder if whats leaking is the offer rather than the acceptance?
Huh??
"Taken a dark turn?"
Oh please? Look Squirrel just isn't going to cut it at this point.
Thanks to the incompetence of Miliband and now Corbyn we now live in what is effectively a one party state.
Trump retweets Jezza!
http://www.buzzfeed.com/hannahjewell/trump-just-got-tricked-into-tweeting-a-pic-of-jez?utm_term=.vwQzjGM7Jk
The Tories got a majority from the voters in May that effectively makes it a "one party state', at least for the term of the government. Odd though these points were never mentioned when Blair got his landslides neither was the % of the vote to achieve the number of seats he had.
This is the first time I can remember the shadow cabinet has been selected by a process of elimination.
Most people are fed up of wildcat strikes on the tube.
Quite depressing, really, that such a task falls to someone as meek as Burnham, but there you go.
For what it's worth, I don't believe he will, unless things get so terrible that there is no alternative.
A 'two child policy'? Ludicrous. Every couple should have as many children as they wish/can afford. It's called being responsible adults. I hate it when people use this kind of rhetoric. Look at China's 'one child policy' and the horrors their government perpetrated in pursuit of that, and hang your head in shame for even implicitly comparing the two.
I don't agree that Corbyn is a threat to national security; that's overblown. However, on several other counts he (and the strand of thinking he represents) scares the shit out of me.
Cameron has had an unforseeable few months since May but the spotlight will turn back on him soon with all sorts of people, including some within his own party waiting to pounce.
Did Jeremy really choose his shad cabinet by default as he could only find a dozen MPs and a couple of Lords who wanted a job?
*Sets alarm for 11:55 on Wednesday, and orders extra popcorn*
The tube strikes would not be affected by the new laws.
To take some of the above points:
"the Conservative-supporting press". They are only Conservative-supporting because the Conservatives are delivering: The Sun backed Labour when it was winning and when it looked like winning. And papers reflect their readers; those that don't lose circulation. So whinging about the press is essentially whinging about the electorate.
"sustained assault on the Leader of the Opposition". Justified and accurate analysis of his past actions and current policies. It's not the Tories' fault if Labour has a collective brain spasm.
"ministers avoided independent recommendations of televised TV debates". We still live in a democracy. Ministers and party leaders should consider but should not be bound to independent advice. That's why they, not the experts, are ultimately accountable. If other parties don't like it, they're free to criticise or propose their own alternative.
"ministers routinely refuse live interviews". For which people are free to draw their own conclusions, as they are of Corbyn doing the same.
"The BBC has since been duffed up". The BBC's governance arrangements are archaic and needed updating (a process which should go further still). Its (in)ability to project a balanced output should be questioned and addressed. In any case, the cuts in its output could be minimised were it run more efficiently.
"Reducing MPs; hurting other parties". Or more accurately, reducing the structural advantage Labour has from its undersized constituencies. Why should a vote in South Wales be worth more than one in the Home Counties?
"voters rejected mayors in the north". True. But local government is the responsibility of Westminster. In any case, the mayors that the voters rejected were within each authority; not across them. How else to provide regional leadership? Even more politicians?
"Trade Union Reform Bill". A Labour Party less dependent on the unions would be a good thing. Besides, unions should be representing members, not running the country. As for regulations, strikes and union activities have always been regulated and rightly so. The Miners Strike was fought and won on the principle that unions couldn't ignore that fact.
"The new leader of the Opposition is apparently ‘a threat to national security’". He is. Just because he's Labour leader doesn't change that. If you don't like the language, you shouldn't have elected him.
"family size of the non-affluent is now government business". Welfare is certainly government business.
"a heterosexual couple on a modest income will have their pennies pinched by the Treasury if they don’t obey a ‘two child’ policy". Benefits are taxpayers' pennies, not the recipients.
"Some voters may soon start to notice". That's the idea.
To repeat Osborne's budget actually slowed the rate at which public spending will be cut compared to the last Coalition budget. Taxes were quietly increased again to take the strain. Osborne and Cameron are both absolutely focussed on the middle ground which Labour has so blatantly evacuated.
There is undoubtedly a risk that the absence of any meaningful opposition will tempt this government to do some silly things. It is one of the many reasons that Corbyn is a mistake of potentially terminal proportions which is bad not only for the Labour party but also the country.
I am not sure the trade union bill is one of them. Public sector strikes (and almost all significant strikes are now in the public sector) are a real pain and it is not unreasonable that a certain proportion of the workforce should feel sufficiently aggrieved to vote for them before they happen. The quid pro quo is that voting should be made a lot easier and all the technical issues which resulted in some very dodgy injunctions against strikes should be simplified or go.
That said, the really worrying part of the trade union bill is the stuff on online activity and picketing.
Is this because you are distracted by the death throes of your beloved Labour party?
I very much doubt it. Surely as a two time loser, he no longer counts for very much in the Labour Party going forward.
As for people waiting to pounce? Do enlighten us? I can only presume you mean Toynbee and Jones as everyone one else has picked up their political footballs and gone home sulking.
Labour voted by a landslide for Corbyn and this is the result. It's their own doing no one else's. Now they have to deal with it.
I haven't read the bill, but from the little I have gleaned, the Unions will rightly and sensibly make a fuss. The opt in is going to make the unions work harder to get their money and might be seen as petty nay vindictive.
The question in my mind is , is this legislation necessary, and do the Tories really need to do this?
He is excellent. Really excellent
What have Labour done?
Have I perhaps missed a reference to him being away on yet another holiday?
But now the important issue: how long before iSam appears to complain about the relative lack of commas in this piece?
No?
Just wow
I've not seen the proposals on social media use but from your comment would not agree with that. As a general principle, I don't see why existing laws re incitement and the like can't be used and if people have a problem with what some union puts out then they should bring it to the authorities' attention in the normal way.
This is a joke, right?
David Davis has his own agenda.
Meanwhile our fat bloated PM is watching cricket and doing less than nothing. Sorry Henry but if you think taking the subsidy away from families who choose to have more than two children is as bad as it gets then we've all lost our moral compass
Even as a Cameron critic, this is perhaps the weakest article I have seen presented here in a very long time.
No, that's right, you wouldn't expect the PM to be saying that. But Cameron is absolutely right to say it.
Seems reasonable to me. If the strike is on a serious matter that the workers feel very strongly about then they should easily be able to get half of them to vote for it.
This has been the most surreal, yet oddly predictable 24hrs.
Gillian Duffy will no longer vote Labour while Jezza is LOTO. A sign of the times for sure.
Somebody asked what this has to do with betting. The answer is in your last line: "Some voters may soon start to notice."
They already are. The comparison is not between the Tories and Labour under Corbyn - but between the present Tory Government and the last Coalition one. Most people seem to like that last one much better.
there is only one possible response to such a topical piece.
the country demands and needs a hashtag campaign
#stopthedarksideofcameroon
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34241395
The organisation has stopped even pretending to be objective any more.
A political weakling who shamelessly sucked up to Jezza to get a job.
But the Tory mood on here has understandably been triumphant the past few days, it's important to remember the challenges and accusations that need to be defended against, the luck won't always be with them.
That said, one of the problems labour had was portraying Cameron as so e malevolent figure which didn't match what the public saw, which was he's a bit crap and that's it, like most pms. It is simply hyperbole to talk of not recognising him anymore as though he's managed a complete transformation in a few months, when he's not even done much. It is overplaying the spin again.
How is a Blairite unhappy with this government?
Hope Khan gets the same treatment
http://youtu.be/LxRqMJHG56A
They really are not going to do anything to jeopardise winning in 2020. A "dark turn", Henry? No. Those are the storm clouds over the Labour Party that are obscuring your view...
Mr Manson, your party has just been hijacked by a communist throwback from the 70s with a list of nasty friends as long as your arm – and you present PB this diversionary nonsense? - Oh dear oh dear oh dear.