I never said the Conservatives deliberately want to ruin the education system. This also isn't about disagreeing with Labour, I didn't even bring up with Labour party. Perfectly rational, intelligent people vote Tory because they think Tory proposals will be better. For their interests. That's not always the interests of society, or of other demographics - such as young people. Most vote in their own self-interest.
It's true that people often vote on narrow rather than broad issues. I think Richard N overstates the case that people vote in the "national interest", though it's true in e.g. the 1980s there was a "who runs the country", heart-and-soul element to our elections that has largely been supplanted in our age of more technocratic and media-focused parties. (Corbynites certainly see an "us-vs-them" element, of a privileged elite clique running the country, and holding the 99% down - they don't feel the need to distinguish between Blair and Cameron, or frankly between most MPs who are in the comfortable 1%. But their perspective is not representative of the electorate at large, or even of Labour supporters.)
But even in "self-interest" terms, policies have a lot of knock-on effects. For instance, Labour's genuinely mystifying decision to give a free TV licence to all households containing a pensioner, not just pensioner-only households, means that there are millions of people with a gran living in the house who get the free licence and would have to cough up if that pensioners' giveaway was taken away. Middle-aged people with kids at uni are affected by the situation with tuition fees and grants, and that often affects their financial planning a decade before the fact. Somebody with a friend on disability benefit will be acutely aware of the effects of government policy on that area.
The only time my own parents were affected by tuition fees/grants, was when student finance contacted them to request how much household income was (to see if I qualified/how much I would get for a maintenance grant). So I'd be intrigue to see how much this really affects parents. I agree that polices have knock-on effects, but I doubt many people can foresee that.
As a parent with a child at Uni, and likely to have £50 000 debt by the time Fox jr finishes I am very interested in tuition fees. The level of debt will hang over him for years, possibly decades. I do not want him having his options restricted by those chains of debt and I do not want the taxes he pays going (as interest payments on the national debt) to bond holders. I want his tax monies to go on more productive purposes.
I think you underestimate how much parents invest emotionally and financially in their children.
@HurstLlama - They vote Conservative for reasons for self-interest (mainly economic) and the fact that as people get older, they become more Conservative in attitudes and thoughts.
You haven't engaged with the question. Do please think about it. No need to reply to me, but please take the time to think. Treat it as an academic exercise if you like, you are a university student so regardless of your discipline this sort of thing should be well within your grasp. Imagine an essay question:
"If the over 55s are more concerned with the future of the children and grandchildren than their own well being, why then do they vote conservative?"
I have engaged with the question - I've just given an answer that you disagree with.
Tell me, what University do you study at?
Why do you want to know?
Because you seem incapable of reading and understanding what people say to you. I said, twice, I don't want you to tell me anything, your response was "I have given you an you disagree with". Your level of comprehension gives me cause for concern so I wondered which university you are studying at.
Given that since Thatcher politics has trended right-wards and education, the economy, inequality, and social mobility have all gotten worse it's questionable that Conservative polices 'will work' and 'leave a better world for their children'. If over 55s believe that, they may wrong in their assumption.
@Richard_Navabi I'm not wrong. Nor do I accept the idea that well off Conservative voters for the most part don't care - or don't need to care in relation to what government does. Certainly many well-off people cared about much government may, or may not tax them at the GE which is why many did not want to vote Labour. If they are worried about the country, it's odd that they are voting Conservative - not only because the Conservatives told us very little about their plans during the GE, but also because Conservative polices are generally quite divisive. They clearly are far more beneficial for certain demographics than fore others - which is why certain demographics vote Tory, and others don't.
Given that your premise is false, so is your conclusion. Where do you draw the line at saying the past was better than today? Lets say 1979 which is pre-Thatcher.
On the economy alone GDP per capita is over 60% higher in real terms now than it was in 1979.
Of course if you live in a cloud cuckoo land where a 60% improvement in real terms is a bad thing then you are of course entitled to whatever delusions you want. But don't expect others to share them.
My premise isn't false; nor is the conclusion. We've had the worst economic crisis since the 1930s.
@HurstLlama - They vote Conservative for reasons for self-interest (mainly economic) and the fact that as people get older, they become more Conservative in attitudes and thoughts.
You haven't engaged with the question. Do please think about it. No need to reply to me, but please take the time to think. Treat it as an academic exercise if you like, you are a university student so regardless of your discipline this sort of thing should be well within your grasp. Imagine an essay question:
"If the over 55s are more concerned with the future of the children and grandchildren than their own well being, why then do they vote conservative?"
I have engaged with the question - I've just given an answer that you disagree with.
Tell me, what University do you study at?
Why do you want to know?
Because you seem incapable of reading and understanding what people say to you. I said, twice, I don't want you to tell me anything, your response was "I have given you an you disagree with". Your level of comprehension gives me cause for concern so I wondered which university you are studying at.
@HurstLlama - They vote Conservative for reasons for self-interest (mainly economic) and the fact that as people get older, they become more Conservative in attitudes and thoughts.
You haven't engaged with the question. Do please think about it. No need to reply to me, but please take the time to think. Treat it as an academic exercise if you like, you are a university student so regardless of your discipline this sort of thing should be well within your grasp. Imagine an essay question:
I have engaged with the question - I've just given an answer that you disagree with.
Tell me, what University do you study at?
Why do you want to know?
Because you seem incapable of reading and understanding what people say to you. I said, twice, I don't want you to tell me anything, your response was "I have given you an you disagree with". Your level of comprehension gives me cause for concern so I wondered which university you are studying at.
It's a typo - when I'm replying to many people, sometimes I'll make mistakes. I meant to say 'I have given you an answer - you simply just disagree with it.'
This Channel 4 privatisation leak seems like a deliberate act by the civil servant in question. After the number of times it has happened, you'd have to be truly stupid to show a sensitive document outside a folder, facing outwards, as you walk into a ministerial meeting. I don't believe anyone at that sort of level is that stupid.
The Government needs to crack down on the civil service doing this sort of thing. The man in question should be demoted.
Wow. I hope those people didn't vote Tory, if they had to go through all of that.
I can see a logic* in the current graduate tax dressed up as student loans system, but in many ways the dependence of entitlements on family household incomes is both distortionary (for the reasons I listed) and is effectively a tax on the wrong people at the wrong time (we should really care only about how much money a graduate earns after they have graduated, not how much a bunch of other adults earned when that student was, themselves, a theoretically legally independent adult anyway).
It is, though, a sop to those who think we should care about "the poor". Why that means being more generous to Roxy the options trader (whose immigrant dad was a cleaner) or Priscilla the globe-trotting human relations consultant (whose parents had been quite old when they'd had her and been on a lower retirement income by the time she was at college) while being harsh on Georgina the rather more moderately paid speech therapist (whose mum had just been promoted to headteacher when G started uni, and who was forced into early medical retirement due to stress three years later) goodness only knows.
HEALTH WARNING FOR PEOPLE OF OVEREXPANSIVE CREDULITY: the following examples are entirely made up! I admit this, for I am not IDS incarnate, but I have admitted it too late, and it is possible several of you will have died of stress from realising this fact only after you have formed a deep and meaningful emotional bond with Georgina et alii from the scant case studies I have provided, only for me to heartily dash your plans for elopement with Roxy, oral exam with Georgina or a human capital evaluation session with Priscilla. I apologise for the fatal inconvenience.
* subject to skepticism I have explained below, but I'm playing devil's advocate here. You should play devil's advocate more often. You really, really should. It's quite a fun game, when you get into it, but you learn a hell of a lot from the exercise.
This Channel 4 privatisation leak seems like a deliberate act by the civil servant in question. After the number of times it has happened, you'd have to be truly stupid to show a sensitive document outside a folder, facing outwards, as you walk into a ministerial meeting. I don't believe anyone at that sort of level is that stupid.
The Government needs to crack down on the civil service doing this sort of thing. The man in question should be demoted.
I think they should walk to the next ministerial briefing wearing a dunce's cap, just like in the golden olden days of yore.
Honestly, it's embarrassing. Also, see-through document wallets should simply be banned throughout the civil service. That's just an accident waiting to happen.
Wow. I hope those people didn't vote Tory, if they had to go through all of that.
I can see a logic* in the current graduate tax dressed up as student loans system, but in many ways the dependence of entitlements on family household incomes is both distortionary (for the reasons I listed) and is effectively a tax on the wrong people at the wrong time (we should really care only about how much money a graduate earns after they have graduated, not how much a bunch of other adults earned when that student was, themselves, a theoretically legally independent adult anyway).
It is, though, a sop to those who think we should care about "the poor". Why that means being more generous to Roxy the options trader (whose immigrant dad was a cleaner) or Priscilla the globe-trotting human relations consultant (whose parents had been quite old when they'd had her and been on a lower retirement income by the time she was at college) while being harsh on Georgina the rather more moderately paid speech therapist (whose mum had just been promoted to headteacher when G started uni, and who was forced into early medical retirement due to stress three years later) goodness only knows.
HEALTH WARNING FOR PEOPLE OF OVEREXPANSIVE CREDULITY: the following examples are entirely made up! I admit this, for I am not IDS incarnate, but I have admitted it too late, and it is possible several of you will have died of stress from realising this fact only after you have formed a deep and meaningful emotional bond with Georgina et alii from the scant case studies I have provided, only for me to heartily dash your plans for elopement with Roxy, oral exam with Georgina or a human capital evaluation session with Priscilla. I apologise for the fatal inconvenience.
* subject to skepticism I have explained below, but I'm playing devil's advocate here. You should play devil's advocate more often. You really, really should. It's quite a fun game, when you get into it, but you learn a hell of a lot from the exercise.
I'm not a fan of a graduate tax - I recall reading at that time, that such a tax would end up being more expensive for students than the current system. As for household income, I suppose there's an argument that poorer students are not in the position to borrow large sums of money from their parents for living and travel costs (as well as buying books).
As a parent with a child at Uni, and likely to have £50 000 debt by the time Fox jr finishes I am very interested in tuition fees. The level of debt will hang over him for years, possibly decades. I do not want him having his options restricted by those chains of debt and I do not want the taxes he pays going (as interest payments on the national debt) to bond holders. I want his tax monies to go on more productive purposes.
I think you underestimate how much parents invest emotionally and financially in their children.
Quite. I wrote a post below that considers purely financial ramifications, since that was apparently being asked for, but (as I hope I remembered to point out earlier!) people often care deeply about their kids' education, finances and early job prospects. Even if only to get them started in life and out of the nest! But for most people it goes far deeper than that. "Self" interest often operates at a family or household level.
As a parent with a child at Uni, and likely to have £50 000 debt by the time Fox jr finishes I am very interested in tuition fees. The level of debt will hang over him for years, possibly decades. I do not want him having his options restricted by those chains of debt and I do not want the taxes he pays going (as interest payments on the national debt) to bond holders. I want his tax monies to go on more productive purposes.
I think you underestimate how much parents invest emotionally and financially in their children.
Quite. I wrote a post below that considers purely financial ramifications, since that was apparently being asked for, but (as I hope I remembered to point out earlier!) people often care deeply about their kids' education, finances and early job prospects. Even if only to get them started in life and out of the nest! But for most people it goes far deeper than that. "Self" interest often operates at a family or household level.
In regard to those over 55 though, most of them will have children that would have left university (the average age for having a child is 29/30). This will especially be the case for those over 65+. At that age it is likely their kids, and their grand kids will not be living in the same household.
I'm not a fan of a graduate tax - I recall reading at that time, that such a tax would end up being more expensive for students than the current system. As for household income, I suppose there's an argument that poorer students are not in the position to borrow large sums of money from their parents for living and travel costs (as well as buying books).
The current system is, to all practical intents and purposes, one possible implementation of a graduate tax, though it's not badged under that label. There are other possible implementations of a graduate tax, for instance not capping the final bill (at present, the final bill is essentially "money loaned plus interest"). That's mathematically equivalent to imposing infinite tuition fees under the current system. Even on some poor plonker who dropped out of the University College of North Slough after one term of studying Marketing, then pocketing millions out of him when his band takes off in the States.
As for who pays more, it all depends on the details though - whether there is an age or time limit, what the rates and thresholds are, what exemptions exist.
On your household income point: you are of course exactly correct. I'd just let the Tarquins have more money on their student loan tab. If they got a good graduate job then they'd have to pay it back after all - and the interest on it should discourage them from taking it out unnecessarily in the first place. If they can't pay it back, that's only because Tarquin turns out to be a relatively poor graduate anyway, in which case, fair do's. (just checked a dictionary, the apostrophe is correct, apparently. Madness and scandal on a Thursday night.) If Tarquin, or Roxy, is 18 and legally an independent adult, I'm not convinced of the virtue of conflating his tax-and-benefits status with that of his parents. It's demeaning and infantilising for one thing.
(As for the devil's advocate thing: seriously, you should try it.)
It's worth noting that there is a very marked difference between Corbyn's initial ratings and, say, IDS's or Foot's. Corbyn has a good positive rating at 33% - very similar to Blair (34) and Cameron (31) and more than double IDS and Hague. But he has a much larger negative rating: - 36 vs. mid-teens, which is why he's on net negative. He arrives already polarised.
This doesn't necessarily matter as much as Keiran suggests. It's a pity if 36% of the population have a negative view of you, but you're not going to get over 64% anyway. What matters is what proportion actually like you. I agree with Keiran's comments on Labour's image, but I'd argue that actually Corbyn is raising Labour's vote from the lacklustre 30ish that it would be if we had a colourless leader with few likes or dislikes.
Whether that will strengthen, reverse or disappear, who knows - though we may know more in a week or two.
As a parent with a child at Uni, and likely to have £50 000 debt by the time Fox jr finishes I am very interested in tuition fees. The level of debt will hang over him for years, possibly decades. I do not want him having his options restricted by those chains of debt and I do not want the taxes he pays going (as interest payments on the national debt) to bond holders. I want his tax monies to go on more productive purposes.
I think you underestimate how much parents invest emotionally and financially in their children.
Quite. I wrote a post below that considers purely financial ramifications, since that was apparently being asked for, but (as I hope I remembered to point out earlier!) people often care deeply about their kids' education, finances and early job prospects. Even if only to get them started in life and out of the nest! But for most people it goes far deeper than that. "Self" interest often operates at a family or household level.
In regard to those over 55 though, most of them will have children that would have left university (the average age for having a child is 29/30). This will especially be the case for those over 65+. At that age it is likely their kids, and their grand kids will not be living in the same household.
This is a legitimate point. But there is also an increasing trend of under-30s (and to a smaller extent, over-30s) living at home. That will often be younger kids so you need to be adding more than 29/30 years on for that, too. Parents' investments in their childrens' younger years does not cut out at 21, and their interest in things like the education market, the rental/mortgage market, early career prospects etc will have all too real financial and emotional consequences for many parents well into their 60s! (As for the older folk.. they're allowed to care about grandkids too, but that will not normally involve such intricate awareness of their financial and personal situation.)
I'm not a fan of a graduate tax - I recall reading at that time, that such a tax would end up being more expensive for students than the current system. As for household income, I suppose there's an argument that poorer students are not in the position to borrow large sums of money from their parents for living and travel costs (as well as buying books).
The current system is, to all practical intents and purposes, one possible implementation of a graduate tax, though it's not badged under that label. There are other possible implementations of a graduate tax, for instance not capping the final bill (at present, the final bill is essentially "money loaned plus interest"). That's mathematically equivalent to imposing infinite tuition fees under the current system. Even on some poor plonker who dropped out of the University College of North Slough after one term of studying Marketing, then pocketing millions out of him when his band takes off in the States.
As for who pays more, it all depends on the details though - whether there is an age or time limit, what the rates and thresholds are, what exemptions exist.
On your household income point: you are of course exactly correct. I'd just let the Tarquins have more money on their student loan tab. If they got a good graduate job then they'd have to pay it back after all - and the interest on it should discourage them from taking it out unnecessarily in the first place. If they can't pay it back, that's only because Tarquin turns out to be a relatively poor graduate anyway, in which case, fair do's. (just checked a dictionary, the apostrophe is correct, apparently. Madness and scandal on a Thursday night.) If Tarquin, or Roxy, is 18 and legally an independent adult, I'm not convinced of the virtue of conflating his tax-and-benefits status with that of his parents. It's demeaning and infantilising for one thing.
(As for the devil's advocate thing: seriously, you should try it.)
Although it's true that age 18 you're an adult, most eighteen year olds will not have their own property (generally) and their income is likely to come from small, part-time work which doesn't pay that much (if they have a job). Given that, I think it's reasonable to conflate an 18 year old's tax and benefits status with their parents, as they are still likely to be reliant on them.
It's worth noting that there is a very marked difference between Corbyn's initial ratings and, say, IDS's or Foot's. Corbyn has a good positive rating at 33% - very similar to Blair (34) and Cameron (31) and more than double IDS and Hague. But he has a much larger negative rating: - 36 vs. mid-teens, which is why he's on net negative. He arrives already polarised.
This doesn't necessarily matter as much as Keiran suggests. It's a pity if 36% of the population have a negative view of you, but you're not going to get over 64% anyway. What matters is what proportion actually like you. I agree with Keiran's comments on Labour's image, but I'd argue that actually Corbyn is raising Labour's vote from the lacklustre 30ish that it would be if we had a colourless leader with few likes or dislikes.
Whether that will strengthen, reverse or disappear, who knows - though we may know more in a week or two.
I think that is a perceptive post - those who like you are the ones you need to vote for you. The downside of being widely disliked is that it can actively encourage others to get out to vote against you, so it is not quite as irrelevant as you suggest, but this is clearly not as important a factor as the "likes". I will also point out that Miliband had a very good positive rating initially, and that was not a good predictor of future success! Clearly much of Miliband's positive polling was soft. I suspect only a small portion of Corbyn's positive polling is hard, judging from polls that show the gulf between the Corbynite project and even mainstream Labour voters.
I think Keiran's stronger point is on the "brand contamination" which is clearly a strategy that Tory spinners will be working on. If those figures are "sticky" than Labour are left without a good exit strategy if the current experiment fails.
It's worth noting that there is a very marked difference between Corbyn's initial ratings and, say, IDS's or Foot's. Corbyn has a good positive rating at 33% - very similar to Blair (34) and Cameron (31) and more than double IDS and Hague. But he has a much larger negative rating: - 36 vs. mid-teens, which is why he's on net negative. He arrives already polarised.
This doesn't necessarily matter as much as Keiran suggests. It's a pity if 36% of the population have a negative view of you, but you're not going to get over 64% anyway. What matters is what proportion actually like you. I agree with Keiran's comments on Labour's image, but I'd argue that actually Corbyn is raising Labour's vote from the lacklustre 30ish that it would be if we had a colourless leader with few likes or dislikes.
Whether that will strengthen, reverse or disappear, who knows - though we may know more in a week or two.
I am genuinely spilt. In the sense that I think Corbyn will be either an utter clsuterfuck disaster on a scale not seen in modern politics, or he will abdicate long before the election, or there will be an astonishing transformation in UK politics on a spectrum not seen in my lifetime.
I am looking at a 80:19:1 % split here. But what do I know? I put money on Millaband forming a coalition.
Although it's true that age 18 you're an adult, most eighteen year olds will not have their own property (generally) and their income is likely to come from small, part-time work which doesn't pay that much (if they have a job). Given that, I think it's reasonable to conflate an 18 year old's tax and benefits status with their parents, as they are still likely to be reliant on them.
I'll try being devil's advocate one day
Even taking that "reasonableness" into account, it's clearly infantilising, personal circumstances can be more complex (even ignoring people moving between mum and dad, you can have a family able to afford "additional support" but doesn't mean it's going to be forthcoming), and it's become increasingly common for people to start uni older than 18 (should we do the same process if they start at 21? at 25?).
I'm particularly concerned about treating the independence of a young person as a kind of legal fiction to be conveniently ignored by subsuming them into a wider household. You want to be careful where you'd heading with that.
Married couple, finances and property entirely intertwined. Economically it's two adults going out to work separately, but a single household.
Hubbie earns 100k, wife earns 20k. (Switch genders around if you like but this is the more common permutation. Relatively few high earning women.)
Versus
Hubbie earns 60k, wife earns 60k
Your starter for 10: Which household pays more tax under current system?
Your bonus question for deep philosophical contemplation: Which household should pay more tax? Historically, why would feminists have concerns about this?* (Hint: subsuming a woman to be effectively an adjunct of her man.) You need to also consider second-order effects; how would taxing on a household basis change the marginal tax rates faced by the couple, and how would it likely change their working patterns? Do we start chucking stay-at-home kids into the equation?
* Not just historic feminists either. This concept of tax linkage reared its head with the married couples allowance debate, for instance, which allows some transfer of personal allowance. Feminist response to this was not, shall we say, universally positive - though obviously this had a lot to do with criticism of the patriarchal concept of marriage, rather than "household" assessment per se.
It's worth noting that there is a very marked difference between Corbyn's initial ratings and, say, IDS's or Foot's. Corbyn has a good positive rating at 33% - very similar to Blair (34) and Cameron (31) and more than double IDS and Hague. But he has a much larger negative rating: - 36 vs. mid-teens, which is why he's on net negative. He arrives already polarised.
This doesn't necessarily matter as much as Keiran suggests. It's a pity if 36% of the population have a negative view of you, but you're not going to get over 64% anyway. What matters is what proportion actually like you. I agree with Keiran's comments on Labour's image, but I'd argue that actually Corbyn is raising Labour's vote from the lacklustre 30ish that it would be if we had a colourless leader with few likes or dislikes.
Whether that will strengthen, reverse or disappear, who knows - though we may know more in a week or two.
I am genuinely spilt. In the sense that I think Corbyn will be either an utter clsuterfuck disaster on a scale not seen in modern politics, or he will abdicate long before the election, or there will be an astonishing transformation in UK politics on a spectrum not seen in my lifetime.
I am looking at a 80:19:1 % split here. But what do I know? I put money on Millaband forming a coalition.
It's the one percent that's tantalising isn't it? To some extent that's why I voted for him. To a larger extent, it was that he seems (by certain metrics, not by others: Boris is another who, depending on how you look at him, is either a jolly good chap or an utter bastard) a decent guy. He certainly has a vision and a commitment to it, which is something that's been sorely lacking in British politics even if you disagree with the details.
Like someone else on here - Sandy, perhaps? - I also find myself surprisingly warming a little to Osborne lately. "High wage, low tax, low welfare" - and implicitly, "high skill" - is the closest I've seen to a positive vision from the Tory party since the traffic cones helpline, and if that sounds like a back-handed compliment it probably is. (The notion of the interface between state and individual to resemble information-rich and responsive consumer services was actually a Big Idea, and no doubt would these days be wrapped up in sexier attire - e-government, or Systems Thinking perhaps.) With "low welfare" he comes perilously close to admitting his government want to kick the poor in the balls then BBQ their children, but at least he is being honest about it, which earns him some bonus marks from me. [A certain level of sarcasm has been strategically employed in this paragraph. But I honestly reckon there's more to that lad than the haircut.]
This doesn't necessarily matter as much as Keiran suggests. It's a pity if 36% of the population have a negative view of you, but you're not going to get over 64% anyway. What matters is what proportion actually like you. I agree with Keiran's comments on Labour's image, but I'd argue that actually Corbyn is raising Labour's vote from the lacklustre 30ish that it would be if we had a colourless leader with few likes or dislikes.
That's a not a bad strategy for the Euros but it's a stake through the heart for your chances in Westminster marginals, isn't it? You can't get people to vote tactically for you if they dislike your guy more than they dislike the other side's guy.
I'm not a fan of a graduate tax - I recall reading at that time, that such a tax would end up being more expensive for students than the current system. As for household income, I suppose there's an argument that poorer students are not in the position to borrow large sums of money from their parents for living and travel costs (as well as buying books).
The current system is, to all practical intents and purposes, one possible implementation of a graduate tax, though it's not badged under that label. There are other possible implementations of a graduate tax, for instance not capping the final bill (at present, the final bill is essentially "money loaned plus interest"). That's mathematically equivalent to imposing infinite tuition fees under the current system. Even on some poor plonker who dropped out of the University College of North Slough after one term of studying Marketing, then pocketing millions out of him when his band takes off in the States.
As for who pays more, it all depends on the details though - whether there is an age or time limit, what the rates and thresholds are, what exemptions exist.
On your household income point: you are of course exactly correct. I'd just let the Tarquins have more money on their student loan tab. If they got a good graduate job then they'd have to pay it back after all - and the interest on it should discourage them from taking it out unnecessarily in the first place. If they can't pay it back, that's only because Tarquin turns out to be a relatively poor graduate anyway, in which case, fair do's. (just checked a dictionary, the apostrophe is correct, apparently. Madness and scandal on a Thursday night.) If Tarquin, or Roxy, is 18 and legally an independent adult, I'm not convinced of the virtue of conflating his tax-and-benefits status with that of his parents. It's demeaning and infantilising for one thing.
(As for the devil's advocate thing: seriously, you should try it.)
Although it's true that age 18 you're an adult, most eighteen year olds will not have their own property (generally) and their income is likely to come from small, part-time work which doesn't pay that much (if they have a job). Given that, I think it's reasonable to conflate an 18 year old's tax and benefits status with their parents, as they are still likely to be reliant on them.
I'll try being devil's advocate one day
That's a very legitimate position, but such a reform should be tied with putting the voting age up to 21. If the age group is not considered adult enough to run their own affairs, they should not be involved in running others.
It's worth noting that there is a very marked difference between Corbyn's initial ratings and, say, IDS's or Foot's. Corbyn has a good positive rating at 33% - very similar to Blair (34) and Cameron (31) and more than double IDS and Hague. But he has a much larger negative rating: - 36 vs. mid-teens, which is why he's on net negative. He arrives already polarised.
Another way of looking at it is that many people already 'have a view' (either good or bad) on Corbyn - which is striking for someone who has been an anonymous backbencher for decades - unlike well known politicians like Foot or Brown.
Lord Mandelson has advised Labour Party members unhappy at the election of Jeremy Corbyn not to be in a hurry to see him replaced as leader. - The peer argues Mr Corbyn has to demonstrate his "unelectability" at the polls before facing a challenge.
@HurstLlama - They vote Conservative for reasons for self-interest (mainly economic) and the fact that as people get older, they become more Conservative in attitudes and thoughts.
Another way of looking at it is that many people already 'have a view' (either good or bad) on Corbyn - which is striking for someone who has been an anonymous backbencher for decades - unlike well known politicians like Foot or Brown.
I would have expected figures more in the IDS or Hague range - around 30% having a view - but no, 7 out of 10 have already made their mind up.
What's interesting is how many people had an opinion of Ed Miliband. I wonder how many actually had a view of his brother and didn't realise what Ed stood for.
@HurstLlama - They vote Conservative for reasons for self-interest (mainly economic) and the fact that as people get older, they become more Conservative in attitudes and thoughts.
You haven't engaged with the question. Do please think about it. No need to reply to me, but please take the time to think. Treat it as an academic exercise if you like, you are a university student so regardless of your discipline this sort of thing should be well within your grasp. Imagine an essay question:
"If the over 55s are more concerned with the future of their children and grandchildren than their own well being, why then do they vote conservative?"
Because Conservative policies work and will leave a better world for children and grandchildren and over 55's understand that.
Who is going to pay for Gordon Brown's debt and the deficit he left (that Labour keep saying shouldn't be cut measure by measure)? The children, grandchildren and greatgrandchildren of over 55's.
If the over 55's were being just self-interested they'd have little reason to care about the deficit.
Who will pay for George Osborne's debt and deficit, surely?
There is a view, with which I agree, that the primary function of a Parliament in a Parliamentary democracy is to provide consent to Government. If increasing numbers of people come to believe that voting is a waste of time because either a) they live where their vote will not matter. Or b) that no party that they wish to vote for has any chance of proportionate representation, then we all have a problem.
Whilst it clearly irks some posters on PB that a significant section of the electorate want to vote for a socialist, that does not change the reality that they do. An establishment campaign that demonstrates that there is no chance of their views ever being fairly represented will eventually undermine the legitimacy of that establishment and of liberal democracy itself.
Mr. Corbyn should be treated with respect not only out of courtesy, though that would be decent, but out of self interest. The hysterical hatred being demonstrated by some who post here may gratify the partisan but it is part of a dangerous process that may undermine democracy.
@HurstLlama - They vote Conservative for reasons for self-interest (mainly economic) and the fact that as people get older, they become more Conservative in attitudes and thoughts.
A more subtle factor is that what was once radical has become the norm, as old battles were won. Women driving buses are paid the same as their male colleagues. It is not that 1960s and 70s feminists now think women should be paid less. They have not moved right in that sense.
According to Sky News this am the country has a rapidly growing homeless problem ... How many immigrants are we expected to take..and will they go on the homeless list or jump the queue..
(snip)Mr. Corbyn should be treated with respect not only out of courtesy, though that would be decent, but out of self interest. The hysterical hatred being demonstrated by some who post here may gratify the partisan but it is part of a dangerous process that may undermine democracy. (snip)
No.
I don't hate Corbyn, but I do not respect him. I do not respect his views, I do not respect his 'friends', and I do not respect many of his policies.
Asking me to 'respect' Corbyn when he is, in my mind, so utterly unworthy of respect, is in itself treating me with a certain lack of respect.
I do respect the position of LOTO, but he is only a temporary incumbent of that position.
The socialists on here who think Corbyn is ok or good for Labour are using similar words that they used to "support" Miliband. DEJA VU. Only 4 more years of this "its different" "he is energising the base" "lots of non-voters coming to vote" "ed is authentic" "baby eating posh boys out of touch".... No matter what the facts are. Can we create a name for these folk? Factdeniers? Leftieostriches? Delusionallefties?
(snip)Mr. Corbyn should be treated with respect not only out of courtesy, though that would be decent, but out of self interest. The hysterical hatred being demonstrated by some who post here may gratify the partisan but it is part of a dangerous process that may undermine democracy. (snip)
No.
I don't hate Corbyn, but I do not respect him. I do not respect his views, I do not respect his 'friends', and I do not respect many of his policies.
Asking me to 'respect' Corbyn when he is, in my mind, so utterly unworthy of respect, is in itself treating me with a certain lack of respect.
I do respect the position of LOTO, but he is only a temporary incumbent of that position.
What he said.
Respect has to be earned - and little Corbyn has done so far has earned any - and as for his historic posturing with the murderers of my friend I doubt he will ever overcome that.
I find the "obsessed with Europe" line to be a ridiculous one. It's like saying the SNP are "obsessed with the union". EU policy decides everything from who we have to let in to our country to how our food is made to how business is regulated. What is a more important issue than who governs us?
I can't help but feel those who make the accusation just feel like they have lost the argument and thus would rather there wasn't any discussion around it.
Absolutely. "Obsessed by Europe" is a line used by europhiles in the hope Tories will stop raising the issue so it goes away.
I find the "obsessed with Europe" line to be a ridiculous one. It's like saying the SNP are "obsessed with the union". EU policy decides everything from who we have to let in to our country to how our food is made to how business is regulated. What is a more important issue than who governs us?
I can't help but feel those who make the accusation just feel like they have lost the argument and thus would rather there wasn't any discussion around it.
1993 - 2005 - Tories obsessed about the EU, they didn't win a general election
2005 onwards - We stopped banging on about the EU and guess what we've started winning elections again.
FYI - I consider Pro-EU just as guilty, it all started with Sir Geoffrey Howe in 1990, if only he had toppled Thatcher over the poll tax, things would have been very different.
You seem to be living in a different reality to me. Our party's euroscepticism has been far more vocal and part of our platform in recent years than it was between 1993-2005. Back then it was just about not joining the most extreme integrationist policies like the Euro. At the last election we promised to renegotiate the treaties and offered a referendum to leave the EU entirely, a highly popular policy. Capping the EU budget and vetoing the fiscal compact were two of Cameron's biggest poll jumps in the last five years.
The Conservative Party is far more eurosceptic now than it was under Hague and IDS.
We've gone from euro: wait & see, to euro: not in the next parliament, to euro: never, to no euro ever and no EU constitution, to "things will not rest here", to active renegotiation of powers and an EU referendum on basic membership.
And now over half the party base and a sizeable chunk of the MPs at Westminster want to quit the whole EU altogether.
Just in case anybody here was not watching "Who Do You Think You Are" last night, Frank Gardner of the BBC is a great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandson of King William the Conqueror.
The numbers indicate Labour may well lose in London next year. Should that happen Corbyn is toast. Whether that helps revive Labour is another matter.
Poor old Nick Palmer's attempts to put a gloss on the horrific findings of the poll indicate that the party may well now be a lost cause and that something else will have to emerge to take its place.
I find the "obsessed with Europe" line to be a ridiculous one. It's like saying the SNP are "obsessed with the union". EU policy decides everything from who we have to let in to our country to how our food is made to how business is regulated. What is a more important issue than who governs us?
I can't help but feel those who make the accusation just feel like they have lost the argument and thus would rather there wasn't any discussion around it.
1993 - 2005 - Tories obsessed about the EU, they didn't win a general election
2005 onwards - We stopped banging on about the EU and guess what we've started winning elections again.
FYI - I consider Pro-EU just as guilty, it all started with Sir Geoffrey Howe in 1990, if only he had toppled Thatcher over the poll tax, things would have been very different.
You seem to be living in a different reality to me. Our party's euroscepticism has been far more vocal and part of our platform in recent years than it was between 1993-2005. Back then it was just about not joining the most extreme integrationist policies like the Euro. At the last election we promised to renegotiate the treaties and offered a referendum to leave the EU entirely, a highly popular policy. Capping the EU budget and vetoing the fiscal compact were two of Cameron's biggest poll jumps in the last five years.
I agree it has been vocal. But unlike 1993 to 2005 we talk about other things as well.
There's some truth in that, and that's partly because the UK joining the euro seemed imminent from 2000-2003, and we'd had treaty after treaty promoting further EU integration. The Conservative Party was the only eurosceptic show in town. The CBI, BBC, Liberal Democrats and Labour - together with the nationalists, and some major broadsheets - all backed the euro.
People weren't ready to listen to the Conservative Party on very much at all, but on the euro, we did get an airing. Because it was recognised it was of fundamental importance to the future governance of the whole country.
The trouble was: the Conservative Party itself was still going through internal debate on the matter itself, fuelled by the broader post-1997 trauma, that made the party look split.
That's all over now. Europhiles no longer meaningfully exist in the Conservative Party.
Late to the conversation, so apologies if this has already been covered, but Kieran makes an excellent point when he says
I suspect that as long as Labour attack Cameron for being ‘out of touch’ and posh – rather than attack on the substance of his perceived competence – I suspect that they won’t get very far either
It's not just Cameron either - as in all probability he won't lead the Tories into the next election anyway - it's the Conservatives in general. Leaders can and do poll ahead or behind their parties but in general the two will move roughly in parallel. The Conservatives as a whole are probably seen as 'out of touch' and 'posh' almost by default. Indeed, in the table above, 48% say they understand the problems facing Britain - hence 52% disagree or don't know - yet 56% agree that they're fit to govern, implying some overlap where people believe the Tories are competent yet ignorant. Quite how these people think good policy is therefore made is something of a mystery.
Although it's not. They don't think in that detail. The 'understand the issues' is an image thing; the 'fit to govern' is an experience one, and hence the more potent. There'll be more undecided voters who say 'they might come from a different world but they get the job done' than say 'they won't be any good but they're my kind of people'. There are, obviously, many who do vote on precisely that basis but they also always vote the same way so for dynamic purposes are essentially irrelevant; what matters is how the swing voters react.
However, Kieran misses one point in the above sentence: you can only attack someone's competence (or indeed, any other achievement, quality or characteristic) from a position of strength. If a known fraudster has a go at someone else for misleading through omission, it simply highlights their own greater failing. Likewise, to attack the government's competence requires Labour to have credible answers on what it would do. While Labour is now 'different' (indeed, it's notable that *both* parties' scores have gone up by about the same sizable margin), they really need to be the right kind of different to get a hearing.
I don't see any easy solution for Labour. Corbyn is leader but there is - as Mike pointed out the other day - a massive gulf between Corbyn's supporters and Labour voters, never mind swing voters. How he straddles the two groups he needs to keep or get on board is a massive imponderable. If he takes up the image advice, he risks becoming just another politician - and worse, a betrayer of his cause and supporters - but if he doesn't, he risks an electoral annihilation worse than Foot's. Tricky.
Is that all the Daily Jackboot has on the Dave book? Isabel Oakeshott said there was lots more to come. Unless there is a big splash in the Sundays, poor old Ian Dale is going to end up with a lot of stock that he cannot sell. Expect to find it being sold off for 25p on Car boot stalls.
The feeling here in Italy among the business men I meet and the ones who travel is that the UK will vote to leave the EU.They also think it would be good for the UK but disastrous for the EU.
The socialists on here who think Corbyn is ok or good for Labour are using similar words that they used to "support" Miliband. DEJA VU. Only 4 more years of this "its different" "he is energising the base" "lots of non-voters coming to vote" "ed is authentic" "baby eating posh boys out of touch".... No matter what the facts are. Can we create a name for these folk? Factdeniers? Leftieostriches? Delusionallefties?
What's intriguing about the party leader figures is that Miliband had the highest absolute positive of any new leader, yet ended up by the end of the parliament with some dire ratings - which suggests that leadership contests provide at best only a small snapshot of someone's nature and abilities.
It is clear that Labour seems far better that the Tories at getting their man into the spotlight. Both Miliband and Corbyn had more people express an opinion about them than did about Brown, and he'd been Chancellor for ten years at the time. But whether it's a well-formed opinion is another matter.
The numbers indicate Labour may well lose in London next year. Should that happen Corbyn is toast. Whether that helps revive Labour is another matter.
Poor old Nick Palmer's attempts to put a gloss on the horrific findings of the poll indicate that the party may well now be a lost cause and that something else will have to emerge to take its place.
Everyone I meet tells me Nick's a nice man - he clearly is a pleasant individual from the way he conducts himself on here. His educational qualifications and career history, not to mention his choice of hobbies, show him to be an intelligent man as well.
So why does he post such utterly moronic stuff on Corbyn?
The numbers indicate Labour may well lose in London next year. Should that happen Corbyn is toast. Whether that helps revive Labour is another matter.
Poor old Nick Palmer's attempts to put a gloss on the horrific findings of the poll indicate that the party may well now be a lost cause and that something else will have to emerge to take its place.
Everyone I meet tells me Nick's a nice man - he clearly is a pleasant individual from the way he conducts himself on here. His educational qualifications and career history, not to mention his choice of hobbies, show him to be an intelligent man as well.
So why does he post such utterly moronic stuff on Corbyn?
NPEXMP dabbled with the dark side in his youth. He hasn't moved nor is likely to from the hard left to Blairite despite how he posts on here. NP is a hard left voter and supports Corbyn up to the hilt and is just displaying his true colours.. Just allow for it in the way you read what he writes.
@Jonathan - Am I the first to notice that your profile picture has undergone a reflection about the vertical axis?
I noticed that the other day.
I thought that the original No Right Turn was rather clever. Now it appears that I may have overestimated Jonathan's wit and his avatars are merely a series of roadsigns. Shame.
The numbers indicate Labour may well lose in London next year. Should that happen Corbyn is toast. Whether that helps revive Labour is another matter.
Poor old Nick Palmer's attempts to put a gloss on the horrific findings of the poll indicate that the party may well now be a lost cause and that something else will have to emerge to take its place.
Everyone I meet tells me Nick's a nice man - he clearly is a pleasant individual from the way he conducts himself on here. His educational qualifications and career history, not to mention his choice of hobbies, show him to be an intelligent man as well.
So why does he post such utterly moronic stuff on Corbyn?
I'd suggest that Nick's comments are indicative of a Labour party that will not regards Corbyn as toast if Khan loses. My guess is that the greater majority of the blame will land on the candidate (and rightly so, as mayoral elections are more about the candidate than the party).
The numbers indicate Labour may well lose in London next year. Should that happen Corbyn is toast. Whether that helps revive Labour is another matter.
Poor old Nick Palmer's attempts to put a gloss on the horrific findings of the poll indicate that the party may well now be a lost cause and that something else will have to emerge to take its place.
Everyone I meet tells me Nick's a nice man - he clearly is a pleasant individual from the way he conducts himself on here. His educational qualifications and career history, not to mention his choice of hobbies, show him to be an intelligent man as well.
So why does he post such utterly moronic stuff on Corbyn?
I'd suggest that Nick's comments are indicative of a Labour party that will not regards Corbyn as toast if Khan loses. My guess is that the greater majority of the blame will land on the candidate (and rightly so, as mayoral elections are more about the candidate than the party).
Next years London and Scottish elections are the only real electoral test until the 2019 Euros. There are local elections too, but those tend to impact more on activists than on the wider population. Chances are that if Jezza survives next year that he will survive to 2020.
On the personal poularity rating, I expect this to drop further as the scales drop from the eyes of supporters. Jezza is not going to suddenly change and develop PR skills.
Things can change quickly in politics but Labour should be under no illusions – things are serious and Labour needs to do something about it fast.
.
.
Labour is currently an order of magnitude more bat-shit crazy than the IDS Tory party.
To be honest I am not sure. I for one would not have voted for an IDS led Tory party. It isn't just the credibility of the leader, its the credibility of a party that chooses such a leader.
The Tory party that chose IDS was old, intolerant, obsessed with Europe, rigid in its thinking and much more interested in itself than it was in the country as a whole. A Corbyn led Labour party seems out of touch on many important issues but over the generality I would say they are in the same ballpark.
In what way are current Tory policies different to when IDS was leader? Genuine question.
Sorry I went to bed.
The Conservative party of the IDS era was, in my eyes, a very different beast from the Cameron led party of 2015.
It was a party that still really believed in s28. Cameron's government introduced Gay Marriage.
It was a party that thought all that green, climate change stuff was just a conspiracy to tie down business and that the answer to everything was deregulation. Whilst there are still elements who believe that that has not been the policy.
It was a party that was obsessed with cutting taxes as the solution to pretty much all the government's ills. The Coalition and this government obviously inherited a different and horrendous situation but they have increased taxes to maintain public spending in real terms.
It was a party that was very judgemental about single parents and those on benefits. We don't hear that unpleasant nonsense anymore.
It was a party who really had not come to terms with ethnic minorities and frankly gave the impression that they wished they were not here. Again that is no longer the case although there is still work to do.
It was of course a party that was obsessed by the EU which is why Ken Clarke was not leading it. The growth of UKIP has undoubtedly rebalanced the party to the centre.
The reality is that the IDS led party was a creation of Blair. He had taken all the central ground and pushed the Tory party to the right in an attempt to differentiate itself. Cameron and Osborne learned those lessons well and have done the same to Labour. That is why I think there are more similarities between the IDS era and the Corbyn era than differences. As someone of the centre right I disagree with even more of what Corbyn says than I did of IDS. But they were both unpleasant distortions and extremes.
The numbers indicate Labour may well lose in London next year. Should that happen Corbyn is toast. Whether that helps revive Labour is another matter.
Poor old Nick Palmer's attempts to put a gloss on the horrific findings of the poll indicate that the party may well now be a lost cause and that something else will have to emerge to take its place.
Everyone I meet tells me Nick's a nice man - he clearly is a pleasant individual from the way he conducts himself on here. His educational qualifications and career history, not to mention his choice of hobbies, show him to be an intelligent man as well.
So why does he post such utterly moronic stuff on Corbyn?
I'd suggest that Nick's comments are indicative of a Labour party that will not regards Corbyn as toast if Khan loses. My guess is that the greater majority of the blame will land on the candidate (and rightly so, as mayoral elections are more about the candidate than the party).
Next years London and Scottish elections are the only real electoral test until the 2019 Euros. There are local elections too, but those tend to impact more on activists than on the wider population. Chances are that if Jezza survives next year that he will survive to 2020.
On the personal poularity rating, I expect this to drop further as the scales drop from the eyes of supporters. Jezza is not going to suddenly change and develop PR skills.
I don't expect the scales to drop from the eyes of supporters: they voted for him for who he is and will approve. I do expect the scales to drop from the undecided who are presently holding judgement to 'give him a chance'. But the net effect will be the same.
Just read that coincidentally, labour come across as a cabal of self serving sycophants, oblivious and ambivalent to what was going on around them. Serves them right.
The numbers indicate Labour may well lose in London next year. Should that happen Corbyn is toast. Whether that helps revive Labour is another matter.
Poor old Nick Palmer's attempts to put a gloss on the horrific findings of the poll indicate that the party may well now be a lost cause and that something else will have to emerge to take its place.
I think the danger for Labour in london could be a microcosm of their problems in the country. Khan will win big in the inner boroughs but could be swept away by a Goldsmith tide in the outer boroughs. It should be close either way but that must not disguise the fact that in any normal mid-term scenario Labour should be winning London by a country mile.
Quelle surprise. I wonder what the left's reaction will be, given some of them considered the result of a democratic election cause for protests. Boo hiss, the people voted wrongly!
The numbers indicate Labour may well lose in London next year. Should that happen Corbyn is toast. Whether that helps revive Labour is another matter.
Poor old Nick Palmer's attempts to put a gloss on the horrific findings of the poll indicate that the party may well now be a lost cause and that something else will have to emerge to take its place.
Everyone I meet tells me Nick's a nice man - he clearly is a pleasant individual from the way he conducts himself on here. His educational qualifications and career history, not to mention his choice of hobbies, show him to be an intelligent man as well.
So why does he post such utterly moronic stuff on Corbyn?
I'd suggest that Nick's comments are indicative of a Labour party that will not regards Corbyn as toast if Khan loses. My guess is that the greater majority of the blame will land on the candidate (and rightly so, as mayoral elections are more about the candidate than the party).
It's not only a Mayoral election though, is it? Isn't the Assembly up for grabs too? Labour won that even when Ken lost to Boris. If it loses next year there will only be one person to blame.
@HurstLlama - They vote Conservative for reasons for self-interest (mainly economic) and the fact that as people get older, they become more Conservative in attitudes and thoughts.
You haven't engaged with the question. Do please think about it. No need to reply to me, but please take the time to think. Treat it as an academic exercise if you like, you are a university student so regardless of your discipline this sort of thing should be well within your grasp. Imagine an essay question:
"If the over 55s are more concerned with the future of their children and grandchildren than their own well being, why then do they vote conservative?"
Because Conservative policies work and will leave a better world for children and grandchildren and over 55's understand that.
Who is going to pay for Gordon Brown's debt and the deficit he left (that Labour keep saying shouldn't be cut measure by measure)? The children, grandchildren and greatgrandchildren of over 55's.
If the over 55's were being just self-interested they'd have little reason to care about the deficit.
Who will pay for George Osborne's debt and deficit, surely?
The Conservative government will have eliminated the deficit by about 2019 and pay down much of the new debt by 2025. It is not Osborne's fault he was left such a big deficit it took a long time to turn it around. He had to balance austerity with reducing unemployment, a balance he has got spot on, despite Labour saying he had gone too fast. Are you now arguing he has gone too slow?
The socialists on here who think Corbyn is ok or good for Labour are using similar words that they used to "support" Miliband. DEJA VU. Only 4 more years of this "its different" "he is energising the base" "lots of non-voters coming to vote" "ed is authentic" "baby eating posh boys out of touch".... No matter what the facts are. Can we create a name for these folk? Factdeniers? Leftieostriches? Delusionallefties?
After years of testing it to destruction, I think "Socialist" is the word you are looking for...
Quelle surprise. I wonder what the left's reaction will be, given some of them considered the result of a democratic election cause for protests. Boo hiss, the people voted wrongly!
The policies are fine, they need a new electorate?
Months later, one leading figure in a rival campaign could barely control their rage: “To have [the close of nominations] at 12 o’clock on a Monday – we must have been on fucking crack cocaine. You can’t get to anyone, so people were wandering in after a weekend of spending time with their bloody constituency secretary or their leftwing wife, they just fucking wander off the train and hadn’t even had a cup of tea in the tea room by 12 o’clock on a Monday.
They go straight down to the PLP office and do something stupid. The people that are around on a Monday morning are the London lot – and for fuck’s sake, it’s the home of the left, it’s all the fucking mayoral candidates and deputy leader candidates.”
The numbers indicate Labour may well lose in London next year. Should that happen Corbyn is toast. Whether that helps revive Labour is another matter.
Poor old Nick Palmer's attempts to put a gloss on the horrific findings of the poll indicate that the party may well now be a lost cause and that something else will have to emerge to take its place.
No they don't, Labour had a double digit lead with Mori in London yesterday even as they trailed nationally. The only way Khan could lose is if Zac builds up a big enough lead in the suburbs to overturn Khan's lead in inner London
I have just applied for the QT in Leicester. Lets hope for a decent panel; that Farage fellow hasn't been on for a while...
Me too!
Given the importance of the immigration and EU issues at the moment, I expect the BBC to have equal numbers on each side of those debates. I'm not hopeful.
Just read that coincidentally, labour come across as a cabal of self serving sycophants, oblivious and ambivalent to what was going on around them. Serves them right.
Things can change quickly in politics but Labour should be under no illusions – things are serious and Labour needs to do something about it fast.
.
.
Labour is currently an order of magnitude more bat-shit crazy than the IDS Tory party.
To be honest I am not sure. I for one would not have voted for an IDS led Tory party. It isn't just the credibility of the leader, its the credibility of a party that chooses such a leader.
The Tory party that chose IDS was old, intolerant, obsessed with Europe, rigid in its thinking and much more interested in itself than it was in the country as a whole. A Corbyn led Labour party seems out of touch on many important issues but over the generality I would say they are in the same ballpark.
In what way are current Tory policies different to when IDS was leader? Genuine question.
Sorry I went to bed.
The Conservative party of the IDS era was, in my eyes, a very different beast from the Cameron led party erything was deregulation. Whilst there are still elements who believe that that has not been the policy.
It was a party that was obsessed with cutting taxes as the solution to pretty much all the government's ills. The Coalition and this government obviously inherited a different and horrendous situation but they have increased taxes to maintain public spending in real terms.
It was a party that was very judgemental about single parents and those on benefits. We don't hear that unpleasant nonsense anymore.
It was a party who really had not come to terms with ethnic minorities and frankly gave the impression that they wished they were not here. Again that is no longer the case although there is still work to do.
It was of course a party that was obsessed by the EU which is why Ken Clarke was not leading it. The growth of UKIP has undoubtedly rebalanced the party to the centre.
The reality is that the IDS led party was a creation of Blair. He had taken all the central ground and pushed the Tory party to the right in an attempt to differentiate itself. Cameron and Osborne learned those lessons well and have done the same to Labour. That is why I think there are more similarities between the IDS era and the Corbyn era than differences. As someone of the centre right I disagree with even more of what Corbyn says than I did of IDS. But they were both unpleasant distortions and extremes.
Agree with most of that but Osborne has cut inheritance and income tax and public spending as a share of gdp
The feeling here in Italy among the business men I meet and the ones who travel is that the UK will vote to leave the EU.They also think it would be good for the UK but disastrous for the EU.
Whilst I have always been something of a lukewarm BOO-er, I think what you are saying is about right
Just in case anybody here was not watching "Who Do You Think You Are" last night, Frank Gardner of the BBC is a great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandson of King William the Conqueror.
31 generations in 933 years. So 30 years per generation. So "once in a generation"...
I have just applied for the QT in Leicester. Lets hope for a decent panel; that Farage fellow hasn't been on for a while...
Me too!
Let me know if you get on, may have a chance to meet up. I see the Leicester Central Fire Station is doomed. I used to walk past it each day, and rather liked its 1930's style and firehouses.
@Jonathan - Am I the first to notice that your profile picture has undergone a reflection about the vertical axis?
I noticed that the other day.
I thought that the original No Right Turn was rather clever. Now it appears that I may have overestimated Jonathan's wit and his avatars are merely a series of roadsigns. Shame.
The numbers indicate Labour may well lose in London next year. Should that happen Corbyn is toast. Whether that helps revive Labour is another matter.
Poor old Nick Palmer's attempts to put a gloss on the horrific findings of the poll indicate that the party may well now be a lost cause and that something else will have to emerge to take its place.
Everyone I meet tells me Nick's a nice man - he clearly is a pleasant individual from the way he conducts himself on here. His educational qualifications and career history, not to mention his choice of hobbies, show him to be an intelligent man as well.
So why does he post such utterly moronic stuff on Corbyn?
I'd suggest that Nick's comments are indicative of a Labour party that will not regards Corbyn as toast if Khan loses. My guess is that the greater majority of the blame will land on the candidate (and rightly so, as mayoral elections are more about the candidate than the party).
Next years London and Scottish elections are the only real electoral test until the 2019 Euros. There are local elections too, but those tend to impact more on activists than on the wider population. Chances are that if Jezza survives next year that he will survive to 2020.
On the personal poularity rating, I expect this to drop further as the scales drop from the eyes of supporters. Jezza is not going to suddenly change and develop PR skills.
IDS made gains in local elections and even a few in Scotland in 2003 too. It was coming third in the Brent East by election behind Labour and the LDs that toppled him and it would be Labour coming third in a by election behind the Tories and UKIP which would likely topple Corbyn.
Interesting article. Quoting all the swearing was needless though.
The end paragraph was intriguing. We may not have seen the last of Liz Kendall, she seems to have cast some sort of spell on Jezza.
“I think he’s wrong, but he has his analysis and he sticks with it,” said Kendall, who developed a personal rapport with Corbyn during the long campaign – and greeted him with a hug last week after his first appearance at prime minister’s questions.
Has the Labour 'brand' suffered more than the Tory 'brand'?
It has not. Alistair Campbell deliberately and cynically wrecked the tory brand. Ever since, the only thing the Tories could sell was 'competence'. Admittedly, they have been reasonable at selling it, but that was mostly because there was a grain in truth in their relative competence.
In the last two GEs, with very two poor leaders, all Labour voters were trusting the Labour brand. They were not voting on the capability of the potential PM.
The next Labour leader is very likely to be in place before 2020. He'll only need to worry about himself----his brand is fine.
Things can change quickly in politics but Labour should be under no illusions – things are serious and Labour needs to do something about it fast.
.
.
Labour is currently an order of magnitude more bat-shit crazy than the IDS Tory party.
.
In what way are current Tory policies different to when IDS was leader? Genuine question.
Sorry I went to bed.
The Conservative party of the IDS era was, in my eyes, a very different beast from the Cameron led party erything was deregulation. Whilst there are still elements who believe that that has not been the policy.
It was a party that was obsessed with cutting taxes as the solution to pretty much all the government's ills. The Coalition and this government obviously inherited a different and horrendous situation but they have increased taxes to maintain public spending in real terms.
It was a party that was very judgemental about single parents and those on benefits. We don't hear that unpleasant nonsense anymore.
It was a party who really had not come to terms with ethnic minorities and frankly gave the impression that they wished they were not here. Again that is no longer the case although there is still work to do.
It was of course a party that was obsessed by the EU which is why Ken Clarke was not leading it. The growth of UKIP has undoubtedly rebalanced the party to the centre.
The reality is that the IDS led party was a creation of Blair. He had taken all the central ground and pushed the Tory party to the right in an attempt to differentiate itself. Cameron and Osborne learned those lessons well and have done the same to Labour. That is why I think there are more similarities between the IDS era and the Corbyn era than differences. As someone of the centre right I disagree with even more of what Corbyn says than I did of IDS. But they were both unpleasant distortions and extremes.
Agree with most of that but Osborne has cut inheritance and income tax and public spending as a share of gdp
Just in case anybody here was not watching "Who Do You Think You Are" last night, Frank Gardner of the BBC is a great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandson of King William the Conqueror.
31 generations in 933 years. So 30 years per generation. So "once in a generation"...
Exactly. Next time out I want my grandchildren (yet unborn) pounding the streets for the Union, not me.
Has the Labour 'brand' suffered more than the Tory 'brand'?
It has not. Alistair Campbell deliberately and cynically wrecked the tory brand. Ever since, the only thing the Tories could sell was 'competence'. Admittedly, they have been reasonable at selling it, but that was mostly because there was a grain in truth in their relative competence.
In the last two GEs, with very two poor leaders, all Labour voters were trusting the Labour brand. They were not voting on the capability of the potential PM.
The next Labour leader is very likely to be in place before 2020. He'll only need to worry about himself----his brand is fine.
It has been fine. It may remain fine, but it isn't certain to do so, so they should be careful.
The numbers indicate Labour may well lose in London next year. Should that happen Corbyn is toast. Whether that helps revive Labour is another matter.
Poor old Nick Palmer's attempts to put a gloss on the horrific findings of the poll indicate that the party may well now be a lost cause and that something else will have to emerge to take its place.
Everyone I meet tells me Nick's a nice man - he clearly is a pleasant individual from the way he conducts himself on here. His educational qualifications and career history, not to mention his choice of hobbies, show him to be an intelligent man as well.
So why does he post such utterly moronic stuff on Corbyn?
I'd suggest that Nick's comments are indicative of a Labour party that will not regards Corbyn as toast if Khan loses. My guess is that the greater majority of the blame will land on the candidate (and rightly so, as mayoral elections are more about the candidate than the party).
Next years London and Scottish elections are the only real electoral test until the 2019 Euros. There are local elections too, but those tend to impact more on activists than on the wider population. Chances are that if Jezza survives next year that he will survive to 2020.
On the personal poularity rating, I expect this to drop further as the scales drop from the eyes of supporters. Jezza is not going to suddenly change and develop PR skills.
IDS made gains in local elections and even a few in Scotland in 2003 too. It was coming third in the Brent East by election behind Labour and the LDs that toppled him and it would be Labour coming third in a by election behind the Tories and UKIP which would likely topple Corbyn.
Not so many by elections though. It would need one in Bolsover going to the Tories or Kippers to get Corbyn out, and even then I am not sure.
Besides London and Scotland, Labour are by no means assured of keeping an overall majority in Wales and are highly likely to lose seats in the local elections in England (the equivalent round was in 2012 when Labour were riding high). Next May could be a grim round of election results for Labour, giving the ABCs their pretext to move.
Things can change quickly in politics but Labour should be under no illusions – things are serious and Labour needs to do something about it fast.
.
.
Labour is currently an order of magnitude more bat-shit crazy than the IDS Tory party.
To be honest I am not sure. I for one would not have voted for an IDS led Tory party. It isn't just the credibility of the leader, its the credibility of a party that chooses such a leader.
The Tory party that chose IDS was old, intolerant, obsessed with Europe, rigid in its thinking and much more interested in itself than it was in the country as a whole. A Corbyn led Labour party seems out of touch on many important issues but over the generality I would say they are in the same ballpark.
In what way are current Tory policies different to when IDS was leader? Genuine question.
Sorry I went to bed.
The Conservative party of the IDS era was, in my eyes, a very different beast from the Cameron led party of 2015.
It was a party that still really believed in s28. Cameron's government introduced Gay Marriage.
It was a
It was a party that was very judgemental about single parents and those on benefits. We don't hear that unpleasant nonsense anymore.
It was a party who really had not come to terms with ethnic minorities and frankly gave the impression that they wished they were not here. Again that is no longer the case although there is still work to do.
It was of course a party that was obsessed by the EU which is why Ken Clarke was not leading it. The growth of UKIP has undoubtedly rebalanced the party to the centre.
The reality is that the IDS led party was a creation of Blair. He had taken all the central ground and pushed the Tory party to the right in an attempt to differentiate itself. Cameron and Osborne learned those lessons well and have done the same to Labour. That is why I think there are more similarities between the IDS era and the Corbyn era than differences. As someone of the centre right I disagree with even more of what Corbyn says than I did of IDS. But they were both unpleasant distortions and extremes.
Corbyn is much further away from the centre-ground than IDS was.
WRT your other points, I think there are plenty of benefit claimants, single parents, and BME voters who think this government hates them (however unfair that perception is).
Things can change quickly in politics but Labour should be under no illusions – things are serious and Labour needs to do something about it fast.
.
.
Labour is currently an order of magnitude more bat-shit crazy than the IDS Tory party.
To be honest I am not sure. I for one would not have voted for an IDS led Tory party. It isn't just the credibility of the leader, its the credibility of a party that chooses such a leader.
The Tory party that chose IDS was old, intolerant, obsessed with Europe, rigid in its thinking and much more interested in itself than it was in the country as a whole.
In what way are current Tory policies different to when IDS was leader? Genuine question.
Sorry I went to bed.
The Conservative party of the IDS era was, in my eyes, a very different beast from the Cameron led party of 2015.
It was a party that still really believed in s28. Cameron's government introduced Gay Marriage.
It was a party that thought all that green, climate change stuff was just a conspiracy to tie down business and that the answer to everything was deregulation. Whilst there are still elements who believe that that has not been the policy.
It was a party that was obsessed with cutting taxes as the solution to pretty much all the government's ills. The Coalition and this government obviously inherited a different and horrendous situation but they have increased taxes to maintain public spending in real terms.
It was a party that was very judgemental about single parents and those on benefits. We don't hear that unpleasant nonsense anymore.
It was a party who really had not come to terms with ethnic minorities and frankly gave the impression that they wished they were not here. Again that is no longer the case although there is still work to do.
It was of course a party that was obsessed by the EU which is why Ken Clarke was not leading it. The growth of UKIP has undoubtedly rebalanced the party to the centre.
The reality is that the IDS led party was a creation of Blair. He had taken all the central ground and pushed the Tory party to the right in an attempt to differentiate itself. Cameron and Osborne learned those lessons well and have done the same to Labour. That is why I think there are more similarities between the IDS era and the Corbyn era than differences. As someone of the centre right I disagree with even more of what Corbyn says than I did of IDS. But they were both unpleasant distortions and extremes.
I took a look at the Tory manifesto before the election and compared it to that of 2005 and 2001.
Things can change quickly in politics but Labour should be under no illusions – things are serious and Labour needs to do something about it fast.
.
.
Labour is currently an order of magnitude more bat-shit crazy than the IDS Tory party.
.
In what way are current Tory policies different to when IDS was leader? Genuine question.
Sorry I went to bed.
The Conservative party of the IDS era was, in my eyes, a very different beast from the Cameron led party erything was deregulation. Whilst there are still elements who believe that that has not been the policy.
It was a party that was obsessed with cutting taxes as the solution to pretty much all the government's ills. The Coalition and this government obviously inherited a different and horrendous situation but they have increased taxes to maintain public spending in real terms.
It was a party that was very judgemental about single parents and those on benefits. We don't hear that unpleasant nonsense anymore.
It was a party who really had not come to terms with ethnic minorities and frankly gave the impression that they wished they were not here. Again that is no longer the case although there is still work to do.
It was of course a party that was obsessed by the EU which is why Ken Clarke was not leading it. The growth of UKIP has undoubtedly rebalanced the party to the centre.
The reality is that the IDS led party was a creation of Blair. He had taken all the central ground and pushed the Tory party to the right in an attempt to differentiate itself. Cameron and Osborne learned those lessons well and have done the same to Labour. That is why I think there are more similarities between the IDS era and the Corbyn era than differences. As someone of the centre right I disagree with even more of what Corbyn says than I did of IDS. But they were both unpleasant distortions and extremes.
Agree with most of that but Osborne has cut inheritance and income tax and public spending as a share of gdp
Has the Labour 'brand' suffered more than the Tory 'brand'?
It has not. Alistair Campbell deliberately and cynically wrecked the tory brand. Ever since, the only thing the Tories could sell was 'competence'. Admittedly, they have been reasonable at selling it, but that was mostly because there was a grain in truth in their relative competence.
In the last two GEs, with very two poor leaders, all Labour voters were trusting the Labour brand. They were not voting on the capability of the potential PM.
The next Labour leader is very likely to be in place before 2020. He'll only need to worry about himself----his brand is fine.
Surely the Tory brand has always been about being competent, rather than nice.
The numbers indicate Labour may well lose in London next year. Should that happen Corbyn is toast. Whether that helps revive Labour is another matter.
Poor old Nick Palmer's attempts to put a gloss on the horrific findings of the poll indicate that the party may well now be a lost cause and that something else will have to emerge to take its place.
Everyone I meet tells me Nick's a nice man - he clearly is a pleasant individual from the way he conducts himself on here. His educational qualifications and career history, not to mention his choice of hobbies, show him to be an intelligent man as well.
So why does he post such utterly moronic stuff on Corbyn?
I'd suggest that Nick's comments are indicative of a Labour party that will not regards Corbyn as toast if Khan loses. My guess is that the greater majority of the blame will land on the candidate (and rightly so, as mayoral elections are more about the candidate than the party).
Next years London and Scottish elections are the only real electoral test until the 2019 Euros. There are local elections too, but those tend to impact more on activists than on the wider population. Chances are that if Jezza survives next year that he will survive to 2020.
On the personal poularity rating, I expect this to drop further as the scales drop from the eyes of supporters. Jezza is not going to suddenly change and develop PR skills.
IDS made gains in local elections and even a few in Scotland in 2003 too. It was coming third in the Brent East by election behind Labour and the LDs that toppled him and it would be Labour coming third in a by election behind the Tories and UKIP which would likely topple Corbyn.
Not so many by elections though. It would need one in Bolsover going to the Tories or Kippers to get Corbyn out, and even then I am not sure.
There were only 3 by elections under IDS in Ipswich where the Tories were second in Ogmore where Plaid were challengers and then Brent which was the catalyst for the challenge. If Labour come behind UKIP in a northern seat or a marginal they have held Corbyn will definitely be challenged
Things can change quickly in politics but Labour should be under no illusions – things are serious and Labour needs to do something about it fast.
.
.
snip
The Tory party that chose IDS was old, intolerant, obsessed with Europe, rigid in its thinking and much more interested in itself than it was in the country as a whole.
In what way are current Tory policies different to when IDS was leader? Genuine question.
Sorry I went to bed.
The Conservative party of the IDS era was, in my eyes, a very different beast from the Cameron led party of 2015.
It was a party that still really believed in s28. Cameron's government introduced Gay Marriage.
It was a party that thought all that green, climate change stuff was just a conspiracy to tie down business and that the answer to everything was deregulation. Whilst there are still elements who believe that that has not been the policy.
It was a party that was obsessed with cutting taxes as the solution to pretty much all the government's ills. The Coalition and this government obviously inherited a different and horrendous situation but they have increased taxes to maintain public spending in real terms.
It was a party that was very judgemental about single parents and those on benefits. We don't hear that unpleasant nonsense anymore.
It was a party who really had not come to terms with ethnic minorities and frankly gave the impression that they wished they were not here. Again that is no longer the case although there is still work to do.
It was of course a party that was obsessed by the EU which is why Ken Clarke was not leading it. The growth of UKIP has undoubtedly rebalanced the party to the centre.
The reality is that the IDS led party was a creation of Blair. He had taken all the central ground and pushed the Tory party to the right in an attempt to differentiate itself. Cameron and Osborne learned those lessons well and have done the same to Labour. That is why I think there are more similarities between the IDS era and the Corbyn era than differences. As someone of the centre right I disagree with even more of what Corbyn says than I did of IDS. But they were both unpleasant distortions and extremes.
I took a look at the Tory manifesto before the election and compared it to that of 2005 and 2001.
Besides London and Scotland, Labour are by no means assured of keeping an overall majority in Wales and are highly likely to lose seats in the local elections in England (the equivalent round was in 2012 when Labour were riding high). Next May could be a grim round of election results for Labour, giving the ABCs their pretext to move.
Jeremy Corbyn really needs Sadiq Khan to win.
But the electoral system in Wales seems to work in stitching up the country for Labour in a way it did not in Scotland.
Even if Labour drop to 27-28 - and they won't drop further - they'll still be in power, because Plaid, the Lib Dems, Tories and UKIP just won't tango.
Besides London and Scotland, Labour are by no means assured of keeping an overall majority in Wales and are highly likely to lose seats in the local elections in England (the equivalent round was in 2012 when Labour were riding high). Next May could be a grim round of election results for Labour, giving the ABCs their pretext to move.
Jeremy Corbyn really needs Sadiq Khan to win.
Labour will hold Wales and Corbyn will get huge leads in metropolitan councils next year as well as the London Assembly
Has the Labour 'brand' suffered more than the Tory 'brand'?
It has not. Alistair Campbell deliberately and cynically wrecked the tory brand. Ever since, the only thing the Tories could sell was 'competence'. Admittedly, they have been reasonable at selling it, but that was mostly because there was a grain in truth in their relative competence.
In the last two GEs, with very two poor leaders, all Labour voters were trusting the Labour brand. They were not voting on the capability of the potential PM.
The next Labour leader is very likely to be in place before 2020. He'll only need to worry about himself----his brand is fine.
Surely the Tory brand has always been about being competent, rather than nice.
Besides London and Scotland, Labour are by no means assured of keeping an overall majority in Wales and are highly likely to lose seats in the local elections in England (the equivalent round was in 2012 when Labour were riding high). Next May could be a grim round of election results for Labour, giving the ABCs their pretext to move.
Jeremy Corbyn really needs Sadiq Khan to win.
But the electoral system in Wales seems to work in stitching up the country for Labour in a way it did not in Scotland.
Even if Labour drop to 27-28 - and they won't drop further - they'll still be in power, because Plaid, the Lib Dems, Tories and UKIP just won't tango.
I missed the Wales assembly. That could be a real test for Corbyn. If another heartland goes then that could pile on the pressure. Its a system of constituencies and lists much like Holyrood isn't it?
Comments
I think you underestimate how much parents invest emotionally and financially in their children.
The Government needs to crack down on the civil service doing this sort of thing. The man in question should be demoted.
It is, though, a sop to those who think we should care about "the poor". Why that means being more generous to Roxy the options trader (whose immigrant dad was a cleaner) or Priscilla the globe-trotting human relations consultant (whose parents had been quite old when they'd had her and been on a lower retirement income by the time she was at college) while being harsh on Georgina the rather more moderately paid speech therapist (whose mum had just been promoted to headteacher when G started uni, and who was forced into early medical retirement due to stress three years later) goodness only knows.
HEALTH WARNING FOR PEOPLE OF OVEREXPANSIVE CREDULITY: the following examples are entirely made up! I admit this, for I am not IDS incarnate, but I have admitted it too late, and it is possible several of you will have died of stress from realising this fact only after you have formed a deep and meaningful emotional bond with Georgina et alii from the scant case studies I have provided, only for me to heartily dash your plans for elopement with Roxy, oral exam with Georgina or a human capital evaluation session with Priscilla. I apologise for the fatal inconvenience.
* subject to skepticism I have explained below, but I'm playing devil's advocate here. You should play devil's advocate more often. You really, really should. It's quite a fun game, when you get into it, but you learn a hell of a lot from the exercise.
Honestly, it's embarrassing. Also, see-through document wallets should simply be banned throughout the civil service. That's just an accident waiting to happen.
It's the Mogg !
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/sanders-surge-new-hampshire-214043
As for who pays more, it all depends on the details though - whether there is an age or time limit, what the rates and thresholds are, what exemptions exist.
On your household income point: you are of course exactly correct. I'd just let the Tarquins have more money on their student loan tab. If they got a good graduate job then they'd have to pay it back after all - and the interest on it should discourage them from taking it out unnecessarily in the first place. If they can't pay it back, that's only because Tarquin turns out to be a relatively poor graduate anyway, in which case, fair do's. (just checked a dictionary, the apostrophe is correct, apparently. Madness and scandal on a Thursday night.) If Tarquin, or Roxy, is 18 and legally an independent adult, I'm not convinced of the virtue of conflating his tax-and-benefits status with that of his parents. It's demeaning and infantilising for one thing.
(As for the devil's advocate thing: seriously, you should try it.)
This doesn't necessarily matter as much as Keiran suggests. It's a pity if 36% of the population have a negative view of you, but you're not going to get over 64% anyway. What matters is what proportion actually like you. I agree with Keiran's comments on Labour's image, but I'd argue that actually Corbyn is raising Labour's vote from the lacklustre 30ish that it would be if we had a colourless leader with few likes or dislikes.
Whether that will strengthen, reverse or disappear, who knows - though we may know more in a week or two.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/family-demography/young-adults-living-with-parents/2013/sty-young-adults.html
I'll try being devil's advocate one day
I think Keiran's stronger point is on the "brand contamination" which is clearly a strategy that Tory spinners will be working on. If those figures are "sticky" than Labour are left without a good exit strategy if the current experiment fails.
I am looking at a 80:19:1 % split here. But what do I know? I put money on Millaband forming a coalition.
I'm particularly concerned about treating the independence of a young person as a kind of legal fiction to be conveniently ignored by subsuming them into a wider household. You want to be careful where you'd heading with that.
Married couple, finances and property entirely intertwined. Economically it's two adults going out to work separately, but a single household.
Hubbie earns 100k, wife earns 20k. (Switch genders around if you like but this is the more common permutation. Relatively few high earning women.)
Versus
Hubbie earns 60k, wife earns 60k
Your starter for 10: Which household pays more tax under current system?
Your bonus question for deep philosophical contemplation: Which household should pay more tax? Historically, why would feminists have concerns about this?* (Hint: subsuming a woman to be effectively an adjunct of her man.) You need to also consider second-order effects; how would taxing on a household basis change the marginal tax rates faced by the couple, and how would it likely change their working patterns? Do we start chucking stay-at-home kids into the equation?
* Not just historic feminists either. This concept of tax linkage reared its head with the married couples allowance debate, for instance, which allows some transfer of personal allowance. Feminist response to this was not, shall we say, universally positive - though obviously this had a lot to do with criticism of the patriarchal concept of marriage, rather than "household" assessment per se.
Like someone else on here - Sandy, perhaps? - I also find myself surprisingly warming a little to Osborne lately. "High wage, low tax, low welfare" - and implicitly, "high skill" - is the closest I've seen to a positive vision from the Tory party since the traffic cones helpline, and if that sounds like a back-handed compliment it probably is. (The notion of the interface between state and individual to resemble information-rich and responsive consumer services was actually a Big Idea, and no doubt would these days be wrapped up in sexier attire - e-government, or Systems Thinking perhaps.) With "low welfare" he comes perilously close to admitting his government want to kick the poor in the balls then BBQ their children, but at least he is being honest about it, which earns him some bonus marks from me. [A certain level of sarcasm has been strategically employed in this paragraph. But I honestly reckon there's more to that lad than the haircut.]
Adding Satisfied + Dissatisfied:
Foot: 44
Kinnock: 46
Major: 59
Smith: 42
Blair: 50
Hague: 25
IDS: 30
Howard: 43
Cameron: 48
Brown: 56
Miliband: 63
Corbyn: 69
I would have expected figures more in the IDS or Hague range - around 30% having a view - but no, 7 out of 10 have already made their mind up.
Lord Mandelson has advised Labour Party members unhappy at the election of Jeremy Corbyn not to be in a hurry to see him replaced as leader. - The peer argues Mr Corbyn has to demonstrate his "unelectability" at the polls before facing a challenge.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34355545
Whilst it clearly irks some posters on PB that a significant section of the electorate want to vote for a socialist, that does not change the reality that they do. An establishment campaign that demonstrates that there is no chance of their views ever being fairly represented will eventually undermine the legitimacy of that establishment and of liberal democracy itself.
Mr. Corbyn should be treated with respect not only out of courtesy, though that would be decent, but out of self interest. The hysterical hatred being demonstrated by some who post here may gratify the partisan but it is part of a dangerous process that may undermine democracy.
I am over sixty and have never voted Labour.
I don't hate Corbyn, but I do not respect him. I do not respect his views, I do not respect his 'friends', and I do not respect many of his policies.
Asking me to 'respect' Corbyn when he is, in my mind, so utterly unworthy of respect, is in itself treating me with a certain lack of respect.
I do respect the position of LOTO, but he is only a temporary incumbent of that position.
Only 4 more years of this "its different" "he is energising the base" "lots of non-voters coming to vote" "ed is authentic" "baby eating posh boys out of touch"....
No matter what the facts are. Can we create a name for these folk? Factdeniers? Leftieostriches? Delusionallefties?
Respect has to be earned - and little Corbyn has done so far has earned any - and as for his historic posturing with the murderers of my friend I doubt he will ever overcome that.
We've gone from euro: wait & see, to euro: not in the next parliament, to euro: never, to no euro ever and no EU constitution, to "things will not rest here", to active renegotiation of powers and an EU referendum on basic membership.
And now over half the party base and a sizeable chunk of the MPs at Westminster want to quit the whole EU altogether.
Poor old Nick Palmer's attempts to put a gloss on the horrific findings of the poll indicate that the party may well now be a lost cause and that something else will have to emerge to take its place.
People weren't ready to listen to the Conservative Party on very much at all, but on the euro, we did get an airing. Because it was recognised it was of fundamental importance to the future governance of the whole country.
The trouble was: the Conservative Party itself was still going through internal debate on the matter itself, fuelled by the broader post-1997 trauma, that made the party look split.
That's all over now. Europhiles no longer meaningfully exist in the Conservative Party.
I suspect that as long as Labour attack Cameron for being ‘out of touch’ and posh – rather than attack on the substance of his perceived competence – I suspect that they won’t get very far either
It's not just Cameron either - as in all probability he won't lead the Tories into the next election anyway - it's the Conservatives in general. Leaders can and do poll ahead or behind their parties but in general the two will move roughly in parallel. The Conservatives as a whole are probably seen as 'out of touch' and 'posh' almost by default. Indeed, in the table above, 48% say they understand the problems facing Britain - hence 52% disagree or don't know - yet 56% agree that they're fit to govern, implying some overlap where people believe the Tories are competent yet ignorant. Quite how these people think good policy is therefore made is something of a mystery.
Although it's not. They don't think in that detail. The 'understand the issues' is an image thing; the 'fit to govern' is an experience one, and hence the more potent. There'll be more undecided voters who say 'they might come from a different world but they get the job done' than say 'they won't be any good but they're my kind of people'. There are, obviously, many who do vote on precisely that basis but they also always vote the same way so for dynamic purposes are essentially irrelevant; what matters is how the swing voters react.
However, Kieran misses one point in the above sentence: you can only attack someone's competence (or indeed, any other achievement, quality or characteristic) from a position of strength. If a known fraudster has a go at someone else for misleading through omission, it simply highlights their own greater failing. Likewise, to attack the government's competence requires Labour to have credible answers on what it would do. While Labour is now 'different' (indeed, it's notable that *both* parties' scores have gone up by about the same sizable margin), they really need to be the right kind of different to get a hearing.
I don't see any easy solution for Labour. Corbyn is leader but there is - as Mike pointed out the other day - a massive gulf between Corbyn's supporters and Labour voters, never mind swing voters. How he straddles the two groups he needs to keep or get on board is a massive imponderable. If he takes up the image advice, he risks becoming just another politician - and worse, a betrayer of his cause and supporters - but if he doesn't, he risks an electoral annihilation worse than Foot's. Tricky.
It is clear that Labour seems far better that the Tories at getting their man into the spotlight. Both Miliband and Corbyn had more people express an opinion about them than did about Brown, and he'd been Chancellor for ten years at the time. But whether it's a well-formed opinion is another matter.
So why does he post such utterly moronic stuff on Corbyn?
NPEXMP dabbled with the dark side in his youth. He hasn't moved nor is likely to from the hard left to Blairite despite how he posts on here.
NP is a hard left voter and supports Corbyn up to the hilt and is just displaying his true colours.. Just allow for it in the way you read what he writes.
@Jonathan is pro-Labour, anti-Corbyn.
I can see why "no left turn" would be appropriate right now
On the personal poularity rating, I expect this to drop further as the scales drop from the eyes of supporters. Jezza is not going to suddenly change and develop PR skills.
The Corbyn earthquake – how Labour was shaken to its foundations
The inside story – from the candidates and advisers – of how Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour leadership campaign delivered the political shock of a generation
http://gu.com/p/4ck8a?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
The Conservative party of the IDS era was, in my eyes, a very different beast from the Cameron led party of 2015.
It was a party that still really believed in s28. Cameron's government introduced Gay Marriage.
It was a party that thought all that green, climate change stuff was just a conspiracy to tie down business and that the answer to everything was deregulation. Whilst there are still elements who believe that that has not been the policy.
It was a party that was obsessed with cutting taxes as the solution to pretty much all the government's ills. The Coalition and this government obviously inherited a different and horrendous situation but they have increased taxes to maintain public spending in real terms.
It was a party that was very judgemental about single parents and those on benefits. We don't hear that unpleasant nonsense anymore.
It was a party who really had not come to terms with ethnic minorities and frankly gave the impression that they wished they were not here. Again that is no longer the case although there is still work to do.
It was of course a party that was obsessed by the EU which is why Ken Clarke was not leading it. The growth of UKIP has undoubtedly rebalanced the party to the centre.
The reality is that the IDS led party was a creation of Blair. He had taken all the central ground and pushed the Tory party to the right in an attempt to differentiate itself. Cameron and Osborne learned those lessons well and have done the same to Labour. That is why I think there are more similarities between the IDS era and the Corbyn era than differences. As someone of the centre right I disagree with even more of what Corbyn says than I did of IDS. But they were both unpleasant distortions and extremes.
Quelle surprise. I wonder what the left's reaction will be, given some of them considered the result of a democratic election cause for protests. Boo hiss, the people voted wrongly!
They go straight down to the PLP office and do something stupid. The people that are around on a Monday morning are the London lot – and for fuck’s sake, it’s the home of the left, it’s all the fucking mayoral candidates and deputy leader candidates.”
Quelle surprise (as Mr Dancer would say).
Don't unseat him now, wait until it has been proved beyond all doubt that he is a useless git...then unseat him.
I mean has he not heard of discounting?
Whilst I have always been something of a lukewarm BOO-er, I think what you are saying is about right
Despite every sane voice saying Lab should ditch him. They can turn if they want to.
Makes perfect sense to me.
The end paragraph was intriguing. We may not have seen the last of Liz Kendall, she seems to have cast some sort of spell on Jezza.
“I think he’s wrong, but he has his analysis and he sticks with it,” said Kendall, who developed a personal rapport with Corbyn during the long campaign – and greeted him with a hug last week after his first appearance at prime minister’s questions.
It has not. Alistair Campbell deliberately and cynically wrecked the tory brand. Ever since, the only thing the Tories could sell was 'competence'. Admittedly, they have been reasonable at selling it, but that was mostly because there was a grain in truth in their relative competence.
In the last two GEs, with very two poor leaders, all Labour voters were trusting the Labour brand. They were not voting on the capability of the potential PM.
The next Labour leader is very likely to be in place before 2020. He'll only need to worry about himself----his brand is fine.
Personally, I blame the electorate for the Conservative victory.
Take it Harry Hayfield is on a well-deserved holiday?
Jeremy Corbyn really needs Sadiq Khan to win.
WRT your other points, I think there are plenty of benefit claimants, single parents, and BME voters who think this government hates them (however unfair that perception is).
What struck me most were the similarities.
Even if Labour drop to 27-28 - and they won't drop further - they'll still be in power, because Plaid, the Lib Dems, Tories and UKIP just won't tango.
@antifrank
I missed the Wales assembly. That could be a real test for Corbyn. If another heartland goes then that could pile on the pressure. Its a system of constituencies and lists much like Holyrood isn't it?