Oakeshott is clearly a shoddy journalist that shouldn't get work again. You don't make up lurid allegations against the Prime Minister based on one man's dinner party anecdote and don't stand up your story.
In fact, Downing Street has said nothing about the anecdote on the record, although Conservative sources have described the book’s claims as “utter nonsense” and “untrue”.'
Precisely. I read that as a confirmation if anything.
A denial and a reference to a denial is a confirmation in your eyes?
What denial?
Where is he on the record as making these denials? Link?
The link was above. He is on the record saying "as for the specific issue raised, a very specific denial was made a week ago". There is no way to pretend that it is not a real denial or not on the record, he can't deny he made that denial when he has said the denial was made.
So he's not on the record making them, thanks. So he has obliquely referred to a denial he never made. You can call it what you like - I call it mealy mouthed equivocation that would in no way be necessary or wise if the incident had never occurred.
You want to believe the thing with the pig is true. You ignore all denials of it being true. Your call. But it says more about your refusal to engage with the reality-based universe...
Labour working itself into a fury about Redcar today.
Isn't the main reason steel making is uneconomical expensive energy??
ie a direct result of their green policies??
Indeed. This can all be traced back to one Ed Milliband, and his time as Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. Add cement and brick manufacture, and electricity generation to the mix of businesses that were seriously clobbered at the same time.
Oakeshott is clearly a shoddy journalist that shouldn't get work again. You don't make up lurid allegations against the Prime Minister based on one man's dinner party anecdote and don't stand up your story.
Really? Since you've linked to the piece:
'Asked about his feelings towards Ashcroft and the pig allegation, Cameron said: “Everyone can see why the book was written and everyone can see straight through it. As for the specific issue raised, a very specific denial was made a week ago and I’ve nothing to add to that.”
In fact, Downing Street has said nothing about the anecdote on the record, although Conservative sources have described the book’s claims as “utter nonsense” and “untrue”.'
Precisely. I read that as a confirmation if anything.
A denial and a reference to a denial is a confirmation in your eyes?
What denial?
The denial he is referencing that have been quoted as saying the claims are "utter nonsense" and "untrue".
He is on the record as saying it is "utter nonsense" and "untrue" and has "nothing more to add" - if that is a confirmation in your eyes it says more about you than it does about him.
Where is he on the record as making these denials? Link?
The link was above. He is on the record saying "as for the specific issue raised, a very specific denial was made a week ago". There is no way to pretend that it is not a real denial or not on the record, he can't deny he made that denial when he has said the denial was made.
So he's not on the record making them, thanks. So he has obliquely referred to a denial he never made. You can call it what you like - I call it mealy mouthed equivocation that would in no way be necessary or wise if the incident had never occurred.
Yes he has. You can try and nitpick all you want but when the PM says he's denied it he's denied it. A denial is a denial.
It is also not a tax on banks at all but on transactions
So if I buy £1k worth of shares/funds then a tobin tax of 0.5% means I pay 5% tax on the transaction - I'm guessing stamp duty isn't going to be scrapped under Corbyn either ?
Oakeshott is clearly a shoddy journalist that shouldn't get work again. You don't make up lurid allegations against the Prime Minister based on one man's dinner party anecdote and don't stand up your story.
Really? Since you've linked to the piece:
'Asked about his feelings towards Ashcroft and the pig allegation, Cameron said: “Everyone can see why the book was written and everyone can see straight through it. As for the specific issue raised, a very specific denial was made a week ago and I’ve nothing to add to that.”
In fact, Downing Street has said nothing about the anecdote on the record, although Conservative sources have described the book’s claims as “utter nonsense” and “untrue”.'
Precisely. I read that as a confirmation if anything.
A denial and a reference to a denial is a confirmation in your eyes?
What denial?
The denial he is referencing that have been quoted as saying the claims are "utter nonsense" and "untrue".
He is on the record as saying it is "utter nonsense" and "untrue" and has "nothing more to add" - if that is a confirmation in your eyes it says more about you than it does about him.
Where is he on the record as making these denials? Link?
The link was above. He is on the record saying "as for the specific issue raised, a very specific denial was made a week ago". There is no way to pretend that it is not a real denial or not on the record, he can't deny he made that denial when he has said the denial was made.
So he's not on the record making them, thanks. So he has obliquely referred to a denial he never made. You can call it what you like - I call it mealy mouthed equivocation that would in no way be necessary or wise if the incident had never occurred.
Oh dear - don't you think life is too short for this nonsense?
Oakeshott is clearly a shoddy journalist that shouldn't get work again. You don't make up lurid allegations against the Prime Minister based on one man's dinner party anecdote and don't stand up your story.
In fact, Downing Street has said nothing about the anecdote on the record, although Conservative sources have described the book’s claims as “utter nonsense” and “untrue”.'
Precisely. I read that as a confirmation if anything.
A denial and a reference to a denial is a confirmation in your eyes?
What denial?
Where is he on the record as making these denials? Link?
The link was above. He is on the record saying "as for the specific issue raised, a very specific denial was made a week ago". There is no way to pretend that it is not a real denial or not on the record, he can't deny he made that denial when he has said the denial was made.
So he's not on the record making them, thanks. So he has obliquely referred to a denial he never made. You can call it what you like - I call it mealy mouthed equivocation that would in no way be necessary or wise if the incident had never occurred.
You want to believe the thing with the pig is true. You ignore all denials of it being true. Your call. But it says more about your refusal to engage with the reality-based universe...
Today is the anniversary of William the Conqueror's invasion in 1066. Just sayin'
Illegal immigrant !
I think you get off if you bring your own country...
The most shameful moment in the history of England.
We were conquered by a French Bastard.
Not true Frenchies. I grant you they spoke french, lived in france and served the french king, but they were still more Norse than french, damnit!
IIRC hadn't Harold had to march up North to thrash the Scots (Battle of Stamford Bridge) before immediately returning South.
Vikings, not Scots. Otherwise correct.
Harold pulled off a pretty impressive feat of generalship simply taking the field at Hastings after what he'd been through over the previous two months. I wouldn't regard 1066 as any more shameful than any of the other invasions that England suffered during the earlier part of the eleventh centuries. The only thing that marked it as being particularly different was that it was the last successful one - and that could only be seen in retrospect.
Cue someone bringing up William of Orange in 'successful invasions'
Successful contested invasion then!
So Sedgemoor and Boyne don't count as "contesting" then?
Oakeshott is clearly a shoddy journalist that shouldn't get work again. You don't make up lurid allegations against the Prime Minister based on one man's dinner party anecdote and don't stand up your story.
Really? Since you've linked to the piece:
'Asked about his feelings towards Ashcroft and the pig allegation, Cameron said: “Everyone can see why the book was written and everyone can see straight through it. As for the specific issue raised, a very specific denial was made a week ago and I’ve nothing to add to that.”
In fact, Downing Street has said nothing about the anecdote on the record, although Conservative sources have described the book’s claims as “utter nonsense” and “untrue”.'
Precisely. I read that as a confirmation if anything.
A denial and a reference to a denial is a confirmation in your eyes?
What denial?
The denial he is referencing that have been quoted as saying the claims are "utter nonsense" and "untrue".
He is on the record as saying it is "utter nonsense" and "untrue" and has "nothing more to add" - if that is a confirmation in your eyes it says more about you than it does about him.
Where is he on the record as making these denials? Link?
The link was above. He is on the record saying "as for the specific issue raised, a very specific denial was made a week ago". There is no way to pretend that it is not a real denial or not on the record, he can't deny he made that denial when he has said the denial was made.
So he's not on the record making them, thanks. So he has obliquely referred to a denial he never made. You can call it what you like - I call it mealy mouthed equivocation that would in no way be necessary or wise if the incident had never occurred.
Oh dear - don't you think life is too short for this nonsense?
Some people wont be satisfied until Dave states (at PMQs): "I did not put my John Thomas in a dead pig". And even then they wont believe him.
Why they feel it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister PM to personally deny such a pathetic, unsubstantiated, revenge-motivated smear by a journalist with 'previous' on this front is utterly beyond me.
And as for the lack of such a statement being 'confirmation' - oh dear, oh dear, oh dear....
Mr Dancer, I know little of these ancient times. May I suggest however if you are interested in Romans Carthaginians and Seleucids that you look up the 'To The Strongest' ruleset for that era. They give a good game.
Meanwhile, it seems that Jeremy Corbyn has started well in Wales:
@election_data: @YouGov poll for ITV Wales (change since June): Lab 42% (+5) Con 26% (-2) UKIP 16% (+1) PC 10% (-2) LD 5% (+1)
My brain is not on top form thanks to staying up all night to watch the Moon. Shouldn't all the + and - figures add up to zero? If Labour, UKIP and the Lib Dems are up 7 between them shouldn't the losers be down by 7?
Meanwhile, it seems that Jeremy Corbyn has started well in Wales:
@election_data: @YouGov poll for ITV Wales (change since June): Lab 42% (+5) Con 26% (-2) UKIP 16% (+1) PC 10% (-2) LD 5% (+1)
My brain is not on top form thanks to staying up all night to watch the Moon. Shouldn't all the + and - figures add up to zero? If Labour, UKIP and the Lib Dems are up 7 between them shouldn't the losers be down by 7?
The non-Marxist bit of Labour has completely lost heart, its bearings and its head. I don't see anyone with the wit to do any of the hard thinking that's needed. Until that changes Labour will continue to revel in its very old Labour comfort zone.
Labour's challenge is that in the 1970s/1980s there were some very serious/engaged moderates willing to fight for what they believed in. The current generation are exhausted/useless/retired. And I can't imagine any *new* moderates chosing to join Labour for the first time right now.
Every child should be taught about the negative impact and suffering caused by the British Empire, Jeremy Corbyn has suggested.
Mr Corbyn told young Labour supporters that the national curriculum should be re-written to teach children about how the Empire expanded "at the expense of people".
He also suggested that the curriculum should be changed so that every child should be taught about the importance of the trade unions, his biggest backers.
I take it he's not been to a school recently - this was even widely covered in my day, and I left school over a decade ago. Same here - every thing about the empire was taught to me as an example of how it was terrible (bizarrely, this included criticism of sticking around to try to resolve matters in one place, but also not sticking aroun to try to resolve matters when we hadn't). Not that I doubt that empires lead to a lot of suffering, they are about dominating other areas of course, but it was a bit one note nevertheless.
Fun fact: it's said Alexander, when asked, bequeathed the empire to the strongest. However, the Greek for 'strongest' is strikingly similar to Craterus, his foremost general who was unfortunately absent (having been sent west to take over Macedonia's vice-regency) when Alexander died.
These anti-gentrification 'protests' aren't protests. They're mobs, conjured by criminals.
Meanwhile, it seems that Jeremy Corbyn has started well in Wales:
@election_data: @YouGov poll for ITV Wales (change since June): Lab 42% (+5) Con 26% (-2) UKIP 16% (+1) PC 10% (-2) LD 5% (+1)
My brain is not on top form thanks to staying up all night to watch the Moon. Shouldn't all the + and - figures add up to zero? If Labour, UKIP and the Lib Dems are up 7 between them shouldn't the losers be down by 7?
It is also not a tax on banks at all but on transactions
So if I buy £1k worth of shares/funds then a tobin tax of 0.5% means I pay 5% tax on the transaction - I'm guessing stamp duty isn't going to be scrapped under Corbyn either ?
Everything I've read suggests that it will be in addition to stamp duty. Either the transaction will be made hugely uneconomic - and won't happen - or it will be taken out of the saver's return i.e. directly affecting your savings. But - like Brown's attack on pensions (through changes to dividend tax credits, incomprehensible to most people) - the effects won't be seen for years for most people and if jobs are lost in the City, who cares - other than governments wanting the tax revenues, of course.
The only glimmer of light is that McDonnell is talking about implementing globally. Since that will never happen it's a way of kicking it into the long grass while sounding fierce. But the risk is that they do try and implement something or go along with the EU's daft proposal. And - as will all such measures - it's the unintended consequences which get you.
Today is the anniversary of William the Conqueror's invasion in 1066. Just sayin'
Illegal immigrant !
I think you get off if you bring your own country...
The most shameful moment in the history of England.
We were conquered by a French Bastard.
Not true Frenchies. I grant you they spoke french, lived in france and served the french king, but they were still more Norse than french, damnit!
IIRC hadn't Harold had to march up North to thrash the Scots (Battle of Stamford Bridge) before immediately returning South.
Vikings, not Scots. Otherwise correct.
Harold pulled off a pretty impressive feat of generalship simply taking the field at Hastings after what he'd been through over the previous two months. I wouldn't regard 1066 as any more shameful than any of the other invasions that England suffered during the earlier part of the eleventh centuries. The only thing that marked it as being particularly different was that it was the last successful one - and that could only be seen in retrospect.
Cue someone bringing up William of Orange in 'successful invasions'
Successful contested invasion then!
Oh I agree, I just know some don't accept the complexities of the William of Orange situation make it hardly analagous to 1066.
"I fear that the quiet life will win the day, that Corbyn will become entrenched, and that a head-on doctrinal dispute will, as always, be avoided. For a century, fudging the issue has occasionally allowed Labour to build an election-winning, big-tent coalition of progressive voters. Today, that approach guarantees disaster. It will leave Corbyn free to promote his electorally toxic and economically destructive brand of left-wing politics. If that is what happens, Labour’s tent will become a lot smaller and the party will cease to be fit for purpose."
Corbyn is not by nature a compromiser. His followers will at some stage deselect one or more sitting MPs. I suspect that it will depend on 'events', badly losing a series of elections or too many sitting MPs being deselected may bring things to a head. If and when enough of them see that they won't win by getting rid of Corbyn they may jump ship. The fact and memory of the SDP may delay things, but I think that it's either a successful coup against Corbyn or a new party. Kellner is right on this.
For Labour rightwingers' own personal ambitions, the best route would be the Liberal Unionist route, breaking away to become a separate party with a distinct tradition but in an electoral tie-up with the Conservatives.
However, I believe that far from being arch-pragmatists, most Labour rightwingers are too ideological to contemplate such a course of action. They're more likely to wear a Never Kissed A Tory t shirt than get into bed with them.
Why would they want to have an electoral tie-up with a party whose policies they do not agree with? That makes absolutely no sense to me. I may have no time for Corbyn Labour, but that does not mean I believe the Tories have any of the solutions to this country's long term problems.
Len McCluskey, general secretary of Unite, has made these somewhat controversial comments to conference just now:
"Let me make one thing clear, whatever the law says, I will be on the picket line when Unite members are on strike and I will not be wearing the armbands with the red triangle, like the trade union prisoners. Remember that's what the Nazis did to trade unionists in the concentration camps at Dachau."
What's happening in Redcar? Last time the steel industry colllapsed there they did something very outrageous and elected a LD.
Pretty good bloke, too by all accounts. Sadly he didn’t defend his seat. Whether he’d have survived the tsunami anyway is, of course, doubtful. Big swing against his successor.
Labour 42% (+5) Conservative: 26% (-2) UKIP: 16% (+1) Plaid Cymru: 10% (-2) Liberal Democrats: 5% (+1) Greens: 2% (-1)
/
Assembly constituency part Labour: 39% (+4) Conservatives: 23% (no change) Plaid Cymru: 18% (-2) UKIP: 13% (-1) Liberal Democrats: 6% (+1) Greens: 2% (-1)
List part Labour: 34% (+2) Conservatives: 24% (+2) Plaid Cymru: 18% (-2) UKIP: 14% (no change) Liberal Democrats: 5% (no change) Greens: 4% (no change) Others: 2% (-1) Flag Quote
Re: Labour 'bounce'.
1. Have ITV changed their methodology since the GE as they and all other posters underestimated the Con Vote in Wales and the RoUK.
2. How much of this Labour 'bounce' will show up in marginal seats as opposed to the Labour heartlands.
3. Why is the con vote apparently holding up much better for the , more imminent, welsh assembly election than for a GE 5 years distant.
1. Don't know
2. Very little
3. 42% is not a high vote by historic standard for Welsh Labour. Specifically, though, people are likely unhappy with the performance of the Senedd.
Those Assembly numbers would probably result in something like:-
Labour 28 Con 15 Plaid 10 UKIP 6 Lib Dem 1.
I could easily see Labour coming in a few seats lower and UKIP a few higher. Labour under Corbyn appeal to the non-voter, and who knows how many will actually turn out to vote in such a meaningless election like a the Welsh Assembly.
Len McCluskey, general secretary of Unite, has made these somewhat controversial comments to conference just now:
"Let me make one thing clear, whatever the law says, I will be on the picket line when Unite members are on strike and I will not be wearing the armbands with the red triangle, like the trade union prisoners. Remember that's what the Nazis did to trade unionists in the concentration camps at Dachau."
That wasn't the only invocation of Godwin's law today. Someone else said that if Cameron got his Bill of rights through it would be like herding people into the gas chambers.
"I fear that the quiet life will win the day, that Corbyn will become entrenched, and that a head-on doctrinal dispute will, as always, be avoided. For a century, fudging the issue has occasionally allowed Labour to build an election-winning, big-tent coalition of progressive voters. Today, that approach guarantees disaster. It will leave Corbyn free to promote his electorally toxic and economically destructive brand of left-wing politics. If that is what happens, Labour’s tent will become a lot smaller and the party will cease to be fit for purpose."
Corbyn is not by nature a compromiser. His followers will at some stage deselect one or more sitting MPs. I suspect that it will depend on 'events', badly losing a series of elections or too many sitting MPs being deselected may bring things to a head. If and when enough of them see that they won't win by getting rid of Corbyn they may jump ship. The fact and memory of the SDP may delay things, but I think that it's either a successful coup against Corbyn or a new party. Kellner is right on this.
For Labour rightwingers' own personal ambitions, the best route would be the Liberal Unionist route, breaking away to become a separate party with a distinct tradition but in an electoral tie-up with the Conservatives.
However, I believe that far from being arch-pragmatists, most Labour rightwingers are too ideological to contemplate such a course of action. They're more likely to wear a Never Kissed A Tory t shirt than get into bed with them.
Why would they want to have an electoral tie-up with a party whose policies they do not agree with? That makes absolutely no sense to me. I may have no time for Corbyn Labour, but that does not mean I believe the Tories have any of the solutions to this country's long term problems.
I referenced their personal ambitions.
You could, however, make a principled case for doing this. You might argue that given the choice between their current party being taken over by a old-style socialist command-and-control leadership and a free market-based Conservative party that at present pays insufficient regard to the needs of the poorest, their views could be most fully represented in a new grouping aligned with the Conservatives that is constantly pressing them to consider not just what is economically required but also what is socially essential.
It wouldn't particularly persuade me but it might persuade themselves if they wanted to be persuadable. I don't think that they do.
antifrank - thanks for this excellent article and the extensive quotes from Bagehot:
"[The dignified aspects] raise the army, though they do not win the battle"
That is the clearest explanation of the dignified vs efficient aspects of government I have read.
Put in the context of today's jargon, perhaps it is restated as "The dignified parts are our culture - it is how we want to be and what we will die to defend."
The Prime Minister said: 'The Conservative party won 37 per cent at the last election and I can’t see any reason why we can’t get up to 40 or 43 per cent like Mrs Thatcher at the next election'
Today is the anniversary of William the Conqueror's invasion in 1066. Just sayin'
Illegal immigrant !
I think you get off if you bring your own country...
The most shameful moment in the history of England.
We were conquered by a French Bastard.
Not true Frenchies. I grant you they spoke french, lived in france and served the french king, but they were still more Norse than french, damnit!
IIRC hadn't Harold had to march up North to thrash the Scots (Battle of Stamford Bridge) before immediately returning South.
Vikings, not Scots. Otherwise correct.
Harold pulled off a pretty impressive feat of generalship simply taking the field at Hastings after what he'd been through over the previous two months. I wouldn't regard 1066 as any more shameful than any of the other invasions that England suffered during the earlier part of the eleventh centuries. The only thing that marked it as being particularly different was that it was the last successful one - and that could only be seen in retrospect.
Cue someone bringing up William of Orange in 'successful invasions'
Successful contested invasion then!
So Sedgemoor and Boyne don't count as "contesting" then?
Sedgemoor was 1685, not 1689/90, and was an internal rebellion not an external invasion. The Boyne was Ireland, not England. So no, they don't.
Hilary Benn live on DP signalling the end of Shadow Cabinet collective responsibility
Well Hilary how do you feel that your boss does not trust you to be the right person to represent him on the NEC? To which Hilary replied that he welcomed having one less meeting to go to. Delusional and an act of appeasement. Is there any humiliation that Hilary would not swallow?
The non-Marxist bit of Labour has completely lost heart, its bearings and its head. I don't see anyone with the wit to do any of the hard thinking that's needed. Until that changes Labour will continue to revel in its very old Labour comfort zone.
Labour's challenge is that in the 1970s/1980s there were some very serious/engaged moderates willing to fight for what they believed in. The current generation are exhausted/useless/retired. And I can't imagine any *new* moderates chosing to join Labour for the first time right now.
So how do they recover from this?
I don't know. Social democracy has lost its bearings since 1989 - 1991. Its decline was masked in the UK by Blair's electoral success, largely built on very shallow foundations. The Third Way turned out to be meaningless waffle.
The Left has either attached itself to old shibboleths (EU good, almost regardless of what it does, even when what it does is austerity) or to Islamic fascists and a my enemy's enemy is my friend view of the world (the Corbynistas) or to a vain hope that being a bit like the Tories but sounding nicer and more caring (the Cooper furrowed brow tendency) will be enough or has thought that reliving the glory days of the 1945-1951 government (the Burnham tendency) will revive it. And none of these will. Not least because they are all fundamentally nostalgic; they are not even an attempt to use old principles in a new setting.
No-one is thinking about social democracy in a much more globalised world. Should they accept it? Or seek to mitigate or limit its effects? What does this mean for the nation state? What is the state for? And how should it do what it should be doing?
I asked Mr Palmer this a while back and he said that he thought that the reason this had not been done was because it was "too hard". I am remembering so I hope I have got this right. Well, honestly! Too hard indeed. That's just pathetic. Unless the Left in Britain does some hard thinking it will end up in the mess it's in pretty much all round the world.
Conferences are for the party itself, granted, but sometimes I think they should just decide to have bits in private and other bits not - I know that'd look bad in this modern age, but most of the time they don't want to display actual debate (unless within agreed parameters) so they don't appear divided, and they want to pitch to voters at large, which you cannot always do if you are pitching to an internal party audience who will lap up silly rhetoric much easier, so you might as well have a real conference behind closed doors and then the stagemanaged stuff for public consumption.
I see McDonnell is also going to bash BTL - I hope Michael Meacher doesn't mind!
This is one area where labour could strike a chord with the electorate. There are far, far too many hard working young people for whom a home of their own is completely out of reach.
Hilary Benn live on DP signalling the end of Shadow Cabinet collective responsibility
Well Hilary how do you feel that your boss does not trust you to be the right person to represent him on the NEC? To which Hilary replied that he welcomed having one less meeting to go to. Delusional and an act of appeasement. Is there any humiliation that Hilary would not swallow?
He will grin and bear it for as long as he remains Shadow Foreign Secretary Benn is the only viable alternative to Corbyn before 2020
I see McDonnell is also going to bash BTL - I hope Michael Meacher doesn't mind!
This is one area where labour could strike a chord with the electorate. There are far, far too many hard working young people for whom a home of their own is completely out of reach.
Only trouble is: Osborne has already done it in the 2015 budget - staged introduction 2017-20.
I see McDonnell is also going to bash BTL - I hope Michael Meacher doesn't mind!
This is one area where labour could strike a chord with the electorate. There are far, far too many hard working young people for whom a home of their own is completely out of reach.
Although the government has already made some tax changes to make BTL less attractive. i don't know the exact details but I've seen enough complaining to know it must be meaningful.
McDonnell " A successful and fair economy cannot be created without the full involvement of its workforce.
That’s why restoring trade union rights and extending them to ensure workers are involved in determining the future of their companies is critical to securing the skills development and innovation to compete in a globalised economy.
We will promote modern alternative public, co-operative, worker controlled and genuinely mutual forms of ownership."
Hilary Benn live on DP signalling the end of Shadow Cabinet collective responsibility
Well Hilary how do you feel that your boss does not trust you to be the right person to represent him on the NEC? To which Hilary replied that he welcomed having one less meeting to go to. Delusional and an act of appeasement. Is there any humiliation that Hilary would not swallow?
He will grin and bear it for as long as he remains Shadow Foreign Secretary Benn is the only viable alternative to Corbyn before 2020
Well we are about to hear the real thing but the interview on R4 this morning for McDonnell was just embarrassing.
Labour are committed to eliminating the deficit. How?
Well by investing (spending) more. This will generate growth apparently which will generate more taxes. And increase the deficit of course.
Has he not been paying any attention at all? We have had considerable growth and very little new taxes. It is completely dishonest.
Labour will also increase taxes on business. Is that not incompatible with growth? Apparently not.
Labour will also increase taxes on the wealthy. Completely the same as the last 6 years then.
Labour also still committed to People's QE, apparently.
Ed Balls was so much more coherent than this. This was undergraduate stuff, more first year than second.
Presumably the Leading Economists drafted in never went to skool even.
As one of them is Danny Blanchflower (more than 4 million unemployed under teh Tories - oops sorry got it wrong), the others are fools to be associated with it.. Zero credibility based on Blanchflower.
Conferences are for the party itself, granted, but sometimes I think they should just decide to have bits in private and other bits not - I know that'd look bad in this modern age, but most of the time they don't want to display actual debate (unless within agreed parameters) so they don't appear divided, and they want to pitch to voters at large, which you cannot always do if you are pitching to an internal party audience who will lap up silly rhetoric much easier, so you might as well have a real conference behind closed doors and then the stagemanaged stuff for public consumption.
Indeed, useful debate has to allow challenges to the status quo, including currently unacceptable ideas. That has to be done in private, otherwise 'debate' is self-censored and little more than affirmation-seeking.
Hilary Benn live on DP signalling the end of Shadow Cabinet collective responsibility
Well Hilary how do you feel that your boss does not trust you to be the right person to represent him on the NEC? To which Hilary replied that he welcomed having one less meeting to go to. Delusional and an act of appeasement. Is there any humiliation that Hilary would not swallow?
He will grin and bear it for as long as he remains Shadow Foreign Secretary Benn is the only viable alternative to Corbyn before 2020
I don't know. Social democracy has lost its bearings since 1989 - 1991. Its decline was masked in the UK by Blair's electoral success, largely built on very shallow foundations. The Third Way turned out to be meaningless waffle.
The Left has either attached itself to old shibboleths (EU good, almost regardless of what it does, even when what it does is austerity) or to Islamic fascists and a my enemy's enemy is my friend view of the world (the Corbynistas) or to a vain hope that being a bit like the Tories but sounding nicer and more caring (the Cooper furrowed brow tendency) will be enough or has thought that reliving the glory days of the 1945-1951 government (the Burnham tendency) will revive it. And none of these will. Not least because they are all fundamentally nostalgic; they are not even an attempt to use old principles in a new setting.
No-one is thinking about social democracy in a much more globalised world. Should they accept it? Or seek to mitigate or limit its effects? What does this mean for the nation state? What is the state for? And how should it do what it should be doing?
I asked Mr Palmer this a while back and he said that he thought that the reason this had not been done was because it was "too hard". I am remembering so I hope I have got this right. Well, honestly! Too hard indeed. That's just pathetic. Unless the Left in Britain does some hard thinking it will end up in the mess it's in pretty much all round the world.
There is so much for the left to be doing.
Our public housing is a disgrace. It needs massive investment and imagination if the mistakes of the past are not to be repeated.
Our education system is a disgrace for all but a very small, largely self perpetuating elite. The lack of opportunity for those from disadvantaged backgrounds is immoral and inefficient.
So many of our public services are a disgrace. And it is the poor and disadvantaged that need them. If the better off really required them and did not have their escape hatches we would not put up with it.
Although there have been some improvements in inequality, largely as result of the recession, the level of inequality in our society stretches its cohesion to the limits.
I don't see any credible answers to any of these issues from Labour since Blair and he talked a lot more about them than actually addressing them. Do lefty politicians from their comfortable middle class homes and posh universities simply find this stuff boring? Or are they frightened of taking on the vested interests that stand in their way?
Earlier this month, Blanchflower successfully secured an apology from the BBC for saying he supported Corbyn, insisting: “I made clear I wasn’t backing Corbynomics“.
Fed up with people accusing him of backing Jezza, Blanchflower spelled it out in City AM: “I am not a Corbyn supporter and don’t share many of his views“.
He said he was opposed to Corbyn’s flagship economic policy of ‘People’s QE’.
And he even described claims he supports Corbyn as “ridiculous“.
Well we are about to hear the real thing but the interview on R4 this morning for McDonnell was just embarrassing.
Labour are committed to eliminating the deficit. How?
Well by investing (spending) more. This will generate growth apparently which will generate more taxes. And increase the deficit of course.
Has he not been paying any attention at all? We have had considerable growth and very little new taxes. It is completely dishonest.
Labour will also increase taxes on business. Is that not incompatible with growth? Apparently not.
Labour will also increase taxes on the wealthy. Completely the same as the last 6 years then.
Labour also still committed to People's QE, apparently.
Ed Balls was so much more coherent than this. This was undergraduate stuff, more first year than second.
Presumably the Leading Economists drafted in never went to skool even.
As one of them is Danny Blanchflower (more than 4 million unemployed under teh Tories - oops sorry got it wrong), the others are fools to be associated with it.. Zero credibility based on Blanchflower.
The non-Marxist bit of Labour has completely lost heart, its bearings and its head. I don't see anyone with the wit to do any of the hard thinking that's needed. Until that changes Labour will continue to revel in its very old Labour comfort zone.
Labour's challenge is that in the 1970s/1980s there were some very serious/engaged moderates willing to fight for what they believed in. The current generation are exhausted/useless/retired. And I can't imagine any *new* moderates chosing to join Labour for the first time right now.
So how do they recover from this?
They need some real smart people to think out a logical argued case for a modern social democratic party . That sounds a tall order but in reality, anyone with any smarts would look at the successful ones round the world and copy them.. Germany and Sweden have them...
Well we are about to hear the real thing but the interview on R4 this morning for McDonnell was just embarrassing.
Labour are committed to eliminating the deficit. How?
Well by investing (spending) more. This will generate growth apparently which will generate more taxes. And increase the deficit of course.
Has he not been paying any attention at all? We have had considerable growth and very little new taxes. It is completely dishonest.
Labour will also increase taxes on business. Is that not incompatible with growth? Apparently not.
Labour will also increase taxes on the wealthy. Completely the same as the last 6 years then.
Labour also still committed to People's QE, apparently.
Ed Balls was so much more coherent than this. This was undergraduate stuff, more first year than second.
Did they not get a bit more than that at the election? Something like 37%?
I looked it up. UK GDP per capita is three times what it was when I was a child. We are mostly all inconceivably wealthy compared to my childhood, growing up in a council house (with outside loo!) in a poor village in the south Staffs coalfield.
Labour are reverting to an old tune that will ring very hollow with the over 50s.
The non-Marxist bit of Labour has completely lost heart, its bearings and its head. I don't see anyone with the wit to do any of the hard thinking that's needed. Until that changes Labour will continue to revel in its very old Labour comfort zone.
Labour's challenge is that in the 1970s/1980s there were some very serious/engaged moderates willing to fight for what they believed in. The current generation are exhausted/useless/retired. And I can't imagine any *new* moderates chosing to join Labour for the first time right now.
So how do they recover from this?
They need some real smart people to think out a logical argued case for a modern social democratic party . That sounds a tall order but in reality, anyone with any smarts would look at the successful ones round the world and copy them.. Germany and Sweden have them...
Well we are about to hear the real thing but the interview on R4 this morning for McDonnell was just embarrassing.
Labour are committed to eliminating the deficit. How?
Well by investing (spending) more. This will generate growth apparently which will generate more taxes. And increase the deficit of course.
Has he not been paying any attention at all? We have had considerable growth and very little new taxes. It is completely dishonest.
Labour will also increase taxes on business. Is that not incompatible with growth? Apparently not.
Labour will also increase taxes on the wealthy. Completely the same as the last 6 years then.
Labour also still committed to People's QE, apparently.
Ed Balls was so much more coherent than this. This was undergraduate stuff, more first year than second.
Did they not get a bit more than that at the election? Something like 37%?
I looked it up. UK GDP per capita is three times what it was when I was a child. We are mostly all inconceivably wealthy compared to my childhood, growing up in a council house (with outside loo!) in a poor village in the south Staffs coalfield.
Labour are reverting to an old tune that will ring very hollow with the over 50s.
Well we are about to hear the real thing but the interview on R4 this morning for McDonnell was just embarrassing.
Labour are committed to eliminating the deficit. How?
Well by investing (spending) more. This will generate growth apparently which will generate more taxes. And increase the deficit of course.
Has he not been paying any attention at all? We have had considerable growth and very little new taxes. It is completely dishonest.
Labour will also increase taxes on business. Is that not incompatible with growth? Apparently not.
Labour will also increase taxes on the wealthy. Completely the same as the last 6 years then.
Labour also still committed to People's QE, apparently.
Ed Balls was so much more coherent than this. This was undergraduate stuff, more first year than second.
Did they not get a bit more than that at the election? Something like 37%?
I looked it up. UK GDP per capita is three times what it was when I was a child. We are mostly all inconceivably wealthy compared to my childhood, growing up in a council house (with outside loo!) in a poor village in the south Staffs coalfield.
Labour are reverting to an old tune that will ring very hollow with the over 50s.
I remember an outside loo in army quarters in Winchester as a child. And ice on the inside of the windows with no CH. And often no car. And 1 phone box at the end of the road for the whole street. And vegetables not in tins only at certain times of the year. There are still a lot of problems, I have listed some and there are others but the idea we have genuine poverty for those who have not dropped out of society altogether is frankly daft.
Well we are about to hear the real thing but the interview on R4 this morning for McDonnell was just embarrassing.
Labour are committed to eliminating the deficit. How?
Well by investing (spending) more. This will generate growth apparently which will generate more taxes. And increase the deficit of course.
Has he not been paying any attention at all? We have had considerable growth and very little new taxes. It is completely dishonest.
Labour will also increase taxes on business. Is that not incompatible with growth? Apparently not.
Labour will also increase taxes on the wealthy. Completely the same as the last 6 years then.
Labour also still committed to People's QE, apparently.
Ed Balls was so much more coherent than this. This was undergraduate stuff, more first year than second.
Did they not get a bit more than that at the election? Something like 37%?
I looked it up. UK GDP per capita is three times what it was when I was a child. We are mostly all inconceivably wealthy compared to my childhood, growing up in a council house (with outside loo!) in a poor village in the south Staffs coalfield.
Labour are reverting to an old tune that will ring very hollow with the over 50s.
Seema Mulhotra, "It might be £20bn, it might be £3bn"
Well we are about to hear the real thing but the interview on R4 this morning for McDonnell was just embarrassing.
Labour are committed to eliminating the deficit. How?
Well by investing (spending) more. This will generate growth apparently which will generate more taxes. And increase the deficit of course.
Has he not been paying any attention at all? We have had considerable growth and very little new taxes. It is completely dishonest.
Labour will also increase taxes on business. Is that not incompatible with growth? Apparently not.
Labour will also increase taxes on the wealthy. Completely the same as the last 6 years then.
Labour also still committed to People's QE, apparently.
Ed Balls was so much more coherent than this. This was undergraduate stuff, more first year than second.
Did they not get a bit more than that at the election? Something like 37%?
I looked it up. UK GDP per capita is three times what it was when I was a child. We are mostly all inconceivably wealthy compared to my childhood, growing up in a council house (with outside loo!) in a poor village in the south Staffs coalfield.
Labour are reverting to an old tune that will ring very hollow with the over 50s.
Seema Mulhotra, "It might be £20bn, it might be £3bn"
I don't know. Social democracy has lost its bearings since 1989 - 1991. Its decline was masked in the UK by Blair's electoral success, largely built on very shallow foundations. The Third Way turned out to be meaningless waffle.
The Left has either attached itself to old shibboleths (EU good, almost regardless of what it does, even when what it does is austerity) or to Islamic fascists and a my enemy's enemy is my friend view of the world (the Corbynistas) or to a vain hope that being a bit like the Tories but sounding nicer and more caring (the Cooper furrowed brow tendency) will be enough or has thought that reliving the glory days of the 1945-1951 government (the Burnham tendency) will revive it. And none of these will. Not least because they are all fundamentally nostalgic; they are not even an attempt to use old principles in a new setting.
There is so much for the left to be doing.
Our public housing is a disgrace. It needs massive investment and imagination if the mistakes of the past are not to be repeated.
Our education system is a disgrace for all but a very small, largely self perpetuating elite. The lack of opportunity for those from disadvantaged backgrounds is immoral and inefficient.
So many of our public services are a disgrace. And it is the poor and disadvantaged that need them. If the better off really required them and did not have their escape hatches we would not put up with it.
Although there have been some improvements in inequality, largely as result of the recession, the level of inequality in our society stretches its cohesion to the limits.
I don't see any credible answers to any of these issues from Labour since Blair and he talked a lot more about them than actually addressing them. Do lefty politicians from their comfortable middle class homes and posh universities simply find this stuff boring? Or are they frightened of taking on the vested interests that stand in their way?
Those are all issues that an intelligent, left-wing party could get its teeth into.
I'll add another. The tendency for a class of men and women at the top of the private and public sectors to enjoy all the benefits of capitalism, while experiencing none of the risks. There does seem to be a level at which no degree of incompetence retards one's career.
"There is, as we know, a vast supply of very expensive new-build property coming to market in London. The FT put the number at 54,000 planned or under construction “in the priciest areas of the capital… close to or above the £1m mark”, while in the same areas last year, just 3,900 homes were sold for more than £1m."
Well we are about to hear the real thing but the interview on R4 this morning for McDonnell was just embarrassing.
Labour are committed to eliminating the deficit. How?
Well by investing (spending) more. This will generate growth apparently which will generate more taxes. And increase the deficit of course.
Has he not been paying any attention at all? We have had considerable growth and very little new taxes. It is completely dishonest.
Labour will also increase taxes on business. Is that not incompatible with growth? Apparently not.
Labour will also increase taxes on the wealthy. Completely the same as the last 6 years then.
Labour also still committed to People's QE, apparently.
Ed Balls was so much more coherent than this. This was undergraduate stuff, more first year than second.
Did they not get a bit more than that at the election? Something like 37%?
I looked it up. UK GDP per capita is three times what it was when I was a child. We are mostly all inconceivably wealthy compared to my childhood, growing up in a council house (with outside loo!) in a poor village in the south Staffs coalfield.
Labour are reverting to an old tune that will ring very hollow with the over 50s.
I remember an outside loo in army quarters in Winchester as a child. And ice on the inside of the windows with no CH. And often no car. And 1 phone box at the end of the road for the whole street. And vegetables not in tins only at certain times of the year. There are still a lot of problems, I have listed some and there are others but the idea we have genuine poverty for those who have not dropped out of society altogether is frankly daft.
Well we are about to hear the real thing but the interview on R4 this morning for McDonnell was just embarrassing.
Labour are committed to eliminating the deficit. How?
Well by investing (spending) more. This will generate growth apparently which will generate more taxes. And increase the deficit of course.
Has he not been paying any attention at all? We have had considerable growth and very little new taxes. It is completely dishonest.
Labour will also increase taxes on business. Is that not incompatible with growth? Apparently not.
Labour will also increase taxes on the wealthy. Completely the same as the last 6 years then.
Labour also still committed to People's QE, apparently.
Ed Balls was so much more coherent than this. This was undergraduate stuff, more first year than second.
Did they not get a bit more than that at the election? Something like 37%?
I looked it up. UK GDP per capita is three times what it was when I was a child. We are mostly all inconceivably wealthy compared to my childhood, growing up in a council house (with outside loo!) in a poor village in the south Staffs coalfield.
Labour are reverting to an old tune that will ring very hollow with the over 50s.
Seema Mulhotra, "It might be £20bn, it might be £3bn"
Seema Mulhotra couldn't answer a the main question: how will Labour get the money to run the new Workers State?
Housing, education and the public services would all be under less strain if net immigration wasn't running at 300,000+ a year.
Just sayin'.
In fairness, both parties are completely at fault for failing to manage immigration. Cameron has had over five years to address the issue and failed miserably.
Of course, Labour have additional points deducted from their score as they did it from malice aforethought.
Teeside Steel has gone kaput. Sad but expected, steel is declining product as new forms of plastics and ultra metals come to the fore. For example, armoured vehicles are now using lighter and stronger means of defence.
Comments
Labour seem to think they have a Divine Right to be one of England's two dominant parties, whatever their policies.
The final Wales YG in May was 39-25. The actual result was 37-27.
Why they feel it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister PM to personally deny such a pathetic, unsubstantiated, revenge-motivated smear by a journalist with 'previous' on this front is utterly beyond me.
And as for the lack of such a statement being 'confirmation' - oh dear, oh dear, oh dear....
So how do they recover from this?
Same here - every thing about the empire was taught to me as an example of how it was terrible (bizarrely, this included criticism of sticking around to try to resolve matters in one place, but also not sticking aroun to try to resolve matters when we hadn't). Not that I doubt that empires lead to a lot of suffering, they are about dominating other areas of course, but it was a bit one note nevertheless.
Fun fact: it's said Alexander, when asked, bequeathed the empire to the strongest. However, the Greek for 'strongest' is strikingly similar to Craterus, his foremost general who was unfortunately absent (having been sent west to take over Macedonia's vice-regency) when Alexander died.
These anti-gentrification 'protests' aren't protests. They're mobs, conjured by criminals.
The only glimmer of light is that McDonnell is talking about implementing globally. Since that will never happen it's a way of kicking it into the long grass while sounding fierce. But the risk is that they do try and implement something or go along with the EU's daft proposal. And - as will all such measures - it's the unintended consequences which get you.
The bad news is that he thinks David ("five million unemployed") Blanchflower is a leading economist.
Someone else said that if Cameron got his Bill of rights through it would be like herding people into the gas chambers.
You could, however, make a principled case for doing this. You might argue that given the choice between their current party being taken over by a old-style socialist command-and-control leadership and a free market-based Conservative party that at present pays insufficient regard to the needs of the poorest, their views could be most fully represented in a new grouping aligned with the Conservatives that is constantly pressing them to consider not just what is economically required but also what is socially essential.
It wouldn't particularly persuade me but it might persuade themselves if they wanted to be persuadable. I don't think that they do.
"[The dignified aspects] raise the army, though they do not win the battle"
That is the clearest explanation of the dignified vs efficient aspects of government I have read.
Put in the context of today's jargon, perhaps it is restated as "The dignified parts are our culture - it is how we want to be and what we will die to defend."
Labour are committed to eliminating the deficit. How?
Well by investing (spending) more. This will generate growth apparently which will generate more taxes. And increase the deficit of course.
Has he not been paying any attention at all? We have had considerable growth and very little new taxes. It is completely dishonest.
Labour will also increase taxes on business. Is that not incompatible with growth? Apparently not.
Labour will also increase taxes on the wealthy. Completely the same as the last 6 years then.
Labour also still committed to People's QE, apparently.
Ed Balls was so much more coherent than this. This was undergraduate stuff, more first year than second.
It's like Miliband never left.
To which Hilary replied that he welcomed having one less meeting to go to.
Delusional and an act of appeasement. Is there any humiliation that Hilary would not swallow?
I said earlier it was like 2008 revisited. Talk about Google and Starbucks blah blah.
I see McDonnell is also going to bash BTL - I hope Michael Meacher doesn't mind!
The Left has either attached itself to old shibboleths (EU good, almost regardless of what it does, even when what it does is austerity) or to Islamic fascists and a my enemy's enemy is my friend view of the world (the Corbynistas) or to a vain hope that being a bit like the Tories but sounding nicer and more caring (the Cooper furrowed brow tendency) will be enough or has thought that reliving the glory days of the 1945-1951 government (the Burnham tendency) will revive it. And none of these will. Not least because they are all fundamentally nostalgic; they are not even an attempt to use old principles in a new setting.
No-one is thinking about social democracy in a much more globalised world. Should they accept it? Or seek to mitigate or limit its effects? What does this mean for the nation state? What is the state for? And how should it do what it should be doing?
I asked Mr Palmer this a while back and he said that he thought that the reason this had not been done was because it was "too hard". I am remembering so I hope I have got this right. Well, honestly! Too hard indeed. That's just pathetic. Unless the Left in Britain does some hard thinking it will end up in the mess it's in pretty much all round the world.
This is one area where labour could strike a chord with the electorate. There are far, far too many hard working young people for whom a home of their own is completely out of reach.
Are these homes going to require us to be a hero to live in them?
That’s why restoring trade union rights and extending them to ensure workers are involved in determining the future of their companies is critical to securing the skills development and innovation to compete in a globalised economy.
We will promote modern alternative public, co-operative, worker controlled and genuinely mutual forms of ownership."
Len's paragraph I presume.
It's an open goal for critics.
Our public housing is a disgrace. It needs massive investment and imagination if the mistakes of the past are not to be repeated.
Our education system is a disgrace for all but a very small, largely self perpetuating elite. The lack of opportunity for those from disadvantaged backgrounds is immoral and inefficient.
So many of our public services are a disgrace. And it is the poor and disadvantaged that need them. If the better off really required them and did not have their escape hatches we would not put up with it.
Although there have been some improvements in inequality, largely as result of the recession, the level of inequality in our society stretches its cohesion to the limits.
I don't see any credible answers to any of these issues from Labour since Blair and he talked a lot more about them than actually addressing them. Do lefty politicians from their comfortable middle class homes and posh universities simply find this stuff boring? Or are they frightened of taking on the vested interests that stand in their way?
Labour are reverting to an old tune that will ring very hollow with the over 50s.
If that was true - Osborne would be all over it and splash it on headline grabbing tax cuts.
I'll add another. The tendency for a class of men and women at the top of the private and public sectors to enjoy all the benefits of capitalism, while experiencing none of the risks. There does seem to be a level at which no degree of incompetence retards one's career.
http://moneyweek.com/london-new-build-property-uk-house-prices-top-out/
In particular:
"There is, as we know, a vast supply of very expensive new-build property coming to market in London. The FT put the number at 54,000 planned or under construction “in the priciest areas of the capital… close to or above the £1m mark”, while in the same areas last year, just 3,900 homes were sold for more than £1m."
Just sayin'.
Of course, Labour have additional points deducted from their score as they did it from malice aforethought.