Crikey - some people have ambitions to lead the conservative party -- well l never there is a surprise.
And guess what - the Labour party elect a couple of prize loons to lead them and we can expect the tories to fall over themselves to do the same thing.
But further guess what - a real blinder this - Osborne who has steered the economy wisely has proved a sound campaigner and now has northwest labour politicians dutifully trotting all the way to China in his wake is gong to be seen as a liability by the CPP and the party faithful.
Who would they turn to instead? Why of course! Someone seen as acceptable to such idiots as Liam Fox - well known right winger of this parish who made a total tit of himself when he had a chance to shine (another one!).
You can talk up your chances as much as you like but l do not see anybody winning any bets with that logic.
Classic few words from Dave He really is good at his job.
If you think his job is coming over well in an interview. Which rather seems to be the issue.
No mate. He is the master of the put down. Calm down dear was a classic as enraged the ghastly woman.
s.
s.
Tory Debt OK Labour Debt Time Bomb
"Tory Debt" is debt that would inevitably have been there anyway if Gordon Brown had, by some quirk of the Universe, got re-elected.
Or do Labour think you can convince anyone that the National Debt would have fallen on their watch?
The national debt was falling on Labour's watch -- remember Gordon Brown talking about paying off Tory debt? Until the global financial crisis hit, the national debt was lower under Labour than under the previous Conservative government.
You can keep trotting out that crap. And you will keep losing elections. "Everything in the garden was rosy under Labour's careful management of the economy, until the Yank banks broke the system..." It's bollocks, and the voters know it's bollocks.
I'm not the Labour Party. As I've said over the past five years, Labour needed to have countered the Tory narrative, with newspaper adverts showing that I'm right and you're wrong. For instance, Labour have allowed voters to believe that Tories don't run deficits, when in fact Labour has run more budget surpluses than the Conservatives (leaving aside that we are begging the question of whether surpluses are a good thing -- probably if we had one, most Conservatives would be appalled).
One impressively sparky member of the 2015 intake remarked: “When I was elected I was worried that I would be labelled hard left. Now I seem to be centre-right.” Although sponsored by one of the most leftwing of the trade unions, this MP reported that she was already getting some trouble from activists in her constituency party for displaying insufficient levels of dedication to Corbynism
Andrew Rawnsley is halfway there. But he doesn't seem to appreciate that Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell are following a clear strategy which makes all of their behaviour fall into place.
Once you realise that their primary goal is not to win the next election, everything falls into place.
What is their primary goal? Or should I read that as "their primary goal is to not win the next election"? ;-)
Their goal is to take over Labour via classic tactics of entryism, get rid of Blairites, install their own guys eveywhere, seize the levers of power like the NEC, shift the entire party decisively and fiercely Left, so eventually the only significant Opposition party in the UK (or rUK) is quasi-Marxist, thus giving the commies a real and decent chance at actual power some time in the 2020s, if they can get a plausible leader.
It's unlikely to work, but you can see why they are trying it. Enormous prize for the Trots.
It's not entryism, quite the opposite - removing the blairite entryists who had manoeuvred themselves into a stranglehold on the party and returning the party to moderate social democratic policies that the vast majority of its members and voters want. There's absolutely nothing 'quasi-Marxist' being suggested by anyone involved. Certainly you are correct in that for most people involved like me, the main thing is not necessarily winning the next election, but making sure that when the Tories inevitably mess up a proper social democratic Labour Party is waiting to take advantage, not Tory Plan B.
Classic few words from Dave He really is good at his job.
If you think his job is coming over well in an interview. Which rather seems to be the issue.
No mate. He is the master of the put down. Calm down dear was a classic as enraged the ghastly woman.
Pity the joke's on the British people as the national debt has doubled and the balance of trade is through the floor. Perhaps Dave could aim some put downs at looming economic disaster, see if that works.
I have never seen anybody make a convincing case for how Osborne could have stopped the national debt from doubling, given the economy and the trajectory of the national debt he inherited. Please, be the one that enlightens us.
Tory Debt OK Labour Debt Time Bomb
"Tory Debt" is debt that would inevitably have been there anyway if Gordon Brown had, by some quirk of the Universe, got re-elected.
Or do Labour think you can convince anyone that the National Debt would have fallen on their watch?
Was Labour in power during 1992-97 ? Debt doubled in that period.
GE2015 - Farron becomes leader: 7 polls - Tory lead over Labour 9%
Farron becomes leader - Corbyn becomes leader: 7 polls - Tory lead over Labour 9%
Corbyn becomes leader - Now: 7 polls - Tory lead over Labour 7.3%
Tory lead over Labour at the election 6. 5% so a 0.4% swing to the Tories since Corbyn became Labour leader
More precisely, 0.85% swing from Tory to Labour since Corbyn became leader.
Corbyn so bad he gets a minuscule honeymoon - possibly a drop in the margin for error. We are watching in slow motion the political death of the Labour party.
One impressively sparky member of the 2015 intake remarked: “When I was elected I was worried that I would be labelled hard left. Now I seem to be centre-right.” Although sponsored by one of the most leftwing of the trade unions, this MP reported that she was already getting some trouble from activists in her constituency party for displaying insufficient levels of dedication to Corbynism
Andrew Rawnsley is halfway there. But he doesn't seem to appreciate that Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell are following a clear strategy which makes all of their behaviour fall into place.
Once you realise that their primary goal is not to win the next election, everything falls into place.
What is their primary goal? Or should I read that as "their primary goal is to not win the next election"? ;-)
Their goal is to take over Labour via classic tactics of entryism, get rid of Blairites, install their own guys eveywhere, seize the levers of power like the NEC, shift the entire party decisively and fiercely Left, so eventually the only significant Opposition party in the UK (or rUK) is quasi-Marxist, thus giving the commies a real and decent chance at actual power some time in the 2020s, if they can get a plausible leader.
It's unlikely to work, but you can see why they are trying it. Enormous prize for the Trots.
It's not entryism, quite the opposite - removing the blairite entryists who had manoeuvred themselves into a stranglehold on the party and returning the party to moderate social democratic policies that the vast majority of its members and voters want. There's absolutely nothing 'quasi-Marxist' being suggested by anyone involved. Certainly you are correct in that for most people involved like me, the main thing is not necessarily winning the next election, but making sure that when the Tories inevitably mess up a proper social democratic Labour Party is waiting to take advantage, not Tory Plan B.
A simple graph would show national debt being paid off by Labour, which is where I came in.
No, a simple graph would show national debt being moved off the books. By January 2007 the national debt had risen to £500 billion for the first time. But there was also an additional £215 billion of PFI commitments meaning the real level of debt was over 40% higher than the official figures.
Stuart Lancaster overhauls England for next match in World Cup.
Morgan and Patel probably would have played better than England's back row.
One thing that struck me about the rugby was the sheer ineptitude of the scheduling by the organisers and ITV. They should have had Australia/England, the most attractive match of the group, and very possibly the decider, at the end of the group stage. That way even if England went out they would at least have kept the nation's interest, and the tills ringing, for a crucial further week - and not had this horrible sense of deflation after just a fortnight.
Instead, England's campaign is going to end with a ludicrous dead rubber against Uruguay, adding to the melancholy vibe surrounding the tournament.
Just stupid blazered incompetence, at a very basic level.
If Sepp Blatter would have organised this, England, Australia, Wales and Fiji [ 4 out of the top 9 teams ] would not have been in the same group. The balls in the jar would have come out like that !
A simple graph would show national debt being paid off by Labour, which is where I came in.
No, a simple graph would show national debt being moved off the books. By January 2007 the national debt had risen to £500 billion for the first time. But there was also an additional £215 billion of PFI commitments meaning the real level of debt was over 40% higher than the official figures.
The economy has improved greatly after just five years, with the best growth among developed economies. Simultaneously, we have almost reached full employment, cut the deficit from 11% to 6% of GDP, substantially reduced corporate and household debt, liberated our education system from the dead hand of socialism and removed the incentives of a life on benefits. And all this while being hamstrung by the Liberal Democrats in coalition - just think what we can achieve with a majority!
I love your use of the word 'we' - I never know quite who you mean by it.
I expect the following of my Government: -Cut wasteful and non-essential spending - whole departments like DCMS we could well do without. Ringfenced DFID another example. Not to actively contribute to the furore over 'austerity' by exaggerating the scale of modest cuts, but to make sure the country is aware of the parlous state of our finances and the necessity for us all to do something about it. -Protect vital British industries where necessary, even if it means stepping in to prevent takeovers. Tories here want us to spend £100 billion on dealing with one single potential threat 40 years down the line. What about the threat of us having no steel production? What about the threat of us having little food production? Surely these are more serious considerations than being able to nuke someone when we're already toast? -Serious cuts in red tape for companies, especially SMEs to allow them to compete with their larger rivals. Including ludicrous green targets. -Focus on 'on-shoring' manufacturing, services, and commodities (like coal) wherever possible -No foreign conflicts without a direct British interest -Paint an honest picture about the financial outcomes of our EU membership, rather than concealing costs to bolster the case for remaining in
Off topic, to our authory types. I was watching tv this morning and yet another trailer came on for a show road-tripping route 66. Question is, is there a good idea in trying to pitch a travel book driving Route 67? And if so, what should I best do?
Classic few words from Dave He really is good at his job.
If you think his job is coming over well in an interview. Which rather seems to be the issue.
No mate. He is the master of the put down. Calm down dear was a classic as enraged the ghastly woman.
Pity the joke's on the British people as the national debt has doubled and the balance of trade is through the floor. Perhaps Dave could aim some put downs at looming economic disaster, see if that works.
You are far too one eyed to accept that your party is responsible for the.mess the Tories are having to clear up. No austerity Corbyyn and his loons would make it infinitely worse than it is... as would have EICAWNBPM .
My party? I'm a former Tory now nominally UKIP supporter. I utterly and completely believe that Labour (I assume that's who you mean) destroyed our economy, I'm just devastated that Dave and Co. have totally failed to even attempt to put it back together again. But never mind, he does make a very good speech and is excellent at looking solemn on State occasions.
The economy has improved greatly after just five years, with the best growth among developed economies. Simultaneously, we have almost reached full employment, cut the deficit from 11% to 6% of GDP, substantially reduced corporate and household debt, liberated our education system from the dead hand of socialism and removed the incentives of a life on benefits. And all this while being hamstrung by the Liberal Democrats in coalition - just think what we can achieve with a majority!
2 million unemployed is light years short of full employment. I recall the outrage in 1972 when unemployment hit 1 million for the first time since World War 2 - Dennis Skinner came close to assaulting Ted Heath in the Commons and the sitting almost had to be suspended.
Depends on reports you look at and lubricant will not meet our long-term energy needs
Depends on what you mean by energy really. If one is talking about electricity generation then oil is barely used in the UK now, never mind in the future. Coal, nuclear and gas provide the overwhelming proportion of our electricity now, what happens when the coal and nuclear stations shut down (as they will) is anyone's guess.
A simple graph would show national debt being paid off by Labour, which is where I came in.
No, a simple graph would show national debt being moved off the books. By January 2007 the national debt had risen to £500 billion for the first time. But there was also an additional £215 billion of PFI commitments meaning the real level of debt was over 40% higher than the official figures.
But selling Royal Mail is OK in reducing debt!
Straw man argument. I have made no comment on selling off Royal Mail and don't know enough detail to know make any comment. What I do know is that John's claims about Labour reducing the debt are rubbish - as I have shown.
GE2015 - Farron becomes leader: 7 polls - Tory lead over Labour 9%
Farron becomes leader - Corbyn becomes leader: 7 polls - Tory lead over Labour 9%
Corbyn becomes leader - Now: 7 polls - Tory lead over Labour 7.3%
Tory lead over Labour at the election 6. 5% so a 0.4% swing to the Tories since Corbyn became Labour leader
More precisely, 0.85% swing from Tory to Labour since Corbyn became leader.
Wrong as the average Tory poll lead since Corbyn took over is 7. 3%, a rise of 0. 8% since the election
Average Tory lead before Corbyn became leader 9%. Afterwards 7.3%.
In anybody's book swing of 0.85% to Labour from Conservative after Corbyn became leader
You can only compare Labour's position under Corbyn to under Miliband, Corbyn may be doing better than leaderless Labour or Harman but he is doing worse on average at this stage than Ed got at the election. The Tories only led by 6. 5% in the actual election and Ed was even closer in the final polls
The economy has improved greatly after just five years, with the best growth among developed economies. Simultaneously, we have almost reached full employment, cut the deficit from 11% to 6% of GDP, substantially reduced corporate and household debt, liberated our education system from the dead hand of socialism and removed the incentives of a life on benefits. And all this while being hamstrung by the Liberal Democrats in coalition - just think what we can achieve with a majority!
I love your use of the word 'we' - I never know quite who you mean by it.
I expect the following of my Government: -Cut wasteful and non-essential spending - whole departments like DCMS we could well do without. Ringfenced DFID another example. Not to actively contribute to the furore over 'austerity' by exaggerating the scale of modest cuts, but to make sure the country is aware of the parlous state of our finances and the necessity for us all to do something about it. -Protect vital British industries where necessary, even if it means stepping in to prevent takeovers. Tories here want us to spend £100 billion on dealing with one single potential threat 40 years down the line. What about the threat of us having no steel production? What about the threat of us having little food production? Surely these are more serious considerations than being able to nuke someone when we're already toast? -Serious cuts in red tape for companies, especially SMEs to allow them to compete with their larger rivals. Including ludicrous green targets. -Focus on 'on-shoring' manufacturing, services, and commodities (like coal) wherever possible -No foreign conflicts without a direct British interest -Paint an honest picture about the financial outcomes of our EU membership, rather than concealing costs to bolster the case for remaining in
These would be a start.
coal? subsidy subsidy subsidy is what you are calling for. nationalisation nationalisation nationalisation. l suggest you join the Labour Party.
Classic few words from Dave He really is good at his job.
If you think his job is coming over well in an interview. Which rather seems to be the issue.
No mate. He is the master of the put down. Calm down dear was a classic as enraged the ghastly woman.
Pity the joke's on the British people as the national debt has doubled and the balance of trade is through the floor. Perhaps Dave could aim some put downs at looming economic disaster, see if that works.
You are far too one eyed to accept that your party is responsible for the.mess the Tories are having to clear up. No austerity Corbyyn and his loons would make it infinitely worse than it is... as would have EICAWNBPM .
My party? I'm a former Tory now nominally UKIP supporter. I utterly and completely believe that Labour (I assume that's who you mean) destroyed our economy, I'm just devastated that Dave and Co. have totally failed to even attempt to put it back together again. But never mind, he does make a very good speech and is excellent at looking solemn on State occasions.
The economy has improved greatly after just five years, with the best growth among developed economies. Simultaneously, we have almost reached full employment, cut the deficit from 11% to 6% of GDP, substantially reduced corporate and household debt, liberated our education system from the dead hand of socialism and removed the incentives of a life on benefits. And all this while being hamstrung by the Liberal Democrats in coalition - just think what we can achieve with a majority!
2 million unemployed is light years short of full employment. I recall the outrage in 1972 when unemployment hit 1 million for the first time since World War 2 - Dennis Skinner came close to assaulting Ted Heath in the Commons and the sitting almost had to be suspended.
Apples and pears. The nature of the workforce and of how unemployment is counted have both changed so much as to make comparisons almost meaningless.
Depends on reports you look at and lubricant will not meet our long-term energy needs
Depends on what you mean by energy really. If one is talking about electricity generation then oil is barely used in the UK now, never mind in the future. Coal, nuclear and gas provide the overwhelming proportion of our electricity now, what happens when the coal and nuclear stations shut down (as they will) is anyone's guess.
Electricity will get a lot more expensive and in some cases the lights will go out. Hopefully the Government will see sense before then and reverse the closures of the coal fired power stations but I am not exactly hopeful at the moment.
We already have very regular power cuts outside urban areas - at least once or twice a week where I live - so much so that I have invested in a UPS to protect my computer equipment.
One impressively sparky member of the 2015 intake remarked: “When I was elected I was worried that I would be labelled hard left. Now I seem to be centre-right.” Although sponsored by one of the most leftwing of the trade unions, this MP reported that she was already getting some trouble from activists in her constituency party for displaying insufficient levels of dedication to Corbynism
Andrew Rawnsley is halfway there. But he doesn't seem to appreciate that Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell are following a clear strategy which makes all of their behaviour fall into place.
Once you realise that their primary goal is not to win the next election, everything falls into place.
What is their primary goal? Or should I read that as "their primary goal is to not win the next election"? ;-)
Their goal is to take over Labour via classic tactics of entryism, get rid of Blairites, install their own guys eveywhere, seize the levers of power like the NEC, shift the entire party decisively and fiercely Left, so eventually the only significant Opposition party in the UK (or rUK) is quasi-Marxist, thus giving the commies a real and decent chance at actual power some time in the 2020s, if they can get a plausible leader.
It's unlikely to work, but you can see why they are trying it. Enormous prize for the Trots.
It's not entryism, quite the opposite - removing the blairite entryists who had manoeuvred themselves into a stranglehold on the party and returning the party to moderate social democratic policies that the vast majority of its members and voters want. There's absolutely nothing 'quasi-Marxist' being suggested by anyone involved. Certainly you are correct in that for most people involved like me, the main thing is not necessarily winning the next election, but making sure that when the Tories inevitably mess up a proper social democratic Labour Party is waiting to take advantage, not Tory Plan B.
So Labour's election winning strategy is to hope the Tories somehow mess it up enough to lose swathes of seats across middle England to a party led by someone who spent his entire conference speak studiously avoiding offering any ideas to people who are not receiving some form of social security.
The fact is that, as your words demonstrate, the Labour party is now not interested in persuading people of anything. Its strategy is to wait for the electors to come to it. Good luck with that.
Damn those Blairite entryists delivering a Labour government that introduced the minimum wage, expanded tax credits, lifted hundreds of thousands of children and pensioners out of poverty, increased spending on schools and hospitals, devolved power to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and so on. Nothing but Red Tory, entryist scum.
Depends on reports you look at and lubricant will not meet our long-term energy needs
Depends on what you mean by energy really. If one is talking about electricity generation then oil is barely used in the UK now, never mind in the future. Coal, nuclear and gas provide the overwhelming proportion of our electricity now, what happens when the coal and nuclear stations shut down (as they will) is anyone's guess.
Classic few words from Dave He really is good at his job.
If you think his job is coming over well in an interview. Which rather seems to be the issue.
No mate. He is the master of the put down. Calm down dear was a classic as enraged the ghastly woman.
s.
s.
Tory Debt OK Labour Debt Time Bomb
"Tory Debt" is debt that would inevitably have been there anyway if Gordon Brown had, by some quirk of the Universe, got re-elected.
Or do Labour think you can convince anyone that the National Debt would have fallen on their watch?
The national debt was falling on Labour's watch -- remember Gordon Brown talking about paying off Tory debt? Until the global financial crisis hit, the national debt was lower under Labour than under the previous Conservative government.
You can keep trotting out that crap. And you will keep losing elections. "Everything in the garden was rosy under Labour's careful management of the economy, until the Yank banks broke the system..." It's bollocks, and the voters know it's bollocks.
I'm not the Labour Party. As I've said over the past five years, Labour needed to have countered the Tory narrative, with newspaper adverts showing that I'm right and you're wrong. For instance, Labour have allowed voters to believe that Tories don't run deficits, when in fact Labour has run more budget surpluses than the Conservatives (leaving aside that we are begging the question of whether surpluses are a good thing -- probably if we had one, most Conservatives would be appalled).
Since World War 2 the UK has run a Budget Surplus in 11 years - 9 of them were under Labour Governments.
Classic few words from Dave He really is good at his job.
If you think his job is coming over well in an interview. Which rather seems to be the issue.
No mate. He is the master of the put down. Calm down dear was a classic as enraged the ghastly woman.
Pity the joke's on the British people as the national debt has doubled and the balance of trade is through the floor. Perhaps Dave could aim some put downs at looming economic disaster, see if that works.
You are far too one eyed to accept that your party is responsible for the.mess the Tories are having to clear up. No austerity Corbyyn and his loons would make it infinitely worse than it is... as would have EICAWNBPM .
My party? I'm a former Tory now nominally UKIP supporter. I utterly and completely believe that Labour (I assume that's who you mean) destroyed our economy, I'm just devastated that Dave and Co. have totally failed to even attempt to put it back together again. But never mind, he does make a very good speech and is excellent at looking solemn on State occasions.
The economy has improved greatly after just five years, with the best growth among developed economies. Simultaneously, we have almost reached full employment, cut the deficit from 11% to 6% of GDP, substantially reduced corporate and household debt, liberated our education system from the dead hand of socialism and removed the incentives of a life on benefits. And all this while being hamstrung by the Liberal Democrats in coalition - just think what we can achieve with a majority!
2 million unemployed is light years short of full employment. I recall the outrage in 1972 when unemployment hit 1 million for the first time since World War 2 - Dennis Skinner came close to assaulting Ted Heath in the Commons and the sitting almost had to be suspended.
Percentages, dear old porpoise, percentages. The Attlee government in 1945 held that 5% unemployed represented full employment, given that there has to be churn in the workforce. How are we doing compared that measure?
The numbers of long term unemployed and those who are really able bodied but who have been written off "on the sick" are, perhaps, a more useful measure of the wastage of talent and lives.
I might also suggest that the number of people who only survive economically because of welfare payments despite them working full-time is another distortion. Well, actually, I think it is a national scandal but that is, perhaps, a separate argument.
There are also suggestions that the controversy is causing a split in the party leadership, with Sturgeon wanting to hang Thomson out to dry, and her predecessor Alex Salmond keen for her to remain as an MP and not bow to media pressure.
Police shut down a "protest rave" which began in Piccadilly Gardens in central Manchester on Friday after receiving a "significant" number of complaints from residents, businesses and local councillors.
Classic few words from Dave He really is good at his job.
If you think his job is coming over well in an interview. Which rather seems to be the issue.
No mate. He is the master of the put down. Calm down dear was a classic as enraged the ghastly woman.
Pity the joke's on the British people as the national debt has doubled and the balance of trade is through the floor. Perhaps Dave could aim some put downs at looming economic disaster, see if that works.
You are far too one eyed to accept that your party is responsible for the.mess the Tories are having to clear up. No austerity Corbyyn and his loons would make it infinitely worse than it is... as would have EICAWNBPM .
My party? I'm a former Tory now nominally UKIP supporter. I utterly and completely believe that Labour (I assume that's who you mean) destroyed our economy, I'm just devastated that Dave and Co. have totally failed to even attempt to put it back together again. But never mind, he does make a very good speech and is excellent at looking solemn on State occasions.
The economy has improved greatly after just five years, with the best growth among developed economies. Simultaneously, we have almost reached full employment, cut the deficit from 11% to 6% of GDP, substantially reduced corporate and household debt, liberated our education system from the dead hand of socialism and removed the incentives of a life on benefits. And all this while being hamstrung by the Liberal Democrats in coalition - just think what we can achieve with a majority!
2 million unemployed is light years short of full employment. I recall the outrage in 1972 when unemployment hit 1 million for the first time since World War 2 - Dennis Skinner came close to assaulting Ted Heath in the Commons and the sitting almost had to be suspended.
Apples and pears. The nature of the workforce and of how unemployment is counted have both changed so much as to make comparisons almost meaningless.
Yes - but if the figures were still presented today on the same basis as the early 1970s unemployment would be at least 2.5 million.
Depends on reports you look at and lubricant will not meet our long-term energy needs
Depends on what you mean by energy really. If one is talking about electricity generation then oil is barely used in the UK now, never mind in the future. Coal, nuclear and gas provide the overwhelming proportion of our electricity now, what happens when the coal and nuclear stations shut down (as they will) is anyone's guess.
Nuclear will stay and renewables have a role too
Just remind me of the lifetimes of current nuclear stations and their expected replacements' in service dates will you?
As for renewables, of course they have a role to play - wind is currently, I mean as of a few minutes ago, generating 1.3% of our electricity.
coal? subsidy subsidy subsidy is what you are calling for. nationalisation nationalisation nationalisation. l suggest you join the Labour Party.
Subsidy subsidy subsidy is what we have now - for ridiculous white elephant renewables. Our energy policy is a bad joke. I also refuse to believe that burning British coal is more expensive (or indeed more damaging to the environment) than burning timber imported from North America.
Nor have I anywhere suggested nationalisation. What I do suggest is a degree of what might be called protectionism where to do otherwise exposes British companies to unfair competition from countries that do protect their industries.
I believe in economic liberalisation at a grassroots level as the only way to economic growth. But on an international scale, it's not always so simple. As an example, Germany's industry got started because it adopted protectionist policies against British industrial exports.
What will the anti-Osborne candidate offer in the Tory leadership race? It can only be someone to the right of him, which makes that person a non-starter - unless the EU referendum is lost. And even then, the selection on offer is not exactly awe-inspiring. There seems to be a dearth of big hitters across the political spectrum these days. The only ones Labour have are no longer in Parliament (Balls, possibly David Miliband), for the Tories Cameron and Osborne stand head, shoulders and mid-rift above all the others; and that's about it. As I said yesterday, I am sure it did not use to be that way. Healey, Foot, Callaghan, Wilson, Jenkins, Castle, Benn, Shore, Crossland etc were all major figures that sat in cabinets and shadow cabinets together; ditto Howe, Lawson, Heseltine, Tebbit, Whitelaw, Joseph, Thatcher, Major, Carrington, Pym etc. They all seemed to be substantial thinkers and doers; that depth does not seem to be there anymore. Or am I just getting old?
Classic few words from Dave He really is good at his job.
.
My party? I'm a former Tory now nominally UKIP supporter. I utterly and completely believe that Labour (I assume that's who you mean) destroyed our economy, I'm just devastated that Dave and Co. have totally failed to even attempt to put it back together again. But never mind, he does make a very good speech and is excellent at looking solemn on State occasions.
The economy has improved greatly after just five years, with the best growth among developed economies. Simultaneously, we have almost reached full employment, cut the deficit from 11% to 6% of GDP, substantially reduced corporate and household debt, liberated our education system from the dead hand of socialism and removed the incentives of a life on benefits. And all this while being hamstrung by the Liberal Democrats in coalition - just think what we can achieve with a majority!
2 million unemployed is light years short of full employment. I recall the outrage in 1972 when unemployment hit 1 million for the first time since World War 2 - Dennis Skinner came close to assaulting Ted Heath in the Commons and the sitting almost had to be suspended.
Percentages, dear old porpoise, percentages. The Attlee government in 1945 held that 5% unemployed represented full employment, given that there has to be churn in the workforce. How are we doing compared that measure?
The numbers of long term unemployed and those who are really able bodied but who have been written off "on the sick" are, perhaps, a more useful measure of the wastage of talent and lives.
I might also suggest that the number of people who only survive economically because of welfare payments despite them working full-time is another distortion. Well, actually, I think it is a national scandal but that is, perhaps, a separate argument.
In the 1960s an unemployment level of 2% - approx. 500,000 - was considered high and politically unacceptable .
One impressively sparky member of the 2015 intake remarked: “When I was elected I was worried that I would be labelled hard left. Now I seem to be centre-right.” Although sponsored by one of the most leftwing of the trade unions, this MP reported that she was already getting some trouble from activists in her constituency party for displaying insufficient levels of dedication to Corbynism
Andrew Rawnsley is halfway there. But he doesn't seem to appreciate that Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell are following a clear strategy which makes all of their behaviour fall into place.
Once you realise that their primary goal is not to win the next election, everything falls into place.
What is their primary goal? Or should I read that as "their primary goal is to not win the next election"? ;-)
Their goal is to take over Labour via classic tactics of entryism, get rid of Blairites, install their own guys eveywhere, seize the levers of power like the NEC, shift the entire party decisively and fiercely Left, so eventually the only significant Opposition party in the UK (or rUK) is quasi-Marxist, thus giving the commies a real and decent chance at actual power some time in the 2020s, if they can get a plausible leader.
It's unlikely to work, but you can see why they are trying it. Enormous prize for the Trots.
It's not entryism, quite the opposite - removing the blairite entryists who had manoeuvred themselves into a stranglehold on the party and returning the party to moderate social democratic policies that the vast majority of its members and voters want. There's absolutely nothing 'quasi-Marxist' being suggested by anyone involved. Certainly you are correct in that for most people involved like me, the main thing is not necessarily winning the next election, but making sure that when the Tories inevitably mess up a proper social democratic Labour Party is waiting to take advantage, not Tory Plan B.
Ah. The 1992 strategy.
No. The Tories are much weaker and less popular than they were in the 80s/ early 90s, and have almost nothing positive to offer the electorate. It won't take much at all to tip them out of government.
The economy has improved greatly after just five years, with the best growth among developed economies. Simultaneously, we have almost reached full employment, cut the deficit from 11% to 6% of GDP, substantially reduced corporate and household debt, liberated our education system from the dead hand of socialism and removed the incentives of a life on benefits. And all this while being hamstrung by the Liberal Democrats in coalition - just think what we can achieve with a majority!
I love your use of the word 'we' - I never know quite who you mean by it.
I expect the following of my Government: -Cut wasteful and non-essential spending - whole departments like DCMS we could well do without. Ringfenced DFID another example. Not to actively contribute to the furore over 'austerity' by exaggerating the scale of modest cuts, but to make sure the country is aware of the parlous state of our finances and the necessity for us all to do something about it. -Protect vital British industries where necessary, even if it means stepping in to prevent takeovers. Tories here want us to spend £100 billion on dealing with one single potential threat 40 years down the line. What about the threat of us having no steel production? What about the threat of us having little food production? Surely these are more serious considerations than being able to nuke someone when we're already toast? -Serious cuts in red tape for companies, especially SMEs to allow them to compete with their larger rivals. Including ludicrous green targets. -Focus on 'on-shoring' manufacturing, services, and commodities (like coal) wherever possible -No foreign conflicts without a direct British interest -Paint an honest picture about the financial outcomes of our EU membership, rather than concealing costs to bolster the case for remaining in
These would be a start.
So you expect your government to be swiftly defeated.
A simple graph would show national debt being paid off by Labour, which is where I came in.
No, a simple graph would show national debt being moved off the books. By January 2007 the national debt had risen to £500 billion for the first time. But there was also an additional £215 billion of PFI commitments meaning the real level of debt was over 40% higher than the official figures.
But selling Royal Mail is OK in reducing debt!
In the spirit of fairness I assume you forgot about Gordon Brown giving away our gold
Depends on reports you look at and lubricant will not meet our long-term energy needs
Depends on what you mean by energy really. If one is talking about electricity generation then oil is barely used in the UK now, never mind in the future. Coal, nuclear and gas provide the overwhelming proportion of our electricity now, what happens when the coal and nuclear stations shut down (as they will) is anyone's guess.
Nuclear will stay and renewables have a role too
Just remind me of the lifetimes of current nuclear stations and their expected replacements' in service dates will you?
As for renewables, of course they have a role to play - wind is currently, I mean as of a few minutes ago, generating 1.3% of our electricity.
What will the anti-Osborne candidate offer in the Tory leadership race? It can only be someone to the right of him, which makes that person a non-starter - unless the EU referendum is lost. And even then, the selection on offer is not exactly awe-inspiring. There seems to be a dearth of big hitters across the political spectrum these days. The only ones Labour have are no longer in Parliament (Balls, possibly David Miliband), for the Tories Cameron and Osborne stand head, shoulders and mid-rift above all the others; and that's about it. As I said yesterday, I am sure it did not use to be that way. Healey, Foot, Callaghan, Wilson, Jenkins, Castle, Benn, Shore, Crossland etc were all major figures that sat in cabinets and shadow cabinets together; ditto Howe, Lawson, Heseltine, Tebbit, Whitelaw, Joseph, Thatcher, Major, Carrington, Pym etc. They all seemed to be substantial thinkers and doers; that depth does not seem to be there anymore. Or am I just getting old?
One impressively sparky member of the 2015 intake remarked: “When I was elected I was worried that I would be labelled hard left. Now I seem to be centre-right.” Although sponsored by one of the most leftwing of the trade unions, this MP reported that she was already getting some trouble from activists in her constituency party for displaying insufficient levels of dedication to Corbynism
Andrew Rawnsley is halfway there. But he doesn't seem to appreciate that Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell are following a clear strategy which makes all of their behaviour fall into place.
Once you realise that their primary goal is not to win the next election, everything falls into place.
What is their primary goal? Or should I read that as "their primary goal is to not win the next election"? ;-)
Their goal is to take over Labour via classic tactics of entryism, get rid of Blairites, install their own guys eveywhere, seize the levers of power like the NEC, shift the entire party decisively and fiercely Left, so eventually the only significant Opposition party in the UK (or rUK) is quasi-Marxist, thus giving the commies a real and decent chance at actual power some time in the 2020s, if they can get a plausible leader.
It's unlikely to work, but you can see why they are trying it. Enormous prize for the Trots.
It's not entryism, quite the opposite - removing the blairite entryists who had manoeuvred themselves into a stranglehold on the party and returning the party to moderate social democratic policies that the vast majority of its members and voters want. There's absolutely nothing 'quasi-Marxist' being suggested by anyone involved. Certainly you are correct in that for most people involved like me, the main thing is not necessarily winning the next election, but making sure that when the Tories inevitably mess up a proper social democratic Labour Party is waiting to take advantage, not Tory Plan B.
Ah. The 1992 strategy.
No. The Tories are much weaker and less popular than they were in the 80s/ early 90s, and have almost nothing positive to offer the electorate. It won't take much at all to tip them out of government.
intriguing. Vince Cable praising Osborne & Cameron to the skies:
"Osborne is extraordinarily bright, very strategic, a good listener and very thoughtful,' Cable told The Mail on Sunday.
'Cameron and Osborne are probably two of the cleverest people of their generation, and I mean that,' said Cable. 'To see Cameron chairing a complicated discussion on a military or political matter was very impressive'"
They tower over anything else the Tories can offer; ditto Labour. They are rare big beasts grazing on a savannah of mediocrity. And I say that through very gritted teeth.
One impressively sparky member of the 2015 intake remarked: “When I was elected I was worried that I would be labelled hard left. Now I seem to be centre-right.” Although sponsored by one of the most leftwing of the trade unions, this MP reported that she was already getting some trouble from activists in her constituency party for displaying insufficient levels of dedication to Corbynism
Andrew Rawnsley is halfway there. But he doesn't seem to appreciate that Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell are following a clear strategy which makes all of their behaviour fall into place.
Once you realise that their primary goal is not to win the next election, everything falls into place.
What is their primary goal? Or should I read that as "their primary goal is to not win the next election"? ;-)
It's unlikely to work, but you can see why they are trying it. Enormous prize for the Trots.
It's not entryism, quite the opposite - removing the blairite entryists who had manoeuvred themselves into a stranglehold on the party and returning the party to moderate social democratic policies that the vast majority of its members and voters want. There's absolutely nothing 'quasi-Marxist' being suggested by anyone involved. Certainly you are correct in that for most people involved like me, the main thing is not necessarily winning the next election, but making sure that when the Tories inevitably mess up a proper social democratic Labour Party is waiting to take advantage, not Tory Plan B.
Ah. The 1992 strategy.
No. The Tories are much weaker and less popular than they were in the 80s/ early 90s, and have almost nothing positive to offer the electorate. It won't take much at all to tip them out of government.
As against that, Labour made a lot of progress in 1992, gaining 40 seats, and outperforming in marginal seats. This time round, Labour lost 26 seats, and went backwards in the marginal seats.
What's more 51-55% of voters support centre right parties. In England, the figure is 55-60%. That's a big shift, compared to 1992. The big danger for Labour is that Conservative voters will vote tactically for UKIP, where the party is the challenger to Labour, and UKIP voters will vote tactically for the Conservatives where Conservatives are defending marginal seats from Labour.
Andrew Rawnsley is halfway there. But he doesn't seem to appreciate that Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell are following a clear strategy which makes all of their behaviour fall into place.
Once you realise that their primary goal is not to win the next election, everything falls into place.
What is their primary goal? Or should I read that as "their primary goal is to not win the next election"? ;-)
Their goal is to take over Labour via classic tactics of entryism, get rid of Blairites, install their own guys eveywhere, seize the levers of power like the NEC, shift the entire party decisively and fiercely Left, so eventually the only significant Opposition party in the UK (or rUK) is quasi-Marxist, thus giving the commies a real and decent chance at actual power some time in the 2020s, if they can get a plausible leader.
It's unlikely to work, but you can see why they are trying it. Enormous prize for the Trots.
It's not entryism, quite the opposite - removing the blairite entryists who had manoeuvred themselves into a stranglehold on the party and returning the party to moderate social democratic policies that the vast majority of its members and voters want. There's absolutely nothing 'quasi-Marxist' being suggested by anyone involved. Certainly you are correct in that for most people involved like me, the main thing is not necessarily winning the next election, but making sure that when the Tories inevitably mess up a proper social democratic Labour Party is waiting to take advantage, not Tory Plan B.
Ah. The 1992 strategy.
No. The Tories are much weaker and less popular than they were in the 80s/ early 90s, and have almost nothing positive to offer the electorate. It won't take much at all to tip them out of government.
You are either too young to know, or have forgotten, how unpopular the Tories were in the early 90s. It was a damning indictment of Kinnock that he lost the 1992 election.
That failure, incidentally, led directly to the modern assumption that a leader defeated at a general election quits immediately thereafter.
@AlanRoden: Ruth Davidson on SNP stamp duty £50m black hole: "If it wasn't for Michelle Thomson... the whole market could have ground to a halt" #CPC15
The economy has improved greatly after just five years, with the best growth among developed economies. Simultaneously, we have almost reached full employment, cut the deficit from 11% to 6% of GDP, substantially reduced corporate and household debt, liberated our education system from the dead hand of socialism and removed the incentives of a life on benefits. And all this while being hamstrung by the Liberal Democrats in coalition - just think what we can achieve with a majority!
I love your use of the word 'we' - I never know quite who you mean by it.
I expect the following of my Government: -Cut wasteful and non-essential spending - whole departments like DCMS we could well do without. Ringfenced DFID another example. Not to actively contribute to the furore over 'austerity' by exaggerating the scale of modest cuts, but to make sure the country is aware of the parlous state of our finances and the necessity for us all to do something about it. -Protect vital British industries where necessary, even if it means stepping in to prevent takeovers. Tories here want us to spend £100 billion on dealing with one single potential threat 40 years down the line. What about the threat of us having no steel production? What about the threat of us having little food production? Surely these are more serious considerations than being able to nuke someone when we're already toast? -Serious cuts in red tape for companies, especially SMEs to allow them to compete with their larger rivals. Including ludicrous green targets. -Focus on 'on-shoring' manufacturing, services, and commodities (like coal) wherever possible -No foreign conflicts without a direct British interest -Paint an honest picture about the financial outcomes of our EU membership, rather than concealing costs to bolster the case for remaining in
These would be a start.
So you expect your government to be swiftly defeated.
That would be down to their ability to convince the electorate.
One impressively sparky member of the 2015 intake remarked: “When I was elected I was worried that I would be labelled hard left. Now I seem to be centre-right.” Although sponsored by one of the most leftwing of the trade unions, this MP reported that she was already getting some trouble from activists in her constituency party for displaying insufficient levels of dedication to Corbynism
Andrew Rawnsley is halfway there. But he doesn't seem to appreciate that Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell are following a clear strategy which makes all of their behaviour fall into place.
Once you realise that their primary goal is not to win the next election, everything falls into place.
What is their primary goal? Or should I read that as "their primary goal is to not win the next election"? ;-)
Their goal is to take over Labour via classic tactics of entryism, get rid of Blairites, install their own guys eveywhere, seize the levers of power like the NEC, shift the entire party decisively and fiercely Left, so eventually the only significant Opposition party in the UK (or rUK) is quasi-Marxist, thus giving the commies a real and decent chance at actual power some time in the 2020s, if they can get a plausible leader.
It's unlikely to work, but you can see why they are trying it. Enormous prize for the Trots.
It's not entryism, quite the opposite - removing the blairite entryists who had manoeuvred themselves into a stranglehold on the party and returning the party to moderate social democratic policies that the vast majority of its members and voters want. There's absolutely nothing 'quasi-Marxist' being suggested by anyone involved. Certainly you are correct in that for most people involved like me, the main thing is not necessarily winning the next election, but making sure that when the Tories inevitably mess up a proper social democratic Labour Party is waiting to take advantage, not Tory Plan B.
Ah. The 1992 strategy.
No. The Tories are much weaker and less popular than they were in the 80s/ early 90s, and have almost nothing positive to offer the electorate. It won't take much at all to tip them out of government.
Must have missed the popularity of the Poll Tax / recession years.
No. The Tories are much weaker and less popular than they were in the 80s/ early 90s, and have almost nothing positive to offer the electorate. It won't take much at all to tip them out of government.
Power doesn't switch automatically. It switches when the opposition want it enough to stop indulging themselves and do what they have to do to win, which usually involves pandering to dim-witted elderly floating voters who believe what they read in the papers.
The economy has improved greatly after just five years, with the best growth among developed economies. Simultaneously, we have almost reached full employment, cut the deficit from 11% to 6% of GDP, substantially reduced corporate and household debt, liberated our education system from the dead hand of socialism and removed the incentives of a life on benefits. And all this while being hamstrung by the Liberal Democrats in coalition - just think what we can achieve with a majority!
I love your use of the word 'we' - I never know quite who you mean by it.
I expect the following of my Government: -Cut wasteful and non-essential spending - whole departments like DCMS we could well do without. Ringfenced DFID another example. Not to actively contribute to the furore over 'austerity' by exaggerating the scale of modest cuts, but to make sure the country is aware of the parlous state of our finances and the necessity for us all to do something about it. -Protect vital British industries where necessary, even if it means stepping in to prevent takeovers. Tories here want us to spend £100 billion on dealing with one single potential threat 40 years down the line. What about the threat of us having no steel production? What about the threat of us having little food production? Surely these are more serious considerations than being able to nuke someone when we're already toast? -Serious cuts in red tape for companies, especially SMEs to allow them to compete with their larger rivals. Including ludicrous green targets. -Focus on 'on-shoring' manufacturing, services, and commodities (like coal) wherever possible -No foreign conflicts without a direct British interest -Paint an honest picture about the financial outcomes of our EU membership, rather than concealing costs to bolster the case for remaining in
These would be a start.
So you expect your government to be swiftly defeated.
That would be down to their ability to convince the electorate.
No. The Tories are much weaker and less popular than they were in the 80s/ early 90s, and have almost nothing positive to offer the electorate. It won't take much at all to tip them out of government.
Power doesn't switch automatically. It switches when the opposition want it enough to stop indulging themselves and do what they have to do to win, which usually involves pandering to dim-witted elderly floating voters who believe what they read in the papers.
I guess it's going to be a while.
Indeed. A change of government requires an unpopular government and a credible opposition. Without both elements in place, the status quo prevails.
Classic few words from Dave He really is good at his job.
If you think his job is coming over well in an interview. Which rather seems to be the issue.
No mate. He is the master of the put down. Calm down dear was a classic as enraged the ghastly woman.
s.
s.
Tory Debt OK Labour Debt Time Bomb
"Tory Debt" is debt that would inevitably have been there anyway if Gordon Brown had, by some quirk of the Universe, got re-elected.
Or do Labour think you can convince anyone that the National Debt would have fallen on their watch?
The national debt was falling on Labour's watch -- remember Gordon Brown talking about paying off Tory debt? Until the global financial crisis hit, the national debt was lower under Labour than under the previous Conservative government.
You can keep trotting out that crap. And you will keep losing elections. "Everything in the garden was rosy under Labour's careful management of the economy, until the Yank banks broke the system..." It's bollocks, and the voters know it's bollocks.
I'm not the Labour Party. As I've said over the past five years, Labour needed to have countered the Tory narrative, with newspaper adverts showing that I'm right and you're wrong. For instance, Labour have allowed voters to believe that Tories don't run deficits, when in fact Labour has run more budget surpluses than the Conservatives (leaving aside that we are begging the question of whether surpluses are a good thing -- probably if we had one, most Conservatives would be appalled).
Since World War 2 the UK has run a Budget Surplus in 11 years - 9 of them were under Labour Governments.
Compare and contrast the state of the national economy at the end of Labour governments in the last 30+ years - 1979 or 2010 - with the state of finances at the end of the last Tory/Tory-led governments (1997 / 2010).
I've not gone further back because I don't know - but I suspect comparing 1970 and 1974 would be a no-score draw for either side while 1964 would be good for the Tories and 1951 ok but not great for Labour
The economy has improved greatly after just five years, with the best growth among developed economies. Simultaneously, we have almost reached full employment, cut the deficit from 11% to 6% of GDP, substantially reduced corporate and household debt, liberated our education system from the dead hand of socialism and removed the incentives of a life on benefits. And all this while being hamstrung by the Liberal Democrats in coalition - just think what we can achieve with a majority!
I love your use of the word 'we' - I never know quite who you mean by it.
I expect the following of my Government: -Cut wasteful and non-essential spending - whole departments like DCMS we could well do without. Ringfenced DFID another example. Not to actively contribute to the furore over 'austerity' by exaggerating the scale of modest cuts, but to make sure the country is aware of the parlous state of our finances and the necessity for us all to do something about it. -Protect vital British industries where necessary, even if it means stepping in to prevent takeovers. Tories here want us to spend £100 billion on dealing with one single potential threat 40 years down the line. What about the threat of us having no steel production? What about the threat of us having little food production? Surely these are more serious considerations than being able to nuke someone when we're already toast? -Serious cuts in red tape for companies, especially SMEs to allow them to compete with their larger rivals. Including ludicrous green targets. -Focus on 'on-shoring' manufacturing, services, and commodities (like coal) wherever possible -No foreign conflicts without a direct British interest -Paint an honest picture about the financial outcomes of our EU membership, rather than concealing costs to bolster the case for remaining in
These would be a start.
So you expect your government to be swiftly defeated.
That would be down to their ability to convince the electorate.
You're advocating a platform that is nonsellable.
Nothing is non-sellable. There's no negative attribute that can't be sold as a positive from another angle.
Jeremy Corbyn has come under attack from one of Labour's most senior shadow ministers for taking part in the anti-austerity protests in Manchester during the Tory conference.
intriguing. Vince Cable praising Osborne & Cameron to the skies:
"Osborne is extraordinarily bright, very strategic, a good listener and very thoughtful,' Cable told The Mail on Sunday.
'Cameron and Osborne are probably two of the cleverest people of their generation, and I mean that,' said Cable. 'To see Cameron chairing a complicated discussion on a military or political matter was very impressive'"
They tower over anything else the Tories can offer; ditto Labour. They are rare big beasts grazing on a savannah of mediocrity. And I say that through very gritted teeth.
The Tory Cabinet does seem significantly cleverer than the Shad Cabinet right now. Whatever you thought of them, guys like Blair, David Miliband and (especially) Mandelson were seriously smart.
Offhand, I can't think of one notably and intellectually gifted shadow Minister in the present Labour party.
Intellectually Gove might be up there with GO and DC, so that gives the Tories three. You are right - I don't see anything approaching that in the Labour shadow cabinet. The Tories also have a number of safe hands (Hammond, May, Fallon spring to mind), but nothing else that is really compelling. Then there is Chris Grayling, whose continued presence in the cabinet is nothing short of bizarre.
intriguing. Vince Cable praising Osborne & Cameron to the skies:
"Osborne is extraordinarily bright, very strategic, a good listener and very thoughtful,' Cable told The Mail on Sunday.
'Cameron and Osborne are probably two of the cleverest people of their generation, and I mean that,' said Cable. 'To see Cameron chairing a complicated discussion on a military or political matter was very impressive'"
They tower over anything else the Tories can offer; ditto Labour. They are rare big beasts grazing on a savannah of mediocrity. And I say that through very gritted teeth.
Really? I don't think Osborne is fit to tie Redwood's economic bootlaces personally.
Mr Wisemann outlines the Labour strategy perfectly: wait for the Tories to mess up and the electorate to come to us. The problem with it is that for it to work Labour has to be credible. Corbyn spoke for an hour last week and did not, at any stage, talk about the experiences of most people living in the UK. His focus was entirely on those at the very bottom. It is laudable and necessary to want to help them. It's what Labour should do. But you cannot help them without offering something credible to the majority that is not at the bottom of the pile. So what is that offer?
No. The Tories are much weaker and less popular than they were in the 80s/ early 90s, and have almost nothing positive to offer the electorate. It won't take much at all to tip them out of government.
As against that, Labour made a lot of progress in 1992, gaining 40 seats, and outperforming in marginal seats. This time round, Labour lost 26 seats, and went backwards in the marginal seats.
What's more 51-55% of voters support centre right parties. In England, the figure is 55-60%. That's a big shift, compared to 1992. The big danger for Labour is that Conservative voters will vote tactically for UKIP, where the party is the challenger to Labour, and UKIP voters will vote tactically for the Conservatives where Conservatives are defending marginal seats from Labour.
There was already evidence of the latter in May. Now that UKIP have some solid second places in the North for seats in which the Tories have no hope the former becomes a tantalising prospect. Labour may end up in a pincer movement in 2020, especially if as the noises being made are true and Cameron/Osborne back "leave" in the referendum.
It's like some Labour supporters have had a collective bout of amnesia and forgotten that they lost in May and the Tories got their first majority for 23 years and gained votes compared to 2010 even with the rise of UKIP.
coal? subsidy subsidy subsidy is what you are calling for. nationalisation nationalisation nationalisation. l suggest you join the Labour Party.
Subsidy subsidy subsidy is what we have now - for ridiculous white elephant renewables. Our energy policy is a bad joke. I also refuse to believe that burning British coal is more expensive (or indeed more damaging to the environment) than burning timber imported from North America.
Nor have I anywhere suggested nationalisation. What I do suggest is a degree of what might be called protectionism where to do otherwise exposes British companies to unfair competition from countries that do protect their industries.
I believe in economic liberalisation at a grassroots level as the only way to economic growth. But on an international scale, it's not always so simple. As an example, Germany's industry got started because it adopted protectionist policies against British industrial exports.
If we were going to burn more coal, it'd be imported coal. Shipping costs, even from thousands of miles away, are pretty negligible (boats are surprisingly efficient) and British coal is expensive/disadvantageous for reasons that are geological, therefore ultimately inescapable.
I expect the following of my Government: -Cut wasteful and non-essential spending - whole departments like DCMS we could well do without. Ringfenced DFID another example. Not to actively contribute to the furore over 'austerity' by exaggerating the scale of modest cuts, but to make sure the country is aware of the parlous state of our finances and the necessity for us all to do something about it. -Protect vital British industries where necessary, even if it means stepping in to prevent takeovers. Tories here want us to spend £100 billion on dealing with one single potential threat 40 years down the line. What about the threat of us having no steel production? What about the threat of us having little food production? Surely these are more serious considerations than being able to nuke someone when we're already toast? -Serious cuts in red tape for companies, especially SMEs to allow them to compete with their larger rivals. Including ludicrous green targets. -Focus on 'on-shoring' manufacturing, services, and commodities (like coal) wherever possible -No foreign conflicts without a direct British interest -Paint an honest picture about the financial outcomes of our EU membership, rather than concealing costs to bolster the case for remaining in
These would be a start.
So you expect your government to be swiftly defeated.
That would be down to their ability to convince the electorate.
You're advocating a platform that is nonsellable.
Nothing is non-sellable. There's no negative attribute that can't be sold as a positive from another angle.
That's certainly what the Corbynites think. Let's see.
Mr Wisemann outlines the Labour strategy perfectly: wait for the Tories to mess up and the electorate to come to us.
I'd be inclined to think it must work as a strategy at some point, but as I thought, incorrectly, that it would work in 2015 (even if it should not have been risked), I cannot believe it is so clear cut anymore.
Mr Wisemann outlines the Labour strategy perfectly: wait for the Tories to mess up and the electorate to come to us. The problem with it is that for it to work Labour has to be credible. Corbyn spoke for an hour last week and did not, at any stage, talk about the experiences of most people living in the UK. His focus was entirely on those at the very bottom. It is laudable and necessary to want to help them. It's what Labour should do. But you cannot help them without offering something credible to the majority that is not at the bottom of the pile. So what is that offer?
Sunday Times points out that a Labour Donor has called in a £2million loan.
Classic few words from Dave He really is good at his job.
If you think his job is coming over well in an interview. Which rather seems to be the issue.
No mate. He is the master of the put down. Calm down dear was a classic as enraged the ghastly woman.
s.
s.
Tory Debt OK Labour Debt Time Bomb
"Tory Debt" is debt that would inevitably have been there anyway if Gordon Brown had, by some quirk of the Universe, got re-elected.
Or do Labour think you can convince anyone that the National Debt would have fallen on their watch?
The national debt was falling on Labour's watch -- remember Gordon Brown talking about paying off Tory debt? Until the global financial crisis hit, the national debt was lower under Labour than under the previous Conservative government.
You can keep trotting out that crap. And you will keep losing elections. "Everything in the garden was rosy under Labour's careful management of the economy, until the Yank banks broke the system..." It's bollocks, and the voters know it's bollocks.
I'm not the Labour Party. As I've said over the past five years, Labour needed to have countered the Tory narrative, with newspaper adverts showing that I'm right and you're wrong. For instance, Labour have allowed voters to believe that Tories don't run deficits, when in fact Labour has run more budget surpluses than the Conservatives (leaving aside that we are begging the question of whether surpluses are a good thing -- probably if we had one, most Conservatives would be appalled).
Since World War 2 the UK has run a Budget Surplus in 11 years - 9 of them were under Labour Governments.
This line is very much like an arsonist burning down a house and then complaining that the firemen aren't putting it out fast enough and then the builders aren't rebuilding the house fast enough. Labour are economic arsonists.
coal? subsidy subsidy subsidy is what you are calling for. nationalisation nationalisation nationalisation. l suggest you join the Labour Party.
Subsidy subsidy subsidy is what we have now - for ridiculous white elephant renewables. Our energy policy is a bad joke. I also refuse to believe that burning British coal is more expensive (or indeed more damaging to the environment) than burning timber imported from North America.
Nor have I anywhere suggested nationalisation. What I do suggest is a degree of what might be called protectionism where to do otherwise exposes British companies to unfair competition from countries that do protect their industries.
I believe in economic liberalisation at a grassroots level as the only way to economic growth. But on an international scale, it's not always so simple. As an example, Germany's industry got started because it adopted protectionist policies against British industrial exports.
If we were going to burn more coal, it'd be imported coal. Shipping costs, even from thousands of miles away, are pretty negligible (boats are surprisingly efficient) and British coal is expensive/disadvantageous for reasons that are geological, therefore ultimately inescapable.
Actually it wouldn't. We have vast reserves of coal and we now have the technology to extract the energy from it without sticking people under ground as well. Indeed we would have been doing it long ago were it not for the idiotic AGW arguments.
No. The Tories are much weaker and less popular than they were in the 80s/ early 90s, and have almost nothing positive to offer the electorate. It won't take much at all to tip them out of government.
Power doesn't switch automatically. It switches when the opposition want it enough to stop indulging themselves and do what they have to do to win, which usually involves pandering to dim-witted elderly floating voters who believe what they read in the papers.
I guess it's going to be a while.
Indeed. A change of government requires an unpopular government and a credible opposition. Without both elements in place, the status quo prevails.
Frankly Edmund in Tokyo's comment was pretty disgusting about the elderly.
1) 'We' refers to the Conservative Party, of which I am a member. 2) Sales of housing do not count towards to GDP, so the numbers are not inflated by that one jot. GDP refers to production, not asset transfers. 3) The current account is merely the other side of the coin to the capital account. If you improve the attractiveness of an economy, you get more investment from abroad, and the current account needs to increase to make the numbers square. 4) The government has cut plenty of wasteful and non-essential spending. A cut of the deficit by six percent of GDP over five years, while reducing the tax burden at the same time, is one of the biggest austerity drives you can get without increasing employment. And if you increase employment, you are then wasting money as workers are sitting idle not producing anything. You will also struggle to find many deeper sustained cases of austerity anywhere in the world over the last half century. 5) There have been several convincing studies showing that government spending on culture and media actually sees an economic return. Wisely-spent development money is the same: just look at how we spent money investing in developing South America and India during the 19th Century, so that they could later buy more stuff from us. And then of course there are the non-economic benefits. 6) We need to invest in nuclear weapons because they're difficult things to get. Food and steel are very easy to buy from abroad. It's not like we're a landlocked country that can be blocked off from the sea. The world is particularly awash with steel, which is overproduced globally. 7) Onshoring when its not profitable is madness. That goes for cheap labour based manufacturing and minerals where we do not have marginal deposits. Our last attempt to keep coalmining alive in this country resulted in destruction of entire communities when we could not subsidise it any more. 8) I agree about the principle for foreign conflicts, but I suspect we disagree about some of those cases. 9) Entirely agree about EU membership.
Excellent article from the Washigton Post about the GOP nomination race. It poses the contest as the angry camp vs the aspirational camp. For the latter, it presumes that Bush, Rubio and Kasich are the front-runners with Christie as also mentioned. The article seems premised upon accepting Jeb's argument that 'angry' can't win the presidency and hence the nominee will be from the aspirational camp;
Well worth reading for those betting on the US elections:
intriguing. Vince Cable praising Osborne & Cameron to the skies:
"Osborne is extraordinarily bright, very strategic, a good listener and very thoughtful,' Cable told The Mail on Sunday.
'Cameron and Osborne are probably two of the cleverest people of their generation, and I mean that,' said Cable. 'To see Cameron chairing a complicated discussion on a military or political matter was very impressive'"
They tower over anything else the Tories can offer; ditto Labour. They are rare big beasts grazing on a savannah of mediocrity. And I say that through very gritted teeth.
The Tory Cabinet does seem significantly cleverer than the Shad Cabinet right now. Whatever you thought of them, guys like Blair, David Miliband and (especially) Mandelson were seriously smart.
Offhand, I can't think of one notably and intellectually gifted shadow Minister in the present Labour party.
intriguing. Vince Cable praising Osborne & Cameron to the skies:
"Osborne is extraordinarily bright, very strategic, a good listener and very thoughtful,' Cable told The Mail on Sunday.
'Cameron and Osborne are probably two of the cleverest people of their generation, and I mean that,' said Cable. 'To see Cameron chairing a complicated discussion on a military or political matter was very impressive'"
They tower over anything else the Tories can offer; ditto Labour. They are rare big beasts grazing on a savannah of mediocrity. And I say that through very gritted teeth.
The Tory Cabinet does seem significantly cleverer than the Shad Cabinet right now. Whatever you thought of them, guys like Blair, David Miliband and (especially) Mandelson were seriously smart.
Offhand, I can't think of one notably and intellectually gifted shadow Minister in the present Labour party.
Intellectually Gove might be up there with GO and DC, so that gives the Tories three. You are right - I don't see anything approaching that in the Labour shadow cabinet. The Tories also have a number of safe hands (Hammond, May, Fallon spring to mind), but nothing else that is really compelling. Then there is Chris Grayling, whose continued presence in the cabinet is nothing short of bizarre.
Boris Johnson is also very clever. Yes, a buffoon, but super-bright nonetheless.
Arguably he's the cleverest of them all but his *interesting* persona will limit his career.
I don't think Boris has the temperament to be a Tory cabinet minister, let alone a PM. It would mean very hard work, mastering a brief and a high degree of very public scrutiny. None of which he has ever shown much appetite for.
@AlanRoden: Ruth Davidson on SNP stamp duty £50m black hole: "If it wasn't for Michelle Thomson... the whole market could have ground to a halt" #CPC15
Thompson did make her money out of distressed sellers. Were the sellers distressed due to SNP policy?
intriguing. Vince Cable praising Osborne & Cameron to the skies:
"Osborne is extraordinarily bright, very strategic, a good listener and very thoughtful,' Cable told The Mail on Sunday.
'Cameron and Osborne are probably two of the cleverest people of their generation, and I mean that,' said Cable. 'To see Cameron chairing a complicated discussion on a military or political matter was very impressive'"
They tower over anything else the Tories can offer; ditto Labour. They are rare big beasts grazing on a savannah of mediocrity. And I say that through very gritted teeth.
The Tory Cabinet does seem significantly cleverer than the Shad Cabinet right now. Whatever you thought of them, guys like Blair, David Miliband and (especially) Mandelson were seriously smart.
Offhand, I can't think of one notably and intellectually gifted shadow Minister in the present Labour party.
Intellectually Gove might be up there with GO and DC, so that gives the Tories three. You are right - I don't see anything approaching that in the Labour shadow cabinet. The Tories also have a number of safe hands (Hammond, May, Fallon spring to mind), but nothing else that is really compelling. Then there is Chris Grayling, whose continued presence in the cabinet is nothing short of bizarre.
Boris Johnson is also very clever. Yes, a buffoon, but super-bright nonetheless.
Arguably he's the cleverest of them all but his *interesting* persona will limit his career.
I don't think Boris has the temperament to be a Tory cabinet minister, let alone a PM. It would mean very hard work, mastering a brief and a high degree of very public scrutiny. None of which he has ever shown much appetite for.
I suspect that given his abilities as a historian as well as his position as Mayor of London, he is very used to both hard work and mastering a brief.
Mr Wisemann outlines the Labour strategy perfectly: wait for the Tories to mess up and the electorate to come to us. The problem with it is that for it to work Labour has to be credible. Corbyn spoke for an hour last week and did not, at any stage, talk about the experiences of most people living in the UK. His focus was entirely on those at the very bottom. It is laudable and necessary to want to help them. It's what Labour should do. But you cannot help them without offering something credible to the majority that is not at the bottom of the pile. So what is that offer?
SO I have to say that, since the election, you have become one of my favorite posters. You invariably bring candid and trenchant analysis to Labour's problems that strikes me as spot on. Thanks.
Excellent article from the Washigton Post about the GOP nomination race. It poses the contest as the angry camp vs the aspirational camp. For the latter, it presumes that Bush, Rubio and Kasich are the front-runners with Christie as also mentioned. The article seems premised upon accepting Jeb's argument that 'angry' can't win the presidency and hence the nominee will be from the aspirational camp;
Well worth reading for those betting on the US elections:
A good article (albeit with few actual predictions!) with the exception of:
David Axelrod, who was Obama’s chief strategist in both campaigns, often has said that voters look for a replacement rather than a replica in picking a new president. The adviser to one of Rubio’s rivals put it this way: “When was the last time this country elected two presidents with similar attributes?” Rubio will be trying to dissuade his fellow Republicans that he isn’t another Obama.
@ThreeQuidder I am not preparing for an announced inspection. The paperwork from the previous two years is what they demand when they get here. You only get 24 hours warning of an inspection, and that's for security reasons.
Classic few words from Dave He really is good at his job.
Or do Labour think you can convince anyone that the National Debt would have fallen on their watch?
The national debt was falling on Labour's watch -- remember Gordon Brown talking about paying off Tory debt? Until the global financial crisis hit, the national debt was lower under Labour than under the previous Conservative government.
You can keep trotting out that crap. And you will keep losing elections. "Everything in the garden was rosy under Labour's careful management of the economy, until the Yank banks broke the system..." It's bollocks, and the voters know it's bollocks.
I'm not the Labour Party. As I've said over the past five years, Labour needed to have countered the Tory narrative, with newspaper adverts showing that I'm right and you're wrong. For instance, Labour have allowed voters to believe that Tories don't run deficits, when in fact Labour has run more budget surpluses than the Conservatives (leaving aside that we are begging the question of whether surpluses are a good thing -- probably if we had one, most Conservatives would be appalled).
Since World War 2 the UK has run a Budget Surplus in 11 years - 9 of them were under Labour Governments.
Compare and contrast the state of the national economy at the end of Labour governments in the last 30+ years - 1979 or 2010 - with the state of finances at the end of the last Tory/Tory-led governments (1997 / 2010).
I've not gone further back because I don't know - but I suspect comparing 1970 and 1974 would be a no-score draw for either side while 1964 would be good for the Tories and 1951 ok but not great for Labour
In 1964 the Tories bequeathed Labour a record Balance of Payments deficit which by 1970 had been transformed into a substantial surplus accompanied by a Budget Surplus. The Heath Government ,therefore, inherited a double surplus from Labour in that we were paying our way in the world and the public finances were healthy. By 1974 the country faced rampant inflation , the balance of payments was heavily in deficit and a significant Budget deficit. No Tory Government since World War 2 has passed on to its successor either a Budget Surplus - or a Balance of Payments surplus. In 1970 Labour managed both.
Charles said ' 'Compare and contrast the state of the national economy at the end of Labour governments in the last 30+ years - 1979 or 2010 - with the state of finances at the end of the last Tory/Tory-led governments (1997 / 2010).
I've not gone further back because I don't know - but I suspect comparing 1970 and 1974 would be a no-score draw for either side while 1964 would be good for the Tories and 1951 ok but not great for Labour'
In 1964 the Tories bequeathed Labour a record Balance of Payments deficit which by 1970 had been transformed into a substantial surplus accompanied by a Budget Surplus. The Heath Government ,therefore, inherited a double surplus from Labour in that we were paying our way in the world and the public finances were healthy. By 1974 the country faced rampant inflation , the balance of payments was heavily in deficit and we were running a significant Budget deficit. No Tory Government since World War 2 has passed on to its successor either a Budget Surplus - or a Balance of Payments surplus. In 1970 Labour managed both.
coal? subsidy subsidy subsidy is what you are calling for. nationalisation nationalisation nationalisation. l suggest you join the Labour Party.
Subsidy subsidy subsidy is what we have now - for ridiculous white elephant renewables. Our energy policy is a bad joke. I also refuse to believe that burning British coal is more expensive (or indeed more damaging to the environment) than burning timber imported from North America.
Nor have I anywhere suggested nationalisation. What I do suggest is a degree of what might be called protectionism where to do otherwise exposes British companies to unfair competition from countries that do protect their industries.
I believe in economic liberalisation at a grassroots level as the only way to economic growth. But on an international scale, it's not always so simple. As an example, Germany's industry got started because it adopted protectionist policies against British industrial exports.
If we were going to burn more coal, it'd be imported coal. Shipping costs, even from thousands of miles away, are pretty negligible (boats are surprisingly efficient) and British coal is expensive/disadvantageous for reasons that are geological, therefore ultimately inescapable.
Actually it wouldn't. We have vast reserves of coal and we now have the technology to extract the energy from it without sticking people under ground as well. Indeed we would have been doing it long ago were it not for the idiotic AGW arguments.
Is this now cost-competitive with coal from countries where it is more accessible?
coal? subsidy subsidy subsidy is what you are calling for. nationalisation nationalisation nationalisation. l suggest you join the Labour Party.
Subsidy subsidy subsidy is what we have now - for ridiculous white elephant renewables. Our energy policy is a bad joke. I also refuse to believe that burning British coal is more expensive (or indeed more damaging to the environment) than burning timber imported from North America.
Nor have I anywhere suggested nationalisation. What I do suggest is a degree of what might be called protectionism where to do otherwise exposes British companies to unfair competition from countries that do protect their industries.
I believe in economic liberalisation at a grassroots level as the only way to economic growth. But on an international scale, it's not always so simple. As an example, Germany's industry got started because it adopted protectionist policies against British industrial exports.
Germanys industry has been so successful over the last 1/2 century's for many reasons, I would suggest that a massive one, and probably the most impotent is the light touch regulations, e.g. no minimum wages. These were largely imposed immediately after the war, by the western occupying contrary's, who did not have to worry about pandering to vested special interest groups, but instead could (and did) run the economy in the interests of the many. i.e. FREE markets! (very similarly to how Hong Kong prosper.) over time the German government has stated to regulates in the interests of the special interests like all power hungry politicians, but because they started off with the best possible regulations (i.e. very little) and have only slowly changed.
The cheapest form of electrical generation is gas, and if a free market existed this would grow to become dominate. become it produces so much less CO2 than Cole it would also lead to less of this being produced, but that escapes the bureaucrats and politicians, who would much rather spend your money on grand schemes and central plans, creating yet another special interest, just to look good for a few minuets, and ignoring the larger than need be electricity bills of everybody else, including the very poorest in are contrary who normally pay the largest proportion of there income on electricity than anybody else.
Excellent article from the Washigton Post about the GOP nomination race. It poses the contest as the angry camp vs the aspirational camp. For the latter, it presumes that Bush, Rubio and Kasich are the front-runners with Christie as also mentioned. The article seems premised upon accepting Jeb's argument that 'angry' can't win the presidency and hence the nominee will be from the aspirational camp;
Well worth reading for those betting on the US elections:
A good article (albeit with few actual predictions!) with the exception of:
David Axelrod, who was Obama’s chief strategist in both campaigns, often has said that voters look for a replacement rather than a replica in picking a new president. The adviser to one of Rubio’s rivals put it this way: “When was the last time this country elected two presidents with similar attributes?” Rubio will be trying to dissuade his fellow Republicans that he isn’t another Obama.
Lol.
What's that wonderful new expression for complaining about a personal shortcoming in order to boast about a (supposed) strength?
Charles said ' 'Compare and contrast the state of the national economy at the end of Labour governments in the last 30+ years - 1979 or 2010 - with the state of finances at the end of the last Tory/Tory-led governments (1997 / 2010).
I've not gone further back because I don't know - but I suspect comparing 1970 and 1974 would be a no-score draw for either side while 1964 would be good for the Tories and 1951 ok but not great for Labour'
In 1964 the Tories bequeathed Labour a record Balance of Payments deficit which by 1970 had been transformed into a substantial surplus accompanied by a Budget Surplus. The Heath Government ,therefore, inherited a double surplus from Labour in that we were paying our way in the world and the public finances were healthy. By 1974 the country faced rampant inflation , the balance of payments was heavily in deficit and we were running a significant Budget deficit. No Tory Government since World War 2 has passed on to its successor either a Budget Surplus - or a Balance of Payments surplus. In 1970 Labour managed both.
Interesting, and credit where credit is due. But how is what happened 45 years ago relevant to this Labour Party? Not a rhetorical question - genuinely asking whether the proposed economic policies are similar or not, and whether what worked then could work now given the different global environment.
If only the SNP had done as much digging on Michelle Thomson as this 'insane hater' blogger:
Michelle Thomson: 23 years of working in the financial services sector, before starting her own business in building up a portfolio of buy to let and corporate rental properties accessible through her her trading company: Your Property Shop. We have already seen from our Twitter exchanges that as MD of Business for Scotland Michelle is not a great fan of answering direct questions. Aside from Business for Scotland Ltd, Michelle has one active directorship: Your Property Shop Ltd (SC451292) - founded 05/13 and yet to file any accounts. She is also a Director of Edinburgh Global Property Investments ltd (SC342421) which ceased trading in 2011 and was dissolved in 2013; the balance sheet suggests this business never traded materially. She is also a Director of Michelle R Thomson Consulting ltd (SC377063) which is non-trading.
1) 'We' refers to the Conservative Party, of which I am a member.
-The Conservative Party is not governing. The Government is governing. It's an important distinction, and objective analysis is hindered by muddying the waters in this way.
2) Sales of housing do not count towards to GDP, so the numbers are not inflated by that one jot. GDP refers to production, not asset transfers.
-I never spoke of GDP. I spoke of our perceived wealth being based on overvalued property and high consumer spending, not the earning of real money. When this bubble bursts, we will fall back on what exactly?
3) The current account is merely the other side of the coin to the capital account. If you improve the attractiveness of an economy, you get more investment from abroad, and the current account needs to increase to make the numbers square.
-Facilitating the takeover of British firms with liberal takeover rules, easy credit, and a supine approach to the national interest is not 'improving the attractiveness of an economy', it's a fire sale. I don't doubt it made several investors very wealthy, but it has also led to a massive loss of proper jobs, and vital skills and resources leaving the country probably never to return.
--------------------------------------------- 4) The government has cut plenty of wasteful and non-essential spending. A cut of the deficit by six percent of GDP over five years, while reducing the tax burden at the same time, is one of the biggest austerity drives you can get without increasing employment. And if you increase employment, you are then wasting money as workers are sitting idle not producing anything. You will also struggle to find many deeper sustained cases of austerity anywhere in the world over the last half century.
-And continued with far more. I'm sure I don't need to tell you the difference between debt and deficit, and it's a damning indictment that a 'cut' in it (even that only as a percentage of GDP) is considered to be some sort of success.
5) There have been several convincing studies showing that government spending on culture and media actually sees an economic return. Wisely-spent development money is the same: just look at how we spent money investing in developing South America and India during the 19th Century, so that they could later buy more stuff from us. And then of course there are the non-economic benefits.
-In some form, the Government will always seek to benefit culture. It doesn't need a whole department to do that. As for International Development, 'wisely spent' is key. That shouldn't include iPads all round and expensive 'aid consultants' in an ugly rush to spend a grossly and arbitrarily inflated budget. I would suggest merging it with the foreign office where it can be used in the constructive way you seem to advocate.
6) We need to invest in nuclear weapons because they're difficult things to get. Food and steel are very easy to buy from abroad. It's not like we're a landlocked country that can be blocked off from the sea. The world is particularly awash with steel, which is overproduced globally.
-This reply demonstrates little understanding of what warfare means. To advocate we spend billions on a weapon (useless by the way) of last resort, but blithely wave away any concern about food security and having the independent industrial capability to prepare for war is simply silly.
7) Onshoring when its not profitable is madness. That goes for cheap labour based manufacturing and minerals where we do not have marginal deposits. Our last attempt to keep coalmining alive in this country resulted in destruction of entire communities when we could not subsidise it any more.
-You cannot have this both ways. Further up you advocate maintaining high levels of Government spending to avoid unemployment, but here you call on-shoring of actual productive industries madness. Why is it better to ensure continued employment for an equality advisor than to ensure it for a steelworker? The answer is it's not - it's worse.
1) 'We' refers to the Conservative Party, of which I am a member. 2) Sales of housing do not count towards to GDP, so the numbers are not inflated by that one jot. GDP refers to production, not asset transfers. 3) The current account is merely the other side of the coin to the capital account. If you improve the attractiveness of an economy, you get more investment from abroad, and the current account needs to increase to make the numbers square. 4) The government has cut plenty of wasteful and non-essential spending. A cut of the deficit by six percent of GDP over five years, while reducing the tax burden at the same time, is one of the biggest austerity drives you can get without increasing employment. And if you increase employment, you are then wasting money as workers are sitting idle not producing anything. You will also struggle to find many deeper sustained cases of austerity anywhere in the world over the last half century. 5) There have been several convincing studies showing that government spending on culture and media actually sees an economic return. Wisely-spent development money is the same: just look at how we spent money investing in developing South America and India during the 19th Century, so that they could later buy more stuff from us. And then of course there are the non-economic benefits. 6) We need to invest in nuclear weapons because they're difficult things to get. Food and steel are very easy to buy from abroad. It's not like we're a landlocked country that can be blocked off from the sea. The world is particularly awash with steel, which is overproduced globally. 7) Onshoring when its not profitable is madness. That goes for cheap labour based manufacturing and minerals where we do not have marginal deposits. Our last attempt to keep coalmining alive in this country resulted in destruction of entire communities when we could not subsidise it any more. 8) I agree about the principle for foreign conflicts, but I suspect we disagree about some of those cases. 9) Entirely agree about EU membership.
JEO,
There is an lot we agree on.
But
Point 4, I think you mean unemployment not employment?
Point 5, I see where you are coming from but,
a) 'wisely spent' is key, in this one and while sometimes government spending will be, more often and especially over the long term it never is, and in all likelihood on balance it will not be.
b) I'm fundamentally 'phobic' of governments deciding what is culturally good and worth supporting, culture not only reflects are society, it also shapes it. we do not live in totalitarian state, but it is notable how all totalitarian states have used the power of government, including spending on culture to try to re-shape those society's, and stay in power.
--------------------------------------------- 4) The government has cut plenty of wasteful and non-essential spending. A cut of the deficit by six percent of GDP over five years, while reducing the tax burden at the same time, is one of the biggest austerity drives you can get without increasing employment. And if you increase employment, you are then wasting money as workers are sitting idle not producing anything. You will also struggle to find many deeper sustained cases of austerity anywhere in the world over the last half century.
-And continued with far more. I'm sure I don't need to tell you the difference between debt and deficit, and it's a damning indictment that a 'cut' in it (even that only as a percentage of GDP) is considered to be some sort of success.
5) There have been several convincing studies showing that government spending on culture and media actually sees an economic return. Wisely-spent development money is the same: just look at how we spent money investing in developing South America and India during the 19th Century, so that they could later buy more stuff from us. And then of course there are the non-economic benefits.
-In some form, the Government will always seek to benefit culture. It doesn't need a whole department to do that. As for International Development, 'wisely spent' is key. That shouldn't include iPads all round and expensive 'aid consultants' in an ugly rush to spend a grossly and arbitrarily inflated budget. I would suggest merging it with the foreign office where it can be used in the constructive way you seem to advocate.
6) We need to invest in nuclear weapons because they're difficult things to get. Food and steel are very easy to buy from abroad. It's not like we're a landlocked country that can be blocked off from the sea. The world is particularly awash with steel, which is overproduced globally.
-This reply demonstrates little understanding of what warfare means. To advocate we spend billions on a weapon (useless by the way) of last resort, but blithely wave away any concern about food security and having the independent industrial capability to prepare for war is simply silly.
Indeed, Lucky, DFID used to be a (junior) department in the FCO. Now it dwarfs it.
7) Onshoring when its not profitable is madness. That goes for cheap labour based manufacturing and minerals where we do not have marginal deposits. Our last attempt to keep coalmining alive in this country resulted in destruction of entire communities when we could not subsidise it any more.
-You cannot have this both ways. Further up you advocate maintaining high levels of Government spending to avoid unemployment, but here you call on-shoring of actual productive industries madness. Why is it better to ensure continued employment for an equality advisor than to ensure it for a steelworker? The answer is it's not - it's worse.
I am also against subsidies unless they are short-lived and either aimed at allowing a sector to adapt to changed global conditions and come out the other side competitive (analogous to Chapter 11 or 13 bankruptcy), or as a means of less painfully transitioning the workforce in a failing sector to other jobs. However, temporary subsidies have the awful habit of becoming permanent and then doing considerable damage to consumers and the economy as a whole, and eventually catastrophic failure in the industry they purport to protect when continuing subsidies become non-viable. The Multi-Fibre Agreement is a classic example.
If the government is going to spend money on make-work, I'd rather it go on infrastructure development, or in addressing public goods and public bads where the markets fail to price and fund necessary projects. That at least is only marginally market distorting, and achieves a public good.
Indeed, Lucky, DFID used to be a (junior) department in the FCO. Now it dwarfs it.
May I take this opportunity to make an analogy as to how some see internatle development spending?
Making Love and Rape, are both types of sex. but they are very different, one is involves consent and is a wonderful experience and expression on devotion. the other involves the use or threat of force, and is possible the most horrific thing that one person can do to another.
This is not something that democracy can change, if one man forces a woman to have sex, it is rape, if 4 men force a woman to have sex with all of them it is not making love with an 80% democratic mandate, its gang rape, and its wrong!
When one person decides to voluntary give there money to another, this charity is a another wonderful example of goodness of people, it is entirely loadable, and in so many cases has positive outcomes for all involved.
When a government, demands with the threat of force that people pay taxes (or borrow, forcing there children to pay more taxes) and use this to give to other contrary's, it stops becoming a good thing and becomes a bad thing, and often has negative outcomes.
examples of how money given to governments has fostered corruption in un developed contrary's are many, it is the lack of success story's where international aid has played a significant role, that is shocking!!
Even if the money does not corrupt those in power, the transfer of wealth, has the effect of razing the values of the locale currency, to a level above that it would over wise be, that delayed, or even stops export industries developing, particularly low teck manefactuhering, that have the ability to pull a cautery out of poverty in an economically sustainable way, far quicker and more effectively than any other method.
The best, if not the only real way we can help other contrary's develop is to lower our tariff barriers, e.g. eliminate CAP and CET.
To be clear, I am not comparing the DFID to rape, to do so would not just be wrong it would be silly, and offensive. I am using it to explain how the use of force, can tern an otherwise good thing in to a bad thing.
Comments
And guess what - the Labour party elect a couple of prize loons to lead them and we can expect the tories to fall over themselves to do the same thing.
But further guess what - a real blinder this - Osborne who has steered the economy wisely has proved a sound campaigner and now has northwest labour politicians dutifully trotting all the way to China in his wake is gong to be seen as a liability by the CPP and the party faithful.
Who would they turn to instead? Why of course! Someone seen as acceptable to such idiots as Liam Fox - well known right winger of this parish who made a total tit of himself when he had a chance to shine (another one!).
You can talk up your chances as much as you like but l do not see anybody winning any bets with that logic.
And my whole point was that it is you who are looking at North Sea oil as just a source of energy, rather than is other far more important uses.
To repeat, your claim that North Sea Oil will be gone in 50 years is rubbish.
It's unlikely to work, but you can see why they are trying it. Enormous prize for the Trots.
It's not entryism, quite the opposite - removing the blairite entryists who had manoeuvred themselves into a stranglehold on the party and returning the party to moderate social democratic policies that the vast majority of its members and voters want. There's absolutely nothing 'quasi-Marxist' being suggested by anyone involved. Certainly you are correct in that for most people involved like me, the main thing is not necessarily winning the next election, but making sure that when the Tories inevitably mess up a proper social democratic Labour Party is waiting to take advantage, not Tory Plan B.
Ah. The 1992 strategy.
The economy is floating along on a bubble of us selling high-priced terraced houses to each other and upgrading to the latest flatscreen. Productivity is flat-lining. The balance of trade is truly terrifying. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/balance-of-trade Our companies and intellectual property have been flogged off. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2129507/Britain-sale-Uniquely-world-Britain-sold-half-companies-foreigners-And-paying-price.html
I expect the following of my Government:
-Cut wasteful and non-essential spending - whole departments like DCMS we could well do without. Ringfenced DFID another example. Not to actively contribute to the furore over 'austerity' by exaggerating the scale of modest cuts, but to make sure the country is aware of the parlous state of our finances and the necessity for us all to do something about it.
-Protect vital British industries where necessary, even if it means stepping in to prevent takeovers. Tories here want us to spend £100 billion on dealing with one single potential threat 40 years down the line. What about the threat of us having no steel production? What about the threat of us having little food production? Surely these are more serious considerations than being able to nuke someone when we're already toast?
-Serious cuts in red tape for companies, especially SMEs to allow them to compete with their larger rivals. Including ludicrous green targets.
-Focus on 'on-shoring' manufacturing, services, and commodities (like coal) wherever possible
-No foreign conflicts without a direct British interest
-Paint an honest picture about the financial outcomes of our EU membership, rather than concealing costs to bolster the case for remaining in
These would be a start.
subsidy subsidy subsidy is what you are calling for. nationalisation nationalisation nationalisation. l suggest you join the Labour Party.
We already have very regular power cuts outside urban areas - at least once or twice a week where I live - so much so that I have invested in a UPS to protect my computer equipment.
Once you realise that their primary goal is not to win the next election, everything falls into place.
What is their primary goal?
Or should I read that as "their primary goal is to not win the next election"? ;-)
Their goal is to take over Labour via classic tactics of entryism, get rid of Blairites, install their own guys eveywhere, seize the levers of power like the NEC, shift the entire party decisively and fiercely Left, so eventually the only significant Opposition party in the UK (or rUK) is quasi-Marxist, thus giving the commies a real and decent chance at actual power some time in the 2020s, if they can get a plausible leader.
It's unlikely to work, but you can see why they are trying it. Enormous prize for the Trots.
It's not entryism, quite the opposite - removing the blairite entryists who had manoeuvred themselves into a stranglehold on the party and returning the party to moderate social democratic policies that the vast majority of its members and voters want. There's absolutely nothing 'quasi-Marxist' being suggested by anyone involved. Certainly you are correct in that for most people involved like me, the main thing is not necessarily winning the next election, but making sure that when the Tories inevitably mess up a proper social democratic Labour Party is waiting to take advantage, not Tory Plan B.
So Labour's election winning strategy is to hope the Tories somehow mess it up enough to lose swathes of seats across middle England to a party led by someone who spent his entire conference speak studiously avoiding offering any ideas to people who are not receiving some form of social security.
The fact is that, as your words demonstrate, the Labour party is now not interested in persuading people of anything. Its strategy is to wait for the electors to come to it. Good luck with that.
Damn those Blairite entryists delivering a Labour government that introduced the minimum wage, expanded tax credits, lifted hundreds of thousands of children and pensioners out of poverty, increased spending on schools and hospitals, devolved power to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and so on. Nothing but Red Tory, entryist scum.
The numbers of long term unemployed and those who are really able bodied but who have been written off "on the sick" are, perhaps, a more useful measure of the wastage of talent and lives.
I might also suggest that the number of people who only survive economically because of welfare payments despite them working full-time is another distortion. Well, actually, I think it is a national scandal but that is, perhaps, a separate argument.
It's Spock v Kirk...
The needs of the many (those at the top of the SNP hierarchy) outweigh the needs of the one (Michelle Thomson)
I don't believe in no win scenarios...
As for renewables, of course they have a role to play - wind is currently, I mean as of a few minutes ago, generating 1.3% of our electricity.
Nor have I anywhere suggested nationalisation. What I do suggest is a degree of what might be called protectionism where to do otherwise exposes British companies to unfair competition from countries that do protect their industries.
I believe in economic liberalisation at a grassroots level as the only way to economic growth. But on an international scale, it's not always so simple. As an example, Germany's industry got started because it adopted protectionist policies against British industrial exports.
@fperraudin
'Labour's magic money-printing machine' - a stall at Tory conference
No. The Tories are much weaker and less popular than they were in the 80s/ early 90s, and have almost nothing positive to offer the electorate. It won't take much at all to tip them out of government.
Delayed unfortunately.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-34429661
A credible opposition.
As against that, Labour made a lot of progress in 1992, gaining 40 seats, and outperforming in marginal seats. This time round, Labour lost 26 seats, and went backwards in the marginal seats.
What's more 51-55% of voters support centre right parties. In England, the figure is 55-60%. That's a big shift, compared to 1992. The big danger for Labour is that Conservative voters will vote tactically for UKIP, where the party is the challenger to Labour, and UKIP voters will vote tactically for the Conservatives where Conservatives are defending marginal seats from Labour.
That failure, incidentally, led directly to the modern assumption that a leader defeated at a general election quits immediately thereafter.
Must have missed the popularity of the Poll Tax / recession years.
I guess it's going to be a while.
I've not gone further back because I don't know - but I suspect comparing 1970 and 1974 would be a no-score draw for either side while 1964 would be good for the Tories and 1951 ok but not great for Labour
Shadow Europe Minister Pat McFadden, who served as a minister under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, accused Mr Corbyn of turning Labour into a protest movement rather than a party of government. Sky http://news.sky.com/story/1563703/corbyn-criticised-for-tory-protest-by-own-side
Next Permanent Sunderland Mgr:
Allardyce 7/4
Dyche 9/2
Vieira 5
Laudrup 7 http://t.co/TARSgnJhGt
It's like some Labour supporters have had a collective bout of amnesia and forgotten that they lost in May and the Tories got their first majority for 23 years and gained votes compared to 2010 even with the rise of UKIP.
@helenpidd
Just called Tory scum on Oxford road. So constructive. Told them I was a journalist: "journalist scum then".
To respond to each of your points:
1) 'We' refers to the Conservative Party, of which I am a member.
2) Sales of housing do not count towards to GDP, so the numbers are not inflated by that one jot. GDP refers to production, not asset transfers.
3) The current account is merely the other side of the coin to the capital account. If you improve the attractiveness of an economy, you get more investment from abroad, and the current account needs to increase to make the numbers square.
4) The government has cut plenty of wasteful and non-essential spending. A cut of the deficit by six percent of GDP over five years, while reducing the tax burden at the same time, is one of the biggest austerity drives you can get without increasing employment. And if you increase employment, you are then wasting money as workers are sitting idle not producing anything. You will also struggle to find many deeper sustained cases of austerity anywhere in the world over the last half century.
5) There have been several convincing studies showing that government spending on culture and media actually sees an economic return. Wisely-spent development money is the same: just look at how we spent money investing in developing South America and India during the 19th Century, so that they could later buy more stuff from us. And then of course there are the non-economic benefits.
6) We need to invest in nuclear weapons because they're difficult things to get. Food and steel are very easy to buy from abroad. It's not like we're a landlocked country that can be blocked off from the sea. The world is particularly awash with steel, which is overproduced globally.
7) Onshoring when its not profitable is madness. That goes for cheap labour based manufacturing and minerals where we do not have marginal deposits. Our last attempt to keep coalmining alive in this country resulted in destruction of entire communities when we could not subsidise it any more.
8) I agree about the principle for foreign conflicts, but I suspect we disagree about some of those cases.
9) Entirely agree about EU membership.
Well worth reading for those betting on the US elections:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bush-rubio-and-kasich-eye-one-another-in-the-shadow-of-trump/2015/10/03/f3cff3f2-69dc-11e5-9223-70cb36460919_story.html
A Tory in a blue tie, lanyard and suit laughing at the protest from behind a police cordon just got egged in the face
1:51 PM - 4 Oct 2015
'
'Compare and contrast the state of the national economy at the end of Labour governments in the last 30+ years - 1979 or 2010 - with the state of finances at the end of the last Tory/Tory-led governments (1997 / 2010).
I've not gone further back because I don't know - but I suspect comparing 1970 and 1974 would be a no-score draw for either side while 1964 would be good for the Tories and 1951 ok but not great for Labour'
In 1964 the Tories bequeathed Labour a record Balance of Payments deficit which by 1970 had been transformed into a substantial surplus accompanied by a Budget Surplus. The Heath Government ,therefore, inherited a double surplus from Labour in that we were paying our way in the world and the public finances were healthy. By 1974 the country faced rampant inflation , the balance of payments was heavily in deficit and we were running a significant Budget deficit. No Tory Government since World War 2 has passed on to its successor either a Budget Surplus - or a Balance of Payments surplus. In 1970 Labour managed both.
comment deleted
The cheapest form of electrical generation is gas, and if a free market existed this would grow to become dominate. become it produces so much less CO2 than Cole it would also lead to less of this being produced, but that escapes the bureaucrats and politicians, who would much rather spend your money on grand schemes and central plans, creating yet another special interest, just to look good for a few minuets, and ignoring the larger than need be electricity bills of everybody else, including the very poorest in are contrary who normally pay the largest proportion of there income on electricity than anybody else.
What's that wonderful new expression for complaining about a personal shortcoming in order to boast about a (supposed) strength?
Michelle Thomson: 23 years of working in the financial services sector, before starting her own business in building up a portfolio of buy to let and corporate rental properties accessible through her her trading company: Your Property Shop. We have already seen from our Twitter exchanges that as MD of Business for Scotland Michelle is not a great fan of answering direct questions. Aside from Business for Scotland Ltd, Michelle has one active directorship: Your Property Shop Ltd (SC451292) - founded 05/13 and yet to file any accounts. She is also a Director of Edinburgh Global Property Investments ltd (SC342421) which ceased trading in 2011 and was dissolved in 2013; the balance sheet suggests this business never traded materially. She is also a Director of Michelle R Thomson Consulting ltd (SC377063) which is non-trading.
http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/who-do-business-for-scotland-represent.html
---------------------------------------------
4) The government has cut plenty of wasteful and non-essential spending. A cut of the deficit by six percent of GDP over five years, while reducing the tax burden at the same time, is one of the biggest austerity drives you can get without increasing employment. And if you increase employment, you are then wasting money as workers are sitting idle not producing anything. You will also struggle to find many deeper sustained cases of austerity anywhere in the world over the last half century.
-And continued with far more. I'm sure I don't need to tell you the difference between debt and deficit, and it's a damning indictment that a 'cut' in it (even that only as a percentage of GDP) is considered to be some sort of success.
5) There have been several convincing studies showing that government spending on culture and media actually sees an economic return. Wisely-spent development money is the same: just look at how we spent money investing in developing South America and India during the 19th Century, so that they could later buy more stuff from us. And then of course there are the non-economic benefits.
-In some form, the Government will always seek to benefit culture. It doesn't need a whole department to do that. As for International Development, 'wisely spent' is key. That shouldn't include iPads all round and expensive 'aid consultants' in an ugly rush to spend a grossly and arbitrarily inflated budget. I would suggest merging it with the foreign office where it can be used in the constructive way you seem to advocate.
6) We need to invest in nuclear weapons because they're difficult things to get. Food and steel are very easy to buy from abroad. It's not like we're a landlocked country that can be blocked off from the sea. The world is particularly awash with steel, which is overproduced globally.
-This reply demonstrates little understanding of what warfare means. To advocate we spend billions on a weapon (useless by the way) of last resort, but blithely wave away any concern about food security and having the independent industrial capability to prepare for war is simply silly.
--------------------------------------------
7) Onshoring when its not profitable is madness. That goes for cheap labour based manufacturing and minerals where we do not have marginal deposits. Our last attempt to keep coalmining alive in this country resulted in destruction of entire communities when we could not subsidise it any more.
-You cannot have this both ways. Further up you advocate maintaining high levels of Government spending to avoid unemployment, but here you call on-shoring of actual productive industries madness. Why is it better to ensure continued employment for an equality advisor than to ensure it for a steelworker? The answer is it's not - it's worse.
As it happens I'm against subsidy - one of the chief reasons for the recent steelworks closure is the destructive green levy that British firms have to deal with. Likewise coal - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/11631729/Carbon-tax-was-misjudged-and-made-coal-uneconomic.html - It's about levelling the playing field, not subsidising anything. As a free trade advocate I'm sure you agree.
There is an lot we agree on.
But
Point 4, I think you mean unemployment not employment?
Point 5, I see where you are coming from but,
a) 'wisely spent' is key, in this one and while sometimes government spending will be, more often and especially over the long term it never is, and in all likelihood on balance it will not be.
b) I'm fundamentally 'phobic' of governments deciding what is culturally good and worth supporting, culture not only reflects are society, it also shapes it. we do not live in totalitarian state, but it is notable how all totalitarian states have used the power of government, including spending on culture to try to re-shape those society's, and stay in power.
I am also against subsidies unless they are short-lived and either aimed at allowing a sector to adapt to changed global conditions and come out the other side competitive (analogous to Chapter 11 or 13 bankruptcy), or as a means of less painfully transitioning the workforce in a failing sector to other jobs. However, temporary subsidies have the awful habit of becoming permanent and then doing considerable damage to consumers and the economy as a whole, and eventually catastrophic failure in the industry they purport to protect when continuing subsidies become non-viable. The Multi-Fibre Agreement is a classic example.
If the government is going to spend money on make-work, I'd rather it go on infrastructure development, or in addressing public goods and public bads where the markets fail to price and fund necessary projects. That at least is only marginally market distorting, and achieves a public good.
new thread
Making Love and Rape, are both types of sex. but they are very different, one is involves consent and is a wonderful experience and expression on devotion. the other involves the use or threat of force, and is possible the most horrific thing that one person can do to another.
This is not something that democracy can change, if one man forces a woman to have sex, it is rape, if 4 men force a woman to have sex with all of them it is not making love with an 80% democratic mandate, its gang rape, and its wrong!
When one person decides to voluntary give there money to another, this charity is a another wonderful example of goodness of people, it is entirely loadable, and in so many cases has positive outcomes for all involved.
When a government, demands with the threat of force that people pay taxes (or borrow, forcing there children to pay more taxes) and use this to give to other contrary's, it stops becoming a good thing and becomes a bad thing, and often has negative outcomes.
examples of how money given to governments has fostered corruption in un developed contrary's are many, it is the lack of success story's where international aid has played a significant role, that is shocking!!
Even if the money does not corrupt those in power, the transfer of wealth, has the effect of razing the values of the locale currency, to a level above that it would over wise be, that delayed, or even stops export industries developing, particularly low teck manefactuhering, that have the ability to pull a cautery out of poverty in an economically sustainable way, far quicker and more effectively than any other method.
The best, if not the only real way we can help other contrary's develop is to lower our tariff barriers, e.g. eliminate CAP and CET.
To be clear, I am not comparing the DFID to rape, to do so would not just be wrong it would be silly, and offensive. I am using it to explain how the use of force, can tern an otherwise good thing in to a bad thing.