Corbyn does not hate Britain, he just genuinely does not get patriotism or affection for a country or even the projection of a country as some kind entity. He does not see the world in that way. He sees it in terms of class - exploiters and the exploited. Once you understand that about Corbyn everything else about him becomes much easier to understand.
As long as he is leader Labour is unelectable. The major problem with that for all of us of whatever political hue we are is that it gives the Tories a completely free ride. Cameron can promise to make everyone better off and to deliver hundreds of thousands of new, affordable homes, and he has no-one to hold him to account. Should Labour come to understand this and then do something about it things could change quickly. But, sadly, it seems that Labour is happily ensconced in its comfort zone and will be for a fair while yet.
What evidence do you have that Jeremy Corbyn likes Britain? Meanwhile he refused to sing the national anthem, sympathises with the IRA, wants to give away Northern Ireland and the Falklands, overwhelm us with immigration and reduce the army. At least Miliband used to say he was proud to be British. I don't think Corbyn's ever done the same. Corbyn is more Ralph Miliband than Ed.
I didn't say Corbyn likes Britain. I said he has no understanding of it. He does not see the world in terms of countries. Like all good quasi-Marxists, he sees it in terms of class.
Today's Quinnipiac polls have two interesting pieces of data: 1. Biden performs significantly better in the head to heads than Hillary 2. Kasich is not doing well even in Ohio. This does not bode well for his abilities to take the GOP nomination.
I am against so called serious governments saying they are going to do things without explaining how. It seems Tories are no stranger to magical money trees when it comes to certain projects.
WRT Trident itself, I want a serious debate because of the cost and because we shouldn't muck around lightly with the post-war settlement (which goes for the EU Brexit too).
You have referred to the 'post war settlement' previously and I honestly could not fathom what you were trying to convey. But in its most obvious form, that settlement should entail that the UK should retain its nuclear deterrent, established as you know in the 1940s, by Clement Attlee and Ernest Bevin.
''the government is going to have to build build build if it is going to have any credibility left in this area in 2020. ''
Even if they do, that may trample on very tory toes in the home counties and shires.
If we can get the right developments, I don't think people would have an issue. There are around 4,000 villages in England. 25 houses per village. There's 100k right there. Its when we get these large, soulless developments that NIMBYism kicks in.
My village is a similiar size, w weren't very impressed with the plans for ~ 300 homes on our doorstep.
You can probably stick 35 or so in without too much issue though.
Organic growth of established historic local town and village communities to reflect demand, in the vernacular style, rather than grandiose central projects for Eco-towns or new towns is what I'd consider a classic conservative solution to the housing crisis.
Corbyn does not hate Britain, he just genuinely does not get patriotism or affection for a country or even the projection of a country as some kind entity. He does not see the world in that way. He sees it in terms of class - exploiters and the exploited. Once you understand that about Corbyn everything else about him becomes much easier to understand.
As long as he is leader Labour is unelectable. The major problem with that for all of us of whatever political hue we are is that it gives the Tories a completely free ride. Cameron can promise to make everyone better off and to deliver hundreds of thousands of new, affordable homes, and he has no-one to hold him to account. Should Labour come to understand this and then do something about it things could change quickly. But, sadly, it seems that Labour is happily ensconced in its comfort zone and will be for a fair while yet.
What evidence do you have that Jeremy Corbyn likes Britain? Meanwhile he refused to sing the national anthem, sympathises with the IRA, wants to give away Northern Ireland and the Falklands, overwhelm us with immigration and reduce the army. At least Miliband used to say he was proud to be British. I don't think Corbyn's ever done the same. Corbyn is more Ralph Miliband than Ed.
He's a global international socialist who just happens to have been born and brought up in these islands.
English is his native language so he may as well start the world revolution here.
?? He's continuity Blair/Cameron. Whats so massively right wing about him ? He's not instantly popular like say Boris is, but I can't get him being a 'right wing ideologue'.
It's a bit hard to say he's continuity New Labour when he's made his main mission undoing much of what the last Labour government did (not least, tax credits).
Plus, although he can't help this, his manner and personality just comes across as a "typical Tory" in a way that May and (to some extent) Cameron do not.
That seems fair - many have made the point that Cameron is more right wing than many think, that his great ability has been to simply not 'frighten' people with more extreme policies because even if they perceive him as right wing, they don't regard him as one to be frightened of. For whatever reason, others cannot pull off the same trick (or have it not be a trick) as well, so far.
In that Ganesh podcast a few days ago large portions were given over to Osborne as well, and it keeps getting pushed that he is the one with a lot of the ideas, and though those ideas may be no more right wing ideologue than Cameron is perceived to be, that people may see him as the masterful strategist behind the scene, coldly calculating, may make people more inclined to think he is that kind of ideologue.
That's the key contrast in perception with Thatcher: who is one of my idols but basically, let's face it, whether rightly or wrongly, was perceived as doing virtually no dressing up. She said exactly what her targets and objectives were, who were the heroes and villains in achieving them, that it was for their own darn good, and looked like she enjoyed both saying and doing it too.
I agree with both you and Kle4, that the big difference between Thatcher and Cameron is that Cam is good at sounding reassuring and unthreatening even when pushing right-wing things - but IMO Osborne is closer to Thatcher on that score (he's not as good an actor as Cameron is).
I'd see the right as wanting to halt progress, to hark back to former (imagined) glories; the left as seeing the role of the state and spending as being paramount; and the sensible centre as trusting the people.
The right wing is in no way about harking back to former glories. From my position on the right it is entirely about limiting or ideally reducing the role of the state and increasing the freedom of the individual, of the family and of the community. This by definition is in direct opposition to any statist view which is generally - but not entirely - the position of the left. Bear in mind anarchists are generally considered to be of the left.
The centre is by no means necessarily sensible. Simply because something is generally agreed by consensus to be right and proper does not necessarily make it so. The centre ground for decades believed that homosexuality was wrong or something to be ashamed of. The same could be said of any number of social issues and indeed it is often those considered to be firmly of the right (Libertarians as an example) who have most strongly campaigned for freedom of the individual in social matters. .
Corbyn does not hate Britain, he just genuinely does not get patriotism or affection for a country or even the projection of a country as some kind entity. He does not see the world in that way. He sees it in terms of class - exploiters and the exploited. Once you understand that about Corbyn everything else about him becomes much easier to understand.
As long as he is leader Labour is unelectable. The major problem with that for all of us of whatever political hue we are is that it gives the Tories a completely free ride. Cameron can promise to make everyone better off and to deliver hundreds of thousands of new, affordable homes, and he has no-one to hold him to account. Should Labour come to understand this and then do something about it things could change quickly. But, sadly, it seems that Labour is happily ensconced in its comfort zone and will be for a fair while yet.
What evidence do you have that Jeremy Corbyn likes Britain? Meanwhile he refused to sing the national anthem, sympathises with the IRA, wants to give away Northern Ireland and the Falklands, overwhelm us with immigration and reduce the army. At least Miliband used to say he was proud to be British. I don't think Corbyn's ever done the same. Corbyn is more Ralph Miliband than Ed.
I didn't say Corbyn likes Britain. I said he has no understanding of it. He does not see the world in terms of countries. Like all good quasi-Marxists, he sees it in terms of class.
Corbyn saw the IRA (united Ireland via progressive bomb and solidarity bullet) in terms of both. Disgusting creature. McDonell even worse.
Spokesperson for @jeremycorbyn: Cameron's personalised attacks show he's rattled by re-energisation of @UKLabour
In fairness, including that bit did allow for that particular rejoinder, whether it has merit or not, rather than force Corbyn to stretch himself coming up with something more in his response.
Though if personal attacks signify a side is rattled, well, those who claim not to throw stones, Jeremy, should probably not do so while standing amidst a crowd of stone throwers.
Corbyn does not hate Britain, he just genuinely does not get patriotism or affection for a country or even the projection of a country as some kind entity. He does not see the world in that way. He sees it in terms of class - exploiters and the exploited. Once you understand that about Corbyn everything else about him becomes much easier to understand.
As long as he is leader Labour is unelectable. The major problem with that for all of us of whatever political hue we are is that it gives the Tories a completely free ride. Cameron can promise to make everyone better off and to deliver hundreds of thousands of new, affordable homes, and he has no-one to hold him to account. Should Labour come to understand this and then do something about it things could change quickly. But, sadly, it seems that Labour is happily ensconced in its comfort zone and will be for a fair while yet.
What evidence do you have that Jeremy Corbyn likes Britain? Meanwhile he refused to sing the national anthem, sympathises with the IRA, wants to give away Northern Ireland and the Falklands, overwhelm us with immigration and reduce the army. At least Miliband used to say he was proud to be British. I don't think Corbyn's ever done the same. Corbyn is more Ralph Miliband than Ed.
He's a global international socialist who just happens to have been born and brought up in these islands.
English is his native language so he may as well start the world revolution here.
And as a far left international socialist, he hates what they see as the imperialist powers: firstly the United States, and secondly Britain. Germany is being rapidly added to the group.
I wonder what people on the far left think about France? They obviously have a long imperial history, and engage in lots of military adventures in the third world, but on the other hand, they sometimes challenge the USA.
I'd see the right as wanting to halt progress, to hark back to former (imagined) glories; the left as seeing the role of the state and spending as being paramount; and the sensible centre as trusting the people.
The right wing is in no way about harking back to former glories. From my position on the right it is entirely about limiting or ideally reducing the role of the state and increasing the freedom of the individual, of the family and of the community. This by definition is in direct opposition to any statist view which is generally - but not entirely - the position of the left. Bear in mind anarchists are generally considered to be of the left.
The centre is by no means necessarily sensible. Simply because something is generally agreed by consensus to be right and proper does not necessarily make it so. The centre ground for decades believed that homosexuality was wrong or something to be ashamed of. The same could be said of any number of social issues and indeed it is often those considered to be firmly of the right (Libertarians as an example) who have most strongly campaigned for freedom of the individual in social matters. .
Anarchists are nothing of the sort. Anarchist wanting more government spending and being opposed to cuts is like f**king for virginity. They don't understand the meaning of the word.
As a socially liberal, economically right relatively laissez faire Conservative (Libertarian in America) I am far more of am anarchist than any Anarchist.
''the government is going to have to build build build if it is going to have any credibility left in this area in 2020. ''
Even if they do, that may trample on very tory toes in the home counties and shires.
If we can get the right developments, I don't think people would have an issue. There are around 4,000 villages in England. 25 houses per village. There's 100k right there. Its when we get these large, soulless developments that NIMBYism kicks in.
I would agree but it seems that councils and developers do not and neither have the government of either stripe to date. Thus we have the 'Growth Point' initiatives which gave large sums of extra money to councils who were willing to tack many thousands of houses onto the edges of towns and cities. Newark being the example I am most familiar with where the population will increase by about 60% over a period of 15 years as a result of thousands of extra houses in dormitory estates, the jobs for which simply don't exist in the area.
"It was ambitious, almost giddily so. For the last five years David Cameron has been a technically proficient but essentially second-rate prime minister, lacking any sort of vision for a legacy that could put him in the historical premier league. Today he sounded like someone who had seriously thought about what he wants to achieve and he set out an attractive “one nation” prospectus, ranging into areas like poverty, prison reform and racial discrimination that rarely feature so prominently in leader speeches at the Conservative conference. If Michael Heseltine had become Tory leader, he would have sounded like this.
Yet is any of it deliverable? It also sounded like a speech that Cameron may be anxious to forget by 2020. He called for more rehabilitation in prisons, but Chris Grayling pledged the same in the last parliament when he was justice secretary and the change he proposed never materialised. Cameron promised an “all-out assault on poverty”, saying that work was the best route out of poverty, but in-work poverty has been increasing, experts expect poverty on conventional measures to go up by the end of the decade and harsh tax credit cuts are about to come into force. He also deplored the lack of social mobility in the UK, and called for more equality. But on all these issues he had little or nothing to say about the policy levers he might pull to achieve his goals, and there is a danger that he is raising hopes he will not be able to fulfil.
Technically, it was very polished. The jokes worked well - he deserves particular credit for being able to laugh off Lord Ashcroft’s biographical hit job (see 12.12pm) - and, although he had little to say about Jeremy Corbyn, the key soundbite (see 11.57am) was vicious, but probably effective."
''the government is going to have to build build build if it is going to have any credibility left in this area in 2020. ''
Even if they do, that may trample on very tory toes in the home counties and shires.
If we can get the right developments, I don't think people would have an issue. There are around 4,000 villages in England. 25 houses per village. There's 100k right there. Its when we get these large, soulless developments that NIMBYism kicks in.
My village is a similiar size, w weren't very impressed with the plans for ~ 300 homes on our doorstep.
You can probably stick 35 or so in without too much issue though.
Organic growth of established historic local town and village communities to reflect demand, in the vernacular style, rather than grandiose central projects for Eco-towns or new towns is what I'd consider a classic conservative solution to the housing crisis.
I am against so called serious governments saying they are going to do things without explaining how. It seems Tories are no stranger to magical money trees when it comes to certain projects.
WRT Trident itself, I want a serious debate because of the cost and because we shouldn't muck around lightly with the post-war settlement (which goes for the EU Brexit too).
Oh dear that doesn't make you a Putinist too does it?
So we're all on here discussing whether Cameron is a Conservative or not, and you want to preserve the world order of 70 years ago? Or were you thinking of a different war?
I'd see the right as wanting to halt progress, to hark back to former (imagined) glories; the left as seeing the role of the state and spending as being paramount; and the sensible centre as trusting the people.
The right wing is in no way about harking back to former glories. From my position on the right it is entirely about limiting or ideally reducing the role of the state and increasing the freedom of the individual, of the family and of the community. This by definition is in direct opposition to any statist view which is generally - but not entirely - the position of the left. Bear in mind anarchists are generally considered to be of the left.
The centre is by no means necessarily sensible. Simply because something is generally agreed by consensus to be right and proper does not necessarily make it so. The centre ground for decades believed that homosexuality was wrong or something to be ashamed of. The same could be said of any number of social issues and indeed it is often those considered to be firmly of the right (Libertarians as an example) who have most strongly campaigned for freedom of the individual in social matters. .
Anarchists are nothing of the sort. Anarchist wanting more government spending and being opposed to cuts is like f**king for virginity. They don't understand the meaning of the word.
As a socially liberal, economically right relatively laissez faire Conservative (Libertarian in America) I am far more of am anarchist than any Anarchist.
That was kind of the point I was making if you bothered to read the post properly.
And you are in no way a Libertarian. By definition anyone who supports the existence of the EU and our membership of it as you do cannot in any way be considered a Libertarian.
?? He's continuity Blair/Cameron. Whats so massively right wing about him ? He's not instantly popular like say Boris is, but I can't get him being a 'right wing ideologue'.
It's a bit hard to say he's continuity New Labour when he's made his main mission undoing much of what the last Labour government did (not least, tax credits).
Plus, although he can't help this, his manner and personality just comes across as a "typical Tory" in a way that May and (to some extent) Cameron do not.
That seems fair - many have made the point that Cameron is more right wing than many think, that his great ability has been to simply not 'frighten' people with more extreme policies because even if they perceive him as right wing, they don't regard him as one to be frightened of. For whatever reason, others cannot pull off the same trick (or have it not be a trick) as well, so far.
In that Ganesh podcast a few days ago large portions were given over to Osborne as well, and it keeps getting pushed that he is the one with a lot of the ideas, and though those ideas may be no more right wing ideologue than Cameron is perceived to be, that people may see him as the masterful strategist behind the scene, coldly calculating, may make people more inclined to think he is that kind of ideologue.
That's the key contrast in perception with Thatcher: who is one of my idols but basically, let's face it, whether rightly or wrongly, was perceived as doing virtually no dressing up. She said exactly what her targets and objectives were, who were the heroes and villains in achieving them, that it was for their own darn good, and looked like she enjoyed both saying and doing it too.
I agree with both you and Kle4, that the big difference between Thatcher and Cameron is that Cam is good at sounding reassuring and unthreatening even when pushing right-wing things - but IMO Osborne is closer to Thatcher on that score (he's not as good an actor as Cameron is).
Yes, although I might put it slightly differently: it's not about how well you camouflage something nasty, he's just better at the sales pitch. And there's nothing wrong with that - it's about making motive, effort, outcome and reward clear.
Particularly motive - people want to know your values and that you're ultimately on their side, or their will be no audience for the policy at all.
Spokesperson for @jeremycorbyn: Cameron's personalised attacks show he's rattled by re-energisation of @UKLabour
In fairness, including that bit did allow for that particular rejoinder, whether it has merit or not, rather than force Corbyn to stretch himself coming up with something more in his response.
Though if personal attacks signify a side is rattled, well, those who claim not to throw stones, Jeremy, should probably not do so while standing amidst a crowd of stone throwers.
Janan Ganesh´s tweet is interesting because in 2003 a Tory MP famously said that Tony Blair could stay PM for another 10 years if he wanted to (until he was 60). That must have been just before the Iraq War started.
I'd see the right as wanting to halt progress, to hark back to former (imagined) glories; the left as seeing the role of the state and spending as being paramount; and the sensible centre as trusting the people.
The right wing is in no way about harking back to former glories. From my position on the right it is entirely about limiting or ideally reducing the role of the state and increasing the freedom of the individual, of the family and of the community. This by definition is in direct opposition to any statist view which is generally - but not entirely - the position of the left. Bear in mind anarchists are generally considered to be of the left.
The centre is by no means necessarily sensible. Simply because something is generally agreed by consensus to be right and proper does not necessarily make it so. The centre ground for decades believed that homosexuality was wrong or something to be ashamed of. The same could be said of any number of social issues and indeed it is often those considered to be firmly of the right (Libertarians as an example) who have most strongly campaigned for freedom of the individual in social matters. .
Anarchists are nothing of the sort. Anarchist wanting more government spending and being opposed to cuts is like f**king for virginity. They don't understand the meaning of the word.
As a socially liberal, economically right relatively laissez faire Conservative (Libertarian in America) I am far more of am anarchist than any Anarchist.
That was kind of the point I was making if you bothered to read the post properly.
And you are in no way a Libertarian. By definition anyone who supports the existence of the EU and our membership of it as you do cannot in any way be considered a Libertarian.
No need to be defensive. I wasn't criticising you I was making a joke and agreeing with you.
Janan Ganesh´s tweet is interesting because in 2003 a Tory MP famously said that Tony Blair could stay PM for another 10 years if he wanted to (until he was 60). That must have been just before the Iraq War started.
Cameron vs Blair in 2010 would have been interesting.
I'd see the right as wanting to halt progress, to hark back to former (imagined) glories; the left as seeing the role of the state and spending as being paramount; and the sensible centre as trusting the people.
The right wing is in no way about harking back to former glories. From my position on the right it is entirely about limiting or ideally reducing the role of the state and increasing the freedom of the individual, of the family and of the community. This by definition is in direct opposition to any statist view which is generally - but not entirely - the position of the left. Bear in mind anarchists are generally considered to be of the left.
The centre is by no means necessarily sensible. Simply because something is generally agreed by consensus to be right and proper does not necessarily make it so. The centre ground for decades believed that homosexuality was wrong or something to be ashamed of. The same could be said of any number of social issues and indeed it is often those considered to be firmly of the right (Libertarians as an example) who have most strongly campaigned for freedom of the individual in social matters. .
Anarchists are nothing of the sort. Anarchist wanting more government spending and being opposed to cuts is like f**king for virginity. They don't understand the meaning of the word.
As a socially liberal, economically right relatively laissez faire Conservative (Libertarian in America) I am far more of am anarchist than any Anarchist.
That was kind of the point I was making if you bothered to read the post properly.
And you are in no way a Libertarian. By definition anyone who supports the existence of the EU and our membership of it as you do cannot in any way be considered a Libertarian.
No need to be defensive. I wasn't criticising you I was making a joke and agreeing with you.
As for the EU I see it as very flawed.
Apologies on both points. Internet comprehension failure.
Cameron hasn't pushed Tories to the left - he's expanded the tent. So he talks about prison for FGM/arranged forced marriage, shutting down fundy schools and prison reform to make them into proper citizens as "we've got them 24.7" And in the next breath talks about stopping sexism and blacks not getting an equal stab at the same job as a whitey.
I don't know any Tories who want blacks to have less of a job chance because of their skin colour, but lots who dislike FGM and fundies.
I'd see the right as wanting to halt progress, to hark back to former (imagined) glories; the left as seeing the role of the state and spending as being paramount; and the sensible centre as trusting the people.
The right wing is in no way about harking back to former glories. From my position on the right it is entirely about limiting or ideally reducing the role of the state and increasing the freedom of the individual, of the family and of the community. This by definition is in direct opposition to any statist view which is generally - but not entirely - the position of the left. Bear in mind anarchists are generally considered to be of the left.
The centre is by no means necessarily sensible. Simply because something is generally agreed by consensus to be right and proper does not necessarily make it so. The centre ground for decades believed that homosexuality was wrong or something to be ashamed of. The same could be said of any number of social issues and indeed it is often those considered to be firmly of the right (Libertarians as an example) who have most strongly campaigned for freedom of the individual in social matters. .
Anarchists are nothing of the sort. Anarchist wanting more government spending and being opposed to cuts is like f**king for virginity. They don't understand the meaning of the word.
As a socially liberal, economically right relatively laissez faire Conservative (Libertarian in America) I am far more of am anarchist than any Anarchist.
That was kind of the point I was making if you bothered to read the post properly.
And you are in no way a Libertarian. By definition anyone who supports the existence of the EU and our membership of it as you do cannot in any way be considered a Libertarian.
No need to be defensive. I wasn't criticising you I was making a joke and agreeing with you.
As for the EU I see it as very flawed.
Apologies on both points. Internet comprehension failure.
Thank you. Humour can be lost in translation online sometimes.
I am against so called serious governments saying they are going to do things without explaining how. It seems Tories are no stranger to magical money trees when it comes to certain projects.
WRT Trident itself, I want a serious debate because of the cost and because we shouldn't muck around lightly with the post-war settlement (which goes for the EU Brexit too).
Cameron hasn't pushed Tories to the left - he's expanded the tent. So he talks about prison for FGM/arranged forced marriage, shutting down fundy schools and prison reform to make them into proper citizens as "we've got them 24.7" And in the next breath talks about stopping sexism and blacks not getting an equal stab at the same job as a whitey.
I don't know any Tories who want blacks to have less of a job chance because of their skin colour, but lots who dislike FGM and fundies.
What fun. Cameron moves the Tories to the left (maybe, we shall see). TSE will be alright with this, but will most PB Tories?
I haven't seen any evidence of that yet apart from pitch and mood-music. In fact, on immigration, the sounds are that things will be tightened still further.
But, if he does move the Tory party left, and abandon the manifesto I voted for, he will have a bigger problem than just PB Tories.
I'd see the right as wanting to halt progress, to hark back to former (imagined) glories; the left as seeing the role of the state and spending as being paramount; and the sensible centre as trusting the people.
The right wing is in no way about harking back to former glories. From my position on the right it is entirely about limiting or ideally reducing the role of the state and increasing the freedom of the individual, of the family and of the community. This by definition is in direct opposition to any statist view which is generally - but not entirely - the position of the left. Bear in mind anarchists are generally considered to be of the left.
The centre is by no means necessarily sensible. Simply because something is generally agreed by consensus to be right and proper does not necessarily make it so. The centre ground for decades believed that homosexuality was wrong or something to be ashamed of. The same could be said of any number of social issues and indeed it is often those considered to be firmly of the right (Libertarians as an example) who have most strongly campaigned for freedom of the individual in social matters. .
Anarchists are nothing of the sort. Anarchist wanting more government spending and being opposed to cuts is like f**king for virginity. They don't understand the meaning of the word.
As a socially liberal, economically right relatively laissez faire Conservative (Libertarian in America) I am far more of am anarchist than any Anarchist.
I am against so called serious governments saying they are going to do things without explaining how. It seems Tories are no stranger to magical money trees when it comes to certain projects.
WRT Trident itself, I want a serious debate because of the cost and because we shouldn't muck around lightly with the post-war settlement (which goes for the EU Brexit too).
Translation: I'm against Tories.
Translation: I am stuck with Tories whether I like it or not. They need to be held to account for the choices they make.
I'd see the right as wanting to halt progress, to hark back to former (imagined) glories; the left as seeing the role of the state and spending as being paramount; and the sensible centre as trusting the people.
The right wing is in no way about harking back to former glories. From my position on the right it is entirely about limiting or ideally reducing the role of the state and increasing the freedom of the individual, of the family and of the community. This by definition is in direct opposition to any statist view which is generally - but not entirely - the position of the left. Bear in mind anarchists are generally considered to be of the left.
The centre is by no means necessarily sensible. Simply because something is generally agreed by consensus to be right and proper does not necessarily make it so. The centre ground for decades believed that homosexuality was wrong or something to be ashamed of. The same could be said of any number of social issues and indeed it is often those considered to be firmly of the right (Libertarians as an example) who have most strongly campaigned for freedom of the individual in social matters. .
Anarchists are nothing of the sort. Anarchist wanting more government spending and being opposed to cuts is like f**king for virginity. They don't understand the meaning of the word.
As a socially liberal, economically right relatively laissez faire Conservative (Libertarian in America) I am far more of am anarchist than any Anarchist.
What does 'socially liberal' mean?
It means he wants to sleep around while smoking a joint.
Angela and Francois are at the European Parliament. Predictably most speakers are calling for more Europe.
The most telling thing about Cameron today - which hardly anyone seems to have picked up upon - is his very strong signal that he will recommend Remain.
There is no virtually no chance he will pitch for Leave.
I'm sure Guy Verhofstadt and the rest of the EU are barking mad. He is calling for a common Foreign and Defence policy, a common Border and Migration policy too. The only sense I've heard spoken was by a Polish chap and now an East German former communist lady.
What fun. Cameron moves the Tories to the left (maybe, we shall see). TSE will be alright with this, but will most PB Tories?
Fun to see if he does move so - he was pilloried by much of his own right up until he won, and he's not in the clear with them now, but if that is indeed what he wants to do, he'll never get a better opportunity to do so and convince them toback him.
@ phillip thompson You mean we cannot even trust anarchists to be anarchic anymore? What's the world coming to?
Angela and Francois are at the European Parliament. Predictably most speakers are calling for more Europe.
The most telling thing about Cameron today - which hardly anyone seems to have picked up upon - is his very strong signal that he will recommend Remain.
There is no virtually no chance he will pitch for Leave.
And I can't see that he has a snowball's chance of getting any meaningful reform. I'm sure this will earn me a denouncation from Richard N for saying it.
Steve Bell has always come across in his cartoons as being a rather rude, nasty comic. The comparison with Matt of the Telegraph is clear. The latter is far funnier, without ever being nasty.
Bell's work has always been ugly and humourless. His professional longevity is a mystery.
I'm sure Guy Verhofstadt and the rest of the EU are barking mad. He is calling for a common Foreign and Defence policy, a common Border and Migration policy too. The only sense I've heard spoken was by a Polish chap and now an East German former communist lady.
What fun. Cameron moves the Tories to the left (maybe, we shall see). TSE will be alright with this, but will most PB Tories?
I haven't seen any evidence of that yet apart from pitch and mood-music. In fact, on immigration, the sounds are that things will be tightened still further.
But, if he does move the Tory party left, and abandon the manifesto I voted for, he will have a bigger problem than just PB Tories.
I agree about the evidence - hence my "we shall see". If he means it and succeeds he needn't worry about PB Tories, there's plenty of electors in the sensible centre. Maybe it's a way of putting pale blue water between Cameron/Osborne and May.
What fun. Cameron moves the Tories to the left (maybe, we shall see). TSE will be alright with this, but will most PB Tories?
Honestly, I no longer know what that means. I've often described myself as right of centre, or socially liberal, fiscally conservative, or a sopping wet Tory. Now? I don't know. The centre has moved in my lifetime.
For practical purposes, Labour have run up to me, spat in my face and screamed 'Tory scum'. Hence, I doubt I'll be voting for them in the forseeable future. The LDs seem to be both policy-free and irredeemably Europhile, so I have no real alternative home for my vote.
I'm sure Guy Verhofstadt and the rest of the EU are barking mad. He is calling for a common Foreign and Defence policy, a common Border and Migration policy too. The only sense I've heard spoken was by a Polish chap and now an East German former communist lady.
Cameron hasn't pushed Tories to the left - he's expanded the tent. So he talks about prison for FGM/arranged forced marriage, shutting down fundy schools and prison reform to make them into proper citizens as "we've got them 24.7" And in the next breath talks about stopping sexism and blacks not getting an equal stab at the same job as a whitey.
I don't know any Tories who want blacks to have less of a job chance because of their skin colour, but lots who dislike FGM and fundies.
''And I can't see that he is a snowball's chance of getting any meaningful reform. I'm sure this will earn me a denouncation from Richard N for saying it.''
This is the only cloud on Dave's horizon. But it is a big cloud.
Angela and Francois are at the European Parliament. Predictably most speakers are calling for more Europe.
The most telling thing about Cameron today - which hardly anyone seems to have picked up upon - is his very strong signal that he will recommend Remain.
There is no virtually no chance he will pitch for Leave.
The passage on the EU was short and telling. First, it was short (meaning he didn't feel that he needed to waste much time on it). Secondly, it indicated that he has a transactional view of Britain's relationship with the EU - we're in it for what we can get out of it. Thirdly, as you say, it was implicit that he thought that we were better off in. I may be wrong in this but I inferred a fourthly, which is that he thinks he can get a deal that is saleable to the British people.
Downing Street said that the new inspection regime would apply to an estimated 5,000 religious institutions offering eight or more hours of study a week to children in England, including Christian Sunday schools and Jewish yeshivas as well as up to 2,000 madrassas.
Many of these offer teaching within places of worship, but others are conducted in homes.
At present, these institutions are not required to register with the authorities and are not subject to inspection.
They will now have to register with the Department for Education, and faith groups will be consulted on the precise details of how inspections should be conducted and whether they should be carried out by schools watchdog Ofsted or another body.
Good. A small step in the right direction.
Speaking as someone who grew up in 1970s/80s Belfast, IMO organised religion has NO place in running educational establishments. All it does is embed the "them / us" attitude into young minds that then get hobbled with it.
And yes - for the avoidance of doubt - I include CoE and RC schools in that too.
It all depends on what the faith in question teaches. My school taught the faith of the Good Samaritan, who demonstrated that you should provide help and support to members of hated ethnic groups. That is the direct opposite to a "them/us" attitude.
In some Inner City areas, religious organisations offer a lot of out of hours schooling and homework supervision to children from deprived backgrounds. That seems to be very obviously a good thing, to me.
I'm sure Guy Verhofstadt and the rest of the EU are barking mad. He is calling for a common Foreign and Defence policy, a common Border and Migration policy too. The only sense I've heard spoken was by a Polish chap and now an East German former communist lady.
I'd agree with you there, but don't think he is at Strasbourg today.
What fun. Cameron moves the Tories to the left (maybe, we shall see). TSE will be alright with this, but will most PB Tories?
Honestly, I no longer know what that means. I've often described myself as right of centre, or socially liberal, fiscally conservative, or a sopping wet Tory. Now? I don't know. The centre has moved in my lifetime.
For practical purposes, Labour have run up to me, spat in my face and screamed 'Tory scum'. Hence, I doubt I'll be voting for them in the forseeable future. The LDs seem to be both policy-free and irredeemably Europhile, so I have no real alternative home for my vote.
That actually bothers me a great deal.
Equally, I've always thought of myself as essentially centrist (I doubt I would've disagreed with anything the SDP stood for in the 1980s), yet the Tories these days hysterically shriek at me that I'm a loony leftie and a threat to national security just because I believe unemployed people should be treated with dignity, that low-paid workers should be given top-ups so they have a liveable income, and that good public services are more important than the deficit.
Just caught up .with Corbyns comment about Dave being rattled... and I thought Cornbyn was about new kinder and honest politics. Difficult for Cornbyn to.pull that one off if he is so deluded and a liar into the bargain.
Cameron hasn't pushed Tories to the left - he's expanded the tent. So he talks about prison for FGM/arranged forced marriage, shutting down fundy schools and prison reform to make them into proper citizens as "we've got them 24.7" And in the next breath talks about stopping sexism and blacks not getting an equal stab at the same job as a whitey.
I don't know any Tories who want blacks to have less of a job chance because of their skin colour, but lots who dislike FGM and fundies.
What fun. Cameron moves the Tories to the left (maybe, we shall see). TSE will be alright with this, but will most PB Tories?
That´s exactly what I was thinking. I don´t think he´s turned left, just made it more attractive for Labour right-wingers to consider a move.
If he wanted to Cameron could make real steps towards redefining the whole way in which we view political parties. By becoming a radically socially liberal but economically conservative leader he could transform politics in the UK. Certainly with the social trends being in the direction of more liberalism he would probably not find it all that hard.
The problem is that there is a third part of this equation which is to be truly radical in terms of the relationship between the state and the individual - cutting the involvement of the state in huge swathes of our lives and making people far more responsible for their own successes and failures whilst maintaining a very basic safety net. In effect reversing the last 70 years of encroaching socialism and welfarism. I am not convinced that Cameron has either the belief or the political will to do any of that. As a result whatever he can achieve will be too easily reversible come the next Labour Government whenever it appears.
I'm sure Guy Verhofstadt and the rest of the EU are barking mad. He is calling for a common Foreign and Defence policy, a common Border and Migration policy too. The only sense I've heard spoken was by a Polish chap and now an East German former communist lady.
What fun. Cameron moves the Tories to the left (maybe, we shall see). TSE will be alright with this, but will most PB Tories?
I haven't seen any evidence of that yet apart from pitch and mood-music. In fact, on immigration, the sounds are that things will be tightened still further.
But, if he does move the Tory party left, and abandon the manifesto I voted for, he will have a bigger problem than just PB Tories.
I agree about the evidence - hence my "we shall see". If he means it and succeeds he needn't worry about PB Tories, there's plenty of electors in the sensible centre. Maybe it's a way of putting pale blue water between Cameron/Osborne and May.
But that attitude got him into trouble before GE2015 - we will never know, but it was a narrow escape by playing the Labour/SNP card. The Tory party membership remains very badly hollowed out. He woke up to the UKIP threat far too late, and still only has a narrow majority.
Besides which the sensible centre have immigration as their number one issue, so the right-flank still must be guarded.
Cameron hasn't pushed Tories to the left - he's expanded the tent. So he talks about prison for FGM/arranged forced marriage, shutting down fundy schools and prison reform to make them into proper citizens as "we've got them 24.7" And in the next breath talks about stopping sexism and blacks not getting an equal stab at the same job as a whitey.
I don't know any Tories who want blacks to have less of a job chance because of their skin colour, but lots who dislike FGM and fundies.
What fun. Cameron moves the Tories to the left (maybe, we shall see). TSE will be alright with this, but will most PB Tories?
That´s exactly what I was thinking. I don´t think he´s turned left, just made it more attractive for Labour right-wingers to consider a move.
If he wanted to Cameron could make real steps towards redefining the whole way in which we view political parties. By becoming a radically socially liberal but economically conservative leader he could transform politics in the UK. Certainly with the social trends being in the direction of more liberalism he would probably not find it all that hard.
The problem is that there is a third part of this equation which is to be truly radical in terms of the relationship between the state and the individual - cutting the involvement of the state in huge swathes of our lives and making people far more responsible for their own successes and failures whilst maintaining a very basic safety net. In effect reversing the last 70 years of encroaching socialism and welfarism. I am not convinced that Cameron has either the belief or the political will to do any of that. As a result whatever he can achieve will be too easily reversible come the next Labour Government whenever it appears.
Corbyn does not hate Britain, he just genuinely does not get patriotism or affection for a country or even the projection of a country as some kind entity. He does not see the world in that way. He sees it in terms of class - exploiters and the exploited. Once you understand that about Corbyn everything else about him becomes much easier to understand.
As long as he is leader Labour is unelectable. The major problem with that for all of us of whatever political hue we are is that it gives the Tories a completely free ride. Cameron can promise to make everyone better off and to deliver hundreds of thousands of new, affordable homes, and he has no-one to hold him to account. Should Labour come to understand this and then do something about it things could change quickly. But, sadly, it seems that Labour is happily ensconced in its comfort zone and will be for a fair while yet.
What evidence do you have that Jeremy Corbyn likes Britain? Meanwhile he refused to sing the national anthem, sympathises with the IRA, wants to give away Northern Ireland and the Falklands, overwhelm us with immigration and reduce the army. At least Miliband used to say he was proud to be British. I don't think Corbyn's ever done the same. Corbyn is more Ralph Miliband than Ed.
I didn't say Corbyn likes Britain. I said he has no understanding of it. He does not see the world in terms of countries. Like all good quasi-Marxists, he sees it in terms of class.
Corbyn saw the IRA (united Ireland via progressive bomb and solidarity bullet) in terms of both. Disgusting creature. McDonell even worse.
No he sees it in terms of exploiter and exploited. I am not defending him - I think he is profoundly wrong - I am explaining him. His world view has indeed led him to some morally repulsive positions.
Again I think you're mistaken, what May said was entirely unsayable and now said.
She's grasping a long overdue nettle. I don't find her speech at all at odds with Cameron - she was tackling a real issue well past its sell-by date.
One can be pro the right sort of immigration and against all the others. If the Tories are finally catching up with this - I'm delighted. CCHQ have been dumping climate change nonsense whilst still paying lip service. I'm a patient sort and pleased by this.
What fun. Cameron moves the Tories to the left (maybe, we shall see). TSE will be alright with this, but will most PB Tories?
I haven't seen any evidence of that yet apart from pitch and mood-music. In fact, on immigration, the sounds are that things will be tightened still further.
But, if he does move the Tory party left, and abandon the manifesto I voted for, he will have a bigger problem than just PB Tories.
I agree about the evidence - hence my "we shall see". If he means it and succeeds he needn't worry about PB Tories, there's plenty of electors in the sensible centre. Maybe it's a way of putting pale blue water between Cameron/Osborne and May.
Just caught up .with Corbyns comment about Dave being rattled... and I thought Cornbyn was about new kinder and honest politics. Difficult for Cornbyn to.pull that one off if he is so deluded and a liar into the bargain.
What fun. Cameron moves the Tories to the left (maybe, we shall see). TSE will be alright with this, but will most PB Tories?
Honestly, I no longer know what that means. I've often described myself as right of centre, or socially liberal, fiscally conservative, or a sopping wet Tory. Now? I don't know. The centre has moved in my lifetime.
For practical purposes, Labour have run up to me, spat in my face and screamed 'Tory scum'. Hence, I doubt I'll be voting for them in the forseeable future. The LDs seem to be both policy-free and irredeemably Europhile, so I have no real alternative home for my vote.
That actually bothers me a great deal.
Equally, I've always thought of myself as essentially centrist (I doubt I would've disagreed with anything the SDP stood for in the 1980s), yet the Tories these days hysterically shriek at me that I'm a loony leftie just because I believe unemployed people should be treated with dignity, that low-paid workers should be given top-ups so they have a liveable income, and that good public services are more important than the deficit.
The hysterical shrieking was only coming from one side of the barriers in Manchester.
What fun. Cameron moves the Tories to the left (maybe, we shall see). TSE will be alright with this, but will most PB Tories?
Honestly, I no longer know what that means. I've often described myself as right of centre, or socially liberal, fiscally conservative, or a sopping wet Tory. Now? I don't know. The centre has moved in my lifetime.
For practical purposes, Labour have run up to me, spat in my face and screamed 'Tory scum'. Hence, I doubt I'll be voting for them in the forseeable future. The LDs seem to be both policy-free and irredeemably Europhile, so I have no real alternative home for my vote.
That actually bothers me a great deal.
I think several commentators have got it wrong: it's not David Cameron moving his tanks onto Labour's lawn; it's that he's gone over to Labour's lawn, blown up the tanks they haven't already sabotaged themselves, and said to the fed-up people sitting over there, "look how nice and grassy my lawn was all along - come and join us"
He is trying to move the centre ground of British politics onto his turf.
I think several commentators have got it wrong: it's not David Cameron moving his tanks onto Labour's lawn; it's that he's gone over to Labour's lawn, blown up the tanks they haven't already sabotaged themselves, and said to the fed-up people sitting over there, "look how nice and grassy my lawn was all along - come and join us"
He is trying to move the centre ground of British politics onto his turf.
@rustinpeace00: Cameron now sifting through the smouldering wreckage of the Labour Party searching for voters. #CPC15
Assad launches ground offensive coinciding with Russia saying it has launched rocket strikes on Islamic State targets in Syria from its warships in the Caspian Sea - about 1,500km (930 miles) away.
Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu said four warships fired 26 sea-based cruise missiles on 11 targets, destroying them.
The big question now is: are Russian spetsnaz troops accompanying Syrian troops in this new push?
What fun. Cameron moves the Tories to the left (maybe, we shall see). TSE will be alright with this, but will most PB Tories?
Honestly, I no longer know what that means. I've often described myself as right of centre, or socially liberal, fiscally conservative, or a sopping wet Tory. Now? I don't know. The centre has moved in my lifetime.
For practical purposes, Labour have run up to me, spat in my face and screamed 'Tory scum'. Hence, I doubt I'll be voting for them in the forseeable future. The LDs seem to be both policy-free and irredeemably Europhile, so I have no real alternative home for my vote.
That actually bothers me a great deal.
Equally, I've always thought of myself as essentially centrist (I doubt I would've disagreed with anything the SDP stood for in the 1980s), yet the Tories these days hysterically shriek at me that I'm a loony leftie just because I believe unemployed people should be treated with dignity, that low-paid workers should be given top-ups so they have a liveable income, and that good public services are more important than the deficit.
The hysterical shrieking was only coming from one side of the barriers in Manchester.
The Tories have been endlessly telling me that I'm a threat to national security.
What fun. Cameron moves the Tories to the left (maybe, we shall see). TSE will be alright with this, but will most PB Tories?
Honestly, I no longer know what that means. I've often described myself as right of centre, or socially liberal, fiscally conservative, or a sopping wet Tory. Now? I don't know. The centre has moved in my lifetime.
For practical purposes, Labour have run up to me, spat in my face and screamed 'Tory scum'. Hence, I doubt I'll be voting for them in the forseeable future. The LDs seem to be both policy-free and irredeemably Europhile, so I have no real alternative home for my vote.
That actually bothers me a great deal.
Equally, I've always thought of myself as essentially centrist (I doubt I would've disagreed with anything the SDP stood for in the 1980s), yet the Tories these days hysterically shriek at me that I'm a loony leftie and a threat to national security just because I believe unemployed people should be treated with dignity, that low-paid workers should be given top-ups so they have a liveable income, and that good public services are more important than the deficit.
Unemployed should be helped back into work with training and work experience programmes, the low paid don't need top ups, they need better pay and lower tax and public services need to be efficient and give good value for money.
That's interesting as a self view. When you first posted here - and were quite forthright about being a high-tax/high spend sort - I thought that was a principled position to take. Not pretending that high spending didn't come with a political cost.
I thought you were quite firm Left. Now, I'm thinking you're not quite so keen on that idea and you voted IIRC for Yvette. Can't see you as a Tory even in the safety of the ballot box
What fun. Cameron moves the Tories to the left (maybe, we shall see). TSE will be alright with this, but will most PB Tories?
Honestly, I no longer know what that means. I've often described myself as right of centre, or socially liberal, fiscally conservative, or a sopping wet Tory. Now? I don't know. The centre has moved in my lifetime.
For practical purposes, Labour have run up to me, spat in my face and screamed 'Tory scum'. Hence, I doubt I'll be voting for them in the forseeable future. The LDs seem to be both policy-free and irredeemably Europhile, so I have no real alternative home for my vote.
That actually bothers me a great deal.
Equally, I've always thought of myself as essentially centrist (I doubt I would've disagreed with anything the SDP stood for in the 1980s), yet the Tories these days hysterically shriek at me that I'm a loony leftie and a threat to national security just because I believe unemployed people should be treated with dignity, that low-paid workers should be given top-ups so they have a liveable income, and that good public services are more important than the deficit.
What fun. Cameron moves the Tories to the left (maybe, we shall see). TSE will be alright with this, but will most PB Tories?
Honestly, I no longer know what that means. I've often described myself as right of centre, or socially liberal, fiscally conservative, or a sopping wet Tory. Now? I don't know. The centre has moved in my lifetime.
For practical purposes, Labour have run up to me, spat in my face and screamed 'Tory scum'. Hence, I doubt I'll be voting for them in the forseeable future. The LDs seem to be both policy-free and irredeemably Europhile, so I have no real alternative home for my vote.
That actually bothers me a great deal.
I think several commentators have got it wrong: it's not David Cameron moving his tanks onto Labour's lawn; it's that he's gone over to Labour's lawn, blown up the tanks they haven't already sabotaged themselves, and said to the fed-up people sitting over there, "look how nice and grassy my lawn was all along - come and join us"
He is trying to move the centre ground of British politics onto his turf.
I think several commentators have got it wrong: it's not David Cameron moving his tanks onto Labour's lawn; it's that he's gone over to Labour's lawn, blown up the tanks they haven't already sabotaged themselves, and said to the fed-up people sitting over there, "look how nice and grassy my lawn was all along - come and join us"
He is trying to move the centre ground of British politics onto his turf.
@rustinpeace00: Cameron now sifting through the smouldering wreckage of the Labour Party searching for voters. #CPC15
The problem is that he looks more like Predator than like a rescuer.
If he wanted to Cameron could make real steps towards redefining the whole way in which we view political parties. By becoming a radically socially liberal but economically conservative leader he could transform politics in the UK. Certainly with the social trends being in the direction of more liberalism he would probably not find it all that hard.
The problem is that there is a third part of this equation which is to be truly radical in terms of the relationship between the state and the individual - cutting the involvement of the state in huge swathes of our lives and making people far more responsible for their own successes and failures whilst maintaining a very basic safety net. In effect reversing the last 70 years of encroaching socialism and welfarism. I am not convinced that Cameron has either the belief or the political will to do any of that. As a result whatever he can achieve will be too easily reversible come the next Labour Government whenever it appears.
Whether or not Cameron has the stomach for such journey, is a moot point because I am fairly certain that majority of the English people haven't. If Cameron and his clique could just deliver on what they have already promised he would go down in history as a great PM, he really doesn't need to go finding new frontiers to conquer. To put it another way he does not need to lead us to a new promised land just to make our existing land rather better than it currently is.
In my view, we have had enough of the promises let us see some delivery.
What fun. Cameron moves the Tories to the left (maybe, we shall see). TSE will be alright with this, but will most PB Tories?
Honestly, I no longer know what that means. I've often described myself as right of centre, or socially liberal, fiscally conservative, or a sopping wet Tory. Now? I don't know. The centre has moved in my lifetime.
For practical purposes, Labour have run up to me, spat in my face and screamed 'Tory scum'. Hence, I doubt I'll be voting for them in the forseeable future. The LDs seem to be both policy-free and irredeemably Europhile, so I have no real alternative home for my vote.
That actually bothers me a great deal.
Equally, I've always thought of myself as essentially centrist (I doubt I would've disagreed with anything the SDP stood for in the 1980s), yet the Tories these days hysterically shriek at me that I'm a loony leftie and a threat to national security just because I believe unemployed people should be treated with dignity, that low-paid workers should be given top-ups so they have a liveable income, and that good public services are more important than the deficit.
"I believe unemployed people should be treated with dignity"
What's wrong with giving people dignity by encouraging those who can back to work, whilst still supporting those who can not?
"that low-paid workers should be given top-ups so they have a liveable income"
What's wrong with the aim being that they should no longer be low-paid, so they no longer need top-ups?
"good public services are more important than the deficit."
Our children will just have to pay for our excesses. And btw, tackling the deficit does not necessarily equate to poor public services, just as not tackling the deficit automatically means you will get good public services.
That's interesting as a self view. When you first posted here - and were quite forthright about being a high-tax/high spend sort - I thought that was a principled position to take. Not pretending that high spending didn't come with a political cost.
I thought you were quite firm Left. Now, I'm thinking you're not quite so keen on that idea and you voted IIRC for Yvette. Can't see you as a Tory even in the safety of the ballot box
What fun. Cameron moves the Tories to the left (maybe, we shall see). TSE will be alright with this, but will most PB Tories?
Honestly, I no longer know what that means. I've often described myself as right of centre, or socially liberal, fiscally conservative, or a sopping wet Tory. Now? I don't know. The centre has moved in my lifetime.
For practical purposes, Labour have run up to me, spat in my face and screamed 'Tory scum'. Hence, I doubt I'll be voting for them in the forseeable future. The LDs seem to be both policy-free and irredeemably Europhile, so I have no real alternative home for my vote.
That actually bothers me a great deal.
Equally, I've always thought of myself as essentially centrist (I doubt I would've disagreed with anything the SDP stood for in the 1980s), yet the Tories these days hysterically shriek at me that I'm a loony leftie and a threat to national security just because I believe unemployed people should be treated with dignity, that low-paid workers should be given top-ups so they have a liveable income, and that good public services are more important than the deficit.
It's interesting to consider how one's self view might change over time, and why, and if there was ever even close to how others saw them. I feel like I am trending a bit more to the right thesedays, on some issues anyway, although that could be via some sort of political osmosis effect.
Cameron hasn't pushed Tories to the left - he's expanded the tent. So he talks about prison for FGM/arranged forced marriage, shutting down fundy schools and prison reform to make them into proper citizens as "we've got them 24.7" And in the next breath talks about stopping sexism and blacks not getting an equal stab at the same job as a whitey.
I don't know any Tories who want blacks to have less of a job chance because of their skin colour, but lots who dislike FGM and fundies.
What fun. Cameron moves the Tories to the left (maybe, we shall see). TSE will be alright with this, but will most PB Tories?
That´s exactly what I was thinking. I don´t think he´s turned left, just made it more attractive for Labour right-wingers to consider a move.
If he wanted to Cameron could make real steps towards redefining the whole way in which we view political parties. By becoming a radically socially liberal but economically conservative leader he could transform politics in the UK. Certainly with the social trends being in the direction of more liberalism he would probably not find it all that hard.
The problem is that there is a third part of this equation which is to be truly radical in terms of the relationship between the state and the individual - cutting the involvement of the state in huge swathes of our lives and making people far more responsible for their own successes and failures whilst maintaining a very basic safety net. In effect reversing the last 70 years of encroaching socialism and welfarism. I am not convinced that Cameron has either the belief or the political will to do any of that. As a result whatever he can achieve will be too easily reversible come the next Labour Government whenever it appears.
I owe everything I have today to the welfare state. I thank God that it came into being and I give heartfelt thanks to those who ensured that it did. The welfare state gave me life chances that had been denied to the countless generations of my family who came before. Clever, hard-working people denied health care, decent housing, security in old age and opportunities merely because they were poor. And mine is a story that has millions of equivalents in every part of this country. The creation of the welfare state - thanks largely to the Labour and Liberal parties (whether directly or through changing the terms of debate) - is one of the crowning glories of the UK's history.
Cameron hasn't pushed Tories to the left - he's expanded the tent. So he talks about prison for FGM/arranged forced marriage, shutting down fundy schools and prison reform to make them into proper citizens as "we've got them 24.7" And in the next breath talks about stopping sexism and blacks not getting an equal stab at the same job as a whitey.
I don't know any Tories who want blacks to have less of a job chance because of their skin colour, but lots who dislike FGM and fundies.
What fun. Cameron moves the Tories to the left (maybe, we shall see). TSE will be alright with this, but will most PB Tories?
That´s exactly what I was thinking. I don´t think he´s turned left, just made it more attractive for Labour right-wingers to consider a move.
If he wanted to Cameron could make real steps towards redefining the whole way in which we view political parties. By becoming a radically socially liberal but economically conservative leader he could transform politics in the UK. Certainly with the social trends being in the direction of more liberalism he would probably not find it all that hard.
The problem is that there is a third part of this equation which is to be truly radical in terms of the relationship between the state and the individual - cutting the involvement of the state in huge swathes of our lives and making people far more responsible for their own successes and failures whilst maintaining a very basic safety net. In effect reversing the last 70 years of encroaching socialism and welfarism. I am not convinced that Cameron has either the belief or the political will to do any of that. As a result whatever he can achieve will be too easily reversible come the next Labour Government whenever it appears.
I owe everything I have today to the welfare state. I thank God that it came into being and I give heartfelt thanks to those who ensured that it did. The welfare state gave me life chances that had been denied to the countless generations of my family who came before. Clever, hard-working people denied health care, decent housing, security in old age and opportunities merely because they were poor. And mine is a story that has millions of equivalents in every part of this country. The creation of the welfare state - thanks largely to the Labour and Liberal parties (whether directly or through changing the terms of debate) - is one of the crowning glories of the UK's history.
''I sincerely hope that the delusion of Corbynistas continues -''
Only a big electoral shock will end the delusion. We won;t get one of those for a while, I don;t think.
Losing the London mayoralty by a heavy margin might do it. I think Goldsmith will walk it with more than 55%.
The Mayoral vs Assembly splits might well be interesting. Can see plenty of 'centrist' voters going Zac Mayoral and Lib Dem or Labour for the Assembly (particularly if the 'local' Tories are more Brian Coleman than Zac Goldsmith...)
I started out as a Tory, NOTA with the LDs in protest, became a Blairite, and returned to the Tories under Cameron. I feel the Parties have moved about and I've stayed the same at heart.
That's interesting as a self view. When you first posted here - and were quite forthright about being a high-tax/high spend sort - I thought that was a principled position to take. Not pretending that high spending didn't come with a political cost.
I thought you were quite firm Left. Now, I'm thinking you're not quite so keen on that idea and you voted IIRC for Yvette. Can't see you as a Tory even in the safety of the ballot box
What fun. Cameron moves the Tories to the left (maybe, we shall see). TSE will be alright with this, but will most PB Tories?
Honestly, I no longer know what that means. I've often described myself as right of centre, or socially liberal, fiscally conservative, or a sopping wet Tory. Now? I don't know. The centre has moved in my lifetime.
For practical purposes, Labour have run up to me, spat in my face and screamed 'Tory scum'. Hence, I doubt I'll be voting for them in the forseeable future. The LDs seem to be both policy-free and irredeemably Europhile, so I have no real alternative home for my vote.
That actually bothers me a great deal.
Equally, I've always thought of myself as essentially centrist (I doubt I would've disagreed with anything the SDP stood for in the 1980s), yet the Tories these days hysterically shriek at me that I'm a loony leftie and a threat to national security just because I believe unemployed people should be treated with dignity, that low-paid workers should be given top-ups so they have a liveable income, and that good public services are more important than the deficit.
It's interesting to consider how one's self view might change over time, and why, and if there was ever even close to how others saw them. I feel like I am trending a bit more to the right thesedays, on some issues anyway, although that could be via some sort of political osmosis effect.
''The creation of the welfare state - thanks largely to the Labour and Liberal parties (whether directly or through changing the terms of debate) - is one of the crowning glories of the UK's history.''
If he wanted to Cameron could make real steps towards redefining the whole way in which we view political parties. By becoming a radically socially liberal but economically conservative leader he could transform politics in the UK. Certainly with the social trends being in the direction of more liberalism he would probably not find it all that hard.
The problem is that there is a third part of this equation which is to be truly radical in terms of the relationship between the state and the individual - cutting the involvement of the state in huge swathes of our lives and making people far more responsible for their own successes and failures whilst maintaining a very basic safety net. In effect reversing the last 70 years of encroaching socialism and welfarism. I am not convinced that Cameron has either the belief or the political will to do any of that. As a result whatever he can achieve will be too easily reversible come the next Labour Government whenever it appears.
Whether or not Cameron has the stomach for such journey, is a moot point because I am fairly certain that majority of the English people haven't. If Cameron and his clique could just deliver on what they have already promised he would go down in history as a great PM, he really doesn't need to go finding new frontiers to conquer. To put it another way he does not need to lead us to a new promised land just to make our existing land rather better than it currently is.
In my view, we have had enough of the promises let us see some delivery.
I think realistically, one can shrink the State. There's no reason why one couldn't establish a consensus that public spending would be around 30-35% of GDP, rather than 40-45% of GDP. But, I don't think there would be an appetite among the public for anything that's more radical.
Two good things - in my world at least - have just happened to me:
(1) I just logged onto Skybet to place a bet on Cameron leaving in 2019, and found £174 in there from the GE I'd forgotten to withdraw (2) That was won off the back of Smithson junior's tip of the LDs on 0-10 seats at odds of 16/1 (peace be upon him) and I've just double-checked the LD seat prediction I did back in March. I realised I had a spreadsheet model - model 2, which used a standard constituency vote split model - where I predicted the LDs on exactly 8 seats, with 27 Con gains and 11 Lab gains. I didn't call all the same 8 holds, but did on four of them: Sheffield Hallam, Westmorland, Norfolk North and Leeds North West:
What fun. Cameron moves the Tories to the left (maybe, we shall see). TSE will be alright with this, but will most PB Tories?
That´s exactly what I was thinking. I don´t think he´s turned left, just made it more attractive for Labour right-wingers to consider a move.
If he wanted to Cameron could make real steps towards redefining the whole way in which we view political parties. By becoming a radically socially liberal but economically conservative leader he could transform politics in the UK. Certainly with the social trends being in the direction of more liberalism he would probably not find it all that hard.
The problem is that there is a third part of this equation which is to be truly radical in terms of the relationship between the state and the individual - cutting the involvement of the state in huge swathes of our lives and making people far more responsible for their own successes and failures whilst maintaining a very basic safety net. In effect reversing the last 70 years of encroaching socialism and welfarism. I am not convinced that Cameron has either the belief or the political will to do any of that. As a result whatever he can achieve will be too easily reversible come the next Labour Government whenever it appears.
I owe everything I have today to the welfare state. I thank God that it came into being and I give heartfelt thanks to those who ensured that it did. The welfare state gave me life chances that had been denied to the countless generations of my family who came before. Clever, hard-working people denied health care, decent housing, security in old age and opportunities merely because they were poor. And mine is a story that has millions of equivalents in every part of this country. The creation of the welfare state - thanks largely to the Labour and Liberal parties (whether directly or through changing the terms of debate) - is one of the crowning glories of the UK's history.
Brilliant. Get into active politics now!
Don't bother. Well not for a while anyway.
You'll only be locking horns with Corbynistas, their Twitterati acolytes and the hard Left swamp creatures who've been hanging effigies off bridges.
Why would anyone as well meaning and sensible as SO want the grief and misery?
Its amazing how Cameron has got stronger during his time in government...
I remember a time when he was pretty derided by everybody (around the time of the Brown Bounce) but as time has gone on and Labour has made one disastrous choice after another, Cameron has basically become master of all he surveys.
Angela Merkel now 5/2 f fav for the Nobel Peace Prize on betfair but Paddy Power have her at 7s..
Announcement on Thursday.
If she gets it then it will be as much a farce as when Obama got it. She has considerably increased the threat of violence and enriching of people traffickers. The fact that she is even in the running is a joke.
''The creation of the welfare state - thanks largely to the Labour and Liberal parties (whether directly or through changing the terms of debate) - is one of the crowning glories of the UK's history.''
Correct.
I agree. The world we live in has changed more than somewhat since 1947, though and solutions that were right then may not be so today. Stay true to the principles of the welfare state that divided the UK of the 1950s from that of the 1930s but please let us not try and live in the 1950s.
David Cameron has just become the leader of the British Left. Yes, there are a few hardened activists still hanging around, muttering to themselves and singing the occasional revolutionary song. But the Labour Party is now to David Cameron’s Conservative Party what George Galloway’s Respect or Dave Nellist’s Trade Union and Socialist Coalition once was to Labour. The subject of some mild curiosity. An occasional annoyance. But nothing more.
Prison reform. Ethnic minority rights. Gay rights. A national housing “crusade”. An “all out assault on poverty”. An attack on “the lowest social mobility in the developed world”. These were the main themes of the Conservative Party leader’s – I’ll repeat that, the Conservative Party leader’s – address to his annual conference.
Corbyn does not hate Britain, he just genuinely does not get patriotism or affection for a country or even the projection of a country as some kind entity. He does not see the world in that way. He sees it in terms of class - exploiters and the exploited. Once you understand that about Corbyn everything else about him becomes much easier to understand.
As long as he is leader Labour is unelectable. The major problem with that for all of us of whatever political hue we are is that it gives the Tories a completely free ride. Cameron can promise to make everyone better off and to deliver hundreds of thousands of new, affordable homes, and he has no-one to hold him to account. Should Labour come to understand this and then do something about it things could change quickly. But, sadly, it seems that Labour is happily ensconced in its comfort zone and will be for a fair while yet.
What evidence do you have that Jeremy Corbyn likes Britain? Meanwhile he refused to sing the national anthem, sympathises with the IRA, wants to give away Northern Ireland and the Falklands, overwhelm us with immigration and reduce the army. At least Miliband used to say he was proud to be British. I don't think Corbyn's ever done the same. Corbyn is more Ralph Miliband than Ed.
Who does JC like? Anyone not on that list will be at least disliked, at most hated. He doesn't strike me as someone with a feel for the middle ground on anything.
Did Hollande just say that if the UK leaves the EU it leaves democracy, or did I mishear?
It's the same argument as people who don't want to reform or repeal the HRA. If we repeal the Act then we are no longer adherent to basic human rights and become a pariah state on the same level as North Korea.
Comments
1. Biden performs significantly better in the head to heads than Hillary
2. Kasich is not doing well even in Ohio. This does not bode well for his abilities to take the GOP nomination.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/
Internationalism is one of the hallmarks of the true believer, I think.
JeremyCorbyn4PM
✔
@JeremyCorbyn4PM
Spokesperson for @jeremycorbyn: Cameron's personalised attacks show he's rattled by re-energisation of @UKLabour
English is his native language so he may as well start the world revolution here.
The centre is by no means necessarily sensible. Simply because something is generally agreed by consensus to be right and proper does not necessarily make it so. The centre ground for decades believed that homosexuality was wrong or something to be ashamed of. The same could be said of any number of social issues and indeed it is often those considered to be firmly of the right (Libertarians as an example) who have most strongly campaigned for freedom of the individual in social matters. .
Though if personal attacks signify a side is rattled, well, those who claim not to throw stones, Jeremy, should probably not do so while standing amidst a crowd of stone throwers.
I wonder what people on the far left think about France? They obviously have a long imperial history, and engage in lots of military adventures in the third world, but on the other hand, they sometimes challenge the USA.
TSE will be alright with this, but will most PB Tories?
As a socially liberal, economically right relatively laissez faire Conservative (Libertarian in America) I am far more of am anarchist than any Anarchist.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/oct/07/conservative-conference-david-camerons-speech-politics-live
"It was ambitious, almost giddily so. For the last five years David Cameron has been a technically proficient but essentially second-rate prime minister, lacking any sort of vision for a legacy that could put him in the historical premier league. Today he sounded like someone who had seriously thought about what he wants to achieve and he set out an attractive “one nation” prospectus, ranging into areas like poverty, prison reform and racial discrimination that rarely feature so prominently in leader speeches at the Conservative conference. If Michael Heseltine had become Tory leader, he would have sounded like this.
Yet is any of it deliverable? It also sounded like a speech that Cameron may be anxious to forget by 2020. He called for more rehabilitation in prisons, but Chris Grayling pledged the same in the last parliament when he was justice secretary and the change he proposed never materialised. Cameron promised an “all-out assault on poverty”, saying that work was the best route out of poverty, but in-work poverty has been increasing, experts expect poverty on conventional measures to go up by the end of the decade and harsh tax credit cuts are about to come into force. He also deplored the lack of social mobility in the UK, and called for more equality. But on all these issues he had little or nothing to say about the policy levers he might pull to achieve his goals, and there is a danger that he is raising hopes he will not be able to fulfil.
Technically, it was very polished. The jokes worked well - he deserves particular credit for being able to laugh off Lord Ashcroft’s biographical hit job (see 12.12pm) - and, although he had little to say about Jeremy Corbyn, the key soundbite (see 11.57am) was vicious, but probably effective."
And the views of five more Guardian journalists:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/07/david-cameron-conference-speech-prime-minister
Predictably most speakers are calling for more Europe.
So we're all on here discussing whether Cameron is a Conservative or not, and you want to preserve the world order of 70 years ago? Or were you thinking of a different war?
And you are in no way a Libertarian. By definition anyone who supports the existence of the EU and our membership of it as you do cannot in any way be considered a Libertarian.
Particularly motive - people want to know your values and that you're ultimately on their side, or their will be no audience for the policy at all.
As for the EU I see it as very flawed.
"If you're giving context of quote that killing mass murderer was a tragedy, you're losing."
Cameron hasn't pushed Tories to the left - he's expanded the tent. So he talks about prison for FGM/arranged forced marriage, shutting down fundy schools and prison reform to make them into proper citizens as "we've got them 24.7" And in the next breath talks about stopping sexism and blacks not getting an equal stab at the same job as a whitey.
I don't know any Tories who want blacks to have less of a job chance because of their skin colour, but lots who dislike FGM and fundies.
Only a big electoral shock will end the delusion. We won;t get one of those for a while, I don;t think.
But, if he does move the Tory party left, and abandon the manifesto I voted for, he will have a bigger problem than just PB Tories.
If Saqid loses - it's all because he wasn't close enough to Corbynistas/right wing media blah blah
The delusion is embedded deeply - I doubt even a drubbing at GE2020 will make much difference TBH.
There is no virtually no chance he will pitch for Leave.
The only sense I've heard spoken was by a Polish chap and now an East German former communist lady.
@ phillip thompson You mean we cannot even trust anarchists to be anarchic anymore? What's the world coming to?
I'm sure this will earn me a denouncation from Richard N for saying it.
If he means it and succeeds he needn't worry about PB Tories, there's plenty of electors in the sensible centre.
Maybe it's a way of putting pale blue water between Cameron/Osborne and May.
For practical purposes, Labour have run up to me, spat in my face and screamed 'Tory scum'. Hence, I doubt I'll be voting for them in the forseeable future. The LDs seem to be both policy-free and irredeemably Europhile, so I have no real alternative home for my vote.
That actually bothers me a great deal.
I'm sure this will earn me a denouncation from Richard N for saying it.''
This is the only cloud on Dave's horizon. But it is a big cloud.
They're a complete teenage joke. And even worse IMO than weekend hippies.
The problem is that there is a third part of this equation which is to be truly radical in terms of the relationship between the state and the individual - cutting the involvement of the state in huge swathes of our lives and making people far more responsible for their own successes and failures whilst maintaining a very basic safety net. In effect reversing the last 70 years of encroaching socialism and welfarism. I am not convinced that Cameron has either the belief or the political will to do any of that. As a result whatever he can achieve will be too easily reversible come the next Labour Government whenever it appears.
And a delayed Welcome Aboard!
Besides which the sensible centre have immigration as their number one issue, so the right-flank still must be guarded.
She's grasping a long overdue nettle. I don't find her speech at all at odds with Cameron - she was tackling a real issue well past its sell-by date.
One can be pro the right sort of immigration and against all the others. If the Tories are finally catching up with this - I'm delighted. CCHQ have been dumping climate change nonsense whilst still paying lip service. I'm a patient sort and pleased by this.
He is trying to move the centre ground of British politics onto his turf.
Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu said four warships fired 26 sea-based cruise missiles on 11 targets, destroying them.
The big question now is: are Russian spetsnaz troops accompanying Syrian troops in this new push?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34465425
I thought you were quite firm Left. Now, I'm thinking you're not quite so keen on that idea and you voted IIRC for Yvette. Can't see you as a Tory even in the safety of the ballot box
Speech seems to have been well-received, but didn't see it live myself.
In my view, we have had enough of the promises let us see some delivery.
What's wrong with giving people dignity by encouraging those who can back to work, whilst still supporting those who can not?
"that low-paid workers should be given top-ups so they have a liveable income"
What's wrong with the aim being that they should no longer be low-paid, so they no longer need top-ups?
"good public services are more important than the deficit."
Our children will just have to pay for our excesses. And btw, tackling the deficit does not necessarily equate to poor public services, just as not tackling the deficit automatically means you will get good public services.
Angela Merkel now 5/2 f fav for the Nobel Peace Prize on betfair but Paddy Power have her at 7s..
Announcement on Thursday.
Correct.
(1) I just logged onto Skybet to place a bet on Cameron leaving in 2019, and found £174 in there from the GE I'd forgotten to withdraw
(2) That was won off the back of Smithson junior's tip of the LDs on 0-10 seats at odds of 16/1 (peace be upon him) and I've just double-checked the LD seat prediction I did back in March. I realised I had a spreadsheet model - model 2, which used a standard constituency vote split model - where I predicted the LDs on exactly 8 seats, with 27 Con gains and 11 Lab gains. I didn't call all the same 8 holds, but did on four of them: Sheffield Hallam, Westmorland, Norfolk North and Leeds North West:
https://royaleleseaux.wordpress.com/2015/03/17/libdemgeddon-you-dont-want-to-miss-a-thing/
I totally rejected the conclusions of that model at the time because I believed the LDs had a personal vote.
I can only conclude that, when it came to the crunch, they didn't. But boy oh boy do I wish I'd known that prior to May!
You'll only be locking horns with Corbynistas, their Twitterati acolytes and the hard Left swamp creatures who've been hanging effigies off bridges.
Why would anyone as well meaning and sensible as SO want the grief and misery?
I remember a time when he was pretty derided by everybody (around the time of the Brown Bounce) but as time has gone on and Labour has made one disastrous choice after another, Cameron has basically become master of all he surveys.