A week is a long time in politics. A fortnight is so long that Labour can create a new policy on the deficit. What a shambles. John Ronald McDonnell gets my vote for clown of the year.As any Conservative might say - Im lovin it.
On topic to understand Labour now you have to picture the Hindenburg meets Chernobyl meets The Battle of Zama meets the SNP currency position meets Tron 2.
As I said way down thread I will believe there is a purpose to a law like this when criminal penalties are imposed on the Chancellor personally for breaching it.
But what Osborne is seeking to do is to change the consensus. During the Brown years he maintained through the various iterations of his golden rule that it was ok for the government to run deficits in "normal" years provided that they were less than the rate of growth (so debt continued to fall as a percentage of GDP) and/or that the extra spending is for "investment". He also of course claimed that any excess borrowing could be cleaned up over an ever extending cycle.
Belief that this was indeed ok significantly increased our structural deficit and put us in a truly horrendous situation when the bubble burst, a situation that we have still not recovered from and which we will not recover from (in terms of our debt GDP ratio) for at least another 20 years.
Osborne wants to create a consensus that instead of running a deficit of 2.5% of GDP when the economy is growing at trend you should instead be running a surplus of 1% and paying down the debt. It is a perfectly sensible policy given our currently elevated debt ratio. It also makes the Labour party somewhat pointless since their policy of spending more money on every problem becomes redundant.
Why he thinks a law will help with such a policy is a bit more mysterious. I think it is just a contrivance to force a vote on the issue and get people talking about it.
It was Murray Walker's birthday at the weekend (he's 92). Reminded me of a good Murrayism, which may also apply to Labour: there's nothing wrong with the car, except that it's on fire.
Lib Dems should've gone for Lamb. Thought so at the time. There's an acre of space on the centre and soft left now. Farron should still make progress, but Lamb's steadiness is a perfect contrast to the hard left of Labour's leader and the sliminess of the Witchsmeller Pursuivant.
Agree with that. Can't put my finger on why I really dislike Farron, but there is something of a massively over-wound spring that he is constantly trying to stop explosively unwinding...
Lamb has the bedside manner.
Or.... maybe he's just got the appropriate bearing of an undertaker?
A week is a long time in politics. A fortnight is so long that Labour can create a new policy on the deficit. What a shambles. John Ronald McDonnell gets my vote for clown of the year.As any Conservative might say - Im lovin it.
There's an economist in Scotland called Ronald McDonald. Which was one of the highlights of the Indyref, alongside AngrySalmond and calling the Nats the Yestapo and the Waffen Yes Yes
Shocking news for Mrs JackW this morning as her bucket list has been trimmed by one with "Playboy" announcing they will no longer have naked ladies in the publication.
A week is a long time in politics. A fortnight is so long that Labour can create a new policy on the deficit. What a shambles. John Ronald McDonnell gets my vote for clown of the year.As any Conservative might say - Im lovin it.
'Ronald Mcdonnell'!! Good one!
They should def use that in interviews against him
Setting aside the obvious goal of trapping Labour in to idiocy, why are none of our righties questioning the wisdom of permanent surpluses, at some point things will go tits up and a deficit will need to0 be an option.
I'll kerp reminding you of this post when you criticise Osborne in the future for increasing the national debt.
Of course you can and I'll happily point out that GO likes to propose laws for others which he then ignores himself.
Setting aside the obvious goal of trapping Labour in to idiocy, why are none of our righties questioning the wisdom of permanent surpluses, at some point things will go tits up and a deficit will need to0 be an option.
I'll kerp reminding you of this post when you criticise Osborne in the future for increasing the national debt.
Of course you can and I'll happily point out that GO likes to propose laws for others which he then ignores himself.
He's not french is he ?
He's not French. He's descended from Irish stock. Which explains everything.
PS Do agree with you that it is silly gesture politics. If there was a decent opposition they could point that out. Instead the opposition look like The Clampitts
On topic to understand Labour now you have to picture the Hindenburg meets Chernobyl meets The Battle of Zama meets the SNP currency position meets Tron 2.
I think you may have to add in the Austrian Army fighting itself at the Battle of Karansebes. And maybe Franz Ferdinand's driver taking the wrong turn in Sarajevo....
@SebastianEPayne: Note to Diane: if you’re a party with a fiscal responsibility problem, laughing about not answering a simple question won’t help #r4today
@indiaknight: Why is she laughing? What's wrong with her??
@gabyhinsliff: But it's okay because she seems to think it's funny. #r4today
Setting aside the obvious goal of trapping Labour in to idiocy, why are none of our righties questioning the wisdom of permanent surpluses, at some point things will go tits up and a deficit will need to0 be an option.
I'll kerp reminding you of this post when you criticise Osborne in the future for increasing the national debt.
Of course you can and I'll happily point out that GO likes to propose laws for others which he then ignores himself.
He's not french is he ?
He's not French. He's descended from Irish stock. Which explains everything.
PS Do agree with you that it is silly gesture politics. If there was a decent opposition they could point that out. Instead the opposition look like The Clampitts
He can't be Irish or we'd be digging more roads. Retract that slur.
I'm listening to Diane now, she's acting like she does on This Week - laughing, being uber patronising, I can feel her rolling her eyes ostentatiously.
The more she claims "Osborne's mismanagement of the economy" the more stupid she sounds. Some feel he hasn't done enough, but obviously the electorate doesn't agree with her.
A week is a long time in politics. A fortnight is so long that Labour can create a new policy on the deficit. What a shambles. John Ronald McDonnell gets my vote for clown of the year.As any Conservative might say - Im lovin it.
Setting aside the obvious goal of trapping Labour in to idiocy, why are none of our righties questioning the wisdom of permanent surpluses, at some point things will go tits up and a deficit will need to0 be an option.
I'll kerp reminding you of this post when you criticise Osborne in the future for increasing the national debt.
Of course you can and I'll happily point out that GO likes to propose laws for others which he then ignores himself.
He's not french is he ?
He's not French. He's descended from Irish stock. Which explains everything.
PS Do agree with you that it is silly gesture politics. If there was a decent opposition they could point that out. Instead the opposition look like The Clampitts
He can't be Irish or we'd be digging more roads. Retract that slur.
Osborne is so brilliant he must from Yorkshire and be descended from Caesar.
Credit to Mark Ferguson (formerly chap in charge of LabourList, unsure if he's returned to that post) who, a couple of days ago, called for Abbott to be placed in a lead-lined room.
Of course, a lead-lined shed would work just as well.
On topic, apart from the predictable story with MPs, if McDonnell failed to understand this legislation you have to wonder what's going on with whoever is _advising_ him. I mean, you don't normally expect the Shadow Chancellor to figure everything out himself, do you? In which case the possibilities are:
a) His team are trying to guide policy somewhere he doesn't want to go. b) His team are setting him up to fail. c) He decided to go for loyalty rather than competence, and since there isn't a big overlap between trots and people who understand economics, he's surrounded by people who have no idea WTF they're doing.
I'm listening to Diane now, she's acting like she does on This Week - laughing, being uber patronising, I can feel her rolling her eyes ostentatiously.
The more she claims "Osborne's mismanagement of the economy" the more stupid she sounds. Some feel he hasn't done enough, but obviously the electorate doesn't agree with her.
A week is a long time in politics. A fortnight is so long that Labour can create a new policy on the deficit. What a shambles. John Ronald McDonnell gets my vote for clown of the year.As any Conservative might say - Im lovin it.
People like Corbyn and Abbott will find many fellow travellers among the Greens etc who genuinely believe that we are still deep in the grip of an economic nightmare.
Record employment, record car sales, falling food and oil prices, wages growing at a much faster pace than prices......it's all a calamity.
Give it three weeks and they will be praying for a harsh winter in the hope that they can talk about the NHS.
On topic, apart from the predictable story with MPs, if McDonnell failed to understand this legislation you have to wonder what's going on with whoever is _advising_ him. I mean, you don't normally expect the Shadow Chancellor to figure everything out himself, do you? In which case the possibilities are:
a) His team are trying to guide policy somewhere he doesn't want to go. b) His team are setting him up to fail. c) He decided to go for loyalty rather than competence, and since there isn't a big overlap between trots and people who understand economics, he's surrounded by people who have no idea WTF they're doing.
My money would be on C. The labour leadership have lost, or discarded the machinery of party support behind the scenes.
What happened to the 4 super economists or whatever which should be advising them?
I think the Labour party will split and will likely to do so over the next 12 months. I think it will do the party some good over the medium term.
Corbyn's supporters are completely intransigent; they can't be reasoned with. I don't really think there are that many of them and Labour doesn't need them to be a party of government.
So I think the PLP will calculate this, end up ditching Corbyn, tell his supporters to fuck off and go build their own new party, apologise to their mainstream voters and start again, with a sensible leader (probably a woman) in charge.
Corbyn is Labour's immediate problem but their other (arguably bigger) problem is their lack of quality names at the top of the party. They have no big hitters. They need a Blair/Cameron type to emerge from the pack looking like a leader.
They should be in the process of finding one, and at the same time be stopping Unite filling the ranks of their parliamentary candidates with Unite foot soldiers.
Some of the right wing of the Tory party might not have liked it but Cameron has done a good job bringing new, wide-ranging talents into the party.
I'm listening to Diane now, she's acting like she does on This Week - laughing, being uber patronising, I can feel her rolling her eyes ostentatiously.
The more she claims "Osborne's mismanagement of the economy" the more stupid she sounds. Some feel he hasn't done enough, but obviously the electorate doesn't agree with her.
A week is a long time in politics. A fortnight is so long that Labour can create a new policy on the deficit. What a shambles. John Ronald McDonnell gets my vote for clown of the year.As any Conservative might say - Im lovin it.
The line that Osborne is useless and mismanaged the economy will not work because too many labour council leaders on the north know different.
On topic, apart from the predictable story with MPs, if McDonnell failed to understand this legislation you have to wonder what's going on with whoever is _advising_ him. I mean, you don't normally expect the Shadow Chancellor to figure everything out himself, do you? In which case the possibilities are:
a) His team are trying to guide policy somewhere he doesn't want to go. b) His team are setting him up to fail. c) He decided to go for loyalty rather than competence, and since there isn't a big overlap between trots and people who understand economics, he's surrounded by people who have no idea WTF they're doing.
My money would be on C. The labour leadership have lost, or discarded the machinery of party support behind the scenes.
What happened to the 4 super economists or whatever which should be advising them?
Makes sense. I wonder if everybody's just disbanded and wandered off or if there's any attempt by not-a-trot wing to run a kind of opposition-in-exile? Aside from the politics of what McDonnell and Corbyn advocate, it seems like when it comes to attacking the government their team is going to be missing a lot of open goals.
This Labour "borrow to invest" line is a bit of a joke. Investment is a good thing, but if you are borrowing to invest you are still running up debt in the good times, leaving you no room to borrow in bad times. Labour needs to decide whether it believes in counter cyclical fiscal policy or not. It seems it only believes in it during recessions.
On topic to understand Labour now you have to picture the Hindenburg meets Chernobyl meets The Battle of Zama meets the SNP currency position meets Tron 2.
I think you may have to add in the Austrian Army fighting itself at the Battle of Karansebes. And maybe Franz Ferdinand's driver taking the wrong turn in Sarajevo....
Meets Ann Widdecombe's Paso Doble (starts 42 secs in)
Maybe Abbott bursts out laughing because she is recalling that sunny ,naked ,afternoon on a hillside and forest in the Derbyshire Peak district...when her political hero revealed his manifesto in all its sun dappled glory..the sheep around there must have been terrified..
On topic, apart from the predictable story with MPs, if McDonnell failed to understand this legislation you have to wonder what's going on with whoever is _advising_ him. I mean, you don't normally expect the Shadow Chancellor to figure everything out himself, do you? In which case the possibilities are:
a) His team are trying to guide policy somewhere he doesn't want to go. b) His team are setting him up to fail. c) He decided to go for loyalty rather than competence, and since there isn't a big overlap between trots and people who understand economics, he's surrounded by people who have no idea WTF they're doing.
My money would be on C. The labour leadership have lost, or discarded the machinery of party support behind the scenes.
What happened to the 4 super economists or whatever which should be advising them?
Makes sense. I wonder if everybody's just disbanded and wandered off or if there's any attempt by not-a-trot wing to run a kind of opposition-in-exile? Aside from the politics of what McDonnell and Corbyn advocate, it seems like when it comes to attacking the government their team is going to be missing a lot of open goals.
Surely the "not-a-trot" wing (great name!) need to come up with something soon, whether it's an SDP mkII or they throw Corbyn and McDonell under a metaphorical bus. Given the infiltration of the party ranks by the hard left, it may be that the former is the better option, ideally they will need more than half the PLP so that they can become themselves the official opposition.
While it's funny to watch from afar a party commit a slow suidide in public, it's really not good for democracy that no-one is holding the government to account. Governments not properly held to account tend to make stupid decisions without challenge, see Osborne's silly politicking, or the 1998 devolution settlement for examples.
This Labour "borrow to invest" line is a bit of a joke. Investment is a good thing, but if you are borrowing to invest you are still running up debt in the good times, leaving you no room to borrow in bad times. Labour needs to decide whether it believes in counter cyclical fiscal policy or not. It seems it only believes in it during recessions.
It's almost as bad as borrowing to give Foreign Aid.
sandpit..That is absolutely correct..Labour are indulging in some internal crap that has nothing to do with being in opposition..every Government needs a vigorous opposition and if the main party refuses or fails to provide one then they should move aside.. No doubt the gormless Corbyn will be asking for questions from the public again tomorrow..He should be up on his hind legs yelling at the PM..with his own questions..
Labour needs to either return to the realm of reason, or commit suicide more quickly so someone else can do the job of holding the government to account.
I'm listening to Diane now, she's acting like she does on This Week - laughing, being uber patronising, I can feel her rolling her eyes ostentatiously.
The more she claims "Osborne's mismanagement of the economy" the more stupid she sounds. Some feel he hasn't done enough, but obviously the electorate doesn't agree with her.
A week is a long time in politics. A fortnight is so long that Labour can create a new policy on the deficit. What a shambles. John Ronald McDonnell gets my vote for clown of the year.As any Conservative might say - Im lovin it.
People like Corbyn and Abbott will find many fellow travellers among the Greens etc who genuinely believe that we are still deep in the grip of an economic nightmare.
Record employment, record car sales, falling food and oil prices, wages growing at a much faster pace than prices......it's all a calamity.
Give it three weeks and they will be praying for a harsh winter in the hope that they can talk about the NHS.
I've decided that Labour have stopped looking at the data. Any data. They're just going with what they feel. Total government spending in 2010: £673 billion. 2015: £748 billion. Oh no, the austerity! The austerity!
This Labour "borrow to invest" line is a bit of a joke. Investment is a good thing, but if you are borrowing to invest you are still running up debt in the good times, leaving you no room to borrow in bad times. Labour needs to decide whether it believes in counter cyclical fiscal policy or not. It seems it only believes in it during recessions.
But most of Brown's capital borrowing "investment" was done under off-the-books PFI. The more usual govt. borrowing paid for current expenditure on tax credits and public sector salaries - because he thought he had abolished the economic cycle!
Surely the "not-a-trot" wing (great name!) need to come up with something soon, whether it's an SDP mkII or they throw Corbyn and McDonell under a metaphorical bus.
I wasn't thinking of anything that drastic - their members put Corbyn in charge of the machine so that need to let him drive it for a while. Just an unofficial organization getting on with the job that the official opposition would be doing if they had the guys.
This Labour "borrow to invest" line is a bit of a joke. Investment is a good thing, but if you are borrowing to invest you are still running up debt in the good times, leaving you no room to borrow in bad times. Labour needs to decide whether it believes in counter cyclical fiscal policy or not. It seems it only believes in it during recessions.
It's almost as bad as borrowing to give Foreign Aid.
Unfortunately, the idiocy of borrowing to fund our 0.7% commitment is another bear trap for Labour. How do they argue against that?
I'm listening to Diane now, she's acting like she does on This Week - laughing, being uber patronising, I can feel her rolling her eyes ostentatiously.
The more she claims "Osborne's mismanagement of the economy" the more stupid she sounds. Some feel he hasn't done enough, but obviously the electorate doesn't agree with her.
A week is a long time in politics. A fortnight is so long that Labour can create a new policy on the deficit. What a shambles. John Ronald McDonnell gets my vote for clown of the year.As any Conservative might say - Im lovin it.
People like Corbyn and Abbott will find many fellow travellers among the Greens etc who genuinely believe that we are still deep in the grip of an economic nightmare.
Record employment, record car sales, falling food and oil prices, wages growing at a much faster pace than prices......it's all a calamity.
Give it three weeks and they will be praying for a harsh winter in the hope that they can talk about the NHS.
I've decided that Labour have stopped looking at the data. Any data. They're just going with what they feel. Total government spending in 2010: £673 billion. 2015: £748 billion. Oh no, the austerity! The austerity!
Labour can't even be honest about themselves. They're hardly going to be truthful about anything else.
On topic, apart from the predictable story with MPs, if McDonnell failed to understand this legislation you have to wonder what's going on with whoever is _advising_ him. I mean, you don't normally expect the Shadow Chancellor to figure everything out himself, do you? In which case the possibilities are:
a) His team are trying to guide policy somewhere he doesn't want to go. b) His team are setting him up to fail. c) He decided to go for loyalty rather than competence, and since there isn't a big overlap between trots and people who understand economics, he's surrounded by people who have no idea WTF they're doing.
My money would be on C. The labour leadership have lost, or discarded the machinery of party support behind the scenes.
What happened to the 4 super economists or whatever which should be advising them?
Makes sense. I wonder if everybody's just disbanded and wandered off or if there's any attempt by not-a-trot wing to run a kind of opposition-in-exile? Aside from the politics of what McDonnell and Corbyn advocate, it seems like when it comes to attacking the government their team is going to be missing a lot of open goals.
Surely the "not-a-trot" wing (great name!) need to come up with something soon, whether it's an SDP mkII or they throw Corbyn and McDonell under a metaphorical bus. Given the infiltration of the party ranks by the hard left, it may be that the former is the better option, ideally they will need more than half the PLP so that they can become themselves the official opposition.
While it's funny to watch from afar a party commit a slow suidide in public, it's really not good for democracy that no-one is holding the government to account. Governments not properly held to account tend to make stupid decisions without challenge, see Osborne's silly politicking, or the 1998 devolution settlement for examples.
"Not-a-trot" abbreviates to the NAT wing. There may be some discomfort with that, for some reason.
So I think the PLP will calculate this, end up ditching Corbyn, tell his supporters to fuck off and go build their own new party, apologise to their mainstream voters and start again, with a sensible leader (probably a woman) in charge.
How does this work in practice?
If Corbyn can stand again without a minimum number of nominations, won't his voters just vote for him again? And then Corbyn has an excuse to dissolve the PLP and elect a new one.
Mr. Charles, Corbyn could try and get sitting MPs deselected but he can't just dissolve the PLP. Elected Labour MPs were put there by their constituents and cannot be removed by Corbyn.
Edited extra bit: ah, unless you mean remove the whip/expel loads of them.
I'm listening to Diane now, she's acting like she does on This Week - laughing, being uber patronising, I can feel her rolling her eyes ostentatiously.
The more she claims "Osborne's mismanagement of the economy" the more stupid she sounds. Some feel he hasn't done enough, but obviously the electorate doesn't agree with her.
A week is a long time in politics. A fortnight is so long that Labour can create a new policy on the deficit. What a shambles. John Ronald McDonnell gets my vote for clown of the year.As any Conservative might say - Im lovin it.
People like Corbyn and Abbott will find many fellow travellers among the Greens etc who genuinely believe that we are still deep in the grip of an economic nightmare.
Record employment, record car sales, falling food and oil prices, wages growing at a much faster pace than prices......it's all a calamity.
Give it three weeks and they will be praying for a harsh winter in the hope that they can talk about the NHS.
I've decided that Labour have stopped looking at the data. Any data. They're just going with what they feel. Total government spending in 2010: £673 billion. 2015: £748 billion. Oh no, the austerity! The austerity!
We may be back in the grips of an economic nightmare if the IMF warnings on emerging countries corporate debt prove founded.
I'm listening to Diane now, she's acting like she does on This Week - laughing, being uber patronising, I can feel her rolling her eyes ostentatiously.
The more she claims "Osborne's mismanagement of the economy" the more stupid she sounds. Some feel he hasn't done enough, but obviously the electorate doesn't agree with her.
A week is a long time in politics. A fortnight is so long that Labour can create a new policy on the deficit. What a shambles. John Ronald McDonnell gets my vote for clown of the year.As any Conservative might say - Im lovin it.
People like Corbyn and Abbott will find many fellow travellers among the Greens etc who genuinely believe that we are still deep in the grip of an economic nightmare.
Record employment, record car sales, falling food and oil prices, wages growing at a much faster pace than prices......it's all a calamity.
Give it three weeks and they will be praying for a harsh winter in the hope that they can talk about the NHS.
I've decided that Labour have stopped looking at the data. Any data. They're just going with what they feel. Total government spending in 2010: £673 billion. 2015: £748 billion. Oh no, the austerity! The austerity!
To be fair to him, Osborne has played an absolute blinder on this, it probably won the Tories their majority in May.
He's walked the fine line between growth, spending and borrowing very well indeed, while the opposition became increasing hysterical in their language eg on the benefits cap and 'bedroom tax'. The public saw straight though the hysteria and rewarded the Chancellor at the ballot box for his economic competence.
Mr. Charles, Corbyn could try and get sitting MPs deselected but he can't just dissolve the PLP. Elected Labour MPs were put there by their constituents and cannot be removed by Corbyn.
Edited extra bit: ah, unless you mean remove the whip/expel loads of them.
Charles..that would be ok..we must not forget that the electorate are also watching this fiasco..and even Labour supporters wont take the embarrassment forever
Ever changing numbers for what we would lose, "BSE" as an acronym, u-turns over "Quitters"... whoever is in charge of the Remain campaign needs to get it together already.
I'm listening to Diane now, she's acting like she does on This Week - laughing, being uber patronising, I can feel her rolling her eyes ostentatiously.
The more she claims "Osborne's mismanagement of the economy" the more stupid she sounds. Some feel he hasn't done enough, but obviously the electorate doesn't agree with her.
A week is a long time in politics. A fortnight is so long that Labour can create a new policy on the deficit. What a shambles. John Ronald McDonnell gets my vote for clown of the year.As any Conservative might say - Im lovin it.
People like Corbyn and Abbott will find many fellow travellers among the Greens etc who genuinely believe that we are still deep in the grip of an economic nightmare.
Record employment, record car sales, falling food and oil prices, wages growing at a much faster pace than prices......it's all a calamity.
Give it three weeks and they will be praying for a harsh winter in the hope that they can talk about the NHS.
I've decided that Labour have stopped looking at the data. Any data. They're just going with what they feel. Total government spending in 2010: £673 billion. 2015: £748 billion. Oh no, the austerity! The austerity!
To be fair to him, Osborne has played an absolute blinder on this, it probably won the Tories their majority in May.
He's walked the fine line between growth, spending and borrowing very well indeed, while the opposition became increasing hysterical in their language eg on the benefits cap and 'bedroom tax'. The public saw straight though the hysteria and rewarded the Chancellor at the ballot box for his economic competence.
While I'm less convinced by Osborne than many. I do think that, like Dave, he is one lucky general. We are no more than two-three years away from the next recession, let's hope his luck continues.
I'm listening to Diane now, she's acting like she does on This Week - laughing, being uber patronising, I can feel her rolling her eyes ostentatiously.
The more she claims "Osborne's mismanagement of the economy" the more stupid she sounds. Some feel he hasn't done enough, but obviously the electorate doesn't agree with her.
A week is a long time in politics. A fortnight is so long that Labour can create a new policy on the deficit. What a shambles. John Ronald McDonnell gets my vote for clown of the year.As any Conservative might say - Im lovin it.
People like Corbyn and Abbott will find many fellow travellers among the Greens etc who genuinely believe that we are still deep in the grip of an economic nightmare.
Record employment, record car sales, falling food and oil prices, wages growing at a much faster pace than prices......it's all a calamity.
Give it three weeks and they will be praying for a harsh winter in the hope that they can talk about the NHS.
I've decided that Labour have stopped looking at the data. Any data. They're just going with what they feel. Total government spending in 2010: £673 billion. 2015: £748 billion. Oh no, the austerity! The austerity!
We may be back in the grips of an economic nightmare if the IMF warnings on emerging countries corporate debt prove founded.
Two days into the In campaign and so far Roland Rudd and Lucy Thomas have been exposed as liars, while Rose just looks a blithering idiot with his monetary claims that do not add up.
Ever changing numbers for what we would lose, "BSE" as an acronym, u-turns over "Quitters"... whoever is in charge of the Remain campaign needs to get it together already.
Quite. There needs to be positive reasoning from both sides, and they need to test their messages with fence-sitters rather than preaching to the choir. Yesterday's "Remain" shambles has probably cost them more votes than it won them.
The time for getting out the core vote from each side is during the short campaign, not years before. The argument now needs to be more nuanced else it will just turn everyone off.
Mr. Charles, is that some sort of modernist reference?
Mr. Charles, how are people supposed to understand what you mean without comparisons to the Second Punic War?
Surely everyone reads German poetry for fun
Die Lösung
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe Und es nur durch verdoppelte Arbeit zurückerobern könne. Wäre es da Nicht doch einfacher, die Regierung Löste das Volk auf und Wählte ein anderes
I like Diane Abbot. Can't explain why. Maybe it's something I should see a doctor about.
I don't dislike her as a person but I can't take her seriously as a politician
Really? She represents just about everything I hate in a Labour politician (or any politician on a moment's reflection!). She's a stupid, patronising, smug, hypocritical, racist, champagne socialist numpty.
Two days into the In campaign and so far Roland Rudd and Lucy Thomas have been exposed as liars, while Rose just looks a blithering idiot with his monetary claims that do not add up.
Not a good start is it?
Toynbee is critical this morning, IN have got off to a poor start.
I like Diane Abbot. Can't explain why. Maybe it's something I should see a doctor about.
I don't dislike her as a person but I can't take her seriously as a politician
I'm sure she would be great company at a party and I imagine that she would be a good friend. I'm glad she's an MP, representing a strand of opinion that is probably underrepresented in Parliament, but less happy that she's in the shadow Cabinet, for which her talents do not seem suited.
This Labour "borrow to invest" line is a bit of a joke. Investment is a good thing, but if you are borrowing to invest you are still running up debt in the good times, leaving you no room to borrow in bad times. Labour needs to decide whether it believes in counter cyclical fiscal policy or not. It seems it only believes in it during recessions.
Surely it depends on the nature of the investment. We've got into the habit of calling all spending of taxpayer's money an 'investment', because it sounds better and justifies the spending with some nebulous future 'benefit'. But to qualify as an investment surely something should have quantifiable proposed returns that are more than the value of the initial investment. Meaning motorways, bridges, airports, tidal lagoons etc. probably are investments, and public sector pay isn't.
I like Diane Abbot. Can't explain why. Maybe it's something I should see a doctor about.
I don't dislike her as a person but I can't take her seriously as a politician
Really? She represents just about everything I hate in a Labour politician (or any politician on a moment's reflection!). She's a stupid, patronising, smug, hypocritical, racist, champagne socialist numpty.
I think Cooper may've preferred Balls to run. For most of the contest, her heart didn't seem to be in it.
Perhaps they will get the family dog to do it next time. When they both announce (relatively soon if they have any sense) that they are standing down at the next election in order to take up academic posts in America, then the labour stuff will really hit the labour fan.
I see that the Parliamentary party aren't washing their dirty linen behind closed doors this morning:
Mike Gapes Retweeted David Watson I will show loyalty in the same way as he was loyal to Kinnock Smith Blair Brown Beckett Miliband and Harman. Ok ?
This cannot end well for Labour.
Labour is pretty much done for, I suspect.
The problem Corbyn has is that for all his membership mandate he needs Labour's MPs and if he or his mates threaten deselections - or they start to happen - the likelihood is those affected will either resign the whip and become Independent Labour or they'll resign their seats and force by-elections. Either way, you are looking at a smaller parliamentary party in this Parliament and a a much smaller one in the next.
This Labour "borrow to invest" line is a bit of a joke. Investment is a good thing, but if you are borrowing to invest you are still running up debt in the good times, leaving you no room to borrow in bad times. Labour needs to decide whether it believes in counter cyclical fiscal policy or not. It seems it only believes in it during recessions.
Surely it depends on the nature of the investment. We've got into the habit of calling all spending of taxpayer's money an 'investment', because it sounds better and justifies the spending with some nebulous future 'benefit'. But to qualify as an investment surely something should have quantifiable proposed returns that are more than the value of the initial investment. Meaning motorways, bridges, airports, tidal lagoons etc. probably are investments, and public sector pay isn't.
Well, officially "investment" is capital spending, rather than current spending. So that includes motorways, bridges etc and excludes public pay. This is what Balls' plan was based round, even though his old boss Brown used to call all spending "investment".
This Labour "borrow to invest" line is a bit of a joke. Investment is a good thing, but if you are borrowing to invest you are still running up debt in the good times, leaving you no room to borrow in bad times. Labour needs to decide whether it believes in counter cyclical fiscal policy or not. It seems it only believes in it during recessions.
Surely it depends on the nature of the investment. We've got into the habit of calling all spending of taxpayer's money an 'investment', because it sounds better and justifies the spending with some nebulous future 'benefit'. But to qualify as an investment surely something should have quantifiable proposed returns that are more than the value of the initial investment. Meaning motorways, bridges, airports, tidal lagoons etc. probably are investments, and public sector pay isn't.
Well, officially "investment" is capital spending, rather than current spending. So that includes motorways, bridges etc and excludes public pay. This is what Balls' plan was based round, even though his old boss Brown used to call all spending "investment".
Tax credits were all well and good for people who received them, but investment they weren't !
Ever changing numbers for what we would lose, "BSE" as an acronym, u-turns over "Quitters"... whoever is in charge of the Remain campaign needs to get it together already.
Never interrupt your enemy when they're making a mistake.
I see that the Parliamentary party aren't washing their dirty linen behind closed doors this morning:
Mike Gapes Retweeted David Watson I will show loyalty in the same way as he was loyal to Kinnock Smith Blair Brown Beckett Miliband and Harman. Ok ?
This cannot end well for Labour.
Labour is pretty much done for, I suspect.
The problem Corbyn has is that for all his membership mandate he needs Labour's MPs and if he or his mates threaten deselections - or they start to happen - the likelihood is those affected will either resign the whip and become Independent Labour or they'll resign their seats and force by-elections. Either way, you are looking at a smaller parliamentary party in this Parliament and a a much smaller one in the next.
Which is why he will wait until the boundaries reform forces the issue.
Then it's up to the members who they choose as candidate innit?
This Labour "borrow to invest" line is a bit of a joke. Investment is a good thing, but if you are borrowing to invest you are still running up debt in the good times, leaving you no room to borrow in bad times. Labour needs to decide whether it believes in counter cyclical fiscal policy or not. It seems it only believes in it during recessions.
Surely it depends on the nature of the investment. We've got into the habit of calling all spending of taxpayer's money an 'investment', because it sounds better and justifies the spending with some nebulous future 'benefit'. But to qualify as an investment surely something should have quantifiable proposed returns that are more than the value of the initial investment. Meaning motorways, bridges, airports, tidal lagoons etc. probably are investments, and public sector pay isn't.
Well, officially "investment" is capital spending, rather than current spending. So that includes motorways, bridges etc and excludes public pay. This is what Balls' plan was based round, even though his old boss Brown used to call all spending "investment".
Did Brown as Chancellor oversee any genuine investment at all, given that there were no motorways or runways opened except the M6 Toll, and all the Skools 'n' 'ospitals were on the PFI never-never..?
This Labour "borrow to invest" line is a bit of a joke. Investment is a good thing, but if you are borrowing to invest you are still running up debt in the good times, leaving you no room to borrow in bad times. Labour needs to decide whether it believes in counter cyclical fiscal policy or not. It seems it only believes in it during recessions.
Surely it depends on the nature of the investment. We've got into the habit of calling all spending of taxpayer's money an 'investment', because it sounds better and justifies the spending with some nebulous future 'benefit'. But to qualify as an investment surely something should have quantifiable proposed returns that are more than the value of the initial investment. Meaning motorways, bridges, airports, tidal lagoons etc. probably are investments, and public sector pay isn't.
Well, officially "investment" is capital spending, rather than current spending. So that includes motorways, bridges etc and excludes public pay. This is what Balls' plan was based round, even though his old boss Brown used to call all spending "investment".
Did Brown as Chancellor oversee any genuine investment at all, given that there were no motorways or runways opened except the M6 Toll, and all the Skools 'n' 'ospitals were on the PFI never-never..?
This Labour "borrow to invest" line is a bit of a joke. Investment is a good thing, but if you are borrowing to invest you are still running up debt in the good times, leaving you no room to borrow in bad times. Labour needs to decide whether it believes in counter cyclical fiscal policy or not. It seems it only believes in it during recessions.
Surely it depends on the nature of the investment. We've got into the habit of calling all spending of taxpayer's money an 'investment', because it sounds better and justifies the spending with some nebulous future 'benefit'. But to qualify as an investment surely something should have quantifiable proposed returns that are more than the value of the initial investment. Meaning motorways, bridges, airports, tidal lagoons etc. probably are investments, and public sector pay isn't.
Well, officially "investment" is capital spending, rather than current spending. So that includes motorways, bridges etc and excludes public pay. This is what Balls' plan was based round, even though his old boss Brown used to call all spending "investment".
Did Brown as Chancellor oversee any genuine investment at all, given that there were no motorways or runways opened except the M6 Toll, and all the Skools 'n' 'ospitals were on the PFI never-never..?
Even the doughnut in Cheltenham was built under PFI. Not sure about Vauxhall Cross.
I like Diane Abbot. Can't explain why. Maybe it's something I should see a doctor about.
I don't dislike her as a person but I can't take her seriously as a politician
I'm sure she would be great company at a party and I imagine that she would be a good friend. I'm glad she's an MP, representing a strand of opinion that is probably underrepresented in Parliament, but less happy that she's in the shadow Cabinet, for which her talents do not seem suited.
Salafis are great company at parties, too, due the possibility of entertaining arguments...
This Labour "borrow to invest" line is a bit of a joke. Investment is a good thing, but if you are borrowing to invest you are still running up debt in the good times, leaving you no room to borrow in bad times. Labour needs to decide whether it believes in counter cyclical fiscal policy or not. It seems it only believes in it during recessions.
It's almost as bad as borrowing to give Foreign Aid.
Unfortunately, the idiocy of borrowing to fund our 0.7% commitment is another bear trap for Labour. How do they argue against that?
Well IF the stories of another big recession coming are true, there's an easy saving...
This Labour "borrow to invest" line is a bit of a joke. Investment is a good thing, but if you are borrowing to invest you are still running up debt in the good times, leaving you no room to borrow in bad times. Labour needs to decide whether it believes in counter cyclical fiscal policy or not. It seems it only believes in it during recessions.
Surely it depends on the nature of the investment. We've got into the habit of calling all spending of taxpayer's money an 'investment', because it sounds better and justifies the spending with some nebulous future 'benefit'. But to qualify as an investment surely something should have quantifiable proposed returns that are more than the value of the initial investment. Meaning motorways, bridges, airports, tidal lagoons etc. probably are investments, and public sector pay isn't.
Well, officially "investment" is capital spending, rather than current spending. So that includes motorways, bridges etc and excludes public pay. This is what Balls' plan was based round, even though his old boss Brown used to call all spending "investment".
Did Brown as Chancellor oversee any genuine investment at all, given that there were no motorways or runways opened except the M6 Toll, and all the Skools 'n' 'ospitals were on the PFI never-never..?
Even the doughnut in Cheltenham was built under PFI. Not sure about Vauxhall Cross.
Vauxhall Cross was built under a different government. It wasn't cheap though - a seriously well built, and possibly over engineered building. The RPG hit that did relatively little damage, is testament to that.
'However, if an MP routinely gives the Daily Mail quotes slagging off the leader and the party (in the case I'm thinking of, he did exactly the same with Ed Miliband), they're actively looking for martyrdom.'
And yet it's been fine for Diane Abbott to slag off the previous three leaders on TV.
This Labour "borrow to invest" line is a bit of a joke. Investment is a good thing, but if you are borrowing to invest you are still running up debt in the good times, leaving you no room to borrow in bad times. Labour needs to decide whether it believes in counter cyclical fiscal policy or not. It seems it only believes in it during recessions.
Surely it depends on the nature of the investment. We've got into the habit of calling all spending of taxpayer's money an 'investment', because it sounds better and justifies the spending with some nebulous future 'benefit'. But to qualify as an investment surely something should have quantifiable proposed returns that are more than the value of the initial investment. Meaning motorways, bridges, airports, tidal lagoons etc. probably are investments, and public sector pay isn't.
I think that's right. However 'quantifiable proposed returns' (e.g. in the form of BCRs) are rather nebulous beasts at best.
Looking at the area I'm most interested in, it's easy to argue that there was short-termist under-investment in roads, rail and air. Building the M25 to just three or four lanes is a classic example. It becomes a case of "what is the minimum we can get away with doing" rather than "what will we need in twenty, thirty or more years.
Which is why, if it is done well and gets buy-in from everyone involved, the new Infrastructure Commission might be very useful.
But New Labour's record on 'proper' investment (as you describe above) was very poor IMO.
Comments
"[interviewer] Do you think [Vice President] Joe Biden will get in the race?
[Senator] If I was a betting woman, I’d say he would."
http://fortune.com/2015/10/13/senator-gillibrand-joe-biden-president/
I'm sure there are some betting women on this site :-)
But what Osborne is seeking to do is to change the consensus. During the Brown years he maintained through the various iterations of his golden rule that it was ok for the government to run deficits in "normal" years provided that they were less than the rate of growth (so debt continued to fall as a percentage of GDP) and/or that the extra spending is for "investment". He also of course claimed that any excess borrowing could be cleaned up over an ever extending cycle.
Belief that this was indeed ok significantly increased our structural deficit and put us in a truly horrendous situation when the bubble burst, a situation that we have still not recovered from and which we will not recover from (in terms of our debt GDP ratio) for at least another 20 years.
Osborne wants to create a consensus that instead of running a deficit of 2.5% of GDP when the economy is growing at trend you should instead be running a surplus of 1% and paying down the debt. It is a perfectly sensible policy given our currently elevated debt ratio. It also makes the Labour party somewhat pointless since their policy of spending more money on every problem becomes redundant.
Why he thinks a law will help with such a policy is a bit more mysterious. I think it is just a contrivance to force a vote on the issue and get people talking about it.
Lamb has the bedside manner.
Or.... maybe he's just got the appropriate bearing of an undertaker?
They should def use that in interviews against him
He's not french is he ?
Yes, this is very true, from my limited experience.
PS Do agree with you that it is silly gesture politics. If there was a decent opposition they could point that out. Instead the opposition look like The Clampitts
Switch it off and turn it back on again.
The more she claims "Osborne's mismanagement of the economy" the more stupid she sounds. Some feel he hasn't done enough, but obviously the electorate doesn't agree with her.
Of course, a lead-lined shed would work just as well.
a) His team are trying to guide policy somewhere he doesn't want to go.
b) His team are setting him up to fail.
c) He decided to go for loyalty rather than competence, and since there isn't a big overlap between trots and people who understand economics, he's surrounded by people who have no idea WTF they're doing.
Record employment, record car sales, falling food and oil prices, wages growing at a much faster pace than prices......it's all a calamity.
Give it three weeks and they will be praying for a harsh winter in the hope that they can talk about the NHS.
What happened to the 4 super economists or whatever which should be advising them?
Corbyn's supporters are completely intransigent; they can't be reasoned with. I don't really think there are that many of them and Labour doesn't need them to be a party of government.
So I think the PLP will calculate this, end up ditching Corbyn, tell his supporters to fuck off and go build their own new party, apologise to their mainstream voters and start again, with a sensible leader (probably a woman) in charge.
Corbyn is Labour's immediate problem but their other (arguably bigger) problem is their lack of quality names at the top of the party. They have no big hitters. They need a Blair/Cameron type to emerge from the pack looking like a leader.
They should be in the process of finding one, and at the same time be stopping Unite filling the ranks of their parliamentary candidates with Unite foot soldiers.
Some of the right wing of the Tory party might not have liked it but Cameron has done a good job bringing new, wide-ranging talents into the party.
On the other hand, if lenders to Labour suddenly called in their debts, the party would be in significant trouble, wouldn't it?
"Is Tom Watson a) a scorpion b) a dog or c) a weasel?" http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4584014.ece
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dtNlEh3nW0
The drummer is def a socialist
http://youtu.be/R8vxGmPfuHQ
While it's funny to watch from afar a party commit a slow suidide in public, it's really not good for democracy that no-one is holding the government to account. Governments not properly held to account tend to make stupid decisions without challenge, see Osborne's silly politicking, or the 1998 devolution settlement for examples.
They do seem to have lost all interest in becoming the next government however.
No doubt the gormless Corbyn will be asking for questions from the public again tomorrow..He should be up on his hind legs yelling at the PM..with his own questions..
Labour needs to either return to the realm of reason, or commit suicide more quickly so someone else can do the job of holding the government to account.
If Corbyn can stand again without a minimum number of nominations, won't his voters just vote for him again? And then Corbyn has an excuse to dissolve the PLP and elect a new one.
Edited extra bit: ah, unless you mean remove the whip/expel loads of them.
He's walked the fine line between growth, spending and borrowing very well indeed, while the opposition became increasing hysterical in their language eg on the benefits cap and 'bedroom tax'. The public saw straight though the hysteria and rewarded the Chancellor at the ballot box for his economic competence.
Mr. Charles, how are people supposed to understand what you mean without comparisons to the Second Punic War?
http://order-order.com/2015/10/12/june-sarpong-yoof-stunt-backfires/#:FeXwl5hM1wqXFA
Ever changing numbers for what we would lose, "BSE" as an acronym, u-turns over "Quitters"... whoever is in charge of the Remain campaign needs to get it together already.
Helps cap spending related to indexes.
Mike Gapes Retweeted David Watson
I will show loyalty in the same way as he was loyal to Kinnock Smith Blair Brown Beckett Miliband and Harman. Ok ?
This cannot end well for Labour.
Not a good start is it?
The time for getting out the core vote from each side is during the short campaign, not years before. The argument now needs to be more nuanced else it will just turn everyone off.
Die Lösung
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni
Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands
In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen
Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk
Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Und es nur durch verdoppelte Arbeit
zurückerobern könne. Wäre es da
Nicht doch einfacher, die Regierung
Löste das Volk auf und
Wählte ein anderes
When they both announce (relatively soon if they have any sense) that they are standing down at the next election in order to take up academic posts in America, then the labour stuff will really hit the labour fan.
The problem Corbyn has is that for all his membership mandate he needs Labour's MPs and if he or his mates threaten deselections - or they start to happen - the likelihood is those affected will either resign the whip and become Independent Labour or they'll resign their seats and force by-elections. Either way, you are looking at a smaller parliamentary party in this Parliament and a a much smaller one in the next.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Charles, I understood little bits of that (my German's dodgier than Corbyn's grasp of reality).
Then it's up to the members who they choose as candidate innit?
Edit: maybe he can count the A419 in Swindon..?
Andrew MacDougall @AGMacDougall 14m14 minutes ago Camden Town, London
For a sample of @JeremyCorbyn4PM's "new politics", check out the feed of long-time Labour MP @MikeGapes. Civil war here we come.
LOOOL
Not what Nu Labour built it for but a happy accident.
'However, if an MP routinely gives the Daily Mail quotes slagging off the leader and the party (in the case I'm thinking of, he did exactly the same with Ed Miliband), they're actively looking for martyrdom.'
And yet it's been fine for Diane Abbott to slag off the previous three leaders on TV.
Would that then become the Official Opposition?
Looking at the area I'm most interested in, it's easy to argue that there was short-termist under-investment in roads, rail and air. Building the M25 to just three or four lanes is a classic example. It becomes a case of "what is the minimum we can get away with doing" rather than "what will we need in twenty, thirty or more years.
Which is why, if it is done well and gets buy-in from everyone involved, the new Infrastructure Commission might be very useful.
But New Labour's record on 'proper' investment (as you describe above) was very poor IMO.