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.
Isn't that strange? I hadn't appreciated how old it was.
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.
Yet when someone tries some proper infrastructure investment - HS2 - every man jack starts bleating about it. On the converse side the pathetic do something Heathrow 3 has the same goons suggesting it is the bold solution our country needs.
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.
Since his key adviser seems to be Richard Murphy, we know that (c) is correct. Of course there might be some (a) and (b) in the mix as well.
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.
Yet when someone tries some proper infrastructure investment - HS2 - every man jack starts bleating about it. On the converse side the pathetic do something Heathrow 3 has the same goons suggesting it is the bold solution our country needs.
Hypothetical, but what happens in Parliament if more than half the Labour MPs resigned the Whip and formed a Planet Earth Labour Party?
Would that then become the Official Opposition?
I thought a little about this when I came up with my five proposals for where Labour would head after the leadership election.
Setting up a new party would be massively complex. Corbyn's Labour would have to keep the brand (which is probably worth millions of votes alone), all the local party hierarchies, the offices, staff under contract, etc.
The splinter group may hoover up many of the saner Labour donors, but building a new mass organisation and particularly the brand would be complex, time-consuming and difficult. There may also be disagreements about the policies of the splinter party.
Also, who in the PLP has the experience, courage and even brains to set up a new party? If anybody did, then they wouldn't be in this hideous position.
Brown's legacy lives on. All the potential leaders on the party's right who could have done it have either gone or are devalued. The problem is, the same is true of the party's left, which si why they ended up with Corbyn.
Mr. Jessop, keeping the Labour tag is a double-edged sword. If 'lenders' suddenly called in all their debts, Labour would be in deep trouble. If a Second Labour Party existed, the lenders could do that without fearing they were destroying the only alternative to the Conservatives.
Edited extra bit: Mr. JEO, I mentioned this downthread, regarding Syria briefings. As you say, it's the bearded tit's own fault.
Hypothetical, but what happens in Parliament if more than half the Labour MPs resigned the Whip and formed a Planet Earth Labour Party?
Would that then become the Official Opposition?
Yes. I think technically the decision's at the discretion of the Speaker but the clear convention is that the largest parliamentary group not part government is the official opposition.
They won't, though. Not without trying to win the leadership back from the inside first.
Fair play to Mike Gapes, normally the sort of tweets he is coming out with are "an MP who doesn't want to be named", "a source from the PLP", "I was told in confidence", "Some have suggested", "there have been rumours that...", "a lobby source", "certain figures in the Labour party", "a prominent backbencher", "a backbencher", "an MP told me".
But he's blown it all out the water, no cloak and all dagger.
Am just wondering what the press would be doing if the conservative party had become as extreme right-wing as labour are now left-wing (OK - I know the press never use the phrase 'far-left' or 'extreme-left' and over-use 'far-right' and 'extreme-right', but you know what I mean)
Mr. Flashman (deceased), the Millennium Dome always make me feel nostalgic. Remember when wasting £1bn felt like a big deal?
Its actually a thriving venue now with multiple restaurants, bars and 2 excellent smaller venues as well as the main hall.
Not what Nu Labour built it for but a happy accident.
I like to think if Tories had run the project we'd (I was one back than) have just put in a version of the Royal Edinburgh Military Tattoo (including elements from all the home nations and further afield), packed it out every day and night, made a huge profit and had little refitting work to sell it on as an arena. Instead we had New Labour trying to enforce its creepy view of the future on everyone to disastrous effect.
Re McDonnell's u-turn, I'm trying to square this with *Labour* thinking.
I was very surprised when he said he'd go with the concept at conference - it was the opposite of what I expected, and thought it was very savvy as it neutralised the Can't Be Trusted With The Economy mantra. However, I expected a LOT of fuss from Corbynistas who think spending money is essential in all circumstances.
Now we've got mainstream MPs who know fiscal credibility is essential before they're handed the keys to Number 10 vs Corbynistas who appear to be pulling strings. I'm truly confused as to who's in charge - Labour members, the Shadow Cabinet or the SCotE.
Am just wondering what the press would be doing if the conservative party had become as extreme right-wing as labour are now left-wing (OK - I know the press never use the phrase 'far-left' or 'extreme-left' and over-use 'far-right' and 'extreme-right', but you know what I mean)
Mr. Flashman (deceased), the Millennium Dome always make me feel nostalgic. Remember when wasting £1bn felt like a big deal?
Its actually a thriving venue now with multiple restaurants, bars and 2 excellent smaller venues as well as the main hall.
Not what Nu Labour built it for but a happy accident.
I like to think if Tories had run the project we'd (I was one back than) have just put in a version of the Royal Edinburgh Military Tattoo (including elements from all the home nations and further afield), packed it out every day and night, made a huge profit and had little refitting work to sell it on as an arena. Instead we had New Labour trying to enforce its creepy view of the future on everyone to disastrous effect.
If the fat cats of the Press (etc) hadn’t been kept waiting at Stratford station on 31st Dec 1999, and instead had been whisked straight to their reserved seats, the Millenium Dome would have been judged a success.
What would happen if the Cooperative Party voted to dissolve their 1927 Electoral Pact with Labour?
How would that come about? - I don't know all the ins and outs, but Coop figures are a substantial minority in the Commons, the Lords and Welsh / Scot devolved Parliaments. And they don't look like groups of Corbynites.
It is a full legal political party with everything in place already, and an interestingly different political base and viewpoint.
Also some interesting politicians such as Stella and Kezia. And Mike Gapes.
I agree with those who say that Osborne's fiscal charter law is a meaningless gimmick, but (not for the first time) events seems to have vindicated him. Yes, it's a meaningless gimmick, but it seems to have been a jolly effective meaningless gimmick in terms of its aim of sowing chaos and confusion in Her Majesty's Disloyal Opposition.
I can't for the life of me see why Labour have made such a pig's ear of this, even allowing for the fact that the party appears to be led by half-wits. How hard would it have been to agree on the line 'It's a meaningless gimmick which does nothing to ensure fiscal responsbility, so we will abstain'?
Seems that Sky own 70% of "Love productions" who own the GBBO. I'd have thought that as the BBC were taking a punt on the program they'd have bought some equity possibly in the production company... especially as noone else wanted to show it...
So the BBC take all the risk, and smart Sky get all (Well a large slice of the cake) reward. Some blue sky thinking from the BBC there !
Mr. Jessop, keeping the Labour tag is a double-edged sword. If 'lenders' suddenly called in all their debts, Labour would be in deep trouble. If a Second Labour Party existed, the lenders could do that without fearing they were destroying the only alternative to the Conservatives.
Any breakaway party would need funds in place. A couple of private donors and some Short money would do for starters. Would it be possible I wonder, given the changes in the Labour constitution and the forthcoming legislation, to get a couple of the more moderate private-sector unions on board with the new party..?
I agree with those who say that Osborne's fiscal charter law is a meaningless gimmick, but (not for the first time) events seems to have vindicated him. Yes, it's a meaningless gimmick, but it seems to have been a jolly effective meaningless gimmick in terms of its aim of sowing chaos and confusion in Her Majesty's Disloyal Opposition.
I can't for the life of me see why Labour have made such a pig's ear of this, even allowing for the fact that the party appears to be led by half-wits. How hard would it have been to agree on the line 'It's a meaningless gimmick which does nothing to ensure fiscal responsbility, so we will abstain'?
Because its a potentially dangerous meaningless gimmick that promotes bad economics.
Unfortunately, Labour have not yet adopted the Tories' casual disregard for the national interest in the face of short term political gain.
Seems that Sky own 70% of "Love productions" who own the GBBO. I'd have thought that as the BBC were taking a punt on the program they'd have bought some equity possibly in the production company... especially as noone else wanted to show it...
So the BBC take all the risk, and smart Sky get all (Well a large slice of the cake) reward. Some blue sky thinking from the BBC there !
This is hardly unique though, as many of their shows are made by 'rival' media organisations.
But then, that's what happens when you sell off most of your recently modernised studios & production equipment, outsource your post and play out facilities, and flog off your main TV centre for peanuts.
Unlike Sky, who are doing the opposite and building a brand new state of the art broadcast complex.
I agree with those who say that Osborne's fiscal charter law is a meaningless gimmick, but (not for the first time) events seems to have vindicated him. Yes, it's a meaningless gimmick, but it seems to have been a jolly effective meaningless gimmick in terms of its aim of sowing chaos and confusion in Her Majesty's Disloyal Opposition.
I can't for the life of me see why Labour have made such a pig's ear of this, even allowing for the fact that the party appears to be led by half-wits. How hard would it have been to agree on the line 'It's a meaningless gimmick which does nothing to ensure fiscal responsbility, so we will abstain'?
Because its a potentially dangerous meaningless gimmick that promotes bad economics.
Unfortunately, Labour have not yet adopted the Tories' casual disregard for the national interest in the face of short term political gain.
How could the party of Gordon browns "Prudence" fall for this garbage...... ho ho
I agree with those who say that Osborne's fiscal charter law is a meaningless gimmick, but (not for the first time) events seems to have vindicated him. Yes, it's a meaningless gimmick, but it seems to have been a jolly effective meaningless gimmick in terms of its aim of sowing chaos and confusion in Her Majesty's Disloyal Opposition.
I can't for the life of me see why Labour have made such a pig's ear of this, even allowing for the fact that the party appears to be led by half-wits. How hard would it have been to agree on the line 'It's a meaningless gimmick which does nothing to ensure fiscal responsbility, so we will abstain'?
Labour have fallen precisely into the trap that the PM-in-waiting has set them. What's pretty odd is that Osborne learnt how to do this kind of stunt from Gordon Brown and Ed Balls. Surely someone in Labour can remember these two characters?
Seems that Sky own 70% of "Love productions" who own the GBBO. I'd have thought that as the BBC were taking a punt on the program they'd have bought some equity possibly in the production company... especially as noone else wanted to show it...
So the BBC take all the risk, and smart Sky get all (Well a large slice of the cake) reward. Some blue sky thinking from the BBC there !
This is hardly unique though, as many of their shows are made by 'rival' media organisations.
But at least they will have the hundreds of millions of revenue from Top Gear to...
What would happen if the Cooperative Party voted to dissolve their 1927 Electoral Pact with Labour?
How would that come about? - I don't know all the ins and outs, but Coop figures are a substantial minority in the Commons, the Lords and Welsh / Scot devolved Parliaments. And they don't look like groups of Corbynites.
It is a full legal political party with everything in place already, and an interestingly different political base and viewpoint.
Also some interesting politicians such as Stella and Kezia. And Mike Gapes.
Now that is a good suggestion. A ready-made breakaway party, with somewhat more mainstream views than what the Labour Party has become in the past couple of months.
I agree with those who say that Osborne's fiscal charter law is a meaningless gimmick, but (not for the first time) events seems to have vindicated him. Yes, it's a meaningless gimmick, but it seems to have been a jolly effective meaningless gimmick in terms of its aim of sowing chaos and confusion in Her Majesty's Disloyal Opposition.
I can't for the life of me see why Labour have made such a pig's ear of this, even allowing for the fact that the party appears to be led by half-wits. How hard would it have been to agree on the line 'It's a meaningless gimmick which does nothing to ensure fiscal responsbility, so we will abstain'?
I agree with those who say that Osborne's fiscal charter law is a meaningless gimmick, but (not for the first time) events seems to have vindicated him. Yes, it's a meaningless gimmick, but it seems to have been a jolly effective meaningless gimmick in terms of its aim of sowing chaos and confusion in Her Majesty's Disloyal Opposition.
I can't for the life of me see why Labour have made such a pig's ear of this, even allowing for the fact that the party appears to be led by half-wits. How hard would it have been to agree on the line 'It's a meaningless gimmick which does nothing to ensure fiscal responsbility, so we will abstain'?
Because its a potentially dangerous meaningless gimmick that promotes bad economics.
Unfortunately, Labour have not yet adopted the Tories' casual disregard for the national interest in the face of short term political gain.
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.
Yet when someone tries some proper infrastructure investment - HS2 - every man jack starts bleating about it. On the converse side the pathetic do something Heathrow 3 has the same goons suggesting it is the bold solution our country needs.
Yes I mean you Fraser Nelson.
I agree, with caveats. The third Heathrow runway is short-termist thinking writ large; a new airport such as Boris Island is the only truly forward-looking solution.
However, given that BI or any other new airport is off the table, and the need is getting desperate, then Heathrow Runway 3 is a reasonable alternative. It's like building the M25 with less lanes than were required. Yet as with the M25, in 20 or 30 years we'll be looking at some very, very expensive further expansions to Heathrow or elsewhere.
Mr. Jessop, keeping the Labour tag is a double-edged sword. If 'lenders' suddenly called in all their debts, Labour would be in deep trouble. If a Second Labour Party existed, the lenders could do that without fearing they were destroying the only alternative to the Conservatives.
Any breakaway party would need funds in place. A couple of private donors and some Short money would do for starters. Would it be possible I wonder, given the changes in the Labour constitution and the forthcoming legislation, to get a couple of the more moderate private-sector unions on board with the new party..?
J K Rowling may have to write "What Harry Potter did next..." to save Parliamentary democracy in this country...
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.
They do not think about any sensible policy , they are happy as long as it is Tories thumbing their noses at Labour , never mind the public they think they are smart ars**.
An interesting report from John Cruddas which is linked to further up this thread.
In essence, Labour voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP stayed with UKIP. A good many Conservative voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP in mid-term returned to the Conservatives in May.
That's why UKIP didn't win seats like Boston, Thurrock, and Castle Point, but still hit Labour in seats like Plymouth Moor View, and Morley & Outwood.
Seems that Sky own 70% of "Love productions" who own the GBBO. I'd have thought that as the BBC were taking a punt on the program they'd have bought some equity possibly in the production company... especially as noone else wanted to show it...
So the BBC take all the risk, and smart Sky get all (Well a large slice of the cake) reward. Some blue sky thinking from the BBC there !
This really highlights the incompetence of the BBC. I can't imagine any other broadcaster in the world does not have full control of renewals of the shows they buy from external producers. It's the same failure which means they still do not have sufficient lock ins on their contracts with actors.
At least in the acting talent case, there is a cost of ensuring a reasonable lock in. But for a show being pitched to them, not to have full renewal rights when offering the contract is just incompetent.
Unless the Guardian is making this up. Which is actually equally possible.
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.
They do not think about any sensible policy , they are happy as long as it is Tories thumbing their noses at Labour , never mind the public they think they are smart ars**.
No it is a sensible policy, the books should be running a surplus during "normal times" and a the points were things go "tits up" a deficit will be permitted.
So the two of you have made a mistake. Not those of us who are right.
In essence, Labour voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP stayed with UKIP. A good many Conservative voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP in mid-term returned to the Conservatives in May.
Ahem. Some of us predicted such 'differential swingback' in the lead-up to the GE. I seem to recall being accused of wishful thinking (not by you, I hasten to add).
As I said at the time, this seemed entirely likely, because the motivations of Con->UKIP switchers were different from the motivations of Lab->UKIP switchers.
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.
Yet when someone tries some proper infrastructure investment - HS2 - every man jack starts bleating about it. On the converse side the pathetic do something Heathrow 3 has the same goons suggesting it is the bold solution our country needs.
Yes I mean you Fraser Nelson.
I agree, with caveats. The third Heathrow runway is short-termist thinking writ large; a new airport such as Boris Island is the only truly forward-looking solution.
However, given that BI or any other new airport is off the table, and the need is getting desperate, then Heathrow Runway 3 is a reasonable alternative. It's like building the M25 with less lanes than were required. Yet as with the M25, in 20 or 30 years we'll be looking at some very, very expensive further expansions to Heathrow or elsewhere.
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.
They do not think about any sensible policy , they are happy as long as it is Tories thumbing their noses at Labour , never mind the public they think they are smart ars**.
No it is a sensible policy, the books should be running a surplus during "normal times" and a the points were things go "tits up" a deficit will be permitted.
So the two of you have made a mistake. Not those of us who are right.
As the more sensible righties have said (DavidL and TSE) it's simply a political gesture. It has no economic benefit to the country.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), the Millennium Dome always make me feel nostalgic. Remember when wasting £1bn felt like a big deal?
Its actually a thriving venue now with multiple restaurants, bars and 2 excellent smaller venues as well as the main hall.
Not what Nu Labour built it for but a happy accident.
I like to think if Tories had run the project we'd (I was one back than) have just put in a version of the Royal Edinburgh Military Tattoo (including elements from all the home nations and further afield), packed it out every day and night, made a huge profit and had little refitting work to sell it on as an arena. Instead we had New Labour trying to enforce its creepy view of the future on everyone to disastrous effect.
If the fat cats of the Press (etc) hadn’t been kept waiting at Stratford station on 31st Dec 1999, and instead had been whisked straight to their reserved seats, the Millenium Dome would have been judged a success.
Bollocks. It had a full year to attract people - if it was worth seeing there would have been word of mouth.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), the Millennium Dome always make me feel nostalgic. Remember when wasting £1bn felt like a big deal?
Its actually a thriving venue now with multiple restaurants, bars and 2 excellent smaller venues as well as the main hall.
Not what Nu Labour built it for but a happy accident.
I like to think if Tories had run the project we'd (I was one back than) have just put in a version of the Royal Edinburgh Military Tattoo (including elements from all the home nations and further afield), packed it out every day and night, made a huge profit and had little refitting work to sell it on as an arena. Instead we had New Labour trying to enforce its creepy view of the future on everyone to disastrous effect.
If the fat cats of the Press (etc) hadn’t been kept waiting at Stratford station on 31st Dec 1999, and instead had been whisked straight to their reserved seats, the Millenium Dome would have been judged a success.
Bollocks. It had a full year to attract people - if it was worth seeing there would have been word of mouth.
I went to it - but only because it was free and it meant a day off school!
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.
Yet when someone tries some proper infrastructure investment - HS2 - every man jack starts bleating about it. On the converse side the pathetic do something Heathrow 3 has the same goons suggesting it is the bold solution our country needs.
Yes I mean you Fraser Nelson.
I agree, with caveats. The third Heathrow runway is short-termist thinking writ large; a new airport such as Boris Island is the only truly forward-looking solution.
However, given that BI or any other new airport is off the table, and the need is getting desperate, then Heathrow Runway 3 is a reasonable alternative. It's like building the M25 with less lanes than were required. Yet as with the M25, in 20 or 30 years we'll be looking at some very, very expensive further expansions to Heathrow or elsewhere.
It's short-termist, but still required.
I don't see how they can be 'off the table' until someone has built something else on the site. Things change. Let's hope for the best.
I agree, with caveats. The third Heathrow runway is short-termist thinking writ large; a new airport such as Boris Island is the only truly forward-looking solution.
However, given that BI or any other new airport is off the table, and the need is getting desperate, then Heathrow Runway 3 is a reasonable alternative. It's like building the M25 with less lanes than were required. Yet as with the M25, in 20 or 30 years we'll be looking at some very, very expensive further expansions to Heathrow or elsewhere.
It's short-termist, but still required.
So do both no ?
Sadly, I guess not. If BI was done properly (i.e. with the very expensive transport and communication networks required) then Heathrow would become redundant. The land under Heathrow would be massively valuable for industrial, commercial and housing use.
It's a one-or-the-other option, not a both option.
This means that if we did expand Heathrow, and decide to build a new airport in ten or twenty years time, then the money spent on that expansion would be utterly wasted.
As an aside, I contend it may be possible to build BI quicker than a Heathrow third runway ...
''When I see Mike Gapes tweets, I feel respect. ''
One of the other labour MPs who has taken up the cudgels against Corbynism with vigour and venom is Ben Bradshaw. And he knows how to win in the south.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), the Millennium Dome always make me feel nostalgic. Remember when wasting £1bn felt like a big deal?
Its actually a thriving venue now with multiple restaurants, bars and 2 excellent smaller venues as well as the main hall.
Not what Nu Labour built it for but a happy accident.
I like to think if Tories had run the project we'd (I was one back than) have just put in a version of the Royal Edinburgh Military Tattoo (including elements from all the home nations and further afield), packed it out every day and night, made a huge profit and had little refitting work to sell it on as an arena. Instead we had New Labour trying to enforce its creepy view of the future on everyone to disastrous effect.
If the fat cats of the Press (etc) hadn’t been kept waiting at Stratford station on 31st Dec 1999, and instead had been whisked straight to their reserved seats, the Millenium Dome would have been judged a success.
Bollocks. It had a full year to attract people - if it was worth seeing there would have been word of mouth.
It was a typical Mandelson folie de grandeur - trying to create a legacy project like his grandfather. And it failed.
In essence, Labour voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP stayed with UKIP. A good many Conservative voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP in mid-term returned to the Conservatives in May.
Ahem. Some of us predicted such 'differential swingback' in the lead-up to the GE. I seem to recall being accused of wishful thinking (not by you, I hasten to add).
As I said at the time, this seemed entirely likely, because the motivations of Con->UKIP switchers were different from the motivations of Lab->UKIP switchers.
Fair play you did say that... The only caveat is that your predictions are always pro conservative and you don't fess up when they're wrong (Rochester by election being the biggest one)
''When I see Mike Gapes tweets, I feel respect. ''
One of the other labour MPs who has taken up the cudgels against Corbynism with vigour and venom is Ben Bradshaw. And he knows how to win in the south.
A name to watch in the future?
No. Bradshaw has no prospect of achieving great things in what is left of his political career. He came a distant last in the Deputy Leadership vote - and has no real reach beyond his small area of influence in Exeter
I don't see how they can be 'off the table' until someone has built something else on the site. Things change. Let's hope for the best.
A BI option was rejected in the Airports Commission interim report; it did not even make it through to the (three?) options in the final report. To say we want to build it now, then we'd either have to have a massive change in the situation, or admit that the terms of reference set out to Davies and the commission were massively faulty. (I believe the commission did a good job in producing a report according to their terms of reference).
I'm not sure anyone has the desire to go through all that again. It'd take another few years of arguing the toss.
There is one chink of light: there is a tiny chance that the new Infrastructure Commission might overrule the Davies report, if they consider the entire infrastructure needs of the country, and not just airports. Or they may confirm that H3 is an even better option than Davies said.
In essence, Labour voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP stayed with UKIP. A good many Conservative voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP in mid-term returned to the Conservatives in May.
Ahem. Some of us predicted such 'differential swingback' in the lead-up to the GE. I seem to recall being accused of wishful thinking (not by you, I hasten to add).
As I said at the time, this seemed entirely likely, because the motivations of Con->UKIP switchers were different from the motivations of Lab->UKIP switchers.
But there was more to go too. Another counter factual is how much better the Conservatives might have done in seats had they not been very rude to UKIP sympathisers and activists amongst their own ranks from 2010-2015.
Sean Fear is but one example of that. The idea that there is a choice between attracting Lib Dems voters and social conservatives is a false one IMHO. The LDs were always going to be toast.
There were potentially another dozen Labour seats up for grabs.
There is a cadre in new Labour, and the more metropolitan parts of the Tory party, who thinks the average Joe is a bit of a secret bigot, which is where euroscepticism and opposition to mass migration comes from.
They need to be thrown bones by occasionally being rude to foreigners within the EU, and bashing immigrants in the odd speech or two, but secretly they despise them and would never do anything serious about either.
In essence, Labour voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP stayed with UKIP. A good many Conservative voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP in mid-term returned to the Conservatives in May.
Ahem. Some of us predicted such 'differential swingback' in the lead-up to the GE. I seem to recall being accused of wishful thinking (not by you, I hasten to add).
As I said at the time, this seemed entirely likely, because the motivations of Con->UKIP switchers were different from the motivations of Lab->UKIP switchers.
But there was more to go too. Another counter factual is how much better the Conservatives might have done in seats had they not been very rude to UKIP sympathisers and activists amongst their own ranks from 2010-2015.
Sean Fear is but one example of that. The idea that there is a choice between attracting Lib Dems voters and social conservatives is a false one IMHO. The LDs were always going to be toast.
There were potentially another dozen Labour seats up for grabs.
On the differential I would before the election have accepted the potential for one, but if anything I would have said it did not have the Conservatives. From my perspective as UKIp went from 8% to 16% they seemed to attract more Labour voters. Therefore I would have expected more Labour voters to return as UKIP's share declined.
It seems that sometimes the most recent converts are the most committed...
There is a cadre in new Labour, and the more metropolitan parts of the Tory party, who thinks the average Joe is a bit of a secret bigot, which is where euroscepticism and opposition to mass migration comes from.
They need to be thrown bones by occasionally being rude to foreigners within the EU, and bashing immigrants in the odd speech or two, but secretly they despise them and would never do anything serious about either.
Yes indeed. They think we are all foreigner hating 'British is best' types... That guff is for people that have to try prove how English they are, not normal Englishmen... An Al Murray pub landlord caricature
Some of Camerons proposals on how to handle migration (letting lots of immigrants in then treating them as second class citizens) has been too nasty for my liking. I just want a sensible immigration Policy that judges the number that allows integration
But when you have no experience of what real life is, it must be a kick to play bad boy now and then
An interesting report from John Cruddas which is linked to further up this thread.
In essence, Labour voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP stayed with UKIP. A good many Conservative voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP in mid-term returned to the Conservatives in May.
That's why UKIP didn't win seats like Boston, Thurrock, and Castle Point, but still hit Labour in seats like Plymouth Moor View, and Morley & Outwood.
As was predicted by some on here (* cough - like myself *) a couple of years out from the election.....
An interesting report from John Cruddas which is linked to further up this thread.
In essence, Labour voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP stayed with UKIP. A good many Conservative voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP in mid-term returned to the Conservatives in May.
That's why UKIP didn't win seats like Boston, Thurrock, and Castle Point, but still hit Labour in seats like Plymouth Moor View, and Morley & Outwood.
As was predicted by some on here (* cough - like myself *) a couple of years out from the election.....
Surely a lot of that was to do with the threat of a SNP-Labour pact?
The most effective poster was that of Miliband in Salmonds pocket, I reckon tats what scared Tory-UKIP floaters back
In essence, Labour voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP stayed with UKIP. A good many Conservative voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP in mid-term returned to the Conservatives in May.
Ahem. Some of us predicted such 'differential swingback' in the lead-up to the GE. I seem to recall being accused of wishful thinking (not by you, I hasten to add).
As I said at the time, this seemed entirely likely, because the motivations of Con->UKIP switchers were different from the motivations of Lab->UKIP switchers.
But there was more to go too. Another counter factual is how much better the Conservatives might have done in seats had they not been very rude to UKIP sympathisers and activists amongst their own ranks from 2010-2015.
Sean Fear is but one example of that. The idea that there is a choice between attracting Lib Dems voters and social conservatives is a false one IMHO. The LDs were always going to be toast.
There were potentially another dozen Labour seats up for grabs.
On the differential I would before the election have accepted the potential for one, but if anything I would have said it did not have the Conservatives. From my perspective as UKIp went from 8% to 16% they seemed to attract more Labour voters. Therefore I would have expected more Labour voters to return as UKIP's share declined.
It seems that sometimes the most recent converts are the most committed...
I think the general view was that the first wave of UKIP supporters (2010-13) were mainly Conservatives. After that, they were Conservatives, Lib Dems and Labour.
Cruddas reckons that 12% of Conservatives from 2010 still voted UKIP in May, but that was down from the figure of 20%+ that polls were showing at the start of 2015.
I can't for the life of me see why Labour have made such a pig's ear of this, even allowing for the fact that the party appears to be led by half-wits. How hard would it have been to agree on the line 'It's a meaningless gimmick which does nothing to ensure fiscal responsbility, so we will abstain'?
Because they are inured to meaningless gimmicks themselves......EdStone, anyone?
They may even think its a jolly clever (if evil) policy.....
In essence, Labour voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP stayed with UKIP. A good many Conservative voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP in mid-term returned to the Conservatives in May.
Ahem. Some of us predicted such 'differential swingback' in the lead-up to the GE. I seem to recall being accused of wishful thinking (not by you, I hasten to add).
As I said at the time, this seemed entirely likely, because the motivations of Con->UKIP switchers were different from the motivations of Lab->UKIP switchers.
But there was more to go too. Another counter factual is how much better the Conservatives might have done in seats had they not been very rude to UKIP sympathisers and activists amongst their own ranks from 2010-2015.
Sean Fear is but one example of that. The idea that there is a choice between attracting Lib Dems voters and social conservatives is a false one IMHO. The LDs were always going to be toast.
There were potentially another dozen Labour seats up for grabs.
The notion that the LibDems were always going to be toast in terms of seats is the wisdom of hindsight. In the event, the political strategy pursued by Cameron and Osborne was wholly vindicated and the unrelenting critique of UKIP (whose intention remains to supplant the Conservatives...they are not somehow our brothers in spirit) was an important component in making the party more attractive to centrist leaning voters.
Sean Fear has been entirely consistent. I seem to recall his saying something along the lines of being liberated on departing the Tories. He is at home as a UKIP activist. Good luck to him. He doesn't want to return and I would probably be vehemently opposed to those changes that would attract him back.
He's got that back to front. Red Bull may force themselves from the sport after their dummy-spitting short-sighted idiocy. Ending a deal with an engine supplier without having another lined up is bloody stupid. There's no-one to blame for this but Red Bull.
McLaren have been more patient with Honda than Red Bull have with Renault, the engine supplier that was with them during the three wins of the previous season, and the four years of consecutive domination prior to that.
''They think we are all foreigner hating 'British is best' types... That guff is for people that have to try prove how English they are, not normal Englishmen... An Al Murray pub landlord caricature''.
Very true. When are they going to realise it is not about racism or bigotry but control. This issue is about who calls the shots.
There is a cadre in new Labour, and the more metropolitan parts of the Tory party, who thinks the average Joe is a bit of a secret bigot, which is where euroscepticism and opposition to mass migration comes from.
They need to be thrown bones by occasionally being rude to foreigners within the EU, and bashing immigrants in the odd speech or two, but secretly they despise them and would never do anything serious about either.
Yes indeed. They think we are all foreigner hating 'British is best' types... That guff is for people that have to try prove how English they are, not normal Englishmen... An Al Murray pub landlord caricature
The comedian who plays that Nigel Farage character is much better. The whole Tweed suit, pint, 'we'll fight those Johnnies at Dover' patter is top notch. Is he making a Xmas DVD?
''When I see Mike Gapes tweets, I feel respect. ''
One of the other labour MPs who has taken up the cudgels against Corbynism with vigour and venom is Ben Bradshaw. And he knows how to win in the south.
A name to watch in the future?
Perhaps he should be, but he did poorly among the members in the deputy election, and according to MarqueeMark(I think) there were rumours he had been looking to retire this time in any case, but had been persuaded to stick around.
There is a cadre in new Labour, and the more metropolitan parts of the Tory party, who thinks the average Joe is a bit of a secret bigot, which is where euroscepticism and opposition to mass migration comes from.
They need to be thrown bones by occasionally being rude to foreigners within the EU, and bashing immigrants in the odd speech or two, but secretly they despise them and would never do anything serious about either.
Yes indeed. They think we are all foreigner hating 'British is best' types... That guff is for people that have to try prove how English they are, not normal Englishmen... An Al Murray pub landlord caricature
Some of Camerons proposals on how to handle migration (letting lots of immigrants in then treating them as second class citizens) has been too nasty for my liking. I just want a sensible immigration Policy that judges the number that allows integration
But when you have no experience of what real life is, it must be a kick to play bad boy now and then
Cameron's got it right on Syria, which I commend him for, but there's nothing in the rest of his proposals on immigration that lead me to think he's serious about bringing it under control.
He might shave off another 10-20k per year but it will be like shaving parmesan and still miles off his tens of thousands target.
In essence, Labour voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP stayed with UKIP. A good many Conservative voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP in mid-term returned to the Conservatives in May.
Ahem. Some of us predicted such 'differential swingback' in the lead-up to the GE. I seem to recall being accused of wishful thinking (not by you, I hasten to add).
As I said at the time, this seemed entirely likely, because the motivations of Con->UKIP switchers were different from the motivations of Lab->UKIP switchers.
But there was more to go too. Another counter factual is how much better the Conservatives might have done in seats had they not been very rude to UKIP sympathisers and activists amongst their own ranks from 2010-2015.
Sean Fear is but one example of that. The idea that there is a choice between attracting Lib Dems voters and social conservatives is a false one IMHO. The LDs were always going to be toast.
There were potentially another dozen Labour seats up for grabs.
The notion that the LibDems were always going to be toast in terms of seats is the wisdom of hindsight. In the event, the political strategy pursued by Cameron and Osborne was wholly vindicated and the unrelenting critique of UKIP (whose intention remains to supplant the Conservatives...they are not somehow our brothers in spirit) was an important component in making the party more attractive to centrist leaning voters.
Sean Fear has been entirely consistent. I seem to recall his saying something along the lines of being liberated on departing the Tories. He is at home as a UKIP activist. Good luck to him. He doesn't want to return and I would probably be vehemently opposed to those changes that would attract him back.
The Lib Dems were in trouble from day 1, but like most people, I thought their MPs' personal votes would be sufficient to retain a decent number of seats.
As it happens, their MPs' did retain a significant personal vote, but it couldn't offset the big drop in overall support. And, where sitting MPs stood down, Lib Dem support just collapsed.
In essence, Labour voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP stayed with UKIP. A good many Conservative voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP in mid-term returned to the Conservatives in May.
Ahem. Some of us predicted such 'differential swingback' in the lead-up to the GE. I seem to recall being accused of wishful thinking (not by you, I hasten to add).
As I said at the time, this seemed entirely likely, because the motivations of Con->UKIP switchers were different from the motivations of Lab->UKIP switchers.
But there was more to go too. Another counter factual is how much better the Conservatives might have done in seats had they not been very rude to UKIP sympathisers and activists amongst their own ranks from 2010-2015.
Sean Fear is but one example of that. The idea that there is a choice between attracting Lib Dems voters and social conservatives is a false one IMHO. The LDs were always going to be toast.
There were potentially another dozen Labour seats up for grabs.
The notion that the LibDems were always going to be toast in terms of seats is the wisdom of hindsight. In the event, the political strategy pursued by Cameron and Osborne was wholly vindicated and the unrelenting critique of UKIP (whose intention remains to supplant the Conservatives...they are not somehow our brothers in spirit) was an important component in making the party more attractive to centrist leaning voters.
Sean Fear has been entirely consistent. I seem to recall his saying something along the lines of being liberated on departing the Tories. He is at home as a UKIP activist. Good luck to him. He doesn't want to return and I would probably be vehemently opposed to those changes that would attract him back.
The Lib Dems were in trouble from day 1, but like most people, I thought their MPs' personal votes would be sufficient to retain a decent number of seats.
As it happens, their MPs' did retain a significant personal vote, but it couldn't offset the big drop in overall support. And, where sitting MPs stood down, Lib Dem support just collapsed.
He's got that back to front. Red Bull may force themselves from the sport after their dummy-spitting short-sighted idiocy. Ending a deal with an engine supplier without having another lined up is bloody stupid. There's no-one to blame for this but Red Bull.
McLaren have been more patient with Honda than Red Bull have with Renault, the engine supplier that was with them during the three wins of the previous season, and the four years of consecutive domination prior to that.
World's smallest violin for Adrian Newey and Christian Horner. In a team sport the whole team wins together and loses together, how did they expect to sign a new engine partner with no problem after the way they treated their current one for the past two years? Look at McLaren and Honda for how you treat partners, no sympathy for Red Bull and their unsporting attitude.
Comments
Yes I mean you Fraser Nelson.
"I've spent my life fighting for Labour and democratic socialism and no raddled old SWP trot is going to tell me or other MPs how to vote."
He should be Labour's next leadership candidate. He'd be duffing Osborne up behind the bike sheds in no time.
Setting up a new party would be massively complex. Corbyn's Labour would have to keep the brand (which is probably worth millions of votes alone), all the local party hierarchies, the offices, staff under contract, etc.
The splinter group may hoover up many of the saner Labour donors, but building a new mass organisation and particularly the brand would be complex, time-consuming and difficult. There may also be disagreements about the policies of the splinter party.
Also, who in the PLP has the experience, courage and even brains to set up a new party? If anybody did, then they wouldn't be in this hideous position.
Brown's legacy lives on. All the potential leaders on the party's right who could have done it have either gone or are devalued. The problem is, the same is true of the party's left, which si why they ended up with Corbyn.
Mr. JEO, yeah, but being anti-white is ok in some quarters.
Mr. 30, surprised he isn't waiting to see how successful An Hour With Chris Evans is.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11927084/Jeremy-Corbyn-will-demand-to-be-made-a-member-of-Privy-Council-ahead-of-a-Syria-vote.html
Perhaps he should have thought of this when he was too busy to join as he was off hiking?
She is a pathetic excuse for an MP, not even close to being fit for high office.
Edited extra bit: Mr. JEO, I mentioned this downthread, regarding Syria briefings. As you say, it's the bearded tit's own fault.
Abbott not Farage!
Why Burnham and not him?
https://twitter.com/douglascarswell/status/653860801690906624
They won't, though. Not without trying to win the leadership back from the inside first.
But he's blown it all out the water, no cloak and all dagger.
http://youtu.be/ZL-pMGvhi6I
I was very surprised when he said he'd go with the concept at conference - it was the opposite of what I expected, and thought it was very savvy as it neutralised the Can't Be Trusted With The Economy mantra. However, I expected a LOT of fuss from Corbynistas who think spending money is essential in all circumstances.
Now we've got mainstream MPs who know fiscal credibility is essential before they're handed the keys to Number 10 vs Corbynistas who appear to be pulling strings. I'm truly confused as to who's in charge - Labour members, the Shadow Cabinet or the SCotE.
What would happen if the Cooperative Party voted to dissolve their 1927 Electoral Pact with Labour?
How would that come about? - I don't know all the ins and outs, but Coop figures are a substantial minority in the Commons, the Lords and Welsh / Scot devolved Parliaments. And they don't look like groups of Corbynites.
It is a full legal political party with everything in place already, and an interestingly different political base and viewpoint.
Also some interesting politicians such as Stella and Kezia. And Mike Gapes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-operative_Party
I can't for the life of me see why Labour have made such a pig's ear of this, even allowing for the fact that the party appears to be led by half-wits. How hard would it have been to agree on the line 'It's a meaningless gimmick which does nothing to ensure fiscal responsbility, so we will abstain'?
Seems that Sky own 70% of "Love productions" who own the GBBO. I'd have thought that as the BBC were taking a punt on the program they'd have bought some equity possibly in the production company... especially as noone else wanted to show it...
So the BBC take all the risk, and smart Sky get all (Well a large slice of the cake) reward. Some blue sky thinking from the BBC there !
Unfortunately, Labour have not yet adopted the Tories' casual disregard for the national interest in the face of short term political gain.
But then, that's what happens when you sell off most of your recently modernised studios & production equipment, outsource your post and play out facilities, and flog off your main TV centre for peanuts.
Unlike Sky, who are doing the opposite and building a brand new state of the art broadcast complex.
This is the new politics. If we're going to have a war, at least make it civil.
Oh.
However, given that BI or any other new airport is off the table, and the need is getting desperate, then Heathrow Runway 3 is a reasonable alternative. It's like building the M25 with less lanes than were required. Yet as with the M25, in 20 or 30 years we'll be looking at some very, very expensive further expansions to Heathrow or elsewhere.
It's short-termist, but still required.
In essence, Labour voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP stayed with UKIP. A good many Conservative voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP in mid-term returned to the Conservatives in May.
That's why UKIP didn't win seats like Boston, Thurrock, and Castle Point, but still hit Labour in seats like Plymouth Moor View, and Morley & Outwood.
At least in the acting talent case, there is a cost of ensuring a reasonable lock in. But for a show being pitched to them, not to have full renewal rights when offering the contract is just incompetent.
Unless the Guardian is making this up. Which is actually equally possible.
So the two of you have made a mistake. Not those of us who are right.
As I said at the time, this seemed entirely likely, because the motivations of Con->UKIP switchers were different from the motivations of Lab->UKIP switchers.
It's a one-or-the-other option, not a both option.
This means that if we did expand Heathrow, and decide to build a new airport in ten or twenty years time, then the money spent on that expansion would be utterly wasted.
As an aside, I contend it may be possible to build BI quicker than a Heathrow third runway ...
One of the other labour MPs who has taken up the cudgels against Corbynism with vigour and venom is Ben Bradshaw. And he knows how to win in the south.
A name to watch in the future?
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/fluechtlingskrise/fluechtlingskrise-das-s-o-s-der-landraete-13852495.html
Merkel coming under more pressure
I'm not sure anyone has the desire to go through all that again. It'd take another few years of arguing the toss.
There is one chink of light: there is a tiny chance that the new Infrastructure Commission might overrule the Davies report, if they consider the entire infrastructure needs of the country, and not just airports. Or they may confirm that H3 is an even better option than Davies said.
Sean Fear is but one example of that. The idea that there is a choice between attracting Lib Dems voters and social conservatives is a false one IMHO. The LDs were always going to be toast.
There were potentially another dozen Labour seats up for grabs.
Tony Blair?
They need to be thrown bones by occasionally being rude to foreigners within the EU, and bashing immigrants in the odd speech or two, but secretly they despise them and would never do anything serious about either.
It seems that sometimes the most recent converts are the most committed...
Some of Camerons proposals on how to handle migration (letting lots of immigrants in then treating them as second class citizens) has been too nasty for my liking. I just want a sensible immigration Policy that judges the number that allows integration
But when you have no experience of what real life is, it must be a kick to play bad boy now and then
The most effective poster was that of Miliband in Salmonds pocket, I reckon tats what scared Tory-UKIP floaters back
Cruddas reckons that 12% of Conservatives from 2010 still voted UKIP in May, but that was down from the figure of 20%+ that polls were showing at the start of 2015.
They may even think its a jolly clever (if evil) policy.....
Sean Fear has been entirely consistent. I seem to recall his saying something along the lines of being liberated on departing the Tories. He is at home as a UKIP activist. Good luck to him. He doesn't want to return and I would probably be vehemently opposed to those changes that would attract him back.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/34513738
He's got that back to front. Red Bull may force themselves from the sport after their dummy-spitting short-sighted idiocy. Ending a deal with an engine supplier without having another lined up is bloody stupid. There's no-one to blame for this but Red Bull.
McLaren have been more patient with Honda than Red Bull have with Renault, the engine supplier that was with them during the three wins of the previous season, and the four years of consecutive domination prior to that.
Very true. When are they going to realise it is not about racism or bigotry but control. This issue is about who calls the shots.
He might shave off another 10-20k per year but it will be like shaving parmesan and still miles off his tens of thousands target.
As it happens, their MPs' did retain a significant personal vote, but it couldn't offset the big drop in overall support. And, where sitting MPs stood down, Lib Dem support just collapsed.
I guess to keep people on message, you first need a message.
A message beyond 'the electorate were quite wrong to vote us out'.
Very interesting Mr KLE, but his fighting spirit suggests he's perhaps not ready to retire..??? then again when you have nothing to lose....