"Why are the Canadians so sensible and the British not ?"
Because they don't have our moronic press?
Nice to see the pbreds blaming the electorate (tm kinnockism) and meedjah for their failings..... plus ca change.
Strangely, the only UK party that has a good reason to complain about the electorate and media are the Lib Dems. They got mercilessly hammered for the tuition fees u-turn, when Labour themselves had made several u-turns in that area.
Although it appears that many Lib Dem voters in 2010 and 2015 were not 'true' Lib Dems, but disillusioned Labour voters.
Given that, it'll be interesting to see what Farron can do. There might be many left-leaning voters utterly disillusioned with Corbyn's party, and the media might like a sane party to focus on as Labour lurch to insanity.
Yes, Labour have no reason to complain about a corporate media owned by foreigners and tax dodgers that overwhelmingly pumps out propaganda ranged against them, out of all proportion to the relative popularity of the parties. If it didn't work, the corporate interests in question wouldn't expend so much effort doing it. Also, study after study shows that where public opinion at large diverges from reality, it closely follows the misrepresentations of the press. Propaganda works, simple as. And in this country with have a particularly virulent form of it, built up symbiotically with the aid of the politicians that represent the same interests in Westminster. To moronically mis-spell media to suggest those using clear and obvious evidence to support their arguments are silly children just makes you look a bit facile, frankly.
You were strangely silent when these same corporate media owned by foreigners and tax dodgers resided the wrong side of Tony Blair's sphincter....
From 1997 Labour implemented Tory policies. That's why its members don't want to return to office anytime soon.
Interesting comment from the Toronto Globe and Mail that should cheer Labour:
"The party platform also made a mark with voters. Liberals said the key moment of the campaign came as they announced, in late August, that they would run three deficits of up to $10-billion a year to pay for infrastructure spending. The move allowed the party to present a more ambitious agenda, but also created a clear contrast with the NDP and the Conservative Party that both vowed to balance the books. That promise hit the NDP “like a train,” said a senior Liberal organizer."
The culture wars stuff seems to have boomeranged for the Tories (though they hurt the NDP in Quebec):
'"Distractions,” as Conservatives called them, included revelations at the Duffy fraud trial, charges the government was failing Syrian refugees and a backlash outside Quebec to Mr. Harper’s comments that he would consider banning the niqab among federal public servants.
A promise to establish a tip line for reports of “barbaric cultural practices” was also widely condemned as inflammatory.'
I suspect the niqab debate actually had little to do with the result.
Does Canadian politics ever see significant spill-over from the US - Canadians look at US Republicans and react?
On our side of the pond, another great piece from Janan Ganesh (£):
Politics is full of truisms that are not actually true. A week is not a long time in politics; much more stays the same than changes. People do not vote for hope and vision, but for the lesser evil. And nobody really minds a divided party. Division, managed properly, can convey vitality while draining opponents of a reason to exist. There is no solace for Labour in the Tories’ coming strife.
Yep, absolutely spot on. A credible oppositions with an electable leader might be in a position to make some serious capital out of the various and mounting problems facing the Tories currently, but with Corbyn Labour across the floor there is absolutely nothing to worry about. They have a permanent get Out of Jail Free card. There are only two major issues in British politics right now: who will lead the Tories to victory in 2020 and in which year will Scotland become independent.
Canada of course has had two independence referendums in Quebec already, both defeated. It also looks like the Liberals have won most seats in Quebec again for the first time in a general election for 35 years, which means Scottish Labour may have to wait until 2050 for fortunes to be restored
Ontario is the meat but to win outright in Canada you really have to be competitive in all provinces.
Overall majorities have only really been a serious prospect since the Bloc collapsed.
"Why are the Canadians so sensible and the British not ?"
Because they don't have our moronic press?
Nice to see the pbreds blaming the electorate (tm kinnockism) and meedjah for their failings..... plus ca change.
Strangely, the only UK party that has a good reason to complain about the electorate and media are the Lib Dems. They got mercilessly hammered for the tuition fees u-turn, when Labour themselves had made several u-turns in that area.
Although it appears that many Lib Dem voters in 2010 and 2015 were not 'true' Lib Dems, but disillusioned Labour voters.
Given that, it'll be interesting to see what Farron can do. There might be many left-leaning voters utterly disillusioned with Corbyn's party, and the media might like a sane party to focus on as Labour lurch to insanity.
Yes, Labour have no reason to complain about a corporate media owned by foreigners and tax dodgers that overwhelmingly pumps out propaganda ranged against them, out of all proportion to the relative popularity of the parties. If it didn't work, the corporate interests in question wouldn't expend so much effort doing it. Also, study after study shows that where public opinion at large diverges from reality, it closely follows the misrepresentations of the press. Propaganda works, simple as. And in this country with have a particularly virulent form of it, built up symbiotically with the aid of the politicians that represent the same interests in Westminster. To moronically mis-spell media to suggest those using clear and obvious evidence to support their arguments are silly children just makes you look a bit facile, frankly.
You were strangely silent when these same corporate media owned by foreigners and tax dodgers resided the wrong side of Tony Blair's sphincter....
How do you know? It was only really Murdoch that changed tack, and always made clear he supported Blair but not the wider Labour Party. Of course he immediately went back on the full attack as soon as Blair left. Blair was a useful tool for him at a time whe he knew no amount of propaganda would keep Labour out (the current Labour project is to ensure the grassroots are in control the next time this rolls around, so we can break up foreign / tax-dodger owned media monopolies) I dont think many Labour supporters were particularly over the moon at this.
"Why are the Canadians so sensible and the British not ?"
Because they don't have our moronic press?
Nice to see the pbreds blaming the electorate (tm kinnockism) and meedjah for their failings..... plus ca change.
Strangely, the only UK party that has a good reason to complain about the electorate and media are the Lib Dems. They got mercilessly hammered for the tuition fees u-turn, when Labour themselves had made several u-turns in that area.
Although it appears that many Lib Dem voters in 2010 and 2015 were not 'true' Lib Dems, but disillusioned Labour voters.
Given that, it'll be interesting to see what Farron can do. There might be many left-leaning voters utterly disillusioned with Corbyn's party, and the media might like a sane party to focus on as Labour lurch to insanity.
Yes, Labour have no reason to complain about a corporate media owned by foreigners and tax dodgers that overwhelmingly pumps out propaganda ranged against them, out of all proportion to the relative popularity of the parties. If it didn't work, the corporate interests in question wouldn't expend so much effort doing it. Also, study after study shows that where public opinion at large diverges from reality, it closely follows the misrepresentations of the press. Propaganda works, simple as. And in this country with have a particularly virulent form of it, built up symbiotically with the aid of the politicians that represent the same interests in Westminster. To moronically mis-spell media to suggest those using clear and obvious evidence to support their arguments are silly children just makes you look a bit facile, frankly.
You were strangely silent when these same corporate media owned by foreigners and tax dodgers resided the wrong side of Tony Blair's sphincter....
From 1997 Labour implemented Tory policies. That's why its members don't want to return to office anytime soon.
There is actually truth in this - Id rather see Tory policies enacted by the Tories so when they inevitably fail, again, they cant blame anyone else this time.
The difference is hardly anyone in the Labour Party at large (including supporters) likes the idea of NHS privatisation, unlike Warner. Carswell and Reckless hardly had such totemic differences of opinion with the Tory body politic, did they? And as you say, Reckless was hardly lauded. Stop virtue signalling, you sound ridiculous.
If hardly anyone in the Labour Party at large liked the idea of NHS privatisation, then why did Labour under Blair and Brown privatise far more (albeit then only a tiny few percent) than the coalition government that succeeded it?
You're just struggling to disown the Blair years, which were the most successful Labour's seen in a generation or two. Governments where Labour could make a difference, because they were in power.
If your views prevail, it will be another generation or two before Labour can make a difference again. I personally think that'll be bad for the country, but as long as you're happy.
As an aside, I'm not sure how you could take my post to be virtue signalling. Still, if that's the best 'attack' you can do ...
"Why are the Canadians so sensible and the British not ?"
Because they don't have our moronic press?
Nice to see the pbreds blaming the electorate (tm kinnockism) and meedjah for their failings..... plus ca change.
Strangely, the only UK party that has a good reason to complain about the electorate and media are the Lib Dems. They got mercilessly hammered for the tuition fees u-turn, when Labour themselves had made several u-turns in that area.
Although it appears that many Lib Dem voters in 2010 and 2015 were not 'true' Lib Dems, but disillusioned Labour voters.
Given that, it'll be interesting to see what Farron can do. There might be many left-leaning voters utterly disillusioned with Corbyn's party, and the media might like a sane party to focus on as Labour lurch to insanity.
Yes, Labour have no reason to complain about a corporate media owned by foreigners and tax dodgers that overwhelmingly pumps out propaganda ranged against them, out of all proportion to the relative popularity of the parties. If it didn't work, the corporate interests in question wouldn't expend so much effort doing it. Also, study after study shows that where public opinion at large diverges from reality, it closely follows the misrepresentations of the press. Propaganda works, simple as. And in this country with have a particularly virulent form of it, built up symbiotically with the aid of the politicians that represent the same interests in Westminster. To moronically mis-spell media to suggest those using clear and obvious evidence to support their arguments are silly children just makes you look a bit facile, frankly.
You were strangely silent when these same corporate media owned by foreigners and tax dodgers resided the wrong side of Tony Blair's sphincter....
How do you know? It was only really Murdoch that changed tack, and always made clear he supported Blair but not the wider Labour Party. Of course he immediately went back on the full attack as soon as Blair left. Blair was a useful tool for him at a time whe he knew no amount of propaganda would keep Labour out (the current Labour project is to ensure the grassroots are in control the next time this rolls around, so we can break up foreign / tax-dodger owned media monopolies) I dont think many Labour supporters were particularly over the moon at this.
May I offer a few words of guidance. The number of words you write does not correlate with the truth of any statements you make, nor is it likely to make anyone read your comments.
Apropos Syrian migrants, a Bishop who knows what he is talking about. "
Munich. One of my favourite German towns. Have fun.
Rather a misleading headline in the Spectator article as the one in your post.
The Bishop is just stating the obvious that he would prefer not to lose his entire congregation to Europe but his main points are that Assad should be supported and he supports Russia's action.
He also says that Cameron's policy is the wrong one and Assad should be supported because if he is defeated there will be armageddon. All pretty obvious really from a christian point of view.
I thought it pretty interesting for just the reasons you point out.
Incidentally, quite a lot of filming going on here.
BBC piece with a very dodgy piece at the end. It's about gender stereotyping in schools, and actually appears fairly reasonable, until the end: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-34574196
"In June, Royal Society scientist Sir Tim Hunt had to resign from his post as honorary fellow of University College London, after comments he made about girls working in laboratories.
He said: "Three things happen when they are in the lab: you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them they cry."
The British biochemist, who was knighted in 2006, said the remarks were "intended as a light-hearted, ironic comment" but had been "interpreted deadly seriously" by his audience."
No correcting of the record, namely that he was hounded out following a misleading report by someone with an agenda. I believe it's also the case he's actually personally helped and supported a number of female scientists.
Does Canadian politics ever see significant spill-over from the US - Canadians look at US Republicans and react?
On our side of the pond, another great piece from Janan Ganesh (£):
Politics is full of truisms that are not actually true. A week is not a long time in politics; much more stays the same than changes. People do not vote for hope and vision, but for the lesser evil. And nobody really minds a divided party. Division, managed properly, can convey vitality while draining opponents of a reason to exist. There is no solace for Labour in the Tories’ coming strife.
There are only two major issues in British politics right now: who will lead the Tories to victory in 2020 and in which year will Scotland become independent.
On SINDY I suspect Sturgeon may live to see it - as an elderly lady - but Salmond (who I wish a long life too) may not. The Scots are having their cake & eating it - voting in a government that robustly defends Scotland's corner without actually facing the consequences of independence.....
I see it from the opposite perspective. Scotland will either become independent within the next decade (ie, within Salmond's lifetime) or the issue will have been put to bed for a very long time. The SNP's opportunity will come in the early 2020s after the Tories win their majority at the next GE. If they don't secure a Yes at that point they will be a busted flush.
SO , I agree, it will be in under 10 years or not at all.
My first visit here and very attractive it is, though it has to be said that German cuisine is not one of the world's greatest. I mean, how many varieties of f***ing sausage does one need?!
Have the Chinese arrived and taken us over yet?
Oh and if my bank tries to charge me for the privilege of holding my money it can push right off!!
Munich is lovely - try to visit the Charles Hotel if you can, although a coffee will cost more than your bank charges you
(I thought you understood the risks of incentivising people to hide where they are making money? If banks can't charge for current accounts they will try to make money in all sorts of sneaky ways*. And that's bound to lead to trouble)
* My personal favourite is minimum account balances (interest free) because it sounds so inocuous
They make - or should - make money in the difference between the interest they give me and the interest they charge borrowers. Nothing sneaky about that.
The difference is hardly anyone in the Labour Party at large (including supporters) likes the idea of NHS privatisation, unlike Warner. Carswell and Reckless hardly had such totemic differences of opinion with the Tory body politic, did they? And as you say, Reckless was hardly lauded. Stop virtue signalling, you sound ridiculous.
If hardly anyone in the Labour Party at large liked the idea of NHS privatisation, then why did Labour under Blair and Brown privatise far more (albeit then only a tiny few percent) than the coalition government that succeeded it?
You're just struggling to disown the Blair years, which were the most successful Labour's seen in a generation or two. Governments where Labour could make a difference, because they were in power.
If your views prevail, it will be another generation or two before Labour can make a difference again. I personally think that'll be bad for the country, but as long as you're happy.
As an aside, I'm not sure how you could take my post to be virtue signalling. Still, if that's the best 'attack' you can do ...
I specifically said the Labour party at large, of which a tiny Blairite cabal made up a tiny minority. I think the problem was that Labour could have made a difference, but didn't, except in the wrong direction, leaving aside the first term, which as I said is relatively finely regarded by most Labour supporters, but not by the Blairites themselves, who seem to want to disown and dismantle everything it achieved.
"Why are the Canadians so sensible and the British not ?"
Because they don't have our moronic press?
Nice to see the pbreds blaming the electorate (tm kinnockism) and meedjah for their failings..... plus ca change.
Strangely, the only UK party that has a good reason to complain about the electorate and media are the Lib Dems. They got mercilessly hammered for the tuition fees u-turn, when Labour themselves had made several u-turns in that area.
Although it appears that many Lib Dem voters in 2010 and 2015 were not 'true' Lib Dems, but disillusioned Labour voters.
Given that, it'll be interesting to see what Farron can do. There might be many left-leaning voters utterly disillusioned with Corbyn's party, and the media might like a sane party to focus on as Labour lurch to insanity.
Yes, Labour have no reason to complain about a corporate media owned by foreigners and tax dodgers that overwhelmingly pumps out propaganda ranged against them, out of all proportion to the relative popularity of the parties. If it didn't work, the corporate interests in question wouldn't expend so much effort doing it. Also, study after study shows that where public opinion at large diverges from reality, it closely follows the misrepresentations of the press. Propaganda works, simple as. And in this country with have a particularly virulent form of it, built up symbiotically with the aid of the politicians that represent the same interests in Westminster. To moronically mis-spell media to suggest those using clear and obvious evidence to support their arguments are silly children just makes you look a bit facile, frankly.
You were strangely silent when these same corporate media owned by foreigners and tax dodgers resided the wrong side of Tony Blair's sphincter....
How do you know? It was only really Murdoch that changed tack, and always made clear he supported Blair but not the wider Labour Party. Of course he immediately went back on the full attack as soon as Blair left. Blair was a useful tool for him at a time whe he knew no amount of propaganda would keep Labour out (the current Labour project is to ensure the grassroots are in control the next time this rolls around, so we can break up foreign / tax-dodger owned media monopolies) I dont think many Labour supporters were particularly over the moon at this.
Apropos Syrian migrants, a Bishop who knows what he is talking about. "
Munich. One of my favourite German towns. Have fun.
Rather a misleading headline in the Spectator article as the one in your post.
The Bishop is just stating the obvious that he would prefer not to lose his entire congregation to Europe but his main points are that Assad should be supported and he supports Russia's action.
He also says that Cameron's policy is the wrong one and Assad should be supported because if he is defeated there will be armageddon. All pretty obvious really from a christian point of view.
I thought it pretty interesting for just the reasons you point out.
Incidentally, quite a lot of filming going on here.
I am unconvinced by Western policy in Syria to be honest. Bombing Asad whilst Russia bombs his enemies doesn't seem like it's going to achieve very much.
What is the SNP offering the Scots to tempt them into independence..What has crucially changed from the last time..If the same old nonsense is trotted out again then the result will be the same..
"Why are the Canadians so sensible and the British not ?"
Because they don't have our moronic press?
Nice to see the pbreds blaming the electorate (tm kinnockism) and meedjah for their failings..... plus ca change.
Strangely, the only UK party that has a good reason to complain about the electorate and media are the Lib Dems. They got mercilessly hammered for the tuition fees u-turn, when Labour themselves had made several u-turns in that area.
Although it appears that many Lib Dem voters in 2010 and 2015 were not 'true' Lib Dems, but disillusioned Labour voters.
Given that, it'll be interesting to see what Farron can do. There might be many left-leaning voters utterly disillusioned with Corbyn's party, and the media might like a sane party to focus on as Labour lurch to insanity.
Yes, Labour have no reason to complain about a corporate media owned by foreigners and tax dodgers that overwhelmingly pumps out propaganda ranged against them, out of all proportion to the relative popularity of the parties. If it didn't work, the corporate interests in question wouldn't expend so much effort doing it. Also, study after study shows that where public opinion at large diverges from reality, it closely follows the misrepresentations of the press. Propaganda works, simple as. And in this country with have a particularly virulent form of it, built up symbiotically with the aid of the politicians that represent the same interests in Westminster. To moronically mis-spell media to suggest those using clear and obvious evidence to support their arguments are silly children just makes you look a bit facile, frankly.
You were strangely silent when these same corporate media owned by foreigners and tax dodgers resided the wrong side of Tony Blair's sphincter....
How do you know? It was only really Murdoch that changed tack, and always made clear he supported Blair but not the wider Labour Party. Of course he immediately went back on the full attack as soon as Blair left. Blair was a useful tool for him at a time whe he knew no amount of propaganda would keep Labour out (the current Labour project is to ensure the grassroots are in control the next time this rolls around, so we can break up foreign / tax-dodger owned media monopolies) I dont think many Labour supporters were particularly over the moon at this.
May I offer a few words of guidance. The number of words you write does not correlate with the truth of any statements you make, nor is it likely to make anyone read your comments.
On topic, hilarious that Crosby and chums desperately tried to distance themselves from the whole debacle when they realised the Tories were going down in flames. Something to watch for in Khan vs Goldsmith?
Interesting comment from the Toronto Globe and Mail that should cheer Labour:
"The party platform also made a mark with voters. Liberals said the key moment of the campaign came as they announced, in late August, that they would run three deficits of up to $10-billion a year to pay for infrastructure spending. The move allowed the party to present a more ambitious agenda, but also created a clear contrast with the NDP and the Conservative Party that both vowed to balance the books. That promise hit the NDP “like a train,” said a senior Liberal organizer."
The culture wars stuff seems to have boomeranged for the Tories (though they hurt the NDP in Quebec):
'"Distractions,” as Conservatives called them, included revelations at the Duffy fraud trial, charges the government was failing Syrian refugees and a backlash outside Quebec to Mr. Harper’s comments that he would consider banning the niqab among federal public servants.
A promise to establish a tip line for reports of “barbaric cultural practices” was also widely condemned as inflammatory.'
Yes but the Liberals had JFK not Worzel Gummidge delivering the message unlike UK Labour. Trudeau is generally pretty centrist and pro Israel unlike Corbyn
Arf! Exactement.
Look at that presidential barnet. Youthfulness is great asset against tired establishment.
My first visit here and very attractive it is, though it has to be said that German cuisine is not one of the world's greatest. I mean, how many varieties of f***ing sausage does one need?!
Have the Chinese arrived and taken us over yet?
Oh and if my bank tries to charge me for the privilege of holding my money it can push right off!!
Munich is lovely - try to visit the Charles Hotel if you can, although a coffee will cost more than your bank charges you
(I thought you understood the risks of incentivising people to hide where they are making money? If banks can't charge for current accounts they will try to make money in all sorts of sneaky ways*. And that's bound to lead to trouble)
* My personal favourite is minimum account balances (interest free) because it sounds so inocuous
They make - or should - make money in the difference between the interest they give me and the interest they charge borrowers. Nothing sneaky about that.
You really want a fundamental part of the country's infrastructure to have variable revenues and fixed costs?
Does Canadian politics ever see significant spill-over from the US - Canadians look at US Republicans and react?
On our side of the pond, another great piece from Janan Ganesh (£):
Politics is full of truisms that are not actually true. A week is not a long time in politics; much more stays the same than changes. People do not vote for hope and vision, but for the lesser evil. And nobody really minds a divided party. Division, managed properly, can convey vitality while draining opponents of a reason to exist. There is no solace for Labour in the Tories’ coming strife.
There are only two major issues in British politics right now: who will lead the Tories to victory in 2020 and in which year will Scotland become independent.
On SINDY I suspect Sturgeon may live to see it - as an elderly lady - but Salmond (who I wish a long life too) may not. The Scots are having their cake & eating it - voting in a government that robustly defends Scotland's corner without actually facing the consequences of independence.....
I see it from the opposite perspective. Scotland will either become independent within the next decade (ie, within Salmond's lifetime) or the issue will have been put to bed for a very long time. The SNP's opportunity will come in the early 2020s after the Tories win their majority at the next GE. If they don't secure a Yes at that point they will be a busted flush.
SO , I agree, it will be in under 10 years or not at all.
Have to say malc your boys were hard done by at the weekend in the rugby.
Does Canadian politics ever see significant spill-over from the US - Canadians look at US Republicans and react?
On our side of the pond, another great piece from Janan Ganesh (£):
Politics is full of truisms that are not actually true. A week is not a long time in politics; much more stays the same than changes. People do not vote for hope and vision, but for the lesser evil. And nobody really minds a divided party. Division, managed properly, can convey vitality while draining opponents of a reason to exist. There is no solace for Labour in the Tories’ coming strife.
There are only two major issues in British politics right now: who will lead the Tories to victory in 2020 and in which year will Scotland become independent.
On SINDY I suspect Sturgeon may live to see it - as an elderly lady - but Salmond (who I wish a long life too) may not. The Scots are having their cake & eating it - voting in a government that robustly defends Scotland's corner without actually facing the consequences of independence.....
I see it from the opposite perspective. Scotland will either become independent within the next decade (ie, within Salmond's lifetime) or the issue will have been put to bed for a very long time. The SNP's opportunity will come in the early 2020s after the Tories win their majority at the next GE. If they don't secure a Yes at that point they will be a busted flush.
SO , I agree, it will be in under 10 years or not at all.
Given both Trident and EuRef are within three years - what would trigger it if either of these will not?
"Incidentally, quite a lot of filming going on here."
There's a very large studio nearby but they shoot a huge number of commercials in and around. If you catch sight of a clapperboard don't be too shy to jot down the company name!
What is the SNP offering the Scots to tempt them into independence..What has crucially changed from the last time..If the same old nonsense is trotted out again then the result will be the same..
Being able to manage with oil revenues? Just asking, seeing as they’ve dropped.
Apropos Syrian migrants, a Bishop who knows what he is talking about. "
Munich. One of my favourite German towns. Have fun.
Rather a misleading headline in the Spectator article as the one in your post.
The Bishop is just stating the obvious that he would prefer not to lose his entire congregation to Europe but his main points are that Assad should be supported and he supports Russia's action.
He also says that Cameron's policy is the wrong one and Assad should be supported because if he is defeated there will be armageddon. All pretty obvious really from a christian point of view.
I thought it pretty interesting for just the reasons you point out.
Incidentally, quite a lot of filming going on here.
I am unconvinced by Western policy in Syria to be honest. Bombing Asad whilst Russia bombs his enemies doesn't seem like it's going to achieve very much.
I think at this point we should just stay well out of it. The moderate rebels either aren't very moderate or have no chance of winning. Ideally we want ISIS gone, but Russia looks like they'll take care of that for us. Assad is much hated brutal dictator, so it will be another Muslim grievance against us if we back him. And if we get involved with a proxy war with Russia, the Muslim view will have a false equivalence of blaming both sides equally, regardless of who is actually trying to help the democrats.
The one thing we should do is to back the Kurds to the hilt and make sure they maintain their autonomy. They're not perfect either, but there's at least a reasonable prospect of them becoming a modern partially democratic state.
During the 2015 election, the Liberal party's proposed policies included:[16] Cut the middle class tax bracket ($45,000 — $90,000) from 22% to 20.5% and create a new tax bracket for income above $200,000 taxed at 33%[17] Set national targets to lower greenhouse gas emissions through cooperation with provinces, support Keystone XL with a stricter environmental review process, spend $20 billion over 10 years on "greener infrastructure"[17] Run three years of deficits that will not exceed $10 billion dollars to finance infrastructure projects and balance the budget in 2019[17] Spend $60 billion in new infrastructure spending, including $20 billion in transit infrastructure and quadrupling federal funding for public transit, all over three years[17] Invest $300 million annually to fund a Youth Employment Strategy[17] Reduce employment insurance (EI) premiums from $1.88 per $100 to $1.65 per $100[17] Replace the Universal Child Care Benefit with a Canada Child Benefit that would provide $2,500 more to an average family of four[17] Support training efforts in Ukraine and sanctions against Russia, end the bombing mission against ISIS but increase humanitarian aid and training of local ground troops[17] Take in 25,000 Syrian refugees and spend $100 million for refugee processing and settlement[17] Negotiate a new health accord with the provinces to guarantee long-term funding, including a national plan for lower prescription drug prices[17] Invest $3 billion over four years to improve home care[17] Set up an all-party committee to pass legislation implementation of physician assisted death[17] Full legalization of marijuana[18] Implement electoral reform to move from a first past the post electoral system to a system in which the seat count more closely match the popular vote
Apropos Syrian migrants, a Bishop who knows what he is talking about. "
Munich. One of my favourite German towns. Have fun.
Rather a misleading headline in the Spectator article as the one in your post.
The Bishop is just stating the obvious that he would prefer not to lose his entire congregation to Europe but his main points are that Assad should be supported and he supports Russia's action.
He also says that Cameron's policy is the wrong one and Assad should be supported because if he is defeated there will be armageddon. All pretty obvious really from a christian point of view.
I thought it pretty interesting for just the reasons you point out.
Incidentally, quite a lot of filming going on here.
I am unconvinced by Western policy in Syria to be honest. Bombing Asad whilst Russia bombs his enemies doesn't seem like it's going to achieve very much.
I think at this point we should just stay well out of it. The moderate rebels either aren't very moderate or have no chance of winning. Ideally we want ISIS gone, but Russia looks like they'll take care of that for us. Assad is much hated brutal dictator, so it will be another Muslim grievance against us if we back him. And if we get involved with a proxy war with Russia, the Muslim view will have a false equivalence of blaming both sides equally, regardless of who is actually trying to help the democrats.
The one thing we should do is to back the Kurds to the hilt and make sure they maintain their autonomy. They're not perfect either, but there's at least a reasonable prospect of them becoming a modern partially democratic state.
Funnily enough I would actually back the use of ground troops to create safe zones, preserve and protect ancient cultural treasures and deny ISIS and Asad key strategic resources.
But failing that we should stay clear. An air campaign isn't going to help.
May I offer a few words of guidance. The number of words you write does not correlate with the truth of any statements you make, nor is it likely to make anyone read your comments.
I, for one, really like reading views different to my own. It's particularly good to read the thoughts of the Jezlamists as we only have a couple on here yet will be very informative of the actions of the Labour Party. JWisemann has stopped being abusive to other forum members and I think his thoughts are a welcome addition to the blog.
BBC piece with a very dodgy piece at the end. It's about gender stereotyping in schools, and actually appears fairly reasonable, until the end: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-34574196
"In June, Royal Society scientist Sir Tim Hunt had to resign from his post as honorary fellow of University College London, after comments he made about girls working in laboratories.
He said: "Three things happen when they are in the lab: you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them they cry."
The British biochemist, who was knighted in 2006, said the remarks were "intended as a light-hearted, ironic comment" but had been "interpreted deadly seriously" by his audience."
No correcting of the record, namely that he was hounded out following a misleading report by someone with an agenda. I believe it's also the case he's actually personally helped and supported a number of female scientists.
Bullying should be tackled. But, school children should not expect to have their use of language policed.. Banter is not necessarily bullying.
Reminds me a bit of when that idiot Harman wanted to stop people being called 'love'. One can only assume she dwells in a cosy, small patch of London and never ventures into the cold, scary North.
Apropos Syrian migrants, a Bishop who knows what he is talking about. "
Munich. One of my favourite German towns. Have fun.
Rather a misleading headline in the Spectator article as the one in your post.
The Bishop is just stating the obvious that he would prefer not to lose his entire congregation to Europe but his main points are that Assad should be supported and he supports Russia's action.
He also says that Cameron's policy is the wrong one and Assad should be supported because if he is defeated there will be armageddon. All pretty obvious really from a christian point of view.
I thought it pretty interesting for just the reasons you point out.
Incidentally, quite a lot of filming going on here.
I am unconvinced by Western policy in Syria to be honest. Bombing Asad whilst Russia bombs his enemies doesn't seem like it's going to achieve very much.
I think at this point we should just stay well out of it. The moderate rebels either aren't very moderate or have no chance of winning. Ideally we want ISIS gone, but Russia looks like they'll take care of that for us. Assad is much hated brutal dictator, so it will be another Muslim grievance against us if we back him. And if we get involved with a proxy war with Russia, the Muslim view will have a false equivalence of blaming both sides equally, regardless of who is actually trying to help the democrats.
The one thing we should do is to back the Kurds to the hilt and make sure they maintain their autonomy. They're not perfect either, but there's at least a reasonable prospect of them becoming a modern partially democratic state.
Russia won't take care of ISIS. They don't have the capability. Instead they'll focus on strengthening Assad in his core areas so Russian interests are kept safe.
It'll be interesting to see how much cash the Canadians can raise from pot taxes. Though will Trudeau have to deal with any sort of "Other house" that might block legalisation ?
It does strike me as odd that the 1997-2010 Labour government which sanctioned a big expansion in the state sector, a big expansion in state spending, a big expansion in welfare spending, open door immigration, limitless welfare, that renationalised network rail in 2002, that devolved power in Scotland, Wales and N Ireland etc is now characterised as a Tory-lite government.
It comes across as an act of denial, as though people can't accept that Labour did most of the things it always dreams of and it didn't work.
Are the "New Democrats" a bit like our Lib Dems with the Liberals being roughly Labour ?
No, the other way around. The NDP is Labour's sister party. The Liberals are the centrist party, they lost the last few times because Harper claimed the centre ground and they went way out to the left. Trudeau Jr is their Clegg, plonked them dead centre.
What worries me for Canada is where the money for the Liberal programme is going to come from, the spending commitments look like a lot more than $10bn per year over the current programme.
It does strike me as odd that the 1997-2010 Labour government which sanctioned a big expansion in the state sector, a big expansion in state spending, a big expansion in welfare spending, open door immigration, limitless welfare, that renationalised network rail in 2002, that devolved power in Scotland, Wales and N Ireland etc is now characterised as a Tory-lite government.
It comes across as an act of denial, as though people can't accept that Labour did most of the things it always dreams of and it didn't work.
It borrowed big, spent big and failed.
It did have to cope with a major finace crash, though.
Mr. Chestnut, you may have hit the nail on the hard there. Easier to say it was just Tory badness rather than Labour taking responsibility for its own creed failing.
It does strike me as odd that the 1997-2010 Labour government which sanctioned a big expansion in the state sector, a big expansion in state spending, a big expansion in welfare spending, open door immigration, limitless welfare, that renationalised network rail in 2002, that devolved power in Scotland, Wales and N Ireland etc is now characterised as a Tory-lite government.
It comes across as an act of denial, as though people can't accept that Labour did most of the things it always dreams of and it didn't work.
It borrowed big, spent big and failed.
It did have to cope with a major finace crash, though.
Of its own creation given the awful regulatory oversight Labour put in place.
It does strike me as odd that the 1997-2010 Labour government which sanctioned a big expansion in the state sector, a big expansion in state spending, a big expansion in welfare spending, open door immigration, limitless welfare, that renationalised network rail in 2002, that devolved power in Scotland, Wales and N Ireland etc is now characterised as a Tory-lite government.
It comes across as an act of denial, as though people can't accept that Labour did most of the things it always dreams of and it didn't work.
It borrowed big, spent big and failed.
It did have to cope with a major finace crash, though.
Of its own creation given the awful regulatory oversight Labour put in place.
It does strike me as odd that the 1997-2010 Labour government which sanctioned a big expansion in the state sector, a big expansion in state spending, a big expansion in welfare spending, open door immigration, limitless welfare, that renationalised network rail in 2002, that devolved power in Scotland, Wales and N Ireland etc is now characterised as a Tory-lite government.
It comes across as an act of denial, as though people can't accept that Labour did most of the things it always dreams of and it didn't work.
It borrowed big, spent big and failed.
Yep. It's why I find the position of the New Corbynistas to be so amusingly ridiculous, as typified by Nick Palmer.
During the 2015 election, the Liberal party's proposed policies included:[16] Cut the middle class tax bracket ($45,000 — $90,000) from 22% to 20.5% and create a new tax bracket for income above $200,000 taxed at 33%[17] Set national targets to lower greenhouse gas emissions through cooperation with provinces, support Keystone XL with a stricter environmental review process, spend $20 billion over 10 years on "greener infrastructure"[17] Run three years of deficits that will not exceed $10 billion dollars to finance infrastructure projects and balance the budget in 2019[17] Spend $60 billion in new infrastructure spending, including $20 billion in transit infrastructure and quadrupling federal funding for public transit, all over three years[17] Invest $300 million annually to fund a Youth Employment Strategy[17] Reduce employment insurance (EI) premiums from $1.88 per $100 to $1.65 per $100[17] Replace the Universal Child Care Benefit with a Canada Child Benefit that would provide $2,500 more to an average family of four[17] Support training efforts in Ukraine and sanctions against Russia, end the bombing mission against ISIS but increase humanitarian aid and training of local ground troops[17] Take in 25,000 Syrian refugees and spend $100 million for refugee processing and settlement[17] Negotiate a new health accord with the provinces to guarantee long-term funding, including a national plan for lower prescription drug prices[17] Invest $3 billion over four years to improve home care[17] Set up an all-party committee to pass legislation implementation of physician assisted death[17] Full legalization of marijuana[18] Implement electoral reform to move from a first past the post electoral system to a system in which the seat count more closely match the popular vote
I doubt electoral reform will now be a priority for them.
What ACTUAL improvements to the nation did all Labour's spending end up with though ?
There is so much toxicity left in their off balance sheet spending too - take for instance Walsgrave hospital (Which was clearly at it's peak in 1981...) £440 million hospital costing £3.3 Bn over 30 years. That is shockingly poor value - UK Gov't bonds are NOT paying 6.5% !
'Looks to me like Harper did a good job of running the Canadian economy, which means Trudeau has the room for his proposed spending.' He was lucky to be in power during unprecedentedly high oil prices.
The Harper government reforms on inmigration are also interesting. Numbers are not an issue there, but the type of immigrants are and admittance quotas are firmly under control:
'Looks to me like Harper did a good job of running the Canadian economy, which means Trudeau has the room for his proposed spending.' He was lucky to be in power during unprecedentedly high oil prices.
What ACTUAL improvements to the nation did all Labour's spending end up with though ?
There is so much toxicity left in their off balance sheet spending too - take for instance Walsgrave hospital (Which was clearly at it's peak in 1981...) £440 million hospital costing £3.3 Bn over 30 years. That is shockingly poor value - UK Gov't bonds are NOT paying 6.5% !
Brown's toxic legacy.
It's almost impossible to work out where New Labour did the most harm to the UK Economy.
The huge increase in levels of State Pension while keeping it Universal. The massive expansion of Tax Credits (especially to those on middle incomes). The toxic legacy of PFI.
It makes a mockery of the idea that a parliament cannot bind its successors.
"....... Take in 25,000 Syrian refugees and spend $100 million for refugee processing and settlement."
Cheap at the price......Just think how man 'Saatchi brothers' there are likely to be in the current exodus from the Middle East. Apart from the blip in 1979 when their advertising was just too persuasive think how many billions they've generated world wide for their new country
If Trudeau makes good on his promises regarding electoral reform, cannabis legalisation and less damaging environmental policies he will have made the world a better place. The centre of gravity on the hypocritical, damaging drug war is soon to reach the point of no return. Not that you'd know it from this government's execrable and unenforceable Psychoactive Substances Bill, which if it becomes law will rank as one of the most illiberal, nonsensical and authoritarian laws ever passed in this country.
'Looks to me like Harper did a good job of running the Canadian economy, which means Trudeau has the room for his proposed spending.' He was lucky to be in power during unprecedentedly high oil prices.
Canada had also made the budget cuts that most OECD economies are now considering (while failing to do anything about them) back in the early 2000s.
It does strike me as odd that the 1997-2010 Labour government which sanctioned a big expansion in the state sector, a big expansion in state spending, a big expansion in welfare spending, open door immigration, limitless welfare, that renationalised network rail in 2002, that devolved power in Scotland, Wales and N Ireland etc is now characterised as a Tory-lite government.
It comes across as an act of denial, as though people can't accept that Labour did most of the things it always dreams of and it didn't work.
It borrowed big, spent big and failed.
It did have to cope with a major finace crash, though.
That proved rather handy, coming at a time when the wheels were already falling off the bus.
If Trudeau makes good on his promises regarding electoral reform, cannabis legalisation and less damaging environmental policies he will have made the world a better place. The centre of gravity on the hypocritical, damaging drug war is soon to reach the point of no return. Not that you'd know it from this government's execrable and unenforceable Psychoactive Substances Bill, which if it becomes law will rank as one of the most illiberal, nonsensical and authoritarian laws ever passed in this country.
'Looks to me like Harper did a good job of running the Canadian economy, which means Trudeau has the room for his proposed spending.' He was lucky to be in power during unprecedentedly high oil prices.
Given that the 2015 budget is in balance even with low oil prices there is definitely more to it than just oil.
Reminds me a bit of when that idiot Harman wanted to stop people being called 'love'. One can only assume she dwells in a cosy, small patch of London and never ventures into the cold, scary North.
What ACTUAL improvements to the nation did all Labour's spending end up with though ?
There is so much toxicity left in their off balance sheet spending too - take for instance Walsgrave hospital (Which was clearly at it's peak in 1981...) £440 million hospital costing £3.3 Bn over 30 years. That is shockingly poor value - UK Gov't bonds are NOT paying 6.5% !
Brown's toxic legacy.
I know a guy who could renegotiate all of these contracts and save a massive bundle of money for the government. He's currently working for a Bulgarian oligarch and getting paid a bundle though...
King Cole, opposing bad oversight is a good thing.
Not when you appear to believe that no oversight at all is better!
No one in the Tory party said no oversight though? As I read it was the splitting of functions that was opposed and the creation, or at least remodeling, of the FSA into a massively powerful regulator, but with no power to backstop broken banks. In the end the Bank took over a lot of the FSA's functions in 2008/9 because the FSA were so ill equipped to handle a crisis.
Less regulation is generally a good thing, but it needs to be good regulation, not just mindless box ticking and diversity seminars.
Reminds me a bit of when that idiot Harman wanted to stop people being called 'love'. One can only assume she dwells in a cosy, small patch of London and never ventures into the cold, scary North.
It does strike me as odd that the 1997-2010 Labour government which sanctioned a big expansion in the state sector, a big expansion in state spending, a big expansion in welfare spending, open door immigration, limitless welfare, that renationalised network rail in 2002, that devolved power in Scotland, Wales and N Ireland etc is now characterised as a Tory-lite government.
It comes across as an act of denial, as though people can't accept that Labour did most of the things it always dreams of and it didn't work.
It borrowed big, spent big and failed.
It did have to cope with a major finace crash, though.
That proved rather handy, coming at a time when the wheels were already falling off the bus.
Yes, due to the inadequate regulatory situation and the alomost criminal irresponsiblity of the financial sector. PPI anyone?
Incidentally, after a period of blessed relief, I am now agian getting offers of credit cards with extremely long transfer periods, substantial credit etc. And no, I haven’t cleared my account with Experian; my record there is good, as it’s been for the past 20 years.
It does strike me as odd that the 1997-2010 Labour government which sanctioned a big expansion in the state sector, a big expansion in state spending, a big expansion in welfare spending, open door immigration, limitless welfare, that renationalised network rail in 2002, that devolved power in Scotland, Wales and N Ireland etc is now characterised as a Tory-lite government.
It comes across as an act of denial, as though people can't accept that Labour did most of the things it always dreams of and it didn't work.
It borrowed big, spent big and failed.
It did have to cope with a major finace crash, though.
That proved rather handy, coming at a time when the wheels were already falling off the bus.
Yes, due to the inadequate regulatory situation and the alomost criminal irresponsiblity of the financial sector. PPI anyone?
Incidentally, after a period of blessed relief, I am now agian getting offers of credit cards with extremely long transfer periods, substantial credit etc. And no, I haven’t cleared my account with Experian; my record there is good, as it’s been for the past 20 years.
All manner of Brown created mess was blamed on the crash.
During the 2015 election, the Liberal party's proposed policies included:[16] Cut the middle class tax bracket ($45,000 — $90,000) from 22% to 20.5% and create a new tax bracket for income above $200,000 taxed at 33%[17] Set national targets to lower greenhouse gas emissions through cooperation with provinces, support Keystone XL with a stricter environmental review process, spend $20 billion over 10 years on "greener infrastructure"[17] Run three years of deficits that will not exceed $10 billion dollars to finance infrastructure projects and balance the budget in 2019[17] Spend $60 billion in new infrastructure spending, including $20 billion in transit infrastructure and quadrupling federal funding for public transit, all over three years[17] Invest $300 million annually to fund a Youth Employment Strategy[17] Reduce employment insurance (EI) premiums from $1.88 per $100 to $1.65 per $100[17] Replace the Universal Child Care Benefit with a Canada Child Benefit that would provide $2,500 more to an average family of four[17] Support training efforts in Ukraine and sanctions against Russia, end the bombing mission against ISIS but increase humanitarian aid and training of local ground troops[17] Take in 25,000 Syrian refugees and spend $100 million for refugee processing and settlement[17] Negotiate a new health accord with the provinces to guarantee long-term funding, including a national plan for lower prescription drug prices[17] Invest $3 billion over four years to improve home care[17] Set up an all-party committee to pass legislation implementation of physician assisted death[17] Full legalization of marijuana[18] Implement electoral reform to move from a first past the post electoral system to a system in which the seat count more closely match the popular vote
As left wing as Corbyn but much more clearly stated. Corbyn could learn from it.
King Cole, opposing bad oversight is a good thing.
Not when you appear to believe that no oversight at all is better!
No one in the Tory party said no oversight though? As I read it was the splitting of functions that was opposed and the creation, or at least remodeling, of the FSA into a massively powerful regulator, but with no power to backstop broken banks. In the end the Bank took over a lot of the FSA's functions in 2008/9 because the FSA were so ill equipped to handle a crisis.
Less regulation is generally a good thing, but it needs to be good regulation, not just mindless box ticking and diversity seminars.
Quite. The FSA was far more interested in process than fundamentals. The criticisms Lilley made when Brown's triple-headed regulation was first brought in were perceptive.
The argument between 'more' and 'less' was a typical Brownite misleading dividing line, assuming, as it did, that more automatically meant better. It didn't and it doesn't.
King Cole, opposing bad oversight is a good thing.
Not when you appear to believe that no oversight at all is better!
No one in the Tory party said no oversight though? As I read it was the splitting of functions that was opposed and the creation, or at least remodeling, of the FSA into a massively powerful regulator, but with no power to backstop broken banks. In the end the Bank took over a lot of the FSA's functions in 2008/9 because the FSA were so ill equipped to handle a crisis.
Less regulation is generally a good thing, but it needs to be good regulation, not just mindless box ticking and diversity seminars.
Quite. The FSA was far more interested in process than fundamentals. The criticisms Lilley made when Brown's triple-headed regulation was first brought in were perceptive.
The argument between 'more' and 'less' was a typical Brownite misleading dividing line, assuming, as it did, that more automatically meant better. It didn't and it doesn't.
But Brown didn't argue for more at the time. They broadcast loud and clear how banking regulation in the UK was "feather light".
Incidentally, after a period of blessed relief, I am now agian getting offers of credit cards with extremely long transfer periods, substantial credit etc.
What a despicable practice. No wonder the hard right are ahead.
Dutch Outrage Over Syria's Child Brides
There are reports that girls as young as 13 from Syria are being allowed to join their husbands in the Netherlands. A number of Dutch politicians have expressed outrage and are calling for an inquiry. Anna Holligan reports.
King Cole, opposing bad oversight is a good thing.
Not when you appear to believe that no oversight at all is better!
No one in the Tory party said no oversight though? As I read it was the splitting of functions that was opposed and the creation, or at least remodeling, of the FSA into a massively powerful regulator, but with no power to backstop broken banks. In the end the Bank took over a lot of the FSA's functions in 2008/9 because the FSA were so ill equipped to handle a crisis.
Less regulation is generally a good thing, but it needs to be good regulation, not just mindless box ticking and diversity seminars.
Quite. The FSA was far more interested in process than fundamentals. The criticisms Lilley made when Brown's triple-headed regulation was first brought in were perceptive.
The argument between 'more' and 'less' was a typical Brownite misleading dividing line, assuming, as it did, that more automatically meant better. It didn't and it doesn't.
But Brown didn't argue for more at the time. They broadcast loud and clear how banking regulation in the UK was "feather light".
More than the Tories who wanted to look only at banking fundamentals to make sure that no bank overstretched itself. That would also have helped to ensure bonuses were never overpaid as well since the regulator could have mandated much higher retained capital than the pitiful 2% that RBS went into the crash with.
The box ticking culture lives on. A friend of mine recently had to make a new will. He went to the same solicitor he has known for 38 years and who is godfather to his son. To comply with the new rules he had to produce photographic ID and proof of address.
It does strike me as odd that the 1997-2010 Labour government which sanctioned a big expansion in the state sector, a big expansion in state spending, a big expansion in welfare spending, open door immigration, limitless welfare, that renationalised network rail in 2002, that devolved power in Scotland, Wales and N Ireland etc is now characterised as a Tory-lite government.
It comes across as an act of denial, as though people can't accept that Labour did most of the things it always dreams of and it didn't work.
It borrowed big, spent big and failed.
It did have to cope with a major finace crash, though.
Which it worsened through its policies prior to the crash. Hence the reason the UK was the last G20 country to leave recession afterwards.
If Trudeau makes good on his promises regarding electoral reform, cannabis legalisation and less damaging environmental policies he will have made the world a better place. The centre of gravity on the hypocritical, damaging drug war is soon to reach the point of no return. Not that you'd know it from this government's execrable and unenforceable Psychoactive Substances Bill, which if it becomes law will rank as one of the most illiberal, nonsensical and authoritarian laws ever passed in this country.
Other countries legalising is a useful step forward - if deemed to be a success then easier to push for the change here.
How does EU law influence decriminalisation - Dutch seem to be cracking down whilst Portugal are going the other way.
It does strike me as odd that the 1997-2010 Labour government which sanctioned a big expansion in the state sector, a big expansion in state spending, a big expansion in welfare spending, open door immigration, limitless welfare, that renationalised network rail in 2002, that devolved power in Scotland, Wales and N Ireland etc is now characterised as a Tory-lite government.
It comes across as an act of denial, as though people can't accept that Labour did most of the things it always dreams of and it didn't work.
It borrowed big, spent big and failed.
It did have to cope with a major finace crash, though.
Which it worsened through its policies prior to the crash. Hence the reason the UK was the last G20 country to leave recession afterwards.
Yup, the double whammy of poorly regulated and capitalised banks with deficits from 2002-2007 left Britain in a almost uniquely awful position after the recession. Both our public and private sectors needed to recapitalise and reduce borrowing. It's amazing that the economy recovered as fast as it did given that the mood music from Europe has been constantly poor.
Lord Warner was the only Labour Peer to support the disastorous Lansley Bill.In doing so he declared his interests in 2 private health providers.
He also supports charging for access to the NHS.
Good news he no longer pretends to be Labour
I am not a huge JC fan, but even I can see that Lord Warner is not a credible poster boy for those who oppose Labour's disastrous trajectory towards complete irrelevance.
If Trudeau makes good on his promises regarding electoral reform, cannabis legalisation and less damaging environmental policies he will have made the world a better place. The centre of gravity on the hypocritical, damaging drug war is soon to reach the point of no return. Not that you'd know it from this government's execrable and unenforceable Psychoactive Substances Bill, which if it becomes law will rank as one of the most illiberal, nonsensical and authoritarian laws ever passed in this country.
Other countries legalising is a useful step forward - if deemed to be a success then easier to push for the change here.
How does EU law influence decriminalisation - Dutch seem to be cracking down whilst Portugal are going the other way.
It has no impact whatsoever.
However, we (the UK) are bound by treaty with the United States not to legalise cannabis.
"Why are the Canadians so sensible and the British not ?"
Because they don't have our moronic press?
Nice to see the pbreds blaming the electorate (tm kinnockism) and meedjah for their failings..... plus ca change.
Strangely, the only UK party that has a good reason to complain about the electorate and media are the Lib Dems. They got mercilessly hammered for the tuition fees u-turn, when Labour themselves had made several u-turns in that area.
Although it appears that many Lib Dem voters in 2010 and 2015 were not 'true' Lib Dems, but disillusioned Labour voters.
Given that, it'll be interesting to see what Farron can do. There might be many left-leaning voters utterly disillusioned with Corbyn's party, and the media might like a sane party to focus on as Labour lurch to insanity.
I have left Labour (for how long I don't know). Last time it was for 10 years in the SDP. This time I can't get enthused by Farron he just comes across as lightweight and sanctimonious to me. For the first time in 50 years I may be holding my nose and voting Conservative in 2020.
Depends on 2 things:-
1) Tories continuing with a socially liberal leader after Cameron. If they go off to the right then no-way. 2) How important it seems by then that Corbyn must be stopped at all costs and the Tories are the only alternative government option.
Unfortunately from Labour's point of view I live in an ultra-marginal with a very small Labour majority.
Looks to me like Harper did a good job of running the Canadian economy, which means Trudeau has the room for his proposed spending.
He'll need to be careful though that it is productive and not just sinkholes of current spending cash.
Yes, but bear in mind that Canada's economy is very much a commodity-driven economy, and the collapse in commodity prices is a problem for them now. Thus, starting from a pretty good fiscal position, increased borrowing at this stage in the cycle is pretty reasonable.
They fixed the roof when the sun was shining, and therefore have some room for manoeuvre.
Does Canadian politics ever see significant spill-over from the US - Canadians look at US Republicans and react?
On our side of the pond, another great piece from Janan Ganesh (£):
Politics is full of truisms that are not actually true. A week is not a long time in politics; much more stays the same than changes. People do not vote for hope and vision, but for the lesser evil. And nobody really minds a divided party. Division, managed properly, can convey vitality while draining opponents of a reason to exist. There is no solace for Labour in the Tories’ coming strife.
There are only two major issues in British politics right now: who will lead the Tories to victory in 2020 and in which year will Scotland become independent.
On SINDY I suspect Sturgeon may live to see it - as an elderly lady - but Salmond (who I wish a long life too) may not. The Scots are having their cake & eating it - voting in a government that robustly defends Scotland's corner without actually facing the consequences of independence.....
. The SNP's opportunity will come in the early 2020s after the Tories win their majority at the next GE. If they don't secure a Yes at that point they will be a busted flush.
Unfortunately there are at least two "triggers" between now and 2020 - Trident and EU ref - how Nicola avoids these will be entertaining.....
That's easy. There is no way that Cameron will agree to another referendum. In 2021 the SNP will campaign specifically for a mandate for a referendum with no catches.
Lord Warner was the only Labour Peer to support the disastorous Lansley Bill.In doing so he declared his interests in 2 private health providers.
He also supports charging for access to the NHS.
Good news he no longer pretends to be Labour
I am not a huge JC fan, but even I can see that Lord Warner is not a credible poster boy for those who oppose Labour's disastrous trajectory towards complete irrelevance.
You do realise a big tent, by virtue of Standard Deviation alone, will have people in it who are not true believers in the way you imagine.
Saying good riddance to supporters is not a way to win elections.
(Says a self-confessed hypocrite who on this site has apologised to someone else after saying good riddance that they no longer support the Tories).
Labour's problem in future in advocating running a deficit to spend on infrastructure is that for many voters it provokes the reaction "oh God, not again", whether or not such an approach is in fact justified.
It sounds like an alcoholic offering to open a bottle of wine.
Mr. Antifrank, damn. I thought that was going to be Owen Jones saying Charlotte Church opposed the tax credit changes and the Conservatives should be worried...
It does strike me as odd that the 1997-2010 Labour government which sanctioned a big expansion in the state sector, a big expansion in state spending, a big expansion in welfare spending, open door immigration, limitless welfare, that renationalised network rail in 2002, that devolved power in Scotland, Wales and N Ireland etc is now characterised as a Tory-lite government.
It comes across as an act of denial, as though people can't accept that Labour did most of the things it always dreams of and it didn't work.
Mr. Antifrank, damn. I thought that was going to be Owen Jones saying Charlotte Church opposed the tax credit changes and the Conservatives should be worried...
What's most surprising about that article is the comments. They seem to be broadly supportive of the tax credit cuts for the same reason I am. People are severely overestimating the damage they will do to the government.
Looks to me like Harper did a good job of running the Canadian economy, which means Trudeau has the room for his proposed spending.
He'll need to be careful though that it is productive and not just sinkholes of current spending cash.
Yes, but bear in mind that Canada's economy is very much a commodity-driven economy, and the collapse in commodity prices is a problem for them now. Thus, starting from a pretty good fiscal position, increased borrowing at this stage in the cycle is pretty reasonable.
They fixed the roof when the sun was shining, and therefore have some room for manoeuvre.
Given that the budget is currently in balance in Canada and they are nearing the end of the current cycle deficit spending may be better saved until the bust rather than the end of the boom.
Comments
It was only really Murdoch that changed tack, and always made clear he supported Blair but not the wider Labour Party. Of course he immediately went back on the full attack as soon as Blair left. Blair was a useful tool for him at a time whe he knew no amount of propaganda would keep Labour out (the current Labour project is to ensure the grassroots are in control the next time this rolls around, so we can break up foreign / tax-dodger owned media monopolies) I dont think many Labour supporters were particularly over the moon at this.
You're just struggling to disown the Blair years, which were the most successful Labour's seen in a generation or two. Governments where Labour could make a difference, because they were in power.
If your views prevail, it will be another generation or two before Labour can make a difference again. I personally think that'll be bad for the country, but as long as you're happy.
As an aside, I'm not sure how you could take my post to be virtue signalling. Still, if that's the best 'attack' you can do ...
I think there's a strong correlation there, actually.
Incidentally, quite a lot of filming going on here.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-34574196
"In June, Royal Society scientist Sir Tim Hunt had to resign from his post as honorary fellow of University College London, after comments he made about girls working in laboratories.
He said: "Three things happen when they are in the lab: you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them they cry."
The British biochemist, who was knighted in 2006, said the remarks were "intended as a light-hearted, ironic comment" but had been "interpreted deadly seriously" by his audience."
No correcting of the record, namely that he was hounded out following a misleading report by someone with an agenda. I believe it's also the case he's actually personally helped and supported a number of female scientists.
I think the problem was that Labour could have made a difference, but didn't, except in the wrong direction, leaving aside the first term, which as I said is relatively finely regarded by most Labour supporters, but not by the Blairites themselves, who seem to want to disown and dismantle everything it achieved.
"Coming from you, of all people.....that's harsh...... "
(Almost) family comes first!
He also supports charging for access to the NHS.
Good news he no longer pretends to be Labour
Look at that presidential barnet. Youthfulness is great asset against tired establishment.
That's what killed Deutsche Bank FI business...
"Incidentally, quite a lot of filming going on here."
There's a very large studio nearby but they shoot a huge number of commercials in and around. If you catch sight of a clapperboard don't be too shy to jot down the company name!
The one thing we should do is to back the Kurds to the hilt and make sure they maintain their autonomy. They're not perfect either, but there's at least a reasonable prospect of them becoming a modern partially democratic state.
During the 2015 election, the Liberal party's proposed policies included:[16]
Cut the middle class tax bracket ($45,000 — $90,000) from 22% to 20.5% and create a new tax bracket for income above $200,000 taxed at 33%[17]
Set national targets to lower greenhouse gas emissions through cooperation with provinces, support Keystone XL with a stricter environmental review process, spend $20 billion over 10 years on "greener infrastructure"[17]
Run three years of deficits that will not exceed $10 billion dollars to finance infrastructure projects and balance the budget in 2019[17]
Spend $60 billion in new infrastructure spending, including $20 billion in transit infrastructure and quadrupling federal funding for public transit, all over three years[17]
Invest $300 million annually to fund a Youth Employment Strategy[17]
Reduce employment insurance (EI) premiums from $1.88 per $100 to $1.65 per $100[17]
Replace the Universal Child Care Benefit with a Canada Child Benefit that would provide $2,500 more to an average family of four[17]
Support training efforts in Ukraine and sanctions against Russia, end the bombing mission against ISIS but increase humanitarian aid and training of local ground troops[17]
Take in 25,000 Syrian refugees and spend $100 million for refugee processing and settlement[17]
Negotiate a new health accord with the provinces to guarantee long-term funding, including a national plan for lower prescription drug prices[17]
Invest $3 billion over four years to improve home care[17]
Set up an all-party committee to pass legislation implementation of physician assisted death[17]
Full legalization of marijuana[18]
Implement electoral reform to move from a first past the post electoral system to a system in which the seat count more closely match the popular vote
But failing that we should stay clear. An air campaign isn't going to help.
Reminds me a bit of when that idiot Harman wanted to stop people being called 'love'. One can only assume she dwells in a cosy, small patch of London and never ventures into the cold, scary North.
And woe betide the Kurds when that happens ...
Seriously though, good luck to the new government.
It comes across as an act of denial, as though people can't accept that Labour did most of the things it always dreams of and it didn't work.
It borrowed big, spent big and failed.
What worries me for Canada is where the money for the Liberal programme is going to come from, the spending commitments look like a lot more than $10bn per year over the current programme.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/multimedia/canada-s-deficits-and-surpluses-1963-to-2015-1.3042571
Looks to me like Harper did a good job of running the Canadian economy, which means Trudeau has the room for his proposed spending.
He'll need to be careful though that it is productive and not just sinkholes of current spending cash.
There is so much toxicity left in their off balance sheet spending too - take for instance Walsgrave hospital (Which was clearly at it's peak in 1981...) £440 million hospital costing £3.3 Bn over 30 years. That is shockingly poor value - UK Gov't bonds are NOT paying 6.5% !
Brown's toxic legacy.
He was lucky to be in power during unprecedentedly high oil prices.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/how-conservatives-changed-the-nature-of-canadian-immigration/article22101709/?service=mobile
The huge increase in levels of State Pension while keeping it Universal.
The massive expansion of Tax Credits (especially to those on middle incomes).
The toxic legacy of PFI.
It makes a mockery of the idea that a parliament cannot bind its successors.
"....... Take in 25,000 Syrian refugees and spend $100 million for refugee processing and settlement."
Cheap at the price......Just think how man 'Saatchi brothers' there are likely to be in the current exodus from the Middle East. Apart from the blip in 1979 when their advertising was just too persuasive think how many billions they've generated world wide for their new country
Won't someone think about the children!
Less regulation is generally a good thing, but it needs to be good regulation, not just mindless box ticking and diversity seminars.
Incidentally, after a period of blessed relief, I am now agian getting offers of credit cards with extremely long transfer periods, substantial credit etc.
And no, I haven’t cleared my account with Experian; my record there is good, as it’s been for the past 20 years.
The argument between 'more' and 'less' was a typical Brownite misleading dividing line, assuming, as it did, that more automatically meant better. It didn't and it doesn't.
Dutch Outrage Over Syria's Child Brides
There are reports that girls as young as 13 from Syria are being allowed to join their husbands in the Netherlands. A number of Dutch politicians have expressed outrage and are calling for an inquiry. Anna Holligan reports.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p035q5wv
On Mike's headline: was Lynton Crosby actually involved to any significant degree?
How does EU law influence decriminalisation - Dutch seem to be cracking down whilst Portugal are going the other way.
If Brown were a doctor he would've prescribed 100% oxygen. Because more is better, you know.
On dynasties: don't forget Pitt the Younger.
Still it is amusing that a republic has stronger political dynasties than a kingdom.
However, we (the UK) are bound by treaty with the United States not to legalise cannabis.
Depends on 2 things:-
1) Tories continuing with a socially liberal leader after Cameron. If they go off to the right then no-way.
2) How important it seems by then that Corbyn must be stopped at all costs and the Tories are the only alternative government option.
Unfortunately from Labour's point of view I live in an ultra-marginal with a very small Labour majority.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/20/poll-tax-moment-tories-tax-credit-cuts-osborne
They fixed the roof when the sun was shining, and therefore have some room for manoeuvre.
Saying good riddance to supporters is not a way to win elections.
(Says a self-confessed hypocrite who on this site has apologised to someone else after saying good riddance that they no longer support the Tories).
It sounds like an alcoholic offering to open a bottle of wine.
Did Kinnock take a hit when the ERM failed?
Excellent Legislation