From the sublime (Frank) saying he will form a Lab MP Citizens' Army to defend un-Jezza MPs, to Simon D doing his thing. SNIP .
Frank Field says "There will be a large group I would hope in Parliament of MPs who will, if colleagues are unfairly treated, encourage their colleagues to stand in by-elections, to stand as independent candidates and a large number of us including myself, would go and actually campaign for them. "It's a capital offence to campaign for somebody standing against a Labour candidate but if enough of us go they can't pick all of us off and expel the lot."
I'd be surprised if there more than 20 MPs who would support Frank Field - basically those who abstained in the Financial Charter vote. Probably less than 20 would support him. So if they campaigned against a Labour candidate they WOULD be expelled, and deservedly so. Good riddance.
The clear majority of engineering graduates I have worked with have been right of centre. Some have been very right wing. I didn't consider that when I chose my profession.
In order of preference from leftwing to rightwing it probably goes something like
Sociology Art Drama English Education History Politics Languages Law Biology Medicine IT Maths Physics Chemistry Engineering Business Studies Economics
Yep that fits me.
Indeed and it links to jobs too eg social workers and actors are far more likely to be leftwing than CEOs and bankers
Yes agree, but I think an overwhelming factor is parental influence and upbringing. Actually my parents were both Teachers,but I am an Engineer who ran his own business,and employed 100 plus people,and am on the right.
Yes so it is your occupation which trumps upbringing then
No ,Teachers when I were a lad, were very definitely Right wing and considered professionals. I had little choice,my upbringing was pre determined, the Grammar school I attended had only one way out, that was University. The careers advisory tutor, was staggered when I chose Engineering,we were supposed to choose Priesthood, and second best Religious studies Teacher. Engineering taught a logical discipline, employment and running a business, finished my training,and that is how I became moderately right wing.
More teachers may have been rightwing when you are younger, now the average teacher is well to the left of the average voter
From the sublime (Frank) saying he will form a Lab MP Citizens' Army to defend un-Jezza MPs, to Simon D doing his thing. SNIP .
Frank Field says "There will be a large group I would hope in Parliament of MPs who will, if colleagues are unfairly treated, encourage their colleagues to stand in by-elections, to stand as independent candidates and a large number of us including myself, would go and actually campaign for them. "It's a capital offence to campaign for somebody standing against a Labour candidate but if enough of us go they can't pick all of us off and expel the lot."
I'd be surprised if there more than 20 MPs who would support Frank Field - basically those who abstained in the Financial Charter vote. Probably less than 20 would support him. So if they campaigned against a Labour candidate they WOULD be expelled, and deservedly so. Good riddance.
You got a point. Field is the only one of the anti-Corbyn Labour that is actually popular, the others are not and in some cases they are so extremely unpopular to the point they made safe seats unsafe.
From the sublime (Frank) saying he will form a Lab MP Citizens' Army to defend un-Jezza MPs, to Simon D doing his thing. SNIP .
Frank Field says "There will be a large group I would hope in Parliament of MPs who will, if colleagues are unfairly treated, encourage their colleagues to stand in by-elections, to stand as independent candidates and a large number of us including myself, would go and actually campaign for them. "It's a capital offence to campaign for somebody standing against a Labour candidate but if enough of us go they can't pick all of us off and expel the lot."
I'd be surprised if there more than 20 MPs who would support Frank Field - basically those who abstained in the Financial Charter vote. Probably less than 20 would support him. So if they campaigned against a Labour candidate they WOULD be expelled, and deservedly so. Good riddance.
It's a nice idea but funding a GE campaign as an independent would be impossible for most people. The only Indy I can think of in recent years is Bell in Tatton who had a high profile and was standing against the discredited Hamilton.
From the sublime (Frank) saying he will form a Lab MP Citizens' Army to defend un-Jezza MPs, to Simon D doing his thing. SNIP .
Frank Field says "There will be a large group I would hope in Parliament of MPs who will, if colleagues are unfairly treated, encourage their colleagues to stand in by-elections, to stand as independent candidates and a large number of us including myself, would go and actually campaign for them. "It's a capital offence to campaign for somebody standing against a Labour candidate but if enough of us go they can't pick all of us off and expel the lot."
I'd be surprised if there more than 20 MPs who would support Frank Field - basically those who abstained in the Financial Charter vote. Probably less than 20 would support him. So if they campaigned against a Labour candidate they WOULD be expelled, and deservedly so. Good riddance.
It's a nice idea but funding a GE campaign as an independent would be impossible for most people. The only Indy I can think of in recent years is Bell in Tatton who had a high profile and was standing against the discredited Hamilton.
Don't forget that Labour and Lib Dems did not stand at Tatton in 1997.
The underlying theme of the header is only thickos vote ukip, it's patronising bordering on offensive. The reality is that as you get older and have experienced life you see things in a different way from the ideology of your teens.
UKIP attracts realists who appreciate that not all change is for the best.
UKIP attracts all sorts.
For me, what makes it unattractive is not its Euroscepticism, but its social conservatism. UKIP used to be a libertarian party. Douglas Carswell is a libertarian, and were I in Clacton, I think I'd probably vote for him.
But UKIP is the party that opposed gay marriage. And not because of any real ideological reason, but because they wanted to be the repository for those who dislike social change.
And for that reason, while I might vote for them if I liked the local candidate (were it Douglas Carswell or Richard Tyndall), I could never support them.
I'm not sure of the relevance of gay marriage but no matter, I know hundreds of ukip voters, I've never heard one of them be disparaging towards gay marriage. My Conservative MP is vehemently opposed to it and voted accordingly.
The only (serious) political party which had a policy of opposing gay marriage was UKIP.
It was one of the reasons of why UKIP suddenly appeared on radar in 2012. The others were immigration and general dissatisfaction with the LD.
However UKIP can never move upwards if it doesn't expand it's policy ranges, simply adding some social policies like immigration and gay marriage expanded them from 3% to 13%, but they need 15% to start to gain seats.
If the Conservatives continue to value-signal (sorry) that they are in favour of low immigration without actually doing anything about it then I can't see any reason why UKIP couldn't chalk up a similar vote tally to Right-wing insurgent parties on the continent - at around 25%.
All the warning signs are there, and if anything they're increasing.
If both Labour and the Conservatives won't do anything about it then there's only one place to turn.
From the sublime (Frank) saying he will form a Lab MP Citizens' Army to defend un-Jezza MPs, to Simon D doing his thing. SNIP .
Frank Field says "There will be a large group I would hope in Parliament of MPs who will, if colleagues are unfairly treated, encourage their colleagues to stand in by-elections, to stand as independent candidates and a large number of us including myself, would go and actually campaign for them. "It's a capital offence to campaign for somebody standing against a Labour candidate but if enough of us go they can't pick all of us off and expel the lot."
I'd be surprised if there more than 20 MPs who would support Frank Field - basically those who abstained in the Financial Charter vote. Probably less than 20 would support him. So if they campaigned against a Labour candidate they WOULD be expelled, and deservedly so. Good riddance.
It's a nice idea but funding a GE campaign as an independent would be impossible for most people. The only Indy I can think of in recent years is Bell in Tatton who had a high profile and was standing against the discredited Hamilton.
Don't forget that Labour and Lib Dems did not stand at Tatton in 1997.
Thanks I had forgotten.
Running a GE campaign is time consuming and expensive, enormous resources are required to do it properly, it was a massive contributory factor to ukip winning only one seat.
From the sublime (Frank) saying he will form a Lab MP Citizens' Army to defend un-Jezza MPs, to Simon D doing his thing. SNIP .
Frank Field says "There will be a large group I would hope in Parliament of MPs who will, if colleagues are unfairly treated, encourage their colleagues to stand in by-elections, to stand as independent candidates and a large number of us including myself, would go and actually campaign for them. "It's a capital offence to campaign for somebody standing against a Labour candidate but if enough of us go they can't pick all of us off and expel the lot."
I'd be surprised if there more than 20 MPs who would support Frank Field - basically those who abstained in the Financial Charter vote. Probably less than 20 would support him. So if they campaigned against a Labour candidate they WOULD be expelled, and deservedly so. Good riddance.
It's a nice idea but funding a GE campaign as an independent would be impossible for most people. The only Indy I can think of in recent years is Bell in Tatton who had a high profile and was standing against the discredited Hamilton.
Don't forget that Labour and Lib Dems did not stand at Tatton in 1997.
Thanks I had forgotten.
Running a GE campaign is time consuming and expensive, enormous resources are required to do it properly, it was a massive contributory factor to ukip winning only one seat.
Field's idea is admirable but unrealistic.
They'd have to start a separate party and try to get some media attention as a group. It's the only way I can see it working against a Labour Party that would be going all guns for them.
With respect to automatic re-selection, can anyone defend politicians in safe seats effectively getting jobs for life despite not necessarily representing their constituent's beliefs or their broader party membership? The more I think about it, the more troubling it seems.
The clear majority of engineering graduates I have worked with have been right of centre. Some have been very right wing. I didn't consider that when I chose my profession.
In order of preference from leftwing to rightwing it probably goes something like
Sociology Art Drama English Education History Politics Languages Law Biology Medicine IT Maths Physics Chemistry Engineering Business Studies Economics
Yep that fits me.
Indeed and it links to jobs too eg social workers and actors are far more likely to be leftwing than CEOs and bankers
Yes agree, but I think an overwhelming factor is parental influence and upbringing. Actually my parents were both Teachers,but I am an Engineer who ran his own business,and employed 100 plus people,and am on the right.
Yes so it is your occupation which trumps upbringing then
No ,Teachers when I were a lad, were very definitely Right wing and considered professionals. I had little choice,my upbringing was pre determined, the Grammar school I attended had only one way out, that was University. The careers advisory tutor, was staggered when I chose Engineering,we were supposed to choose Priesthood, and second best Religious studies Teacher. Engineering taught a logical discipline, employment and running a business, finished my training,and that is how I became moderately right wing.
More teachers may have been rightwing when you are younger, now the average teacher is well to the left of the average voter
Yes ,have to agree. I probably would make a terrible teacher, but I do know that on a one to one basis, I am very effective at teaching. I prefer to work with machines, and have had great enjoyment in my work,not sure many Teachers will get the same job satisfaction that I have had.
From the sublime (Frank) saying he will form a Lab MP Citizens' Army to defend un-Jezza MPs, to Simon D doing his thing. SNIP .
Frank Field says "There will be a large group I would hope in Parliament of MPs who will, if colleagues are unfairly treated, encourage their colleagues to stand in by-elections, to stand as independent candidates and a large number of us including myself, would go and actually campaign for them. "It's a capital offence to campaign for somebody standing against a Labour candidate but if enough of us go they can't pick all of us off and expel the lot."
I'd be surprised if there more than 20 MPs who would support Frank Field - basically those who abstained in the Financial Charter vote. Probably less than 20 would support him. So if they campaigned against a Labour candidate they WOULD be expelled, and deservedly so. Good riddance.
It's a nice idea but funding a GE campaign as an independent would be impossible for most people. The only Indy I can think of in recent years is Bell in Tatton who had a high profile and was standing against the discredited Hamilton.
Don't forget that Labour and Lib Dems did not stand at Tatton in 1997.
True, I don't think the Tories or UKIP will stand aside, although the Tories might not campaign. Most of the anti-Corbyn MP's are in left wing seats that stand little chance of being elected as independents from the right without a huge personal vote that is Carswell size, and in some cases that won't be enough, like in Liverpool Riverside with Louise Ellman where the Left (Labour+Greens) got 80% in the GE.
So they're including capex and opex over the whole lifetime to create the highest possible headline figure?
We can all play that game: we will probably spend £2 trillion in defence (in today's prices) over the same period to 2060, making Trident only 8-9% of that even on those inflated figures.
With respect to automatic re-selection, can anyone defend politicians in safe seats effectively getting jobs for life despite not necessarily representing their constituent's beliefs or their broader party membership? The more I think about it, the more troubling it seems.
Getting selected to a safe seat is the political equivalent of winning the lottery, you are set up for life without really needing to lift a finger. It leads to lazy, ineffective politicians.
With respect to automatic re-selection, can anyone defend politicians in safe seats effectively getting jobs for life despite not necessarily representing their constituent's beliefs or their broader party membership? The more I think about it, the more troubling it seems.
Yup. I'm in the 40% of the party who didn't even vote Corbyn, and I'm appalled by some of these MPs' behaviour. Someone needs to remind them that standing under the Labour banner (and thereby benefitting from the money, activism and brand reputation) is a privilege to be earned and constantly re-earned - it's not an inalienable right.
The underlying theme of the header is only thickos vote ukip, it's patronising bordering on offensive. The reality is that as you get older and have experienced life you see things in a different way from the ideology of your teens.
UKIP attracts realists who appreciate that not all change is for the best.
No that is what you read into it, strike too close to the bone did it? Methinks you doth protest too much.
The fact is there is a difference and to bet successfully means to understand differences. To drop all discussions because someone might be offended by inference is an utterly absurd position to take.
I mention patronising and you make my point nicely. Vanity always comes before a fall.
When I left school very few went to uni, those that did almost without exception studied a worthwhile subject and went on to successful careers, now it seems that to tens of thousands every year uni is the end not the means.
I never said that non-graduate = thick, not did the OP. I just said you were protesting too much. In fact if you press Ctrl+F and search for the word thick (or thickos) on this entire page you were the only person to have used the word. So its not vanity, you read that into it yourself and what you are doing now is called transference.
Sometimes when discussing football a Man Utd fan will say: well you support Bournemouth, what do you know about football?
What happens on here is that conservatives appoint themselves experts based on the fact the party they vote for won a general election, they are quick to patronise and abuse supporters of other parties purely because their team won.
Of course that doesn't apply to all, some are very polite and reasonable, it tends to be the young and naive who have yet to realise that in politics never lasts for long and hubris gets the better of everybody.
Nobody is being patronising. You sensitively bemoaned the fact that OGH was setting a theme in the header, that "The underlying theme of the header is only thickos vote ukip". You said that, not me.
You're wrong, he never once used the word thickos. I never once used the word thickos. You read non-graduate as thickos. You did that, not OGH, not me, not "Conservatives" in general. You and you alone.
So if you're being patronised then take a good long look in the mirror to see who is doing it.
From the sublime (Frank) saying he will form a Lab MP Citizens' Army to defend un-Jezza MPs, to Simon D doing his thing. SNIP .
Frank Field says "There will be a large group I would hope in Parliament of MPs who will, if colleagues are unfairly treated, encourage their colleagues to stand in by-elections, to stand as independent candidates and a large number of us including myself, would go and actually campaign for them. "It's a capital offence to campaign for somebody standing against a Labour candidate but if enough of us go they can't pick all of us off and expel the lot."
I'd be surprised if there more than 20 MPs who would support Frank Field - basically those who abstained in the Financial Charter vote. Probably less than 20 would support him. So if they campaigned against a Labour candidate they WOULD be expelled, and deservedly so. Good riddance.
It's a nice idea but funding a GE campaign as an independent would be impossible for most people. The only Indy I can think of in recent years is Bell in Tatton who had a high profile and was standing against the discredited Hamilton.
Don't forget that Labour and Lib Dems did not stand at Tatton in 1997.
Thanks I had forgotten.
Running a GE campaign is time consuming and expensive, enormous resources are required to do it properly, it was a massive contributory factor to ukip winning only one seat.
Field's idea is admirable but unrealistic.
They'd have to start a separate party and try to get some media attention as a group. It's the only way I can see it working against a Labour Party that would be going all guns for them.
It'd get really nasty.
Well, we saw how much organic enthusiasm such a new party would create just recently, with Liz Kendall's candidacy in the leadership election.
With respect to automatic re-selection, can anyone defend politicians in safe seats effectively getting jobs for life despite not necessarily representing their constituent's beliefs or their broader party membership? The more I think about it, the more troubling it seems.
The underlying theme of the header is only thickos vote ukip, it's patronising bordering on offensive. The reality is that as you get older and have experienced life you see things in a different way from the ideology of your teens.
UKIP attracts realists who appreciate that not all change is for the best.
No that is what you read into it, strike too close to the bone did it? Methinks you doth protest too much.
The fact is there is a difference and to bet successfully means to understand differences. To drop all discussions because someone might be offended by inference is an utterly absurd position to take.
I mention patronising and you make my point nicely. Vanity always comes before a fall.
When I left school very few went to uni, those that did almost without exception studied a worthwhile subject and went on to successful careers, now it seems that to tens of thousands every year uni is the end not the means.
I never said that non-graduate = thick, not did the OP. I just said you were protesting too much. In fact if you press Ctrl+F and search for the word thick (or thickos) on this entire page you were the only person to have used the word. So its not vanity, you read that into it yourself and what you are doing now is called transference.
Sometimes when discussing football a Man Utd fan will say: well you support Bournemouth, what do you know about football?
What happens on here is that conservatives appoint themselves experts based on the fact the party they vote for won a general election, they are quick to patronise and abuse supporters of other parties purely because their team won.
Of course that doesn't apply to all, some are very polite and reasonable, it tends to be the young and naive who have yet to realise that in politics never lasts for long and hubris gets the better of everybody.
Nobody is being patronising. You sensitively bemoaned the fact that OGH was setting a theme in the header, that "The underlying theme of the header is only thickos vote ukip". You said that, not me.
You're wrong, he never once used the word thickos. I never once used the word thickos. You read non-graduate as thickos. You did that, not OGH, not me, not "Conservatives" in general. You and you alone.
So if you're being patronised then take a good long look in the mirror to see who is doing it.
I'm not being patronised.
You're a very angry young man Mr Thompson, prone to personal abuse, that will hold you back in every aspect of your life.
From the sublime (Frank) saying he will form a Lab MP Citizens' Army to defend un-Jezza MPs, to Simon D doing his thing. SNIP .
Frank Field says "There will be a large group I would hope in Parliament of MPs who will, if colleagues are unfairly treated, encourage their colleagues to stand in by-elections, to stand as independent candidates and a large number of us including myself, would go and actually campaign for them. "It's a capital offence to campaign for somebody standing against a Labour candidate but if enough of us go they can't pick all of us off and expel the lot."
I'd be surprised if there more than 20 MPs who would support Frank Field - basically those who abstained in the Financial Charter vote. Probably less than 20 would support him. So if they campaigned against a Labour candidate they WOULD be expelled, and deservedly so. Good riddance.
It's a nice idea but funding a GE campaign as an independent would be impossible for most people. The only Indy I can think of in recent years is Bell in Tatton who had a high profile and was standing against the discredited Hamilton.
Don't forget that Labour and Lib Dems did not stand at Tatton in 1997.
Thanks I had forgotten.
Running a GE campaign is time consuming and expensive, enormous resources are required to do it properly, it was a massive contributory factor to ukip winning only one seat.
Field's idea is admirable but unrealistic.
They'd have to start a separate party and try to get some media attention as a group. It's the only way I can see it working against a Labour Party that would be going all guns for them.
It'd get really nasty.
Well, we saw how much organic enthusiasm such a new party would create just recently, with Liz Kendall's candidacy in the leadership election.
You are making a mistake in assuming that the voters in the Labour leadership election are in any way representative of the electorate as a whole.
There is certainly room for a 'Sane Labour' party, especially if the Lib Dems continue to not position themselves in the centre ground.
On the topic of nuclear weapons, can anyone recommend a good book about the British, South African or Indian atomic bomb programmes (I'm assuming there's not much out there on the Israeli one outside the Vanunu thing, given they still publicly deny its existance)? I'm reading Dark Sun about the Soviet programme and I've read books that cover the US and, to a lesser extent, the Pakistani programmes (with A. Q. Khan leaking centrifuge info) but I can't find much about the British bomb. I know of Churchill's Bomb by Graham Farmelo, which is on my "to read" list, but I've heard it doesn't really focus on the UK nuclear programme.
Haven't seen any evidence that STEM are right wing.
The physicists I have worked with over the years have generally been left wing, with the better ones tending to be more left wing than the rest.
They are more rightwing than arts and humanities grads more leftwing than Business and economics grads, though STEM grads who go into the city or work for private business will also tend to be more rightwing than those who stay in academia or research
You are making a mistake in assuming that the voters in the Labour leadership election are in any way representative of the electorate as a whole.
There is certainly room for a 'Sane Labour' party, especially if the Lib Dems continue to not position themselves in the centre ground.
The leadership election was open to anyone for just £3. If the Blairite policies couldn't enthuse Joe Public before, why would it enthuse people if a new party was set up based on that politics?
The clear majority of engineering graduates I have worked with have been right of centre. Some have been very right wing. I didn't consider that when I chose my profession.
In order of preference from leftwing to rightwing it probably goes something like
Sociology Art Drama English Education History Politics Languages Law Biology Medicine IT Maths Physics Chemistry Engineering Business Studies Economics
Yep that fits me.
Indeed and it links to jobs too eg social workers and actors are far more likely to be leftwing than CEOs and bankers
Yes agree, but I think an overwhelming factor is parental influence and upbringing. Actually my parents were both Teachers,but I am an Engineer who ran his own business,and employed 100 plus people,and am on the right.
Yes so it is your occupation which trumps upbringing then
No ,Teachers when I were a lad, were very definitely Right wing and considered professionals. I had little choice,my upbringing was pre determined, the Grammar school I attended had only one way out, that was University. The careers advisory tutor, was staggered when I chose Engineering,we were supposed to choose Priesthood, and second best Religious studies Teacher. Engineering taught a logical discipline, employment and running a business, finished my training,and that is how I became moderately right wing.
More teachers may have been rightwing when you are younger, now the average teacher is well to the left of the average voter
Yes ,have to agree. I probably would make a terrible teacher, but I do know that on a one to one basis, I am very effective at teaching. I prefer to work with machines, and have had great enjoyment in my work,not sure many Teachers will get the same job satisfaction that I have had.
Indeed and at least machines cannot talk back to you!
Haven't seen any evidence that STEM are right wing.
The physicists I have worked with over the years have generally been left wing, with the better ones tending to be more left wing than the rest.
They are more rightwing than arts and humanities grads more leftwing than Business and economics grads, though STEM grads who go into the city or work for private business will also tend to be more rightwing than those who stay in academia or research
Is this your opinion or are you citing a study? (Not making a point, just interested)
On the topic of nuclear weapons, can anyone recommend a good book about the British, South African or Indian atomic bomb programmes (I'm assuming there's not much out there on the Israeli one outside the Vanunu thing, given they still publicly deny its existance)? I'm reading Dark Sun about the Soviet programme and I've read books that cover the US and, to a lesser extent, the Pakistani programmes (with A. Q. Khan leaking centrifuge info) but I can't find much about the British bomb. I know of Churchill's Bomb by Graham Farmelo, which is on my "to read" list, but I've heard it doesn't really focus on the UK nuclear programme.
It's not technically on the programs, but there's an excellent book on how fiction and reality interplayed with each other with all WMD, concentrating on the Manhattan Project and Leó Szilárd.
It's an odd way of looking at the development of WMD, but one that works. Fiction authors took inspiration from science, and scientists took inspiration from fiction.
Well worth a read, and the first book in a long time to make me really reconsider my support for Trident.
Haven't seen any evidence that STEM are right wing.
The physicists I have worked with over the years have generally been left wing, with the better ones tending to be more left wing than the rest.
They are more rightwing than arts and humanities grads more leftwing than Business and economics grads, though STEM grads who go into the city or work for private business will also tend to be more rightwing than those who stay in academia or research
Is this your opinion or are you citing a study? (Not making a point, just interested)
A University of Toronto Study, for example, found 81% of Humanities professors, 75% of social science professors, 51% of engineering professors but only 49% of Business professors were left/liberal http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html
You are making a mistake in assuming that the voters in the Labour leadership election are in any way representative of the electorate as a whole.
There is certainly room for a 'Sane Labour' party, especially if the Lib Dems continue to not position themselves in the centre ground.
The leadership election was open to anyone for just £3. If the Blairite policies couldn't enthuse Joe Public before, why would it enthuse people if a new party was set up based on that politics?
The leadership election was not a good indicator of popularity Because: a) most people are not interested enough in politics to do that, but they will vote in major elections b) the moderate left already had Labour, Lib Dems , SNP and PC. Corbyn won partly because of an influx of the politically marginalised from Greens etc
However I think existing politicians starting a new party will be shunned by the public
You are making a mistake in assuming that the voters in the Labour leadership election are in any way representative of the electorate as a whole.
There is certainly room for a 'Sane Labour' party, especially if the Lib Dems continue to not position themselves in the centre ground.
The leadership election was open to anyone for just £3. If the Blairite policies couldn't enthuse Joe Public before, why would it enthuse people if a new party was set up based on that politics?
Again, you are assuming that the people who bothered to sign up for £3 are representative of the GBP. They are not. I'm surprised you seem incapable of understanding that concept.
And you might not have noticed, but Blairite policies enthused Joe Public for ten years, winning Labour three general elections. When did Corbynite policies last win a GE?
With respect to automatic re-selection, can anyone defend politicians in safe seats effectively getting jobs for life despite not necessarily representing their constituent's beliefs or their broader party membership? The more I think about it, the more troubling it seems.
Troubling indeed if they only have one constituent! Your post reminds me of the rotten borough in Blackadder
You are making a mistake in assuming that the voters in the Labour leadership election are in any way representative of the electorate as a whole.
There is certainly room for a 'Sane Labour' party, especially if the Lib Dems continue to not position themselves in the centre ground.
The leadership election was open to anyone for just £3. If the Blairite policies couldn't enthuse Joe Public before, why would it enthuse people if a new party was set up based on that politics?
Again, you are assuming that the people who bothered to sign up for £3 are representative of the GBP. They are not. I'm surprised you seem incapable of understanding that concept.
I'm not assuming they're representative of the public at all, but ANY new party needs some hyper-enthusiasts to provide the money and canvassing to even get that party off the ground. Kendall's candidacy suggests that there aren't many people who would be hyper-enthused enough by it
And you might not have noticed, but Blairite policies enthused Joe Public for ten years, winning Labour three general elections. When did Corbynite policies last win a GE?
Blairite policies didn't enthuse the public - Tony Blair as a personality did.
You are making a mistake in assuming that the voters in the Labour leadership election are in any way representative of the electorate as a whole.
There is certainly room for a 'Sane Labour' party, especially if the Lib Dems continue to not position themselves in the centre ground.
The leadership election was open to anyone for just £3. If the Blairite policies couldn't enthuse Joe Public before, why would it enthuse people if a new party was set up based on that politics?
The leadership election was not a good indicator of popularity Because: a) most people are not interested enough in politics to do that, but they will vote in major elections b) the moderate left already had Labour, Lib Dems , SNP and PC. Corbyn won partly because of an influx of the politically marginalised from Greens etc
However I think existing politicians starting a new party will be shunned by the public
But there are a lot of sensible centre-left Lab members for whom EdM was the edge of acceptability. They are desperately seeking an alternative option.
I think if it was handed to them, especially by someone such as FF then they would jump at the chance.
You are making a mistake in assuming that the voters in the Labour leadership election are in any way representative of the electorate as a whole.
There is certainly room for a 'Sane Labour' party, especially if the Lib Dems continue to not position themselves in the centre ground.
The leadership election was open to anyone for just £3. If the Blairite policies couldn't enthuse Joe Public before, why would it enthuse people if a new party was set up based on that politics?
Again, you are assuming that the people who bothered to sign up for £3 are representative of the GBP. They are not. I'm surprised you seem incapable of understanding that concept.
And you might not have noticed, but Blairite policies enthused Joe Public for ten years, winning Labour three general elections. When did Corbynite policies last win a GE?
Blairism works with enough swing voters in 150 or so marginal seats to swing an election, but at the cost of alienating core supporters.
On the topic of nuclear weapons, can anyone recommend a good book about the British, South African or Indian atomic bomb programmes (I'm assuming there's not much out there on the Israeli one outside the Vanunu thing, given they still publicly deny its existance)? I'm reading Dark Sun about the Soviet programme and I've read books that cover the US and, to a lesser extent, the Pakistani programmes (with A. Q. Khan leaking centrifuge info) but I can't find much about the British bomb. I know of Churchill's Bomb by Graham Farmelo, which is on my "to read" list, but I've heard it doesn't really focus on the UK nuclear programme.
It's not technically on the programs, but there's an excellent book on how fiction and reality interplayed with each other with all WMD, concentrating on the Manhattan Project and Leó Szilárd.
It's an odd way of looking at the development of WMD, but one that works. Fiction authors took inspiration from science, and scientists took inspiration from fiction.
Well worth a read, and the first book in a long time to make me really reconsider my support for Trident.
Interesting, I'll add it to the list, thanks. Still, I've read quite a bit on the Manhattan Project over the years and Szilard/Oppenheimer/Fermi so that's quite familiar territory.
I can definitely recommend The Making of the Atomic Bomb. I quite enjoyed American Prometheus, a biography of Oppenheimer, even if it suffers from the usual problems of a long book about one person (perhaps that's a Marxist world view leaking in?).
I've got quite a few books in the area of early 20th century physics on my reading list. I think next up is a biography of Max Born which has been sitting on my shelf for years.
You are making a mistake in assuming that the voters in the Labour leadership election are in any way representative of the electorate as a whole.
There is certainly room for a 'Sane Labour' party, especially if the Lib Dems continue to not position themselves in the centre ground.
The leadership election was open to anyone for just £3. If the Blairite policies couldn't enthuse Joe Public before, why would it enthuse people if a new party was set up based on that politics?
Again, you are assuming that the people who bothered to sign up for £3 are representative of the GBP. They are not. I'm surprised you seem incapable of understanding that concept.
I'm not assuming they're representative of the public at all, but ANY new party needs some hyper-enthusiasts to provide the money and canvassing to even get that party off the ground. Kendall's candidacy suggests that there aren't many people who would be hyper-enthused enough by it
And you might not have noticed, but Blairite policies enthused Joe Public for ten years, winning Labour three general elections. When did Corbynite policies last win a GE?
Blairite policies didn't enthuse the public - Tony Blair as a personality did.
I'm not sure why you think that Kendall's candidacy means anything when it comes to a new centre-left party. The threequidders were, as a whole, not the sort of people who wanted a centre-left candidate. But that does not mean that there are not many people who would vote for a centre-left party who would not vote for Corbyn.
Blairite policies did enthuse the public: it wasn't just Blair. And Corbyn isn't Blair. He's an anti-Blair. He doesn't have the policies or the character.
@JournoStephen: Looks like the centre-right Civic Platform government has lost the Polish election. Hard-right Law and Justice party claiming victory.
@OliverCooper: Poland exit poll: Conservative-allied PiS 39.1%, liberal-conservative PO 23.4%, United Left 6.6%, populist Kukiz 9%, liberal N 7.1%.
That might be a boost for Cameron's renegotiation plans, although ideologically he is closer to PO, PiS is more anti EU. The President, Andrzej Duda, is already from PiS so this means both the Polish President and Parliament are now anti EU
On the topic of nuclear weapons, can anyone recommend a good book about the British, South African or Indian atomic bomb programmes (I'm assuming there's not much out there on the Israeli one outside the Vanunu thing, given they still publicly deny its existance)? I'm reading Dark Sun about the Soviet programme and I've read books that cover the US and, to a lesser extent, the Pakistani programmes (with A. Q. Khan leaking centrifuge info) but I can't find much about the British bomb. I know of Churchill's Bomb by Graham Farmelo, which is on my "to read" list, but I've heard it doesn't really focus on the UK nuclear programme.
It's not technically on the programs, but there's an excellent book on how fiction and reality interplayed with each other with all WMD, concentrating on the Manhattan Project and Leó Szilárd.
It's an odd way of looking at the development of WMD, but one that works. Fiction authors took inspiration from science, and scientists took inspiration from fiction.
Well worth a read, and the first book in a long time to make me really reconsider my support for Trident.
Interesting, I'll add it to the list, thanks. Still, I've read quite a bit on the Manhattan Project over the years and Szilard/Oppenheimer/Fermi so that's quite familiar territory.
I can definitely recommend The Making of the Atomic Bomb. I quite enjoyed American Prometheus, a biography of Oppenheimer, even if it suffers from the usual problems of a long book about one person (perhaps that's a Marxist world view leaking in?).
I've got quite a few books in the area of early 20th century physics on my reading list. I think next up is a biography of Max Born which has been sitting on my shelf for years.
It's an odd book as it also includes the history of the creation of chemical and biological weapons - basically it's about the creation of WMD.
In a few places the author makes direct correlation between fiction and scientific breakthroughs that followed. An author would write something, and the scientists would wonder if it's possible.
With respect to automatic re-selection, can anyone defend politicians in safe seats effectively getting jobs for life despite not necessarily representing their constituent's beliefs or their broader party membership? The more I think about it, the more troubling it seems.
Getting selected to a safe seat is the political equivalent of winning the lottery, you are set up for life without really needing to lift a finger. It leads to lazy, ineffective politicians.
It very rarely has the random element that we are assured is involved in winning the lottery. Safe seats tend to go to the those the party hierarchy favour - there is obviously an element of luck and ability in the mix, but the major bit is being "in" with the crowd in charge.
Haven't seen any evidence that STEM are right wing.
The physicists I have worked with over the years have generally been left wing, with the better ones tending to be more left wing than the rest.
They are more rightwing than arts and humanities grads more leftwing than Business and economics grads, though STEM grads who go into the city or work for private business will also tend to be more rightwing than those who stay in academia or research
Is this your opinion or are you citing a study? (Not making a point, just interested)
A University of Toronto Study, for example, found 81% of Humanities professors, 75% of social science professors, 51% of engineering professors but only 49% of Business professors were left/liberal http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html
Interesting article, thanks! Seems that they are all left leaning.
Haven't seen any evidence that STEM are right wing.
The physicists I have worked with over the years have generally been left wing, with the better ones tending to be more left wing than the rest.
They are more rightwing than arts and humanities grads more leftwing than Business and economics grads, though STEM grads who go into the city or work for private business will also tend to be more rightwing than those who stay in academia or research
Is this your opinion or are you citing a study? (Not making a point, just interested)
A University of Toronto Study, for example, found 81% of Humanities professors, 75% of social science professors, 51% of engineering professors but only 49% of Business professors were left/liberal http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html
Interesting article, thanks! Seems that they are all left leaning.
Yes, but these are academics remember, so if less than half of Business professors are leftwing an even lower of Business graduates will be
The clear majority of engineering graduates I have worked with have been right of centre. Some have been very right wing. I didn't consider that when I chose my profession.
In order of preference from leftwing to rightwing it probably goes something like
Sociology Art Drama English Education History Politics Languages Law Biology Medicine IT Maths Physics Chemistry Engineering Business Studies Economics
Yep that fits me.
Indeed and it links to jobs too eg social workers and actors are far more likely to be leftwing than CEOs and bankers
Yes agree, but I think an overwhelming factor is parental influence and upbringing. Actually my parents were both Teachers,but I am an Engineer who ran his own business,and employed 100 plus people,and am on the right.
Yes so it is your occupation which trumps upbringing then
Being on the left-of-centre and believing strongly in honesty, I avoided a commercial career in favour of public service for the basic reason that I just don't want to have to sell people stuff they don't need, or face pressure to cheat or bend the rules to get ahead.
Now that I'm there I understand that those things still exist in the public sector, but I still like having a job with a moral purpose (NHS).
At some point it would be fun to start my own business, but not sure if I have the requisite skills.
All that to say, sometimes your philosophy dictates your career choices rather than vice versa.
Do you think the person who sold you the computer of smartphone that you are using to post on PB agonises over selling people stuff they don't need?
Oh, selling things isn't immoral most of the time. But it's for other people.
I think I also perceived that there would be more toxic office politics and having to 'sell yourself' to go further in the private sector... again, I think an oversimplified view of the world.
Having worked in both public and private sector - the idea that the office politics/honesty is less toxic in the public sector is interesting.
For the record, the most toxic politics I have ever seen were in academia - savage destruction of individuals in a crazed Darwinian must-get-his-budget bun fight. Made Glengarry Glen Ross look like a vicars tea party....
Fascinating subject - however I do not believe there is an easy Translatlantic read-across.
The Democrats, despite the odd loopy policy, are still economically sensible, in the main, and proper patriots, too. It's quite understandable why clever people in LA and NYC might vote for them, after due consideration.
Corbyn's Labour party is economically psychotic, and wants to hand the Home Counties to ISIS, Argentina and Continuity IRA.
It is almost inexplicable how any sane Brit, especially one with a graduated brain, could swear allegiance to this neo-Marxist drivel - yet many do (half my lefty friends).
A puzzle.
There's definitely parallels between the modern GOP and the modern Conservative Party, where both run on an 'economic record' and a shout from the rooftops a policy of 'reducing the national debt' when, in practice, they do no such thing.
It makes you wonder where fiscal conservatives have gone on both side of the pond.
Fascinating subject - however I do not believe there is an easy Translatlantic read-across.
The Democrats, despite the odd loopy policy, are still economically sensible, in the main, and proper patriots, too. It's quite understandable why clever people in LA and NYC might vote for them, after due consideration.
Corbyn's Labour party is economically psychotic, and wants to hand the Home Counties to ISIS, Argentina and Continuity IRA.
It is almost inexplicable how any sane Brit, especially one with a graduated brain, could swear allegiance to this neo-Marxist drivel - yet many do (half my lefty friends).
A puzzle.
I see Martin Amis has come out saying Corbyn is 'undereducated and slow minded'
‘He is undereducated. Which is one way of putting it. His schooling dried up when he was 18, at which point he had two E-grade A-levels to his name; he started a course at North London Polytechnic, true, where he immersed himself in trade union studies but dropped out after a year. And that was that.In general his intellectual CV gives an impression of slow-minded rigidity; and he seems essentially incurious about anything beyond his immediate sphere.
It is far easier to imagine a Labour party that devolves for now into a leftist equivalent of the American GOP: hopelessly retrograde, self-absorbed, self-pitying and self-righteous, quite unembarrassed by its (year-long) tantrum, necessarily and increasingly hostile to democracy, and in any sane view undeserving of a single vote.’ http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/martin-amis-jeremy-corbyn-is-undereducated-and-slow-minded/
Fascinating subject - however I do not believe there is an easy Translatlantic read-across.
The Democrats, despite the odd loopy policy, are still economically sensible, in the main, and proper patriots, too. It's quite understandable why clever people in LA and NYC might vote for them, after due consideration.
Corbyn's Labour party is economically psychotic, and wants to hand the Home Counties to ISIS, Argentina and Continuity IRA.
It is almost inexplicable how any sane Brit, especially one with a graduated brain, could swear allegiance to this neo-Marxist drivel - yet many do (half my lefty friends).
A puzzle.
Bernie Sanders though would move the Democrats a little more in the Corbyn direction
Fascinating subject - however I do not believe there is an easy Translatlantic read-across.
The Democrats, despite the odd loopy policy, are still economically sensible, in the main, and proper patriots, too. It's quite understandable why clever people in LA and NYC might vote for them, after due consideration.
Corbyn's Labour party is economically psychotic, and wants to hand the Home Counties to ISIS, Argentina and Continuity IRA.
It is almost inexplicable how any sane Brit, especially one with a graduated brain, could swear allegiance to this neo-Marxist drivel - yet many do (half my lefty friends).
A puzzle.
We have a joke that the more educated someone is, the more likely it is that they are daft and/or impractical. This is based on several professors and many D.Sc that we know.
It's as if all the knowledge in their mind has knocked out other matters, like remembering to pick up children, to attend meetings, and in some cases to wash.
The clear majority of engineering graduates I have worked with have been right of centre. Some have been very right wing. I didn't consider that when I chose my profession.
In order of preference from leftwing to rightwing it probably goes something like
Sociology Art Drama English Education History Politics Languages Law Biology Medicine IT Maths Physics Chemistry Engineering Business Studies Economics
Yep that fits me.
Indeed and it links to jobs too eg social workers and actors are far more likely to be leftwing than CEOs and bankers
Yes agree, but I think an overwhelming factor is parental influence and upbringing. Actually my parents were both Teachers,but I am an Engineer who ran his own business,and employed 100 plus people,and am on the right.
Yes so it is your occupation which trumps upbringing then
No ,Teachers when I were a lad, were very definitely Right wing and considered professionals. I had little choice,my upbringing was pre determined, the Grammar school I attended had only one way out, that was University. The careers advisory tutor, was staggered when I chose Engineering,we were supposed to choose Priesthood, and second best Religious studies Teacher. Engineering taught a logical discipline, employment and running a business, finished my training,and that is how I became moderately right wing.
More teachers may have been rightwing when you are younger, now the average teacher is well to the left of the average voter
Yes ,have to agree. I probably would make a terrible teacher, but I do know that on a one to one basis, I am very effective at teaching. I prefer to work with machines, and have had great enjoyment in my work,not sure many Teachers will get the same job satisfaction that I have had.
Indeed and at least machines cannot talk back to you!
In my (fairly extensive) experience, dumb insolence is more in their line.
I met a defeated Lib Dem MP from the South West who was quoting some astronomical figures of the estimate of the amount the Tories spent in his constituency to get him out in May
I met a defeated Lib Dem MP from the South West who was quoting some astronomical figures of the estimate of the amount the Tories spent in his constituency to get him out in May
Every LD MP in the SW lost their seat; it's a bit difficult to argue that it was something to do with individual constituencies. Looks more like a regional swing that swept all before it.
Fascinating subject - however I do not believe there is an easy Translatlantic read-across.
The Democrats, despite the odd loopy policy, are still economically sensible, in the main, and proper patriots, too. It's quite understandable why clever people in LA and NYC might vote for them, after due consideration.
Corbyn's Labour party is economically psychotic, and wants to hand the Home Counties to ISIS, Argentina and Continuity IRA.
It is almost inexplicable how any sane Brit, especially one with a graduated brain, could swear allegiance to this neo-Marxist drivel - yet many do (half my lefty friends).
A puzzle.
Bernie Sanders though would move the Democrats a little more in the Corbyn direction
Sanders describes himself as a socialist, but from what I can tell, his policies are relatively right wing for his rhetoric. He seems pretty similar to Gordon Brown.
I met a defeated Lib Dem MP from the South West who was quoting some astronomical figures of the estimate of the amount the Tories spent in his constituency to get him out in May
I worry about the Lib Dems. They seem to focussing on external reasons for their catastrophic defeat. More so even than Labour.
You get the sense, that given the chance, they would do it all over again.
Mr girlfriend is Polish and having been there regularly for the last few years I have to say it isn't very anti-EU, what it seems to be is against being pushed around to welcome in the poor and weak when they have a LOT of their own as a result of the communist years. Go down the back roads of any city there and you will see deprivation that hasn't been seen in this country since the 1970's (I'm too young to remember that, I've just see it on various tv doccies over the years), very few motorways between cities (a few are being built), the pay levels are not great for most jobs, the housing is poor and local transport is even worse. Then Merkel demands they take in a lot of immigrants that need high levels of spending on? She hasn't a clue.
Fascinating subject - however I do not believe there is an easy Translatlantic read-across.
The Democrats, despite the odd loopy policy, are still economically sensible, in the main, and proper patriots, too. It's quite understandable why clever people in LA and NYC might vote for them, after due consideration.
Corbyn's Labour party is economically psychotic, and wants to hand the Home Counties to ISIS, Argentina and Continuity IRA.
It is almost inexplicable how any sane Brit, especially one with a graduated brain, could swear allegiance to this neo-Marxist drivel - yet many do (half my lefty friends).
A puzzle.
There's definitely parallels between the modern GOP and the modern Conservative Party, where both run on an 'economic record' and a shout from the rooftops a policy of 'reducing the national debt' when, in practice, they do no such thing.
It makes you wonder where fiscal conservatives have gone on both side of the pond.
This isn't a very sensible point, since the Conservatives have indeed cut the deficit substantially, while the American Republicans usually increase it. It seems Labour supporters still can't decide whether the Tories are cutting the deficit too fast or not fast enough.
Fascinating subject - however I do not believe there is an easy Translatlantic read-across.
The Democrats, despite the odd loopy policy, are still economically sensible, in the main, and proper patriots, too. It's quite understandable why clever people in LA and NYC might vote for them, after due consideration.
Corbyn's Labour party is economically psychotic, and wants to hand the Home Counties to ISIS, Argentina and Continuity IRA.
It is almost inexplicable how any sane Brit, especially one with a graduated brain, could swear allegiance to this neo-Marxist drivel - yet many do (half my lefty friends).
A puzzle.
There's definitely parallels between the modern GOP and the modern Conservative Party, where both run on an 'economic record' and a shout from the rooftops a policy of 'reducing the national debt' when, in practice, they do no such thing.
It makes you wonder where fiscal conservatives have gone on both side of the pond.
Harper left a surplus when he left office, Osborne has already cut spending as a percentage of gdp from 47% to 42%. Congressional Republicans are now more fiscally conservative, however it was George W Bush who, like Brown, left a massive deficit
@JournoStephen: Looks like the centre-right Civic Platform government has lost the Polish election. Hard-right Law and Justice party claiming victory.
@OliverCooper: Poland exit poll: Conservative-allied PiS 39.1%, liberal-conservative PO 23.4%, United Left 6.6%, populist Kukiz 9%, liberal N 7.1%.
That might be a boost for Cameron's renegotiation plans, although ideologically he is closer to PO, PiS is more anti EU. The President, Andrzej Duda, is already from PiS so this means both the Polish President and Parliament are now anti EU
It will be a reaction to the immigration crisis and the EU's attempt to force nations into taking them. Eastern Europe does not have the colonial guilt Western Europe has, so feels far more comfortable saying no.
I met a defeated Lib Dem MP from the South West who was quoting some astronomical figures of the estimate of the amount the Tories spent in his constituency to get him out in May
I worry about the Lib Dems. They seem to focussing on external reasons for their catastrophic defeat. More so even than Labour.
You get the sense, that given the chance, they would do it all over again.
The reason they lost goes back to the first six months of the coalition. He never believed the incumbency factor would save him. Even so the money thrown in from Tory HQ was eye-watering
With respect to automatic re-selection, can anyone defend politicians in safe seats effectively getting jobs for life despite not necessarily representing their constituent's beliefs or their broader party membership? The more I think about it, the more troubling it seems.
This is one place where the Left is in the right. MPs have every right to disagree with the membership, but the membership have every right to remove them on that basis. If the MPs feel they are representing a broader public outside the Labour Party, then they can stand as an independent.
The clear majority of engineering graduates I have worked with have been right of centre. Some have been very right wing. I didn't consider that when I chose my profession.
In order of preference from leftwing to rightwing it probably goes something like
Sociology Art Drama English Education History Politics Languages Law Biology Medicine IT Maths Physics Chemistry Engineering Business Studies Economics
Yep that fits me.
Indeed and it links to jobs too eg social workers and actors are far more likely to be leftwing than CEOs and bankers
Yes agree, but I think an overwhelming factor is parental influence and upbringing. Actually my parents were both Teachers,but I am an Engineer who ran his own business,and employed 100 plus people,and am on the right.
Yes so it is your occupation which trumps upbringing then
No ,Teachers when I were a lad, were very definitely Right wing and considered professionals. I had little choice,my upbringing was pre determined, the Grammar school I attended had only one way out, that was University. The careers advisory tutor, was staggered when I chose Engineering,we were supposed to choose Priesthood, and second best Religious studies Teacher. Engineering taught a logical discipline, employment and running a business, finished my training,and that is how I became moderately right wing.
More teachers may have been rightwing when you are younger, now the average teacher is well to the left of the average voter
Yes ,have to agree. I probably would make a terrible teacher, but I do know that on a one to one basis, I am very effective at teaching. I prefer to work with machines, and have had great enjoyment in my work,not sure many Teachers will get the same job satisfaction that I have had.
Indeed and at least machines cannot talk back to you!
In my (fairly extensive) experience, dumb insolence is more in their line.
Fascinating subject - however I do not believe there is an easy Translatlantic read-across.
The Democrats, despite the odd loopy policy, are still economically sensible, in the main, and proper patriots, too. It's quite understandable why clever people in LA and NYC might vote for them, after due consideration.
Corbyn's Labour party is economically psychotic, and wants to hand the Home Counties to ISIS, Argentina and Continuity IRA.
It is almost inexplicable how any sane Brit, especially one with a graduated brain, could swear allegiance to this neo-Marxist drivel - yet many do (half my lefty friends).
A puzzle.
Bernie Sanders though would move the Democrats a little more in the Corbyn direction
Sanders describes himself as a socialist, but from what I can tell, his policies are relatively right wing for his rhetoric. He seems pretty similar to Gordon Brown.
He is far more anti finance than Brown, Brown bailed out the banks and sucked up to the City, Sanders wants to hammer Wall Street. He is also generally anti any US intervention in the Middle East in opposition to Brown's backing for Blair wars
@JournoStephen: Looks like the centre-right Civic Platform government has lost the Polish election. Hard-right Law and Justice party claiming victory.
@OliverCooper: Poland exit poll: Conservative-allied PiS 39.1%, liberal-conservative PO 23.4%, United Left 6.6%, populist Kukiz 9%, liberal N 7.1%.
That might be a boost for Cameron's renegotiation plans, although ideologically he is closer to PO, PiS is more anti EU. The President, Andrzej Duda, is already from PiS so this means both the Polish President and Parliament are now anti EU
It will be a reaction to the immigration crisis and the EU's attempt to force nations into taking them. Eastern Europe does not have the colonial guilt Western Europe has, so feels far more comfortable saying no.
Eastern Europe is certainly more socially conservative than Western Europe
@JournoStephen: Looks like the centre-right Civic Platform government has lost the Polish election. Hard-right Law and Justice party claiming victory.
@OliverCooper: Poland exit poll: Conservative-allied PiS 39.1%, liberal-conservative PO 23.4%, United Left 6.6%, populist Kukiz 9%, liberal N 7.1%.
That might be a boost for Cameron's renegotiation plans, although ideologically he is closer to PO, PiS is more anti EU. The President, Andrzej Duda, is already from PiS so this means both the Polish President and Parliament are now anti EU
It will be a reaction to the immigration crisis and the EU's attempt to force nations into taking them. Eastern Europe does not have the colonial guilt Western Europe has, so feels far more comfortable saying no.
Eastern Europe is certainly more socially conservative than Western Europe
I like this map showing voting in the Polish election, and the old German/Prussian borders:
Fascinating subject - however I do not believe there is an easy Translatlantic read-across.
The Democrats, despite the odd loopy policy, are still economically sensible, in the main, and proper patriots, too. It's quite understandable why clever people in LA and NYC might vote for them, after due consideration.
Corbyn's Labour party is economically psychotic, and wants to hand the Home Counties to ISIS, Argentina and Continuity IRA.
It is almost inexplicable how any sane Brit, especially one with a graduated brain, could swear allegiance to this neo-Marxist drivel - yet many do (half my lefty friends).
A puzzle.
There's definitely parallels between the modern GOP and the modern Conservative Party, where both run on an 'economic record' and a shout from the rooftops a policy of 'reducing the national debt' when, in practice, they do no such thing.
It makes you wonder where fiscal conservatives have gone on both side of the pond.
This isn't a very sensible point, since the Conservatives have indeed cut the deficit substantially, while the American Republicans usually increase it. It seems Labour supporters still can't decide whether the Tories are cutting the deficit too fast or not fast enough.
The Conservatives claim to be 'cutting the deficit', introducing swathing cuts and a large VAT rises while spending that income on large income and corporation tax cuts and unaffordable pension increases. There's a reason the deficit is still only just down to pre-recession levels. It really is not dissimilar to the GOP under Bush.
Of course, Conservative supporters know this, and enjoy disingenuously selling the lie that the Conservative's priority is the deficit when it's anything but, aided by a compliant press. The Tories want eternal austerity so they can hide their ideological policies from the public.
The underlying theme of the header is only thickos vote ukip, it's patronising bordering on offensive. The reality is that as you get older and have experienced life you see things in a different way from the ideology of your teens.
UKIP attracts realists who appreciate that not all change is for the best.
UKIP attracts all sorts.
For me, what makes it unattractive is not its Euroscepticism, but its social conservatism. UKIP used to be a libertarian party. Douglas Carswell is a libertarian, and were I in Clacton, I think I'd probably vote for him.
But UKIP is the party that opposed gay marriage. And not because of any real ideological reason, but because they wanted to be the repository for those who dislike social change.
And for that reason, while I might vote for them if I liked the local candidate (were it Douglas Carswell or Richard Tyndall), I could never support them.
It's a real shame that social conservatism has become so associated with things like opposing gay marriage or contraception. There is a very positive side to social conservatism that focused on helping establish stable family units, community organisations and civic values.
With the Polish result and widespread and growing dismay and dis-affection with Merkel's policies and the EU generally, will there be an EU left to vote on by 2017 or will it have fractured beyond repair. And - many congratulations to Hamilton, World champion for the third time and proud to be British
The clear majority of engineering graduates I have worked with have been right of centre. Some have been very right wing. I didn't consider that when I chose my profession.
In order of preference from leftwing to rightwing it probably goes something like
Sociology Art Drama English Education History Politics Languages Law Biology Medicine IT Maths Physics Chemistry Engineering Business Studies Economics
Yep that fits me.
Indeed and it links to jobs too eg social workers and actors are far more likely to be leftwing than CEOs and bankers
Yes agree, but I think an overwhelming factor is parental influence and upbringing. Actually my parents were both Teachers,but I am an Engineer who ran his own business,and employed 100 plus people,and am on the right.
Yes so it is your occupation which trumps upbringing then
No ,Teachers when I were a lad, were very definitely Right wing and considered professionals. I had little choice,my upbringing was pre determined, the Grammar school I attended had only one way out, that was University. The careers advisory tutor, was staggered when I chose Engineering,we were supposed to choose Priesthood, and second best Religious studies Teacher. Engineering taught a logical discipline, employment and running a business, finished my training,and that is how I became moderately right wing.
More teachers may have been rightwing when you are younger, now the average teacher is well to the left of the average voter
Yes ,have to agree. I probably would make a terrible teacher, but I do know that on a one to one basis, I am very effective at teaching. I prefer to work with machines, and have had great enjoyment in my work,not sure many Teachers will get the same job satisfaction that I have had.
Indeed and at least machines cannot talk back to you!
In my (fairly extensive) experience, dumb insolence is more in their line.
The clear majority of engineering graduates I have worked with have been right of centre. Some have been very right wing. I didn't consider that when I chose my profession.
In order of preference from leftwing to rightwing it probably goes something like
Sociology Art Drama English Education History Politics Languages Law Biology Medicine IT Maths Physics Chemistry Engineering Business Studies Economics
Yep that fits me.
Indeed and it links to jobs too eg social workers and actors are far more likely to be leftwing than CEOs and bankers
Yes agree, but I think an overwhelming factor is parental influence and upbringing. Actually my parents were both Teachers,but I am an Engineer who ran his own business,and employed 100 plus people,and am on the right.
Yes so it is your occupation which trumps upbringing then
No ,Teachers when I were a lad, were very definitely Right wing and considered professionals. I had little choice,my upbringing was pre determined, the Grammar school I attended had only one way out, that was University. The careers advisory tutor, was staggered when I chose Engineering,we were supposed to choose Priesthood, and second best Religious studies Teacher. Engineering taught a logical discipline, employment and running a business, finished my training,and that is how I became moderately right wing.
More teachers may have been rightwing when you are younger, now the average teacher is well to the left of the average voter
Yes ,have to agree. I probably would make a terrible teacher, but I do know that on a one to one basis, I am very effective at teaching. I prefer to work with machines, and have had great enjoyment in my work,not sure many Teachers will get the same job satisfaction that I have had.
Indeed and at least machines cannot talk back to you!
In my (fairly extensive) experience, dumb insolence is more in their line.
@JournoStephen: Looks like the centre-right Civic Platform government has lost the Polish election. Hard-right Law and Justice party claiming victory.
@OliverCooper: Poland exit poll: Conservative-allied PiS 39.1%, liberal-conservative PO 23.4%, United Left 6.6%, populist Kukiz 9%, liberal N 7.1%.
That might be a boost for Cameron's renegotiation plans, although ideologically he is closer to PO, PiS is more anti EU. The President, Andrzej Duda, is already from PiS so this means both the Polish President and Parliament are now anti EU
It will be a reaction to the immigration crisis and the EU's attempt to force nations into taking them. Eastern Europe does not have the colonial guilt Western Europe has, so feels far more comfortable saying no.
Eastern Europe is certainly more socially conservative than Western Europe
I like this map showing voting in the Polish election, and the old German/Prussian borders:
The Conservatives claim to be 'cutting the deficit', introducing swathing cuts and a large VAT rises while spending that income on large income and corporation tax cuts and unaffordable pension increases. There's a reason the deficit is still only just down to pre-recession levels. It really is not dissimilar to the GOP under Bush.
Of course, Conservative supporters know this, and enjoy disingenuously selling the lie that the Conservative's priority is the deficit while doing anything but that, aided by a compliant press. The Tories want eternal austerity while hiding their ideological policies from the public.
First of all, tax cuts are not 'spending money'. They may be reducing revenue in some circumstances, but corporation tax revenue is up under Osborne, so that can't even be said here.
Second of all, there's no 'only' about cutting the deficit way down to pre-recession levels while still experiencing an economic recovery: that's a remarkable simultaneous feat that the left said could not be done. In fact, there's a triple feat going on, as we've also moved taxes away from work and investment and on to consumption, encouraging households to be more prudent for the long term.
Third of all, the deficit is still heading further downwards and we'll almost certainly have a surplus by the time the Tories leave office.
But it all comes back to the fact that Labour supporters want to criticise the Tories for not cutting the deficit enough, while also complaining the deficit is being cut. You've had five years to make your decision, and you still try to sit on the fence.
The underlying theme of the header is only thickos vote ukip, it's patronising bordering on offensive. The reality is that as you get older and have experienced life you see things in a different way from the ideology of your teens.
UKIP attracts realists who appreciate that not all change is for the best.
UKIP attracts all sorts.
For me, what makes it unattractive is not its Euroscepticism, but its social conservatism. UKIP used to be a libertarian party. Douglas Carswell is a libertarian, and were I in Clacton, I think I'd probably vote for him.
But UKIP is the party that opposed gay marriage. And not because of any real ideological reason, but because they wanted to be the repository for those who dislike social change.
And for that reason, while I might vote for them if I liked the local candidate (were it Douglas Carswell or Richard Tyndall), I could never support them.
I think the country needs a political party that is socially conservative because a large segment of the population are socially conservative and they need to be represented. The three established parties have completely given up on it, so UKIP have moved in to fill the gap. (Personally I'm probably more socially liberal than the average voter so I'm not being partisan).
Fascinating subject - however I do not believe there is an easy Translatlantic read-across.
The Democrats, despite the odd loopy policy, are still economically sensible, in the main, and proper patriots, too. It's quite understandable why clever people in LA and NYC might vote for them, after due consideration.
Corbyn's Labour party is economically psychotic, and wants to hand the Home Counties to ISIS, Argentina and Continuity IRA.
It is almost inexplicable how any sane Brit, especially one with a graduated brain, could swear allegiance to this neo-Marxist drivel - yet many do (half my lefty friends).
A puzzle.
There's definitely parallels between the modern GOP and the modern Conservative Party, where both run on an 'economic record' and a shout from the rooftops a policy of 'reducing the national debt' when, in practice, they do no such thing.
It makes you wonder where fiscal conservatives have gone on both side of the pond.
This isn't a very sensible point, since the Conservatives have indeed cut the deficit substantially, while the American Republicans usually increase it. It seems Labour supporters still can't decide whether the Tories are cutting the deficit too fast or not fast enough.
The Conservatives claim to be 'cutting the deficit', introducing swathing cuts and a large VAT rises while spending that income on large income and corporation tax cuts and unaffordable pension increases. There's a reason the deficit is still only just down to pre-recession levels. It really is not dissimilar to the GOP under Bush.
Of course, Conservative supporters know this, and enjoy disingenuously selling the lie that the Conservative's priority is the deficit when it's anything but, aided by a compliant press. The Tories want eternal austerity so they can hide their ideological policies from the public.
The Tories do not want eternal austerity and you watch the change in narrative from 20016-2020 with lots of tax breaks for the lower and middle paid and a more socially aware Tory party easily stepping into the void left by Labour
@JournoStephen: Looks like the centre-right Civic Platform government has lost the Polish election. Hard-right Law and Justice party claiming victory.
@OliverCooper: Poland exit poll: Conservative-allied PiS 39.1%, liberal-conservative PO 23.4%, United Left 6.6%, populist Kukiz 9%, liberal N 7.1%.
That might be a boost for Cameron's renegotiation plans, although ideologically he is closer to PO, PiS is more anti EU. The President, Andrzej Duda, is already from PiS so this means both the Polish President and Parliament are now anti EU
It will be a reaction to the immigration crisis and the EU's attempt to force nations into taking them. Eastern Europe does not have the colonial guilt Western Europe has, so feels far more comfortable saying no.
Eastern Europe is certainly more socially conservative than Western Europe
I like this map showing voting in the Polish election, and the old German/Prussian borders:
Yes, PO almost completely ahead in the Old Germany/Prussia, PiS well ahead in the rest of Poland
Though I think the population in Prussia comes mostly from the old Eastern Poland, which is now Belarus and Ukraine. There were mass involuntary population movements in the late 40's.
Some of Michael Meachers's last words published 11 days before his death.He will be missed.
"Labour was the party of ideology. That has completely reversed. The Tories now have an obsessive fetish with contracting out the state, regarding the use of our public funds for investment in British industry as taboo (though paying Chinese and French state companies handsomely for investing in British industry), generating the biggest white elephant of all time at Hinkley C because of their ideological aversion to renewable power. There are other pitfalls that will come back to haunt Osborne. He has shown no concern whatever, and frankly no pity or compassion over what he has already inflicted on a third of the population through five years of grinding austerity, whereas Thatcher’s Bernard Ingham did at least have the grace to apologise for the desolation she caused in the north. But increasingly it is the middle class and Tories who are also now being hit — consultants, doctors, services for the elderly and infirm. Then there’s the all-important issue of austerity as the government’s guiding principle. Public opinion is clearly changing on this — it probably changed a long time ago, but Osborne’s tin ear blocked it out and only the Jeremy Corbyn movement brought it to light. If Osborne doesn’t now change his position on this, which will be seen as a deep political humiliation, he’ll be in serious trouble. If he does change, the prospects for bringing down the budget deficit will all but collapse. Over to you, George."
The underlying theme of the header is only thickos vote ukip, it's patronising bordering on offensive. The reality is that as you get older and have experienced life you see things in a different way from the ideology of your teens.
UKIP attracts realists who appreciate that not all change is for the best.
UKIP attracts all sorts.
For me, what makes it unattractive is not its Euroscepticism, but its social conservatism. UKIP used to be a libertarian party. Douglas Carswell is a libertarian, and were I in Clacton, I think I'd probably vote for him.
But UKIP is the party that opposed gay marriage. And not because of any real ideological reason, but because they wanted to be the repository for those who dislike social change.
And for that reason, while I might vote for them if I liked the local candidate (were it Douglas Carswell or Richard Tyndall), I could never support them.
I think the country needs a political party that is socially conservative because a large segment of the population are socially conservative and they need to be represented. The three established parties have completely given up on it, so UKIP have moved in to fill the gap. (Personally I'm probably more socially liberal than the average voter so I'm not being partisan).
I think that's correct.
And there are plenty who call themselves social liberals, yet espouse highly authoritarian viewpoints.
Battling strong winds, driving rain, mud and freezing temperatures, these stunning photographs show a slow trek of thousands of migrants making their way to Europe amid the harsh conditions of the oncoming winter. As European leaders squabble about how best to deal with its mounting refugee crisis, tens of thousands of people are continuing to try and reach the Eurozone via the Balkans route, through Croatia and Slovenia (main picture and inset). It comes as Slovenia's prime minister today warned the European Union faces collapse if the bloc cannot agree on a plan to confront the sudden influx of refugees through the region, which has numbered 62,000 people in the past week.
First of all, tax cuts are not 'spending money'. They may be reducing revenue in some circumstances, but corporation tax revenue is up under Osborne, so that can't even be said here.
Either way, it doesn't balance the books of "UK PLC". Remember "UK PLC", when the right all suddenly decided to use the same piece of propagandaterm?
And of course tax revenue is up as we head out of a recession!
And that's without going into the myriad issues of turning the UK into a tax haven in a race to the bottom.
Second of all, there's no 'only' about cutting the deficit way down to pre-recession levels while still experiencing an economic recovery: that's a remarkable simultaneous feat that the left said could not be done.
Economic recoveries are inevitable out of recessions. Also, consider the deficit is only down to the pre-recession levels of a supposedly "proligate" Labour government.
In fact, there's a triple feat going on, as we've also moved taxes away from work and investment and on to consumption, encouraging households to be more prudent for the long term.
Taxes on consumption are anti-poor, who tend to consume a larger percentage of their income because they don't have spare money at the end of the week. The poorest in the country, those not in work, will have been hit the hardest by this policy. Of course, the right doesn't care what happens to the poorest.
And you want to disincentivise consumption?!?
I'd argue the introduction of VAT is the single worst policy of the EU and is a major part of why I'm in favour of leaving. I want a a reintroduction of the purchase tax, which was far fairer.
Third of all, the deficit is still heading further downwards and we'll almost certainly have a surplus by the time the Tories leave office.
There will never be a surplus as the Conservatives do not want a surplus.
But it all comes back to the fact that Labour supporters want to criticise theTories for not cutting the deficit enough, while also complaining the deficit is being cut. You've had five years to make your decision, and you still try to sit on the fence.
The problem is that you're a blinkered partisan. I don't speak for the Labour Party, I speak for myself. I'm not a member of the Labour Party.
If you want to talk to a Labour supports, talk to SeanT or Plato - I hear they're registered supporters!
Fascinating subject - however I do not believe there is an easy Translatlantic read-across.
The Democrats, despite the odd loopy policy, are still economically sensible, in the main, and proper patriots, too. It's quite understandable why clever people in LA and NYC might vote for them, after due consideration.
Corbyn's Labour party is economically psychotic, and wants to hand the Home Counties to ISIS, Argentina and Continuity IRA.
It is almost inexplicable how any sane Brit, especially one with a graduated brain, could swear allegiance to this neo-Marxist drivel - yet many do (half my lefty friends).
A puzzle.
There's definitely parallels between the modern GOP and the modern Conservative Party, where both run on an 'economic record' and a shout from the rooftops a policy of 'reducing the national debt' when, in practice, they do no such thing.
It makes you wonder where fiscal conservatives have gone on both side of the pond.
This isn't a very sensible point, since the Conservatives have indeed cut the deficit substantially, while the American Republicans usually increase it. It seems Labour supporters still can't decide whether the Tories are cutting the deficit too fast or not fast enough.
The Conservatives claim to be 'cutting the deficit', introducing swathing cuts and a large VAT rises while spending that income on large income and corporation tax cuts and unaffordable pension increases. There's a reason the deficit is still only just down to pre-recession levels. It really is not dissimilar to the GOP under Bush.
Of course, Conservative supporters know this, and enjoy disingenuously selling the lie that the Conservative's priority is the deficit when it's anything but, aided by a compliant press. The Tories want eternal austerity so they can hide their ideological policies from the public.
The Tories do not want eternal austerity and you watch the change in narrative from 20016-2020 with lots of tax breaks for the lower and middle paid and a more socially aware Tory party easily stepping into the void left by Labour
I'll believe it when I see it. The right has been selling this as 'moderate' government while they have been gutting the BBC, privatising Royal Mail, cutting tax credits, swathing cuts to government, tougher benefit sanctions, increasing university fees to some of the highest in the world, forcing schools into becoming 'academies' etc. This current government is further to the right of Thatcher on the overwhelming majority of issues while pretending themselves as being moderate.
@JournoStephen: Looks like the centre-right Civic Platform government has lost the Polish election. Hard-right Law and Justice party claiming victory.
@OliverCooper: Poland exit poll: Conservative-allied PiS 39.1%, liberal-conservative PO 23.4%, United Left 6.6%, populist Kukiz 9%, liberal N 7.1%.
That might be a boost for Cameron's renegotiation plans, although ideologically he is closer to PO, PiS is more anti EU. The President, Andrzej Duda, is already from PiS so this means both the Polish President and Parliament are now anti EU
It will be a reaction to the immigration crisis and the EU's attempt to force nations into taking them. Eastern Europe does not have the colonial guilt Western Europe has, so feels far more comfortable saying no.
Eastern Europe is certainly more socially conservative than Western Europe
I like this map showing voting in the Polish election, and the old German/Prussian borders:
Yes, PO almost completely ahead in the Old Germany/Prussia, PiS well ahead in the rest of Poland
Though I think the population in Prussia comes mostly from the old Eastern Poland, which is now Belarus and Ukraine. There were mass involuntary population movements in the late 40's.
Fascinating subject - however I do not believe there is an easy Translatlantic read-across.
The Democrats, despite the odd loopy policy, are still economically sensible, in the main, and proper patriots, too. It's quite understandable why clever people in LA and NYC might vote for them, after due consideration.
Corbyn's Labour party is economically psychotic, and wants to hand the Home Counties to ISIS, Argentina and Continuity IRA.
It is almost inexplicable how any sane Brit, especially one with a graduated brain, could swear allegiance to this neo-Marxist drivel - yet many do (half my lefty friends).
A puzzle.
There's definitely parallels between the modern GOP and the modern Conservative Party, where both run on an 'economic record' and a shout from the rooftops a policy of 'reducing the national debt' when, in practice, they do no such thing.
It makes you wonder where fiscal conservatives have gone on both side of the pond.
This isn't a very sensible point, since the Conservatives have indeed cut the deficit substantially, while the American Republicans usually increase it. It seems Labour supporters still can't decide whether the Tories are cutting the deficit too fast or not fast enough.
The Conservatives claim to be 'cutting the deficit', introducing swathing cuts and a large VAT rises while spending that income on large income and corporation tax cuts and unaffordable pension increases. There's a reason the deficit is still only just down to pre-recession levels. It really is not dissimilar to the GOP under Bush.
Of course, Conservative supporters know this, and enjoy disingenuously selling the lie that the Conservative's priority is the deficit when it's anything but, aided by a compliant press. The Tories want eternal austerity so they can hide their ideological policies from the public.
The Tories do not want eternal austerity and you watch the change in narrative from 20016-2020 with lots of tax breaks for the lower and middle paid and a more socially aware Tory party easily stepping into the void left by Labour
The Tories will talk about and maybe deliver largely irrelevant tweaks to tax bands of £100-£200 per year for the majority but the "spectaculars" will be saved for the rich and the corporations. It will cut public services nationally and locally through cuts in support for councils so that those who rely on those services can no longer benefit from them. They will cut and cut and IF they deliver a surplus by 2020...they will attempt to buy the election with tax cuts and promises of more. The question will be whether, at the end of that process, they have persuaded enough of the electorate to turn it's back on the "have-nots".
Fascinating subject - however I do not believe there is an easy Translatlantic read-across.
The Democrats, despite the odd loopy policy, are still economically sensible, in the main, and proper patriots, too. It's quite understandable why clever people in LA and NYC might vote for them, after due consideration.
Corbyn's Labour party is economically psychotic, and wants to hand the Home Counties to ISIS, Argentina and Continuity IRA.
It is almost inexplicable how any sane Brit, especially one with a graduated brain, could swear allegiance to this neo-Marxist drivel - yet many do (half my lefty friends).
A puzzle.
There's definitely parallels between the modern GOP and the modern Conservative Party, where both run on an 'economic record' and a shout from the rooftops a policy of 'reducing the national debt' when, in practice, they do no such thing.
It makes you wonder where fiscal conservatives have gone on both side of the pond.
This isn't a very sensible point, since the Conservatives have indeed cut the deficit substantially, while the American Republicans usually increase it. It seems Labour supporters still can't decide whether the Tories are cutting the deficit too fast or not fast enough.
The Conservatives claim to be 'cutting the deficit', introducing swathing cuts and a large VAT rises while spending that inco
The Tories do not want eternal austerity and you watch the change in narrative from 20016-2020 with lots of tax breaks for the lower and middle paid and a more socially aware Tory party easily stepping into the void left by Labour
I'll believe it when I see it. The right has been selling this as 'moderate' government while they have been gutting the BBC, privatising Royal Mail, cutting tax credits, swathing cuts to government, tougher benefit sanctions, increasing university fees to some of the highest in the world, forcing schools into becoming 'academies' etc. This current government is further to the right of Thatcher on the overwhelming majority of issues while pretending themselves as being moderate.
They have also increased the minimum wage and taken the lowest earners out of tax. Osborne's target of spending 35% of gdp by 2019 would be the same rate as Thatcher left and Blair spent in his early years, while below the OECD average it would also be the same rate as Australia
There's definitely parallels between the modern GOP and the modern Conservative Party, where both run on an 'economic record' and a shout from the rooftops a policy of 'reducing the national debt' when, in practice, they do no such thing.
It makes you wonder where fiscal conservatives have gone on both side of the pond.
This isn't a very sensible point, since the Conservatives have indeed cut the deficit substantially, while the American Republicans usually increase it. It seems Labour supporters still can't decide whether the Tories are cutting the deficit too fast or not fast enough. The Conservatives claim to be 'cutting the deficit', introducing swathing cuts and a large VAT rises while spending that income on large income and corporation tax cuts and unaffordable pension increases. There's a reason the deficit is still only just down to pre-recession levels. It really is not dissimilar to the GOP under Bush.
Of course, Conservative supporters know this, and enjoy disingenuously selling the lie that the Conservative's priority is the deficit when it's anything but, aided by a compliant press. The Tories want eternal austerity so they can hide their ideological policies from the public.
The Tories do not want eternal austerity and you watch the change in narrative from 20016-2020 with lots of tax breaks for the lower and middle paid and a more socially aware Tory party easily stepping into the void left by Labour I'll believe it when I see it. The right has been selling this as 'moderate' government while they have been gutting the BBC, privatising Royal Mail, cutting tax credits, swathing cuts to government, tougher benefit sanctions, increasing university fees to some of the highest in the world, forcing schools into becoming 'academies' etc. This current government is further to the right of Thatcher on the overwhelming majority of issues while pretending themselves as being moderate.
No - it is addressing a large overspend. The state sector is entirely dependant on a strong private sector and a growng economy
The Tories will talk about and maybe deliver largely irrelevant tweaks to tax bands of £100-£200 per year for the majority but the "spectaculars" will be saved for the rich and the corporations. It will cut public services nationally and locally through cuts in support for councils so that those who rely on those services can no longer benefit from them. They will cut and cut and IF they deliver a surplus by 2020...they will attempt to buy the election with tax cuts and promises of more. The question will be whether, at the end of that process, they have persuaded enough of the electorate to turn it's back on the "have-nots".
Whoops, I forgot council tax cuts, thanks for reminding me!
@JournoStephen: Looks like the centre-right Civic Platform government has lost the Polish election. Hard-right Law and Justice party claiming victory.
@OliverCooper: Poland exit poll: Conservative-allied PiS 39.1%, liberal-conservative PO 23.4%, United Left 6.6%, populist Kukiz 9%, liberal N 7.1%.
That might be a boost for Cameron's renegotiation plans, although ideologically he is closer to PO, PiS is more anti EU. The President, Andrzej Duda, is already from PiS so this means both the Polish President and Parliament are now anti EU
It will be a reaction to the immigration crisis and the EU's attempt to force nations into taking them. Eastern Europe does not have the colonial guilt Western Europe has, so feels far more comfortable saying no.
Eastern Europe is certainly more socially conservative than Western Europe
I like this map showing voting in the Polish election, and the old German/Prussian borders:
Yes, PO almost completely ahead in the Old Germany/Prussia, PiS well ahead in the rest of Poland
Though I think the population in Prussia comes mostly from the old Eastern Poland, which is now Belarus and Ukraine. There were mass involuntary population movements in the late 40's.
I will take your word for it
Millions of Germans had to move out of Poland in 1945.
Comments
Trump is like Corbyn - the uneducated think he's wise.
I have no idea what to make of this state of affairs. Democracy seems to be throwing up the Corbyns, the Trumps and the Farages.
I think we may lose the impassioned 2hr speech. I think we may lose MPs full stop.
Interesting!
"It's a capital offence to campaign for somebody standing against a Labour candidate but if enough of us go they can't pick all of us off and expel the lot."
I'd be surprised if there more than 20 MPs who would support Frank Field - basically those who abstained in the Financial Charter vote. Probably less than 20 would support him. So if they campaigned against a Labour candidate they WOULD be expelled, and deservedly so. Good riddance.
The physicists I have worked with over the years have generally been left wing, with the better ones tending to be more left wing than the rest.
Field is the only one of the anti-Corbyn Labour that is actually popular, the others are not and in some cases they are so extremely unpopular to the point they made safe seats unsafe.
All the warning signs are there, and if anything they're increasing.
If both Labour and the Conservatives won't do anything about it then there's only one place to turn.
Running a GE campaign is time consuming and expensive, enormous resources are required to do it properly, it was a massive contributory factor to ukip winning only one seat.
Field's idea is admirable but unrealistic.
It'd get really nasty.
I prefer to work with machines, and have had great enjoyment in my work,not sure many Teachers will get the same job satisfaction that I have had.
Most of the anti-Corbyn MP's are in left wing seats that stand little chance of being elected as independents from the right without a huge personal vote that is Carswell size, and in some cases that won't be enough, like in Liverpool Riverside with Louise Ellman where the Left (Labour+Greens) got 80% in the GE.
We can all play that game: we will probably spend £2 trillion in defence (in today's prices) over the same period to 2060, making Trident only 8-9% of that even on those inflated figures.
You're wrong, he never once used the word thickos. I never once used the word thickos. You read non-graduate as thickos. You did that, not OGH, not me, not "Conservatives" in general. You and you alone.
So if you're being patronised then take a good long look in the mirror to see who is doing it.
You're a very angry young man Mr Thompson, prone to personal abuse, that will hold you back in every aspect of your life.
There is certainly room for a 'Sane Labour' party, especially if the Lib Dems continue to not position themselves in the centre ground.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Doomsday-Men-Strangelove-Dream-Superweapon/dp/031237397X
It's an odd way of looking at the development of WMD, but one that works. Fiction authors took inspiration from science, and scientists took inspiration from fiction.
Well worth a read, and the first book in a long time to make me really reconsider my support for Trident.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CSLBIBrW0AA-Tmr?format=pjpg&name=large
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html
a) most people are not interested enough in politics to do that, but they will vote in major elections
b) the moderate left already had Labour, Lib Dems , SNP and PC. Corbyn won partly because of an influx of the politically marginalised from Greens etc
However I think existing politicians starting a new party will be shunned by the public
And you might not have noticed, but Blairite policies enthused Joe Public for ten years, winning Labour three general elections. When did Corbynite policies last win a GE?
"Had 2 bets 4folds and an Acca in the weekend football using a new system I'm working on
Both teams to score NO / under 2.5
Leicester
Norwich
Stoke
Newcastle
Both to score YES / over 2.5
Liverpool
All to play for!! Excited!! "
Would you believe I got the BTTS five timer up, only to see I had put the Newcastle leg in as next weeks game vs Stoke, not todays at Sunderland???!!
I think if it was handed to them, especially by someone such as FF then they would jump at the chance.
@OliverCooper: Poland exit poll: Conservative-allied PiS 39.1%, liberal-conservative PO 23.4%, United Left 6.6%, populist Kukiz 9%, liberal N 7.1%.
I can definitely recommend The Making of the Atomic Bomb. I quite enjoyed American Prometheus, a biography of Oppenheimer, even if it suffers from the usual problems of a long book about one person (perhaps that's a Marxist world view leaking in?).
I've got quite a few books in the area of early 20th century physics on my reading list. I think next up is a biography of Max Born which has been sitting on my shelf for years.
I'm not sure why you think that Kendall's candidacy means anything when it comes to a new centre-left party. The threequidders were, as a whole, not the sort of people who wanted a centre-left candidate. But that does not mean that there are not many people who would vote for a centre-left party who would not vote for Corbyn.
Blairite policies did enthuse the public: it wasn't just Blair. And Corbyn isn't Blair. He's an anti-Blair. He doesn't have the policies or the character.
In a few places the author makes direct correlation between fiction and scientific breakthroughs that followed. An author would write something, and the scientists would wonder if it's possible.
@swingaleg: @afneil @WingsScotland @Fankledoose https://t.co/tRjHd9uOYD Rev Bath has had his wings clipped. He's already deleting parts of his blog.
For the record, the most toxic politics I have ever seen were in academia - savage destruction of individuals in a crazed Darwinian must-get-his-budget bun fight. Made Glengarry Glen Ross look like a vicars tea party....
It makes you wonder where fiscal conservatives have gone on both side of the pond.
‘He is undereducated. Which is one way of putting it. His schooling dried up when he was 18, at which point he had two E-grade A-levels to his name; he started a course at North London Polytechnic, true, where he immersed himself in trade union studies but dropped out after a year. And that was that.In general his intellectual CV gives an impression of slow-minded rigidity; and he seems essentially incurious about anything beyond his immediate sphere.
It is far easier to imagine a Labour party that devolves for now into a leftist equivalent of the American GOP: hopelessly retrograde, self-absorbed, self-pitying and self-righteous, quite unembarrassed by its (year-long) tantrum, necessarily and increasingly hostile to democracy, and in any sane view undeserving of a single vote.’
http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/martin-amis-jeremy-corbyn-is-undereducated-and-slow-minded/
http://www.eleconomista.es/mercado-continuo/noticias/7098016/10/15/Polish-opposition-Law-and-Justice-ahead-in-election-exit-poll.html
It's as if all the knowledge in their mind has knocked out other matters, like remembering to pick up children, to attend meetings, and in some cases to wash.
@Reuters: Poland's Eurosceptic conservatives triumph in vote - exit poll https://t.co/tRpjfafIuA
You get the sense, that given the chance, they would do it all over again.
Go down the back roads of any city there and you will see deprivation that hasn't been seen in this country since the 1970's (I'm too young to remember that, I've just see it on various tv doccies over the years), very few motorways between cities (a few are being built), the pay levels are not great for most jobs, the housing is poor and local transport is even worse.
Then Merkel demands they take in a lot of immigrants that need high levels of spending on? She hasn't a clue.
http://tvpstream.tvp.pl/
https://thepolitikalblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/polish-elections-v-imperial-germany-big.jpg
Of course, Conservative supporters know this, and enjoy disingenuously selling the lie that the Conservative's priority is the deficit when it's anything but, aided by a compliant press. The Tories want eternal austerity so they can hide their ideological policies from the public.
Second of all, there's no 'only' about cutting the deficit way down to pre-recession levels while still experiencing an economic recovery: that's a remarkable simultaneous feat that the left said could not be done. In fact, there's a triple feat going on, as we've also moved taxes away from work and investment and on to consumption, encouraging households to be more prudent for the long term.
Third of all, the deficit is still heading further downwards and we'll almost certainly have a surplus by the time the Tories leave office.
But it all comes back to the fact that Labour supporters want to criticise the Tories for not cutting the deficit enough, while also complaining the deficit is being cut. You've had five years to make your decision, and you still try to sit on the fence.
"Labour was the party of ideology. That has completely reversed. The Tories now have an obsessive fetish with contracting out the state, regarding the use of our public funds for investment in British industry as taboo (though paying Chinese and French state companies handsomely for investing in British industry), generating the biggest white elephant of all time at Hinkley C because of their ideological aversion to renewable power.
There are other pitfalls that will come back to haunt Osborne. He has shown no concern whatever, and frankly no pity or compassion over what he has already inflicted on a third of the population through five years of grinding austerity, whereas Thatcher’s Bernard Ingham did at least have the grace to apologise for the desolation she caused in the north.
But increasingly it is the middle class and Tories who are also now being hit — consultants, doctors, services for the elderly and infirm.
Then there’s the all-important issue of austerity as the government’s guiding principle. Public opinion is clearly changing on this — it probably changed a long time ago, but Osborne’s tin ear blocked it out and only the Jeremy Corbyn movement brought it to light. If Osborne doesn’t now change his position on this, which will be seen as a deep political humiliation, he’ll be in serious trouble.
If he does change, the prospects for bringing down the budget deficit will all but collapse. Over to you, George."
And there are plenty who call themselves social liberals, yet espouse highly authoritarian viewpoints.
Battling strong winds, driving rain, mud and freezing temperatures, these stunning photographs show a slow trek of thousands of migrants making their way to Europe amid the harsh conditions of the oncoming winter. As European leaders squabble about how best to deal with its mounting refugee crisis, tens of thousands of people are continuing to try and reach the Eurozone via the Balkans route, through Croatia and Slovenia (main picture and inset). It comes as Slovenia's prime minister today warned the European Union faces collapse if the bloc cannot agree on a plan to confront the sudden influx of refugees through the region, which has numbered 62,000 people in the past week.
And of course tax revenue is up as we head out of a recession!
And that's without going into the myriad issues of turning the UK into a tax haven in a race to the bottom. Economic recoveries are inevitable out of recessions. Also, consider the deficit is only down to the pre-recession levels of a supposedly "proligate" Labour government. Taxes on consumption are anti-poor, who tend to consume a larger percentage of their income because they don't have spare money at the end of the week. The poorest in the country, those not in work, will have been hit the hardest by this policy. Of course, the right doesn't care what happens to the poorest.
And you want to disincentivise consumption?!?
I'd argue the introduction of VAT is the single worst policy of the EU and is a major part of why I'm in favour of leaving. I want a a reintroduction of the purchase tax, which was far fairer. There will never be a surplus as the Conservatives do not want a surplus. The problem is that you're a blinkered partisan. I don't speak for the Labour Party, I speak for myself. I'm not a member of the Labour Party.
If you want to talk to a Labour supports, talk to SeanT or Plato - I hear they're registered supporters!
There's definitely parallels between the modern GOP and the modern Conservative Party, where both run on an 'economic record' and a shout from the rooftops a policy of 'reducing the national debt' when, in practice, they do no such thing.
It makes you wonder where fiscal conservatives have gone on both side of the pond.
This isn't a very sensible point, since the Conservatives have indeed cut the deficit substantially, while the American Republicans usually increase it. It seems Labour supporters still can't decide whether the Tories are cutting the deficit too fast or not fast enough.
The Conservatives claim to be 'cutting the deficit', introducing swathing cuts and a large VAT rises while spending that income on large income and corporation tax cuts and unaffordable pension increases. There's a reason the deficit is still only just down to pre-recession levels. It really is not dissimilar to the GOP under Bush.
Of course, Conservative supporters know this, and enjoy disingenuously selling the lie that the Conservative's priority is the deficit when it's anything but, aided by a compliant press. The Tories want eternal austerity so they can hide their ideological policies from the public.
The Tories do not want eternal austerity and you watch the change in narrative from 20016-2020 with lots of tax breaks for the lower and middle paid and a more socially aware Tory party easily stepping into the void left by Labour
I'll believe it when I see it. The right has been selling this as 'moderate' government while they have been gutting the BBC, privatising Royal Mail, cutting tax credits, swathing cuts to government, tougher benefit sanctions, increasing university fees to some of the highest in the world, forcing schools into becoming 'academies' etc. This current government is further to the right of Thatcher on the overwhelming majority of issues while pretending themselves as being moderate.
No - it is addressing a large overspend. The state sector is entirely dependant on a strong private sector and a growng economy