- Judges don't need to follow ECHR rulings - but to use Common Law or cases from Aus/Canada et al. - Explicit statement about freedom of the press - Armed Services personnel protected from human rights claims when serving in theatre overseas - Big reduction in claims compensation for human rights - to thwart the human rights lawyer business
That sounds like good stuff, if the government follows through, and is prepared to use the Parliament Act if the Lords tries to thwart it.
The devil is in the detail but it is not immediately obvious that losing human rights protection is a good thing.
There is much that could be improved, but it will a tough sell I think - it will be very easy to craft a simple, opposing message on it.
The idea that Britons did not have human rights before the Human Rights Act is for the birds, frankly. This is the country which still has has habeus corpus, long after most of Continental Europe gave it up. There are currently some very misleading posters up in London tube stations trying to claim that various individuals would not have got what they did were it not for the HRA and they are just untrue.
And, if the government goes ahead with it, the emphasis on freedom of speech is very welcome indeed. That seems to me to have the mark of Gove. His coruscating lesson to Leveson about the importance of free speech was about the only highlight of that generally dismal saga. I am old enough to remember when people, particularly on the left, did not view judges as great defenders of free speech, usually with good reason. Sad to see them in recent years rushing to the courts to stop others saying what they think, in case their delicate little ears burn.
I am not sure why people seem to like attacking Farron. What exactly has he done wrong ? I quite like him - but not as much as Charlie Kennedy, who is really up there !
Someone hinted at his Christianity. Surely that is his personal business and as long as it does not intrude on others, should not be any of our business.
Unfortunately, Clegg has taken the Liberals back to Jo Grimond days. All the work done by Steele, Ashdown and Kennedy has been squandered.
Clegg lost twice. In 2010, when conditions were good for his party he managed to lose 5 seats and in 2015, well no need to go into that one.
Sactimony and opportunism sit ill at ease together.
It's wrong to blame Clegg entirely for the Lib Dems' woes. He reaped the whirlwind that Ashdown and Kennedy sowed. The so-called 'good work' led the Lib Dems up a cul de sac. You cannot be all things to all people forever; at some point that bluff will be called because th electorate were likely to deliver a hung parliament precisely because there were so many Lib Dems. Furthermore, because Ashdown andKennedy abandoned the traditional policy of equidistance, the Lib Dems were doubly vulnerable to a Tory revival: locally, where they'd built anti-Tory coalitions, and nationally, where dynamics meant they were likely to have to prop up a Con administration, one way or another (or become a subsidiary of Labour).
Clegg was a Tory plant - a safe non-politician. A political idiot in plain language.
I do not share the view that the Tories should be trying to keep Corbyn as leader. Labour have a core vote and it would not take many Tory losses for there to be a Corbyn premiership, particularly given the fact that the Tories' best asset, Cameron, will no longer be standing as PM. A Corbyn premiership would be disastrous, IMO - mainly because of what it says about the takeover of a morally repulsive, blind eye-turning to violence Left, quite out of keeping with traditional British values, including those of the decent Methodist-Orwell left.
Whether Labour supporters or not we owe it to the country to make sure that the insane nitwit group which has taken over Labour is crushed - and at the earliest possible opportunity. There needs to be a decent opposition around to keep the government on its toes, and one that can be voted for by decent people, even if it's not to one's particular taste.
I agree. Corbyn needs to be targeted as soon as possible, it is not in the Tories interest to prop him up. The defenestration and Labour civil war that follows would suit the Tories more, and would be safer for the country.
I am not sure why people seem to like attacking Farron. What exactly has he done wrong ? I quite like him - but not as much as Charlie Kennedy, who is really up there !
Someone hinted at his Christianity. Surely that is his personal business and as long as it does not intrude on others, should not be any of our business.
Unfortunately, Clegg has taken the Liberals back to Jo Grimond days. All the work done by Steele, Ashdown and Kennedy has been squandered.
Clegg lost twice. In 2010, when conditions were good for his party he managed to lose 5 seats and in 2015, well no need to go into that one.
Sactimony and opportunism sit ill at ease together.
It's wrong to blame Clegg entirely for the Lib Dems' woes. He reaped the whirlwind that Ashdown and Kennedy sowed. The so-called 'good work' led the Lib Dems up a cul de sac. You cannot be all things to all people forever; at some point that bluff will be called because th electorate were likely to deliver a hung parliament precisely because there were so many Lib Dems. Furthermore, because Ashdown andKennedy abandoned the traditional policy of equidistance, the Lib Dems were doubly vulnerable to a Tory revival: locally, where they'd built anti-Tory coalitions, and nationally, where dynamics meant they were likely to have to prop up a Con administration, one way or another (or become a subsidiary of Labour).
Clegg was a Tory plant - a safe non-politician. A political idiot in plain language.
I'm sure life would have been so much better for the Lib Dems had they elected Huhne.
I do not know about Mr Corbyn, but this is at least the 3rd ceremonial occasion where Mrs Corbyn has chosen not to accompany her husband on his official duties. She does not seem to care too much for Britain.
@NickPalmer "That's an amazingly old-fashioned view. Some spouses get deeply involved in their partners' careers, some don't. It tells us nothing about her views on Britain. We knew little of Mrs Major, so far as I can recall, but there's no reason to think ill of her."
Nick, this is probably the most solemn occasion of the British Calendar if not thee most solemn. Your leaders wife decided to play party politics with this or just couldn't be arsed to turn up. Your leader was utterly expressionless each time he was shown. He didn't want to be there and wanted to go home and catch the late movie.
No amount of weasel excuses from you, her or the Labour Party wil get past these simple facts. They hate and loathe this country and everything it has stood for. They give succour to our sworn enemies and support the blowing up and killing of members of a democratically elected government.
As such may you spend an eternity in opposition and not as the main opposition either but as an inconsequential footnote in history.
I do not share the view that the Tories should be trying to keep Corbyn as leader. Labour have a core vote and it would not take many Tory losses for there to be a Corbyn premiership, particularly given the fact that the Tories' best asset, Cameron, will no longer be standing as PM. A Corbyn premiership would be disastrous, IMO - mainly because of what it says about the takeover of a morally repulsive, blind eye-turning to violence Left, quite out of keeping with traditional British values, including those of the decent Methodist-Orwell left.
Whether Labour supporters or not we owe it to the country to make sure that the insane nitwit group which has taken over Labour is crushed - and at the earliest possible opportunity. There needs to be a decent opposition around to keep the government on its toes, and one that can be voted for by decent people, even if it's not to one's particular taste.
Completely agree. It may seem "clever" to keep Labour in its current hole with a complete incompetent in charge but it is not good for the country or our democracy. Labour has made a terrible mistake and the sooner it is corrected the better.
The alternative would be for Labour to be replaced with a new centre left party but the structure of our political system and media rules makes that incredibly difficult, as shown by the failure of the SDP.
I think @david_herdson nailed it upthread by noting that Kennedy led the LDs up a cul-de-sac.
You can't be a Party of HMG and ride two horses, without one or both of those horses noticing.
Also the LDs bitched and moaned during their entire period in HMG, which gained them no brownie points either. It really was an institutional strategic failure in the most part.
If you don't really want to be in power as complaining and pointing at potholes is more exciting - then don't get too big and put the electorate in a position where they'll call your bluff.
I think people underestimated how successful Charlie Kennedy was in attracting the votes of the soft left and those appalled by Iraq. It was a brave position he adopted and one that has been wholly vindicated. A weak and badly led Labour party proved very vulnerable to what seemed a more principled opposition.
Going into Coalition with the Tories was always going to be a betrayal to that soft left vote. It was undoubtedly in the national interest and the UK was in a very bad place after the idiocy of Brown in desperate need of stable government but the Lib Dems said goodbye to that broad swathe of support. Many left immediately but some drifted away over time as it became apparent that the Coalition was adopting and implementing a broadly Tory agenda. In this context the increase in tuition fees was a symptom of both a Tory agenda and a loss of that "principled" standing rather than an issue in itself.
There was a great deal of talk on this site before the last election about whether Clegg was going to stand down as leader and try to take some of that toxicity with him. There is little evidence that he even gave it serious thought and the party paid the price.
Can anyone explain why doesn't any of the English top Premiership clubs do not have an English / British manager ? The richest clubs of the world all have European managers.
Rogers replaced by Klopp. Liverpool did not even look at a potential British prospect.
Mr. Eagles, one despairs of your historical illiteracy.
Honestly. During the last few months, the pup has learnt that interior defecating is forbidden, climbing the furniture is prohibited, and yesterday she began to learn how to give paw.
At this rate, her knowledge of classical history will exceed yours within a few months.
Like Hannibal, Miliband had a few early lucky victories, but when it came to the crucial battle to the end the war, he and his side were banjaxed
The last time the LDs got an increase at a by-election big enough to save their deposit in OW&R was Sedgefield in July 2007 where their vote increased by 8 percentage points.
UKIP's performance in local by-elections since the start of September is considerably improved.
Sean, I can't find any sites giving such information. Do you know any or is this anecdotal?
Keith Edkins is pretty up to date with by-elections. In fact, the UKIP vote is still mostly down, but it's a loss of c3% on average, giving an average of 14%, in line with polling.
There were 6 opinion polls in October. The averages were exactly in line with the general election result. I wonder for how much longer this will continue?
I am not sure why people seem to like attacking Farron. What exactly has he done wrong ? I quite like him - but not as much as Charlie Kennedy, who is really up there !
Someone hinted at his Christianity. Surely that is his personal business and as long as it does not intrude on others, should not be any of our business.
Unfortunately, Clegg has taken the Liberals back to Jo Grimond days. All the work done by Steele, Ashdown and Kennedy has been squandered.
Clegg lost twice. In 2010, when conditions were good for his party he managed to lose 5 seats and in 2015, well no need to go into that one.
Sactimony and opportunism sit ill at ease together.
It's wrong to blame Clegg entirely for the Lib Dems' woes. He reaped the whirlwind that Ashdown and Kennedy sowed. The so-called 'good work' led the Lib Dems up a cul de sac. You cannot be all things to all people forever; at some point that bluff will be called because th electorate were likely to deliver a hung parliament precisely because there were so many Lib Dems. Furthermore, because Ashdown andKennedy abandoned the traditional policy of equidistance, the Lib Dems were doubly vulnerable to a Tory revival: locally, where they'd built anti-Tory coalitions, and nationally, where dynamics meant they were likely to have to prop up a Con administration, one way or another (or become a subsidiary of Labour).
Clegg was a Tory plant - a safe non-politician. A political idiot in plain language.
I'm sure life would have been so much better for the Lib Dems had they elected Huhne.
Just dawned on me, Chris Huhne has more speeding points than the Lib Dems have MPs.
I do not know about Mr Corbyn, but this is at least the 3rd ceremonial occasion where Mrs Corbyn has chosen not to accompany her husband on his official duties. She does not seem to care too much for Britain.
@NickPalmer "That's an amazingly old-fashioned view. Some spouses get deeply involved in their partners' careers, some don't. It tells us nothing about her views on Britain. We knew little of Mrs Major, so far as I can recall, but there's no reason to think ill of her."
Nick, this is probably the most solemn occasion of the British Calendar if not thee most solemn. Your leaders wife decided to play party politics with this or just couldn't be arsed to turn up. Your leader was utterly expressionless each time he was shown. He didn't want to be there and wanted to go home and catch the late movie.
No amount of weasel excuses from you, her or the Labour Party wil get past these simple facts. They hate and loathe this country and everything it has stood for. They give succour to our sworn enemies and support the blowing up and killing of members of a democratically elected government.
As such may you spend an eternity in opposition and not as the main opposition either but as an inconsequential footnote in history.
Did I not predict that Tory-Peebies would
(I) claim that Tories had a monopoly of patriotism,
and
(ii) find something to whine about in whatever JC did or did not do in respect of Remembrance Sunday.
I think @david_herdson nailed it upthread by noting that Kennedy led the LDs up a cul-de-sac.
You can't be a Party of HMG and ride two horses, without one or both of those horses noticing.
Also the LDs bitched and moaned during their entire period in HMG, which gained them no brownie points either. It really was an institutional strategic failure in the most part.
If you don't really want to be in power as complaining and pointing at potholes is more exciting - then don't get too big and put the electorate in a position where they'll call your bluff.
I think people underestimated how successful Charlie Kennedy was in attracting the votes of the soft left and those appalled by Iraq. It was a brave position he adopted and one that has been wholly vindicated. A weak and badly led Labour party proved very vulnerable to what seemed a more principled opposition.
Going into Coalition with the Tories was always going to be a betrayal to that soft left vote. It was undoubtedly in the national interest and the UK was in a very bad place after the idiocy of Brown in desperate need of stable government but the Lib Dems said goodbye to that broad swathe of support. Many left immediately but some drifted away over time as it became apparent that the Coalition was adopting and implementing a broadly Tory agenda. In this context the increase in tuition fees was a symptom of both a Tory agenda and a loss of that "principled" standing rather than an issue in itself.
There was a great deal of talk on this site before the last election about whether Clegg was going to stand down as leader and try to take some of that toxicity with him. There is little evidence that he even gave it serious thought and the party paid the price.
You can ride two or more horses. But, not if it turns out those horses wish to gallop in different directions.
I do not share the view that the Tories should be trying to keep Corbyn as leader. Labour have a core vote and it would not take many Tory losses for there to be a Corbyn premiership, particularly given the fact that the Tories' best asset, Cameron, will no longer be standing as PM. A Corbyn premiership would be disastrous, IMO - mainly because of what it says about the takeover of a morally repulsive, blind eye-turning to violence Left, quite out of keeping with traditional British values, including those of the decent Methodist-Orwell left.
Whether Labour supporters or not we owe it to the country to make sure that the insane nitwit group which has taken over Labour is crushed - and at the earliest possible opportunity. There needs to be a decent opposition around to keep the government on its toes, and one that can be voted for by decent people, even if it's not to one's particular taste.
Completely agree. It may seem "clever" to keep Labour in its current hole with a complete incompetent in charge but it is not good for the country or our democracy. Labour has made a terrible mistake and the sooner it is corrected the better.
The alternative would be for Labour to be replaced with a new centre left party but the structure of our political system and media rules makes that incredibly difficult, as shown by the failure of the SDP.
Is not the concept of "centre left" an idea whose time has gone? The politics of hope belong to the past; we are moving towards the politics of identity, in which there will be two and two only kinds of English - white Tories and non-white communal parties (e.g. Galloway) which teeter on the edge of treason.
I am not sure why people seem to like attacking Farron. What exactly has he done wrong ? I quite like him - but not as much as Charlie Kennedy, who is really up there !
Someone hinted at his Christianity. Surely that is his personal business and as long as it does not intrude on others, should not be any of our business.
Unfortunately, Clegg has taken the Liberals back to Jo Grimond days. All the work done by Steele, Ashdown and Kennedy has been squandered.
Clegg lost twice. In 2010, when conditions were good for his party he managed to lose 5 seats and in 2015, well no need to go into that one.
Sactimony and opportunism sit ill at ease together.
It's wrong to blame Clegg entirely for the Lib Dems' woes. He reaped the whirlwind that Ashdown and Kennedy sowed. The so-called 'good work' led the Lib Dems up a cul de sac. You cannot be all things to all people forever; at some point that bluff will be called because th electorate were likely to deliver a hung parliament precisely because there were so many Lib Dems. Furthermore, because Ashdown andKennedy abandoned the traditional policy of equidistance, the Lib Dems were doubly vulnerable to a Tory revival: locally, where they'd built anti-Tory coalitions, and nationally, where dynamics meant they were likely to have to prop up a Con administration, one way or another (or become a subsidiary of Labour).
Clegg was a Tory plant - a safe non-politician. A political idiot in plain language.
I'm sure life would have been so much better for the Lib Dems had they elected Huhne.
Just dawned on me, Chris Huhne has more speeding points than the Lib Dems have MPs.
Like the Lib Dems, Chris Huhne's speeding points have now been wiped out.
I do not know about Mr Corbyn, but this is at least the 3rd ceremonial occasion where Mrs Corbyn has chosen not to accompany her husband on his official duties. She does not seem to care too much for Britain.
@NickPalmer "That's an amazingly old-fashioned view. Some spouses get deeply involved in their partners' careers, some don't. It tells us nothing about her views on Britain. We knew little of Mrs Major, so far as I can recall, but there's no reason to think ill of her."
Nick, this is probably the most solemn occasion of the British Calendar if not thee most solemn. Your leaders wife decided to play party politics with this or just couldn't be arsed to turn up. Your leader was utterly expressionless each time he was shown. He didn't want to be there and wanted to go home and catch the late movie.
No amount of weasel excuses from you, her or the Labour Party wil get past these simple facts. They hate and loathe this country and everything it has stood for. They give succour to our sworn enemies and support the blowing up and killing of members of a democratically elected government.
As such may you spend an eternity in opposition and not as the main opposition either but as an inconsequential footnote in history.
Did I not predict that Tory-Peebies would
(I) claim that Tories had a monopoly of patriotism,
and
(ii) find something to whine about in whatever JC did or did not do in respect of Remembrance Sunday.
The wife/husband of a political leader was not elected by anyone unless they themselves were elected. This "fashion" is only about 30 years old. Mrs Wilson did not kiss Mr Wilson at the Party conference. Why do you like Americanisation of our politics ?
Would it be anti-democratic if the spouse chose to support a different political party ? He/she has rights too, after all.
Cameron photo-shopping that poppy was so insulting and unpatriotic.
I think @david_herdson nailed it upthread by noting that Kennedy led the LDs up a cul-de-sac.
You can't be a Party of HMG and ride two horses, without one or both of those horses noticing.
Also the LDs bitched and moaned during their entire period in HMG, which gained them no brownie points either. It really was an institutional strategic failure in the most part.
If you don't really want to be in power as complaining and pointing at potholes is more exciting - then don't get too big and put the electorate in a position where they'll call your bluff.
I think people underestimated how successful Charlie Kennedy was in attracting the votes of the soft left and those appalled by Iraq. It was a brave position he adopted and one that has been wholly vindicated. A weak and badly led Labour party proved very vulnerable to what seemed a more principled opposition.
Going into Coalition with the Tories was always going to be a betrayal to that soft left vote. It was undoubtedly in the national interest and the UK was in a very bad place after the idiocy of Brown in desperate need of stable government but the Lib Dems said goodbye to that broad swathe of support. Many left immediately but some drifted away over time as it became apparent that the Coalition was adopting and implementing a broadly Tory agenda. In this context the increase in tuition fees was a symptom of both a Tory agenda and a loss of that "principled" standing rather than an issue in itself.
There was a great deal of talk on this site before the last election about whether Clegg was going to stand down as leader and try to take some of that toxicity with him. There is little evidence that he even gave it serious thought and the party paid the price.
The LibDems have always pushed forward proportional representation. They managed to carry off 5 years of a coalition government very well though despite those who said it wouldn't last 6 months. The one issue of course is I hadn't realised the Lib Dem coalition is only acceptable to members if it is a left wing coalition.
Likewise then can we expect members to accept only PR governments of a left wing disposition and they should not serve in governments that are even slightly right of centre?
I do not know about Mr Corbyn, but this is at least the 3rd ceremonial occasion where Mrs Corbyn has chosen not to accompany her husband on his official duties. She does not seem to care too much for Britain.
@NickPalmer "That's an amazingly old-fashioned view. Some spouses get deeply involved in their partners' careers, some don't. It tells us nothing about her views on Britain. We knew little of Mrs Major, so far as I can recall, but there's no reason to think ill of her."
Nick, this is probably the most solemn occasion of the British Calendar if not thee most solemn. Your leaders wife decided to play party politics with this or just couldn't be arsed to turn up. Your leader was utterly expressionless each time he was shown. He didn't want to be there and wanted to go home and catch the late movie.
No amount of weasel excuses from you, her or the Labour Party wil get past these simple facts. They hate and loathe this country and everything it has stood for. They give succour to our sworn enemies and support the blowing up and killing of members of a democratically elected government.
As such may you spend an eternity in opposition and not as the main opposition either but as an inconsequential footnote in history.
Did I not predict that Tory-Peebies would
(I) claim that Tories had a monopoly of patriotism,
and
(ii) find something to whine about in whatever JC did or did not do in respect of Remembrance Sunday.
The wife/husband of a political leader was not elected by anyone unless they themselves were elected. This "fashion" is only about 30 years old. Mrs Wilson did not kiss Mr Wilson at the Party conference. Why do I like Americanisation of our politics ?
We have seen recently on PB the extinction of the Lib Dems, UKIP, and Labour predicted with certainty and delight. Presumably the result being welcomed is a Tory one-party state.
All through the last parliament, and many previous, we were regaled with tales about the 'toxicity' of the Tory brand, which strangely, just keeps on winning.
The traditional leftish opposition need to be more self aware about their own toxicity.
The Lib Dems have perhaps painted themselves as a party of ambiguous principle. Tory sympathisers to left leaners, wets to right-leaners.
Labour have added terrorist appeasers and sympathisers to their already toxic image of welfarist, economic incontinents.
Where is the sane, uncompromised, moderate left opposition to come from?
I do not know about Mr Corbyn, but this is at least the 3rd ceremonial occasion where Mrs Corbyn has chosen not to accompany her husband on his official duties. She does not seem to care too much for Britain.
@NickPalmer "That's an amazingly old-fashioned view. Some spouses get deeply involved in their partners' careers, some don't. It tells us nothing about her views on Britain. We knew little of Mrs Major, so far as I can recall, but there's no reason to think ill of her."
Nick, this is probably the most solemn occasion of the British Calendar if not thee most solemn. Your leaders wife decided to play party politics with this or just couldn't be arsed to turn up. Your leader was utterly expressionless each time he was shown. He didn't want to be there and wanted to go home and catch the late movie.
No amount of weasel excuses from you, her or the Labour Party wil get past these simple facts. They hate and loathe this country and everything it has stood for. They give succour to our sworn enemies and support the blowing up and killing of members of a democratically elected government.
As such may you spend an eternity in opposition and not as the main opposition either but as an inconsequential footnote in history.
Did I not predict that Tory-Peebies would
(I) claim that Tories had a monopoly of patriotism,
and
(ii) find something to whine about in whatever JC did or did not do in respect of Remembrance Sunday.
Well Corbyn's wife should be there unless she is ill, it is disrespectful not to attend and Corbyn has form. He certainly isn't a patriot.. He thinks we should be run by another country(cf Yes Minister)
I think @david_herdson nailed it upthread by noting that Kennedy led the LDs up a cul-de-sac.
You can't be a Party of HMG and ride two horses, without one or both of those horses noticing.
Also the LDs bitched and moaned during their entire period in HMG, which gained them no brownie points either. It really was an institutional strategic failure in the most part.
If you don't really want to be in power as complaining and pointing at potholes is more exciting - then don't get too big and put the electorate in a position where they'll call your bluff.
I think people underestimated how successful Charlie Kennedy was in attracting the votes of the soft left and those appalled by Iraq. It was a brave position he adopted and one that has been wholly vindicated. A weak and badly led Labour party proved very vulnerable to what seemed a more principled opposition.
Going into Coalition with the Tories was always going to be a betrayal to that soft left vote. It was undoubtedly in the national interest and the UK was in a very bad place after the idiocy of Brown in desperate need of stable government but the Lib Dems said goodbye to that broad swathe of support. Many left immediately but some drifted away over time as it became apparent that the Coalition was adopting and implementing a broadly Tory agenda. In this context the increase in tuition fees was a symptom of both a Tory agenda and a loss of that "principled" standing rather than an issue in itself.
There was a great deal of talk on this site before the last election about whether Clegg was going to stand down as leader and try to take some of that toxicity with him. There is little evidence that he even gave it serious thought and the party paid the price.
You can ride two or more horses. But, not if it turns out those horses wish to gallop in different directions.
UKIP now seem to be trying to ride those two horses. Right wing libertarianists and publjc school boys like Farage and Carswell in the South, yet pitching for a left wing vote in the North.
I do not share the view that the Tories should be trying to keep Corbyn as leader. Labour have a core vote and it would not take many Tory losses for there to be a Corbyn premiership, particularly given the fact that the Tories' best asset, Cameron, will no longer be standing as PM. A Corbyn premiership would be disastrous, IMO - mainly because of what it says about the takeover of a morally repulsive, blind eye-turning to violence Left, quite out of keeping with traditional British values, including those of the decent Methodist-Orwell left.
Whether Labour supporters or not we owe it to the country to make sure that the insane nitwit group which has taken over Labour is crushed - and at the earliest possible opportunity. There needs to be a decent opposition around to keep the government on its toes, and one that can be voted for by decent people, even if it's not to one's particular taste.
Completely agree. It may seem "clever" to keep Labour in its current hole with a complete incompetent in charge but it is not good for the country or our democracy. Labour has made a terrible mistake and the sooner it is corrected the better.
The alternative would be for Labour to be replaced with a new centre left party but the structure of our political system and media rules makes that incredibly difficult, as shown by the failure of the SDP.
Is not the concept of "centre left" an idea whose time has gone? The politics of hope belong to the past; we are moving towards the politics of identity, in which there will be two and two only kinds of English - white Tories and non-white communal parties (e.g. Galloway) which teeter on the edge of treason.
I hope not. That does not sound like a country I would want to live in (and probably won't since I think a UK like that would break up).
The Tories believe in success. Economic success means growth. Growth is generally encouraged by lower taxes and less regulation. It comes at a price and we need a centre left to speak for those who pay it and to ensure that it is moderated on occasion by governments of a different view.
I think @david_herdson nailed it upthread by noting that Kennedy led the LDs up a cul-de-sac.
You can't be a Party of HMG and ride two horses, without one or both of those horses noticing.
Also the LDs bitched and moaned during their entire period in HMG, which gained them no brownie points either. It really was an institutional strategic failure in the most part.
If you don't really want to be in power as complaining and pointing at potholes is more exciting - then don't get too big and put the electorate in a position where they'll call your bluff.
I think people underestimated how successful Charlie Kennedy was in attracting the votes of the soft left and those appalled by Iraq. It was a brave position he adopted and one that has been wholly vindicated. A weak and badly led Labour party proved very vulnerable to what seemed a more principled opposition.
Going into Coalition with the Tories was always going to be a betrayal to that soft left vote. It was undoubtedly in the national interest and the UK was in a very bad place after the idiocy of Brown in desperate need of stable government but the Lib Dems said goodbye to that broad swathe of support. Many left immediately but some drifted away over time as it became apparent that the Coalition was adopting and implementing a broadly Tory agenda. In this context the increase in tuition fees was a symptom of both a Tory agenda and a loss of that "principled" standing rather than an issue in itself.
There was a great deal of talk on this site before the last election about whether Clegg was going to stand down as leader and try to take some of that toxicity with him. There is little evidence that he even gave it serious thought and the party paid the price.
You can ride two or more horses. But, not if it turns out those horses wish to gallop in different directions.
UKIP now seem to be trying to ride those two horses. Right wing libertarianists and publjc school boys like Farage and Carswell in the South, yet pitching for a left wing vote in the North.
Yes, and if UKIP end up in power then that will be a similar existential problem for them to that of the Lib Dems'. Long way from there at the moment.
I do not know about Mr Corbyn, but this is at least the 3rd ceremonial occasion where Mrs Corbyn has chosen not to accompany her husband on his official duties. She does not seem to care too much for Britain.
@NickPalmer "That's an amazingly old-fashioned view. Some spouses get deeply involved in their partners' careers, some don't. It tells us nothing about her views on Britain. We knew little of Mrs Major, so far as I can recall, but there's no reason to think ill of her."
Nick, this is probably the most solemn occasion of the British Calendar if not thee most solemn. Your leaders wife decided to play party politics with this or just couldn't be arsed to turn up. Your leader was utterly expressionless each time he was shown. He didn't want to be there and wanted to go home and catch the late movie.
No amount of weasel excuses from you, her or the Labour Party wil get past these simple facts. They hate and loathe this country and everything it has stood for. They give succour to our sworn enemies and support the blowing up and killing of members of a democratically elected government.
As such may you spend an eternity in opposition and not as the main opposition either but as an inconsequential footnote in history.
Did I not predict that Tory-Peebies would
(I) claim that Tories had a monopoly of patriotism,
and
(ii) find something to whine about in whatever JC did or did not do in respect of Remembrance Sunday.
The wife/husband of a political leader was not elected by anyone unless they themselves were elected. This "fashion" is only about 30 years old. Mrs Wilson did not kiss Mr Wilson at the Party conference. Why do you like Americanisation of our politics ?
Would it be anti-democratic if the spouse chose to support a different political party ? He/she has rights too, after all.
I think that spouse kissing on stage started with Tony and Cherie.
Attlee's wife was known to vote Conservative. One can safely assume that the greatest Labour Prime Minister certainly kissed a Tory!
I do not know about Mr Corbyn, but this is at least the 3rd ceremonial occasion where Mrs Corbyn has chosen not to accompany her husband on his official duties. She does not seem to care too much for Britain.
@NickPalmer "That's an amazingly old-fashioned view. Some spouses get deeply involved in their partners' careers, some don't. It tells us nothing about her views on Britain. We knew little of Mrs Major, so far as I can recall, but there's no reason to think ill of her."
Nick, this is probably the most solemn occasion of the British Calendar if not thee most solemn. Your leaders wife decided to play party politics with this or just couldn't be arsed to turn up. Your leader was utterly expressionless each time he was shown. He didn't want to be there and wanted to go home and catch the late movie.
No amount of weasel excuses from you, her or the Labour Party wil get past these simple facts. They hate and loathe this country and everything it has stood for. They give succour to our sworn enemies and support the blowing up and killing of members of a democratically elected government.
As such may you spend an eternity in opposition and not as the main opposition either but as an inconsequential footnote in history.
Did I not predict that Tory-Peebies would
(I) claim that Tories had a monopoly of patriotism,
and
(ii) find something to whine about in whatever JC did or did not do in respect of Remembrance Sunday.
Well Corbyn's wife should be there unless she is ill, it is disrespectful not to attend and Corbyn has form. He certainly isn't a patriot.. He thinks we should be run by another country(cf Yes Minister)
You think a wife is an appendage - not another human.
I think @david_herdson nailed it upthread by noting that Kennedy led the LDs up a cul-de-sac.
You can't be a Party of HMG and ride two horses, without one or both of those horses noticing.
Also the LDs bitched and moaned during their entire period in HMG, which gained them no brownie points either. It really was an institutional strategic failure in the most part.
If you don't really want to be in power as complaining and pointing at potholes is more exciting - then don't get too big and put the electorate in a position where they'll call your bluff.
I think people underestimated how successful Charlie Kennedy was in attracting the votes of the soft left and those appalled by Iraq. It was a brave position he adopted and one that has been wholly vindicated. A weak and badly led Labour party proved very vulnerable to what seemed a more principled opposition.
Going into Coalition with the Tories was always going to be a betrayal to that soft left vote. It was undoubtedly in the national interest and the UK was in a very bad place after the idiocy of Brown in desperate need of stable government but the Lib Dems said goodbye to that broad swathe of support. Many left immediately but some drifted away over time as it became apparent that the Coalition was adopting and implementing a broadly Tory agenda. In this context the increase in tuition fees was a symptom of both a Tory agenda and a loss of that "principled" standing rather than an issue in itself.
There was a great deal of talk on this site before the last election about whether Clegg was going to stand down as leader and try to take some of that toxicity with him. There is little evidence that he even gave it serious thought and the party paid the price.
I do not know about Mr Corbyn, but this is at least the 3rd ceremonial occasion where Mrs Corbyn has chosen not to accompany her husband on his official duties. She does not seem to care too much for Britain.
@NickPalmer "That's an amazingly old-fashioned view. Some spouses get deeply involved in their partners' careers, some don't. It tells us nothing about her views on Britain. We knew little of Mrs Major, so far as I can recall, but there's no reason to think ill of her."
Nick, this is probably the most solemn occasion of the British Calendar if not thee most solemn. Your leaders wife decided to play party politics with this or just couldn't be arsed to turn up. Your leader was utterly expressionless each time he was shown. He didn't want to be there and wanted to go home and catch the late movie.
No amount of weasel excuses from you, her or the Labour Party wil get past these simple facts. They hate and loathe this country and everything it has stood for. They give succour to our sworn enemies and support the blowing up and killing of members of a democratically elected government.
As such may you spend an eternity in opposition and not as the main opposition either but as an inconsequential footnote in history.
Did I not predict that Tory-Peebies would
(I) claim that Tories had a monopoly of patriotism,
and
(ii) find something to whine about in whatever JC did or did not do in respect of Remembrance Sunday.
Well Corbyn's wife should be there unless she is ill, it is disrespectful not to attend and Corbyn has form. He certainly isn't a patriot.. He thinks we should be run by another country(cf Yes Minister)
No, I disagree there, both in that she has a right to her own views and that I don't think that there is any convention on it. Spousal attendance on any of these sort of things is an option, not a compulsion.
I do not know about Mr Corbyn, but this is at least the 3rd ceremonial occasion where Mrs Corbyn has chosen not to accompany her husband on his official duties. She does not seem to care too much for Britain.
@NickPalmer "That's an amazingly old-fashioned view. Some spouses get deeply involved in their partners' careers, some don't. It tells us nothing about her views on Britain. We knew little of Mrs Major, so far as I can recall, but there's no reason to think ill of her."
Nick, this is probably the most solemn occasion of the British Calendar if not thee most solemn. Your leaders wife decided to play party politics with this or just couldn't be arsed to turn up. Your leader was utterly expressionless each time he was shown. He didn't want to be there and wanted to go home and catch the late movie.
No amount of weasel excuses from you, her or the Labour Party wil get past these simple facts. They hate and loathe this country and everything it has stood for. They give succour to our sworn enemies and support the blowing up and killing of members of a democratically elected government.
As such may you spend an eternity in opposition and not as the main opposition either but as an inconsequential footnote in history.
Did I not predict that Tory-Peebies would
(I) claim that Tories had a monopoly of patriotism,
and
(ii) find something to whine about in whatever JC did or did not do in respect of Remembrance Sunday.
The wife/husband of a political leader was not elected by anyone unless they themselves were elected. This "fashion" is only about 30 years old. Mrs Wilson did not kiss Mr Wilson at the Party conference. Why do you like Americanisation of our politics ?
Would it be anti-democratic if the spouse chose to support a different political party ? He/she has rights too, after all.
I think that spouse kissing on stage started with Tony and Cherie.
Attlee's wife was known to vote Conservative. One can safely assume that the greatest Labour Prime Minister certainly kissed a Tory!
You are correct. Not only did that warmonger bomb another country illegally, he also imported horrible American media "photo opportunities".
If Attlee's wife voted Tory, it was her private decision.
The usual anti-LD nonsense from the usual suspects notwithstanding, OGH has a point of sorts but in the pre-Coalition days the Party leader would always turn up at a by-election and be out with the troops on the ground. Those with memories will recall Charles Kennedy poured time and effort into Romsey at the cost of some local Council seats while Paddy staked a lot on Newbury and before him we had Eastbourne when some Tories didn't even want us to contest the seat.
No, it would be much worse if Tim stayed away. As to expectations, I don't have any as to the result in Oldham any more than I do more locally in the Boleyn by-election for a seat on Newham on the same day. However, the party is putting up a candidate and getting new members and helpers out on the doorstep and long may this benign Autumn weather continue in the south.
On the wider scene, it's Year Zero for the party as it was in 1970. There's an opportunity to rebuild and rethink from the ground up - the Conservatives were here in 1997 and Labour in 1983. It will take a lot of time and no surprise to see those hostile to the Party carping about a lack of progress after six months. I am absolutely convinced the Party will recover much though that will displease some on here but Tim needs time and that crucial ingredient, luck. A good result in Oldham will be a big help and sometimes you have to make your own luck.
I do not share the view that the Tories should be trying to keep Corbyn as leader. Labour have a core vote and it would not take many Tory losses for there to be a Corbyn premiership, particularly given the fact that the Tories' best asset, Cameron, will no longer be standing as PM. A Corbyn premiership would be disastrous, IMO - mainly because of what it says about the takeover of a morally repulsive, blind eye-turning to violence Left, quite out of keeping with traditional British values, including those of the decent Methodist-Orwell left.
Whether Labour supporters or not we owe it to the country to make sure that the insane nitwit group which has taken over Labour is crushed - and at the earliest possible opportunity. There needs to be a decent opposition around to keep the government on its toes, and one that can be voted for by decent people, even if it's not to one's particular taste.
Completely agree. It may seem "clever" to keep Labour in its current hole with a complete incompetent in charge but it is not good for the country or our democracy. Labour has made a terrible mistake and the sooner it is corrected the better.
The alternative would be for Labour to be replaced with a new centre left party but the structure of our political system and media rules makes that incredibly difficult, as shown by the failure of the SDP.
Is not the concept of "centre left" an idea whose time has gone? The politics of hope belong to the past; we are moving towards the politics of identity, in which there will be two and two only kinds of English - white Tories and non-white communal parties (e.g. Galloway) which teeter on the edge of treason.
I hope not. That does not sound like a country I would want to live in (and probably won't since I think a UK like that would break up).
The Tories believe in success. Economic success means growth. Growth is generally encouraged by lower taxes and less regulation. It comes at a price and we need a centre left to speak for those who pay it and to ensure that it is moderated on occasion by governments of a different view.
By that account only the Tories can produce growth and we also need periods of economic stagnation, if not outright recession. I wonder if you believe either of those things.
FWIW I believe that growth is produced by thuggery (e.g. Francis Drake, Robert Clive) and that prosperity implies dishonesty.
The mawkish nursery games have started early. Mrs Corbyn is not obliged to attend the cenotaph. Spouses are entitled to tick the no publicity box.
Yeah right...... The lack of appearance at the festival speaks volumes. Can you just imagine if this had been a spouse of a right wing LOTO whether she or he had ticked a box or not. Quite....
The main battle in Oldham is between UKIP and Labour with the LDs even further behind than the Tories. A good night for the LDs would be if they saved their deposit and came ahead of the Greens to avoid coming last
The mawkish nursery games have started early. Mrs Corbyn is not obliged to attend the cenotaph. Spouses are entitled to tick the no publicity box.
Really.. since when are you the arbiter of truth and respectful behaviour?
Did all ex-Prime Minister's and LoTO's wives attend the Cenotaph ? Were they not patriotic ? Why are you targeting Mrs. Corbyn. I think, it is good that spouses [ unless they are politicians themselves ] do not get involved. After all, they were not elected.
I think some LDs acted very honorably and as adults. Danny Alex being a prime candidate along with Steve Thingy who knew all about pensions. Too many of their own side bitched endlessly and were opposing their own HMG. The electorate noticed.
That I celebrated more over Vince losing his seat than Ed Balls, speaks volumes. And I was a Coalitionista until they reneged over boundaries. That was a step too far.
I think @david_herdson nailed it upthread by noting that Kennedy led the LDs up a cul-de-sac.
You can't be a Party of HMG and ride two horses, without one or both of those horses noticing.
Also the LDs bitched and moaned during their entire period in HMG, which gained them no brownie points either. It really was an institutional strategic failure in the most part.
If you don't really want to be in power as complaining and pointing at potholes is more exciting - then don't get too big and put the electorate in a position where they'll call your bluff.
I think people underestimated how successful Charlie Kennedy was in attracting the votes of the soft left and those appalled by Iraq. It was a brave position he adopted and one that has been wholly vindicated. A weak and badly led Labour party proved very vulnerable to what seemed a more principled opposition.
Going into Coalition with the Tories was always going to be a betrayal to that soft left vote. It was undoubtedly in the national interest and the UK was in a very bad place after the idiocy of Brown in desperate need of stable government but the Lib Dems said goodbye to that broad swathe of support. Many left immediately but some drifted away over time as it became apparent that the Coalition was adopting and implementing a broadly Tory agenda. In this context the increase in tuition fees was a symptom of both a Tory agenda and a loss of that "principled" standing rather than an issue in itself.
There was a great deal of talk on this site before the last election about whether Clegg was going to stand down as leader and try to take some of that toxicity with him. There is little evidence that he even gave it serious thought and the party paid the price.
The LibDems have always pushed forward proportional representation. They managed to carry off 5 years of a coalition government very well though despite those who said it wouldn't last 6 months. The one issue of course is I hadn't realised the Lib Dem coalition is only acceptable to members if it is a left wing coalition.
Likewise then can we expect members to accept only PR governments of a left wing disposition and they should not serve in governments that are even slightly right of centre?
I think @david_herdson nailed it upthread by noting that Kennedy led the LDs up a cul-de-sac.
You can't be a Party of HMG and ride two horses, without one or both of those horses noticing.
Also the LDs bitched and moaned during their entire period in HMG, which gained them no brownie points either. It really was an institutional strategic failure in the most part.
If you don't really want to be in power as complaining and pointing at potholes is more exciting - then don't get too big and put the electorate in a position where they'll call your bluff.
I think people underestimated how successful Charlie Kennedy was in attracting the votes of the soft left and those appalled by Iraq. It was a brave position he adopted and one that has been wholly vindicated. A weak and badly led Labour party proved very vulnerable to what seemed a more principled opposition.
Going into Coalition with the Tories was always going to be a betrayal to that soft left vote. It was undoubtedly in the national interest and the UK was in a very bad place after the idiocy of Brown in desperate need of stable government but the Lib Dems said goodbye to that broad swathe of support. Many left immediately but some drifted away over time as it became apparent that the Coalition was adopting and implementing a broadly Tory agenda. In this context the increase in tuition fees was a symptom of both a Tory agenda and a loss of that "principled" standing rather than an issue in itself.
There was a great deal of talk on this site before the last election about whether Clegg was going to stand down as leader and try to take some of that toxicity with him. There is little evidence that he even gave it serious thought and the party paid the price.
You can ride two or more horses. But, not if it turns out those horses wish to gallop in different directions.
UKIP now seem to be trying to ride those two horses. Right wing libertarianists and publjc school boys like Farage and Carswell in the South, yet pitching for a left wing vote in the North.
And that's why UKIP should never become a junior coalition partner, if the chance arises.
The main battle in Oldham is between UKIP and Labour with the LDs even further behind than the Tories. A good night for the LDs would be if they saved their deposit and came ahead of the Greens to avoid coming last
The mawkish nursery games have started early. Mrs Corbyn is not obliged to attend the cenotaph. Spouses are entitled to tick the no publicity box.
Yeah right...... The lack of appearance at the festival speaks volumes. Can you just imagine if this had been a spouse of a right wing LOTO whether she or he had ticked a box or not. Quite....
Only right wing people bring this up ? They are the ones who have imposed Poppy fascism in this country.
I think @david_herdson nailed it upthread by noting that Kennedy led the LDs up a cul-de-sac.
You can't be a Party of HMG and ride two horses, without one or both of those horses noticing.
Also the LDs bitched and moaned during their entire period in HMG, which gained them no brownie points either. It really was an institutional strategic failure in the most part.
If you don't really want to be in power as complaining and pointing at potholes is more exciting - then don't get too big and put the electorate in a position where they'll call your bluff.
I think people underestimated how successful Charlie Kennedy was in attracting the votes of the soft left and those appalled by Iraq. It was a brave position he adopted and one that has been wholly vindicated. A weak and badly led Labour party proved very vulnerable to what seemed a more principled opposition.
Going into Coalition with the Tories was always going to be a betrayal to that soft left vote. It was undoubtedly in the national interest and the UK was in a very bad place after the idiocy of Brown in desperate need of stable government but the Lib Dems said goodbye to that broad swathe of support. Many left immediately but some drifted away over time as it became apparent that the Coalition was adopting and implementing a broadly Tory agenda. In this context the increase in tuition fees was a symptom of both a Tory agenda and a loss of that "principled" standing rather than an issue in itself.
There was a great deal of talk on this site before the last election about whether Clegg was going to stand down as leader and try to take some of that toxicity with him. There is little evidence that he even gave it serious thought and the party paid the price.
You can ride two or more horses. But, not if it turns out those horses wish to gallop in different directions.
UKIP now seem to be trying to ride those two horses. Right wing libertarianists and publjc school boys like Farage and Carswell in the South, yet pitching for a left wing vote in the North.
Yes, and if UKIP end up in power then that will be a similar existential problem for them to that of the Lib Dems'. Long way from there at the moment.
All the parties attempt to bridge the gap between a basic political philosophy and reaching out to a larger spectrum. So nothing new there.
It will be up to UKIP to prove to the vast majority of the nation that Right wing libertarian policies can and will help the most needy.
Was the LD opposition to the Iraq war really that principled? It looked like an opportunistic vote grab from an intellectually incoherent leader.
I thought it was brave and not just because I agreed with him. He knew the Tories and the media were signed up for the war; that our media would be hugely behind "our boys" and that anyone questioning our involvement would be deemed to be betraying the troops.
Despite those risks he articulated the reservations of those against, pointed to the many holes in Blair's position which the Tories were not willing to talk about or were deliberately overlooking and stood up to the vicious Campbell machine despite having personal vulnerabilities.
It is a mistake to remember Kennedy as he was once alcoholism got the better of him. He was one of the brightest and best of our political leaders for many years and a fine public speaker.
The main battle in Oldham is between UKIP and Labour with the LDs even further behind than the Tories. A good night for the LDs would be if they saved their deposit and came ahead of the Greens to avoid coming last
In 2010 both Con and LD were fairly even on circa 20% in this seat and UKIP on less than 6%. Vote shares that rise quickly can sink quickly too.
In some ways the kippers have more to lose here than anyone. We shall see if their aspiration to be the main threat to Corbynite Labour holds any water at all.
Was the LD opposition to the Iraq war really that principled? It looked like an opportunistic vote grab from an intellectually incoherent leader.
I thought it was brave and not just because I agreed with him. He knew the Tories and the media were signed up for the war; that our media would be hugely behind "our boys" and that anyone questioning our involvement would be deemed to be betraying the troops.
Despite those risks he articulated the reservations of those against, pointed to the many holes in Blair's position which the Tories were not willing to talk about or were deliberately overlooking and stood up to the vicious Campbell machine despite having personal vulnerabilities.
It is a mistake to remember Kennedy as he was once alcoholism got the better of him. He was one of the brightest and best of our political leaders for many years and a fine public speaker.
Kennedy was great. I voted LD in 2005 only because of him and the LD position on Iraq. His successor was a Tory plant.
By the way, has anyone heard that Danny Alexander will be the UK representative at AIIB , the Chinese rival to the World Bank ?
I do not know about Mr Corbyn, but this is at least the 3rd ceremonial occasion where Mrs Corbyn has chosen not to accompany her husband on his official duties. She does not seem to care too much for Britain.
@NickPalmer "That's an amazingly old-fashioned view. Some spouses get deeply involved in their partners' careers, some don't. It tells us nothing about her views on Britain. We knew little of Mrs Major, so far as I can recall, but there's no reason to think ill of her."
Nick, this is probably the most solemn occasion of the British Calendar if not thee most solemn. Your leaders wife decided to play party politics with this or just couldn't be arsed to turn up. Your leader was utterly expressionless each time he was shown. He didn't want to be there and wanted to go home and catch the late movie.
No amount of weasel excuses from you, her or the Labour Party wil get past these simple facts. They hate and loathe this country and everything it has stood for. They give succour to our sworn enemies and support the blowing up and killing of members of a democratically elected government.
As such may you spend an eternity in opposition and not as the main opposition either but as an inconsequential footnote in history.
Did I not predict that Tory-Peebies would
(I) claim that Tories had a monopoly of patriotism,
and
(ii) find something to whine about in whatever JC did or did not do in respect of Remembrance Sunday.
The wife/husband of a political leader was not elected by anyone unless they themselves were elected. This "fashion" is only about 30 years old. Mrs Wilson did not kiss Mr Wilson at the Party conference. Why do you like Americanisation of our politics ?
Would it be anti-democratic if the spouse chose to support a different political party ? He/she has rights too, after all.
I think that spouse kissing on stage started with Tony and Cherie.
Attlee's wife was known to vote Conservative. One can safely assume that the greatest Labour Prime Minister certainly kissed a Tory!
You are correct. Not only did that warmonger bomb another country illegally, he also imported horrible American media "photo opportunities".
If Attlee's wife voted Tory, it was her private decision.
Churchill was MP from 1924 for Epping, when the Attlees lived in Woodford Green. Some of Cobryn's lot might be surprised to know that Violet Attlee was a lifelong Tory voter.
It may be odd, but I don't think of Kennedy as a lush when I think of him - a good public speaker, not afraid to be different and entertaining with too - hence Chat Show Charlie.
He should have stood down as leader before he did, but I hold fellow LDs responsible here. He was a high functioning alcoholic for years before it went too far. And it was obvious when it did.
I think Ming was the worst LD leader in recent times myself - he came across as ancient relic too fond of his own rambling voice. Being a former Olympian from 1906 seemed about right.
Was the LD opposition to the Iraq war really that principled? It looked like an opportunistic vote grab from an intellectually incoherent leader.
I thought it was brave and not just because I agreed with him. He knew the Tories and the media were signed up for the war; that our media would be hugely behind "our boys" and that anyone questioning our involvement would be deemed to be betraying the troops.
Despite those risks he articulated the reservations of those against, pointed to the many holes in Blair's position which the Tories were not willing to talk about or were deliberately overlooking and stood up to the vicious Campbell machine despite having personal vulnerabilities.
It is a mistake to remember Kennedy as he was once alcoholism got the better of him. He was one of the brightest and best of our political leaders for many years and a fine public speaker.
The main battle in Oldham is between UKIP and Labour with the LDs even further behind than the Tories. A good night for the LDs would be if they saved their deposit and came ahead of the Greens to avoid coming last
Is not the concept of "centre left" an idea whose time has gone? The politics of hope belong to the past; we are moving towards the politics of identity, in which there will be two and two only kinds of English - white Tories and non-white communal parties (e.g. Galloway) which teeter on the edge of treason.
I hope not. That does not sound like a country I would want to live in (and probably won't since I think a UK like that would break up).
The Tories believe in success. Economic success means growth. Growth is generally encouraged by lower taxes and less regulation. It comes at a price and we need a centre left to speak for those who pay it and to ensure that it is moderated on occasion by governments of a different view.
By that account only the Tories can produce growth and we also need periods of economic stagnation, if not outright recession. I wonder if you believe either of those things.
FWIW I believe that growth is produced by thuggery (e.g. Francis Drake, Robert Clive) and that prosperity implies dishonesty.
We certainly need recessions. They play an essential role in our economy deflating bubbles and ending the misallocation of resources as well as creating space for the new. Claiming to have ended boom and bust was just one example of Brown's economic illiteracy.
Of course the economy can grow under Labour too but we then tend to get a different kind of imbalance with, over time, excessive government spending, too much subsidy and vanity projects. Whilst the Tories have a tendency to want to shrink the state to allow the cutting of taxes Labour wants to grow it and its client base by increasing the tax base and, unfortunately, borrowing to "invest". Too much of one or the other inevitably leads to problems.
The main battle in Oldham is between UKIP and Labour with the LDs even further behind than the Tories. A good night for the LDs would be if they saved their deposit and came ahead of the Greens to avoid coming last
In 2010 both Con and LD were fairly even on circa 20% in this seat and UKIP on less than 6%. Vote shares that rise quickly can sink quickly too.
In some ways the kippers have more to lose here than anyone. We shall see if their aspiration to be the main threat to Corbynite Labour holds any water at all.
LDs beating the Tories unlikely but would be a coup UKIP already second and this should be UKIP territory
I may have missed it but there seems to have been zero discussion in liberal democrat circles as to why the party went down to a shattering political defeat last May.
The party needs to take a break, and that means Farron calling off his militants in the lords.
@NickPalmer "That's an amazingly old-fashioned view. Some spouses get deeply involved in their partners' careers, some don't. It tells us nothing about her views on Britain. We knew little of Mrs Major, so far as I can recall, but there's no reason to think ill of her."
Nick, this is probably the most solemn occasion of the British Calendar if not thee most solemn. Your leaders wife decided to play party politics with this or just couldn't be arsed to turn up. Your leader was utterly expressionless each time he was shown. He didn't want to be there and wanted to go home and catch the late movie.
No amount of weasel excuses from you, her or the Labour Party wil get past these simple facts. They hate and loathe this country and everything it has stood for. They give succour to our sworn enemies and support the blowing up and killing of members of a democratically elected government.
As such may you spend an eternity in opposition and not as the main opposition either but as an inconsequential footnote in history.
Did I not predict that Tory-Peebies would
(I) claim that Tories had a monopoly of patriotism,
and
(ii) find something to whine about in whatever JC did or did not do in respect of Remembrance Sunday.
The wife/husband of a political leader was not elected by anyone unless they themselves were elected. This "fashion" is only about 30 years old. Mrs Wilson did not kiss Mr Wilson at the Party conference. Why do you like Americanisation of our politics ?
Would it be anti-democratic if the spouse chose to support a different political party ? He/she has rights too, after all.
I think that spouse kissing on stage started with Tony and Cherie.
Attlee's wife was known to vote Conservative. One can safely assume that the greatest Labour Prime Minister certainly kissed a Tory!
You are correct. Not only did that warmonger bomb another country illegally, he also imported horrible American media "photo opportunities".
If Attlee's wife voted Tory, it was her private decision.
Churchill was MP from 1924 for Epping, when the Attlees lived in Woodford Green. Some of Cobryn's lot might be surprised to know that Violet Attlee was a lifelong Tory voter.
Is not the concept of "centre left" an idea whose time has gone? The politics of hope belong to the past; we are moving towards the politics of identity, in which there will be two and two only kinds of English - white Tories and non-white communal parties (e.g. Galloway) which teeter on the edge of treason.
I hope not. That does not sound like a country I would want to live in (and probably won't since I think a UK like that would break up).
The Tories believe in success. Economic success means growth. Growth is generally encouraged by lower taxes and less regulation. It comes at a price and we need a centre left to speak for those who pay it and to ensure that it is moderated on occasion by governments of a different view.
By that account only the Tories can produce growth and we also need periods of economic stagnation, if not outright recession. I wonder if you believe either of those things.
FWIW I believe that growth is produced by thuggery (e.g. Francis Drake, Robert Clive) and that prosperity implies dishonesty.
We certainly need recessions. They play an essential role in our economy deflating bubbles and ending the misallocation of resources as well as creating space for the new. Claiming to have ended boom and bust was just one example of Brown's economic illiteracy.
Of course the economy can grow under Labour too but we then tend to get a different kind of imbalance with, over time, excessive government spending, too much subsidy and vanity projects. Whilst the Tories have a tendency to want to shrink the state to allow the cutting of taxes Labour wants to grow it and its client base by increasing the tax base and, unfortunately, borrowing to "invest". Too much of one or the other inevitably leads to problems.
In other words, some must suffer so that more may prosper. Or perhaps the price of prosperity of the few is the suffering of the many. I cannot tell from your argument.
Miss Plato, their approach was for not being either red or blue. Something about giving a heart to the Conservatives or a brain to Labour [which would, of course, kill the Lib Dem donor...].
It was the daft approach in coalition that made their campaign so difficult. They spent years rubbishing the government of which they were a part and were then surprised they didn't get any credit.
Mr. Taffys, not a yellow myself, but it seems Farron's the instigator of the truculence in the Upper House, stamping his little foot for media attention.
The LDs don't seem to represent anything or anyone..They are a total irrelevance on the political scene..they should quietly disband..before the electorate do it for them.
Leaders of Momentum include a senior member of a group involved in violent anti-gentrification protests, self-proclaimed revolutionary Marxists, and paid staff of parties which oppose Labour, including a man who was until five weeks ago official spokesman for a Green MEP.
The south London borough of Lewisham can be revealed as a key target for Momentum, with the group likely to challenge at least two of the area’s moderate Labour MPs. Concerted efforts have also begun to get moderate Labour incumbents pushed down the rankings of the party’s candidates for next year’s Welsh and Scottish elections, putting them at great risk of losing their seats.
''A very good point. I've no idea what the LDs stood on in GE2015 either. Nothing springs to mind - and it wasn't as if I'm politically disinterested.''
The whole idea for the lib dems, I would have thought, is to present themselves as a sober moderate left alternative to a labour party that is having a nervous breakdown.
If anything, Farron is even shriller in his criticisms of the tories than Corbyn. Meanwhile, his deeply undemocratic lords block the government on economic policy. And when he has a moment he blathers on sanctimoniously about policies that were rejected wholesale in May such as radical environmentalism and europhilia.
The south London borough of Lewisham can be revealed as a key target for Momentum, with the group likely to challenge at least two of the area’s moderate Labour MPs. Concerted efforts have also begun to get moderate Labour incumbents pushed down the rankings of the party’s candidates for next year’s Welsh and Scottish elections, putting them at great risk of losing their seats.
The Tories are helping Momentum. It is a simple fact that once 650 seats become 600, there will be automatic reselection everywhere. Momentum does not have to do it. Since, no CLP will be left unchanged.
Is not the concept of "centre left" an idea whose time has gone? The politics of hope belong to the past; we are moving towards the politics of identity, in which there will be two and two only kinds of English - white Tories and non-white communal parties (e.g. Galloway) which teeter on the edge of treason.
I hope not. That does not sound like a country I would want to live in (and probably won't since I think a UK like that would break up).
The Tories believe in success. Economic success means growth. Growth is generally encouraged by lower taxes and less regulation. It comes at a price and we need a centre left to speak for those who pay it and to ensure that it is moderated on occasion by governments of a different view.
By that account only the Tories can produce growth and we also need periods of economic stagnation, if not outright recession. I wonder if you believe either of those things.
FWIW I believe that growth is produced by thuggery (e.g. Francis Drake, Robert Clive) and that prosperity implies dishonesty.
We certainly need recessions. They play an essential role in our economy deflating bubbles and ending the misallocation of resources as well as creating space for the new. Claiming to have ended boom and bust was just one example of Brown's economic illiteracy.
Of course the economy can grow under Labour too but we then tend to get a different kind of imbalance with, over time, excessive government spending, too much subsidy and vanity projects. Whilst the Tories have a tendency to want to shrink the state to allow the cutting of taxes Labour wants to grow it and its client base by increasing the tax base and, unfortunately, borrowing to "invest". Too much of one or the other inevitably leads to problems.
In other words, some must suffer so that more may prosper. Or perhaps the price of prosperity of the few is the suffering of the many. I cannot tell from your argument.
Good morning all. I agree that Mrs Corbyn can do as she pleases; it would be lovely if she attended the Cenotaph, but hardly compulsory.
If I were a moderate Labour supporter, I would be tearing my hair out at the antics of groups like Momentum.
As a nod towards the estimable Mr Dancer, Labour are now reaping the bitter fruit of a Corbyn victory much as Sparta did after 'winning' the Peloponnesian War.
Given that the country is massively more prosperous than it used to be, I don't understand your phrase 'the prosperity of the few'.
''Mr. Taffys, not a yellow myself, but it seems Farron's the instigator of the truculence in the Upper House, stamping his little foot for media attention.''
Farron seems to have swallowed whole the Corbynite notion that the tories are, to a man, baby eating Victorian mill owners.
By that account only the Tories can produce growth and we also need periods of economic stagnation, if not outright recession. I wonder if you believe either of those things.
FWIW I believe that growth is produced by thuggery (e.g. Francis Drake, Robert Clive) and that prosperity implies dishonesty.
We certainly need recessions. They play an essential role in our economy deflating bubbles and ending the misallocation of resources as well as creating space for the new. Claiming to have ended boom and bust was just one example of Brown's economic illiteracy.
Of course the economy can grow under Labour too but we then tend to get a different kind of imbalance with, over time, excessive government spending, too much subsidy and vanity projects. Whilst the Tories have a tendency to want to shrink the state to allow the cutting of taxes Labour wants to grow it and its client base by increasing the tax base and, unfortunately, borrowing to "invest". Too much of one or the other inevitably leads to problems.
In other words, some must suffer so that more may prosper. Or perhaps the price of prosperity of the few is the suffering of the many. I cannot tell from your argument.
I would say the former but I also say that we need a party that makes sure that those more likely to suffer are not neglected by the majority who will not.
As an example one of the most shameful things about Labour's immigration policies was that they neglected those who would suffer, those who would find it harder to get a job or a Council house or a decent school, people they should have been looking after. Middle class professionals are not adversely affected by immigration, in fact they gain from it in many ways. The poor and the poorly educated pay the price but Labour took them for granted and still do because they are in very large part made up of middle class professionals.
PBers will be aware of my view that the chances of Mrs Corbyn measuring for curtains in 10 Downing Street are almost zero however this criticism of her non appearance at the Cenotaph is risible.
We should all recall, this day more than most, that those who gave their lives in the service of the nation did so partly in order that we may enjoy robustly the freedoms of a liberal democracy and that critically includes the freedom to demur from the accepted norms and conventions of society.
With that, Mrs JackW and I must depart for our own service.
Anyway: back to Labour. Recovering from his setback on supermarket milk pricing, Mr Burnham presented one of his ideas to revive Labour’s rapport with the common man. “I will promote a front bench,” he promised, “full of accents and diversity.”
surbiton ..it might also be useful if you are considered to be good at the job...maybe they should have gone for that buffoon from the Co op Bank.
Sadly the electorate did not notice that. He was a Tory arse-licker , pure and simple. Now he is getting his reward for destroying a party as Clegg will get soon, no doubt.
I may have missed it but there seems to have been zero discussion in liberal democrat circles as to why the party went down to a shattering political defeat last May.
The party needs to take a break, and that means Farron calling off his militants in the lords.
Amongst the blizzard of the usual anti-LD rhetoric from the usual suspects in response to my previous, this was perhaps the most asinine comment of all.
There is and has been a lot of discussion within the Party about what happened and why it happened and about what might have happened and why it did not. I have contributed to a couple of working groups set up to look at the entirety of the Party's operation and performance.
We are six months into a sixty month electoral cycle - the analysis and discussion will continue but politics and political life goes on and there is a Government to hold to account and if that means using the Lords as part of that process, so be it.
Was the LD opposition to the Iraq war really that principled? It looked like an opportunistic vote grab from an intellectually incoherent leader.
I thought it was brave and not just because I agreed with him. He knew the Tories and the media were signed up for the war; that our media would be hugely behind "our boys" and that anyone questioning our involvement would be deemed to be betraying the troops.
Despite those risks he articulated the reservations of those against, pointed to the many holes in Blair's position which the Tories were not willing to talk about or were deliberately overlooking and stood up to the vicious Campbell machine despite having personal vulnerabilities.
It is a mistake to remember Kennedy as he was once alcoholism got the better of him. He was one of the brightest and best of our political leaders for many years and a fine public speaker.
Kennedy may have been an engaging figure for sound bites on TV but his drinking begs the obvious question when did Kennedy's alcoholism skew his political judgement and damn his fitness to lead?
Was he drinking too heavily before The 2005 General Election or not? By 2006, the guy was a liability and is removed.
Suggestions that he was over tired and over emotional at the time of the Iraqi War Votes, could be taken as part of a deliberate campaign to discredit his judgements. CK could see the war as an opportunity to reposition the LDs but it can be portrayed as a principled or cynical ploy to gain votes.
But the flaws and illnesses of politicians are massaged away until it is too late to conceal them from the public.
Mr. M, interesting historical reference, as (from my very vague knowledge of that period) I believe the prosperity of success is what destroyed Sparta's strength.
[Checked the date, and Leuctra, the first of two major battles which saw the Thebans beat the Spartans, was only a few decades after the war ended. The Theban supremacy was short-lived, as their king, Epaminondas, died after Mantinea, the second victory, and the city made the terminal decision to oppose Philip and Alexander when the Macedonians had formerly been their allies].
Is not the concept of "centre left" an idea whose time has gone? The politics of hope belong to the past; we are moving towards the politics of identity, in which there will be two and two only kinds of English - white Tories and non-white communal parties (e.g. Galloway) which teeter on the edge of treason.
I hope not. That does not sound like a country I would Francis Drake, Robert Clive) and that prosperity implies dishonesty.
We certainly need recessions. They play an essential role in our economy deflating bubbles and ending the misallocation of resources as well as creating space for the new. Claiming to have ended boom and bust was just one example of Brown's economic illiteracy.
Of course the economy can grow under Labour too but we then tend to get a different kind of imbalance with, over time, excessive government spending, too much subsidy and vanity projects. Whilst the Tories have a tendency to want to shrink the state to allow the cutting of taxes Labour wants to grow it and its client base by increasing the tax base and, unfortunately, borrowing to "invest". Too much of one or the other inevitably leads to problems.
In other words, some must suffer so that more may prosper. Or perhaps the price of prosperity of the few is the suffering of the many. I cannot tell from your argument.
Good morning all. I agree that Mrs Corbyn can do as she pleases; it would be lovely if she attended the Cenotaph, but hardly compulsory.
If I were a moderate Labour supporter, I would be tearing my hair out at the antics of groups like Momentum.
As a nod towards the estimable Mr Dancer, Labour are now reaping the bitter fruit of a Corbyn victory much as Sparta did after 'winning' the Peloponnesian War.
Given that the country is massively more prosperous than it used to be, I don't understand your phrase 'the prosperity of the few'.
PBers will be aware of my view that the chances of Mrs Corbyn measuring for curtains in 10 Downing Street are almost zero however this criticism of her non appearance at the Cenotaph is risible.
We should all recall, this day more than most, that those who gave their lives in the service of the nation did so partly in order that we may enjoy robustly the freedoms of a liberal democracy and that critically includes the freedom to demur from the accepted norms and conventions of society.
With that, Mrs JackW and I must depart for our own service.
''Amongst the blizzard of the usual anti-LD rhetoric from the usual suspects in response to my previous, this was perhaps the most asinine comment of all".
Given Farron's actions so far it seems to me the conclusion of your 'discussions' is that you were right and the electorate was wrong.
PBers will be aware of my view that the chances of Mrs Corbyn measuring for curtains in 10 Downing Street are almost zero however this criticism of her non appearance at the Cenotaph is risible.
We should all recall, this day more than most, that those who gave their lives in the service of the nation did so partly in order that we may enjoy robustly the freedoms of a liberal democracy and that critically includes the freedom to demur from the accepted norms and conventions of society.
With that, Mrs JackW and I must depart for our own service.
- Judges don't need to follow ECHR rulings - but to use Common Law or cases from Aus/Canada et al. - Explicit statement about freedom of the press - Armed Services personnel protected from human rights claims when serving in theatre overseas - Big reduction in claims compensation for human rights - to thwart the human rights lawyer business
That sounds like good stuff, if the government follows through, and is prepared to use the Parliament Act if the Lords tries to thwart it.
I will be very pleased indeed if that passes.
I have a horrible feeling at the back of my throat that there's devil in the detail there though. Off to buy the Sunday Times to read more.
Is not the concept of "centre left" an idea whose time has gone? The politics of hope belong to the past; we are moving towards the politics of identity, in which there will be two and two only kinds of English - white Tories and non-white communal parties (e.g. Galloway) which teeter on the edge of treason.
I hope not. That does not sound like a country I would Francis Drake, Robert Clive) and that prosperity implies dishonesty.
We certainly need recessions. They play an essential role in our economy deflating bubbles and ending the misallocation of resources as well as creating space for the new. Claiming to have ended boom and bust was just one example of Brown's economic illiteracy.
Of course the economy can grow under Labour too but we then tend to get a different kind of imbalance with, over time, excessive government spending, too much subsidy and vanity projects. Whilst the Tories have a tendency to want to shrink the state to allow the cutting of taxes Labour wants to grow it and its client base by increasing the tax base and, unfortunately, borrowing to "invest". Too much of one or the other inevitably leads to problems.
In other words, some must suffer so that more may prosper. Or perhaps the price of prosperity of the few is the suffering of the many. I cannot tell from your argument.
Good morning all. I agree that Mrs Corbyn can do as she pleases; it would be lovely if she attended the Cenotaph, but hardly compulsory.
If I were a moderate Labour supporter, I would be tearing my hair out at the antics of groups like Momentum.
As a nod towards the estimable Mr Dancer, Labour are now reaping the bitter fruit of a Corbyn victory much as Sparta did after 'winning' the Peloponnesian War.
Given that the country is massively more prosperous than it used to be, I don't understand your phrase 'the prosperity of the few'.
Try thinking internationally.
OK. Globally, we're massively more prosperous than we used to be. Still not getting your point, unless it's the otiose one that not all have prospered to the same degree.
All well and good on this thread and as we remember our dead of 2 world wars and more, let us remind ourselves of what will be stabbing us all in the back, if we are not careful:
- Judges don't need to follow ECHR rulings - but to use Common Law or cases from Aus/Canada et al. - Explicit statement about freedom of the press - Armed Services personnel protected from human rights claims when serving in theatre overseas - Big reduction in claims compensation for human rights - to thwart the human rights lawyer business
That sounds like good stuff, if the government follows through, and is prepared to use the Parliament Act if the Lords tries to thwart it.
I will be very pleased indeed if that passes.
I have a horrible feeling at the back of my throat that there's devil in the detail there though. Off to buy the Sunday Times to read more.
I can already hear the whining about evil Tory Scum axing human rights.
Mr. K, good to see the surprisingly hard line taken in Cyprus, though.
You don't get to roll up at a military base then demand the right to live in the UK permanently.
Read somewhere or other that Merkel now wants Syrians in Germany to stay for one year. Cameron's fortunate. Merkel's madness makes his own stance on the migrant crisis appear very sensible (which, surprisingly, it is), and distracts from the massive net migration we have.
For at least the 3rd week running the BBC's Sunday Politics show (according to its listing) has 2 of the 3 hacks from the Guardian again. Impartial? Balanced? Beyond ridiculous.
- Judges don't need to follow ECHR rulings - but to use Common Law or cases from Aus/Canada et al. - Explicit statement about freedom of the press - Armed Services personnel protected from human rights claims when serving in theatre overseas - Big reduction in claims compensation for human rights - to thwart the human rights lawyer business
That sounds like good stuff, if the government follows through, and is prepared to use the Parliament Act if the Lords tries to thwart it.
I will be very pleased indeed if that passes.
I have a horrible feeling at the back of my throat that there's devil in the detail there though. Off to buy the Sunday Times to read more.
I can already hear the whining about evil Tory Scum axing human rights.
Is there a lack of intellectual confidence on the Left? Despite several examples of badly drafted legislation by parties of all stripes, it's not beyond the whit of parliament to create a great bill here. We don't need supra-national organisations for this.
- Judges don't need to follow ECHR rulings - but to use Common Law or cases from Aus/Canada et al. - Explicit statement about freedom of the press - Armed Services personnel protected from human rights claims when serving in theatre overseas - Big reduction in claims compensation for human rights - to thwart the human rights lawyer business
That sounds like good stuff, if the government follows through, and is prepared to use the Parliament Act if the Lords tries to thwart it.
I will be very pleased indeed if that passes.
I have a horrible feeling at the back of my throat that there's devil in the detail there though. Off to buy the Sunday Times to read more.
Claims for breaches of human rights tend to be very modest, nearly always under £4000, and completely swamped by the legal costs of the complex path that has to be followed to establish them. There is indeed a human rights business but it is not driven by compensation but by legal aid.
That is my principal concern about this. The roads through the HR maze have been fairly well beaten flat by litigation in this country at great expense and the circumstances where they arise are well known. If we replace the current maze with another one the lawyers start again exploring the new limits and pathways, at further public expense.
This just does not seem to be worth it to me although more explicit protection for freedom of the press than the idiotic Leveson proposals would be welcome.
All well and good on this thread and as we remember our dead of 2 world wars and more, let us remind ourselves of what will be stabbing us all in the back, if we are not careful:
Comments
And, if the government goes ahead with it, the emphasis on freedom of speech is very welcome indeed. That seems to me to have the mark of Gove. His coruscating lesson to Leveson about the importance of free speech was about the only highlight of that generally dismal saga. I am old enough to remember when people, particularly on the left, did not view judges as great defenders of free speech, usually with good reason. Sad to see them in recent years rushing to the courts to stop others saying what they think, in case their delicate little ears burn.
And nobody ever travelled to Europe or worked overseas before the EU.
Those who say otherwise are propagandist malcontents!
I do not know about Mr Corbyn, but this is at least the 3rd ceremonial occasion where Mrs Corbyn has chosen not to accompany her husband on his official duties. She does not seem to care too much for Britain.
@NickPalmer
"That's an amazingly old-fashioned view. Some spouses get deeply involved in their partners' careers, some don't. It tells us nothing about her views on Britain. We knew little of Mrs Major, so far as I can recall, but there's no reason to think ill of her."
Nick, this is probably the most solemn occasion of the British Calendar if not thee most solemn. Your leaders wife decided to play party politics with this or just couldn't be arsed to turn up. Your leader was utterly expressionless each time he was shown. He didn't want to be there and wanted to go home and catch the late movie.
No amount of weasel excuses from you, her or the Labour Party wil get past these simple facts. They hate and loathe this country and everything it has stood for. They give succour to our sworn enemies and support the blowing up and killing of members of a democratically elected government.
As such may you spend an eternity in opposition and not as the main opposition either but as an inconsequential footnote in history.
The alternative would be for Labour to be replaced with a new centre left party but the structure of our political system and media rules makes that incredibly difficult, as shown by the failure of the SDP.
You can't be a Party of HMG and ride two horses, without one or both of those horses noticing.
Also the LDs bitched and moaned during their entire period in HMG, which gained them no brownie points either. It really was an institutional strategic failure in the most part.
If you don't really want to be in power as complaining and pointing at potholes is more exciting - then don't get too big and put the electorate in a position where they'll call your bluff.
Rogers replaced by Klopp. Liverpool did not even look at a potential British prospect.
(I) claim that Tories had a monopoly of patriotism,
and
(ii) find something to whine about in whatever JC did or did not do in respect of Remembrance Sunday.
Would it be anti-democratic if the spouse chose to support a different political party ? He/she has rights too, after all.
Cameron photo-shopping that poppy was so insulting and unpatriotic.
Likewise then can we expect members to accept only PR governments of a left wing disposition and they should not serve in governments that are even slightly right of centre?
The traditional leftish opposition need to be more self aware about their own toxicity.
The Lib Dems have perhaps painted themselves as a party of ambiguous principle. Tory sympathisers to left leaners, wets to right-leaners.
Labour have added terrorist appeasers and sympathisers to their already toxic image of welfarist, economic incontinents.
Where is the sane, uncompromised, moderate left opposition to come from?
The Tories believe in success. Economic success means growth. Growth is generally encouraged by lower taxes and less regulation. It comes at a price and we need a centre left to speak for those who pay it and to ensure that it is moderated on occasion by governments of a different view.
Attlee's wife was known to vote Conservative. One can safely assume that the greatest Labour Prime Minister certainly kissed a Tory!
1) as most know on here, (not you obviously) I am ABL not a PBTory
2) I will presume from the response no defence of the points made then but at least you got your expectations management in early. Pathetic.
Quite frankly if Labour want to be treated as a potential government they need to act like one.
They blind them.
If Attlee's wife voted Tory, it was her private decision.
The usual anti-LD nonsense from the usual suspects notwithstanding, OGH has a point of sorts but in the pre-Coalition days the Party leader would always turn up at a by-election and be out with the troops on the ground. Those with memories will recall Charles Kennedy poured time and effort into Romsey at the cost of some local Council seats while Paddy staked a lot on Newbury and before him we had Eastbourne when some Tories didn't even want us to contest the seat.
No, it would be much worse if Tim stayed away. As to expectations, I don't have any as to the result in Oldham any more than I do more locally in the Boleyn by-election for a seat on Newham on the same day. However, the party is putting up a candidate and getting new members and helpers out on the doorstep and long may this benign Autumn weather continue in the south.
On the wider scene, it's Year Zero for the party as it was in 1970. There's an opportunity to rebuild and rethink from the ground up - the Conservatives were here in 1997 and Labour in 1983. It will take a lot of time and no surprise to see those hostile to the Party carping about a lack of progress after six months. I am absolutely convinced the Party will recover much though that will displease some on here but Tim needs time and that crucial ingredient, luck. A good result in Oldham will be a big help and sometimes you have to make your own luck.
FWIW I believe that growth is produced by thuggery (e.g. Francis Drake, Robert Clive) and that prosperity implies dishonesty.
I can only assume God is weeping at Mr. Eagles' historical ignorance.
That I celebrated more over Vince losing his seat than Ed Balls, speaks volumes. And I was a Coalitionista until they reneged over boundaries. That was a step too far.
It will be up to UKIP to prove to the vast majority of the nation that Right wing libertarian policies can and will help the most needy.
Despite those risks he articulated the reservations of those against, pointed to the many holes in Blair's position which the Tories were not willing to talk about or were deliberately overlooking and stood up to the vicious Campbell machine despite having personal vulnerabilities.
It is a mistake to remember Kennedy as he was once alcoholism got the better of him. He was one of the brightest and best of our political leaders for many years and a fine public speaker.
In some ways the kippers have more to lose here than anyone. We shall see if their aspiration to be the main threat to Corbynite Labour holds any water at all.
On what policies does Tim materially disagree with Labour's leaders?
Years back some queer old cove on here indicated that would happen. Fine chap .... whatever happened to him?
By the way, has anyone heard that Danny Alexander will be the UK representative at AIIB , the Chinese rival to the World Bank ?
http://www.notableabodes.com/person-abode-details/3981/clement-attlee-politician_17-monkhams-avenue-woodford-green-essex
He should have stood down as leader before he did, but I hold fellow LDs responsible here. He was a high functioning alcoholic for years before it went too far. And it was obvious when it did.
I think Ming was the worst LD leader in recent times myself - he came across as ancient relic too fond of his own rambling voice. Being a former Olympian from 1906 seemed about right.
Of course the economy can grow under Labour too but we then tend to get a different kind of imbalance with, over time, excessive government spending, too much subsidy and vanity projects. Whilst the Tories have a tendency to want to shrink the state to allow the cutting of taxes Labour wants to grow it and its client base by increasing the tax base and, unfortunately, borrowing to "invest". Too much of one or the other inevitably leads to problems.
The party needs to take a break, and that means Farron calling off his militants in the lords.
It helps to be a Tory boy ! You are well looked after.
It was the daft approach in coalition that made their campaign so difficult. They spent years rubbishing the government of which they were a part and were then surprised they didn't get any credit.
Mr. Taffys, not a yellow myself, but it seems Farron's the instigator of the truculence in the Upper House, stamping his little foot for media attention.
Apparently, they've also taken skip loads of data belonging to other organisations in breach of Data Protection legislation to use in campaigning.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11981745/The-Corbyn-hardcore-plotting-to-deselect-Labour-moderates.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
The whole idea for the lib dems, I would have thought, is to present themselves as a sober moderate left alternative to a labour party that is having a nervous breakdown.
If anything, Farron is even shriller in his criticisms of the tories than Corbyn. Meanwhile, his deeply undemocratic lords block the government on economic policy. And when he has a moment he blathers on sanctimoniously about policies that were rejected wholesale in May such as radical environmentalism and europhilia.
This guy is a complete disaster.
If I were a moderate Labour supporter, I would be tearing my hair out at the antics of groups like Momentum.
As a nod towards the estimable Mr Dancer, Labour are now reaping the bitter fruit of a Corbyn victory much as Sparta did after 'winning' the Peloponnesian War.
Given that the country is massively more prosperous than it used to be, I don't understand your phrase 'the prosperity of the few'.
Farron seems to have swallowed whole the Corbynite notion that the tories are, to a man, baby eating Victorian mill owners.
What a fool.
As an example one of the most shameful things about Labour's immigration policies was that they neglected those who would suffer, those who would find it harder to get a job or a Council house or a decent school, people they should have been looking after. Middle class professionals are not adversely affected by immigration, in fact they gain from it in many ways. The poor and the poorly educated pay the price but Labour took them for granted and still do because they are in very large part made up of middle class professionals.
We should all recall, this day more than most, that those who gave their lives in the service of the nation did so partly in order that we may enjoy robustly the freedoms of a liberal democracy and that critically includes the freedom to demur from the accepted norms and conventions of society.
With that, Mrs JackW and I must depart for our own service.
It's so desperate that if I hadn't read it with my own eyes, I'd think it was a joke. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11708835/Sketch-Can-anyone-here-speak-Brummie-Andy-Burnhams-hot-new-plan-to-make-Labour-electable.html
There is and has been a lot of discussion within the Party about what happened and why it happened and about what might have happened and why it did not. I have contributed to a couple of working groups set up to look at the entirety of the Party's operation and performance.
We are six months into a sixty month electoral cycle - the analysis and discussion will continue but politics and political life goes on and there is a Government to hold to account and if that means using the Lords as part of that process, so be it.
Was he drinking too heavily before The 2005 General Election or not? By 2006, the guy was a liability and is removed.
Suggestions that he was over tired and over emotional at the time of the Iraqi War Votes, could be taken as part of a deliberate campaign to discredit his judgements. CK could see the war as an opportunity to reposition the LDs but it can be portrayed as a principled or cynical ploy to gain votes.
But the flaws and illnesses of politicians are massaged away until it is too late to conceal them from the public.
[Checked the date, and Leuctra, the first of two major battles which saw the Thebans beat the Spartans, was only a few decades after the war ended. The Theban supremacy was short-lived, as their king, Epaminondas, died after Mantinea, the second victory, and the city made the terminal decision to oppose Philip and Alexander when the Macedonians had formerly been their allies].
Given Farron's actions so far it seems to me the conclusion of your 'discussions' is that you were right and the electorate was wrong.
I have a horrible feeling at the back of my throat that there's devil in the detail there though. Off to buy the Sunday Times to read more.
https://twitter.com/Juliet777777/status/663288722364850176
You don't get to roll up at a military base then demand the right to live in the UK permanently.
Read somewhere or other that Merkel now wants Syrians in Germany to stay for one year. Cameron's fortunate. Merkel's madness makes his own stance on the migrant crisis appear very sensible (which, surprisingly, it is), and distracts from the massive net migration we have.
That is my principal concern about this. The roads through the HR maze have been fairly well beaten flat by litigation in this country at great expense and the circumstances where they arise are well known. If we replace the current maze with another one the lawyers start again exploring the new limits and pathways, at further public expense.
This just does not seem to be worth it to me although more explicit protection for freedom of the press than the idiotic Leveson proposals would be welcome.