For me, a moderate, electable Labour party needs to: 1. Have the fight for equality of opportunity at its very core.
If Labour (and lefties more generally) could agree with that one alone it would be a massive leap forward!
I'm afraid that is one of the battle grounds. Equality of outcome (left) vs equality of opportunity (Blairite/centre left)
If the outcome is unequal, how can you know whether the opportunity was or was not? The problem for the left, particularly now that its support is based at least as much on ethnicity as economic position, is that people don't want equality. We all want power and privilege.
It might be middle-aged complacency, but I feel the major issue for the Left is that the great battles have been won. Society is a long way from perfect but (in my lifetime) we've made great strides. The kind of poverty we saw even as late as the 1970s is gone. Women are far better represented in the workforce. LGBT rights are like night and day compared to my youth.
We're wealthier, (and if you base it on lifespan) healthier and better educated than at almost any time in history - most historical monarchs would be envious of the comfort of our lives.
What's left? I'm not sure. Or rather, there's the idea of a larger state based on a greater tax take, with more emphasis on care for the chronically sick and disabled - but that's hardly an inspiring rallying cry.
I think Labour simply have to wait for the Tories to screw up. All the ingredients are already there - Osborne's autumn statement was a combination of a Hail Mary pass and optimistic can-kicking. I think 2020 is going to be a torrid time for Cameron's successor - there may be an opportunity for Labour then.
And the emerging battles, over national identity, immigration, and the impact of globalisation, are difficult terrain both for social democrats, and the Corbynite Left.
They might be difficult battles for George Osborne's Conservatives too.
For me, a moderate, electable Labour party needs to: 1. Have the fight for equality of opportunity at its very core.
If Labour (and lefties more generally) could agree with that one alone it would be a massive leap forward!
I'm afraid that is one of the battle grounds. Equality of outcome (left) vs equality of opportunity (Blairite/centre left)
If the outcome is unequal, how can you know whether the opportunity was or was not? The problem for the left, particularly now that its support is based at least as much on ethnicity as economic position, is that people don't want equality. We all want power and privilege.
It might be middle-aged complacency, but I feel the major issue for the Left is that the great battles have been won. Society is a long way from perfect but (in my lifetime) we've made great strides. The kind of poverty we saw even as late as the 1970s is gone. Women are far better represented in the workforce. LGBT rights are like night and day compared to my youth.
We're wealthier, (and if you base it on lifespan) healthier and better educated than at almost any time in history - most historical monarchs would be envious of the comfort of our lives.
What's left? I'm not sure. Or rather, there's the idea of a larger state based on a greater tax take, with more emphasis on care for the chronically sick and disabled - but that's hardly an inspiring rallying cry.
I think Labour simply have to wait for the Tories to screw up. All the ingredients are already there - Osborne's autumn statement was a combination of a Hail Mary pass and optimistic can-kicking. I think 2020 is going to be a torrid time for Cameron's successor - there may be an opportunity for Labour then.
And the emerging battles, over national identity, immigration, and the impact of globalisation, are difficult terrain both for social democrats, and the Corbynite Left.
We might see some genuinely disruptive technological advances, for good or ill. Ubiquitous robotics, flow batteries and the like. Alternatively, some of the advances in treating degenerative diseases might change the demographic landscape.
I feel completely secure in predicting that life is only going to get harder for the unskilled/semi-skilled elements of the workforce.
Totally OT - but something's really struck me about charity advertising on TV. I don't trust 99% of it. I skip over only three advertising memes - GoCompare as it's enormously irritating, that Galaxy one with Audrey Hepburn and every single charity one bar the Sally Army.
I'd like to give to the one about tigers - but I don't trust them an inch - all the rest are so crammed with pathos > unintentional bathos that I reach for the remote within a second. The Sally Army one was quite upbeat and such a contrast - I think I'll donate £19 as suggested. They've also attracted no negative comment that I've seen.
Is it just me?
I think big charities are under the microscope for excessive salaries, admin and waste.
For me, a moderate, electable Labour party needs to: 1. Have the fight for equality of opportunity at its very core.
If Labour (and lefties more generally) could agree with that one alone it would be a massive leap forward!
I'm afraid that is one of the battle grounds. Equality of outcome (left) vs equality of opportunity (Blairite/centre left)
If the outcome is unequal, how can you know whether the opportunity was or was not? The problem for the left, particularly now that its support is based at least as much on ethnicity as economic position, is that people don't want equality. We all want power and privilege.
It might be middle-aged complacency, but I feel the major issue for the Left is that the great battles have been won. Society is a long way from perfect but (in my lifetime) we've made great strides. The kind of poverty we saw even as late as the 1970s is gone. Women are far better represented in the workforce. LGBT rights are like night and day compared to my youth.
We're wealthier, (and if you base it on lifespan) healthier and better educated than at almost any time in history - most historical monarchs would be envious of the comfort of our lives.
What's left? I'm not sure. Or rather, there's the idea of a larger state based on a greater tax take, with more emphasis on care for the chronically sick and disabled - but that's hardly an inspiring rallying cry.
I think Labour simply have to wait for the Tories to screw up. All the ingredients are already there - Osborne's autumn statement was a combination of a Hail Mary pass and optimistic can-kicking. I think 2020 is going to be a torrid time for Cameron's successor - there may be an opportunity for Labour then.
And the emerging battles, over national identity, immigration, and the impact of globalisation, are difficult terrain both for social democrats, and the Corbynite Left.
"Left" and "right" presuppose class politics. As Sean says, we are moving away from them. To something that will make them look like a tea party.
For me, a moderate, electable Labour party needs to: 1. Have the fight for equality of opportunity at its very core. 2. Always ensure that the most vulnerable and the poorest are not adversely affected by government policy. 3. Be unambivalent in saying the capitalist system is the best lever for achieving its aims. The market is an opportunity, not the enemy. 4. Be clear that the market does not exist in a bubble of its own and that it is not always the answer. 5. See the state as a guarantor of the highest standards of service and service delivery. But not always as a service provider. 6. Be willing to unequivocally make the case for welfare, but be totally intolerant of welfare abuse. 7. Be embedded in middle Britain, not in specific geographies or communities. Celebrate Britain. 8. Make the case for internationalism, not isolation; focus on soft power as a means to ensuring Britain's voice is heard. 9. Be unafraid of making the case for wealth redistribution as something that ultimately benefits everyone; while at the same time embracing aspiration as a very positive force.
It's not a hugely ambitious list. It is a moderate one. It's not hugely exciting, but practical, deliverable politicies rarely are. A lot of it is about competence. Corbynistas will hate it.
Very well thought out SO.
Personally, as a Conservative, I'd have reservations on (6), (8) and (9) but the rest of your list is fair enough.
For me, a moderate, electable Labour party needs to: 1. Have the fight for equality of opportunity at its very core.
If Labour (and lefties more generally) could agree with that one alone it would be a massive leap forward!
I'm afraid that is one of the battle grounds. Equality of outcome (left) vs equality of opportunity (Blairite/centre left)
If the outcome is unequal, how can you know whether the opportunity was or was not? The problem for the left, particularly now that its support is based at least as much on ethnicity as economic position, is that people don't want equality. We all want power and privilege.
It might be middle-aged complacency, but I feel the major issue for the Left is that the great battles have been won. Society is a long way from perfect but (in my lifetime) we've made great strides. The kind of poverty we saw even as late as the 1970s is gone. Women are far better represented in the workforce. LGBT rights are like night and day compared to my youth.
We're wealthier, (and if you base it on lifespan) healthier and better educated than at almost any time in history - most historical monarchs would be envious of the comfort of our lives.
What's left? I'm not sure. Or rather, there's the idea of a larger state based on a greater tax take, with more emphasis on care for the chronically sick and disabled - but that's hardly an inspiring rallying cry.
I think Labour simply have to wait for the Tories to screw up. All the ingredients are already there - Osborne's autumn statement was a combination of a Hail Mary pass and optimistic can-kicking. I think 2020 is going to be a torrid time for Cameron's successor - there may be an opportunity for Labour then.
And the emerging battles, over national identity, immigration, and the impact of globalisation, are difficult terrain both for social democrats, and the Corbynite Left.
They might be difficult battles for George Osborne's Conservatives too.
Gordon Brown among five 'world-renowned experts' hired by banking giant Pimco for 'economic advice': Former PM will tour offices around the world to 'contribute insights'
The original FT story had the killer line...
Gordon Brown will advise them on how to weather the sort of Boom and Bust he claimed to have abolished
The Donald must surely be thinking he's got a massive dose of Brewster's Millions - he's now trying everything to become unpopular and the opposite is happening!
Totally OT - but something's really struck me about charity advertising on TV. I don't trust 99% of it. I skip over only three advertising memes - GoCompare as it's enormously irritating, that Galaxy one with Audrey Hepburn and every single charity one bar the Sally Army.
I'd like to give to the one about tigers - but I don't trust them an inch - all the rest are so crammed with pathos > unintentional bathos that I reach for the remote within a second. The Sally Army one was quite upbeat and such a contrast - I think I'll donate £19 as suggested. They've also attracted no negative comment that I've seen.
Is it just me?
I think big charities are under the microscope for excessive salaries, admin and waste.
Totally OT - but something's really struck me about charity advertising on TV. I don't trust 99% of it. I skip over only three advertising memes - GoCompare as it's enormously irritating, that Galaxy one with Audrey Hepburn and every single charity one bar the Sally Army.
I'd like to give to the one about tigers - but I don't trust them an inch - all the rest are so crammed with pathos > unintentional bathos that I reach for the remote within a second. The Sally Army one was quite upbeat and such a contrast - I think I'll donate £19 as suggested. They've also attracted no negative comment that I've seen.
Is it just me?
I think big charities are under the microscope for excessive salaries, admin and waste.
And small charities for waste, inefficiency and lack of controls. Kids Company is the poster child here. I do not claim to know the happy medium.
I think any half sane charity has good controls, in our case dealing with vulnerable people we have to be pretty much watertight in our procedures.
To comply with the Charity Commission rules and regs you need to be as well run or may be better run than a successful company. In lots of ways a Charity is harder to run than a business.
I agree efficiency of scale is going to be lost in a small organisation, but very often they can make up for that by use of volunteers for some functions or donations of key elements, such as premises.
For me, a moderate, electable Labour party needs to: 1. Have the fight for equality of opportunity at its very core.
If Labour (and lefties more generally) could agree with that one alone it would be a massive leap forward!
I'm afraid that is one of the battle grounds. Equality of outcome (left) vs equality of opportunity (Blairite/centre left)
If the outcome is unequal, how can you know whether the opportunity was or was not? The problem for the left, particularly now that its support is based at least as much on ethnicity as economic position, is that people don't want equality. We all want power and privilege.
It might be middle-aged complacency, but I feel the major issue for the Left is that the great battles have been won. Society is a long way from perfect but (in my lifetime) we've made great strides. The kind of poverty we saw even as late as the 1970s is gone. Women are far better represented in the workforce. LGBT rights are like night and day compared to my youth.
We're wealthier, (and if you base it on lifespan) healthier and better educated than at almost any time in history - most historical monarchs would be envious of the comfort of our lives.
I think Labour simply have to wait for the Tories to screw up. All the ingredients are already there - Osborne's autumn statement was a combination of a Hail Mary pass and optimistic can-kicking. I think 2020 is going to be a torrid time for Cameron's successor - there may be an opportunity for Labour then.
And the emerging battles, over national identity, immigration, and the impact of globalisation, are difficult terrain both for social democrats, and the Corbynite Left.
They might be difficult battles for George Osborne's Conservatives too.
I was just going to post exactly the same thing
Well, as Mr Osborne is proving to be as profligate as (say) a 2003-era Gordon Brown, it's hard to tell the difference some days.
I do agree that existing parties, right across the political spectrum, are going to struggle to square the circle. The world is becoming more volatile (just looking at global money flows gives me the heebie-jeebies, never mind militant islam or robotic overlords) and less amenable to institutional control. Makes me glad to be old - I think the next fifty years are going to be 'interesting times'.
For me, a moderate, electable Labour party needs to: 1. Have the fight for equality of opportunity at its very core.
If Labour (and lefties more generally) could agree with that one alone it would be a massive leap forward!
I'm afraid that is one of the battle grounds. Equality of outcome (left) vs equality of opportunity (Blairite/centre left)
If the outcome is unequal, how can you know whether the opportunity was or was not? The problem for the left, particularly now that its support is based at least as much on ethnicity as economic position, is that people don't want equality. We all want power and privilege.
It might be middle-aged complacency, but I feel the major issue for the Left is that the great battles have been won. Society is a long way from perfect but (in my lifetime) we've made great strides. The kind of poverty we saw even as late as the 1970s is gone. Women are far better represented in the workforce. LGBT rights are like night and day compared to my youth.
We're wealthier, (and if you base it on lifespan) healthier and better educated than at almost any time in history - most historical monarchs would be envious of the comfort of our lives.
What's left? I'm not sure. Or rather, there's the idea of a larger state based on a greater tax take, with more emphasis on care for the chronically sick and disabled - but that's hardly an inspiring rallying cry.
I think Labour simply have to wait for the Tories to screw up. All the ingredients are already there - Osborne's autumn statement was a combination of a Hail Mary pass and optimistic can-kicking.
And the emerging battles, over national identity, immigration, and the impact of globalisation, are difficult terrain both for social democrats, and the Corbynite Left.
They might be difficult battles for George Osborne's Conservatives too.
I was just going to post exactly the same thing
Great minds! If Osborne does win, it will be the voting system and the sheer weakness of the opposition that leads to him retaining power.
Osborne needs to answer what he's for once the budget is balanced, and how he's going to address the number one issue of concern to the British people. I've seen no signs of revelation here yet.
His politics are still anchored in the lessons of the 1990s, and the politics of the 2020s will be very, very different indeed.
He could easily be the wrong guy for the wrong times.
Gordon Brown among five 'world-renowned experts' hired by banking giant Pimco for 'economic advice': Former PM will tour offices around the world to 'contribute insights'
The original FT story had the killer line...
Gordon Brown will advise them on how to weather the sort of Boom and Bust he claimed to have abolished
In his new book, Social Class in the 21st Century, Savage delves deeper into the Great British Class Survey findings from 161,000 people. Here, take a look at five information-rich nuggets from the book:
CLASS BREAKDOWN
Do you feel privileged? About 6% of the UK population can be classed in the elite section of society.
The elite are people with high levels of all three of the so-called "capitals" assessed in the Great British Class Survey - especially "economic capital", with high levels of household income, savings, and highly valued owner occupied homes.
The other two capitals were "cultural" - which measured cultural interests and activities. And "social" - which counted the number, and status, of people they knew.
At the other end, more than two and a half times as many people are classed as being in the precariat - with "precarious" everyday lives. People in this group are the most deprived in society with low levels of economic, cultural and social capital.
For me, a moderate, electable Labour party needs to: 1. Have the fight for equality of opportunity at its very core.
If Labour (and lefties more generally) could agree with that one alone it would be a massive leap forward!
I'm afraid that is one of the battle grounds. Equality of outcome (left) vs equality of opportunity (Blairite/centre left)
If the outcome is unequal, how can you know whether the opportunity was or was not? The problem for the left, particularly now that its support is based at least as much on ethnicity as economic position, is that people don't want equality. We all want power and privilege.
It might be middle-aged complacency, but I feel the major issue for the Left is that the great battles have been won. Society is a long way from perfect but (in my lifetime) we've made great strides. The kind of poverty we saw even as late as the 1970s is gone. Women are far better represented in the workforce. LGBT rights are like night and day compared to my youth.
We're wealthier, (and if you base it on lifespan) healthier and better educated than at almost any time in history - most historical monarchs would be envious of the comfort of our lives.
What's left? I'm not sure. Or rather, there's the idea of a larger state based on a greater tax take, with more emphasis on care for the chronically sick and disabled - but that's hardly an inspiring rallying cry.
I think Labour simply have to wait for the Tories to screw up. All the ingredients are already there - Osborne's autumn statement was a combination of a Hail Mary pass and optimistic can-kicking.
And the emerging battles, over national identity, immigration, and the impact of globalisation, are difficult terrain both for social democrats, and the Corbynite Left.
They might be difficult battles for George Osborne's Conservatives too.
I was just going to post exactly the same thing
Osborne needs to answer what he's for once the budget is balance.
WE must have been overcome by optimism to imagine David Cameron’s EU renegotiation would produce a deal worth a damn.
Three of the four concessions he asked Brussels for were barely worth the ink.
The fourth, withholding benefits from EU migrants for four years, sounds significant — but would have a tiny impact on our soaring immigration. The vast majority arrive here not for handouts but for work, as lucrative as possible.
A handful might reconsider coming if tax credits weren’t on offer . . . but not many. The rising Living Wage would cancel out any disincentive anyway.
The Prime Minister only cooked this up because he lacked the nerve to demand full and permanent control of our borders, despite the growing strength of our hand as the migrant crisis paralysed the continent.
Yet we are now led to believe even this is being fought in Brussels.
Mr Cameron’s bluff about leading the Out campaign if he doesn’t get his way may be being called already.
But even if he wins this minor tweak, so what? It’s no game-changer.
Totally OT - but something's really struck me about charity advertising on TV. I don't trust 99% of it. I skip over only three advertising memes - GoCompare as it's enormously irritating, that Galaxy one with Audrey Hepburn and every single charity one bar the Sally Army.
I'd like to give to the one about tigers - but I don't trust them an inch - all the rest are so crammed with pathos > unintentional bathos that I reach for the remote within a second. The Sally Army one was quite upbeat and such a contrast - I think I'll donate £19 as suggested. They've also attracted no negative comment that I've seen.
Is it just me?
For years I've been looking for a national charity that focusses exclusively on children who are carers. All the one's I've found only have child carers as an element, not the only recipient. I do think this is an area that is overlooked, underfunded and has a legion of dedicated kids looking after disabled parents.
Gordon Brown among five 'world-renowned experts' hired by banking giant Pimco for 'economic advice': Former PM will tour offices around the world to 'contribute insights'
The original FT story had the killer line...
Gordon Brown will advise them on how to weather the sort of Boom and Bust he claimed to have abolished
That would be Tory boom and bust, surely?
The claim
"I actually said, 'No more Tory boom and bust'." Gordon Brown, the Daily Mail, 11 October 2008
....
But Brown's claim to the Mail just doesn't stand up. There have just been too many memorable references to the end of boom and bust - without any mention of Tory.
Totally OT - but something's really struck me about charity advertising on TV. I don't trust 99% of it. I skip over only three advertising memes - GoCompare as it's enormously irritating, that Galaxy one with Audrey Hepburn and every single charity one bar the Sally Army.
I'd like to give to the one about tigers - but I don't trust them an inch - all the rest are so crammed with pathos > unintentional bathos that I reach for the remote within a second. The Sally Army one was quite upbeat and such a contrast - I think I'll donate £19 as suggested. They've also attracted no negative comment that I've seen.
Is it just me?
For years I've been looking for a national charity that focusses exclusively on children who are carers. All the one's I've found only have child carers as an element, not the only recipient. I do think this is an area that is overlooked, underfunded and has a legion of dedicated kids looking after disabled parents.
'Police were told of concerns about Leytonstone stabbing suspect Muhaydin Mire three weeks ago but Scotland Yard today defended its handling of the alert.
Detectives said they had “correctly” referred Mire’s family to health services when warned about fears around how he was acting in November.
Mire’s brother Mohamed told Channel 4 news Mire had “mental problems” that may have begun when he started using cannabis.
Mire reportedly spent three months in hospital after being diagnosed with paranoia in 2007.'
Totally OT - but something's really struck me about charity advertising on TV. I don't trust 99% of it. I skip over only three advertising memes - GoCompare as it's enormously irritating, that Galaxy one with Audrey Hepburn and every single charity one bar the Sally Army.
I'd like to give to the one about tigers - but I don't trust them an inch - all the rest are so crammed with pathos > unintentional bathos that I reach for the remote within a second. The Sally Army one was quite upbeat and such a contrast - I think I'll donate £19 as suggested. They've also attracted no negative comment that I've seen.
" It is understood that the RSPCA had intended to pay FIL about £1.8 million and in return FIL would sign up donors who, it was estimated, would provide almost £2.4 million. The RSPCA has refused to say how much FIL was paid for the campaign. Battersea Dogs & Cats Home said it had spent £646,000 between July and September this year with FIL, which it hoped would “bring in almost £1.3 million over the next five years”.
Who in their right mind gives that sort of money to a company £2 million underwater ?
For full disclosure I'm on the hook for £19.72 to them - secured against Cathy Sullivan's house apparently.
'Police were told of concerns about Leytonstone stabbing suspect Muhaydin Mire three weeks ago but Scotland Yard today defended its handling of the alert.
Detectives said they had “correctly” referred Mire’s family to health services when warned about fears around how he was acting in November.
Mire’s brother Mohamed told Channel 4 news Mire had “mental problems” that may have begun when he started using cannabis.
Mire reportedly spent three months in hospital after being diagnosed with paranoia in 2007.'
We might see some genuinely disruptive technological advances, for good or ill. Ubiquitous robotics, flow batteries and the like. Alternatively, some of the advances in treating degenerative diseases might change the demographic landscape.
I feel completely secure in predicting that life is only going to get harder for the unskilled/semi-skilled elements of the workforce.
Not just them, and perhaps not even mainly them. IT can be outsourced and offshored, as can many accountancy and audit functions. Manufacturing and engineering; design; the list is endless.
The kids who followed the rules, who passed their exams in vocational subjects, might be the losers.
Gordon Brown among five 'world-renowned experts' hired by banking giant Pimco for 'economic advice': Former PM will tour offices around the world to 'contribute insights'
The original FT story had the killer line...
Gordon Brown will advise them on how to weather the sort of Boom and Bust he claimed to have abolished
Doesn't Pimco have a relative of Gordon Brown in a senior position?
Totally OT - but something's really struck me about charity advertising on TV. I don't trust 99% of it. I skip over only three advertising memes - GoCompare as it's enormously irritating, that Galaxy one with Audrey Hepburn and every single charity one bar the Sally Army.
I'd like to give to the one about tigers - but I don't trust them an inch - all the rest are so crammed with pathos > unintentional bathos that I reach for the remote within a second. The Sally Army one was quite upbeat and such a contrast - I think I'll donate £19 as suggested. They've also attracted no negative comment that I've seen.
Gordon Brown among five 'world-renowned experts' hired by banking giant Pimco for 'economic advice': Former PM will tour offices around the world to 'contribute insights'
The original FT story had the killer line...
Gordon Brown will advise them on how to weather the sort of Boom and Bust he claimed to have abolished
Doesn't Pimco have a relative of Gordon Brown in a senior position?
Gordon Brown among five 'world-renowned experts' hired by banking giant Pimco for 'economic advice': Former PM will tour offices around the world to 'contribute insights'
The original FT story had the killer line...
Gordon Brown will advise them on how to weather the sort of Boom and Bust he claimed to have abolished
Doesn't Pimco have a relative of Gordon Brown in a senior position?
Totally OT - but something's really struck me about charity advertising on TV. I don't trust 99% of it. I skip over only three advertising memes - GoCompare as it's enormously irritating, that Galaxy one with Audrey Hepburn and every single charity one bar the Sally Army.
I'd like to give to the one about tigers - but I don't trust them an inch - all the rest are so crammed with pathos > unintentional bathos that I reach for the remote within a second. The Sally Army one was quite upbeat and such a contrast - I think I'll donate £19 as suggested. They've also attracted no negative comment that I've seen.
Gordon Brown among five 'world-renowned experts' hired by banking giant Pimco for 'economic advice': Former PM will tour offices around the world to 'contribute insights'
The original FT story had the killer line...
Gordon Brown will advise them on how to weather the sort of Boom and Bust he claimed to have abolished
Doesn't Pimco have a relative of Gordon Brown in a senior position?
We might see some genuinely disruptive technological advances, for good or ill. Ubiquitous robotics, flow batteries and the like. Alternatively, some of the advances in treating degenerative diseases might change the demographic landscape.
I feel completely secure in predicting that life is only going to get harder for the unskilled/semi-skilled elements of the workforce.
Not just them, and perhaps not even mainly them. IT can be outsourced and offshored, as can many accountancy and audit functions. Manufacturing and engineering; design; the list is endless.
The kids who followed the rules, who passed their exams in vocational subjects, might be the losers.
I've had personal experience of offshoring - it may look good on paper to accountants but is not efficient in practise. "The pitfalls of offshoring include miscommunication, political instability, and security risks. Offshoring location costs have grown by the double digits on an annualized basis, while the cost of foreign labor is also on the rise, according to the International Labour Organization. In addition, customers’ dissatisfaction with the language barrier has been repeatedly vocalized, and more CEOs are realizing that the cost of losing a customer or providing a sub-optimal experience is expensive and impacts the brand." http://chiefexecutive.net/onshoring-vs-offshoring-servicesupport-businesses-are-coming-back-home/
Personally, as a Conservative, I'd have reservations on (6), (8) and (9) but the rest of your list is fair enough.
In practice (2) "Always ensure that the most vulnerable and the poorest are not adversely affected by government policy" would act as a "progressive" ratchet. This might be as intended, but it does make it difficult to address the unintended (or indeed intended) consequences of things like tax credits.
Obviously the government should be looking out for the most vulnerable. But eliding that group with "the poorest" - though there is obviously huge overlap - is slippery.
An interesting piece but I must disagree with this bit: "‘Not being Corbyn’ – however desirable – will not be enough just as ‘not being the Tories’ hasn’t been since 2007."
Corbyn's the sort of man who questions shoot to kill for terrorists, who has 'friends' in Hamas and Hezbollah, whose associates absolve terrorists of their murderous crimes because of British foreign policy.
We shouldn't overestimate the appeal of Cameron or the Conservatives. A substantial factor in their 2015 victory was that the electorate was not convinced Miliband was a credible PM. Is a man who refuses to sing the national anthem at a remembrance event more credible?
The Tories won because the took 27 seats from the Liberal Democrats. There was nothing else.
I detest the RSCPA with my whole being. Busy bodies who aren't interested in helping and love persecuting those with the best of intentions, rather than supporting them. All clipboards and quasi police uniforms. And lying about keeping pets alive to secure donations whilst putting them down.
" It is understood that the RSPCA had intended to pay FIL about £1.8 million and in return FIL would sign up donors who, it was estimated, would provide almost £2.4 million. The RSPCA has refused to say how much FIL was paid for the campaign. Battersea Dogs & Cats Home said it had spent £646,000 between July and September this year with FIL, which it hoped would “bring in almost £1.3 million over the next five years”.
Who in their right mind gives that sort of money to a company £2 million underwater ?
For full disclosure I'm on the hook for £19.72 to them - secured against Cathy Sullivan's house apparently.
Totally OT - but something's really struck me about charity advertising on TV. I don't trust 99% of it. I skip over only three advertising memes - GoCompare as it's enormously irritating, that Galaxy one with Audrey Hepburn and every single charity one bar the Sally Army.
I'd like to give to the one about tigers - but I don't trust them an inch - all the rest are so crammed with pathos > unintentional bathos that I reach for the remote within a second. The Sally Army one was quite upbeat and such a contrast - I think I'll donate £19 as suggested. They've also attracted no negative comment that I've seen.
'Police were told of concerns about Leytonstone stabbing suspect Muhaydin Mire three weeks ago but Scotland Yard today defended its handling of the alert.
Detectives said they had “correctly” referred Mire’s family to health services when warned about fears around how he was acting in November.
Mire’s brother Mohamed told Channel 4 news Mire had “mental problems” that may have begun when he started using cannabis.
Mire reportedly spent three months in hospital after being diagnosed with paranoia in 2007.'
Being a direct switcher from Labour to Tory (because I live in a very tight marginal where a vote for anyone else is a waste of time) I find the complacency that some display towards Corbyn more than a little alarming.
In the run up to GE 2020 it is possible that there has been another financial crash (many seem to believe it is when rather than if the next one), Syria could go very badly and the Tories, after tearing themselves apart over the EU Ref could choose a very unattractive right-wing leader again. If these events were to all occur then I could see Corbyn having a good chance - most people vote against rather than for.
The next choice of Tory leader will be hugely influential for the outcome of GE2020
An interesting piece but I must disagree with this bit: "‘Not being Corbyn’ – however desirable – will not be enough just as ‘not being the Tories’ hasn’t been since 2007."
Corbyn's the sort of man who questions shoot to kill for terrorists, who has 'friends' in Hamas and Hezbollah, whose associates absolve terrorists of their murderous crimes because of British foreign policy.
We shouldn't overestimate the appeal of Cameron or the Conservatives. A substantial factor in their 2015 victory was that the electorate was not convinced Miliband was a credible PM. Is a man who refuses to sing the national anthem at a remembrance event more credible?
Shoot to kill is an interesting one. No doubt it will be used against Corbyn, though perhaps not by official channels since it is of course illegal unless there is immediate danger to life, and Mrs May does not look in much of a hurry to change the law.
That's a really excellent article. Interestingly, as a Corbyn supporter I agree with most of Southam's response (the list of principles for an attractive centrist alternative platform for Labour, not the repetitive Dan Hodges echo post), and I think a lot of members would. If there was another leadership election at some point in the next few years, as Keiran predicts, a candidate on that sort of platform would stand a good chance, whereas a candidate who had spent the previous year or two just whinging to the Mail about the current leadership would not (and would get part of the blame for any electoral setbacks). A centrist grumbling about Corbyn showing loyalty to Stop the War is boring; a centrist with an alternative agenda is definitely worth reading.
The two elements of Southam's list that I'd hesitate over are the meaning of internationalism and the openness to private provision of state services. On the first, we can all agree that international solidarity is important, but if it means military intervention, it's not just Labour members who think we need a pause from that. On the second, I wouldn't disagree in principle, but the privatisation agenda is being driven so far by the Tories that I'm not sure there is any space to adopt policies of accepting it or going even further. Stopping short of total reversal of privatisation (which even Corbyn hasn't promised) and looking at what works is probably where the centrist position needs to be.
Nick: how can you - as a Corbyn supporter - say that you find SO's principles attractive? There are a number of those principles: 1, 3 and 7 which would not be supported by Corbyn or his allies, 3 and 7 in particular.
" It is understood that the RSPCA had intended to pay FIL about £1.8 million and in return FIL would sign up donors who, it was estimated, would provide almost £2.4 million. The RSPCA has refused to say how much FIL was paid for the campaign. Battersea Dogs & Cats Home said it had spent £646,000 between July and September this year with FIL, which it hoped would “bring in almost £1.3 million over the next five years”.
Who in their right mind gives that sort of money to a company £2 million underwater ?
For full disclosure I'm on the hook for £19.72 to them - secured against Cathy Sullivan's house apparently.
I may be misreading the article, but isn't the RSPCA response fair enough? They paid the company by results, so they haven't lost anything. If a charity can find someone who gets them £100 for (say) £50, they'd be silly not to use them, unless they have a better way of raising money for their cause. The Battersea approach of paying up front does sound as though it's gone south.
Being a direct switcher from Labour to Tory (because I live in a very tight marginal where a vote for anyone else is a waste of time) I find the complacency that some display towards Corbyn more than a little alarming.
In the run up to GE 2020 it is possible that there has been another financial crash (many seem to believe it is when rather than if the next one), Syria could go very badly and the Tories, after tearing themselves apart over the EU Ref could choose a very unattractive right-wing leader again. If these events were to all occur then I could see Corbyn having a good chance - most people vote against rather than for.
The next choice of Tory leader will be hugely influential for the outcome of GE2020
"Syria could go very badly and the Tories, after tearing themselves apart over the EU Ref could choose a very unattractive right-wing leader again"
Well I expect when push comes to shove Osborne will be gone for. So not all that right wing.
We might see some genuinely disruptive technological advances, for good or ill. Ubiquitous robotics, flow batteries and the like. Alternatively, some of the advances in treating degenerative diseases might change the demographic landscape.
I feel completely secure in predicting that life is only going to get harder for the unskilled/semi-skilled elements of the workforce.
Not just them, and perhaps not even mainly them. IT can be outsourced and offshored, as can many accountancy and audit functions. Manufacturing and engineering; design; the list is endless.
The kids who followed the rules, who passed their exams in vocational subjects, might be the losers.
Oh I agree, but (and I speak from experience) it's easier to shift careers if you've at least a decent degree - no one has ever held my comp sci degree against me . It's harder if (like my youngest nephew) you're an HGV driver.
As long standing PBer - I have to say that I'm ASTONISHED that you're willing to vote Tory in protest at Corbyn.
You've been such a Party man. I have much sympathy with your view - he's transmogrifying your Party into something way beyond the visible political universe of electability.
Being a direct switcher from Labour to Tory (because I live in a very tight marginal where a vote for anyone else is a waste of time) I find the complacency that some display towards Corbyn more than a little alarming.
In the run up to GE 2020 it is possible that there has been another financial crash (many seem to believe it is when rather than if the next one), Syria could go very badly and the Tories, after tearing themselves apart over the EU Ref could choose a very unattractive right-wing leader again. If these events were to all occur then I could see Corbyn having a good chance - most people vote against rather than for.
The next choice of Tory leader will be hugely influential for the outcome of GE2020
An interesting piece but I must disagree with this bit: "‘Not being Corbyn’ – however desirable – will not be enough just as ‘not being the Tories’ hasn’t been since 2007."
Corbyn's the sort of man who questions shoot to kill for terrorists, who has 'friends' in Hamas and Hezbollah, whose associates absolve terrorists of their murderous crimes because of British foreign policy.
We shouldn't overestimate the appeal of Cameron or the Conservatives. A substantial factor in their 2015 victory was that the electorate was not convinced Miliband was a credible PM. Is a man who refuses to sing the national anthem at a remembrance event more credible?
The Tories won because the took 27 seats from the Liberal Democrats. There was nothing else.
Rubbish. They were supposed to be "out of power for a generation" given their inheritance. They won because they took 27 seats from the Lib Dems and they lost essentially none (2 net) to Labour. A tremendous achievement, regardless of whether you credit it to Osborne or Miliband.
“It is widely known, but rarely stated, that the goal of the Munich hostage-taking was not to kill them; it was to return the athletes to Israel in return for Israel returning its Palestinian prisoners.”
Two of the athletes were killed when the Black September gang stormed their apartment in the Olympic village.
Another nine were killed during the rescue operation by German police, during which the hostage-takers shot some of their captives. Whether some were accidentally killed by police snipers is disputed.
The article describes the rescue operation as “unnecessary”, saying Israel had refused to cede to the terrorists' demands, and blamed police for some of the deaths.
Mr Corbyn was the chairman of Stop the War from September 2011 until his election as Labour leader earlier this year.
" It is understood that the RSPCA had intended to pay FIL about £1.8 million and in return FIL would sign up donors who, it was estimated, would provide almost £2.4 million. The RSPCA has refused to say how much FIL was paid for the campaign. Battersea Dogs & Cats Home said it had spent £646,000 between July and September this year with FIL, which it hoped would “bring in almost £1.3 million over the next five years”.
Who in their right mind gives that sort of money to a company £2 million underwater ?
For full disclosure I'm on the hook for £19.72 to them - secured against Cathy Sullivan's house apparently.
I may be misreading the article, but isn't the RSPCA response fair enough? They paid the company by results, so they haven't lost anything. If a charity can find someone who gets them £100 for (say) £50, they'd be silly not to use them, unless they have a better way of raising money for their cause. The Battersea approach of paying up front does sound as though it's gone south.
Personally I am blo*dy delighted that another chugging outfit has gone. The young people roaming the shopping streets with their clipboards and forced 'great to meet you' and all the rest of it are one of the true pains of modern life.
Totally OT - but something's really struck me about charity advertising on TV. I don't trust 99% of it. I skip over only three advertising memes - GoCompare as it's enormously irritating, that Galaxy one with Audrey Hepburn and every single charity one bar the Sally Army.
I'd like to give to the one about tigers - but I don't trust them an inch - all the rest are so crammed with pathos > unintentional bathos that I reach for the remote within a second. The Sally Army one was quite upbeat and such a contrast - I think I'll donate £19 as suggested. They've also attracted no negative comment that I've seen.
It's odd but I bristled at the content of that report. I'm a lifelong (OK, since aged 8) atheist. However, I'm not so stupid to not appreciate the cultural context in which I was raised. So atheist, sure. But a Judaeo-Christian one.
As I've written before, I would love to have faith; it's a great consolation to many. It's probably one of the areas where I'm deeply small 'c' conservative. I confess that I'm not able to come up with a rational argument against a secular society; it simply bothers me.
" It is understood that the RSPCA had intended to pay FIL about £1.8 million and in return FIL would sign up donors who, it was estimated, would provide almost £2.4 million. The RSPCA has refused to say how much FIL was paid for the campaign. Battersea Dogs & Cats Home said it had spent £646,000 between July and September this year with FIL, which it hoped would “bring in almost £1.3 million over the next five years”.
Who in their right mind gives that sort of money to a company £2 million underwater ?
For full disclosure I'm on the hook for £19.72 to them - secured against Cathy Sullivan's house apparently.
I may be misreading the article, but isn't the RSPCA response fair enough? They paid the company by results, so they haven't lost anything. If a charity can find someone who gets them £100 for (say) £50, they'd be silly not to use them, unless they have a better way of raising money for their cause. The Battersea approach of paying up front does sound as though it's gone south.
Personally I am blo*dy delighted that another chugging outfit has gone. The young people roaming the shopping streets with their clipboards and forced 'great to meet you' and all the rest of it are one of the true pains of modern life.
Never mind the cold calling.
I did feel a bit sick that I'd lent her a penny, must admit. November's payment was made, mind (After they went bust)
Gordon Brown among five 'world-renowned experts' hired by banking giant Pimco for 'economic advice': Former PM will tour offices around the world to 'contribute insights'
The original FT story had the killer line...
Gordon Brown will advise them on how to weather the sort of Boom and Bust he claimed to have abolished
Doesn't Pimco have a relative of Gordon Brown in a senior position?
" It is understood that the RSPCA had intended to pay FIL about £1.8 million and in return FIL would sign up donors who, it was estimated, would provide almost £2.4 million. The RSPCA has refused to say how much FIL was paid for the campaign. Battersea Dogs & Cats Home said it had spent £646,000 between July and September this year with FIL, which it hoped would “bring in almost £1.3 million over the next five years”.
Who in their right mind gives that sort of money to a company £2 million underwater ?
For full disclosure I'm on the hook for £19.72 to them - secured against Cathy Sullivan's house apparently.
I may be misreading the article, but isn't the RSPCA response fair enough? They paid the company by results, so they haven't lost anything. If a charity can find someone who gets them £100 for (say) £50, they'd be silly not to use them, unless they have a better way of raising money for their cause. The Battersea approach of paying up front does sound as though it's gone south.
Until the donor finds that they have given £100.00, the charity has £50.00, they use £30.00 on admin and legal stuff, £15.00 on advertising and £5.00 on service delivery
Totally OT - but something's really struck me about charity advertising on TV. I don't trust 99% of it. I skip over only three advertising memes - GoCompare as it's enormously irritating, that Galaxy one with Audrey Hepburn and every single charity one bar the Sally Army.
I'd like to give to the one about tigers - but I don't trust them an inch - all the rest are so crammed with pathos > unintentional bathos that I reach for the remote within a second. The Sally Army one was quite upbeat and such a contrast - I think I'll donate £19 as suggested. They've also attracted no negative comment that I've seen.
Is it just me?
I think big charities are under the microscope for excessive salaries, admin and waste.
And small charities for waste, inefficiency and lack of controls. Kids Company is the poster child here. I do not claim to know the happy medium.
There are good small charities out there, but you have to look for them.
This is something we are funding at the moment - we are paying for the development of the database that will underpin their work. It's the sort of thing we like (I describe it as the plumbing of the charity sector): boring but important
An interesting piece but I must disagree with this bit: "‘Not being Corbyn’ – however desirable – will not be enough just as ‘not being the Tories’ hasn’t been since 2007."
Corbyn's the sort of man who questions shoot to kill for terrorists, who has 'friends' in Hamas and Hezbollah, whose associates absolve terrorists of their murderous crimes because of British foreign policy.
We shouldn't overestimate the appeal of Cameron or the Conservatives. A substantial factor in their 2015 victory was that the electorate was not convinced Miliband was a credible PM. Is a man who refuses to sing the national anthem at a remembrance event more credible?
The Tories won because the took 27 seats from the Liberal Democrats. There was nothing else.
Rubbish. They were supposed to be "out of power for a generation" given their inheritance. They won because they took 27 seats from the Lib Dems and they lost essentially none (2 net) to Labour. A tremendous achievement, regardless of whether you credit it to Osborne or Miliband.
An even more tremendous achievement when you remember Labour's ground game.
Ditto. My best friends were Evangelical Christians - I was gobsmacked when they *prayed* for me when ill - I couldn't imagine it. I've also endured more Cliff Richard festive compilations than I care to say, but they gain great solace from it all.
One Christmas, she gave me her own study copy of the King James Bible covered in notes - I was really touched. She knows I'm a die hard atheist, but gave me her most prized possession.
It's odd but I bristled at the content of that report. I'm a lifelong (OK, since aged 8) atheist. However, I'm not so stupid to not appreciate the cultural context in which I was raised. So atheist, sure. But a Judaeo-Christian one.
As I've written before, I would love to have faith; it's a great consolation to many. It's probably one of the areas where I'm deeply small 'c' conservative. I confess that I'm not able to come up with a rational argument against a secular society; it simply bothers me.
Being a direct switcher from Labour to Tory (because I live in a very tight marginal where a vote for anyone else is a waste of time) I find the complacency that some display towards Corbyn more than a little alarming.
In the run up to GE 2020 it is possible that there has been another financial crash (many seem to believe it is when rather than if the next one), Syria could go very badly and the Tories, after tearing themselves apart over the EU Ref could choose a very unattractive right-wing leader again. If these events were to all occur then I could see Corbyn having a good chance - most people vote against rather than for.
The next choice of Tory leader will be hugely influential for the outcome of GE2020
Incidentally, I was in the Cinema watching The Bridge of Spies last week, and a trailer for the film adapation of Michael Lewis' The Big Short came on. Reminded me what a great book that is, and also made me think that somewhere at the moment are people generating similar positions against the current financial growth areas. What a fascinating business that must be - I am totally unsuited for it being of an anxious disposition, but can't help but admire those naysayers against popular delusions/bubbles that are able and willing to bet the house on it.
It's odd but I bristled at the content of that report. I'm a lifelong (OK, since aged 8) atheist. However, I'm not so stupid to not appreciate the cultural context in which I was raised. So atheist, sure. But a Judaeo-Christian one.
As I've written before, I would love to have faith; it's a great consolation to many. It's probably one of the areas where I'm deeply small 'c' conservative. I confess that I'm not able to come up with a rational argument against a secular society; it simply bothers me.
There's not believing in God and the second coming of Jesus, and there's being Richard Dawkins.
No doubt he would consider me to be something of a hypocrite, but I got married in a church and would hate a society without cathedrals, carol concerts and the Christian message.
Do I believe in God? No. Would I have it any other way? No.
An interesting piece but I must disagree with this bit: "‘Not being Corbyn’ – however desirable – will not be enough just as ‘not being the Tories’ hasn’t been since 2007."
Corbyn's the sort of man who questions shoot to kill for terrorists, who has 'friends' in Hamas and Hezbollah, whose associates absolve terrorists of their murderous crimes because of British foreign policy.
We shouldn't overestimate the appeal of Cameron or the Conservatives. A substantial factor in their 2015 victory was that the electorate was not convinced Miliband was a credible PM. Is a man who refuses to sing the national anthem at a remembrance event more credible?
The Tories won because the took 27 seats from the Liberal Democrats. There was nothing else.
Rubbish, this labour rewriting of the election is getting ridiculous. It was Labour's failure (or Tory success) in the marginals that won them the majority. Beating the Lib Dems got them across the line for sure, but it was the 40-60 marginals in which the Tories saw a Lab-Con swing instead of the other way around that delivered the real victory. If Labour had made the 40 gains that some on here were talking about then it would be Tory 290, Lab 270, SNP 56. A majority of exactly 2 for a Lab/SNP coalition. The Tories hollowing out the Lib Dems is the side show, them beating Labour in the marginals was the main story.
Being a direct switcher from Labour to Tory (because I live in a very tight marginal where a vote for anyone else is a waste of time) I find the complacency that some display towards Corbyn more than a little alarming.
In the run up to GE 2020 it is possible that there has been another financial crash (many seem to believe it is when rather than if the next one), Syria could go very badly and the Tories, after tearing themselves apart over the EU Ref could choose a very unattractive right-wing leader again. If these events were to all occur then I could see Corbyn having a good chance - most people vote against rather than for.
The next choice of Tory leader will be hugely influential for the outcome of GE2020
Incidentally, I was in the Cinema watching The Bridge of Spies last week, and a trailer for the film adapation of Michael Lewis' The Big Short came on. Reminded me what a great book that is, and also made me think that somewhere at the moment are people generating similar positions against the current financial growth areas. What a fascinating business that must be - I am totally unsuited for it being of an anxious disposition, but can't help but admire those naysayers against popular delusions/bubbles that are able and willing to bet the house on it.
Agreed. Great book. I didn't know there was going to a film version.
My comments: re no. 2 - I would rephrase this by saying "Always try to ensure..." Sometimes people will be affected in the short-term but be better off in the medium and long-term as a result of a necessary change. We have to get away from the idea that if you are in some group you should never be adversely affected. Life is not like that.
On 5, there should be no bias in favour of state or market provision. The role of the state should be to ensure that what is needed is provided not that it should do the providing. Only those goods/services which cannot - or, for good policy reasons, should not be provided privately should be state run e.g. police, defence, public health.
Re 6 - a huge welfare bill is a failure if we have genuinely achieved 1. Welfare should be far more contributory and should be focused on those who are genuinely in need. It's purpose should be to allow people to help themselves get back on their feet not as an alternative to so doing.
On 9, I would say that we should be unafraid of making the case for all citizens and entities to contribute to society, through work and taxes. Taxes are there so that as a community we can provide common goods to all which will make our society better than it would otherwise be. This may have the effect of redistributing wealth but that should not be their primary purpose. They are not there because someone in power thinks that A should have less and money should be taken from A to give to B.
I would add a few more:-
1. Understand and proclaim that fairness means that those who work hard and make an effort are celebrated and that it is unfair to them to take from them to give to those to choose not to make an effort. 2. Understand that the state is a servant of the people not its master, that power should rest with people and close to them and that all laws should serve to increase the power people have over their lives rather than the power the state has over people. 3. Understand that the state's primary duty is to protect the safety, security and interests of Britain and its citizens. 4. Be unapologetic about proclaiming and promoting British achievements: the rule of law, the common law, freedom of speech, our civil liberties generally. Labour's slide into a self-hating authoritarianism and toleration/embrace of the intolerable needs to end. 5. No more community/identity politics. People are individuals of wonderful variety. That needs celebrating not people being slotted into a deadening category.
'Police were told of concerns about Leytonstone stabbing suspect Muhaydin Mire three weeks ago but Scotland Yard today defended its handling of the alert.
Detectives said they had “correctly” referred Mire’s family to health services when warned about fears around how he was acting in November.
Mire’s brother Mohamed told Channel 4 news Mire had “mental problems” that may have begun when he started using cannabis.
Mire reportedly spent three months in hospital after being diagnosed with paranoia in 2007.'
Miss Plato, my second hound was a rescue dog (around six months old) from the RSPCA. They signed her off as healthy, but the very first night we detected fleas, which were so large they were clearly visible to the naked eye [we weren't looking for them, they stood out a bloody mile].
Personally, as a Conservative, I'd have reservations on (6), (8) and (9) but the rest of your list is fair enough.
In practice (2) "Always ensure that the most vulnerable and the poorest are not adversely affected by government policy" would act as a "progressive" ratchet. This might be as intended, but it does make it difficult to address the unintended (or indeed intended) consequences of things like tax credits.
Obviously the government should be looking out for the most vulnerable. But eliding that group with "the poorest" - though there is obviously huge overlap - is slippery.
A centre-right view would focus on jobs, incentives to work, training, spreading home ownership and paths to reach it, low tax and promoting the family and neighbouring community as stable social networks.
'Police were told of concerns about Leytonstone stabbing suspect Muhaydin Mire three weeks ago but Scotland Yard today defended its handling of the alert.
Detectives said they had “correctly” referred Mire’s family to health services when warned about fears around how he was acting in November.
Mire’s brother Mohamed told Channel 4 news Mire had “mental problems” that may have begun when he started using cannabis.
Mire reportedly spent three months in hospital after being diagnosed with paranoia in 2007.'
He's right. I'm an atheist and was technically raised as a Hindu, I see Britain as a Christian country and it is better for that. The traditions that come with being a judeo-chrisitan nation outweigh the negatives. Also given that people are becoming more secular those negatives are slowly going away too, gay marriage is a big step forwards and it was brought in by the party closest to religious groups. Doing away with 800 years of tradition to appease a few Muslims and militant atheists is a stupid idea.
For me, a moderate, electable Labour party needs to: 1. Have the fight for equality of opportunity at its very core.
If Labour (and lefties more generally) could agree with that one alone it would be a massive leap forward!
I'm afraid that is one of the battle grounds. Equality of outcome (left) vs equality of opportunity (Blairite/centre left)
If
It
We're wealthier, (and if you base it on lifespan) healthier and better educated than at almost any time in history - most historical monarchs would be envious of the comfort of our lives.
What's left? I'm not sure. Or rather, there's the idea of a larger state based on a greater tax take, with more emphasis on care for the chronically sick and disabled - but that's hardly an inspiring rallying cry.
I think Labour simply have to wait for the Tories to screw up. All the ingredients are already there - Osborne's autumn statement was a combination of a Hail Mary pass and optimistic can-kicking. I think 2020 is going to be a torrid time for Cameron's successor - there may be an opportunity for Labour then.
And the emerging battles, over national identity, immigration, and the impact of globalisation, are difficult terrain both for social democrats, and the Corbynite Left.
We might see some genuinely disruptive technological advances, for good or ill. Ubiquitous robotics, flow batteries and the like. Alternatively, some of the advances in treating degenerative diseases might change the demographic landscape.
I feel completely secure in predicting that life is only going to get harder for the unskilled/semi-skilled elements of the workforce.
In terms of rising living standards, the period 1980-2000 was "les vingts glorieuses". Incomes per head rose at 2.25% a year , manufacturing output surged, productivity leapt, and most people were a good deal better off at the end of the period than the beginning. The downside of course, was high unemployment at various points.
The period since 2000 hasn't seen high unemployment. But we have seen real stagnation in income growth. The average worker hasn't seen his living standard rise in 10 years. Manufacturing output has fallen in absolute terms (for the first time since the Industrial Revolution began); home ownership is in decline.
We got married in church and both of us were atheists - his mum was church warden.
I'm very keen on a Christian cultural context - and think Anglicans are the most inoffensive and tolerant lot. Unfortunately, Islam practiced by a small minority of our population is wagging our cultural tail in a serious way.
It's odd but I bristled at the content of that report. I'm a lifelong (OK, since aged 8) atheist. However, I'm not so stupid to not appreciate the cultural context in which I was raised. So atheist, sure. But a Judaeo-Christian one.
As I've written before, I would love to have faith; it's a great consolation to many. It's probably one of the areas where I'm deeply small 'c' conservative. I confess that I'm not able to come up with a rational argument against a secular society; it simply bothers me.
There's not believing in God and the second coming of Jesus, and there's being Richard Dawkins.
No doubt he would consider me to be something of a hypocrite, but I got married in a church and would hate a society without cathedrals, carol concerts and the Christian message.
Do I believe in God? No. Would I have it any other way? No.
For me, a moderate, electable Labour party needs to: 1. Have the fight for equality of opportunity at its very core.
If Labour (and lefties more generally) could agree with that one alone it would be a massive leap forward!
I'm afraid that is one of the battle grounds. Equality of outcome (left) vs equality of opportunity (Blairite/centre left)
If the outcome is unequal, how can you know whether the opportunity was or was not? The problem for the left, particularly now that its support is based at least as much on ethnicity as economic position, is that people don't want equality. We all want power and privilege.
Striving to do better is a fundamental part of human nature. The concept that outcomes should be equal irrespective of talent and effort just seems illogical to most people.
It doesn't just seem illogical. It seems unfair. It is unfair. Fairness means accepting that those who work hard should be rewarded. And that those who do not should not be equally rewarded.
Unfairness is when people get rewards which are not correlated to hard work and effort e.g. some at the top of, say, banks. And when those who are lazy get given welfare equivalent to or greater than the rewards which those who work hard get. Hence the anger at undeserving highly paid bankers and the support for the welfare cap.
Totally OT - but something's really struck me about charity advertising on TV. I don't trust 99% of it. I skip over only three advertising memes - GoCompare as it's enormously irritating, that Galaxy one with Audrey Hepburn and every single charity one bar the Sally Army.
I'd like to give to the one about tigers - but I don't trust them an inch - all the rest are so crammed with pathos > unintentional bathos that I reach for the remote within a second. The Sally Army one was quite upbeat and such a contrast - I think I'll donate £19 as suggested. They've also attracted no negative comment that I've seen.
Is it just me?
I think big charities are under the microscope for excessive salaries, admin and waste.
And small charities for waste, inefficiency and lack of controls. Kids Company is the poster child here. I do not claim to know the happy medium.
There are good small charities out there, but you have to look for them.
This is something we are funding at the moment - we are paying for the development of the database that will underpin their work. It's the sort of thing we like (I describe it as the plumbing of the charity sector): boring but important
Yes I had a small bequest to disburse and a friend who is the chairman of a charity, when I asked him what would make a difference, replied cleaning products. He said, of course no one* wants to donate a vacuum cleaner or whatnot because they can't visualise a plaque with the donor's name above the mop cabinet & want something more trophy-ish.
MPs will be briefed by a senior MI5 spook tomorrow in the wake of the increased terror threat and abuse sent to politicians after the Syria vote. Paul Martin is a career spy chief who works as parliament’s security director. He worked for MI5 for 27 years undertaking fieldwork mainly in the Middle East and still has a pass at Thames House. Martin will give an hour long talk about personal security tomorrow:
He continued: "I was disillusioned for quite a while but I was inspired when Corbyn became leader. This just makes me disillusioned again."
This guys needs a thicker skin, if he gets disillusioned that bloody easily. It was a curt, dismissive reply, but not offensive or personally insulting. MPs and other elected representatives get thousands of messages, and sometimes if they reply personally will express themselves in a less than ideal fashion, but a single rude email response is not in most instances (under most complaints systems I would hope) a breach of any standard of conduct unless it is egregiously offensive or part of a pattern of ill behaviour.
And clearly the MP must have written it himself, so he got the personal touch at least.
On the christianity topic, like quite a few others I care nothing for God or the organised religion itself, but to deny the culturally christian context arising from this historical development of the nation in my life would be unreasonable.
At this point anybody who still thinks Corbyn and STW are not apologists for terrorism must be deep in denial. If the Labour Party stood up for the things it claims to believe in Corbyn wouldn't even be a member never mind the leader.
We got married in church and both of us were atheists - his mum was church warden.
I'm very keen on a Christian cultural context - and think Anglicans are the most inoffensive and tolerant lot. Unfortunately, Islam practiced by a small minority of our population is wagging our cultural tail in a serious way.
It's odd but I bristled at the content of that report. I'm a lifelong (OK, since aged 8) atheist. However, I'm not so stupid to not appreciate the cultural context in which I was raised. So atheist, sure. But a Judaeo-Christian one.
As I've written before, I would love to have faith; it's a great consolation to many. It's probably one of the areas where I'm deeply small 'c' conservative. I confess that I'm not able to come up with a rational argument against a secular society; it simply bothers me.
There's not believing in God and the second coming of Jesus, and there's being Richard Dawkins.
No doubt he would consider me to be something of a hypocrite, but I got married in a church and would hate a society without cathedrals, carol concerts and the Christian message.
Do I believe in God? No. Would I have it any other way? No.
There's nothing wrong with admiring and appreciating that which is traditional. There are few things worse than taking a "year zero" approach to your country's institutions and traditions.
One of the interesting things about the whig/liberal governments of the 19th century was the way they presented their reforms as being a return to the past. That's why the High Court of Justice and Parliament were designed to look like medieval buildings. It's why they specifically celebrated the role of Magna Carta and medieval Parliaments as being the forerunners of their own reformed Parliament.
''Meanwhile in US, Trump's latest outburst does not seem to have changed his odds. Still at around 3.5 - 4 for GOP candidate.''
Surely a policy like that is electoral suicide.
Or is it??
My immediate response was he'd blown it. But then I reconsidered. Who knows in these times? Fear is a major factor in elections.
He's said America should end immigration from Muslim countries, that's not an unreasonable policy. I haven't seen or read any suggestion that he said the ones who already live there should be resettled or forcibly removed. If there is then he has gone way off into the deep end.
He continued: "I was disillusioned for quite a while but I was inspired when Corbyn became leader. This just makes me disillusioned again."
This guys needs a thicker skin, if he gets disillusioned that bloody easily. It was a curt, dismissive reply, but not offensive or personally insulting. MPs and other elected representatives get thousands of messages, and sometimes if they reply personally will express themselves in a less than ideal fashion, but a single rude email response is not in most instances (under most complaints systems I would hope) a breach of any standard of conduct unless it is egregiously offensive or part of a pattern of ill behaviour.
And clearly the MP must have written it himself, so he got the personal touch at least.
On the christianity topic, like quite a few others I care nothing for God or the organised religion itself, but to deny the culturally christian context arising from this historical development of the nation in my life would be unreasonable.
Perhaps the MP checked the electoral roll and found, once again, that a Stop The War activist is a non-voter.
The period since 2000 hasn't seen high unemployment. But we have seen real stagnation in income growth. The average worker hasn't seen his living standard rise in 10 years. .
I would dispute that. His home is much better, with a much better bathroom and kitchen, and it's warmer. His TV is hugely better, and there's more choice of what and when to watch. His car is much better. He has all sorts of new gizmos such as a smartphone. His food is (or can be, if he chooses), much better - supermarkets have dramatically improved quality and range over the last ten years, at ever lower prices. Reasonably good clothes cost a lot less. Foreign holidays and cheap flights mean he has more options at low cost for holidays.
The idea that economic progress has come to a halt for the average family is just nonsense.
The period since 2000 hasn't seen high unemployment. But we have seen real stagnation in income growth. The average worker hasn't seen his living standard rise in 10 years. .
I would dispute that. His home is much better, with a much better bathroom and kitchen, and it's warmer. His TV is hugely better, and there's more choice of what and when to watch. His car is much better. He has all sorts of new gizmos such as a smartphone. His food is (or can be, if he chooses), much better - supermarkets have dramatically improved quality and range over the last ten years, at ever lower prices. Reasonably good clothes cost a lot less. Foreign holidays and cheap flights mean he has more options at low cost for holidays.
The idea that economic progress has come to a halt for the average family is just nonsense.
Real incomes have stagnated over that period. Fewer people in that category can buy their own homes. Sure, they may have a few more gizmos, but that's probably small consolation.
@seanfear Most people are on their arse- as my friend calls it. The UK, the land of PoundLand, food banks, charity shops etc... The massive rise of the working poor only managing to get by on state subsidies. Young people shut out from any means to accumulate wealth, indebted until an inheritance looms, many returning home after Uni. The threat of Islamic terror, rising immigration and these pictures of migrants coming into Europe.
It is little surprise that Corbyn's and UKIP's anti politics strike a chord and will increasingly do so.
To be honest I do not know what Labour moderates have to say now, as irrelevant to the modern political discourse as the LD's, or Cameron will likely find if he presses ahead any time soon with a referendum. For the first time, I am genuinely undecided about Europe, and am hedging towards the NO camp, and I never thought I'd be saying that any time.
The period since 2000 hasn't seen high unemployment. But we have seen real stagnation in income growth. The average worker hasn't seen his living standard rise in 10 years. Manufacturing output has fallen in absolute terms (for the first time since the Industrial Revolution began); home ownership is in decline.
He continued: "I was disillusioned for quite a while but I was inspired when Corbyn became leader. This just makes me disillusioned again."
This guys needs a thicker skin, if he gets disillusioned that bloody easily. It was a curt, dismissive reply, but not offensive or personally insulting. MPs and other elected representatives get thousands of messages, and sometimes if they reply personally will express themselves in a less than ideal fashion, but a single rude email response is not in most instances (under most complaints systems I would hope) a breach of any standard of conduct unless it is egregiously offensive or part of a pattern of ill behaviour.
And clearly the MP must have written it himself, so he got the personal touch at least.
On the christianity topic, like quite a few others I care nothing for God or the organised religion itself, but to deny the culturally christian context arising from this historical development of the nation in my life would be unreasonable.
Perhaps the MP checked the electoral roll and found, once again, that a Stop The War activist is a non-voter.
''Meanwhile in US, Trump's latest outburst does not seem to have changed his odds. Still at around 3.5 - 4 for GOP candidate.''
Surely a policy like that is electoral suicide.
Or is it??
My immediate response was he'd blown it. But then I reconsidered. Who knows in these times? Fear is a major factor in elections.
He's said America should end immigration from Muslim countries, that's not an unreasonable policy. I haven't seen or read any suggestion that he said the ones who already live there should be resettled or forcibly removed. If there is then he has gone way off into the deep end.
It's totally unreasonable as it goes against many of the ideals upon which America was founded. Yes it's attractive to right-wing bigoted loons but other than that I think it's nothing more than a desperate last ditch ploy from Trump.
Comments
I feel completely secure in predicting that life is only going to get harder for the unskilled/semi-skilled elements of the workforce.
It was in the Top Ten when it went bust.
Personally, as a Conservative, I'd have reservations on (6), (8) and (9) but the rest of your list is fair enough.
Gordon Brown will advise them on how to weather the sort of Boom and Bust he claimed to have abolished
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXEglx-or6k
To comply with the Charity Commission rules and regs you need to be as well run or may be better run than a successful company. In lots of ways a Charity is harder to run than a business.
I agree efficiency of scale is going to be lost in a small organisation, but very often they can make up for that by use of volunteers for some functions or donations of key elements, such as premises.
I do agree that existing parties, right across the political spectrum, are going to struggle to square the circle. The world is becoming more volatile (just looking at global money flows gives me the heebie-jeebies, never mind militant islam or robotic overlords) and less amenable to institutional control. Makes me glad to be old - I think the next fifty years are going to be 'interesting times'.
Osborne needs to answer what he's for once the budget is balanced, and how he's going to address the number one issue of concern to the British people. I've seen no signs of revelation here yet.
His politics are still anchored in the lessons of the 1990s, and the politics of the 2020s will be very, very different indeed.
He could easily be the wrong guy for the wrong times.
WE must have been overcome by optimism to imagine David Cameron’s EU renegotiation would produce a deal worth a damn.
Three of the four concessions he asked Brussels for were barely worth the ink.
The fourth, withholding benefits from EU migrants for four years, sounds significant — but would have a tiny impact on our soaring immigration. The vast majority arrive here not for handouts but for work, as lucrative as possible.
A handful might reconsider coming if tax credits weren’t on offer . . . but not many. The rising Living Wage would cancel out any disincentive anyway.
The Prime Minister only cooked this up because he lacked the nerve to demand full and permanent control of our borders, despite the growing strength of our hand as the migrant crisis paralysed the continent.
Yet we are now led to believe even this is being fought in Brussels.
Mr Cameron’s bluff about leading the Out campaign if he doesn’t get his way may be being called already.
But even if he wins this minor tweak, so what? It’s no game-changer.
He might as well name the referendum date now."
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/sun_says/6500866/Sun-Says.html
"I actually said, 'No more Tory boom and bust'."
Gordon Brown, the Daily Mail, 11 October 2008
....
But Brown's claim to the Mail just doesn't stand up. There have just been too many memorable references to the end of boom and bust - without any mention of Tory.
http://bit.ly/1uweW7y
Detectives said they had “correctly” referred Mire’s family to health services when warned about fears around how he was acting in November.
Mire’s brother Mohamed told Channel 4 news Mire had “mental problems” that may have begun when he started using cannabis.
Mire reportedly spent three months in hospital after being diagnosed with paranoia in 2007.'
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/leytonstone-stabbing-suspect-flagged-up-to-police-three-weeks-ago-a3132016.html
http://www.theguardian.com/media-network/media-network-blog/2014/oct/08/how-we-made-audrey-hepburn-galaxy-ad
Fundraising Initiatives Direct was paid alot by Battersea Dogs, and the RSPCA to raise cash:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/11981871/Chugging-bosss-businesses-go-bust-but-shell-keep-the-Aston-Martin.html
Here are the freely available accounts which would have cost nothing or a minimal amount from duedil:
http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg190/Pulpstar/FID4.jpg
" It is understood that the RSPCA had intended to pay FIL about £1.8 million and in return FIL would sign up donors who, it was estimated, would provide almost £2.4 million. The RSPCA has refused to say how much FIL was paid for the campaign.
Battersea Dogs & Cats Home said it had spent £646,000 between July and September this year with FIL, which it hoped would “bring in almost £1.3 million over the next five years”.
Who in their right mind gives that sort of money to a company £2 million underwater ?
For full disclosure I'm on the hook for £19.72 to them - secured against Cathy Sullivan's house apparently.
The kids who followed the rules, who passed their exams in vocational subjects, might be the losers.
The Bosch one with the tiger is a favourite of mine.
The Mog Christmas one is superb. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kuRn2S7iPNU
"The pitfalls of offshoring include miscommunication, political instability, and security risks. Offshoring location costs have grown by the double digits on an annualized basis, while the cost of foreign labor is also on the rise, according to the International Labour Organization. In addition, customers’ dissatisfaction with the language barrier has been repeatedly vocalized, and more CEOs are realizing that the cost of losing a customer or providing a sub-optimal experience is expensive and impacts the brand."
http://chiefexecutive.net/onshoring-vs-offshoring-servicesupport-businesses-are-coming-back-home/
https://twitter.com/MichaelRosenYes/status/674167045563502592
Obviously the government should be looking out for the most vulnerable. But eliding that group with "the poorest" - though there is obviously huge overlap - is slippery.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2254729/RSPCA-destroys-HALF-animals-rescues--thousands-completely-healthy.html
It is a credit to his article that I genuinely can't tell if he is a keen Labour party member or just a very astute disinterested observer.
In the run up to GE 2020 it is possible that there has been another financial crash (many seem to believe it is when rather than if the next one), Syria could go very badly and the Tories, after tearing themselves apart over the EU Ref could choose a very unattractive right-wing leader again. If these events were to all occur then I could see Corbyn having a good chance - most people vote against rather than for.
The next choice of Tory leader will be hugely influential for the outcome of GE2020
He voted in the Labour leadership election. Really powerful piece on why he voted the way he did.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/09/08/why-i-voted-kendall-1-cooper-2-burnham-3/
Stop the War's greatest hits. This is not an exhaustive list: https://t.co/qQsmyjz7NZ https://t.co/ILTL1MF2Hf
https://twitter.com/scottty22/status/674169915151163392
Well I expect when push comes to shove Osborne will be gone for. So not all that right wing.
You've been such a Party man. I have much sympathy with your view - he's transmogrifying your Party into something way beyond the visible political universe of electability.
http://www.lucify.com/the-flow-towards-europe/
Never mind the cold calling.
As I've written before, I would love to have faith; it's a great consolation to many. It's probably one of the areas where I'm deeply small 'c' conservative. I confess that I'm not able to come up with a rational argument against a secular society; it simply bothers me.
http://www.pimco.co.uk/EN/Experts/Pages/AndrewBalls.aspx
@Theuniondivvie - thanks.
This is something we are funding at the moment - we are paying for the development of the database that will underpin their work. It's the sort of thing we like (I describe it as the plumbing of the charity sector): boring but important
http://westlondonzone.org/
Did you all listen ?
One Christmas, she gave me her own study copy of the King James Bible covered in notes - I was really touched. She knows I'm a die hard atheist, but gave me her most prized possession.
If I wasn't a bit strapped pre-xmas I would be shoving a few more quid towards Rubio at the moment.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/london-labour-party-members-shock-after-mp-dismisses-plea-to-vote-against-syria-air-strikes-as-a-a3132086.html
Shocked....not.
https://twitter.com/douglascarswell/status/674175329808838656
No doubt he would consider me to be something of a hypocrite, but I got married in a church and would hate a society without cathedrals, carol concerts and the Christian message.
Do I believe in God? No. Would I have it any other way? No.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/london-labour-party-members-shock-after-mp-dismisses-plea-to-vote-against-syria-air-strikes-as-a-a3132086.html
My comments: re no. 2 - I would rephrase this by saying "Always try to ensure..." Sometimes people will be affected in the short-term but be better off in the medium and long-term as a result of a necessary change. We have to get away from the idea that if you are in some group you should never be adversely affected. Life is not like that.
On 5, there should be no bias in favour of state or market provision. The role of the state should be to ensure that what is needed is provided not that it should do the providing. Only those goods/services which cannot - or, for good policy reasons, should not be provided privately should be state run e.g. police, defence, public health.
Re 6 - a huge welfare bill is a failure if we have genuinely achieved 1. Welfare should be far more contributory and should be focused on those who are genuinely in need. It's purpose should be to allow people to help themselves get back on their feet not as an alternative to so doing.
On 9, I would say that we should be unafraid of making the case for all citizens and entities to contribute to society, through work and taxes. Taxes are there so that as a community we can provide common goods to all which will make our society better than it would otherwise be. This may have the effect of redistributing wealth but that should not be their primary purpose. They are not there because someone in power thinks that A should have less and money should be taken from A to give to B.
I would add a few more:-
1. Understand and proclaim that fairness means that those who work hard and make an effort are celebrated and that it is unfair to them to take from them to give to those to choose not to make an effort.
2. Understand that the state is a servant of the people not its master, that power should rest with people and close to them and that all laws should serve to increase the power people have over their lives rather than the power the state has over people.
3. Understand that the state's primary duty is to protect the safety, security and interests of Britain and its citizens.
4. Be unapologetic about proclaiming and promoting British achievements: the rule of law, the common law, freedom of speech, our civil liberties generally. Labour's slide into a self-hating authoritarianism and toleration/embrace of the intolerable needs to end.
5. No more community/identity politics. People are individuals of wonderful variety. That needs celebrating not people being slotted into a deadening category.
O/T - Polly getting a shellacking on CiF over her EU article telling the plebs not to be so ghastly as to even think of voting out.
theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/08/david-cameron-cabinet-saboteurs-brexit-europe
We were not impressed.
Surely a policy like that is electoral suicide.
Or is it??
The period since 2000 hasn't seen high unemployment. But we have seen real stagnation in income growth. The average worker hasn't seen his living standard rise in 10 years. Manufacturing output has fallen in absolute terms (for the first time since the Industrial Revolution began); home ownership is in decline.
It's a whole new world.
I'm very keen on a Christian cultural context - and think Anglicans are the most inoffensive and tolerant lot. Unfortunately, Islam practiced by a small minority of our population is wagging our cultural tail in a serious way.
Unfairness is when people get rewards which are not correlated to hard work and effort e.g. some at the top of, say, banks. And when those who are lazy get given welfare equivalent to or greater than the rewards which those who work hard get. Hence the anger at undeserving highly paid bankers and the support for the welfare cap.
*almost no one.
This guys needs a thicker skin, if he gets disillusioned that bloody easily. It was a curt, dismissive reply, but not offensive or personally insulting. MPs and other elected representatives get thousands of messages, and sometimes if they reply personally will express themselves in a less than ideal fashion, but a single rude email response is not in most instances (under most complaints systems I would hope) a breach of any standard of conduct unless it is egregiously offensive or part of a pattern of ill behaviour.
And clearly the MP must have written it himself, so he got the personal touch at least.
On the christianity topic, like quite a few others I care nothing for God or the organised religion itself, but to deny the culturally christian context arising from this historical development of the nation in my life would be unreasonable.
One of the interesting things about the whig/liberal governments of the 19th century was the way they presented their reforms as being a return to the past. That's why the High Court of Justice and Parliament were designed to look like medieval buildings. It's why they specifically celebrated the role of Magna Carta and medieval Parliaments as being the forerunners of their own reformed Parliament.
The idea that economic progress has come to a halt for the average family is just nonsense.
its interesting that even as anti immigration feeling erupts in France, the US and the Netherlands, it seems to be lessening here.
See Jeremy Corbyn.
According to every leading democrat and republican in the US (and every mainstream politician here presumably) , it is completely unreasonable.
Most people are on their arse- as my friend calls it. The UK, the land of PoundLand, food banks, charity shops etc... The massive rise of the working poor only managing to get by on state subsidies. Young people shut out from any means to accumulate wealth, indebted until an inheritance looms, many returning home after Uni. The threat of Islamic terror, rising immigration and these pictures of migrants coming into Europe.
It is little surprise that Corbyn's and UKIP's anti politics strike a chord and will increasingly do so.
To be honest I do not know what Labour moderates have to say now, as irrelevant to the modern political discourse as the LD's, or Cameron will likely find if he presses ahead any time soon with a referendum. For the first time, I am genuinely undecided about Europe, and am hedging towards the NO camp, and I never thought I'd be saying that any time.
The period since 2000 hasn't seen high unemployment. But we have seen real stagnation in income growth. The average worker hasn't seen his living standard rise in 10 years. Manufacturing output has fallen in absolute terms (for the first time since the Industrial Revolution began); home ownership is in decline.
It's a whole new world.
Have you got a problem with Muslims MaxPB?