'There are Muslim areas of Preston that, if we wish to patrol, we have to contact local Muslim community leaders to get their permission'.
What do you imagine things will be like in any 20 years? Areas 'policing' themselves perhaps? With the 'police' enforcing which laws exactly?
I'm highly tempted to say this is utter bollocks, to quote a Labour MP the other day. Why would the police allow themselves to be told they can't patrol an area without the community leaders permission? What would the chief constable say? Or the PCC?
'There are Muslim areas of Preston that, if we wish to patrol, we have to contact local Muslim community leaders to get their permission'.
What do you imagine things will be like in any 20 years? Areas 'policing' themselves perhaps? With the 'police' enforcing which laws exactly?
That was a piece of anecdata on a policing website. It should be treated in a similar manner to any other piece of anecdata on the web - with a healthy pinch of salt. Even more so as we haven't seen the post, or the posting credentials of the poster.
I'm still far from convinced Osborne wants the top job.
The recent budget should have removed all doubt. He clearly wants to be PM. His phantom money would have been banked and the deficit reduced if he didn't want the job, that he spent it on reducing austerity and increasing spending was a very clear sign that he wanted the top job.
I think this is simplistic. Osborne is focussed on the program and the program is designed to ensure that the Conservatives are restored to their position as the natural party of government after the Blair interruption. That is why the centre ground abandoned by Labour is so attractive to him. He has been working towards this level of dominance for his party all his adult life. Ganesh's excellent biography of him makes that very clear.
It is also clear that he is very self aware of his limitations. What I suspect has happened is that he has looked around for a successor to Cameron and not found anyone better than himself, despite his limitations. Gove is another signed up to the project but he has the same limitations as Osborne, arguably to an even greater degree. Javid is not setting the heather or the regulations on fire at business in the way that had been hoped. Where are the other true believers of the project? There are a few bubbling under but none have seized their opportunities to date to really shine.
If Osborne sees a leader with a similar vision emerge over the next couple of years I would not be surprised if he stood aside. If he doesn't then I suspect he will think it his duty to do it himself.
Not really, we're in the first year of the cycle, if he had gone ahead with the tax credit cuts and taken the hit, the Tories would be in a better place in 2020 to win the election. There would be more people in employment, they would be better paid, they would be working more hours and benefit dependency would be lower than it is now. The decision to back down is good for the short term and helps Osborne secure the leadership, not the Tories to reshape the country by 2020 and put Labour out of the competition for a long time.
I don't buy your description of the consequences of the tax credit move.
I'm still far from convinced Osborne wants the top job.
Oh he desperately wants it. Look at all of "his people" that he has got appointed. Claire Perry for example. They are not there because they supported Cameron strongly or that they are better than the rest of the back benchers. They are there as Osborne's people. A corrosive effect on the quality of Government.
Claire Perry lacks the intellectual ability to anything other than sit on the back benches. Speaks volumes about Osborne.
This would be the Claire Perry who graduated from Brasenose College and then got an MBA at Harvard? That Claire Perry? The one employed by Bank of America, McKinsey & Co and Credit Suisse (all known for employing fools of course) before coming into politics?
I presume that you are basing that on her misspeaking about debt and deficit? Maybe just a little superficial?
No, not at all. In isolation perhaps but when considered with the rediculous campaign to block internet pornography it is difficult to conclude that she is anything other than incredibly thick. She bizarrely accused Paul Staines of hacking her website because he reported on the story.
David Lammy went to Harvard and is a complete moron.
I think this is simplistic. Osborne is focussed on the program and the program is designed to ensure that the Conservatives are restored to their position as the natural party of government after the Blair interruption. That is why the centre ground abandoned by Labour is so attractive to him. He has been working towards this level of dominance for his party all his adult life. Ganesh's excellent biography of him makes that very clear.
It is also clear that he is very self aware of his limitations. What I suspect has happened is that he has looked around for a successor to Cameron and not found anyone better than himself, despite his limitations. Gove is another signed up to the project but he has the same limitations as Osborne, arguably to an even greater degree. Javid is not setting the heather or the regulations on fire at business in the way that had been hoped. Where are the other true believers of the project? There are a few bubbling under but none have seized their opportunities to date to really shine.
If Osborne sees a leader with a similar vision emerge over the next couple of years I would not be surprised if he stood aside. If he doesn't then I suspect he will think it his duty to do it himself.
Not really, we're in the first year of the cycle, if he had gone ahead with the tax credit cuts and taken the hit, the Tories would be in a better place in 2020 to win the election. There would be more people in employment, they would be better paid, they would be working more hours and benefit dependency would be lower than it is now. The decision to back down is good for the short term and helps Osborne secure the leadership, not the Tories to reshape the country by 2020 and put Labour out of the competition for a long time.
Maybe's aye, maybe's no, in the words of the great Kenny Dalgleish. By 2020 the introduction of Universal Credit should have achieved everything that these reforms were intended to achieve including your highly desirable objectives.
I was a bit disappointed in the Autumn Statement myself but Osborne's record in macro-economic management is worthy of considerable respect, even if I think that there is something in Alanbrooke's criticism that there has not been enough reform.
According to the Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology, bacteria which reciprocally exchange amino acids stabilise their partnership on two-dimensional surfaces and limit the access of non-cooperating bacteria to exchanged nutrients. Scientists have shown that bacteria that do not contribute to metabolite production are excluded from the cooperative benefits.
Maybe these bacteria could teach our government a thing or two.
Basically, what you're saying is that you should let the free market work, and the government should butt out?
That would be my view too.
I would like a return to the pre-World War One settlement, so brilliantly described by AJP Taylor at the beginning of The Effects and Origins of the First World War: Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman.
I'm still far from convinced Osborne wants the top job.
Oh he desperately wants it. Look at all of "his people" that he has got appointed. Claire Perry for example. They are not there because they supported Cameron strongly or that they are better than the rest of the back benchers. They are there as Osborne's people. A corrosive effect on the quality of Government.
Claire Perry lacks the intellectual ability to anything other than sit on the back benches. Speaks volumes about Osborne.
This would be the Claire Perry who graduated from Brasenose College and then got an MBA at Harvard? That Claire Perry? The one employed by Bank of America, McKinsey & Co and Credit Suisse (all known for employing fools of course) before coming into politics?
I presume that you are basing that on her misspeaking about debt and deficit? Maybe just a little superficial?
No, not at all. In isolation perhaps but when considered with the rediculous campaign to block internet pornography it is difficult to conclude that she is anything other than incredibly thick. She bizarrely accused Paul Staines of hacking her website because he reported on the story.
David Lammy went to Harvard and is a complete moron.
Brilliant people can have stupid ideas. At the moment we have a LOTO who got 2 Es in his A levels at an excellent school. Now that is thick. I don't know much about Claire Perry but her qualifications and her career suggest she really isn't.
I'm still far from convinced Osborne wants the top job.
Oh he desperately wants it. Look at all of "his people" that he has got appointed. Claire Perry for example. They are not there because they supported Cameron strongly or that they are better than the rest of the back benchers. They are there as Osborne's people. A corrosive effect on the quality of Government.
Claire Perry lacks the intellectual ability to anything other than sit on the back benches. Speaks volumes about Osborne.
This would be the Claire Perry who graduated from Brasenose College and then got an MBA at Harvard? That Claire Perry? The one employed by Bank of America, McKinsey & Co and Credit Suisse (all known for employing fools of course) before coming into politics?
I presume that you are basing that on her misspeaking about debt and deficit? Maybe just a little superficial?
On 8 October 2012, Perry stated that the national debt and national deficit were the same thing on BBC Radio 5 Live.
I'm still far from convinced Osborne wants the top job.
Oh he desperately wants it. Look at all of "his people" that he has got appointed. Claire Perry for example. They are not there because they supported Cameron strongly or that they are better than the rest of the back benchers. They are there as Osborne's people. A corrosive effect on the quality of Government.
Claire Perry lacks the intellectual ability to anything other than sit on the back benches. Speaks volumes about Osborne.
This would be the Claire Perry who graduated from Brasenose College and then got an MBA at Harvard? That Claire Perry? The one employed by Bank of America, McKinsey & Co and Credit Suisse (all known for employing fools of course) before coming into politics?
I presume that you are basing that on her misspeaking about debt and deficit? Maybe just a little superficial?
On 8 October 2012, Perry stated that the national debt and national deficit were the same thing on BBC Radio 5 Live.
An interesting interview in Die Zeit. If the economist's conclusions are correct Germany is heading for huge social problems.
TIME: Minister Wanka says the big advantage is indeed just that more than half of the refugees under 25 are, therefore, at an age where they could still get an education.
Wößmann: That's the big question: two thirds of young Syrians who must be regarded as functionally illiterate in accordance with international educational standards, the necessary training for local businesses maturity is mostly missing.
I'm still far from convinced Osborne wants the top job.
Oh he desperately wants it. Look at all of "his people" that he has got appointed. Claire Perry for example. They are not there because they supported Cameron strongly or that they are better than the rest of the back benchers. They are there as Osborne's people. A corrosive effect on the quality of Government.
Claire Perry lacks the intellectual ability to anything other than sit on the back benches. Speaks volumes about Osborne.
This would be the Claire Perry who graduated from Brasenose College and then got an MBA at Harvard? That Claire Perry? The one employed by Bank of America, McKinsey & Co and Credit Suisse (all known for employing fools of course) before coming into politics?
I presume that you are basing that on her misspeaking about debt and deficit? Maybe just a little superficial?
On 8 October 2012, Perry stated that the national debt and national deficit were the same thing on BBC Radio 5 Live.
Yes, that is what I was referring to. And?
Such a basic mistake and a fundamental one. Not a misspeak.
It's a lot easier to say who the Conservative leader shouldn't be than who it should.
Hammond - boring May - too right Osborne - disliked Boris - too daft Justine Greening/Priti Patel - commanding, authoritative, charming, engaging
May is not too right wing but I agree with your other views.
She is closer to Cameron on social policies and "modernisation". Not entirely my favourite but she is a very competent Director, capable of being the CEO. Better than Osborne.
I've no dog in this fight anymore, but Priti Patel would be my first choice.
Maybe's aye, maybe's no, in the words of the great Kenny Dalgleish. By 2020 the introduction of Universal Credit should have achieved everything that these reforms were intended to achieve including your highly desirable objectives.
I was a bit disappointed in the Autumn Statement myself but Osborne's record in macro-economic management is worthy of considerable respect, even if I think that there is something in Alanbrooke's criticism that there has not been enough reform.
I'm still not convinced by Osborne's record. We still haven't had any manufacturing growth since 2010, we are only just about 2010 construction levels and we have a truly huge current account deficit, money is pouring out of the country too fast. I think restoring domestic demand has papered over the cracks and there hasn't been anywhere near enough reform to make manufacturing profitable and to make our industries more competitive. Investment in transport infrastructure is still a joke and we're still dithering over Heathrow when another country would have begun planning a fourth runway on the same site by now. Osborne has been lucky and competent in equal measures.
We need serious reform to our industrial sector but there is no one willing to deliver it. Now we have a new payroll tax to pay for something companies should be receiving tax credits for. We haven't opened up the single market for services (our true export strength) and yet Osborne is still wedded to staying in the EU.
An interesting interview in Die Zeit. If the economist's conclusions are correct Germany is heading for huge social problems.
TIME: Minister Wanka says the big advantage is indeed just that more than half of the refugees under 25 are, therefore, at an age where they could still get an education.
Wößmann: That's the big question: two thirds of young Syrians who must be regarded as functionally illiterate in accordance with international educational standards, the necessary training for local businesses maturity is mostly missing.
Ludger Wößmann is the head of economics education at IFO, and I rate him reasonably highly. He is absolutely right - obviously - that taking a large number of people who are functionally illiterate is a big issue for any country.
That being said, Germany has better history than most countries in taking low skilled labour and making it pay. They successfully did it with the Turks. And after a very shaky start they did it with a lot of East Germans. The economic costs of which were - of course - vastly more than expected.
It's also worth remembering that Germany starts from a position of enormous surplus. Their current account surplus is - what - 6 or 7% of GDP. Government debt is low and falling. Personal debt is very low. If there is one country that can afford this (ignoring all other issues, obviously), it is Germany.
An interesting interview in Die Zeit. If the economist's conclusions are correct Germany is heading for huge social problems.
TIME: Minister Wanka says the big advantage is indeed just that more than half of the refugees under 25 are, therefore, at an age where they could still get an education.
Wößmann: That's the big question: two thirds of young Syrians who must be regarded as functionally illiterate in accordance with international educational standards, the necessary training for local businesses maturity is mostly missing.
Ludger Wößmann is the head of economics education at IFO, and I rate him reasonably highly. He is absolutely right - obviously - that taking a large number of people who are functionally illiterate is a big issue for any country.
That being said, Germany has better history than most countries in taking low skilled labour and making it pay. They successfully did it with the Turks. And after a very shaky start they did it with a lot of East Germans. The economic costs of which were - of course - vastly more than expected.
It's also worth remembering that Germany starts from a position of enormous surplus. Their current account surplus is - what - 6 or 7% of GDP. Government debt is low and falling. Personal debt is very low. If there is one country that can afford this (ignoring all other issues, obviously), it is Germany.
I think they will come up with much more resistance than they did with East Germans and Turks. The refugees are not going to be easy to integrate into German society.
Maybe's aye, maybe's no, in the words of the great Kenny Dalgleish. By 2020 the introduction of Universal Credit should have achieved everything that these reforms were intended to achieve including your highly desirable objectives.
I was a bit disappointed in the Autumn Statement myself but Osborne's record in macro-economic management is worthy of considerable respect, even if I think that there is something in Alanbrooke's criticism that there has not been enough reform.
I'm still not convinced by Osborne's record. We still haven't had any manufacturing growth since 2010, we are only just about 2010 construction levels and we have a truly huge current account deficit, money is pouring out of the country too fast. I think restoring domestic demand has papered over the cracks and there hasn't been anywhere near enough reform to make manufacturing profitable and to make our industries more competitive. Investment in transport infrastructure is still a joke and we're still dithering over Heathrow when another country would have begun planning a fourth runway on the same site by now. Osborne has been lucky and competent in equal measures.
We need serious reform to our industrial sector but there is no one willing to deliver it. Now we have a new payroll tax to pay for something companies should be receiving tax credits for. We haven't opened up the single market for services (our true export strength) and yet Osborne is still wedded to staying in the EU.
If he becomes leader I won't renew my membership.
While I agree with much of that, I think the problem is that all politicians are wedded to getting re-elected. I'm reminded of the great line from Prime Minister Rajoy of Spain at the beginning of the Eurozone crisis: "we all know what we need to do to solve this crisis. we just don't know how to get re-elected afterwards."
Countries - like companies - make necessary reforms when they have near-death experiences. It was the crisis of the 1970s that allowed reform in the UK in the 1980s. It was the crisis of East German integration that forced Germany to dramatically liberalise their economy in the early 2000s. And it was the Eurozone crisis that forced Spain to slash public spending and free up their labour market.
We have had no such pressures, thanks to Quantitive Easing and a relatively flexible labour market. It takes a politicians with real courage to push through unpopular, but necessary, reforms without the market breathing down their neck. Neither George, not Dave, nor anyone else on the Conservative front bench is going to reduce the chance of re-election to do things that appear doctrinaire.
An interesting interview in Die Zeit. If the economist's conclusions are correct Germany is heading for huge social problems.
TIME: Minister Wanka says the big advantage is indeed just that more than half of the refugees under 25 are, therefore, at an age where they could still get an education.
Wößmann: That's the big question: two thirds of young Syrians who must be regarded as functionally illiterate in accordance with international educational standards, the necessary training for local businesses maturity is mostly missing.
Ludger Wößmann is the head of economics education at IFO, and I rate him reasonably highly. He is absolutely right - obviously - that taking a large number of people who are functionally illiterate is a big issue for any country.
That being said, Germany has better history than most countries in taking low skilled labour and making it pay. They successfully did it with the Turks. And after a very shaky start they did it with a lot of East Germans. The economic costs of which were - of course - vastly more than expected.
It's also worth remembering that Germany starts from a position of enormous surplus. Their current account surplus is - what - 6 or 7% of GDP. Government debt is low and falling. Personal debt is very low. If there is one country that can afford this (ignoring all other issues, obviously), it is Germany.
I think they will come up with much more resistance than they did with East Germans and Turks. The refugees are not going to be easy to integrate into German society.
I wouldn't disagree.
My points are simply: 1, at least Germany is coming from a position of financial strength; and 2., they have had some success in the past.
The issue for them, I think, is that 2 has blinded them to how difficult this might be.
While I agree with much of that, I think the problem is that all politicians are wedded to getting re-elected. I'm reminded of the great line from Prime Minister Rajoy of Spain at the beginning of the Eurozone crisis: "we all know what we need to do to solve this crisis. we just don't know how to get re-elected afterwards."
Countries - like companies - make necessary reforms when they have near-death experiences. It was the crisis of the 1970s that allowed reform in the UK in the 1980s. It was the crisis of East German integration that forced Germany to dramatically liberalise their economy in the early 2000s. And it was the Eurozone crisis that forced Spain to slash public spending and free up their labour market.
We have had no such pressures, thanks to Quantitive Easing and a relatively flexible labour market. It takes a politicians with real courage to push through unpopular, but necessary, reforms without the market breathing down their neck. Neither George, not Dave, nor anyone else on the Conservative front bench is going to reduce the chance of re-election to do things that appear doctrinaire.
Yes, I completely agree, but Jeremy Corbyn and the resurgent Left has presented the Tories with a real opportunity to reshape the economy of this nation. Osborne is blowing it, these early years are the key to getting stuff done so that by 2020 people have forgotten what happened in 2015. The people who would have lost out from the tax credit adjustments would have recovered and changed their working patterns to make up for it. The Tories could eat Prince George live on TV in April 2020 and still get elected a week later with Corbyn in charge of the opposition.
Ok I have read the thread, and most of it is wrong...
Osborne will be PM, if he wants it (I am not sure he does either)
People are constantly comparing Osborne to Gordo, but then ignoring the fact that Gordo ensured his unanimous coronation to the top spot despite being the worst candidate in living memory
Whatever faults Osborne has (nothing compared to the great clunking fist), he has put the machinery of power in place to be elevated if so chooses.
An interesting interview in Die Zeit. If the economist's conclusions are correct Germany is heading for huge social problems.
TIME: Minister Wanka says the big advantage is indeed just that more than half of the refugees under 25 are, therefore, at an age where they could still get an education.
Wößmann: That's the big question: two thirds of young Syrians who must be regarded as functionally illiterate in accordance with international educational standards, the necessary training for local businesses maturity is mostly missing.
Ludger Wößmann is the head of economics education at IFO, and I rate him reasonably highly. He is absolutely right - obviously - that taking a large number of people who are functionally illiterate is a big issue for any country.
That being said, Germany has better history than most countries in taking low skilled labour and making it pay. They successfully did it with the Turks. And after a very shaky start they did it with a lot of East Germans. The economic costs of which were - of course - vastly more than expected.
It's also worth remembering that Germany starts from a position of enormous surplus. Their current account surplus is - what - 6 or 7% of GDP. Government debt is low and falling. Personal debt is very low. If there is one country that can afford this (ignoring all other issues, obviously), it is Germany.
I think they will come up with much more resistance than they did with East Germans and Turks. The refugees are not going to be easy to integrate into German society.
I wouldn't disagree.
My points are simply: 1, at least Germany is coming from a position of financial strength; and 2., they have had some success in the past.
The issue for them, I think, is that 2 has blinded them to how difficult this might be.
I don't think they are coming from a massive position of strength, if the EU ever recovers and the Euro follows the German model falls apart now that they have a minimum wage. Their minimum wage is €8.50 per hour, or ~£6.20 at the moment, without that companies were able to easily adjust unit labour costs and continue wage dumping all over the rest of Europe to ensure growth continued. Now they can't do that. Germany hasn't yet dealt with a strong Euro and a minimum wage. It will be interesting to see how the government reacts if jobs growth slows or unemployment begins to rise as unit labour costs rise vs Spain or Italy.
Ok I have read the thread, and most of it is wrong...
Osborne will be PM, if he wants it (I am not sure he does either)
People are constantly comparing Osborne to Gordo, but then ignoring the fact that Gordo ensured his unanimous coronation to the top spot despite being the worst candidate in living memory
Whatever faults Osborne has (nothing compared to the great clunking fist), he has put the machinery of power in place to be elevated if so chooses.
He can certainly win the Tory leadership, but whether he could win a General Election as Tory leader is another matter.
Reminder that Corbyn and Osborne were TIED in a poll asking who the best PM was a few weeks ago (not that Corbyn will be Labour leader in 2020 anyway).
Ok I have read the thread, and most of it is wrong...
Osborne will be PM, if he wants it (I am not sure he does either)
People are constantly comparing Osborne to Gordo, but then ignoring the fact that Gordo ensured his unanimous coronation to the top spot despite being the worst candidate in living memory
Whatever faults Osborne has (nothing compared to the great clunking fist), he has put the machinery of power in place to be elevated if so chooses.
He can certainly win the Tory leadership, but whether he could win a General Election as Tory leader is another matter.
Reminder that Corbyn and Osborne were TIED in a poll asking who the best PM was a few weeks ago (not that Corbyn will be Labour leader in 2020 anyway).
He would beat Corbyn. Very, very easily. It wouldn't even be a race. The issue for the Tories is that Corbyn might not be leading the Labour party when it comes to kick off time. There is no guarantee that Osborne can beat a newly energised Labour party with a decent leader like Hilary Benn. Look at the difference between the Labour benches when Eagle was there today vs when Corbyn is bleating on about something. If Osborne becomes Tory leader then there is no way Labour don't axe Corbyn and try to win it. With May or even Hammond Labour may want the Corbynites to own the mega defeat that will come their way so they can purge all of these extreme left entryists.
If Osborne becomes Tory leader then there is no way Labour don't axe Corbyn and try to win it.
But their only route to axe Corbyn is bloody civil war. Which would suit the Tories just fine
I'm confused. Why should Labour suddenly awake from its summer dream of paradise and decide to elect someone who can win just because Osborne becomes leader?
Maybe's aye, maybe's no, in the words of the great Kenny Dalgleish. By 2020 the introduction of Universal Credit should have achieved everything that these reforms were intended to achieve including your highly desirable objectives.
I was a bit disappointed in the Autumn Statement myself but Osborne's record in macro-economic management is worthy of considerable respect, even if I think that there is something in Alanbrooke's criticism that there has not been enough reform.
I'm still not convinced by Osborne's record. We still haven't had any manufacturing growth since 2010, we are only just about 2010 construction levels and we have a truly huge current account deficit, money is pouring out of the country too fast. I think restoring domestic demand has papered over the cracks and there hasn't been anywhere near enough reform to make manufacturing profitable and to make our industries more competitive. Investment in transport infrastructure is still a joke and we're still dithering over Heathrow when another country would have begun planning a fourth runway on the same site by now. Osborne has been lucky and competent in equal measures.
We need serious reform to our industrial sector but there is no one willing to deliver it. Now we have a new payroll tax to pay for something companies should be receiving tax credits for. We haven't opened up the single market for services (our true export strength) and yet Osborne is still wedded to staying in the EU.
If he becomes leader I won't renew my membership.
While I agree with much of that, I think the problem is that all politicians are wedded to getting re-elected. I'm reminded of the great line from Prime Minister Rajoy of Spain at the beginning of the Eurozone crisis: "we all know what We have had no such pressures, thanks to Quantitive Easing and a relatively flexible labour market. It takes a politicians with real courage to push through unpopular, but necessary, reforms without the market breathing down their neck. Neither George, n else on the Conservative front bench is going to reduce the chance of re-election to do things that appear doctrinaire.
But, I think that the election of Corbyn as Labour leader has given the Conservatives the chance to ram through reforms - as Thatcher did - even if lots of people don't like them. Even if 30% of the voters stick with Labour, 40% will vote Conservative to keep out Corbyn.
What I think Osborne wants to do is turn the Conservatives into a hegemonic political party, winning 45-50% of the vote, but hegemonic political parties just end up quarrelling over the fruits of office.
Ok I have read the thread, and most of it is wrong...
Osborne will be PM, if he wants it (I am not sure he does either)
People are constantly comparing Osborne to Gordo, but then ignoring the fact that Gordo ensured his unanimous coronation to the top spot despite being the worst candidate in living memory
Whatever faults Osborne has (nothing compared to the great clunking fist), he has put the machinery of power in place to be elevated if so chooses.
He can certainly win the Tory leadership, but whether he could win a General Election as Tory leader is another matter.
Reminder that Corbyn and Osborne were TIED in a poll asking who the best PM was a few weeks ago (not that Corbyn will be Labour leader in 2020 anyway).
Am I not right in thinking that this was before Corbyn's personal polling collapsed from a dismal -20 or so to -41? Not even the majority of Labour supporters think he should be PM anymore.
If Osborne becomes Tory leader then there is no way Labour don't axe Corbyn and try to win it.
But their only route to axe Corbyn is bloody civil war. Which would suit the Tories just fine
I'm confused. Why should Labour suddenly awake from its summer dream of paradise and decide to elect someone who can win just because Osborne becomes leader?
Because Osborne would quickly become so unpopular, that it would become clear he was eminently beatable by a decent Labour leader.
One of the reasons Corbyn got elected is because mainstream Labour members started thinking "we won't win in 2020 regardless, so why not just indulge ourselves".
Ok I have read the thread, and most of it is wrong...
Osborne will be PM, if he wants it (I am not sure he does either)
People are constantly comparing Osborne to Gordo, but then ignoring the fact that Gordo ensured his unanimous coronation to the top spot despite being the worst candidate in living memory
Whatever faults Osborne has (nothing compared to the great clunking fist), he has put the machinery of power in place to be elevated if so chooses.
He can certainly win the Tory leadership, but whether he could win a General Election as Tory leader is another matter.
Reminder that Corbyn and Osborne were TIED in a poll asking who the best PM was a few weeks ago (not that Corbyn will be Labour leader in 2020 anyway).
Am I not right in thinking that this was before Corbyn's personal polling collapsed from a dismal -20 or so to -41? Not even the majority of Labour supporters think he should be PM anymore.
Correct (although I think Osborne's ratings have also been on a downwards trend since tax credits).
Another thing about that Osborne v Corbyn poll is that, from memory, about half of the people answering refused to answer. I suspect if that really is the choice in 2020, then UKIP and the Lib Dems will both get huge surges from people who just can't bring themselves to vote for either leader.
Re Osborne, there is something that tells me he really doesn't want it. Whereas we all knew that Gordo was desperate, I think Osborne is playing a very different game.
Osborne reminds me much more of Mandelson, the dark Lord, someone who gets off on all the trappings of power, but without having to actually front very much.
If Osborne can get his finger nails into an equally electorally appealing leader as Cameron and keep all the things he loves most...namely power, influence, power and more influence...he would love to keep things that way.
I still think Boris is the man to beat, and nothing I have seen or read has led me to think otherwise. And with Osborne's patronage.....
But, I think that the election of Corbyn as Labour leader has given the Conservatives the chance to ram through reforms - as Thatcher did - even if lots of people don't like them. Even if 30% of the voters stick with Labour, 40% will vote Conservative to keep out Corbyn.
What I think Osborne wants to do is turn the Conservatives into a hegemonic political party, winning 45-50% of the vote, but hegemonic political parties just end up quarrelling over the fruits of office.
Interesting. The challenge for the Tory party, which New Labour ultimately fluffed, is to ensure that they have power with a purpose. To that extent I agree with your post.
But what is that purpose? What does the modern Tory party want? At that point the divisions that Dave has kept buried so well become acute.
I think Cameron and Osborne basically want more of the same. They want an economy that is successful and sustainable. They want lower taxes on fewer people which implies a smaller state. But they also want a State which maintains the safety net and cares for the less able in our society.
Others, more on the right, want to go further and demolish much of the welfare state including radical reforms to the NHS. I am really not sure where their leadership is in the Commons but it may be that they are just keeping their heads down in the Cameron years.
Both wings are more focussed on economic success than social objectives. These are Conservatives after all, they don't really believe in radical changes to society.
There is a more libertarian wing yet, possibly including yourself, who really want the State massively diminished (like RCS) and a return to small government outside the EU where self sufficiency is much more important. I think this movement is much weaker in the Tories than it was, possibly because many subscribers to it have already left for UKIP.
These tensions will manifest themselves in the leadership election, especially after the tensions caused by the EU referendum. Labour can only hope and pray that the Cameron/Osborne tendency do not hold onto power. If they do Labour will struggle to survive at all.
But, I think that the election of Corbyn as Labour leader has given the Conservatives the chance to ram through reforms - as Thatcher did - even if lots of people don't like them. Even if 30% of the voters stick with Labour, 40% will vote Conservative to keep out Corbyn.
What I think Osborne wants to do is turn the Conservatives into a hegemonic political party, winning 45-50% of the vote, but hegemonic political parties just end up quarrelling over the fruits of office.
Actually I think the Conservatives have done major reforms however many of them are timed to kick off in the future so that it doesn't have a cliff face impact. For example changing tax credits from a generous allowance for an uncapped number of children to just two. Osborne is an unusual Chancellor in one extent that the forward thinking way he has done this means that it's benefits to the country will be felt the most long after he has gone. There are a number of other examples of this.
I didn't think that I could get more depressed about that dreadful performance from Man U last night but the other 3 PL teams all getting through really doesn't help. If anything I think a case could be made that we had one of the easier groups.
If Osborne becomes Tory leader then there is no way Labour don't axe Corbyn and try to win it.
But their only route to axe Corbyn is bloody civil war. Which would suit the Tories just fine
I'm confused. Why should Labour suddenly awake from its summer dream of paradise and decide to elect someone who can win just because Osborne becomes leader?
Because Osborne would quickly become so unpopular, that it would become clear he was eminently beatable by a decent Labour leader.
One of the reasons Corbyn got elected is because mainstream Labour members started thinking "we won't win in 2020 regardless, so why not just indulge ourselves".
I think you are infusing Labour members with a level of rationality that does not, in fact, exist in them.
I didn't think that I could get more depressed about that dreadful performance from Man U last night but the other 3 PL teams all getting through really doesn't help. If anything I think a case could be made that we had one of the easier groups.
Sigh.
If you're a Liverpool fan that's kind of the best possible news. In the past I'd always enjoy seeing you get knocked out at an early stage but now the loss of the fourth spot to Italy looks a real risk so there was a dark cloud to you getting knocked out. United out and England keeping three to get points for the fourth spot is kind of ideal.
But, I think that the election of Corbyn as Labour leader has given the Conservatives the chance to ram through reforms - as Thatcher did - even if lots of people don't like them. Even if 30% of the voters stick with Labour, 40% will vote Conservative to keep out Corbyn.
What I think Osborne wants to do is turn the Conservatives into a hegemonic political party, winning 45-50% of the vote, but hegemonic political parties just end up quarrelling over the fruits of office.
Interesting. The challenge for the Tory party, which New Labour ultimately fluffed, is to ensure that they have power with a purpose. To that extent I agree with your post.
But what is that purpose? What does the modern Tory party want? At that point the divisions that Dave has kept buried so well become acute.
I think Cameron and Osborne basically want more of the same. They want an economy that is successful and sustainable. They want lower taxes on fewer people which implies a smaller state. But they also want a State which maintains the safety net and cares for the less able in our society.
Others, more on the right, want to go further and demolish much of the welfare state including radical reforms to the NHS. I am really not sure where their leadership is in the Commons but it may be that they are just keeping their heads down in the Cameron years.
Both wings are more focussed on economic success than social objectives. These are Conservatives after all, they don't really believe in radical changes to society.
There is a more libertarian wing yet, possibly including yourself, who really want the State massively diminished (like RCS) and a return to small government outside the EU where self sufficiency is much more important. I think this movement is much weaker in the Tories than it was, possibly because many subscribers to it have already left for UKIP.
These tensions will manifest themselves in the leadership election, especially after the tensions caused by the EU referendum. Labour can only hope and pray that the Cameron/Osborne tendency do not hold onto power. If they do Labour will struggle to survive at all.
Party members - outside the metropolitan minority - will tell you exactly what they want: controlled immigration, a stable society and full self-governance back.
The social side of Conservatism is still very strong in the party, despite the attempts of the leadership to merely pay lip service and try and sideline it.
I agree with Mike Smithson. Both Osborne, and especially Corbyn, are big drags on their parties. I struggle to think of any other front benchers who are up to Cameron's or Blair's level of presentation, though. I think a new generation leader will be needed on both sides. Some capable young guns should definitely throw their hats in the ring.
Interesting. The challenge for the Tory party, which New Labour ultimately fluffed, is to ensure that they have power with a purpose. To that extent I agree with your post.
But what is that purpose? What does the modern Tory party want? At that point the divisions that Dave has kept buried so well become acute.
I think Cameron and Osborne basically want more of the same. They want an economy that is successful and sustainable. They want lower taxes on fewer people which implies a smaller state. But they also want a State which maintains the safety net and cares for the less able in our society.
This is what I believe in and what I believe the best right wing leaders have done too like Thatcher and Reagan. The State is best not when it is DOING something all the time but when it gets out of the way most of the time but what it does is done well.
The problem with Blair was summed up with his Grid and permanent reshuffles. The urgent need to be *seen* to be doing something rather than actually doing it
Cameron with his rare reshuffles and Osborne with his seemingly gradual but steady fixing of economic problems are the opposite in this regard.
That is why the notion Cameron is the heir to Blair is very superficial.
..... Whatever faults Osborne has (nothing compared to the great clunking fist), he has put the machinery of power in place to be elevated if so chooses.
1. First hurdle is get into the top 2 choice of the Conservative MPs. Not easy as there is a growing list of MPs resenting him and feeling that their careers are blocked or finished due to him. 1/3 of the MPs will also be hurting in their pocket due to his BTL changes, particularly on allowable expenses and mortgage relief. 2. Second hurdle win the membership. >2 out of 3 want to Leave the EC. Osborne will have stood at the front of the Remain campaign unless hell freezes over. If the Leave campaign wins Cameron and Osborne are finished. If the Remain campaign wins then Osborne will have taken a position that only a minority of the members believe. It is a heads he loses and tails he loses situation.
Maybe's aye, maybe's no, in the words of the great Kenny Dalgleish. By 2020 the introduction of Universal Credit should have achieved everything that these reforms were intended to achieve including your highly desirable objectives.
I was a bit disappointed in the Autumn Statement myself but Osborne's record in macro-economic management is worthy of considerable respect, even if I think that there is something in Alanbrooke's criticism that there has not been enough reform.
I'm still not convinced by Osborne's record. We still haven't had any manufacturing growth since 2010, we are only just about 2010 construction levels and we have a truly huge current account deficit, money is pouring out of the country too fast. I think restoring domestic demand has papered over the cracks and there
If he becomes leader I won't renew my membership.
While I agree with much of that, I think the problem is that all politicians are wedded to getting re-elected. I'm reminded of the great line from Prime Minister Rajoy of Spain at the beginning of the Eurozone crisis: "we all know what We have had no such pressures, thanks to Quantitive Easing and a relatively flexible labour market. It takes a politicians with real courage to push through unpopular, but necessary, reforms without the market breathing down their neck. Neither George, n else on the Conservative front bench is going to reduce the chance of re-election to do things that appear doctrinaire.
But, I think that the election of Corbyn as Labour leader has given the Conservatives the chance to ram through reforms - as Thatcher did - even if lots of people don't like them. Even if 30% of the voters stick with Labour, 40% will vote Conservative to keep out Corbyn.
What I think Osborne wants to do is turn the Conservatives into a hegemonic political party, winning 45-50% of the vote, but hegemonic political parties just end up quarrelling over the fruits of office.
I think that's spot on. Osborne has implicitly (if not explicitly) tacked Left in response to the election of Corbyn, which is why I was so reluctant to cheer Tories for Corbyn.
I would have preferred the Tories to continue doing exactly what they were doing, and to use the opportunity to build on it.
I was impressed with the first four months of this government.
But, I think that the election of Corbyn as Labour leader has given the Conservatives the chance to ram through reforms - as Thatcher did - even if lots of people don't like them. Even if 30% of the voters stick with Labour, 40% will vote Conservative to keep out Corbyn.
What I think Osborne wants to do is turn the Conservatives into a hegemonic political party, winning 45-50% of the vote, but hegemonic political parties just end up quarrelling over the fruits of office.
Actually I think the Conservatives have done major reforms however many of them are timed to kick off in the future so that it doesn't have a cliff face impact. For example changing tax credits from a generous allowance for an uncapped number of children to just two. Osborne is an unusual Chancellor in one extent that the forward thinking way he has done this means that it's benefits to the country will be felt the most long after he has gone. There are a number of other examples of this.
It would be nice for the Conservatives to push through some difficult but centrist reforms while they have the chance. Combining national insurance and income tax, breaking up the banks, reform of planning laws, a land value tax, Lords reform, and cannabis legalisation would be my ones.
Maybe's aye, maybe's no, in the words of the great Kenny Dalgleish. By 2020 the introduction of Universal Credit should have achieved everything that these reforms were intended to achieve including your highly desirable objectives.
I was a bit disappointed in the Autumn Statement myself but Osborne's record in macro-economic management is worthy of considerable respect, even if I think that there is something in Alanbrooke's criticism that there has not been enough reform.
I'm still not convinced by Osborne's record. We still haven't had any manufacturing growth since 2010, we are only just about 2010 construction levels and we have a truly huge current account deficit, money is pouring out of the country too fast. I think restoring domestic demand has papered over the cracks and there
If he becomes leader I won't renew my membership.
While I agree with much of that, I think the problem is that all politicians are wedded to getting re-elected. I'm reminded of the great line from Prime Minister Rajoy of Spain at the beginning of the Eurozone crisis: "we all know what We have had no such pressures, thanks to Quantitive Easing and a relatively flexible labour market. It takes a politicians with real courage to push through unpopular, but necessary, reforms without the market breathing down their neck. Neither George, n else on the Conservative front bench is going to reduce the chance of re-election to do things that appear doctrinaire.
But, I think that the election of Corbyn as Labour leader has given the Conservatives the chance to ram through reforms - as Thatcher did - even if lots of people don't like them. Even if 30% of the voters stick with Labour, 40% will vote Conservative to keep out Corbyn.
What I think Osborne wants to do is turn the Conservatives into a hegemonic political party, winning 45-50% of the vote, but hegemonic political parties just end up quarrelling over the fruits of office.
I think that's spot on. Osborne has implicitly (if not explicitly) tacked Left in response to the election of Corbyn, which is why I was so reluctant to cheer Tories for Corbyn.
I would have preferred the Tories to continue doing exactly what they were doing, and to use the opportunity to build on it.
I was impressed with the first four months of this government.
Has he? To what extent?
Sure he backed down on Tax Credits temporarily but that was due to it becoming so damning he would have done that against any opposition leader. That happened despite Corbyn not because of him but long term the reforms are still going ahead.
But, I think that the election of Corbyn as Labour leader has given the Conservatives the chance to ram through reforms - as Thatcher did - even if lots of people don't like them. Even if 30% of the voters stick with Labour, 40% will vote Conservative to keep out Corbyn.
What I think Osborne wants to do is turn the Conservatives into a hegemonic political party, winning 45-50% of the vote, but hegemonic political parties just end up quarrelling over the fruits of office.
Actually I think the Conservatives have done major reforms however many of them are timed to kick off in the future so that it doesn't have a cliff face impact. For example changing tax credits from a generous allowance for an uncapped number of children to just two. Osborne is an unusual Chancellor in one extent that the forward thinking way he has done this means that it's benefits to the country will be felt the most long after he has gone. There are a number of other examples of this.
It would be nice for the Conservatives to push through some difficult but centrist reforms while they have the chance. Combining national insurance and income tax, breaking up the banks, reform of planning laws, a land value tax, Lords reform, and cannabis legalisation would be my ones.
I think you would need to do the last one first and addict Osborne to it before he would be willing to agree to the rest!
(Although actually most of them are pretty good ideas. But Osborne would never do anything that reduces pensioners' income, like breaking up the banks or in effect charging NI on pensions.)
Interesting. The challenge for the Tory party, which New Labour ultimately fluffed, is to ensure that they have power with a purpose. To that extent I agree with your post.
But what is that purpose? What does the modern Tory party want? At that point the divisions that Dave has kept buried so well become acute.
I think Cameron and Osborne basically want more of the same. They want an economy that is successful and sustainable. They want lower taxes on fewer people which implies a smaller state. But they also want a State which maintains the safety net and cares for the less able in our society.
This is what I believe in and what I believe the best right wing leaders have done too like Thatcher and Reagan. The State is best not when it is DOING something all the time but when it gets out of the way most of the time but what it does is done well.
The problem with Blair was summed up with his Grid and permanent reshuffles. The urgent need to be *seen* to be doing something rather than actually doing it
Cameron with his rare reshuffles and Osborne with his seemingly gradual but steady fixing of economic problems are the opposite in this regard.
That is why the notion Cameron is the heir to Blair is very superficial.
That suits me too. Casino's agenda, in contrast, feels a bit Kippery to me.
What I really want is a government that governs competently in the national interest ensuring that the fruits of success as Cameron used to describe them are reasonably fairly divided and which keeps us safe. Is that really too much to ask for?
I'm still far from convinced Osborne wants the top job.
Oh he desperately wants it. Look at all of "his people" that he has got appointed. Claire Perry for example. They are not there because they supported Cameron strongly or that they are better than the rest of the back benchers. They are there as Osborne's people. A corrosive effect on the quality of Government.
Rubbish. Claire Perry was at BNC almost at the same time as Cameron. Why this need to divide Camo and Osbo.
But, I think that the election of Corbyn as Labour leader has given the Conservatives the chance to ram through reforms - as Thatcher did - even if lots of people don't like them. Even if 30% of the voters stick with Labour, 40% will vote Conservative to keep out Corbyn.
What I think Osborne wants to do is turn the Conservatives into a hegemonic political party, winning 45-50% of the vote, but hegemonic political parties just end up quarrelling over the fruits of office.
Actually I think the Conservatives have done major reforms however many of them are timed to kick off in the future so that it doesn't have a cliff face impact. For example changing tax credits from a generous allowance for an uncapped number of children to just two. Osborne is an unusual Chancellor in one extent that the forward thinking way he has done this means that it's benefits to the country will be felt the most long after he has gone. There are a number of other examples of this.
It would be nice for the Conservatives to push through some difficult but centrist reforms while they have the chance. Combining national insurance and income tax, breaking up the banks, reform of planning laws, a land value tax, Lords reform, and cannabis legalisation would be my ones.
I think they have. Merging six benefits into one through Universal Credit is not exactly a simple reform. Combining NI and IT into one is a lot simpler in comparison.
I don't think Lords Reform or cannabis legalisation are priorities at the moment.
Maybe's aye, maybe's no, in the words of the great Kenny Dalgleish. By 2020 the introduction of Universal Credit should have achieved everything that these reforms were intended to achieve including your highly desirable objectives.
I was a bit disappointed in the Autumn Statement myself but Osborne's record in macro-economic management is worthy of considerable respect, even if I think that there is something in Alanbrooke's criticism that there has not been enough reform.
I'm still not convinced by Osborne's record. We still haven't had any manufacturing growth since 2010, we are only just about 2010 construction levels and we have a truly huge current account deficit, money is pouring out of the country too fast. I think restoring domestic demand has papered over the cracks and there
If he becomes leader I won't renew my membership.
While I agree with much of that, I think the problem is that all politicians are wedded to getting re-elected. I'm reminded of the great line from Prime Minister Rajoy of Spain at the beginning of the Eurozone crisis: "we all know what We have had no such pressures, thanks to Quantitive Easing and a relatively flexible labour market. It takes a politicians with real courage to push through unpopular, but necessary, reforms without the market breathing down their neck. Neither George, n else on the Conservative front bench is going to reduce the chance of re-election to do things that appear doctrinaire.
But, I think that the election of Corbyn as Labour leader has given the Conservatives the chance to ram through reforms - as Thatcher did - even if lots of people don't like them. Even if 30% of the voters stick with Labour, 40% will vote Conservative to keep out Corbyn.
What I think Osborne wants to do is turn the Conservatives into a hegemonic political party, winning 45-50% of the vote, but hegemonic political parties just end up quarrelling over the fruits of office.
I think that's spot on. Osborne has implicitly (if not explicitly) tacked Left in response to the election of Corbyn, which is why I was so reluctant to cheer Tories for Corbyn.
I would have preferred the Tories to continue doing exactly what they were doing, and to use the opportunity to build on it.
I was impressed with the first four months of this government.
Maybe's aye, maybe's no, in the words of the great Kenny Dalgleish. By 2020 the introduction of Universal Credit should have achieved everything that these reforms were intended to achieve including your highly desirable objectives.
I was a bit disappointed in the Autumn Statement myself but Osborne's record in macro-economic management is worthy of considerable respect, even if I think that there is something in Alanbrooke's criticism that there has not been enough reform.
I'm still not convinced by Osborne's record. We still haven't had any manufacturing growth since 2010, we are only just about 2010 construction levels and we have a truly huge current account deficit, money is pouring out of the country too fast. I think restoring domestic demand has papered over the cracks and there
If he becomes leader I won't renew my membership.
While I
But,.
I think that's spot on. Osborne has implicitly (if not explicitly) tacked Left in response to the election of Corbyn, which is why I was so reluctant to cheer Tories for Corbyn.
I would have preferred the Tories to continue doing exactly what they were doing, and to use the opportunity to build on it.
I was impressed with the first four months of this government.
Has he? To what extent?
Sure he backed down on Tax Credits temporarily but that was due to it becoming so damning he would have done that against any opposition leader. That happened despite Corbyn not because of him but long term the reforms are still going ahead.
I think the rhetoric at party conference in October was notably different, particularly on new Labour lite social policy, and this was validated by the budgetary measures in the autumn budget which threw cash around to plug politically contentious holes, risked the debt balancing horizon and contained no tax cuts. Indeed, it included tax *rises*.
I thought Cameron's speech at conference was very Blair, and Osborne's budget was pure Brown.
On the plus side, I was broadly impressed with the Defence review and the government (for now) are sticking to the right policy re: mediterrean migration IMHO.
But, I think that the election of Corbyn as Labour leader has given the Conservatives the chance to ram through reforms - as Thatcher did - even if lots of people don't like them. Even if 30% of the voters stick with Labour, 40% will vote Conservative to keep out Corbyn.
What I think Osborne wants to do is turn the Conservatives into a hegemonic political party, winning 45-50% of the vote, but hegemonic political parties just end up quarrelling over the fruits of office.
Actually I think the Conservatives have done major reforms however many of them are timed to kick off in the future so that it doesn't have a cliff face impact. For example changing tax credits from a generous allowance for an uncapped number of children to just two. Osborne is an unusual Chancellor in one extent that the forward thinking way he has done this means that it's benefits to the country will be felt the most long after he has gone. There are a number of other examples of this.
It would be nice for the Conservatives to push through some difficult but centrist reforms while they have the chance. Combining national insurance and income tax, breaking up the banks, reform of planning laws, a land value tax, Lords reform, and cannabis legalisation would be my ones.
Do you believe that there is a significant chance of that happening? I'd consider cannabis legislation an unlikely prospect under any government.
Interesting. The challenge for the Tory party, which New Labour ultimately fluffed, is to ensure that they have power with a purpose. To that extent I agree with your post.
But what is that purpose? What does the modern Tory party want? At that point the divisions that Dave has kept buried so well become acute.
I think Cameron and Osborne basically want more of the same. They want an economy that is successful and sustainable. They want lower taxes on fewer people which implies a smaller state. But they also want a State which maintains the safety net and cares for the less able in our society.
This is what I believe in and what I believe the best right wing leaders have done too like Thatcher and Reagan. The State is best not when it is DOING something all the time but when it gets out of the way most of the time but what it does is done well.
The problem with Blair was summed up with his Grid and permanent reshuffles. The urgent need to be *seen* to be doing something rather than actually doing it
Cameron with his rare reshuffles and Osborne with his seemingly gradual but steady fixing of economic problems are the opposite in this regard.
That is why the notion Cameron is the heir to Blair is very superficial.
That suits me too. Casino's agenda, in contrast, feels a bit Kippery to me.
What I really want is a government that governs competently in the national interest ensuring that the fruits of success as Cameron used to describe them are reasonably fairly divided and which keeps us safe. Is that really too much to ask for?
There's nothing Kippery about it unless Conservatives choose to surrender such arguments to UKIP.
I'm still not convinced by Osborne's record. We still haven't had any manufacturing growth since 2010, we are only just about 2010 construction levels and we have a truly huge current account deficit, money is pouring out of the country too fast. I think restoring domestic demand has papered over the cracks and there
If he becomes leader I won't renew my membership.
While I
But,.
I think that's spot on. Osborne has implicitly (if not explicitly) tacked Left in response to the election of Corbyn, which is why I was so reluctant to cheer Tories for Corbyn.
I would have preferred the Tories to continue doing exactly what they were doing, and to use the opportunity to build on it.
I was impressed with the first four months of this government.
Has he? To what extent?
Sure he backed down on Tax Credits temporarily but that was due to it becoming so damning he would have done that against any opposition leader. That happened despite Corbyn not because of him but long term the reforms are still going ahead.
I think the rhetoric at party conference in October was notably different, particularly on new Labour lite social policy, and this was validated by the budgetary measures in the autumn budget which threw cash around to plug politically contentious holes, risked the debt balancing horizon and contained no tax cuts. Indeed, it included tax *rises*.
I thought Cameron's speech at conference was very Blair, and Osborne's budget was pure Brown.
On the plus side, I was broadly impressed with the Defence review and the government (for now) are sticking to the right policy re: mediterrean migration IMHO.
I think with Osborne in particular and Cameron to a lesser extent you really have to watch what they do rather than what they say. Their agenda of a smaller state and a balanced budget remains on track. What I found frustrating was that the £27bn was an opportunity to accelerate down that track and it was used to buy off political difficulties instead although the current security situation probably meant that the police cuts had to be rethought. The direction of travel has not changed though, even if the rhetoric is designed more to appeal to the abandoned centre.
@JournoStephen: Saddened but not surprised to hear tonight's #scotnight has been cancelled on orders from STV's Westminster Compliance Officer @jamescheyne.
I think the rhetoric at party conference in October was notably different, particularly on new Labour lite social policy, and this was validated by the budgetary measures in the autumn budget which threw cash around to plug politically contentious holes, risked the debt balancing horizon and contained no tax cuts. Indeed, it included tax *rises*.
I thought Cameron's speech at conference was very Blair, and Osborne's budget was pure Brown.
On the plus side, I was broadly impressed with the Defence review and the government (for now) are sticking to the right policy re: mediterrean migration IMHO.
Plugging contentious issues is sometimes smart politics. It was also the right thing to do. Ultimately not only were votes lost in the Lords but the potential was to lose votes due to Tory rebellions in the Commons if a solution wasn't found.
There were tax cuts in the budget including for example Corporation Tax cuts.
I've now watched the PMQs clip, and I think the tsunami of love and admiration for Ms Eagle was overdone. Of course, in comparison with Corbyn, it's not surprising that she got a rousing response from her own side. But Osborne was pretty good too, albeit a bit stiff, and got an equally good response from his side.
What Ms Eagle failed to do was to pin Osborne down on any specific point. She had some very good prescripted lines, but they were standalone lines; she failed to corner Osborne in a sequence of questions, as the best LOTOs do when quizzing the PM or his deputy. Osborne got some good quips in too, and was able to bat off her points fairly effortlessly.
It's the contrast with Corbyn, and the fact that the PLP actually supported her, which made her performance seem good. In itself, however, it was competent, but nothing special.
Germany are stuffed if the Euro ever rises against the basket of foreign currencies.
Why no one seems to understand this baffles me.
Why Germans don't understand this makes sense. They're the new mercantilists. They think this export lark is dead easy when their currency is surpressed by impoverishing the Mediterranean fringe. They won't get away with it for any longer than a few more years.
I've now watched the PMQs clip, and I think the tsunami of love and admiration for Ms Eagle was overdone. Of course, in comparison with Corbyn, it's not surprising that she got a rousing response from her own side. But Osborne was pretty good too, albeit a bit stiff, and got an equally good response from his side.
What Ms Eagle failed to do was to pin Osborne down on any specific point. She had some very good prescripted lines, but they were standalone lines; she failed to corner Osborne in a sequence of questions, as the best LOTOs do when quizzing the PM or his deputy. Osborne got some good quips in too, and was able to bat off her points fairly effortlessly.
It's the contrast with Corbyn, and the fact that the PLP actually supported her, which made her performance seem good. In itself, however, it was competent, but nothing special.
I would like a return to the pre-World War One settlement, so brilliantly described by AJP Taylor at the beginning of The Effects and Origins of the First World War: Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman.
Whenever I hear the phrase "social conservatism" I'm genuinely baffled about what people are actually talking about.
Banning gay marriage? Banning abortion?
Can anyone actually provide a list (of say at least 5 items) of specific "social conservative" policies that might realistically actually be introduced by a UK Government?
I'm still not convinced by Osborne's record. We still haven't had any manufacturing growth since 2010, we are only just about 2010 construction levels and we have a truly huge current account deficit, money is pouring out of the country too fast. I think restoring domestic demand has papered over the cracks and there
If he becomes leader I won't renew my membership.
While I
But,.
I think that's spot on. Osborne has implicitly (if not explicitly) tacked Left in response to the election of Corbyn, which is why I was so reluctant to cheer Tories for Corbyn.
I would have preferred the Tories to continue doing exactly what they were doing, and to use the opportunity to build on it.
I was impressed with the first four months of this government.
Has he? To what extent?
Sure he backed down on Tax Credits temporarily but that was due to it becoming so damning he would have done that against any opposition leader. That happened despite Corbyn not because of him but long term the reforms are still going ahead.
I think the rhetoric at party conference in October was notably different, particularly on new Labour lite social policy, and this was validated by the budgetary measures in the autumn budget which threw cash around to plug politically contentious holes, risked the debt balancing horizon and contained no tax cuts. Indeed, it included tax *rises*.
I thought Cameron's speech at conference was very Blair, and Osborne's budget was pure Brown.
On the plus side, I was broadly impressed with the Defence review and the government (for now) are sticking to the right policy re: mediterrean migration IMHO.
I think with Osborne in particular and Cameron to a lesser extent you really have to watch what they do rather than what they say. Their agenda of a smaller state and a balanced budget remains on track. What I found frustrating was that the £27bn was an opportunity to accelerate down that track and it was used to buy off political difficulties instead although the current security situation probably meant that the police cuts had to be rethought. The direction of travel has not changed though, even if the rhetoric is designed more to appeal to the abandoned centre.
You had some very interesting and valid criticisms of it, which I thought were all insightful and well expressed.
I, of course, reserve final judgement, but the portents I fear are not good.
I've now watched the PMQs clip, and I think the tsunami of love and admiration for Ms Eagle was overdone. Of course, in comparison with Corbyn, it's not surprising that she got a rousing response from her own side.
I sort of agree. Business as usual competence is genuinely refreshing these days.
Germany are stuffed if the Euro ever rises against the basket of foreign currencies.
Why no one seems to understand this baffles me.
Why Germans don't understand this makes sense. They're the new mercantilists. They think this export lark is dead easy when their currency is surpressed by impoverishing the Mediterranean fringe. They won't get away with it for any longer than a few more years.
I would point out that the euro is 25% stronger than it was in mid 1999
But, I think that the election of Corbyn as Labour leader has given the Conservatives the chance to ram through reforms - as Thatcher did - even if lots of people don't like them. Even if 30% of the voters stick with Labour, 40% will vote Conservative to keep out Corbyn.
What I think Osborne wants to do is turn the Conservatives into a hegemonic political party, winning 45-50% of the vote, but hegemonic political parties just end up quarrelling over the fruits of office.
Actually I think the Conservatives have done major reforms however many of them are timed to kick off in the future so that it doesn't have a cliff face impact. For example changing tax credits from a generous allowance for an uncapped number of children to just two. Osborne is an unusual Chancellor in one extent that the forward thinking way he has done this means that it's benefits to the country will be felt the most long after he has gone. There are a number of other examples of this.
It would be nice for the Conservatives to push through some difficult but centrist reforms while they have the chance. Combining national insurance and income tax, breaking up the banks, reform of planning laws, a land value tax, Lords reform, and cannabis legalisation would be my ones.
LVT is never going to get off the ground. It makes no sense. Why should owenership of goods, any goods, all paid for by taxed income or at least affected by generations of IHT be acceptable to any but the most fervent trots.
I would like a return to the pre-World War One settlement, so brilliantly described by AJP Taylor at the beginning of The Effects and Origins of the First World War: Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman.
But, I think that the election of Corbyn as Labour leader has given the Conservatives the chance to ram through reforms - as Thatcher did - even if lots of people don't like them. Even if 30% of the voters stick with Labour, 40% will vote Conservative to keep out Corbyn.
What I think Osborne wants to do is turn the Conservatives into a hegemonic political party, winning 45-50% of the vote, but hegemonic political parties just end up quarrelling over the fruits of office.
Actually I think the Conservatives have done major reforms however many of them are timed to kick off in the future so that it doesn't have a cliff face impact. For example changing tax credits from a generous allowance for an uncapped number of children to just two. Osborne is an unusual Chancellor in one extent that the forward thinking way he has done this means that it's benefits to the country will be felt the most long after he has gone. There are a number of other examples of this.
It would be nice for the Conservatives to push through some difficult but centrist reforms while they have the chance. Combining national insurance and income tax, breaking up the banks, reform of planning laws, a land value tax, Lords reform, and cannabis legalisation would be my ones.
LVT is never going to get off the ground. It makes no sense. Why should taxation of the ownership of goods, any goods, all paid for by taxed income or at least affected by generations of IHT be acceptable to any but the most fervent trots.
I'm still not convinced by Osborne's record. We still haven't had any manufacturing growth since 2010, we are only just about 2010 construction levels and we have a truly huge current account deficit, money is pouring out of the country too fast. I think restoring domestic demand has papered over the cracks and there
If he becomes leader I won't renew my membership.
While I
But,.
I think that's spot on. Osborne has implicitly (if not explicitly) tacked Left in response to the election of Corbyn, which is why I was so reluctant to cheer Tories for Corbyn.
I would have preferred the Tories to continue doing exactly what they were doing, and to use the opportunity to build on it.
I was impressed with the first four months of this government.
Has he? To what extent?
Sure he backed down on Tax Credits temporarily but that was due to it becoming so damning he would have done that against any opposition leader. That happened despite Corbyn not because of him but long term the reforms are still going ahead.
I think the rhetoric at party conference in October was notably different, particularly on new Labour lite social policy, and this was validated by the budgetary measures in the autumn budget which threw cash around to plug politically contentious holes, risked the debt balancing horizon and contained no tax cuts. Indeed, it included tax *rises*.
I thought Cameron's speech at conference was very Blair, and Osborne's budget was pure Brown.
On the plus side, I was broadly impressed with the Defence review and the government (for now) are sticking to the right policy re: mediterrean migration IMHO.
I think with Osborne in particular and Cameron to a lesser extent you really have to watch what they do rather than what they say. Their agenda of a smaller state and a balanced budget remains on track. What I found frustrating was that the £27bn was an opportunity to accelerate down that track and it was used to buy off political difficulties instead although the current security situation probably meant that the police cuts had to be rethought. The direction of travel has not changed though, even if the rhetoric is designed more to appeal to the abandoned centre.
You had some very interesting and valid criticisms of it, which I thought were all insightful and well expressed.
I, of course, reserve final judgement, but the portents I fear are not good.
Germany are stuffed if the Euro ever rises against the basket of foreign currencies.
Why no one seems to understand this baffles me.
Why Germans don't understand this makes sense. They're the new mercantilists. They think this export lark is dead easy when their currency is surpressed by impoverishing the Mediterranean fringe. They won't get away with it for any longer than a few more years.
I would point out that the euro is 25% stronger than it was in mid 1999
So? They're still stuffing the fringe of Europe so they can flog cars and other goods at surpressed exchange rate.
The DM would be st 1.25- 1.75 the multiple of the current basket case that is the euro.
I would like a return to the pre-World War One settlement, so brilliantly described by AJP Taylor at the beginning of The Effects and Origins of the First World War: Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman.
Brilliant, but nonsense.
Incidentally, I am with Robert on this. But it will never happen while Germany have the whip hand over Europe.
I would like a return to the pre-World War One settlement, so brilliantly described by AJP Taylor at the beginning of The Effects and Origins of the First World War: Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman.
Brilliant, but nonsense.
To be fair you could have passed through life without noticing the state. You might have died aged 36 for want of housing or health care, and spent most of that time in ignorance and poverty. But you would have been free of the state.
To be fair you could have passed through life without noticing the state. You might have died aged at 36 for want of housing or health care, and spent most of that time in ignorance and poverty. But you would have been free of the state.
I don't think that is true for a moment. You could have been press-ganged into the Navy. You could have been persecuted for your religion, even as late at the 19th century. You certainly couldn't have been openly gay. You couldn't put on a play without getting it approved by the censor. If you had any money, you had to pay tolls, tithes and Poor Law dues. If you owned land you could suddenly find that Parliament had appropriated it (or in fact given permission for a private company to appropriate it) for a railway. In the nineteenth century there were literally hundreds of commissions with extensive powers.
Of course, if you were an illiterate heterosexual protestant non-criminal farm labourer, it's probably true that the state wouldn't have taken much interest in you.
Whenever I hear the phrase "social conservatism" I'm genuinely baffled about what people are actually talking about.
Banning gay marriage? Banning abortion?
Can anyone actually provide a list (of say at least 5 items) of specific "social conservative" policies that might realistically actually be introduced by a UK Government?
I tend to agree with Richard. That was a lot duller than I expected to be honest. Rather compelling evidence of the way that Corbyn has lowered the bar. A marginally competent performance looks outstanding.
Her best point was the immediate response on "Tony". Whoever armed her with that in advance deserves a pint.
Actually it's true. I am completely impervious to brands, tribes, sports teams, and political tribalism.
Of course, at the moment, it's hard not to seem tribal, since there is so little of merit in the opposition parties. When there finally is, I'll seem less tribal, but it won't be me that has changed.
Actually it's true. I am completely impervious to brands, tribes, sports teams, and political tribalism.
Of course, at the moment, it's hard not to seem tribal, since there is so little of merit in the opposition parties. When there finally is, I'll seem less tribal, but it won't be me that has changed.
As a right-wing Labour party person, politics doesn't really exist at the moment. At least, there are the Lib Dems to make you feel better. Could be worse.
Maybe's aye, maybe's no, in the words of the great Kenny Dalgleish. By 2020 the introduction of Universal Credit should have achieved everything that these reforms were intended to achieve including your highly desirable objectives.
I was a bit disappointed in the Autumn Statement myself but Osborne's record in macro-economic management is worthy of considerable respect, even if I think that there is something in Alanbrooke's criticism that there has not been enough reform.
I'm still not convinced by Osborne's record. We still haven't had any manufacturing growth since 2010, we are only just about 2010 construction levels and we have a truly huge current account deficit, money is pouring out of the country too fast. I think restoring domestic demand has papered over the cracks and there
If he becomes leader I won't renew my membership.
While I agree with much of that, I think the problem is that all politicians are wedded to getting re-elected. I'm reminded of the great line from Prime Minister Rajoy of Spain at the beginning of the Eurozone crisis: "we all know what We have had no such pressures, thanks to Quantitive Easing and a relatively flexible labour market. It takes a politicians with real courage to push through unpopular, but necessary, reforms without the market breathing down their neck. Neither George, n else on the Conservative front bench is going to reduce the chance of re-election to do things that appear doctrinaire.
But, I think that the election of Corbyn as Labour leader has given the Conservatives the chance to ram through reforms - as Thatcher did - even if lots of people don't like them. Even if 30% of the voters stick with Labour, 40% will vote Conservative to keep out Corbyn.
What I think Osborne wants to do is turn the Conservatives into a hegemonic political party, winning 45-50% of the vote, but hegemonic political parties just end up quarrelling over the fruits of office.
I think that's spot on. Osborne has implicitly (if not explicitly) tacked Left in response to the election of Corbyn, which is why I was so reluctant to cheer Tories for Corbyn.
I would have preferred the Tories to continue doing exactly what they were doing, and to use the opportunity to build on it.
I was impressed with the first four months of this government.
Actually it's true. I am completely impervious to brands, tribes, sports teams, and political tribalism.
Of course, at the moment, it's hard not to seem tribal, since there is so little of merit in the opposition parties. When there finally is, I'll seem less tribal, but it won't be me that has changed.
As a right-wing Labour party person, politics doesn't really exist at the moment. At least, there are the Lib Dems to make you feel better. Could be worse.
Yeah, it must be like watching the current Man U team. You still feel pangs of loyalty and want them to do well but its really not the same. All the warmth and excitement has faded out of the relationship.
I would hope that sensible party members like you would fight to get their party back. It looks difficult when the doors have been thrown open to entryism and the machinery is in the hands of lunatics but this country needs a functional and credible Labour party. They are too important to our system to simply opt out of reality.
As a right-wing Labour party person, politics doesn't really exist at the moment. At least, there are the Lib Dems to make you feel better. Could be worse.
I don't know if you saw it, but I posted earlier that it has been striking that some of the Labour front-bench have come across very well in recent weeks. Before PMQs, I'd been impressed by both of the Eagle sisters; they've been competent and articulate in extremely difficult circumstances. Hilary Benn, of course, has also shown what is possible. So has Lord Falconer. So has Tristram Hunt.
Of course, none of this solves the strategic problem Labour has, but it's a useful reminder that there is talent available.
(You need to wean yourselves off Andy Burnham, though!)
As a right-wing Labour party person, politics doesn't really exist at the moment. At least, there are the Lib Dems to make you feel better. Could be worse.
I don't know if you saw it, but I posted earlier that it has been striking that some of the Labour front-bench have come across very well in recent weeks. Before PMQs, I'd been impressed by both of the Eagle sisters; they've been competent and articulate in extremely difficult circumstances. Hilary Benn, of course, has also shown what is possible. So has Lord Falconer. So has Tristram Hunt.
Of course, none of this solves the strategic problem Labour has, but it's a useful reminder that there is talent available.
(You need to wean yourselves off Andy Burnham, though!)
It was inevitably overshadowed by Benn on the front bench (one of the perils of refusing to serve) but I thought Yvette Cooper's contribution to the Syria debate was excellent. She really needs to find her distinctive voice more often. It was keeping that under a bushel that cost her any hope in the leadership contest.
It was inevitably overshadowed by Benn on the front bench (one of the perils of refusing to serve) but I thought Yvette Cooper's contribution to the Syria debate was excellent. She really needs to find her distinctive voice more often. It was keeping that under a bushel that cost her any hope in the leadership contest.
I didn't see her contribution, but I can well believe that it was good. It's a bit of a mystery that she came over so badly in the leadership contest, although she picked up at the end. But that was too late. I thought from the start that she would have been the best of the four - she's a bit dull, but she'd at least have held things together and been able to coordinate a coherent opposition platform.
Whenever I hear the phrase "social conservatism" I'm genuinely baffled about what people are actually talking about.
Banning gay marriage? Banning abortion?
Can anyone actually provide a list (of say at least 5 items) of specific "social conservative" policies that might realistically actually be introduced by a UK Government?
Inter alia, repealing the Human Rights Act: reinstating the Primary Purpose Rule; leaving the EU; repealing the Racial and Religious Hatred Act; abolishing the Equality and Human Rights Commission; repealing the Hunting Act; reinstating Catholic adoption agencies; permitting smoking rooms in public houses and private members' clubs; ending compulsory ethnic monitoring and targeting in public sector bodies; reinstating the assisted places scheme. With the exception of leaving the EU, these would restore the status quo pre-Blair.
Whenever I hear the phrase "social conservatism" I'm genuinely baffled about what people are actually talking about.
Banning gay marriage? Banning abortion?
Can anyone actually provide a list (of say at least 5 items) of specific "social conservative" policies that might realistically actually be introduced by a UK Government?
Inter alia, repealing the Human Rights Act: reinstating the Primary Purpose Rule; leaving the EU; repealing the Racial and Religious Hatred Act; abolishing the Equality and Human Rights Commission; repealing the Hunting Act; reinstating Catholic adoption agencies; permitting smoking rooms in public houses and private members' clubs; ending compulsory ethnic monitoring and targeting in public sector bodies; reinstating the assisted places scheme. With the exception of leaving the EU, these would restore the status quo pre-Blair.
I am not a social conservative and I agree with every one of those proposals.
Comments
What do you imagine things will be like in any 20 years? Areas 'policing' themselves perhaps? With the 'police' enforcing which laws exactly?
David Lammy went to Harvard and is a complete moron.
I was a bit disappointed in the Autumn Statement myself but Osborne's record in macro-economic management is worthy of considerable respect, even if I think that there is something in Alanbrooke's criticism that there has not been enough reform.
That would be my view too.
I would like a return to the pre-World War One settlement, so brilliantly described by AJP Taylor at the beginning of The Effects and Origins of the First World War: Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman.
http://www.zeit.de/2015/47/integration-fluechtlinge-schule-bildung-herausforderung
Translated:
https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http://www.zeit.de/2015/47/integration-fluechtlinge-schule-bildung-herausforderung&edit-text=&act=url
We need serious reform to our industrial sector but there is no one willing to deliver it. Now we have a new payroll tax to pay for something companies should be receiving tax credits for. We haven't opened up the single market for services (our true export strength) and yet Osborne is still wedded to staying in the EU.
If he becomes leader I won't renew my membership.
http://www.zeit.de/2015/47/integration-fluechtlinge-schule-bildung-herausforderung
Translated:
https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http://www.zeit.de/2015/47/integration-fluechtlinge-schule-bildung-herausforderung&edit-text=&act=url
Ludger Wößmann is the head of economics education at IFO, and I rate him reasonably highly. He is absolutely right - obviously - that taking a large number of people who are functionally illiterate is a big issue for any country.
That being said, Germany has better history than most countries in taking low skilled labour and making it pay. They successfully did it with the Turks. And after a very shaky start they did it with a lot of East Germans. The economic costs of which were - of course - vastly more than expected.
It's also worth remembering that Germany starts from a position of enormous surplus. Their current account surplus is - what - 6 or 7% of GDP. Government debt is low and falling. Personal debt is very low. If there is one country that can afford this (ignoring all other issues, obviously), it is Germany.
That being said, Germany has better history than most countries in taking low skilled labour and making it pay. They successfully did it with the Turks. And after a very shaky start they did it with a lot of East Germans. The economic costs of which were - of course - vastly more than expected.
It's also worth remembering that Germany starts from a position of enormous surplus. Their current account surplus is - what - 6 or 7% of GDP. Government debt is low and falling. Personal debt is very low. If there is one country that can afford this (ignoring all other issues, obviously), it is Germany.
I think they will come up with much more resistance than they did with East Germans and Turks. The refugees are not going to be easy to integrate into German society.
Countries - like companies - make necessary reforms when they have near-death experiences. It was the crisis of the 1970s that allowed reform in the UK in the 1980s. It was the crisis of East German integration that forced Germany to dramatically liberalise their economy in the early 2000s. And it was the Eurozone crisis that forced Spain to slash public spending and free up their labour market.
We have had no such pressures, thanks to Quantitive Easing and a relatively flexible labour market. It takes a politicians with real courage to push through unpopular, but necessary, reforms without the market breathing down their neck. Neither George, not Dave, nor anyone else on the Conservative front bench is going to reduce the chance of re-election to do things that appear doctrinaire.
I wouldn't disagree.
My points are simply: 1, at least Germany is coming from a position of financial strength; and 2., they have had some success in the past.
The issue for them, I think, is that 2 has blinded them to how difficult this might be.
Osborne will be PM, if he wants it (I am not sure he does either)
People are constantly comparing Osborne to Gordo, but then ignoring the fact that Gordo ensured his unanimous coronation to the top spot despite being the worst candidate in living memory
Whatever faults Osborne has (nothing compared to the great clunking fist), he has put the machinery of power in place to be elevated if so chooses.
My points are simply: 1, at least Germany is coming from a position of financial strength; and 2., they have had some success in the past.
The issue for them, I think, is that 2 has blinded them to how difficult this might be.
I don't think they are coming from a massive position of strength, if the EU ever recovers and the Euro follows the German model falls apart now that they have a minimum wage. Their minimum wage is €8.50 per hour, or ~£6.20 at the moment, without that companies were able to easily adjust unit labour costs and continue wage dumping all over the rest of Europe to ensure growth continued. Now they can't do that. Germany hasn't yet dealt with a strong Euro and a minimum wage. It will be interesting to see how the government reacts if jobs growth slows or unemployment begins to rise as unit labour costs rise vs Spain or Italy.
@DrScottThinks: I just found this from Feb 2014. #FRB https://t.co/WUWQbMEhkw
Reminder that Corbyn and Osborne were TIED in a poll asking who the best PM was a few weeks ago (not that Corbyn will be Labour leader in 2020 anyway).
Yes
Admittedly if Cameron stayed on as leader, or possibly Boris, they would blow a Corbyn-led Labour out of the water.
What I think Osborne wants to do is turn the Conservatives into a hegemonic political party, winning 45-50% of the vote, but hegemonic political parties just end up quarrelling over the fruits of office.
AEHP.
One of the reasons Corbyn got elected is because mainstream Labour members started thinking "we won't win in 2020 regardless, so why not just indulge ourselves".
Another thing about that Osborne v Corbyn poll is that, from memory, about half of the people answering refused to answer. I suspect if that really is the choice in 2020, then UKIP and the Lib Dems will both get huge surges from people who just can't bring themselves to vote for either leader.
Osborne reminds me much more of Mandelson, the dark Lord, someone who gets off on all the trappings of power, but without having to actually front very much.
If Osborne can get his finger nails into an equally electorally appealing leader as Cameron and keep all the things he loves most...namely power, influence, power and more influence...he would love to keep things that way.
I still think Boris is the man to beat, and nothing I have seen or read has led me to think otherwise. And with Osborne's patronage.....
But what is that purpose? What does the modern Tory party want? At that point the divisions that Dave has kept buried so well become acute.
I think Cameron and Osborne basically want more of the same. They want an economy that is successful and sustainable. They want lower taxes on fewer people which implies a smaller state. But they also want a State which maintains the safety net and cares for the less able in our society.
Others, more on the right, want to go further and demolish much of the welfare state including radical reforms to the NHS. I am really not sure where their leadership is in the Commons but it may be that they are just keeping their heads down in the Cameron years.
Both wings are more focussed on economic success than social objectives. These are Conservatives after all, they don't really believe in radical changes to society.
There is a more libertarian wing yet, possibly including yourself, who really want the State massively diminished (like RCS) and a return to small government outside the EU where self sufficiency is much more important. I think this movement is much weaker in the Tories than it was, possibly because many subscribers to it have already left for UKIP.
These tensions will manifest themselves in the leadership election, especially after the tensions caused by the EU referendum. Labour can only hope and pray that the Cameron/Osborne tendency do not hold onto power. If they do Labour will struggle to survive at all.
Sigh.
I think you are infusing Labour members with a level of rationality that does not, in fact, exist in them.
See you on Thursday nights ...
The social side of Conservatism is still very strong in the party, despite the attempts of the leadership to merely pay lip service and try and sideline it.
I agree with Mike Smithson. Both Osborne, and especially Corbyn, are big drags on their parties. I struggle to think of any other front benchers who are up to Cameron's or Blair's level of presentation, though. I think a new generation leader will be needed on both sides. Some capable young guns should definitely throw their hats in the ring.
The problem with Blair was summed up with his Grid and permanent reshuffles. The urgent need to be *seen* to be doing something rather than actually doing it
Cameron with his rare reshuffles and Osborne with his seemingly gradual but steady fixing of economic problems are the opposite in this regard.
That is why the notion Cameron is the heir to Blair is very superficial.
2. Second hurdle win the membership. >2 out of 3 want to Leave the EC. Osborne will have stood at the front of the Remain campaign unless hell freezes over. If the Leave campaign wins Cameron and Osborne are finished. If the Remain campaign wins then Osborne will have taken a position that only a minority of the members believe. It is a heads he loses and tails he loses situation.
I would have preferred the Tories to continue doing exactly what they were doing, and to use the opportunity to build on it.
I was impressed with the first four months of this government.
Sure he backed down on Tax Credits temporarily but that was due to it becoming so damning he would have done that against any opposition leader. That happened despite Corbyn not because of him but long term the reforms are still going ahead.
(Although actually most of them are pretty good ideas. But Osborne would never do anything that reduces pensioners' income, like breaking up the banks or in effect charging NI on pensions.)
What I really want is a government that governs competently in the national interest ensuring that the fruits of success as Cameron used to describe them are reasonably fairly divided and which keeps us safe. Is that really too much to ask for?
time as Cameron. Why this need to divide Camo and Osbo.
Scared that there will be Tory rule for 20 years?
I don't think Lords Reform or cannabis legalisation are priorities at the moment.
I thought Cameron's speech at conference was very Blair, and Osborne's budget was pure Brown.
On the plus side, I was broadly impressed with the Defence review and the government (for now) are sticking to the right policy re: mediterrean migration IMHO.
There were tax cuts in the budget including for example Corporation Tax cuts.
What Ms Eagle failed to do was to pin Osborne down on any specific point. She had some very good prescripted lines, but they were standalone lines; she failed to corner Osborne in a sequence of questions, as the best LOTOs do when quizzing the PM or his deputy. Osborne got some good quips in too, and was able to bat off her points fairly effortlessly.
It's the contrast with Corbyn, and the fact that the PLP actually supported her, which made her performance seem good. In itself, however, it was competent, but nothing special.
Overall, I thought it was fairly dull TBH.
6/10 Angela
5/10 George
Why no one seems to understand this baffles me.
Why Germans don't understand this makes sense. They're the new mercantilists. They think this export lark is dead easy when their currency is surpressed by impoverishing the Mediterranean fringe. They won't get away with it for any longer than a few more years.
Angela 8/10
George 5/10
Banning gay marriage?
Banning abortion?
Can anyone actually provide a list (of say at least 5 items) of specific "social conservative" policies that might realistically actually be introduced by a UK Government?
I, of course, reserve final judgement, but the portents I fear are not good.
Osborne was rubbish. Didn't have It.
A man can dream
The DM would be st 1.25- 1.75 the multiple of the current basket case that is the euro.
But it will never happen while Germany have the whip hand over Europe.
Of course, if you were an illiterate heterosexual protestant non-criminal farm labourer, it's probably true that the state wouldn't have taken much interest in you.
Her best point was the immediate response on "Tony". Whoever armed her with that in advance deserves a pint.
Of course, at the moment, it's hard not to seem tribal, since there is so little of merit in the opposition parties. When there finally is, I'll seem less tribal, but it won't be me that has changed.
I would hope that sensible party members like you would fight to get their party back. It looks difficult when the doors have been thrown open to entryism and the machinery is in the hands of lunatics but this country needs a functional and credible Labour party. They are too important to our system to simply opt out of reality.
That's a social conservative.
Of course, none of this solves the strategic problem Labour has, but it's a useful reminder that there is talent available.
(You need to wean yourselves off Andy Burnham, though!)
I don't know if this was posted before, but wow....
@patrickwintour: Labour activists launch new group on party's left | Politics | The Guardian https://t.co/0JXRIDEH6r
They are Libertarian proposals.