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.
Yesterdays Woman. All three of the losers are toast as far as labour leadership is concerned. Cooper was always useless from the beginning anyway. From a tory point of view of course - all power to her elbow
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.
I largely agree with you, but what has impressed you about Tristram Hunt!?!
I largely agree with you, but what has impressed you about Tristram Hunt!?!
Some good analysis. At least he's thinking about how policy can be used to solve real-world problems; not that I'm favour of his solutions, you understand, but it's about grown-up stuff, a million miles away from Andy Burnham obsessing about some unbelievably obscure alleged injustice of 40 years ago, or Jeremy Corbyn and his SWP mates in the ironically-named 'Stop the War Coalition'.
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!)
Oh dear. yes Well of course yes. But - come on... when you listen to what they would actually themselves do or want to do and not just stand appalled at the very existence of Jeremy Corbyn... What a bunch.
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.
They are Libertarian proposals.
Quite. Positively radical when it comes to smoking!
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!)
'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.'
Yes with possibly the exception of some reforms in education (though the momentum seems to have waned there also) all the current government is really doing is managing Blairism. It isn't doing too much to make things worse but neither is it doing much to improve matters - with its most glaring failing of course being immigration.
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!)
Hunt is not a frontbencher.
I know. I realised that after I'd written it, but I was just naming a few senior figures who have said sensible things or come across well in recent weeks.
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 think it would be fair to say I am not a social conservative then.
Going through that list: No, not worth it; no arbitrary and unenforceable; not decided yet; yes; yes; no; not if it means allowing them to treat gays as anything other than equal; no for public houses, maybe private members clubs (if they don't have paid staff); yes; no.
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 think it would be fair to say I am not a social conservative then.
Going through that list: No, not worth it; no arbitrary and unenforceable; not decided yet; yes; yes; no; not if it means allowing them to treat gays as anything other than equal; no for public houses, maybe private members clubs (if they don't have paid staff); yes; no.
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 think it would be fair to say I am not a social conservative then.
Going through that list: No, not worth it; no arbitrary and unenforceable; not decided yet; yes; yes; no; not if it means allowing them to treat gays as anything other than equal; no for public houses, maybe private members clubs (if they don't have paid staff); yes; no.
Even 3/9 is better than 0/10.
Sure and with some I don't agree with it doesn't mean that I don't recognise that there are major problems, immigration from the subcontinent by marriage being an obviously difficult area.
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.
They are Libertarian proposals.
Quite. Positively radical when it comes to smoking!
One of the strange things in liberal democracies is how people associate their beliefs.
Two of my mates believe in total personal responsibilities for personal debts. No bankruptcy laws. No IVAs. However insidious the original lending is.
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.
...
...
If he becomes leader I won't renew my membership.
... 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.
The prejudice and stupidity and indeed downright ignorance of the anti Osborne crowd is as breathtaking as it is pathetic. Overwhelmingly these people are so stupid it beggars belief. They want to take the tory party in the same dead end direction that Corbyn wants to drag labour. The thought that Osborne is analogous to Brown is absurd. The idea that Osborne or any politician is perfect or as clever as they think they are is of course risible. Unfortunately Osborne's critics fall all to easily in to that same trap. Cameron and Osborne are holding up the economy and not killing it whilst they cut spending. They are holding up the tory party at the same time...
On topic, when doing University milk round interviews I was warned about the "daisy in a cowpat" syndrome - after wading through dreck you suddenly come across someone merely average who appears a genius by comparison- while Eagle was a bit better than "average" - and clearly had done her homework (getting Labour benches to cheer Blair with a line from the nineties was very clever) I think the real lesson is how poor Corbyn is.
On topic, when doing University milk round interviews I was warned about the "daisy in a cowpat" syndrome - after wading through dreck you suddenly come across someone merely average who appears a genius by comparison- while Eagle was a bit better than "average" - and clearly had done her homework (getting Labour benches to cheer Blair with a line from the nineties was very clever) I think the real lesson is how poor Corbyn is.
Well the SNP have to wait 4.5 years to get the seat, but they will get it. Still, it's a nice collectible poster for voters.
I doubt Carmichael will stand again. In 4.5 years they will have been in Holyrood for 13 year and I suspect a lot of their image for competence will have worn thin - for another "Lies" front page see the Scottish Daily Record - this time on the Forth Road Bridge....
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.
And that enlightenment led us into WW1. With conscript soldiers who were little more than undernourished runts.
"It looks like his comments help him in South Carolina. Support for Trump increased eight points after his statement -- from 30 percent the first two nights vs. 38 percent the last two nights. The shift is within the margin of sampling error.
Republican pollster Daron Shaw says, “There are enough people in the last two nights of the sample to question the widespread assumption that Trump’s comments will hurt him among GOP primary voters.” Shaw conducts the Fox News Poll with Democratic pollster Chris Anderson."
Well the SNP have to wait 4.5 years to get the seat, but they will get it. Still, it's a nice collectible poster for voters.
I doubt Carmichael will stand again. In 4.5 years they will have been in Holyrood for 13 year and I suspect a lot of their image for competence will have worn thin - for another "Lies" front page see the Scottish Daily Record - this time on the Forth Road Bridge....
The LD are tarnished over there, it will be very difficult for them to keep the seat whatever the candidate.
Well the SNP have to wait 4.5 years to get the seat, but they will get it. Still, it's a nice collectible poster for voters.
I doubt Carmichael will stand again. In 4.5 years they will have been in Holyrood for 13 year and I suspect a lot of their image for competence will have worn thin - for another "Lies" front page see the Scottish Daily Record - this time on the Forth Road Bridge....
The LD are tarnished over there, it will be very difficult for them to keep the seat whatever the candidate.
Carmichael is a busted flush - but by 2020 the Lib Dems will have been out of Westminster for 5 years and the SNP in Holyrood for 13.....
Just watched it and Eagle really doesn't live up to Mike's ludicrous hype. It was a smug and grating performance that put me in mind of a sarcastic school mistress. As for her stuff on the EU referendum - smacked of us plebs not being trustworthy enough to give the right answer.
And just as for many, the thread is an opportunity to produce a bit of anti Osborne propaganda. One thing is for sure - none of these people have a clue what they are talking about Who knows who or when will be the next tory leader. What the tories should realise as they look at labour is that changing leader is fraught with danger.
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.
There is a strong classical liberal case for the LVT.
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.
There is a strong classical liberal case for the LVT.
Is there? I hear pigs might fly under liberalism too...
Charismatic, intelligent (very), with a sense of humour. It took her about 10 seconds to win the audition. The questions tailed off a bit towards the end, but by then no-one cared.
I largely agree with you, but what has impressed you about Tristram Hunt!?!
Some good analysis. At least he's thinking about how policy can be used to solve real-world problems; not that I'm favour of his solutions, you understand, but it's about grown-up stuff, a million miles away from Andy Burnham obsessing about some unbelievably obscure alleged injustice of 40 years ago, or Jeremy Corbyn and his SWP mates in the ironically-named 'Stop the War Coalition'.
You say obscure alleged injustice. Oliver Letwin says it is a matter of national security.
not only is there a strong classical liberal case for LVT it is one of the key facets of late c 19 and early c 20 liberalism. It was the bais of the people's budget which led to the parliament act. Churchill was a strong supporter and made an eloquent case in favour. You will struggle to find an economist who doesn't at least in principle support the taxation of rent (which is what it would be).
It will never happen in the purist form of its more fanatical proponents (who regard it as the answer to everything) but it iis a fundamental problem of the British economy that we direct so much capital towards unproductive assets rather than investment in business and infrastructure.
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.
And that enlightenment led us into WW1. With conscript soldiers who were little more than undernourished runts.
No it didn't. I guess we have to add history to the list of things you know sweet FA about.
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.
Yes, yes, as it currently stands - unfortunately yes, yes, yes, no, no, no (Staff welfare), yes, yes.
Didn't think it was the disaster for George some are making out, Not alot of substance to many of the questions or answers.
7/10 to Eagle; 6/10 to Osborne.
I think that's fair - Eagle only had to do six questions, Osborne handled more than twice as many......
The bigger question is, does George want the PM job?
I think he's still undecided - been doing 'PM try-outs' complete with hi-viz jacket & hard hat - but having Brown as an example I'm not sure he wants his reputation trashed in the same manner.......
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.
no, don't know, no, no, yes, don't know, yes, no, don't know.
Didn't think it was the disaster for George some are making out, Not alot of substance to many of the questions or answers.
7/10 to Eagle; 6/10 to Osborne.
I think that's fair - Eagle only had to do six questions, Osborne handled more than twice as many......
The bigger question is, does George want the PM job?
I think he's still undecided - been doing 'PM try-outs' complete with hi-viz jacket & hard hat - but having Brown as an example I'm not sure he wants his reputation trashed in the same manner.......
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.
They are Libertarian proposals.
Repealing the Human Rights Act is not a libertarian proposal.
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.
no, don't know, no, no, yes, don't know, yes, no, don't know.
Actually, that should have been
* repealing the Human Rights Act: no * reinstating the Primary Purpose Rule; don't know * leaving the EU; no * repealing the Racial and Religious Hatred Act; no * abolishing the Equality and Human Rights Commission; no * repealing the Hunting Act; yes * reinstating Catholic adoption agencies; don't know * permitting smoking rooms in public houses and private members' clubs; yes * ending compulsory ethnic monitoring and targeting in public sector bodies; no * reinstating the assisted places scheme. don't know
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'll join in!
probably not (depends on EU?); maybe, would it make a difference?; yes, or new treaty; probably, yes; maybe; yes; yes; yes, with some mechanism for protecting staff from exposure; keep monitoring at least; why not, it's fairly cheap on the grand scale
not only is there a strong classical liberal case for LVT it is one of the key facets of late c 19 and early c 20 liberalism. It was the bais of the people's budget which led to the parliament act. Churchill was a strong supporter and made an eloquent case in favour. You will struggle to find an economist who doesn't at least in principle support the taxation of rent (which is what it would be).
It will never happen in the purist form of its more fanatical proponents (who regard it as the answer to everything) but it iis a fundamental problem of the British economy that we direct so much capital towards unproductive assets rather than investment in business and infrastructure.
Considering income from rent is already taxed supporting the principle of taxing rent is not an argument for a new tax. Unless you want double taxation on it.
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.
And that enlightenment led us into WW1. With conscript soldiers who were little more than undernourished runts.
No it didn't. I guess we have to add history to the list of things you know sweet FA about.
I'm not sure he's that far wrong
" Out of every 1,000 babies born in 1911, 130 died before reaching their first birthday. About one death in every four in the whole population was of an infant before its first birthday. Life was short compared to today and infectious diseases were the main cause of death. Life expectancy at birth in 1911 was 49 years for men and 53 years for women..."
Repealing the Human Rights Act is not a libertarian proposal.
many people's problem with it is the primacy of EU law over UK law isn't it? there's not much for any reasonable person to disagree with in it, is there
"Eagle also brought out the very worst in Osborne who continues to come over as arrogant and sneering. It’s no wonder that he polls so poorly. As has been noted before Cameron is a net asset to his party reaching voters that the blue team on their own cannot reach. Osborne, by contrast is a net liability and does the opposite."
Having read the article at the top of the thread, I have just spent 30 minutes watching PMQs, and I didn't find any evidence of any arrogance or sneering. As someone else wrote, the tone of the article tells us more about the attitude of the Old Grumpy Helmsman than that of the Chancellor.
not only is there a strong classical liberal case for LVT it is one of the key facets of late c 19 and early c 20 liberalism. It was the bais of the people's budget which led to the parliament act. Churchill was a strong supporter and made an eloquent case in favour. You will struggle to find an economist who doesn't at least in principle support the taxation of rent (which is what it would be).
It will never happen in the purist form of its more fanatical proponents (who regard it as the answer to everything) but it iis a fundamental problem of the British economy that we direct so much capital towards unproductive assets rather than investment in business and infrastructure.
Considering income from rent is already taxed supporting the principle of taxing rent is not an argument for a new tax. Unless you want double taxation on it.
I'll make you a deal. Impose a LVT in return for abolishing income tax.
not only is there a strong classical liberal case for LVT it is one of the key facets of late c 19 and early c 20 liberalism. It was the bais of the people's budget which led to the parliament act. Churchill was a strong supporter and made an eloquent case in favour. You will struggle to find an economist who doesn't at least in principle support the taxation of rent (which is what it would be).
It will never happen in the purist form of its more fanatical proponents (who regard it as the answer to everything) but it iis a fundamental problem of the British economy that we direct so much capital towards unproductive assets rather than investment in business and infrastructure.
Considering income from rent is already taxed supporting the principle of taxing rent is not an argument for a new tax. Unless you want double taxation on it.
I'll make you a deal. Impose a LVT in return for abolishing income tax.
Repealing the Human Rights Act is not a libertarian proposal.
many people's problem with it is the primacy of EU law over UK law isn't it? there's not much for any reasonable person to disagree with in it, is there
The logic behind the (UK drive for) removal of human rights is that UK law should be the ultimate arbiter of what can and cannot be done to a person. Fair enough. But the point of human rights is that there should be some things that a given government should not be able to do to a person, ever. Even if every parliamentarian and judge and voter and the Prime Minister agreed. There are some things on which UK law should not be the ultimate arbiter. Whether it's the EU, the UN, or Lord God Almighty, there has to be somebody saying "No. You can't do that."
not only is there a strong classical liberal case for LVT it is one of the key facets of late c 19 and early c 20 liberalism. It was the bais of the people's budget which led to the parliament act. Churchill was a strong supporter and made an eloquent case in favour. You will struggle to find an economist who doesn't at least in principle support the taxation of rent (which is what it would be).
It will never happen in the purist form of its more fanatical proponents (who regard it as the answer to everything) but it iis a fundamental problem of the British economy that we direct so much capital towards unproductive assets rather than investment in business and infrastructure.
Considering income from rent is already taxed supporting the principle of taxing rent is not an argument for a new tax. Unless you want double taxation on it.
I'll make you a deal. Impose a LVT in return for abolishing income tax.
Repealing the Human Rights Act is not a libertarian proposal.
many people's problem with it is the primacy of EU law over UK law isn't it? there's not much for any reasonable person to disagree with in it, is there
Considering the Human Rights Act has nothing whatsoever to do with the EU I doubt that.
The European Convention on Human Rights (and the European Court of Human Rights) have nothing to do with the EU. There's also nothing in it that the UK should object to, we largely wrote the thing.
The problem is largely judicial creep giving new and unintended interpretations to laws. Eg claiming that life without the possibility of parole is forbidden (though the court seems to have backed down on that one). Or the claim that prisoners should have the vote. Or that terrorists shouldn't be deported. So on and so forth.
not only is there a strong classical liberal case for LVT it is one of the key facets of late c 19 and early c 20 liberalism. It was the bais of the people's budget which led to the parliament act. Churchill was a strong supporter and made an eloquent case in favour. You will struggle to find an economist who doesn't at least in principle support the taxation of rent (which is what it would be).
It will never happen in the purist form of its more fanatical proponents (who regard it as the answer to everything) but it iis a fundamental problem of the British economy that we direct so much capital towards unproductive assets rather than investment in business and infrastructure.
Considering income from rent is already taxed supporting the principle of taxing rent is not an argument for a new tax. Unless you want double taxation on it.
I'll make you a deal. Impose a LVT in return for abolishing income tax.
You'd make every pensioner homeless.
And their children rich
I'm not prepared to bankrupt my grandparents like that. And given their generation votes more it is a total non starter.
Repealing the Human Rights Act is not a libertarian proposal.
many people's problem with it is the primacy of EU law over UK law isn't it? there's not much for any reasonable person to disagree with in it, is there
The logic behind the (UK drive for) removal of human rights is that UK law should be the ultimate arbiter of what can and cannot be done to a person. Fair enough. But the point of human rights is that there should be some things that a given government should not be able to do to a person, ever. Even if every parliamentarian and judge and voter and the Prime Minister agreed. There are some things on which UK law should not be the ultimate arbiter. Whether it's the EU, the UN, or Lord God Almighty, there has to be somebody saying "No. You can't do that."
there are basic common principles that everyone can agree on, but people are understandably angry if the UK can't deport someone who has been guilty of various offences against the state or society (Donald Trump, say ) if he asserts his right to family life.
Why shouldn't UK law be the ultimate arbiter? Why would EU law be preferable?
The European Convention on Human Rights (and the European Court of Human Rights) have nothing to do with the EU. There's also nothing in it that the UK should object to, we largely wrote the thing.
The European Convention on Human Rights (and the European Court of Human Rights) have nothing to do with the EU. There's also nothing in it that the UK should object to, we largely wrote the thing.
Repealing the Human Rights Act is not a libertarian proposal.
many people's problem with it is the primacy of EU law over UK law isn't it? there's not much for any reasonable person to disagree with in it, is there
The logic behind the (UK drive for) removal of human rights is that UK law should be the ultimate arbiter of what can and cannot be done to a person. Fair enough. But the point of human rights is that there should be some things that a given government should not be able to do to a person, ever. Even if every parliamentarian and judge and voter and the Prime Minister agreed. There are some things on which UK law should not be the ultimate arbiter. Whether it's the EU, the UN, or Lord God Almighty, there has to be somebody saying "No. You can't do that."
there are basic common principles that everyone can agree on, but people are understandably angry if the UK can't deport someone who has been guilty of various offences against the state or society (Donald Trump, say ) if he asserts his right to family life.
Why shouldn't UK law be the ultimate arbiter? Why would EU law be preferable?
I'm not saying EU law should be preferable: we could use the UN if you prefer (we do this with the Geneva Conventions, incidentally). or some other body. My point was that if the UK should not be the supreme arbiter of itself
If (as you say) there are "basic common principles that everyone can agree on", then UK law cannot be the supreme arbiter (the concept of a "supreme arbiter" implies the ability to override those principles - otherwise it's not supreme). It's like an irresistable object and an immovable force: you can have one but not the other.
Repealing the Human Rights Act is not a libertarian proposal.
many people's problem with it is the primacy of EU law over UK law isn't it? there's not much for any reasonable person to disagree with in it, is there
The logic behind the (UK drive for) removal of human rights is that UK law should be the ultimate arbiter of what can and cannot be done to a person. Fair enough. But the point of human rights is that there should be some things that a given government should not be able to do to a person, ever. Even if every parliamentarian and judge and voter and the Prime Minister agreed. There are some things on which UK law should not be the ultimate arbiter. Whether it's the EU, the UN, or Lord God Almighty, there has to be somebody saying "No. You can't do that."
there are basic common principles that everyone can agree on, but people are understandably angry if the UK can't deport someone who has been guilty of various offences against the state or society (Donald Trump, say ) if he asserts his right to family life.
Why shouldn't UK law be the ultimate arbiter? Why would EU law be preferable?
I'm not saying EU law should be preferable: we could use the UN if you prefer (we do this with the Geneva Conventions, incidentally). or some other body. My point was that if the UK should not be the supreme arbiter of itself
If (as you say) there are "basic common principles that everyone can agree on", then UK law cannot be the supreme arbiter (the concept of a "supreme arbiter" implies the ability to override those principles - otherwise it's not supreme). It's like an irresistable object and an immovable force: you can have one but not the other.
probably I'm out of my depth here, to be honest! Won't the supreme court do? Maybe we need a written constitution....
not only is there a strong classical liberal case for LVT it is one of the key facets of late c 19 and early c 20 liberalism. It was the bais of the people's budget which led to the parliament act. Churchill was a strong supporter and made an eloquent case in favour. You will struggle to find an economist who doesn't at least in principle support the taxation of rent (which is what it would be).
It will never happen in the purist form of its more fanatical proponents (who regard it as the answer to everything) but it iis a fundamental problem of the British economy that we direct so much capital towards unproductive assets rather than investment in business and infrastructure.
Considering income from rent is already taxed supporting the principle of taxing rent is not an argument for a new tax. Unless you want double taxation on it.
I'll make you a deal. Impose a LVT in return for abolishing income tax.
You'd make every pensioner homeless.
And their children rich
I'm not prepared to bankrupt my grandparents like that. And given their generation votes more it is a total non starter.
You can give them the money you would have paid in income tax
The logic behind the (UK drive for) removal of human rights is that UK law should be the ultimate arbiter of what can and cannot be done to a person. Fair enough. But the point of human rights is that there should be some things that a given government should not be able to do to a person, ever. Even if every parliamentarian and judge and voter and the Prime Minister agreed. There are some things on which UK law should not be the ultimate arbiter. Whether it's the EU, the UN, or Lord God Almighty, there has to be somebody saying "No. You can't do that."
there are basic common principles that everyone can agree on, but people are understandably angry if the UK can't deport someone who has been guilty of various offences against the state or society (Donald Trump, say ) if he asserts his right to family life.
Why shouldn't UK law be the ultimate arbiter? Why would EU law be preferable?
I'm not saying EU law should be preferable: we could use the UN if you prefer (we do this with the Geneva Conventions, incidentally). or some other body. My point was that if the UK should not be the supreme arbiter of itself
If (as you say) there are "basic common principles that everyone can agree on", then UK law cannot be the supreme arbiter (the concept of a "supreme arbiter" implies the ability to override those principles - otherwise it's not supreme). It's like an irresistable object and an immovable force: you can have one but not the other.
probably I'm out of my depth here, to be honest! Won't the supreme court do? Maybe we need a written constitution....
The issue is that the European courts can overrule our Supreme Court, and unlike in the UK their judges are politically appointed activists, in some cases with little judicial or even legal experience in their own countries. Most of Europe also works on the Civil Law system rather than our Common Law, which can lead to differing interpretations of the same facts and laws.
I think the major issue that most in the UK have with the EU courts is that the vast majority of cases that come before them from the UK concern someone who is a convicted criminal, asking for rights that the UK is 'denying' him, for example the right to live in the UK. Most people in the UK believe that living here is a right that we should be able to withdraw from those who misbehave, whereas the EU courts generally disagree if someone has lived here for a while and has connections here.
The European Court of Human Rights is not an EU Court!
We are founder members of it and it is not a part of the EU. Actually the EU wants to be a part of it but isn't currently. Even if we'd never joined the EU we would still be signed up to the court.
"Eagle also brought out the very worst in Osborne who continues to come over as arrogant and sneering. It’s no wonder that he polls so poorly. As has been noted before Cameron is a net asset to his party reaching voters that the blue team on their own cannot reach. Osborne, by contrast is a net liability and does the opposite."
Having read the article at the top of the thread, I have just spent 30 minutes watching PMQs, and I didn't find any evidence of any arrogance or sneering. As someone else wrote, the tone of the article tells us more about the attitude of the Old Grumpy Helmsman than that of the Chancellor.
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB 3m3 minutes ago Whenever Osbo stands in for Dave at PMQs he'll face Angela Eagles. Based on yesterday that'll screw his leadership chances
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB 3m3 minutes ago Whenever Osbo stands in for Dave at PMQs he'll face Angela Eagles. Based on yesterday that'll screw his leadership chances
No it won't, because he was reasonably OK. Who is Angela Eagles?
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB 3m3 minutes ago Whenever Osbo stands in for Dave at PMQs he'll face Angela Eagles. Based on yesterday that'll screw his leadership chances
Who is Angela Eagles?
The Labour front bencher who makes Osborne Corbyn look bad......
Comments
yes
Well of course yes.
But - come on... when you listen to what they would actually themselves do or want to do and not just stand appalled at the very existence of Jeremy Corbyn... What a bunch.
Yes with possibly the exception of some reforms in education (though the momentum seems to have waned there also) all the current government is really doing is managing Blairism. It isn't doing too much to make things worse but neither is it doing much to improve matters - with its most glaring failing of course being immigration.
Going through that list:
No, not worth it; no arbitrary and unenforceable; not decided yet; yes; yes; no; not if it means allowing them to treat gays as anything other than equal; no for public houses, maybe private members clubs (if they don't have paid staff); yes; no.
Two of my mates believe in total personal responsibilities for personal debts. No bankruptcy laws. No IVAs. However insidious the original lending is.
They think they are socialists.
Still, it's a nice collectible poster for voters.
The idea that Osborne or any politician is perfect or as clever as they think they are is of course risible. Unfortunately Osborne's critics fall all to easily in to that same trap.
Cameron and Osborne are holding up the economy and not killing it whilst they cut spending. They are holding up the tory party at the same time...
Has the Labour Party ever had such a poor leader?
While talking about Trump again:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/09/fox-news-poll-trump-clinton-dominate-primary-races-in-south-carolina.html
"It looks like his comments help him in South Carolina. Support for Trump increased eight points after his statement -- from 30 percent the first two nights vs. 38 percent the last two nights. The shift is within the margin of sampling error.
Republican pollster Daron Shaw says, “There are enough people in the last two nights of the sample to question the widespread assumption that Trump’s comments will hurt him among GOP primary voters.” Shaw conducts the Fox News Poll with Democratic pollster Chris Anderson."
Trump 35
Carson 15
Cruz 14
Rubio 14
Also I overlooked a N.Hampshire poll from CNN:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/12/08/relnh3.-.republicans.pdf
Trump 32 /+6
Rubio 14 /+5
Christie 9 /+4
Bush 8 /+1
Kasich 7 /0
Cruz 6 /+1
Carson 5 /-3
Fiorina 5 /-11
Goodnight
Who knows who or when will be the next tory leader. What the tories should realise as they look at labour is that changing leader is fraught with danger.
It will never happen in the purist form of its more fanatical proponents (who regard it as the answer to everything) but it iis a fundamental problem of the British economy that we direct so much capital towards unproductive assets rather than investment in business and infrastructure.
Didn't think it was the disaster for George some are making out,
Not alot of substance to many of the questions or answers.
7/10 to Eagle; 6/10 to Osborne.
The bigger question is, does George want the PM job?
I think he's still undecided - been doing 'PM try-outs' complete with hi-viz jacket & hard hat - but having Brown as an example I'm not sure he wants his reputation trashed in the same manner.......
* repealing the Human Rights Act: no
* reinstating the Primary Purpose Rule; don't know
* leaving the EU; no
* repealing the Racial and Religious Hatred Act; no
* abolishing the Equality and Human Rights Commission; no
* repealing the Hunting Act; yes
* reinstating Catholic adoption agencies; don't know
* permitting smoking rooms in public houses and private members' clubs; yes
* ending compulsory ethnic monitoring and targeting in public sector bodies; no
* reinstating the assisted places scheme. don't know
probably not (depends on EU?); maybe, would it make a difference?; yes, or new treaty; probably, yes; maybe; yes; yes; yes, with some mechanism for protecting staff from exposure; keep monitoring at least; why not, it's fairly cheap on the grand scale
"
Out of every 1,000 babies born in 1911, 130 died before reaching their first birthday. About one death in every four in the whole population was of an infant before its first birthday. Life was short compared to today and infectious diseases were the main cause of death. Life expectancy at birth in 1911 was 49 years for men and 53 years for women..."
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/interactive/vp1-story-of-the-census/index.html
"...the 1885-1918 electorate comprised about sixty percent of the adult male population..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_Franchise_in_the_United_Kingdom_1885–1918
Having read the article at the top of the thread, I have just spent 30 minutes watching PMQs, and I didn't find any evidence of any arrogance or sneering. As someone else wrote, the tone of the article tells us more about the attitude of the Old Grumpy Helmsman than that of the Chancellor.
The logic behind the (UK drive for) removal of human rights is that UK law should be the ultimate arbiter of what can and cannot be done to a person. Fair enough. But the point of human rights is that there should be some things that a given government should not be able to do to a person, ever. Even if every parliamentarian and judge and voter and the Prime Minister agreed. There are some things on which UK law should not be the ultimate arbiter. Whether it's the EU, the UN, or Lord God Almighty, there has to be somebody saying "No. You can't do that."
The European Convention on Human Rights (and the European Court of Human Rights) have nothing to do with the EU. There's also nothing in it that the UK should object to, we largely wrote the thing.
The problem is largely judicial creep giving new and unintended interpretations to laws. Eg claiming that life without the possibility of parole is forbidden (though the court seems to have backed down on that one). Or the claim that prisoners should have the vote. Or that terrorists shouldn't be deported. So on and so forth.
Why shouldn't UK law be the ultimate arbiter? Why would EU law be preferable?
If (as you say) there are "basic common principles that everyone can agree on", then UK law cannot be the supreme arbiter (the concept of a "supreme arbiter" implies the ability to override those principles - otherwise it's not supreme). It's like an irresistable object and an immovable force: you can have one but not the other.
I think the major issue that most in the UK have with the EU courts is that the vast majority of cases that come before them from the UK concern someone who is a convicted criminal, asking for rights that the UK is 'denying' him, for example the right to live in the UK. Most people in the UK believe that living here is a right that we should be able to withdraw from those who misbehave, whereas the EU courts generally disagree if someone has lived here for a while and has connections here.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12041461/Mapped-London-driving-UK-growth-as-Northern-Powerhouse-falters.html
Continuing decline in Financial Services?
We are founder members of it and it is not a part of the EU. Actually the EU wants to be a part of it but isn't currently. Even if we'd never joined the EU we would still be signed up to the court.
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB 3m3 minutes ago
Whenever Osbo stands in for Dave at PMQs he'll face Angela Eagles. Based on yesterday that'll screw his leadership chances
Methinks OGH is missing the bigger picture......