They have a mushy centrist blend, which they can ultimately use as cover for implementing some of the things that those further to the wing of their party want.
Unfortunately pragmatism isn't much of a credo, and - in the eyes of a large chunk of the party - has failed at the the last two elections. Not least because David Cameron has been doing much the same thing but better. He has destroyed one party, neutralised the threat from another and driven a third mad.
Spot on. Those opposing Corbyn don't have A Big Idea. They need to go away and come up with a Social Democratic Manifesto In An Age Of No Money. Unfortunately for them, when the voter pool is (to be kind) economically uncomplicated, then Corbyn's Let's REALLY Shake That Money Tree will always be top trumps.
MrMM please don't fall for that 'the electorate are stupid' thing. They are not.
Their priorities may not be yours or mine, including their priorities to obsess about being informed on economic or political issues. But everyone either consciously or subconsciously knows their priorities, and issues as complex as making a choice of government are, surprisingly, in most cases best made intuitively rather than rationally. Our rational brain can only cope with 7 +/-2 issues at a time. Our emotional brain is nearly unlimited in the number of parameters it can factor in. Sure, our emotional brain can trick us, but overall it is more reliable than our rational brain in judging truly complex issues (wicked problems).
Applying that to Mr Corbyn, there will be an irreducible minority who actually believe in shaking the magic money tree more vigorously. But at some point, the barrage of data points to the contrary, most of those going about their everyday lives without too much attention to politics will internalize all that and they'll switch allegiances, possibly without being able to articulate why. But it will be their decision - conscious or subconscious. And it will be as valid as yours or mine.
Spot on. Those opposing Corbyn don't have A Big Idea. They need to go away and come up with a Social Democratic Manifesto In An Age Of No Money. Unfortunately for them, when the voter pool is (to be kind) economically uncomplicated, then Corbyn's Let's REALLY Shake That Money Tree will always be top trumps.
A social-democratic manifesto will ALWAYS inevitably cost some money. That none of the moderates were prepared to advocate that last summer, and allowed themselves to be intellectually cowed by the Tories "live within our means" rubbish, is exactly why Corbyn was elected
I don't "live within my means", in the sense that I have an outstanding mortgage; if I'd started getting hysterical about how evil any debt is and how I needed to pay off my mortgage immediately, I would be considerably worse off right now.
At the end of your mortgage you own a property, a valuable property. Your indebtedness ends you have paid off your motrgage and you become very rich compared to your newly wed neighbour. Your comparison is not valid. Under Brown spending and debt skyrocketed when we should have been doing what you hope to do, pay off your mortgage. Thanks to Brown any prospect of beginning to lower our debt is a long way into the future.
It's all about the politics, appearances which the Conservatives have exploited to the full to keep Labour on the back foot -- assuming Jezza and Seamus have made it out of the pavilion. Not in Jermey's name, or Cameron's apparently, since the RAF's bombing campaign in Syria was a damp squib and shoot to kill is still illegal. Next Corbyn will plunge Labour into a pointless row about a decision it won't be asked to make about Trident when it should be attacking the government for slashing our armed forces. Politics, eh.
When Corbyn turns Labour into a unilateralist party once more he makes it much more difficult for his replacement to be a multilateralist (read someone on the centre or right of the party). Labour only accepted multilaterialism after its fourth election defeat in a row - and then grudgingly. There is method in Corbyn's madness. Benn was not part of the defence review, Eagle was. Her removal is actually the most significant development of the last few days. Corbyn can now do exactly what he wants with no brake. And a Benn resignation further down the line will mean nothing. That's because Corbyn is not interested in Labour winning power. He is interested in the hard left winning power within Labour.
Except he has to change party policy on Trident at conference. As today's Telegraph points out, Len of Unite is not going to allow that to happen.
But what can Len actually do, without being branded a 'Tory' by the Three Quidders?
Are the £3ers actually members who can vote on policy at Conference? I thought they were just associate supporters signed up for the leadership vote and only the full members will vote on policy.
They have a mushy centrist blend, which they can ultimately use as cover for implementing some of the things that those further to the wing of their party want.
Unfortunately pragmatism isn't much of a credo, and - in the eyes of a large chunk of the party - has failed at the the last two elections. Not least because David Cameron has been doing much the same thing but better. He has destroyed one party, neutralised the threat from another and driven a third mad.
Yes, Cameron is trying to do to Labour what Blair did to the Tories: occupy enough of the centre ground so that the other team has nowhere to go but nutterdom.
The answer, for Labour, is probably just to wait until the Tories stop doing it.
A friend of mine likes to use a wicket-keeper analogy: always be ready for the nick, no matter how well set the batsmen are. Currently Labour have discarded their gloves and are standing too far away from the stumps in any case.
More like Labour are back in the pavilion having a punch-up whilst the Tories carry on batting.
Spot on. Those opposing Corbyn don't have A Big Idea. They need to go away and come up with a Social Democratic Manifesto In An Age Of No Money. Unfortunately for them, when the voter pool is (to be kind) economically uncomplicated, then Corbyn's Let's REALLY Shake That Money Tree will always be top trumps.
A social-democratic manifesto will ALWAYS inevitably cost some money. That none of the moderates were prepared to advocate that last summer, and allowed themselves to be intellectually cowed by the Tories "live within our means" rubbish, is exactly why Corbyn was elected
I don't "live within my means", in the sense that I have an outstanding mortgage; if I'd started getting hysterical about how evil any debt is and how I needed to pay off my mortgage immediately, I would be considerably worse off right now.
You clearly struggling on debt vs deficit. Nobody is advocating paying off the mortgage immediately, not paying it off ever. not even Osbornes fantasy figures suggest we start making any repayments off the capital for another 4 years. But you know all of this already.
If running a deficit is so evil, why did Thatcher run one for 9 of her 11 years in office?
Err...she came to power in 1979. Winter of Discontent and all that. Bit like griping at Ozzy for not chopping more than a hundred billion off the mess he inherited from Gordo already. EVERY Tory government faces the same problem - it comes after a Labour one - and the money is gone.
Spot on. Those opposing Corbyn don't have A Big Idea. They need to go away and come up with a Social Democratic Manifesto In An Age Of No Money. Unfortunately for them, when the voter pool is (to be kind) economically uncomplicated, then Corbyn's Let's REALLY Shake That Money Tree will always be top trumps.
A social-democratic manifesto will ALWAYS inevitably cost some money. That none of the moderates were prepared to advocate that last summer, and allowed themselves to be intellectually cowed by the Tories "live within our means" rubbish, is exactly why Corbyn was elected
I don't "live within my means", in the sense that I have an outstanding mortgage; if I'd started getting hysterical about how evil any debt is and how I needed to pay off my mortgage immediately, I would be considerably worse off right now.
You clearly struggling on debt vs deficit. Nobody is advocating paying off the mortgage immediately, not paying it off ever. not even Osbornes fantasy figures suggest we start making any repayments off the capital for another 4 years. But you know all of this already.
If running a deficit is so evil, why did Thatcher run one for 9 of her 11 years in office?
Tell me about the state of the economy that Chancellor Gordon Brown inherited after !8 years of Tory management....
(On being told by an official that the state of the economy left by the hated and derided Tories was much better than predicted upon him taking office):
'What am I supposed to do with this? Write a thank you letter?'
London // EU referendum poll: Remain: 39% Leave: 34% (via YouGov / 04 - 06 Jan)
That's an effing awful poll for Remain. London should be their strongest area in England.
The latest posted EU figures on the yougov site I can see, posted on Jan 6th, have Remain 55% Leave 45% in London once don't knows are excluded and 51% Remain 49% Leave UK wide
I would have expected Remain to be on at least 60% in London.
I bought a nice tallboy from Cheap Stuff From Dead People[2] intending to restore it someday.It was in similar dark red wood to a bureau of mine and had matching art deco[1] legs, so it triggered my "everything must match" gene. Being a bear of very little brain, I put an old big telly on top of it which scratched it to heck and back. A doily would have been outstandingly useful had I thought ahead.
[1] I may be using the wrong term here: I know terms like "Edwardian", "Streamline Moderne", "moderne", or others may be appropriate, and I can date buildings fairly accurately but not so much furniture, so I may be wrong here. But if you were filming "Poirot", you'd put it in the set, so let's wing it. [2] British Heart Foundation Furniture and Electrical.
Spot on. Those opposing Corbyn don't have A Big Idea. They need to go away and come up with a Social Democratic Manifesto In An Age Of No Money. Unfortunately for them, when the voter pool is (to be kind) economically uncomplicated, then Corbyn's Let's REALLY Shake That Money Tree will always be top trumps.
A social-democratic manifesto will ALWAYS inevitably cost some money. That none of the moderates were prepared to advocate that last summer, and allowed themselves to be intellectually cowed by the Tories "live within our means" rubbish, is exactly why Corbyn was elected
I don't "live within my means", in the sense that I have an outstanding mortgage; if I'd started getting hysterical about how evil any debt is and how I needed to pay off my mortgage immediately, I would be considerably worse off right now.
You clearly struggling on debt vs deficit. Nobody is advocating paying off the mortgage immediately, not paying it off ever. not even Osbornes fantasy figures suggest we start making any repayments off the capital for another 4 years. But you know all of this already.
If running a deficit is so evil, why did Thatcher run one for 9 of her 11 years in office?
Tell me about the state of the economy that Chancellor Gordon Brown inherited after !8 years of Tory management....
(On being told by an official that the state of the economy left by the hated and derided Tories was much better than predicted upon him taking office):
'What am I supposed to do with this? Write a thank you letter?'
Gordon Brown, May 1997
Chancellor Gordon Brown inherited public finances that were in deficit in 1997. Isn't that supposedly the ultimate sign of economic incompetence?
Corbyn has compromised. For example, he's been pushed into supporting the EU. And he's not exactly proposing to seize the commanding heights of the economy and what have you. His cabinet still contains a lot of dissenters in important positions.
They have a mushy centrist blend, which they can ultimately use as cover for implementing some of the things that those further to the wing of their party want.
Unfortunately pragmatism isn't much of a credo, and - in the eyes of a large chunk of the party - has failed at the the last two elections. Not least because David Cameron has been doing much the same thing but better. He has destroyed one party, neutralised the threat from another and driven a third mad.
Yes, Cameron is trying to do to Labour what Blair did to the Tories: occupy enough of the centre ground so that the other team has nowhere to go but nutterdom.
The answer, for Labour, is probably just to wait until the Tories stop doing it.
A friend of mine likes to use a wicket-keeper analogy: always be ready for the nick, no matter how well set the batsmen are. Currently Labour have discarded their gloves and are standing too far away from the stumps in any case.
More like Labour are back in the pavilion having a punch-up whilst the Tories carry on batting.
I was a huge buyer of dead oldies stuff until it became very popular and absurdly expensive. The 80s and 90s were golden years before Vintage was vogue. Even crap taxidermy costs a fortune now.
If I had 10p for everytime I said "I wish we'd kept that old Welsh dresser" I'd have...well, I'd have about £1:50, but it's the thought that counts.
London // EU referendum poll: Remain: 39% Leave: 34% (via YouGov / 04 - 06 Jan)
That's an effing awful poll for Remain. London should be their strongest area in England.
The latest posted EU figures on the yougov site I can see, posted on Jan 6th, have Remain 55% Leave 45% in London once don't knows are excluded and 51% Remain 49% Leave UK wide
... David Cameron ... has destroyed one party, neutralised the threat from another and driven a third mad.
OR ... David Cameron has been lucky.
"He's just not that good at politics."
For my money, the fact that William Hague told his wife that he'd "just destroyed the Liberal Party" after the coalition agreement was brokered tells us a lot about the strategic intelligence at the top of the party.
But that's the thing. We'll never really know whether it was strategic brilliance (possibly true in relation to the LDs) or pure luck (true of Ed Miliband's choice of a disastrous election strategy and most likely true of how the SNP destroyed Labour in Scotland and hence precipitated Corbyn's election, and in relation to the exact split and geographic distribution of votes between Con, Lab and UKIP in England).
On my reckoning, strategic brilliance 1, luck 4. Still, it's good to be good, better to be good and lucky.
London // EU referendum poll: Remain: 39% Leave: 34% (via YouGov / 04 - 06 Jan)
That's an effing awful poll for Remain. London should be their strongest area in England.
The latest posted EU figures on the yougov site I can see, posted on Jan 6th, have Remain 55% Leave 45% in London once don't knows are excluded and 51% Remain 49% Leave UK wide
You need to look harder.
bit.ly/1kScSqb
They are London only figures and 54% 46% excluding don't knows suggesting 50 50 nationwide
Interesting piece. I think that Corbyn started on the naive basis that everyone would state their views clearly and politely and with luck he'd win the argument. But it became clear that disagreement within the Shadow Cabinet would be endlessly exploited, especially when it was made with a tinge of personal malice - the number of "A senior shadow cabinet Minister said scathingly..." stories were too frequent to ignore, and the willingness of some to up the ante with public talk of punishment beatings and revenge reshuffles was not consistent with any idea of loyalty to the shadow cabinet.
I personally think that both sides of the Trident argument exaggerate its importance and it's become a token that people love to fight over rather than a really decisive issue, not least as it'll be decided by Parliament long before 2020. But it's clearly going to be a major theme and having a direct split with the Shadow Defence Secretary was really untenable.
O/T: anyone interested in politics over the last 20 years really should read these:
- despite the security redactions they offer a really remarkable insight into the discussions on the NI peace agreement, the run-up to the Iraq conflict (though they end in 2000) and even things like the hanging chad issue. There are endless sidelight on major public figures, and the media reports from it have only scratched the surface.
Unfortunately, Labour history tells us it is a decisive issue. Certainly a 2020 manifesto commitment to cancel the renewal will dominate the election campaign IMHO. Not least because the Tories will make it a key issue.
And anyone who seriously believes that Corbyn thought he could win arguments that he has lost consistently over his entire political career is deluding themselves.
The fact that Corbyn has allowed the rise of Momentum and their bully-boy tactics tells you all you need to know about his approach to winning arguments.
All the posturing about the size of his mandate is about suppressing debate -not encouraging it.
Spot on. Those opposing Corbyn don't have A Big Idea. They need to go away and come up with a Social Democratic Manifesto In An Age Of No Money. Unfortunately for them, when the voter pool is (to be kind) economically uncomplicated, then Corbyn's Let's REALLY Shake That Money Tree will always be top trumps.
A social-democratic manifesto will ALWAYS inevitably cost some money. That none of the moderates were prepared to advocate that last summer, and allowed themselves to be intellectually cowed by the Tories "live within our means" rubbish, is exactly why Corbyn was elected
I don't "live within my means", in the sense that I have an outstanding mortgage; if I'd started getting hysterical about how evil any debt is and how I needed to pay off my mortgage immediately, I would be considerably worse off right now.
You clearly struggling on debt vs deficit. Nobody is advocating paying off the mortgage immediately, not paying it off ever. not even Osbornes fantasy figures suggest we start making any repayments off the capital for another 4 years. But you know all of this already.
If running a deficit is so evil, why did Thatcher run one for 9 of her 11 years in office?
Err...she came to power in 1979. Winter of Discontent and all that. Bit like griping at Ozzy for not chopping more than a hundred billion off the mess he inherited from Gordo already. EVERY Tory government faces the same problem - it comes after a Labour one - and the money is gone.
Ironically, Mrs Thatcher blamed the previous Conservative government, not Labour. The Barber Boom under Ted Heath's government unleashed inflation and caused unemployment. Monetarism, innit.
London // EU referendum poll: Remain: 39% Leave: 34% (via YouGov / 04 - 06 Jan)
That's an effing awful poll for Remain. London should be their strongest area in England.
The latest posted EU figures on the yougov site I can see, posted on Jan 6th, have Remain 55% Leave 45% in London once don't knows are excluded and 51% Remain 49% Leave UK wide
I would have expected Remain to be on at least 60% in London.
Not if they only lead by 2% nationally. Provided Remain get at least 55% in London they should win if they get nearer 50% they have likely lost and if they lose London Leave have won a landslide
They have a mushy centrist blend, which they can ultimately use as cover for implementing some of the things that those further to the wing of their party want.
Unfortunately pragmatism isn't much of a credo, and - in the eyes of a large chunk of the party - has failed at the the last two elections. Not least because David Cameron has been doing much the same thing but better. He has destroyed one party, neutralised the threat from another and driven a third mad.
Yes, Cameron is trying to do to Labour what Blair did to the Tories: occupy enough of the centre ground so that the other team has nowhere to go but nutterdom.
The answer, for Labour, is probably just to wait until the Tories stop doing it.
A friend of mine likes to use a wicket-keeper analogy: always be ready for the nick, no matter how well set the batsmen are. Currently Labour have discarded their gloves and are standing too far away from the stumps in any case.
More like Labour are back in the pavilion having a punch-up whilst the Tories carry on batting.
who's bowling?
The umpire - media/House of Lords - on the basis someone has to do it.
Spot on. Those opposing Corbyn don't have A Big Idea. They need to go away and come up with a Social Democratic Manifesto In An Age Of No Money. Unfortunately for them, when the voter pool is (to be kind) economically uncomplicated, then Corbyn's Let's REALLY Shake That Money Tree will always be top trumps.
A social-democratic manifesto will ALWAYS inevitably cost some money. That none of the moderates were prepared to advocate that last summer, and allowed themselves to be intellectually cowed by the Tories "live within our means" rubbish, is exactly why Corbyn was elected
I don't "live within my means", in the sense that I have an outstanding mortgage; if I'd started getting hysterical about how evil any debt is and how I needed to pay off my mortgage immediately, I would be considerably worse off right now.
You clearly struggling on debt vs deficit. Nobody is advocating paying off the mortgage immediately, not paying it off ever. not even Osbornes fantasy figures suggest we start making any repayments off the capital for another 4 years. But you know all of this already.
If running a deficit is so evil, why did Thatcher run one for 9 of her 11 years in office?
Because Labour, as usual, had stuffed the economy. Heath didn't exactly cover himself in glory either, lest I be accused of bias. The 70s had crap governments, with Callaghan winning the booby prize.
Spot on. Those opposing Corbyn don't have A Big Idea. They need to go away and come up with a Social Democratic Manifesto In An Age Of No Money. Unfortunately for them, when the voter pool is (to be kind) economically uncomplicated, then Corbyn's Let's REALLY Shake That Money Tree will always be top trumps.
A social-democratic manifesto will ALWAYS inevitably cost some money. That none of the moderates were prepared to advocate that last summer, and allowed themselves to be intellectually cowed by the Tories "live within our means" rubbish, is exactly why Corbyn was elected
I don't "live within my means", in the sense that I have an outstanding mortgage; if I'd started getting hysterical about how evil any debt is and how I needed to pay off my mortgage immediately, I would be considerably worse off right now.
You clearly struggling on debt vs deficit. Nobody is advocating paying off the mortgage immediately, not paying it off ever. not even Osbornes fantasy figures suggest we start making any repayments off the capital for another 4 years. But you know all of this already.
If running a deficit is so evil, why did Thatcher run one for 9 of her 11 years in office?
Because Labour, as usual, had stuffed the economy. Heath didn't exactly cover himself in glory either, lest I be accused of bias. The 70s had crap governments, with Callaghan winning the booby prize.
So the Tories' deficits in the 1990s were caused by the Labour governments of the 1970s?
Spot on. Those opposing Corbyn don't have A Big Idea. They need to go away and come up with a Social Democratic Manifesto In An Age Of No Money. Unfortunately for them, when the voter pool is (to be kind) economically uncomplicated, then Corbyn's Let's REALLY Shake That Money Tree will always be top trumps.
A social-democratic manifesto will ALWAYS inevitably cost some money. That none of the moderates were prepared to advocate that last summer, and allowed themselves to be intellectually cowed by the Tories "live within our means" rubbish, is exactly why Corbyn was elected
I don't "live within my means", in the sense that I have an outstanding mortgage; if I'd started getting hysterical about how evil any debt is and how I needed to pay off my mortgage immediately, I would be considerably worse off right now.
You clearly struggling on debt vs deficit. Nobody is advocating paying off the mortgage immediately, not paying it off ever. not even Osbornes fantasy figures suggest we start making any repayments off the capital for another 4 years. But you know all of this already.
If running a deficit is so evil, why did Thatcher run one for 9 of her 11 years in office?
Tell me about the state of the economy that Chancellor Gordon Brown inherited after !8 years of Tory management....
(On being told by an official that the state of the economy left by the hated and derided Tories was much better than predicted upon him taking office):
'What am I supposed to do with this? Write a thank you letter?'
Gordon Brown, May 1997
Chancellor Gordon Brown inherited public finances that were in deficit in 1997. Isn't that supposedly the ultimate sign of economic incompetence?
Look at the direction of travel.
But then again, your lot thought a 10 % deficit was *fine*.
Spot on. Those opposing Corbyn don't have A Big Idea. They need to go away and come up with a Social Democratic Manifesto In An Age Of No Money. Unfortunately for them, when the voter pool is (to be kind) economically uncomplicated, then Corbyn's Let's REALLY Shake That Money Tree will always be top trumps.
A social-democratic manifesto will ALWAYS inevitably cost some money. That none of the moderates were prepared to advocate that last summer, and allowed themselves to be intellectually cowed by the Tories "live within our means" rubbish, is exactly why Corbyn was elected
I don't "live within my means", in the sense that I have an outstanding mortgage; if I'd started getting hysterical about how evil any debt is and how I needed to pay off my mortgage immediately, I would be considerably worse off right now.
At the end of your mortgage you own a property, a valuable property. Your indebtedness ends you have paid off your motrgage and you become very rich compared to your newly wed neighbour. Your comparison is not valid. Under Brown spending and debt skyrocketed when we should have been doing what you hope to do, pay off your mortgage. Thanks to Brown any prospect of beginning to lower our debt is a long way into the future.
This is the Conservative objection to privatisation: selling assets and treating the receipts as income. Selling off the family silver.
Spot on. Those opposing Corbyn don't have A Big Idea. They need to go away and come up with a Social Democratic Manifesto In An Age Of No Money. Unfortunately for them, when the voter pool is (to be kind) economically uncomplicated, then Corbyn's Let's REALLY Shake That Money Tree will always be top trumps.
A social-democratic manifesto will ALWAYS inevitably cost some money. That none of the moderates were prepared to advocate that last summer, and allowed themselves to be intellectually cowed by the Tories "live within our means" rubbish, is exactly why Corbyn was elected
I don't "live within my means", in the sense that I have an outstanding mortgage; if I'd started getting hysterical about how evil any debt is and how I needed to pay off my mortgage immediately, I would be considerably worse off right now.
You clearly struggling on debt vs deficit. Nobody is advocating paying off the mortgage immediately, not paying it off ever. not even Osbornes fantasy figures suggest we start making any repayments off the capital for another 4 years. But you know all of this already.
If running a deficit is so evil, why did Thatcher run one for 9 of her 11 years in office?
Because Labour, as usual, had stuffed the economy. Heath didn't exactly cover himself in glory either, lest I be accused of bias. The 70s had crap governments, with Callaghan winning the booby prize.
So the Tories' deficits in the 1990s were caused by the Labour governments of the 1970s?
You're the guy talking about Thatcher's governments. At least try and home in on the right decade.
They have a mushy centrist blend, which they can ultimately use as cover for implementing some of the things that those further to the wing of their party want.
Unfortunately pragmatism isn't much of a credo, and - in the eyes of a large chunk of the party - has failed at the the last two elections. Not least because David Cameron has been doing much the same thing but better. He has destroyed one party, neutralised the threat from another and driven a third mad.
Spot on. Those opposing Corbyn don't have A Big Idea. They need to go away and come up with a Social Democratic Manifesto In An Age Of No Money. Unfortunately for them, when the voter pool is (to be kind) economically uncomplicated, then Corbyn's Let's REALLY Shake That Money Tree will always be top trumps.
MrMM please don't fall for that 'the electorate are stupid' thing. They are not.
Their priorities may not be yours or mine, including their priorities to obsess about being informed on economic or political issues. But everyone either consciously or subconsciously knows their priorities, and issues as complex as making a choice of government are, surprisingly, in most cases best made intuitively rather than rationally. Our rational brain can only cope with 7 +/-2 issues at a time. Our emotional brain is nearly unlimited in the number of parameters it can factor in. Sure, our emotional brain can trick us, but overall it is more reliable than our rational brain in judging truly complex issues (wicked problems).
Applying that to Mr Corbyn, there will be an irreducible minority who actually believe in shaking the magic money tree more vigorously. But at some point, the barrage of data points to the contrary, most of those going about their everyday lives without too much attention to politics will internalize all that and they'll switch allegiances, possibly without being able to articulate why. But it will be their decision - conscious or subconscious. And it will be as valid as yours or mine.
....and the willingness of some to up the ante with public talk of punishment beatings and revenge reshuffles was not consistent with any idea of loyalty to the shadow cabinet.
Nick, given the briefing of revenge reshuffles, thus bringing the term into the public domain, has been very solidly confirmed by political correspondents on all sides as coming from members of Corbyn's team, are you advocating the same treatment for them as was dispensed to Pat McFadden? Or is it just the MPs on the right of the party who called foul on this wording?
Fwiw, I think you could make an argument stand up for McFadden's removal - quite obviously not for the "terrorists are responsible for their own actions" idea but for the way he paraphrased Corbyn's perceived views on the subject in a most unhelpful way. If I had any confidence I could substitute "misrepresentation of Corbyn's views" for "Corbyn's perceived views", I might even have some sympathy with the argument, but for that to have have happened I would have needed much more strenuous and convincing efforts to snuff the perception of Corbyn's views over the last 6 months and once again this week.
'Explaining and losing' is one thing, but Labour's have caught the habit over the last few years of 'not explaining and losing'.
... David Cameron ... has destroyed one party, neutralised the threat from another and driven a third mad.
OR ... David Cameron has been lucky.
"He's just not that good at politics."
For my money, the fact that William Hague told his wife that he'd "just destroyed the Liberal Party" after the coalition agreement was brokered tells us a lot about the strategic intelligence at the top of the party.
But that's the thing. We'll never really know whether it was strategic brilliance (possibly true in relation to the LDs) or pure luck (true of Ed Miliband's choice of a disastrous election strategy and most likely true of how the SNP destroyed Labour in Scotland and hence precipitated Corbyn's election, and in relation to the exact split and geographic distribution of votes between Con, Lab and UKIP in England).
On my reckoning, strategic brilliance 1, luck 4. Still, it's good to be good, better to be good and lucky.
In an era of no money, Labour were boxed into a corner - they had nowhere to go except the disastrous election strategy, which was widely predicted (on here, many times - Labour has no economic strategy, ad nauseum). It didn't require much strategic brilliance - just a reading of the Runes of Inevitability.
So strategic brilliance 1, reading of the politics 3, luck 1 might be a better assessment.
In 1996–97, the last year of the previous Conservative government, the structural current budget deficit – that is, the amount of borrowing that was being done neither for investment nor to cover the temporary costs of below ‘trend’ economic performance – stood at 2.2% of national income.6 By international standards Labour inherited relatively low levels of borrowing and ‘mid-table’ levels of debt when compared with other industrial countries. OECD data show that in 1997 the UK had the 7th highest structural borrowing out of 25 countries, and the 11th lowest (or 14th highest) level of debt out of 24 countries, for which comparable data are available.7 Faced with this inheritance, Labour set out four main goals for its own management of the public finances:8 to avoid an unsustainable and potentially damaging rise in public sector debt; to ensure future taxpayers are not left to pay for spending that does not benefit them;
When Labour took office in 1997, the public finances were already starting to improve following the deterioration seen during the recession of the early 1990s, thanks to the substantial tax increases and cuts to public spending implemented by the previous Conservative government since 1993. During Labour’s first four years in office, the public finances strengthened further, as the new government stuck to the tight public spending plans laid out by the Conservatives. The following seven years, however, were characterised by fiscal drift. By the eve of the financial crisis, this had left the UK with one of the largest structural budget deficits in the developed world.
You couldn't make this s##t up. Dead Ringers or Rory Bremner should do a special. Shouldn't take long to do, the script is already written for them.
When Sarah Palin was running for Veep and Tina Fey was impersonating her on SNL, some of the skit dialogue was word-for-word (see www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaOZS60-Imw )
They have a mushy centrist blend, which they can ultimately use as cover for implementing some of the things that those further to the wing of their party want.
Unfortunately pragmatism isn't much of a credo, and - in the eyes of a large chunk of the party - has failed at the the last two elections. Not least because David Cameron has been doing much the same thing but better. He has destroyed one party, neutralised the threat from another and driven a third mad.
Yes, Cameron is trying to do to Labour what Blair did to the Tories: occupy enough of the centre ground so that the other team has nowhere to go but nutterdom.
The answer, for Labour, is probably just to wait until the Tories stop doing it.
A friend of mine likes to use a wicket-keeper analogy: always be ready for the nick, no matter how well set the batsmen are. Currently Labour have discarded their gloves and are standing too far away from the stumps in any case.
More like Labour are back in the pavilion having a punch-up whilst the Tories carry on batting.
who's bowling?
The umpire - media/House of Lords - on the basis someone has to do it.
Another potential threat for Labour over the next 5 years is that the Tories actually manage to pull off a digital revolution in the NHS resulting in significant efficiency savings...
The work has begun and it looks promising but it is only in Alpha stages - if it isn't released in early 2018 the results may not be seen in time.
According to GOV.UK figures, only 13% of people book their GP appointments online. So much potential, and a chance to prove the NHS is safer with the Tories.
I was a huge buyer of dead oldies stuff until it became very popular and absurdly expensive. The 80s and 90s were golden years before Vintage was vogue. Even crap taxidermy costs a fortune now.
If I had 10p for everytime I said "I wish we'd kept that old Welsh dresser" I'd have...well, I'd have about £1:50, but it's the thought that counts.
They have a mushy centrist blend, which they can ultimately use as cover for implementing some of the things that those further to the wing of their party want.
Unfortunately pragmatism isn't much of a credo, and - in the eyes of a large chunk of the party - has failed at the the last two elections. Not least because David Cameron has been doing much the same thing but better. He has destroyed one party, neutralised the threat from another and driven a third mad.
Spot on. Those opposing Corbyn don't have A Big Idea. They need to go away and come up with a Social Democratic Manifesto In An Age Of No Money. Unfortunately for them, when the voter pool is (to be kind) economically uncomplicated, then Corbyn's Let's REALLY Shake That Money Tree will always be top trumps.
MrMM please don't fall for that 'the electorate are stupid' thing. They are not.
Their priorities may not be yours or mine, including their priorities to obsess about being informed on economic or political issues. But everyone either consciously or subconsciously knows their priorities, and issues as complex as making a choice of government are, surprisingly, in most cases best made intuitively rather than rationally. Our rational brain can only cope with 7 +/-2 issues at a time. Our emotional brain is nearly unlimited in the number of parameters it can factor in. Sure, our emotional brain can trick us, but overall it is more reliable than our rational brain in judging truly complex issues (wicked problems).
Applying that to Mr Corbyn, there will be an irreducible minority who actually believe in shaking the magic money tree more vigorously. But at some point, the barrage of data points to the contrary, most of those going about their everyday lives without too much attention to politics will internalize all that and they'll switch allegiances, possibly without being able to articulate why. But it will be their decision - conscious or subconscious. And it will be as valid as yours or mine.
Indeed. Which is why I think the polling question "He/she understands the issues that are important to me" is one of the key numbers to follow, particularly for elections to eadership/executive positions.
... David Cameron ... has destroyed one party, neutralised the threat from another and driven a third mad.
OR ... David Cameron has been lucky.
"He's just not that good at politics."
For my money, the fact that William Hague told his wife that he'd "just destroyed the Liberal Party" after the coalition agreement was brokered tells us a lot about the strategic intelligence at the top of the party.
But that's the thing. We'll never really know whether it was strategic brilliance (possibly true in relation to the LDs) or pure luck (true of Ed Miliband's choice of a disastrous election strategy and most likely true of how the SNP destroyed Labour in Scotland and hence precipitated Corbyn's election, and in relation to the exact split and geographic distribution of votes between Con, Lab and UKIP in England).
On my reckoning, strategic brilliance 1, luck 4. Still, it's good to be good, better to be good and lucky.
In an era of no money, Labour were boxed into a corner - they had nowhere to go except the disastrous election strategy, which was widely predicted (on here, many times - Labour has no economic strategy, ad nauseum). It didn't require much strategic brilliance - just a reading of the Runes of Inevitability.
So strategic brilliance 1, reading of the politics 3, luck 1 might be a better assessment.
You couldn't make this s##t up. Dead Ringers or Rory Bremner should do a special. Shouldn't take long to do, the script is already written for them.
When Sarah Palin was running for Veep and Tina Fey was impersonating her on SNL, some of the skit dialogue was word-for-word (see www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaOZS60-Imw )
That was some of the best political satire ever seen on TV. Not only did Fey have the close physical resemblance to Palin, she completely nailed the character.
It was on prime time TV every week for the six weeks leading up to the election - without the impartiality rules that would have stopped it in Britian. It would undoubtedly have had an effect on the vote.
Spot on. Those opposing Corbyn don't have A Big Idea. They need to go away and come up with a Social Democratic Manifesto In An Age Of No Money. Unfortunately for them, when the voter pool is (to be kind) economically uncomplicated, then Corbyn's Let's REALLY Shake That Money Tree will always be top trumps.
A social-democratic manifesto will ALWAYS inevitably cost some money. That none of the moderates were prepared to advocate that last summer, and allowed themselves to be intellectually cowed by the Tories "live within our means" rubbish, is exactly why Corbyn was elected
I don't "live within my means", in the sense that I have an outstanding mortgage; if I'd started getting hysterical about how evil any debt is and how I needed to pay off my mortgage immediately, I would be considerably worse off right now.
You clearly struggling on debt vs deficit. Nobody is advocating paying off the mortgage immediately, not paying it off ever. not even Osbornes fantasy figures suggest we start making any repayments off the capital for another 4 years. But you know all of this already.
If running a deficit is so evil, why did Thatcher run one for 9 of her 11 years in office?
Because Labour, as usual, had stuffed the economy. Heath didn't exactly cover himself in glory either, lest I be accused of bias. The 70s had crap governments, with Callaghan winning the booby prize.
Another potential threat for Labour over the next 5 years is that the Tories actually manage to pull off a digital revolution in the NHS resulting in significant efficiency savings...
The work has begun and it looks promising but it is only in Alpha stages - if it isn't released in early 2018 the results may not be seen in time.
According to GOV.UK figures, only 13% of people book their GP appointments online. So much potential, and a chance to prove the NHS is safer with the Tories.
What is happening in the UK on digital patient records and coding of services provided? The US has just gone through a major coding upgrade to assist in better analysis of healthcare provision/outcome. The verdict is still out on the upgrade though.
Journalist who suggested #Cologne attacks were staged by German right-wingers retreats to her safe space. https://t.co/HJacl7flqv
That would be Stage 1: The strange compulsion to assure us that the criminals are “right wing conservative extremists”.
the strange thing is the unspoken assumption that if you ban foreigners crime will stop, or that we should ban foreigners because some of them committed crimes
I don't think it's strange not to wish to import trouble. That doesn't mean that domestic trouble will go away.
London // EU referendum poll: Remain: 39% Leave: 34% (via YouGov / 04 - 06 Jan)
That's an effing awful poll for Remain. London should be their strongest area in England.
The latest posted EU figures on the yougov site I can see, posted on Jan 6th, have Remain 55% Leave 45% in London once don't knows are excluded and 51% Remain 49% Leave UK wide
I would have expected Remain to be on at least 60% in London.
Not if they only lead by 2% nationally. Provided Remain get at least 55% in London they should win if they get nearer 50% they have likely lost and if they lose London Leave have won a landslide
So London is isn't that different to the rest of the UK, on the EU?
Spot on. Those opposing Corbyn don't have A Big Idea. They need to go away and come up with a Social Democratic Manifesto In An Age Of No Money. Unfortunately for them, when the voter pool is (to be kind) economically uncomplicated, then Corbyn's Let's REALLY Shake That Money Tree will always be top trumps.
A social-democratic manifesto will ALWAYS inevitably cost some money. That none of the moderates were prepared to advocate that last summer, and allowed themselves to be intellectually cowed by the Tories "live within our means" rubbish, is exactly why Corbyn was elected
I don't "live within my means", in the sense that I have an outstanding mortgage; if I'd started getting hysterical about how evil any debt is and how I needed to pay off my mortgage immediately, I would be considerably worse off right now.
You clearly struggling on debt vs deficit. Nobody is advocating paying off the mortgage immediately, not paying it off ever. not even Osbornes fantasy figures suggest we start making any repayments off the capital for another 4 years. But you know all of this already.
If running a deficit is so evil, why did Thatcher run one for 9 of her 11 years in office?
Err...she came to power in 1979. Winter of Discontent and all that. Bit like griping at Ozzy for not chopping more than a hundred billion off the mess he inherited from Gordo already. EVERY Tory government faces the same problem - it comes after a Labour one - and the money is gone.
Ironically, Mrs Thatcher blamed the previous Conservative government, not Labour. The Barber Boom under Ted Heath's government unleashed inflation and caused unemployment. Monetarism, innit.
Also of interest to those (cf the podcast last night) who think that the membership is having doubts: analysis showing that committed Labour supporters feel the party is still too far to the right
The problem, of course, is that there is a circular effect in that: in general, the most committed supporters of any party will wish it was purer and less willing to compromise, but if the party obliges then its committed support shrinks to those who feel that particularly strongly, etc. It's a problem that surfaces most around the time of leadership elections...
It's called positive feedback. A disaster as any engineer will tell you. Labour is heading towards being an extreme left-wing party - like La Front Nationale in France.
London // EU referendum poll: Remain: 39% Leave: 34% (via YouGov / 04 - 06 Jan)
That's an effing awful poll for Remain. London should be their strongest area in England.
The latest posted EU figures on the yougov site I can see, posted on Jan 6th, have Remain 55% Leave 45% in London once don't knows are excluded and 51% Remain 49% Leave UK wide
I would have expected Remain to be on at least 60% in London.
Not if they only lead by 2% nationally. Provided Remain get at least 55% in London they should win if they get nearer 50% they have likely lost and if they lose London Leave have won a landslide
So London is isn't that different to the rest of the UK, on the EU?
Something doesn't fit here? We think Labour voters skew pro-EU and they significantly outnumber Tories in London.
... David Cameron ... has destroyed one party, neutralised the threat from another and driven a third mad.
OR ... David Cameron has been lucky.
"He's just not that good at politics."
For my money, the fact that William Hague told his wife that he'd "just destroyed the Liberal Party" after the coalition agreement was brokered tells us a lot about the strategic intelligence at the top of the party.
But that's the thing. We'll never really know whether it was strategic brilliance (possibly true in relation to the LDs) or pure luck (true of Ed Miliband's choice of a disastrous election strategy and most likely true of how the SNP destroyed Labour in Scotland and hence precipitated Corbyn's election, and in relation to the exact split and geographic distribution of votes between Con, Lab and UKIP in England).
On my reckoning, strategic brilliance 1, luck 4. Still, it's good to be good, better to be good and lucky.
In an era of no money, Labour were boxed into a corner - they had nowhere to go except the disastrous election strategy, which was widely predicted (on here, many times - Labour has no economic strategy, ad nauseum). It didn't require much strategic brilliance - just a reading of the Runes of Inevitability.
So strategic brilliance 1, reading of the politics 3, luck 1 might be a better assessment.
Another potential threat for Labour over the next 5 years is that the Tories actually manage to pull off a digital revolution in the NHS resulting in significant efficiency savings...
The work has begun and it looks promising but it is only in Alpha stages - if it isn't released in early 2018 the results may not be seen in time.
According to GOV.UK figures, only 13% of people book their GP appointments online. So much potential, and a chance to prove the NHS is safer with the Tories.
What is happening in the UK on digital patient records and coding of services provided? The US has just gone through a major coding upgrade to assist in better analysis of healthcare provision/outcome. The verdict is still out on the upgrade though.
I often wonder whether the NHS should be split into two distinctly separate organisations - the clinical, which would still be the NHS - and the administrative, which would be branded as a separate, partner organisation.
Take NHS branding away and people would view it in the same way that they view every other public sector bureaucracy. That would create room for massive reform, which is sorely needed. The NHS appears to be at least a couple of decades behind the curve administratively.
Regarding the alcohol guidelines, they've actually produced a rather good report, which does summarise the underlying data in a nice clear form. Look at the two graphs on page 17:
These show the estimated relative risk of death rleated to alcohol consumption for various amounts per week by age (and for drinking the whole lot on one day per week, which seems rather odd). The key lines are the dotted lines, which related to drinking a given total number of units per week, spread evenly over the week (eg 35 units per week as 5 units per day).
I have to say that the data there does make the recommendations look rather odd, both in terms of having the same limit for men and women, and for the absolute levels of the recommendations. They seem to have mixed up the recommendations on long-term health with a concern about men suffering accidents or injuries when drunk.
The good news is that, for the 55+ age group, the data seems to suggest that a man can drink up to 40 units or even more per week, and a woman about 25, with little ill effect. They forgot to tell us that bit.
Note that the new recommendations are set to an extraordinarily strict criterion: "around and a little below that which would be suggested by an analysis of absolute 1% lifetime risk of death". .
Dugher is not well known to the public, but within Westminster he is an influential political figure. A former Brownite spin-doctor, he was a well respected and well liked member of the shadow cabinet, who had a reputation for being one of Labour’s most effective anti-Tory “attack dogs”. But he was also viewed by many colleagues as being “untouchable” because he enjoyed the patronage of Tom Watson – on of his closest friends – and Andy Burnham, whose leadership election campaign he helped mastermind.
Another potential threat for Labour over the next 5 years is that the Tories actually manage to pull off a digital revolution in the NHS resulting in significant efficiency savings...
The work has begun and it looks promising but it is only in Alpha stages - if it isn't released in early 2018 the results may not be seen in time.
According to GOV.UK figures, only 13% of people book their GP appointments online. So much potential, and a chance to prove the NHS is safer with the Tories.
What is happening in the UK on digital patient records and coding of services provided? The US has just gone through a major coding upgrade to assist in better analysis of healthcare provision/outcome. The verdict is still out on the upgrade though.
I often wonder whether the NHS should be split into two distinctly separate organisations - the clinical, which would still be the NHS - and the administrative, which would be branded as a separate, partner organisation.
Take NHS branding away and people would view it in the same way that they view every other public sector bureaucracy. That would create room for massive reform, which is sorely needed. The NHS appears to be at least a couple of decades behind the curve administratively.
If you ever watched the Jerry Robinson set of programmes on the NHS, his biggest criticism was the underlying problem that two sets of people think they are in charge at hospital level. The managers and the consultants. No successful organisation allows such a dual power structure. And the examples given in the program showed clearly why their is always so many roadblocks to reform.
I have no idea given that mindset how splitting would work. Consultants don't want to listen to managers / admin as it is.
Ah, and the 'don't drink every day' advice is indeed, by their own admission, garbage:
"Whilst the group concluded that it may be useful to advise heavy drinkers on the value of drink-free days, it did not find evidence sufficient to justify recommending this routinely to all drinkers."
Remember all those pundit articles about TW being the real power behind the throne, Labours mover and shaker, the coming man, the real deal, next leader??
Another potential threat for Labour over the next 5 years is that the Tories actually manage to pull off a digital revolution in the NHS resulting in significant efficiency savings...
The work has begun and it looks promising but it is only in Alpha stages - if it isn't released in early 2018 the results may not be seen in time.
According to GOV.UK figures, only 13% of people book their GP appointments online. So much potential, and a chance to prove the NHS is safer with the Tories.
What is happening in the UK on digital patient records and coding of services provided? The US has just gone through a major coding upgrade to assist in better analysis of healthcare provision/outcome. The verdict is still out on the upgrade though.
I often wonder whether the NHS should be split into two distinctly separate organisations - the clinical, which would still be the NHS - and the administrative, which would be branded as a separate, partner organisation.
Take NHS branding away and people would view it in the same way that they view every other public sector bureaucracy. That would create room for massive reform, which is sorely needed. The NHS appears to be at least a couple of decades behind the curve administratively.
If you ever watched the Jerry Robinson set of programmes on the NHS, his biggest criticism was the underlying problem that two sets of people think they are in charge at hospital level. The managers and the consultants. No successful organisation allows such a dual power structure. And the examples given in the program showed clearly why their is always so many roadblocks to reform.
I have no idea given that mindset how splitting would work. Consultants don't want to listen to managers / admin as it is.
Yes. If I remember correctly there were multiple episodes. He also did a series on care for the elderly.
IMO both were very revealing and unlike so many "reality" shows, were done "straight", with no sign of any sort of forced drama etc e.g The feeling I have got from some of Mary Portas stuff.
But it’s also true that in recent year’s Watson has come to tire of his “Godfather” like reputation. He’s removed Nino Rota’s soundtrack as the ringtone on his mobile phone, and begun to recast himself as a politician in his own right, rather than a shadowy backroom “fixer”. He also takes his new responsibilities as deputy-leader seriously, and believes they have to take precedence over his obligations to friends and political allies.
Another problem is that Tom Watson is finding it as difficult as everyone else in his party to come to terms with the realities of the new regime. When Watson was elected many people saw him as acting as an important counterweight to the Corbynites. But when he chose to run for the deputy leadership it never occurred to him he would be serving under Jeremy Corbyn. And while he has remained publically loyal, he has told friends he has found the experience very difficult to manage.
But it’s also true that in recent year’s Watson has come to tire of his “Godfather” like reputation. He’s removed Nino Rota’s soundtrack as the ringtone on his mobile phone, and begun to recast himself as a politician in his own right, rather than a shadowy backroom “fixer”. He also takes his new responsibilities as deputy-leader seriously, and believes they have to take precedence over his obligations to friends and political allies.
Another problem is that Tom Watson is finding it as difficult as everyone else in his party to come to terms with the realities of the new regime. When Watson was elected many people saw him as acting as an important counterweight to the Corbynites. But when he chose to run for the deputy leadership it never occurred to him he would be serving under Jeremy Corbyn. And while he has remained publically loyal, he has told friends he has found the experience very difficult to manage.
I can't imagine his Nonce Finder General role going tits up has helped the situation. He had to keep very quiet for a fair bit of time, because of the many awkward questions surrounding his role in this.
If you ever watched the Jerry Robinson set of programmes on the NHS, his biggest criticism was the underlying problem that two sets of people think they are in charge at hospital level. The managers and the consultants. No successful organisation allows such a dual power structure. And the examples given in the program showed clearly why their is always so many roadblocks to reform.
I have no idea given that mindset how splitting would work. Consultants don't want to listen to managers / admin as it is.
In the end, I think it would defenestrate the consultants. Power ultimately migrates to the money, or in this case, those with power of decision over allocation of the budget.
In the US, consultants/specialists are in charge of the clinical side of things, but only within the constraints of what the administrators at the insurance companies will agree to fund (or what they can squeeze out of privately paying patients). With a single payer system, as the NHS is and would be under that system, more harmonization of funding decisions would inevitably in my view lead to more concentration of power in the hands of the administrators.
If you're looking at optimal outcomes at a national level (assuming effective management and implementation) that may not be a bad thing. But if you're looking at optimal outcomes at an individual patient level, I think the opposite is true. [And this is a large part of the reason that most Brits doe not understand the US healthcare debate]
Didn't spot a mention of the party voting for retaining Trident, though, which puts Corbyn in the hypocritical position of demanding others agree with him when he refuses to agree with official party policy.
The sooner Labour dispatch Corbyn the better for Britain.
Do you think some of our overseas friends might get confused and think that Keeping Up Appearances (which is extremely popular in a number of countries) was actually a "Keeping Up with the Kardashians" style reality show from the 90's...and now she gone into politics?
"Rwanda is sliding into a new tragedy. And this time we’re funding it British taxes support a regime that even allies admit uses murder to crush political challenge"
As a natural contrarian it is easy for me to say that it does seem somewhat churlish to "stop BNP being a political party" over not paying their 25 quid dues - you'd honestly kinda have hoped our democracy was made of sterner stuff.
I am in constant befuddlement whey the American left is so in love with Merkel. This author thinks she is the only European showing good leadership. Her leadership has exacerbated the refugee crisis and hence all the other crises Europe faces. At best, history's jury on her as a leader is still out. At worst, she is the worst leader precisely because she is the only strong leader but following disastrous policies.
Trade deficit EU - £8.2bn Trade deficit non-EU - £2.5bn
Looking at the last three months so that monthly variations can be smoothed out:
EU - £23bn Non-EU - £7.8bn
Our trade deficit with the EU is growing and our and RoW trade deficit is shrinking. Our trade deficit with Germany stands at £30bn, a record.
If anyone from Remain says that we will endanger our industry with trade barriers then one look at the trade statistics will show them to be a liar. I highly doubt Germany is going to put a trade barrier up for a country with imports £60bn worth of goods from them annually and only sells them £30bn worth.
I am of the opinion that in the long term a trade barrier with the EU and opening up the RoW markets will help us recover our industries from wage dumping Germans and subsidised French and Italian industries. Obviously in the short term there will be some adjustment required, but reshoring manufacturing needs a trigger in this country, UK management are far too short sighted and it is too easy to just buy German parts and tell UK workers to do one.
More evidence of a tightening labour market from the US today.
Far more jobs added last month than expected, and the previous month revised upwards.
Still no sign of wage inflation, however.
taffys - I have not looked at the figures other than the headlines, but my guess is that hours worked has not increased by nearly as great a percentage as those in work. Many employers are still offering less than/reducing to under 30 hours a week in order to avoid Obamacare obligations. That might in large part explain the lack of upward pressure on wages.
Ah, and the 'don't drink every day' advice is indeed, by their own admission, garbage:
"Whilst the group concluded that it may be useful to advise heavy drinkers on the value of drink-free days, it did not find evidence sufficient to justify recommending this routinely to all drinkers."
Page 22
In broad terms, it's all about telling all so as to avoid trying to segment out a specific group. Is ever the same with public health advice.
More evidence of a tightening labour market from the US today.
Far more jobs added last month than expected, and the previous month revised upwards.
Still no sign of wage inflation, however.
taffys - I have not looked at the figures other than the headlines, but my guess is that hours worked has not increased by nearly as great a percentage as those in work. Many employers are still offering less than/reducing to under 30 hours a week in order to avoid Obamacare obligations. That might in large part explain the lack of upward pressure on wages.
No, average weekly hours is still at 34.5, that's the historical trend. Even the labour force participation rate has begun to rise which indicates more people are confident of finding work. This is a decent set of figures, the reason wage inflation is still low is because the participation rate in the US is pathetic, there are a lot of people who are unemployed but have given up looking for work and are now returning to the jobs market. The 5% unemployment rate is not representative of the true scale of unemployment in the US. Even taking into account retiring workers lowering the participation rate, 62.8% is very low, wage inflation won't begin to rise until that participation rate goes above 64-65% as there is still a lot of slack in the jobs market.
Mr. T, maybe it's like Americans loving Blair. They never had to put up with him, and he did whatever Bush wanted. Merkel's given a siren call to migrants, which (as well as the obvious geographical difference) means they're flocking there rather than to the US.
Ah, and the 'don't drink every day' advice is indeed, by their own admission, garbage:
"Whilst the group concluded that it may be useful to advise heavy drinkers on the value of drink-free days, it did not find evidence sufficient to justify recommending this routinely to all drinkers."
Page 22
In broad terms, it's all about telling all so as to avoid trying to segment out a specific group. Is ever the same with public health advice.
The advice is actually very confused, because they've tried to oversimplify. Pages 13 and 14 show their reasoning, which goes something like this:
- We decided to keep to a weekly total units (which seems a reasonable thing to do) - Most people drink only two or three days a week - It gets more risky when you drink more than 4 or 5 units in one sesssion - Therefore our weekly recommended max cannot be more than two or three times 4 or 5 units.
That, basically, is why they've ended up recommending the same max for men and women, despite their own evidence showing that women are more at risk for a given level.
As a natural contrarian it is easy for me to say that it does seem somewhat churlish to "stop BNP being a political party" over not paying their 25 quid dues - you'd honestly kinda have hoped our democracy was made of sterner stuff.
It wasn't *just* for failing to pay their dues - linked is the failure to confirm their registered details as accurate. (ie Address, Leader, Treasurer etc.). They have had 6 months within which to do so and have failed to do so. They can also 're-activate' again within 2 years within which time the name and symbols etc are 'protected' so no-one else can take them.
(Sorry, but as someone in a small party that tries really hard to make sure that we comply with all the details required - I think that it is right that everyone has to abide by the same rules - and they are really not that onerous...)
Ah, and the 'don't drink every day' advice is indeed, by their own admission, garbage:
"Whilst the group concluded that it may be useful to advise heavy drinkers on the value of drink-free days, it did not find evidence sufficient to justify recommending this routinely to all drinkers."
Page 22
In broad terms, it's all about telling all so as to avoid trying to segment out a specific group. Is ever the same with public health advice.
The advice is actually very confused, because they've tried to oversimplify. Pages 13 and 14 show their reasoning, which goes something like this:
- We decided to keep to a weekly total units (which seems a reasonable thing to do) - Most people drink only two or three days a week - It gets more risky when you drink more than 4 or 5 units in one sesssion - Therefore our weekly recommended max cannot be more than two or three times 4 or 5 units.
That, basically, is why they've ended up recommending the same max for men and women, despite their own evidence showing that women are more at risk for a given level.
The advice is rubbish basically. The government is concentrating on the wrong enemy anyway, they need to do much, much more to tackle obesity rates. It's just easier to go after drinkers because it is a vice. Obesity is a much bigger public health danger (and more expensive) than drinking. I'll happily follow French or Italian government advice when it comes to food and drink rather than our own, ours is a joke and it shows. Overreactions everywhere and ignoring or storing up issues for later on where it really matters.
More evidence of a tightening labour market from the US today.
Far more jobs added last month than expected, and the previous month revised upwards.
Still no sign of wage inflation, however.
taffys - I have not looked at the figures other than the headlines, but my guess is that hours worked has not increased by nearly as great a percentage as those in work. Many employers are still offering less than/reducing to under 30 hours a week in order to avoid Obamacare obligations. That might in large part explain the lack of upward pressure on wages.
No, average weekly hours is still at 34.5, that's the historical trend. Even the labour force participation rate has begun to rise which indicates more people are confident of finding work. This is a decent set of figures, the reason wage inflation is still low is because the participation rate in the US is pathetic, there are a lot of people who are unemployed but have given up looking for work and are now returning to the jobs market. The 5% unemployment rate is not representative of the true scale of unemployment in the US. Even taking into account retiring workers lowering the participation rate, 62.8% is very low, wage inflation won't begin to rise until that participation rate goes above 64-65% as there is still a lot of slack in the jobs market.
I love it when all those sly fixers and greasy, dodgy labour liars receive a bit of the medicine they themselves have dished out in the past. That it was a leftwing pseudo marxist, (but pure Trotskyite) that delivered the dosages, only makes my merriment greater.
Excellent piece Mr Meeks - I shall forever see Jihadi Jez peering contemptuously over his specs at us dullards to thick to get with the program, dressed as a Puritan.....
But that’s not quite why it has taken nearly a week to piece together the story of a spate of muggings and sexual attacks carried out that night by seemingly organised gangs of young men. Many Germans are asking why politicians, police and broadcasters seem so reluctant to discuss what happened under cover of the crowds (the state broadcaster EZF apologised for not covering the attacks until Tuesday), and whether it’s because the attackers are widely described as looking Arab or north African. Which is why, of course, liberals like me are reluctant to talk about it.
@SkyNewsBreak: Reuters: State government source says #Cologne's police chief is to resign following series of robberies & sexual assaults on New Year's Eve
Comments
Their priorities may not be yours or mine, including their priorities to obsess about being informed on economic or political issues. But everyone either consciously or subconsciously knows their priorities, and issues as complex as making a choice of government are, surprisingly, in most cases best made intuitively rather than rationally. Our rational brain can only cope with 7 +/-2 issues at a time. Our emotional brain is nearly unlimited in the number of parameters it can factor in. Sure, our emotional brain can trick us, but overall it is more reliable than our rational brain in judging truly complex issues (wicked problems).
Applying that to Mr Corbyn, there will be an irreducible minority who actually believe in shaking the magic money tree more vigorously. But at some point, the barrage of data points to the contrary, most of those going about their everyday lives without too much attention to politics will internalize all that and they'll switch allegiances, possibly without being able to articulate why. But it will be their decision - conscious or subconscious. And it will be as valid as yours or mine.
(On being told by an official that the state of the economy left by the hated and derided Tories was much better than predicted upon him taking office):
'What am I supposed to do with this? Write a thank you letter?'
Gordon Brown, May 1997
The 80s and 90s were golden years before Vintage was vogue. Even crap taxidermy costs a fortune now.
Actually, that's probably unfair to 12-year olds.
bit.ly/1kScSqb
On my reckoning, strategic brilliance 1, luck 4. Still, it's good to be good, better to be good and lucky.
One can see the emotional attachment here for Corbyn.
But then again, your lot thought a 10 % deficit was *fine*.
Idiots.
Anyone with such a fixed world view will stamp them on everything.
Fwiw, I think you could make an argument stand up for McFadden's removal - quite obviously not for the "terrorists are responsible for their own actions" idea but for the way he paraphrased Corbyn's perceived views on the subject in a most unhelpful way. If I had any confidence I could substitute "misrepresentation of Corbyn's views" for "Corbyn's perceived views", I might even have some sympathy with the argument, but for that to have have happened I would have needed much more strenuous and convincing efforts to snuff the perception of Corbyn's views over the last 6 months and once again this week.
'Explaining and losing' is one thing, but Labour's have caught the habit over the last few years of 'not explaining and losing'.
So strategic brilliance 1, reading of the politics 3, luck 1 might be a better assessment.
*not my words*
In 1996–97, the last year of the previous Conservative government, the structural current budget
deficit – that is, the amount of borrowing that was being done neither for investment nor to cover
the temporary costs of below ‘trend’ economic performance – stood at 2.2% of national income.6 By
international standards Labour inherited relatively low levels of borrowing and ‘mid-table’ levels of
debt when compared with other industrial countries. OECD data show that in 1997 the UK had the
7th highest structural borrowing out of 25 countries, and the 11th lowest (or 14th highest) level of
debt out of 24 countries, for which comparable data are available.7
Faced with this inheritance, Labour set out four main goals for its own management of the public
finances:8
to avoid an unsustainable and potentially damaging rise in public sector debt;
to ensure future taxpayers are not left to pay for spending that does not benefit them;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Labour took office in 1997, the public finances were already starting to improve following
the deterioration seen during the recession of the early 1990s, thanks to the substantial tax
increases and cuts to public spending implemented by the previous Conservative government since
1993. During Labour’s first four years in office, the public finances strengthened further, as the new
government stuck to the tight public spending plans laid out by the Conservatives. The following
seven years, however, were characterised by fiscal drift. By the eve of the financial crisis, this had
left the UK with one of the largest structural budget deficits in the developed world.
@Psythor: Holy shit, this changes *everything*. https://t.co/LNeNaUsbcj
The work has begun and it looks promising but it is only in Alpha stages - if it isn't released in early 2018 the results may not be seen in time.
NHS.UK Alpha prototypes and their blog can be found here:
http://nhsalpha.herokuapp.com/
According to GOV.UK figures, only 13% of people book their GP appointments online. So much potential, and a chance to prove the NHS is safer with the Tories.
A good stuffed magpie is £300 on eBay. I bought a stuffed Alpine goat for £80 ten years ago.
Stuffed mice kits are good starters apparently.
I'll accept that.
https://twitter.com/RupertMyers/status/685419667767341056
It was on prime time TV every week for the six weeks leading up to the election - without the impartiality rules that would have stopped it in Britian. It would undoubtedly have had an effect on the vote.
Read more from @radioproducer on the training of hundreds of Saudi police by UK College of Policing https://t.co/oHPbo42UXa #wato
You throw a lot of stones, and offer little to help the drowning of Labour under Corbyn.
Assuming you want a Labour HMG, what do you suggest your leadership do?
Yet UK lefties seem to find the notion of not spending money incompatible with their policies.
Running out of Other People's Money isn't sustainable.
Take NHS branding away and people would view it in the same way that they view every other public sector bureaucracy. That would create room for massive reform, which is sorely needed. The NHS appears to be at least a couple of decades behind the curve administratively.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/489797/CMO_Alcohol_Report.pdf
These show the estimated relative risk of death rleated to alcohol consumption for various amounts per week by age (and for drinking the whole lot on one day per week, which seems rather odd). The key lines are the dotted lines, which related to drinking a given total number of units per week, spread evenly over the week (eg 35 units per week as 5 units per day).
I have to say that the data there does make the recommendations look rather odd, both in terms of having the same limit for men and women, and for the absolute levels of the recommendations. They seem to have mixed up the recommendations on long-term health with a concern about men suffering accidents or injuries when drunk.
The good news is that, for the 55+ age group, the data seems to suggest that a man can drink up to 40 units or even more per week, and a woman about 25, with little ill effect. They forgot to tell us that bit.
Note that the new recommendations are set to an extraordinarily strict criterion: "around and a little below that which would be suggested by an analysis of absolute 1% lifetime risk of death".
.
I have no idea given that mindset how splitting would work. Consultants don't want to listen to managers / admin as it is.
"Whilst the group concluded that it may be useful to advise heavy drinkers on the value of drink-free days, it did not find evidence sufficient to justify recommending this routinely to all drinkers."
Page 22
Remember all those pundit articles about TW being the real power behind the throne, Labours mover and shaker, the coming man, the real deal, next leader??
What a pile of horsesh8t.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIl0b7dWHHY
I might watch it if so.
IMO both were very revealing and unlike so many "reality" shows, were done "straight", with no sign of any sort of forced drama etc e.g The feeling I have got from some of Mary Portas stuff.
I can't imagine his Nonce Finder General role going tits up has helped the situation. He had to keep very quiet for a fair bit of time, because of the many awkward questions surrounding his role in this.
British National Party (BNP) has today been removed from the register of GB political parties. (1/2)
https://vine.co/v/ihj7bT69eQd/embed
In the US, consultants/specialists are in charge of the clinical side of things, but only within the constraints of what the administrators at the insurance companies will agree to fund (or what they can squeeze out of privately paying patients). With a single payer system, as the NHS is and would be under that system, more harmonization of funding decisions would inevitably in my view lead to more concentration of power in the hands of the administrators.
If you're looking at optimal outcomes at a national level (assuming effective management and implementation) that may not be a bad thing. But if you're looking at optimal outcomes at an individual patient level, I think the opposite is true. [And this is a large part of the reason that most Brits doe not understand the US healthcare debate]
A well-written piece, with which I largely agree.
Didn't spot a mention of the party voting for retaining Trident, though, which puts Corbyn in the hypocritical position of demanding others agree with him when he refuses to agree with official party policy.
The sooner Labour dispatch Corbyn the better for Britain.
Far more jobs added last month than expected, and the previous month revised upwards.
Still no sign of wage inflation, however.
"Rwanda is sliding into a new tragedy. And this time we’re funding it
British taxes support a regime that even allies admit uses murder to crush political challenge"
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/rwanda-is-sliding-into-a-new-tragedy-and-this-time-were-funding-it/
Hugely successful business leader, TV series personality ......... now?
Islington Luvvie. Tick
Anti Trident. Tick
Corbynista. Tick
UK: Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?, ORB poll:
Yes: 46% (-2)
No: 54% (+2)
#EUreferendum #EUref #UKIP
UKIP Leader @Nigel_Farage: "We must leave the European Union and start standing up for our Judeo-Christian heritage" https://t.co/rwusSrKUYS
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/01/europe-terrorism-migrants-debt-crisis
I am in constant befuddlement whey the American left is so in love with Merkel. This author thinks she is the only European showing good leadership. Her leadership has exacerbated the refugee crisis and hence all the other crises Europe faces. At best, history's jury on her as a leader is still out. At worst, she is the worst leader precisely because she is the only strong leader but following disastrous policies.
Trade deficit EU - £8.2bn
Trade deficit non-EU - £2.5bn
Looking at the last three months so that monthly variations can be smoothed out:
EU - £23bn
Non-EU - £7.8bn
Our trade deficit with the EU is growing and our and RoW trade deficit is shrinking. Our trade deficit with Germany stands at £30bn, a record.
If anyone from Remain says that we will endanger our industry with trade barriers then one look at the trade statistics will show them to be a liar. I highly doubt Germany is going to put a trade barrier up for a country with imports £60bn worth of goods from them annually and only sells them £30bn worth.
I am of the opinion that in the long term a trade barrier with the EU and opening up the RoW markets will help us recover our industries from wage dumping Germans and subsidised French and Italian industries. Obviously in the short term there will be some adjustment required, but reshoring manufacturing needs a trigger in this country, UK management are far too short sighted and it is too easy to just buy German parts and tell UK workers to do one.
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/685448889198112768
- We decided to keep to a weekly total units (which seems a reasonable thing to do)
- Most people drink only two or three days a week
- It gets more risky when you drink more than 4 or 5 units in one sesssion
- Therefore our weekly recommended max cannot be more than two or three times 4 or 5 units.
That, basically, is why they've ended up recommending the same max for men and women, despite their own evidence showing that women are more at risk for a given level.
(Sorry, but as someone in a small party that tries really hard to make sure that we comply with all the details required - I think that it is right that everyone has to abide by the same rules - and they are really not that onerous...)
Probably so.
Nashat Milhem tracked down in Arara, opens fire on forces and is killed, a week after he allegedly killed 3 in Tel Aviv; five people arrested.
This is the guy that killed 3 in the TelAviv cafe.
http://www.infowars.com/swiss-general-urges-citizens-to-arm-themselves-in-response-to-social-unrest-and-economic-decline/
http://www.vtg.admin.ch/internet/vtg/en/home/schweizerarmee/cda.37508.html