politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why the decline of the BNP is good new for Farage’s UKIP

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why the decline of the BNP is good new for Farage’s UKIP

The news this afternoon that the BNP is no longer officially a political party has been dismissed by party officials as an oversight. The move has, apparently, been caused by the failure of the party to send in the fee of £25 by the the due date with the result that it has been removed from the official list.

Read the full story here

Danny565

FPT:

DavidL said:

Yes, I agree that is a non starter. But so is the Corbynite position of, well, we will just print the money. Moderate Labour need to get the conversation within the party back into the land of sanity. It isn't going to be easy but acknowledging that there is a price tag to proposed improvements is a step on the way.

Personally, what I think Labour should do before 2020 (well, probably not much point starting til after Corbyn goes) is focus like a laser on specific examples of wasteful spending: public-sector bosses being paid too much, unnecessary perks for public-sector workers (like travel expenses or hotel stays), badly-negotiated PFI contracts, genuine welfare cheats who could be working. Then say that a future Labour government would launch a website which would give people the ability to track more closely what exactly government expenditure was going towards.

One thing that was striking to me so often in the run-up to the election when people would be talking about Labour overspending, they often weren't really talking about the deficit but about those specific examples of largesse. Apparently, even in Scottish focus groups, people would often be castigating Labour for signing up to austerity, then the very next minute criticising the last Labour government for certain things they wasted spending on: they didn't see a contradiction between them.

IMO, if/when Labour have demonstrated that they won't tolerate wasted spending, and that they will give the public more oversight into exactly where the money is going, then they can win an argument for higher spending if people are persuaded that that extra money will go towards real public services and to people in genuine need. What definitely isn't going to work is if Labour allow the "economic credibility" debate to be conducted on the Tories' terms: that it's all about how big the deficit is, what % of GDP spending accounts for, that increasing taxes on the rich is all "politics of envy", that all welfare spending is going to undeserved scroungers (rather than the scroungers being only a minority of welfare recipients), etcetc.

JBriskin

The bar charts don't lie!!!

AndyJS

The BNP fielded only 8 candidates at the 2015 election compared to 338 in 2010.

JBriskin

AndyJS said:

The BNP fielded only 8 candidates at the 2015 election compared to 338 in 2010.

The bar charts lie

SimonStClare

Anyone know the BNP vote share in GE2015, a quick google has them lumped in with others.

DavidL

BNP are dead, its just that the funeral rites have not been done. They were already so trivial that they will make little difference to UKIP who have bigger fish to fry.

Sunil_Prasannan

AndyJS said:

The BNP fielded only 8 candidates at the 2015 election compared to 338 in 2010.

And got only 1,667 votes, compared with 564,321 in 2010.

Richard_Nabavi

On topic: Already in the price. The BNP is dead as a dodo already.

Sunil_Prasannan

SimonStClare said:

Anyone know the BNP vote share in GE2015, a quick google has them lumped in with others.

1,667 divided by 30,691,680 x 100% = 0.005%

SimonStClare

Sunil_Prasannan said:

SimonStClare said:

Anyone know the BNP vote share in GE2015, a quick google has them lumped in with others.

1,667 divided by 30,691,680 x 100% = 0.005%

show off - and thanks Dr Blue.

Sunil_Prasannan

BNP vote share was 1.9% in 2010

564,321 divided by 29,687,604 x 100%



They only got 0.005% in 2015

rottenborough

The BNP may be finished but sadly there will be another, similar, party in due course. I read somewhere a few weeks ago that Pegida are planning to start up in UK.

AlastairMeeks

@PopulusPolls · 1m1 minute ago
#TTMN | #Flooding attracted the most attention this week (37%) followed by Corbyn's reshuffle (7%) & #SianBlake (6%)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYNtS5TWMAESkC3.jpg

This should put the intense wonkish focus on the reshuffle into some form of perspective (though 7% is a fairly high figure for any purely political event, it should be acknowledged).

DavidL

Danny565 said:

FPT:

DavidL said:

Yes, I agree that is a non starter. But so is the Corbynite position of, well, we will just print the money. Moderate Labour need to get the conversation within the party back into the land of sanity. It isn't going to be easy but acknowledging that there is a price tag to proposed improvements is a step on the way.

Personally, what I think Labour should do before 2020 (well, probably not much point starting til after Corbyn goes) is focus like a laser on specific examples of wasteful spending: public-sector bosses being paid too much, unnecessary perks for public-sector workers (like travel expenses or hotel stays), badly-negotiated PFI contracts, genuine welfare cheats who could be working. Then say that a future Labour government would launch a website which would give people the ability to track more closely what exactly government expenditure was going towards.

One thing that was striking to me so often in the run-up to the election when people would be talking about Labour overspending, they often weren't really talking about the deficit but about those specific examples of largesse. Apparently, even in Scottish focus groups, people would often be castigating Labour for signing up to austerity, then the very next minute criticising the last Labour government for certain things they wasted spending on: they didn't see a contradiction between them.

IMO, if/when Labour have demonstrated that they won't tolerate wasted spending, and that they will give the public more oversight into exactly where the money is going, then they can win an argument for higher spending if people are persuaded that that extra money will go towards real public services and to people in genuine need. What definitely isn't going to work is if Labour allow the "economic credibility" debate to be conducted on the Tories' terms: that it's all about how big the deficit is, what % of GDP spending accounts for, that increasing taxes on the rich is all "politics of envy", that all welfare spending is going to undeserved scroungers (rather than the scroungers being only a minority of welfare recipients), etcetc.

Well, good luck. I fear that the idea of Labour as the champions of thrift and careful spending is going to be a hell of a sell.

I think they need to get off the harder economics and ask what kind of a country do we want to live in? As Universal Credit comes in there are going to be many, many examples of genuine hardship. But they need to be honest and accept that better welfare = higher taxes and not just for bankers.

Morris_Dancer

This is just the epitaph. The BNP has been a dead duck for a while now.

Sunil_Prasannan

BNP + UKIP in 2010 = 1.9 + 3.1 = 5.0% in 2010

BNP + UKIP in 2015 = 0.005 + 12.6 = 12.605% in 2015

JBriskin

Sunil_Prasannan said:

BNP + UKIP in 2010 = 1.9 + 3.1 = 5.0% in 2010

BNP + UKIP in 2015 = 0.005 + 12.6 = 12.605% in 2015

I can spot an outlier their...

Sandpit

Danny565 said:

FPT:

DavidL said:

.

Personally, what I think Labour should do before 2020 (well, probably not much point starting til after Corbyn goes) is focus like a laser on specific examples of wasteful spending: public-sector bosses being paid too much, unnecessary perks for public-sector workers (like travel expenses or hotel stays), badly-negotiated PFI contracts, genuine welfare cheats who could be working. Then say that a future Labour government would launch a website which would give people the ability to track more closely what exactly government expenditure was going towards.

One thing that was striking to me so often in the run-up to the election when people would be talking about Labour overspending, they often weren't really talking about the deficit but about those specific examples of largesse. Apparently, even in Scottish focus groups, people would often be castigating Labour for signing up to austerity, then the very next minute criticising the last Labour government for certain things they wasted spending on: they didn't see a contradiction between them.

IMO, if/when Labour have demonstrated that they won't tolerate wasted spending, and that they will give the public more oversight into exactly where the money is going, then they can win an argument for higher spending if people are persuaded that that extra money will go towards real public services and to people in genuine need. What definitely isn't going to work is if Labour allow the "economic credibility" debate to be conducted on the Tories' terms: that it's all about how big the deficit is, what % of GDP spending accounts for, that increasing taxes on the rich is all "politics of envy", that all welfare spending is going to undeserved scroungers (rather than the scroungers being only a minority of welfare recipients), etcetc.

Agree that there's room for an honest left wing agenda, that the state should be more involved in people's lives and that higher government spending is a good thing.

What there's no room for is Brown and Miliband's view that the higher spending doesn't require higher taxes, or that massive tax rises can be imposed on a small number of rich people who will just pay up without changing behaviour.

A sensible Labour policy platform for Corbyn's successor might be that health and education or key policy X require a £30bn improvement, we will pay for this by raising the 20p tax rate to 22p and dropping the 40p threshold by £5k. That is an honest and coherent message, rather than the belief in the magic money tree of the last half a dozen years.

foxinsoxuk

FPT:

Point of Order!

The Puritans were often in favour of religious toleration, and this was the outcome of the Putney Debates, in effect the revolutionary council of the Parliamentary forces:

http://www.putneydebates.com/Religious Freedom.html

Indeed it was not just Christian beliefs that were tolerated, Oliver Cromwell permitted Jews to return to Britain (having been expelled in the medival period).

The Mayflower sailed to Massachussets in 1620 when the Church of England was quite Anglo Catholic High Church.

Similarly the Quakers left for the American Colonies in the 1680's after the Church of England was restored and again becoming High Church.

I think that Puritans are a diverse bunch, but the depiction of Puritans as persecutors is less accurate than them as persecuted...

I write as an English Dissenter ;-)

AlastairMeeks

@Danny565 The contradictory examples you gave are symptomatic of a wider mistrust of Labour making the right decisions about using public money.

One side-effect of Jeremy Corbyn's election is that Labour is for the while practically obliged to fight on an anti-austerity basis. In my view Labour needs to commit firmly to increasing taxation beyond what the Conservatives would do in return for additional increases in public spending/deficit reduction. The public aren't prepared to buy a gold watch for a dollar and think that's what Labour is trying to sell it. They might be prepared to pay fair value though.

Wanderer

Danny565 said:

IMO, if/when Labour have demonstrated that they won't tolerate wasted spending, and that they will give the public more oversight into exactly where the money is going, then they can win an argument for higher spending if people are persuaded that that extra money will go towards real public services and to people in genuine need. What definitely isn't going to work is if Labour allow the "economic credibility" debate to be conducted on the Tories' terms: that it's all about how big the deficit is, what % of GDP spending accounts for, that increasing taxes on the rich is all "politics of envy", that all welfare spending is going to undeserved scroungers (rather than the scroungers being only a minority of welfare recipients), etcetc.

In the same vein I think Labour needs not to be seen as the mouthpiece of public sector unions, though that's a touchy area. The public would like to be reassured that higher spending doesn't just mean public sector wage inflation.

Something Labour might also consider, if it can get back into office, is the front-of-house aspect of the state. What is the user experience like when you meet the NHS, Passport Office, Police, HMRC etc? If citizens find that in every case they get efficient, fast, courteous treatment they might start to look much more favourably on state agencies as a whole. (From my experience the Passport Office are brilliant. If every arm of the British state were like that I would be much more relaxed about higher public spending.)

HurstLlama

DavidL said:

... But they [Labour] need to be honest and accept that better welfare = higher taxes and not just for bankers.

Indeed, and they need to address the point that dosh given by HMG to people who haven't earned it has to be taken from people who have and who won't be getting it. A problem that is only solvable as long as there is the sense of fairness (something that is often lacking.

DavidL

Sandpit said:

Danny565 said:

FPT:

DavidL said:

.

.

Agree that there's room for an honest left wing agenda, that the state should be more involved in people's lives and that higher government spending is a good thing.

What there's no room for is Brown and Miliband's view that the higher spending doesn't require higher taxes, or that massive tax rises can be imposed on a small number of rich people who will just pay up without changing behaviour.

A sensible Labour policy platform for Corbyn's successor might be that health and education or key policy X require a £30bn improvement, we will pay for this by raising the 20p tax rate to 22p and dropping the 40p threshold by £5k. That is an honest and coherent message, rather than the belief in the magic money tree of the last half a dozen years.

Exactly. Labour are still running scared of the tax bombshell poster after all these years but it is possible the mood has moved on. If the Tories are offering lower taxes but much lower public spending they just might be vulnerable.

What Labour cannot afford is another refusal to have a spending review pre 2010, the absurd multiple promises on the bankers bonus tax and the sheer lunacy of peoples QE. They need to get serious and start acting as if they were a potential government again, just like Brown and Blair did pre-1997.

Scott_P

@Maomentum_: Honoured to be asked by @jeremycorbyn to draft report on who will be to blame for loss of 2020 election.

Philip_Thompson

Richard_Nabavi said:

On topic: Already in the price. The BNP is dead as a dodo already.

Exactly. UKIP have already gained the over half a million votes the BNP lost last time. The 1667 remaining won't make any difference to anyone.

runnymede

'The Puritans were often in favour of religious toleration'

No- they were in favour of religious freedom for themselves and occasionally that necessitated by madcap theories about the end of the world (which were behind letting the Jews back in).

They certainly weren't in favour of toleration of Catholics. And you might want to consider how 'tolerant' the state they set up in Massachusetts was...(clue: not very).

DavidL

So, not so hard to sort out Labour then. Pretty much a consensus.

They just need to find a way to get rid of that prat.

Richard_Nabavi

DavidL said:

So, not so hard to sort out Labour then. Pretty much a consensus.

They just need to find a way to get rid of that prat.

I have an idea! They could hold a leadership contest and choose from some of the more credible MPs such as Yvette Copper, Liz Kendall, Tristram Hunt, Chuka Umunna...

Yorkcity

You could imagine a Corbyn government selling infrastructure to the communists and asking them to build our nuclear energy plants.

Wanderer

Yorkcity said:

You could imagine a Corbyn government selling infrastructure to the communists and asking them to build our nuclear energy plants.

Actually I can't imagine a Corbyn government building nuclear plants at all. Back to coal, no?

rcs1000

Sunil_Prasannan said:

AndyJS said:

The BNP fielded only 8 candidates at the 2015 election compared to 338 in 2010.

And got only 1,667 votes, compared with 564,321 in 2010.

LibDems outpolled BNP!

Who says they are dead?

DavidL

Richard_Nabavi said:

DavidL said:

So, not so hard to sort out Labour then. Pretty much a consensus.

They just need to find a way to get rid of that prat.

I have an idea! They could hold a leadership contest and choose from some of the more credible MPs such as Yvette Copper, Liz Kendall, Tristram Hunt, Chuka Umunna...

I am not entirely sure you are putting your heart into this Richard.

From the previous thread I think you are setting the bar too high for Out but I do agree that there has to be a sense of direction. We don't know and won't know the details of any potential bespoke agreement with the EU but we should have a consensus about whether we are to be in the EEA or out of it which will set a number of parameters.

For me, membership of the EEA should work like the kind of Associate membership we have not managed to negotiate from the inside. If that is on the table I want it.

kle4

runnymede said:

'The Puritans were often in favour of religious toleration'

No- they were in favour of religious freedom for themselves and occasionally that necessitated by madcap theories about the end of the world (which were behind letting the Jews back in).

They certainly weren't in favour of toleration of Catholics. And you might want to consider how 'tolerant' the state they set up in Massachusetts was...(clue: not very).

Virtually no one was in favour of toleration of Catholics back then, the Puritans were hardly unique in that respect. In some respects they were less tolerant than the mainstream, but in others more, as the proliferation of those 'madcap theorists' you refer to during those years as a byproduct of the upheaval and, intentional or otherwise, freedom to theorise showed. The freedom for themselves did mean some more for others, more than the previous regime might have been happy with.

GarethoftheVale2

Wanderer said:

Danny565 said:

In the same vein I think Labour needs not to be seen as the mouthpiece of public sector unions, though that's a touchy area. The public would like to be reassured that higher spending doesn't just mean public sector wage inflation.

This is the key problem. Let us suppose that there is an efficiency that means job centres can do the same amount of work with 10% fewer staff.

The Tory approach would probably be to make 10% of job centre staff redundant and hope they find new jobs in the private sector
For Labour, this is a lot more problematic as the Unions are not going to want to see their members lose their jobs and are not going to want to see these people move into non-unionised jobs

DavidL

rcs1000 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

AndyJS said:

The BNP fielded only 8 candidates at the 2015 election compared to 338 in 2010.

And got only 1,667 votes, compared with 564,321 in 2010.

LibDems outpolled BNP!

Who says they are dead?

You have a better definition?

Sandpit

DavidL said:

So, not so hard to sort out Labour then. Pretty much a consensus.

They just need to find a way to get rid of that prat.

Sensible Labour people should be talking to people who voted for them in 2001 and Conservative in 2010. We can all see that Corbyn won't have a conversation with anyone who disagrees with him, but those who wish Labour to be electable should be working on policies that appeal to those who switched from Blair to Cameron. Some sensible ideas from @Danny565 today but a lot more needed from where that came.

DavidL

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

So, not so hard to sort out Labour then. Pretty much a consensus.

They just need to find a way to get rid of that prat.

Sensible Labour people should be talking to people who voted for them in 2001 and Conservative in 2010. We can all see that Corbyn won't have a conversation with anyone who disagrees with him, but those who wish Labour to be electable should be working on policies that appeal to those who switched from Blair to Cameron. Some sensible ideas from @Danny565 today but a lot more needed from where that came.

Back in the 90s the Tories delivered a successful economy but it was successful for the few, not the many. Those that were dependent upon the State received services which were impoverished by the fact those services had been starved of money for too long. We desperately needed more new schools, hospitals and the staff to man them.

I personally think Osborne gets that which is why so much of his deficit reduction has been based on higher taxes rather than spending cuts and he has been attacked far more from the right than the left. But it is entirely possible that a post referendum Tory party seeing an apparently unelectable opposition might repeat the 1990s mistake and cut too far to fund tax cuts.

In that scenario we need a credible and electable alternative that is not going to wreak the joint. Labour could be that party but they have a hell of a lot of work to do.

Kinga

Just heard a 'talking head' on R5L claim that today is the day that alcohol begins being treated like tobacco and drinkers are treated like smokers.

Presumably the SNP will trail blaze with legislation banning drinking in pubs?

Sandpit

GarethoftheVale2 said:

Wanderer said:

Danny565 said:

In the same vein I think Labour needs not to be seen as the mouthpiece of public sector unions, though that's a touchy area. The public would like to be reassured that higher spending doesn't just mean public sector wage inflation.

This is the key problem. Let us suppose that there is an efficiency that means job centres can do the same amount of work with 10% fewer staff.

The Tory approach would probably be to make 10% of job centre staff redundant and hope they find new jobs in the private sector
For Labour, this is a lot more problematic as the Unions are not going to want to see their members lose their jobs and are not going to want to see these people move into non-unionised jobs

A good point about the union link, I wonder if the SDP2 route for moderate Labour might not help distance themselves from the worst of the union movement, which is now pretty much confined to the public sector. Some fiscal credibility for the centre-left agenda could be gained if the general public thought that increased spending would go into improved services rather than raising salaries and increasing bureaucracy.

Yorkcity

Wanderer said:

Yorkcity said:

You could imagine a Corbyn government selling infrastructure to the communists and asking them to build our nuclear energy plants.

Actually I can't imagine a Corbyn government building nuclear plants at all. Back to coal, no?

No coal its to northern, more wind and and waves me thinks.

Conservatives sell to to communists and ask them to build our plants.
Nixon and Osborne have a lot in common.

AndyJS

O/T:

"Unprecedented sex harassment in Helsinki at New Year, Finnish police report
Finnish police 'tipped off' about plans by groups of asylum seekers to sexually harass women

“This phenomenon is new in Finnish sexual crime history,” Ilkka Koskimaki, the deputy chief of police in Helsinki, told the Telegraph. ”We have never before had this kind of sexual harrassment happening at New Year’s Eve.”
He said that the police had received tip-offs from staff at the asylum reception centres."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/finland/12088332/Unprecedented-sex-harassment-in-Helsinki-at-New-Year-Finnish-police-report.html

malcolmg

Kinga said:

Just heard a 'talking head' on R5L claim that today is the day that alcohol begins being treated like tobacco and drinkers are treated like smokers.

Presumably the SNP will trail blaze with legislation banning drinking in pubs?

You turnip head , hardly be SNP policy on R5L, it speaks to divvies down south like yourself that are too thick to be able to think for themselves.

TCPoliticalBetting

I note that the no drinking advocate in the media bears a resemblance to Tootsie.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/09/people-mental-health-problems-need-more-support-work-dame-sally-davies

http://free981.com/files/2013/07/DustinHoffmanTootsie-430x244.jpg

Have they been seen together?

dr_spyn

Flying Scotsman on BBC News.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35259914

TCPoliticalBetting

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

AndyJS said:

The BNP fielded only 8 candidates at the 2015 election compared to 338 in 2010.

And got only 1,667 votes, compared with 564,321 in 2010.

LibDems outpolled BNP!

Who says they are dead?

You have a better definition?

Not dead, the Lib Dems are merely resting.
They are easy to stun.

DecrepitJohnL

DavidL said:

Back in the 90s the Tories delivered a successful economy but it was successful for the few, not the many. Those that were dependent upon the State received services which were impoverished by the fact those services had been starved of money for too long. We desperately needed more new schools, hospitals and the staff to man them.

I'm not sure that is right. The 1980s maybe but in the 90s, homeowners were crippled by negative equity and high interest rates, which also hit many businesses. The Tories lost because their own supporters had been clobbered and salt was rubbed in their wounds when Black Wednesday rendered their sacrifices futile.

Edit: snipped the bit I was not replying to.

MattW

dr_spyn said:

Flying Scotsman on BBC News.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35259914

Nice job, but the livery appears to have been devolved.

I say it should be green.

NickPalmer

kle4 said:

runnymede said:

'The Puritans were often in favour of religious toleration'

No- they were in favour of religious freedom for themselves and occasionally that necessitated by madcap theories about the end of the world (which were behind letting the Jews back in).

They certainly weren't in favour of toleration of Catholics. And you might want to consider how 'tolerant' the state they set up in Massachusetts was...(clue: not very).

Virtually no one was in favour of toleration of Catholics back then, the Puritans were hardly unique in that respect. In some respects they were less tolerant than the mainstream, but in others more, as the proliferation of those 'madcap theorists' you refer to during those years as a byproduct of the upheaval and, intentional or otherwise, freedom to theorise showed. The freedom for themselves did mean some more for others, more than the previous regime might have been happy with.

I recommend the early books by C J Sansom for a good, sensitive portrayal of the period (the hero being a moderate Protestant who works for Cromwell but is increasingly disturbed by the purges). The latter books run out of steam a bit, I think, but the early ones are really atmospheric and give an impression of authenticity (how true that is I wouldn't know).

Chris_A

No need for the BNP to exist now, they've got UKIP to vote for.

MarkHopkins

NickPalmer said:

kle4 said:

runnymede said:

'The Puritans were often in favour of religious toleration'

No- they were in favour of religious freedom for themselves and occasionally that necessitated by madcap theories about the end of the world (which were behind letting the Jews back in).

They certainly weren't in favour of toleration of Catholics. And you might want to consider how 'tolerant' the state they set up in Massachusetts was...(clue: not very).

Virtually no one was in favour of toleration of Catholics back then, the Puritans were hardly unique in that respect. In some respects they were less tolerant than the mainstream, but in others more, as the proliferation of those 'madcap theorists' you refer to during those years as a byproduct of the upheaval and, intentional or otherwise, freedom to theorise showed. The freedom for themselves did mean some more for others, more than the previous regime might have been happy with.

I recommend the early books by C J Sansom for a good, sensitive portrayal of the period (the hero being a moderate Protestant who works for Cromwell but is increasingly disturbed by the purges). The latter books run out of steam a bit, I think, but the early ones are really atmospheric and give an impression of authenticity (how true that is I wouldn't know).

"how true that is I wouldn't know"

And I thought you were an expert on purges.

NickPalmer

AlastairMeeks said:

@Danny565 The contradictory examples you gave are symptomatic of a wider mistrust of Labour making the right decisions about using public money.

One side-effect of Jeremy Corbyn's election is that Labour is for the while practically obliged to fight on an anti-austerity basis. In my view Labour needs to commit firmly to increasing taxation beyond what the Conservatives would do in return for additional increases in public spending/deficit reduction. The public aren't prepared to buy a gold watch for a dollar and think that's what Labour is trying to sell it. They might be prepared to pay fair value though.

Yes, I think that's right.

Incidentally, the Passport Office (quoted by Sandpit as an example of good public service) was also a good example of a big computer project in the public sector which went smoothly and delivered what was expected. It would be interesting to compare with others and try to spot what they did right.

SimonStClare

MattW said:

dr_spyn said:

Flying Scotsman on BBC News.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35259914

Nice job, but the livery appears to have been devolved.

I say it should be green.

An earlier BBC report I read on Flying Scotsman said the final paintjob will be green – not sure I like the wingy things at the front stuck on each side tho.

kle4

NickPalmer said:

kle4 said:

runnymede said:

'The Puritans were often in favour of religious toleration'

No- they were in favour of religious freedom for themselves and occasionally that necessitated by madcap theories about the end of the world (which were behind letting the Jews back in).

They certainly weren't in favour of toleration of Catholics. And you might want to consider how 'tolerant' the state they set up in Massachusetts was...(clue: not very).

Virtually no one was in favour of toleration of Catholics back then, the Puritans were hardly unique in that respect. In some respects they were less tolerant than the mainstream, but in others more, as the proliferation of those 'madcap theorists' you refer to during those years as a byproduct of the upheaval and, intentional or otherwise, freedom to theorise showed. The freedom for themselves did mean some more for others, more than the previous regime might have been happy with.

I recommend the early books by C J Sansom for a good, sensitive portrayal of the period (the hero being a moderate Protestant who works for Cromwell but is increasingly disturbed by the purges). The latter books run out of steam a bit, I think, but the early ones are really atmospheric and give an impression of authenticity (how true that is I wouldn't know).

Appreciated

Yorkcity

TCPoliticalBetting said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

AndyJS said:

The BNP fielded only 8 candidates at the 2015 election compared to 338 in 2010.

And got only 1,667 votes, compared with 564,321 in 2010.

LibDems outpolled BNP!

Who says they are dead?

You have a better definition?

Not dead, the Lib Dems are merely resting.
They are easy to stun.

Resting from the effects of supporting the Conservatives.
Might take a long time to recuperate.
A stong dose of Corbyn followed by a reminder of permanent tory rule , might assist their health at least in the south west.

Sandpit

NickPalmer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@Danny565 The contradictory examples you gave are symptomatic of a wider mistrust of Labour making the right decisions about using public money.

One side-effect of Jeremy Corbyn's election is that Labour is for the while practically obliged to fight on an anti-austerity basis. In my view Labour needs to commit firmly to increasing taxation beyond what the Conservatives would do in return for additional increases in public spending/deficit reduction. The public aren't prepared to buy a gold watch for a dollar and think that's what Labour is trying to sell it. They might be prepared to pay fair value though.

Yes, I think that's right.

Incidentally, the Passport Office (quoted by Sandpit as an example of good public service) was also a good example of a big computer project in the public sector which went smoothly and delivered what was expected. It would be interesting to compare with others and try to spot what they did right.

It was Mr @Wanderer who mentioned the Passport office. I am pleased to hear the service was good though, as I need to renew mine from abroad next month!

Public sector IT projects have always been a nightmare, so let's learn from the good ones. If I were to take a guess it would be that the project was split into smaller phases each with key deliverables, and that the project once underway wasn't subject to scope creep or political interference.

TCPoliticalBetting

Kinga said:

Just heard a 'talking head' on R5L claim that today is the day that alcohol begins being treated like tobacco and drinkers are treated like smokers.

Presumably the SNP will trail blaze with legislation banning drinking in pubs?

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/last-orders-one-pub-closes-6389801
"Waterson, chief executive of the Scottish Licensed Trade Association (SLTA), says the rate of pub closures has gone from three a week to seven since the new drink-drive limit."

DavidL

DecrepitJohnL said:

DavidL said:

Back in the 90s the Tories delivered a successful economy but it was successful for the few, not the many. Those that were dependent upon the State received services which were impoverished by the fact those services had been starved of money for too long. We desperately needed more new schools, hospitals and the staff to man them.

I'm not sure that is right. The 1980s maybe but in the 90s, homeowners were crippled by negative equity and high interest rates, which also hit many businesses. The Tories lost because their own supporters had been clobbered and salt was rubbed in their wounds when Black Wednesday rendered their sacrifices futile.

Edit: snipped the bit I was not replying to.

By 1995 things were much better. I certainly remember my mortgage in the early 90s and my brother had a house repossessed after he lost his job. But the determination to keep public spending under control was very strong and, in my view as something of a wet, somewhat unbalanced. Labour went far, far too far the other way of course.

foxinsoxuk

runnymede said:

'The Puritans were often in favour of religious toleration'

No- they were in favour of religious freedom for themselves and occasionally that necessitated by madcap theories about the end of the world (which were behind letting the Jews back in).

They certainly weren't in favour of toleration of Catholics. And you might want to consider how 'tolerant' the state they set up in Massachusetts was...(clue: not very).

See my link to the Putney Debates below. The Independents that dominated the Debates were in favour of religious tolerance.

http://www.putneydebates.com/Religious Freedom.html

The re-admission of Jews was more due to financial reasons than millenialist reasons, though the combination worked.

It is worth noting that Catholics were not very tolerant at the time either. The 30 years war 1618-1648 dominated the continent at the same time period. It started because the Catholic Hapsburgs wanted to force Catholicism on their Protestant subjects, while in Southern Europe the Spanish Inquisition was suppressing crypto-Judaism and crypto-Islam in Iberia.

It suited the writers of the Restoration period to depict the Commonwealth as an oppressive period. The Incoming Charles the Second passed the Clarendon Acts to enforce Anglican worship on Dissenters.

http://www.britainexpress.com/History/stuart/clarendon-code.htm

It wasn't really until after the Glorious Revolution that England started to move in the direction of religious tolerance. It took until 1832 for Catholic emancipification, but the Puritans were not in charge during 1660-1830!

Kinga

malcolmg said:

Kinga said:

Just heard a 'talking head' on R5L claim that today is the day that alcohol begins being treated like tobacco and drinkers are treated like smokers.

Presumably the SNP will trail blaze with legislation banning drinking in pubs?

You turnip head , hardly be SNP policy on R5L, it speaks to divvies down south like yourself that are too thick to be able to think for themselves.

Clearly it comes as no surprise that PB's favourite dipsomaniac engages his irony by-pass and thrashes out in defence of the sainted Nicola with rather obvious haranguing based on his preferred root vegetable.

Whilst an ignorance of relative geography is no excuse, I will however make allowances based on the distance of the sun beyond the yardarm and let him get back to his meths-Buckie cocktails without engaging further in couthy badinage.

TCPoliticalBetting

DavidL said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

DavidL said:

Back in the 90s the Tories delivered a successful economy but it was successful for the few, not the many. Those that were dependent upon the State received services which were impoverished by the fact those services had been starved of money for too long. We desperately needed more new schools, hospitals and the staff to man them.

I'm not sure that is right. The 1980s maybe but in the 90s, homeowners were crippled by negative equity and high interest rates, which also hit many businesses. The Tories lost because their own supporters had been clobbered and salt was rubbed in their wounds when Black Wednesday rendered their sacrifices futile.

Edit: snipped the bit I was not replying to.

By 1995 things were much better. I certainly remember my mortgage in the early 90s and my brother had a house repossessed after he lost his job. But the determination to keep public spending under control was very strong and, in my view as something of a wet, somewhat unbalanced. Labour went far, far too far the other way of course.

The problem was the "wet" adoption of ERM. The fear of a return to 1970s inflation just made matters worse.

Charles

NickPalmer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@Danny565 The contradictory examples you gave are symptomatic of a wider mistrust of Labour making the right decisions about using public money.

One side-effect of Jeremy Corbyn's election is that Labour is for the while practically obliged to fight on an anti-austerity basis. In my view Labour needs to commit firmly to increasing taxation beyond what the Conservatives would do in return for additional increases in public spending/deficit reduction. The public aren't prepared to buy a gold watch for a dollar and think that's what Labour is trying to sell it. They might be prepared to pay fair value though.

Yes, I think that's right.

Incidentally, the Passport Office (quoted by Sandpit as an example of good public service) was also a good example of a big computer project in the public sector which went smoothly and delivered what was expected. It would be interesting to compare with others and try to spot what they did right.

Bet you it is down to it being a standalone project with relatively limited interactivity with other functions and no "mission creep" or redefinition of objectives midway through.

Small is beautiful

http://www.amazon.com/Small-Is-Beautiful-Economics-Mattered/dp/0060916303

Wanderer

NickPalmer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@Danny565 The contradictory examples you gave are symptomatic of a wider mistrust of Labour making the right decisions about using public money.

One side-effect of Jeremy Corbyn's election is that Labour is for the while practically obliged to fight on an anti-austerity basis. In my view Labour needs to commit firmly to increasing taxation beyond what the Conservatives would do in return for additional increases in public spending/deficit reduction. The public aren't prepared to buy a gold watch for a dollar and think that's what Labour is trying to sell it. They might be prepared to pay fair value though.

Yes, I think that's right.

Incidentally, the Passport Office (quoted by Sandpit as an example of good public service) was also a good example of a big computer project in the public sector which went smoothly and delivered what was expected. It would be interesting to compare with others and try to spot what they did right.

It was me actually (or maybe both of us).

And yes, I agree the public sector should analyse successes at least as much as failures, figure out what went right and repeat it.

What I like about the Passport Office, btw, is that if you use the fast-track service they are intimidatingly efficient. If NHS appointments could catch some of that...

richardDodd

I have read all of C J Sansoms books..impatient for the next one..which deals with the Elizabethan era..

DavidL

TCPoliticalBetting said:

DavidL said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

DavidL said:

Back in the 90s the Tories delivered a successful economy but it was successful for the few, not the many. Those that were dependent upon the State received services which were impoverished by the fact those services had been starved of money for too long. We desperately needed more new schools, hospitals and the staff to man them.

I'm not sure that is right. The 1980s maybe but in the 90s, homeowners were crippled by negative equity and high interest rates, which also hit many businesses. The Tories lost because their own supporters had been clobbered and salt was rubbed in their wounds when Black Wednesday rendered their sacrifices futile.

Edit: snipped the bit I was not replying to.

By 1995 things were much better. I certainly remember my mortgage in the early 90s and my brother had a house repossessed after he lost his job. But the determination to keep public spending under control was very strong and, in my view as something of a wet, somewhat unbalanced. Labour went far, far too far the other way of course.

The problem was the "wet" adoption of ERM. The fear of a return to 1970s inflation just made matters worse.

We got chucked out of the ERM in 1992. Things got better after that. With hindsight I would agree they were obsessive about inflation but you had to remember what they had grown up with in the 1970s. That was indeed scary.

flightpath01

'decline in BNP is good news for Farage' .

Huh?

DavidL

Anyway, off to my alcohol free dinner (the things I do to support this government). Many thanks for all the chat today.

Wanderer

Yorkcity said:

Wanderer said:

Yorkcity said:

You could imagine a Corbyn government selling infrastructure to the communists and asking them to build our nuclear energy plants.

Actually I can't imagine a Corbyn government building nuclear plants at all. Back to coal, no?

No coal its to northern, more wind and and waves me thinks.

Conservatives sell to to communists and ask them to build our plants.
Nixon and Osborne have a lot in common.

Those too, but I think Corbyn wants to reopen coal mines.

I wonder if John Adams would accept a commission to write an Osborne in China. QTWTAIN I suspect.

Sandpit

DavidL said:

Anyway, off to my alcohol free dinner (the things I do to support this government). Many thanks for all the chat today.

Have fun! I'm doing dry January and am being dragged to the pub to watch Liverpool get knocked out of the cup by a 3rd division team!

tlg86

SimonStClare said:

MattW said:

dr_spyn said:

Flying Scotsman on BBC News.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35259914

Nice job, but the livery appears to have been devolved.

I say it should be green.

An earlier BBC report I read on Flying Scotsman said the final paintjob will be green – not sure I like the wingy things at the front stuck on each side tho.

The livery of Flying Scotsman is contentious. Some think that the German smoke deflectors should only be seen with the BR Brunswick green livery. Others think that it should only be seen in the apple green of the LNER.

I'm not sure if it's true, but apparently Pete Waterman received hate mail when he had it painted in BR Green - the colour he remembered seeing it in as a child.

chestnut

Charles said:

NickPalmer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@Danny565 The contradictory examples you gave are symptomatic of a wider mistrust of Labour making the right decisions about using public money.

One side-effect of Jeremy Corbyn's election is that Labour is for the while practically obliged to fight on an anti-austerity basis. In my view Labour needs to commit firmly to increasing taxation beyond what the Conservatives would do in return for additional increases in public spending/deficit reduction. The public aren't prepared to buy a gold watch for a dollar and think that's what Labour is trying to sell it. They might be prepared to pay fair value though.

Yes, I think that's right.

Incidentally, the Passport Office (quoted by Sandpit as an example of good public service) was also a good example of a big computer project in the public sector which went smoothly and delivered what was expected. It would be interesting to compare with others and try to spot what they did right.

Bet you it is down to it being a standalone project with relatively limited interactivity with other functions and no "mission creep" or redefinition of objectives midway through.

Small is beautiful

http://www.amazon.com/Small-Is-Beautiful-Economics-Mattered/dp/0060916303

Indeed.

How complicated a process is providing a passport and arranging renewal?

Compare that to the gargantuan complexity of the welfare state or the tax code.

Every time they invent yet another new benefit or tax rule, it always comes with caveats, special dispensations etc.

watford30

Danny565 said:

FPT:

DavidL said:

Yes, I agree that is a non starter. But so is the Corbynite position of, well, we will just print the money. Moderate Labour need to get the conversation within the party back into the land of sanity. It isn't going to be easy but acknowledging that there is a price tag to proposed improvements is a step on the way.

Personally, what I think Labour should do before 2020 (well, probably not much point starting til after Corbyn goes) is focus like a laser on specific examples of wasteful spending: public-sector bosses being paid too much, unnecessary perks for public-sector workers (like travel expenses or hotel stays), badly-negotiated PFI contracts, genuine welfare cheats who could be working. Then say that a future Labour government would launch a website which would give people the ability to track more closely what exactly government expenditure was going towards.

... snip...

Why would the Labour party want to focus attention on some of it's previous cock ups?

SimonStClare

tlg86 said:

SimonStClare said:

MattW said:

dr_spyn said:

Flying Scotsman on BBC News.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35259914

Nice job, but the livery appears to have been devolved.

I say it should be green.

An earlier BBC report I read on Flying Scotsman said the final paintjob will be green – not sure I like the wingy things at the front stuck on each side tho.

The livery of Flying Scotsman is contentious. Some think that the German smoke deflectors should only be seen with the BR Brunswick green livery. Others think that it should only be seen in the apple green of the LNER.

I'm not sure if it's true, but apparently Pete Waterman received hate mail when he had it painted in BR Green - the colour he remembered seeing it in as a child.

At a cost of £4.5 million to restore, I’d expect the damn thing to be gold plated. However, my childhoon memories are of it being LNER green too and that is my preferred choice.

Sandpit

chestnut said:

Charles said:

NickPalmer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@Danny565 The contradictory examples you gave are symptomatic of a wider mistrust of Labour making the right decisions about using public money.

One side-effect of Jeremy Corbyn's election is that Labour is for the while practically obliged to fight on an anti-austerity basis. In my view Labour needs to commit firmly to increasing taxation beyond what the Conservatives would do in return for additional increases in public spending/deficit reduction. The public aren't prepared to buy a gold watch for a dollar and think that's what Labour is trying to sell it. They might be prepared to pay fair value though.

Yes, I think that's right.

Incidentally, the Passport Office (quoted by Sandpit as an example of good public service) was also a good example of a big computer project in the public sector which went smoothly and delivered what was expected. It would be interesting to compare with others and try to spot what they did right.

Bet you it is down to it being a standalone project with relatively limited interactivity with other functions and no "mission creep" or redefinition of objectives midway through.

Small is beautiful

http://www.amazon.com/Small-Is-Beautiful-Economics-Mattered/dp/0060916303

Indeed.

How complicated a process is providing a passport and arranging renewal?

Compare that to the gargantuan complexity of the welfare state or the tax code.

Every time they invent yet another new benefit or tax rule, it always comes with caveats, special dispensations etc.

Which is a great reason to throw the tax code in the bin and start again, rather than the endless tweaks, allowances and exceptions which make for the massive book of tax code that we have to turn into rules for the computer every year. Universal Credit does the same for the benefits system, and it's nearly there a little late, but a massive achievement for IDS and his team.

There is a great opportunity for the government to make inroads into the too-difficult-to-do-and-still-be-elected list in the next couple of years, if Labour persist with Corbyn in charge.

JosiasJessop

MattW said:

dr_spyn said:

Flying Scotsman on BBC News.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35259914

Nice job, but the livery appears to have been devolved.

I say it should be green.

Ah, but what shade of green: Apple Green or Brunswick Green?

It is a question of vital importance to some people. Wartime black seems a suitable colour considering the locomotive's disastrous renovation.

TheWhiteRabbit

Republicans-wise, I can't make held nor tale of why Bush is at 10s. There's not state race that looks good for him (NH is the closest) and he trails by miles in most - and nationally. Sure, financially, he's got some staying power... but to what end. His national polling has been declining for months - and the caucuses tend to punish poor contenders.

TheWhiteRabbit

watford30 said:

Danny565 said:

FPT:

DavidL said:

Yes, I agree that is a non starter. But so is the Corbynite position of, well, we will just print the money. Moderate Labour need to get the conversation within the party back into the land of sanity. It isn't going to be easy but acknowledging that there is a price tag to proposed improvements is a step on the way.

Personally, what I think Labour should do before 2020 (well, probably not much point starting til after Corbyn goes) is focus like a laser on specific examples of wasteful spending: public-sector bosses being paid too much, unnecessary perks for public-sector workers (like travel expenses or hotel stays), badly-negotiated PFI contracts, genuine welfare cheats who could be working. Then say that a future Labour government would launch a website which would give people the ability to track more closely what exactly government expenditure was going towards.

... snip...

Why would the Labour party want to focus attention on some of it's previous cock ups?

They are not us, and we are not they.

Casino_Royale

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

So, not so hard to sort out Labour then. Pretty much a consensus.

That.

Sen

Back in the 90s the Tories delivered a successful economy but it was successful for the few, not the many. Those that were dependent upon the State received services which were impoverished by the fact those services had been starved of money for too long. We desperately needed more new schools, hospitals and the staff to man them.

I personally think Osborne gets that which is why so much of his deficit reduction has been based on higher taxes rather than spending cuts and he has been attacked far more from the right than the left. But it is entirely possible that a post referendum Tory party seeing an apparently unelectable opposition might repeat the 1990s mistake and cut too far to fund tax cuts.

In that scenario we need a credible and electable alternative that is not going to wreak the joint. Labour could be that party but they have a hell of a lot of work to do.

That post shows the effectiveness of New Labour's attack lines in the 1990s, but bears little resemblance to reality.

The vast majority of people were better off in the 1990s than they'd ever been before: housing was affordable and home ownership had reached an all-time high. Immigration wasn't even a blip of an issue.

Public spending on health, and education was never cut in real-terms and continued to increase throughout this period. Ken Clarke remained fiscally responsible during the 1990s and kept the spending trajectory on course for a budget balance rather than cut spending to fund tax cuts. Although he did manage to shave off a penny in 1996.

However, you are correct to say health & education spending was low by European standards and the electorate clearly voted in 1997 for more investment. There were plenty of 20+ year old portakabins at state schools substituting for proper classrooms and the waiting lists in many places in the NHS were just too long. Some more money was needed, but I strongly disliked Labour's "throw money at the problem" solution which just targeted a % GDP spending target and wasted billions.

Personally, I think Thatcher wasted an opportunity in the 1980s to seriously reform health, education and welfare (which is basically what Cameron is doing now) but then she had her hands pretty full trying to regear the whole country to a new economic paradigm and end the cold war. She could only fight so many battles at one time.

As far as I'm aware, Osborne has been following (to date) an 80/20 approach in closing the deficit (80% spending cuts and 20% tax rises) so I'm not sure he's relied as much on higher taxes as you make out.

AndyJS

flightpath01 said:

'decline in BNP is good news for Farage' .

Huh?

Since the BNP only polled 1,667 votes at the election I can't see how anyone is going to benefit from their final demise.

BigRich

Sandpit said:

chestnut said:

Charles said:

NickPalmer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@Danny565 The contradictory examples you gave are symptomatic of a wider mistrust of Labour making the right decisions about using public money.

One side-effect of Jeremy Corbyn's election is that Labour is for the while practically obliged to fight on an anti-austerity basis. In my view Labour needs to commit firmly to increasing taxation beyond what the Conservatives would do in return for additional increases in public spending/deficit reduction. The public aren't prepared to buy a gold watch for a dollar and think that's what Labour is trying to sell it. They might be prepared to pay fair value though.

Yes, I think that's right.

Incidentally, the Passport Office (quoted by Sandpit as an example of good public service) was also a good example of a big computer project in the public sector which went smoothly and delivered what was expected. It would be interesting to compare with others and try to spot what they did right.

Bet you it is down to it being a standalone project with relatively limited interactivity with other functions and no "mission creep" or redefinition of objectives midway through.

Small is beautiful

http://www.amazon.com/Small-Is-Beautiful-Economics-Mattered/dp/0060916303

Indeed.

How complicated a process is providing a passport and arranging renewal?

Compare that to the gargantuan complexity of the welfare state or the tax code.

Every time they invent yet another new benefit or tax rule, it always comes with caveats, special dispensations etc.

Which is a great reason to throw the tax code in the bin and start again, rather than the endless tweaks, allowances and exceptions which make for the massive book of tax code that we have to turn into rules for the computer every year. Universal Credit does the same for the benefits system, and it's nearly there a little late, but a massive achievement for IDS and his team.

There is a great opportunity for the government to make inroads into the too-difficult-to-do-and-still-be-elected list in the next couple of years, if Labour persist with Corbyn in charge.

Universal Welfare Payment, and a Flat Tax.

The Ultimate combination of 'to difficult to do in normal times' But would have immense and ongoing benefits to the economy and society in general.

flightpath01

Wanderer said:

NickPalmer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@Danny565 The contradictory examples you gave are symptomatic of a wider mistrust of Labour making the right decisions about using public money.

One side-effect of Jeremy Corbyn's election is that Labour is for the while practically obliged to fight on an anti-austerity basis. In my view Labour needs to commit firmly to increasing taxation beyond what the Conservatives would do in return for additional increases in public spending/deficit reduction. The public aren't prepared to buy a gold watch for a dollar and think that's what Labour is trying to sell it. They might be prepared to pay fair value though.

Yes, I think that's right.

Incidentally, the Passport Office (quoted by Sandpit as an example of good public service) was also a good example of a big computer project in the public sector which went smoothly and delivered what was expected. It would be interesting to compare with others and try to spot what they did right.

It was me actually (or maybe both of us).

And yes, I agree the public sector should analyse successes at least as much as failures, figure out what went right and repeat it.

What I like about the Passport Office, btw, is that if you use the fast-track service they are intimidatingly efficient. If NHS appointments could catch some of that...

My 90 yrs old mother in law was not well this morning and got an appointment late this afternoon.

I was called in for a standard check-up last month, triggered by may age. I totally forgot and was recently sent a new appointment. I am ashamed to say it was me who cocked up the NHS appointments system.

foxinsoxuk

AndyJS said:

flightpath01 said:

'decline in BNP is good news for Farage' .

Huh?

Since the BNP only polled 1,667 votes at the election I can't see how anyone is going to benefit from their final demise.

I think the benefit is largely banked by the Kippers. My look at your spreadsheet shows quite a strong correlation between BNP votes in 2010 and Kipper votes in 2015 in individual constituencies. We saw a similar phenomenon in the Oldham by election.

I do not think the two parties share much philosophy (I have never called kippers racists for example) but I think they both drink at the same well of dissatisfaction.

flightpath01

foxinsoxuk said:

runnymede said:

'The Puritans were often in favour of religious toleration'

No- they were in favour of religious freedom for themselves and occasionally that necessitated by madcap theories about the end of the world (which were behind letting the Jews back in).

They certainly weren't in favour of toleration of Catholics. And you might want to consider how 'tolerant' the state they set up in Massachusetts was...(clue: not very).

See my link to the Putney Debates below. The Independents that dominated the Debates were in favour of religious tolerance.

http://www.putneydebates.com/Religious Freedom.html

The re-admission of Jews was more due to financial reasons than millenialist reasons, though the combination worked.

It is worth noting that Catholics were not very tolerant at the time either. The 30 years war 1618-1648 dominated the continent at the same time period. It started because the Catholic Hapsburgs wanted to force Catholicism on their Protestant subjects, while in Southern Europe the Spanish Inquisition was suppressing crypto-Judaism and crypto-Islam in Iberia.

It suited the writers of the Restoration period to depict the Commonwealth as an oppressive period. The Incoming Charles the Second passed the Clarendon Acts to enforce Anglican worship on Dissenters.

http://www.britainexpress.com/History/stuart/clarendon-code.htm

It wasn't really until after the Glorious Revolution that England started to move in the direction of religious tolerance. It took until 1832 for Catholic emancipification, but the Puritans were not in charge during 1660-1830!

Never mind, Farage is all for Judeo Christian traditions. He has not yet made clear if it is the burning of Catholics side he favours or the burning of Protestants one.

Chris_A

Hunt's cunning stunt - very good http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/roshana-mehdian/hunts-cunning-stunt-a-guide_b_8938006.html

HYUFD

Florida 2016 GOP poll - Overtime Politics

Trump 32%
Cruz 21%
Rubio 18%
Bush 9%
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/07/key-state-florida-poll-donald-trump-32-beats-home-state-rubio-and-bush-combined/

HYUFD

Karl Rove in the Wall Street Journal

“Should Donald Trump, the current leader in most statewide and national polling, become the party’s pick, Rove predicted that the Democrats would maintain control of the White House for another four years and would also retake control of the Senate. The GOP’s overall share of seats in the House would also take a tumble, he added.
“However, if the Republican field is only two or three candidates by the March 15 primaries,” he also wrote, Trump will not be the Republican nominee. “If on the Ides of March someone wins both the winner-take-all primaries in Florida (by congressional district) and Ohio (statewide), that person will be the nominee.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/karl-rove-multi-ballot-gop-convention-217454

Sandpit

BigRich said:

Sandpit said:

chestnut said:

Charles said:

NickPalmer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@Danny565 The contradictory examples you gave are symptomatic of a wider mistrust of Labour making the right decisions about using public money.

One side-effect of Jeremy Corbyn's election is that Labour is for the while practically obliged to fight on an anti-austerity basis. In my view Labour needs to commit firmly to increasing taxation beyond what the Conservatives would do in return for additional increases in public spending/deficit reduction. The public aren't prepared to buy a gold watch for a dollar and think that's what Labour is trying to sell it. They might be prepared to pay fair value though.

Yes, I think that's right.

Incidentally, the Passport Office (quoted by Sandpit as an example of good public service) was also a good example of a big computer project in the public sector which went smoothly and delivered what was expected. It would be interesting to compare with others and try to spot what they did right.

Bet you it is down to it being a standalone project with relatively limited interactivity with other functions and no "mission creep" or redefinition of objectives midway through.

Small is beautiful

http://www.amazon.com/Small-Is-Beautiful-Economics-Mattered/dp/0060916303

Indeed.

How complicated a process is providing a passport and arranging renewal?

Compare that to the gargantuan complexity of the welfare state or the tax code.

Every time they invent yet another new benefit or tax rule, it always comes with caveats, special dispensations etc.

Which is a great reason to throw the tax code in the bin and start again, rather than the endless tweaks, allowances and exceptions which make for the massive book of tax code that we have to turn into rules for the computer every year. Universal Credit does the same for the benefits system, and it's nearly there a little late, but a massive achievement for IDS and his team.

There is a great opportunity for the government to make inroads into the too-difficult-to-do-and-still-be-elected list in the next couple of years, if Labour persist with Corbyn in charge.

Universal Welfare Payment, and a Flat Tax.

The Ultimate combination of 'to difficult to do in normal times' But would have immense and ongoing benefits to the economy and society in general.

Agree, but surely a universal welfare payment isn't compatible with EU membership, as it would allow nearly 500m people to come and claim it? It would only work if we left the EU and could restrict payments to immigrants at least for a qualifying period.

jayfdee

SimonStClare said:

tlg86 said:

SimonStClare said:

MattW said:

dr_spyn said:

Flying Scotsman on BBC News.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35259914

Nice job, but the livery appears to have been devolved.

I say it should be green.

An earlier BBC report I read on Flying Scotsman said the final paintjob will be green – not sure I like the wingy things at the front stuck on each side tho.

The livery of Flying Scotsman is contentious. Some think that the German smoke deflectors should only be seen with the BR Brunswick green livery. Others think that it should only be seen in the apple green of the LNER.

I'm not sure if it's true, but apparently Pete Waterman received hate mail when he had it painted in BR Green - the colour he remembered seeing it in as a child.

At a cost of £4.5 million to restore, I’d expect the damn thing to be gold plated. However, my childhoon memories are of it being LNER green too and that is my preferred choice.

Still whatever colour, I will be out looking for it on the Ribblehead viaduct. To think we nearly lost the Viaduct, it would have been extreme vandalism.

Pulpstar

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Republicans-wise, I can't make held nor tale of why Bush is at 10s. There's not state race that looks good for him (NH is the closest) and he trails by miles in most - and nationally. Sure, financially, he's got some staying power... but to what end. His national polling has been declining for months - and the caucuses tend to punish poor contenders.

Who knows - Rubio is finally back the right side of 2-1, though.

HYUFD

More Britons think the UK should support Assad remaining in power to defeat ISIS than oppose him by 35% to 26%. However Britons oppose sending ground troops by 44% to 33%
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/keep-assad-in-power-to-help-defeat-islamic-state-say-a-third-of-britons-a3151666.html

HYUFD

BigRich said:

Sandpit said:

chestnut said:

Charles said:

NickPalmer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@Danny565 The contradictory examples you gave are symptomatic of a wider mistrust of Labour making the right decisions about using public money.

One side-effect of Jeremy Corbyn's election is that Labour is for the while practically obliged to fight on an anti-austerity basis. In my view Labour needs to commit firmly to increasing taxation beyond what the Conservatives would do in return for additional increases in public spending/deficit reduction. The public aren't prepared to buy a gold watch for a dollar and think that's what Labour is trying to sell it. They might be prepared to pay fair value though.

Yes, I think that's right.

Incidentally, the Passport Office (quoted by Sandpit as an example of good public service) was also a good example of a big computer project in the public sector which went smoothly and delivered what was expected. It would be interesting to compare with others and try to spot what they did right.

Bet you it is down to it being a standalone project with relatively limited interactivity with other functions and no "mission creep" or redefinition of objectives midway through.

Small is beautiful

http://www.amazon.com/Small-Is-Beautiful-Economics-Mattered/dp/0060916303

Indeed.

How complicated a process is providing a passport and arranging renewal?

Compare that to the gargantuan complexity of the welfare state or the tax code.

Every time they invent yet another new benefit or tax rule, it always comes with caveats, special dispensations etc.

Which is a great reason to throw the tax code in the bin and start again, rather than the endless tweaks, allowances and exceptions which make for the massive book of tax code that we have to turn into rules for the computer every year. Universal Credit does the same for the benefits system, and it's nearly there a little late, but a massive achievement for IDS and his team.

There is a great opportunity for the government to make inroads into the too-difficult-to-do-and-still-be-elected list in the next couple of years, if Labour persist with Corbyn in charge.

Universal Welfare Payment, and a Flat Tax.

The Ultimate combination of 'to difficult to do in normal times' But would have immense and ongoing benefits to the economy and society in general.

A more contributions based welfare payment system would be better

Eh_ehm_a_eh

Kinga said:

malcolmg said:

Kinga said:

Just heard a 'talking head' on R5L claim that today is the day that alcohol begins being treated like tobacco and drinkers are treated like smokers.

Presumably the SNP will trail blaze with legislation banning drinking in pubs?

You turnip head , hardly be SNP policy on R5L, it speaks to divvies down south like yourself that are too thick to be able to think for themselves.

Clearly it comes as no surprise that PB's favourite dipsomaniac engages his irony by-pass and thrashes out in defence of the sainted Nicola with rather obvious haranguing based on his preferred root vegetable.

Whilst an ignorance of relative geography is no excuse, I will however make allowances based on the distance of the sun beyond the yardarm and let him get back to his meths-Buckie cocktails without engaging further in couthy badinage.

As Captain Flashheart would say "what a poof"

flightpath01

Yorkcity said:

You could imagine a Corbyn government selling infrastructure to the communists and asking them to build our nuclear energy plants.

The French are building our nuclear energy plant. China is putting up about 30% of the capital. There are two more plans being proposed at moment. One might be Chinese designed.
Its likely that these 3 stations would provide electricity of 18 million homes. Sadly Labour did nothing about building nuclear stations whilst in office and left us in something of an energy mess and no nuclear industry of our own. Various non Chinese investors were not forthcoming so who else should pay to keep our lights on?

Apparently China plans to build 110 nuclear plants .

Pulpstar

HYUFD said:

Karl Rove in the Wall Street Journal

“Should Donald Trump, the current leader in most statewide and national polling, become the party’s pick, Rove predicted that the Democrats would maintain control of the White House for another four years and would also retake control of the Senate. The GOP’s overall share of seats in the House would also take a tumble, he added.
“However, if the Republican field is only two or three candidates by the March 15 primaries,” he also wrote, Trump will not be the Republican nominee. “If on the Ides of March someone wins both the winner-take-all primaries in Florida (by congressional district) and Ohio (statewide), that person will be the nominee.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/karl-rove-multi-ballot-gop-convention-217454

GOP Panic lol

jayfdee

HYUFD said:

More Britons think the UK should support Assad remaining in power to defeat ISIS than oppose him by 35% to 26%. However Britons oppose sending ground troops by 44% to 33%
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/keep-assad-in-power-to-help-defeat-islamic-state-say-a-third-of-britons-a3151666.html

I tend to agree,these regimes, however obnoxious, seem to fare better under a strong dictator, rather than disparate rebel groups.Both solutions do not sit well with me, I also agree no UK ground forces.

HYUFD

Pulpstar said:

HYUFD said:

Karl Rove in the Wall Street Journal

“Should Donald Trump, the current leader in most statewide and national polling, become the party’s pick, Rove predicted that the Democrats would maintain control of the White House for another four years and would also retake control of the Senate. The GOP’s overall share of seats in the House would also take a tumble, he added.
“However, if the Republican field is only two or three candidates by the March 15 primaries,” he also wrote, Trump will not be the Republican nominee. “If on the Ides of March someone wins both the winner-take-all primaries in Florida (by congressional district) and Ohio (statewide), that person will be the nominee.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/karl-rove-multi-ballot-gop-convention-217454

GOP Panic lol

Confirms my view the Bush family will vote for Hillary in the privacy of the booth if Trump is the nominee

Big_G_NorthWales

Terrorist attack in Hurghada

david_herdson

jayfdee said:

SimonStClare said:

tlg86 said:

SimonStClare said:

MattW said:

dr_spyn said:

Flying Scotsman on BBC News.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35259914

Nice job, but the livery appears to have been devolved.

I say it should be green.

An earlier BBC report I read on Flying Scotsman said the final paintjob will be green – not sure I like the wingy things at the front stuck on each side tho.

The livery of Flying Scotsman is contentious. Some think that the German smoke deflectors should only be seen with the BR Brunswick green livery. Others think that it should only be seen in the apple green of the LNER.

I'm not sure if it's true, but apparently Pete Waterman received hate mail when he had it painted in BR Green - the colour he remembered seeing it in as a child.

At a cost of £4.5 million to restore, I’d expect the damn thing to be gold plated. However, my childhoon memories are of it being LNER green too and that is my preferred choice.

Still whatever colour, I will be out looking for it on the Ribblehead viaduct. To think we nearly lost the Viaduct, it would have been extreme vandalism.

You can thank Michael Portillo for that being saved (and a lot of campaign group work).

HYUFD

jayfdee said:

HYUFD said:

More Britons think the UK should support Assad remaining in power to defeat ISIS than oppose him by 35% to 26%. However Britons oppose sending ground troops by 44% to 33%
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/keep-assad-in-power-to-help-defeat-islamic-state-say-a-third-of-britons-a3151666.html

I tend to agree,these regimes, however obnoxious, seem to fare better under a strong dictator, rather than disparate rebel groups.Both solutions do not sit well with me, I also agree no UK ground forces.

Indeed though as a majority of Syria is Sunni and Assad is Shia, moderate Sunni rebels may be part of the solution

BigRich

Sandpit said:

BigRich said:

Sandpit said:

chestnut said:

Charles said:

NickPalmer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@Danny565 The contradictory examples you gave are symptomatic of a wider mistrust of Labour making the right decisions about using public money.

Incidentally, the Passport Office (quoted by Sandpit as an example of good public service) was also a good example of a big computer project in the public sector which went smoothly and delivered what was expected. It would be interesting to compare with others and try to spot what they did right.

http://www.amazon.com/Small-Is-Beautiful-Economics-Mattered/dp/0060916303

Indeed.

How complicated a process is providing a passport and arranging renewal?

Compare that to the gargantuan complexity of the welfare state or the tax code.

Every time they invent yet another new benefit or tax rule, it always comes with caveats, special dispensations etc.

Which is a great reason to throw the tax code in the bin and start again, rather than the endless tweaks, allowances and exceptions which make for the massive book of tax code that we have to turn into rules for the computer every year. Universal Credit does the same for the benefits system, and it's nearly there a little late, but a massive achievement for IDS and his team.

There is a great opportunity for the government to make inroads into the too-difficult-to-do-and-still-be-elected list in the next couple of years, if Labour persist with Corbyn in charge.

Universal Welfare Payment, and a Flat Tax.

The Ultimate combination of 'to difficult to do in normal times' But would have immense and ongoing benefits to the economy and society in general.

Agree, but surely a universal welfare payment isn't compatible with EU membership, as it would allow nearly 500m people to come and claim it? It would only work if we left the EU and could restrict payments to immigrants at least for a qualifying period.

Yes, entirely agree, however a UWP, limited to UK Nationals, and a Flt Tax paid by all who live/work in the UK. Would be a fantastic base line for a sane immigration policy, i.e.:

1) Not getting the UWP would only be a very minor deterrent to highly skilled person who had a skill set tat was in demand as the pay would be large in comparison.

2) Having to pay Income tax from the first pound earned to be a significant deterrent to mass economic migration.

3) But for a genuine refugee fleeing persecution economic factors do not really matter, and these people would then be recognised by the general population as contributing to the contrary without tacking benefits, and therefore more warmly integrated.

flightpath01

AlastairMeeks said:

@Danny565 The contradictory examples you gave are symptomatic of a wider mistrust of Labour making the right decisions about using public money.

One side-effect of Jeremy Corbyn's election is that Labour is for the while practically obliged to fight on an anti-austerity basis. In my view Labour needs to commit firmly to increasing taxation beyond what the Conservatives would do in return for additional increases in public spending/deficit reduction. The public aren't prepared to buy a gold watch for a dollar and think that's what Labour is trying to sell it. They might be prepared to pay fair value though.

Firstly the heavy lifting is already being done or has been done by Osborne and the coalition. This has still allowed lots of jobs to be created.

Secondly - really do you or anyone really believe in all this 'additional taxation to reduce the deficit' guff? How many times over how many decades have we been through all this.
Can you explain where some 50 billion of extra taxation would come from? Lets get real we are not talking piddling sums from labour.
That 50bn is there forever under labour, year on year extra spending. Once all that extra spending is there then any attempt not to spend it is labelled 'austerity'

Just how gullible are people.