Some good points worth debating re the merits or othewise. I'm in favour of MPs having second jobs - it keeps their hands in/skills/knowledge up to speed.
"...We should be going in precisely the opposite direction, paying MPs less, but encouraging them to have second jobs. No, let me rephrase that: being an MP should be your second job. Representatives should be compensated for their time Texas-style rather than making a living out of politics. The ideal, surely, is to have citizen-legislators, who give up their time out of a sense of patriotism and duty – much as, say, school governors do. Ah, you say, but they wouldn’t have time to do all the things they currently do. Yup: there’d be fewer laws.
Go back to the beginning of the twentieth century. Being an MP was a largely unremunerated part-time job, yet Parliament managed to oversee the greatest and most extensive empire the world has known. Here's what has happened to MPs' annual salaries since:
"More green shoots? Construction has expanded for a second month in a row, according to the latest Markit/CIPS construction PMI. It edged up to 51 in June, up from 50.8 in May. The index has slightly undershot expectations though, with economists having expected a reading of 51.2. "
With the better news on service exports the north sea is the only real drag factor for Q2. George in danger of looking smug again.
However my dander is certainly up with the frankly rotten opposition that Labour is providing. The nation deserves so much better and do you really believe in your heart that Ed and co are a viable government in waiting ?
For me the Labour report card says "Fail. Must do much better."
Hi Jack. I think you can be critical without using language like "mental health". I hate to be po-faced and I know you're trying to be witty, but PB has a troll problem and this sort of stuff just feeds them.
Honestly, I wouldn't know how to score Labour's report card. Clearly, Labour is deliberately and quite carefully positioning itself. It may not be popular, but that is what you do two years out. Tories may be making hay after a pretty hard 18 months, but they miss the point that these u-turns are clearly part of a plan. When Dave draws attention to them, it helps Ed.
In terms of expectations. After a defeat on the scale of 2010 (a sub 30% vote), the fact Labour are even in contention for 2015 is pretty remarkable. This may have nothing to do with the Labour party per se, but rather the unique circumstances of the LD vote collapse. EdM does deserve credit for forging a pretty happy, unified party.
Either way, we're in uncharted territory, with perhaps 1970 the closest analogue for Labour to aim at. IMO there are two years of events that will determine the result. The Scottish Ref alone is a massive unknown.
"Labour must face up to the obvious challenge not that they were incompetent and irresponsible with the money (although true) but that they created this monster out of choice. And that they’d do it again if they could. They ARE the party of the public sector, of the trade unions, of wild spending and debts. To be trustable with the public finances they need to change who they are and who they represent. Labour is no more the party of the working class than it is of the landed gentry. It IS the party of the state, by the state for the state."
I couldn't agree more - EdM is to me a political academic playing at being 'man of the people' - the wordy speeches that say nothing, the rhetoric that vanishes the following day after a bit of push back from unions and lobby groups - he's a phoney in a way Tony wasn't.
Tony was all things to all people most of the time - EdM isn't even that, he spouts and retracts again and again - I can't see who he is *for* at all. And the policy vacuum/flip-flopping is beyond credible at this stage.
I certainly don't see him as anything but a self-righteous suit with very little idea of how ordinary folks live. I never felt like this about say Kinnock, or Foot or Smith. I didn't think much of David M either - but he was a lot more eloquent and better on TV.
Until Labour stops toadying up to the public sector/unions - they're dead in the water to me. Whatever you think of Tony - he tried to break the mould re funding and it backfired - but he understood Labour's problem = the party of no aspiration, against business and choice.
Go back to the beginning of the twentieth century. Being an MP was a largely unremunerated part-time job, yet Parliament managed to oversee the greatest and most extensive empire the world has known. Here's what has happened to MPs' annual salaries since: /
Establishment Conservative on the MEP gravy train (pick your own prejudice from those three) advocates a system which favours the independently wealthy: people such as him.
Except Hannan's part time job is writing for the Telegraph. No financial pressure there to tow (and vote) the proprieter's line.
A leftwinger who called for a party when Lady Thatcher died, she is also said to be close to Len McCluskey, the Unite general secretary. Although sources at the union dismiss the rumours that she is his girlfriend as “gossip”, it is certainly true that she works in the office of Tom Watson, Labour’s deputy chairman, who was once Mr McCluskey’s flat-mate. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/rachelsylvester/article3805229.ece
She works for someone who was once (I'd guess 20 years ago) McCluskey's flatmate? Cor! That's pretty conclusive, eh? The Times reinvented as Heat magazine...
I don't really have a problem with unions or anyone else encouraging lots of people to join, unless they have a clear disagreement with the party and are seeking to overthrow the leadership (the Militant case). Obviously, though, only if they've agreed! I doubt if all the new members will in fact vote as a bloc - it's not my experience of union members.
Rather naive to think that Unite would pay the membership fees of people who then voted against the Unite candidate, isn't it?
The failure is one of leadership: the leader needs to state decisively which of these he endorses. For what it's worth, it seems too late to me to take the line that Polly Toynbee suggests today. Ed Miliband and Ed Balls have hesitated too much to make this believable by 2015.
A leftwinger who called for a party when Lady Thatcher died, she is also said to be close to Len McCluskey, the Unite general secretary. Although sources at the union dismiss the rumours that she is his girlfriend as “gossip”, it is certainly true that she works in the office of Tom Watson, Labour’s deputy chairman, who was once Mr McCluskey’s flat-mate. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/rachelsylvester/article3805229.ece
She works for someone who was once (I'd guess 20 years ago) McCluskey's flatmate? Cor! That's pretty conclusive, eh? The Times reinvented as Heat magazine...
I don't really have a problem with unions or anyone else encouraging lots of people to join, unless they have a clear disagreement with the party and are seeking to overthrow the leadership (the Militant case). Obviously, though, only if they've agreed! I doubt if all the new members will in fact vote as a bloc - it's not my experience of union members.
Rather naive to think that Unite would pay the membership fees of people who then voted against the Unite candidate, isn't it?
Rather naive to think that they were going to get a chance to say who they were voting for isn't it?
The story is garbage. Provincial Jewish newspapers live off stories of anti semitism. There's a new line of Jewish jokes which specialize in the genre.
Perhaps it is rubbish; it smells a little for the reasons I have given before. But surely you think any such allegation should be investigated?
Or are you saying that it is impossible, and should be ignored?
Should it be investigated? Yes
Should that investigation involve anything more than the senior officer on duty speaking to the individuals concerned and perhaps reviewing the paperwork and forming a judgement? No
Probably a good use of 2 hours of their day to check it out.
Yep, precisely right. *any* complaint received by an organisation should be investigated according to a well-defined process. Most will probably be rejected early with little effort, but some may require more work.
For one thing, I doubt anyone working within secure areas of Heathrow would be allowed to wear a burka for security reasons.
I go through security at Heathrow usually once or twice a week. It's not infrequent (may be 1/3 or 1/4 times) to have someone with a head covering - but their faces are always completely exposed. If I recall correctly that's a hijab rather than a burqa - it doesn't cause an issue. I've never seen anyone where either a burqa or a nijab.
@Jonathan - But what is this 'plan' and why should the Tories be fearful of it?
I don't get the 1970 analogy. Ed M = Ted Heath? Er, right....
The plan? Ed is clearly moving to the centre.
1970?
In 2015/1970 the Labour/Tory party came back after just 5/6 years in opposition. It was an unexpected result, that seemed very unlikely at the previous 2010/1966 general election. It is notable for a LoO defeating a more popular incumbent.
The story is garbage. Provincial Jewish newspapers live off stories of anti semitism. There's a new line of Jewish jokes which specialize in the genre.
Perhaps it is rubbish; it smells a little for the reasons I have given before. But surely you think any such allegation should be investigated?
Or are you saying that it is impossible, and should be ignored?
Should it be investigated? Yes
Should that investigation involve anything more than the senior officer on duty speaking to the individuals concerned and perhaps reviewing the paperwork and forming a judgement? No
Probably a good use of 2 hours of their day to check it out.
I'd imagine a two minute check on whether there's a fingerprint taker at Heathrow who wears a full burka might be a good starting point.
See my response to Josias. I reckon the kid doesn't know the difference between a burqa and a hijab. Doesn't mean that the complaint shouldn't be investigated though (I haven't decided, yet, whether it is 90% bollocks or 100% bollocks, but leaning to the latter)
Dead god - I thought Farron was a lot smarter than this.
"Ministers should think about banning Chinese lanterns before they cause an "appalling tragedy" that leads to loss of lives, Tim Farron, the Lib Dem president, has said."
There was a fire because tons of plastic was stored in the open - a lantern was apparently the cause of the blaze - how often does this happen? I can't think of a similar case.
Perhaps we should ban them because they're often confused with UFOs as well and get Lembit all excited - or was that asteriods ;^ )
@Jonathan - But what is this 'plan' and why should the Tories be fearful of it?
I don't get the 1970 analogy. Ed M = Ted Heath? Er, right....
The plan? Ed is clearly moving to the centre.
1970?
In 2015/1970 the Labour/Tory party came back after just 5/6 years in opposition. It was an unexpected result, that seemed very unlikely at the previous 2010/1996 general election. It is notable for a LoO defeating a more popular incumbent.
@Jonathan - But what is this 'plan' and why should the Tories be fearful of it?
I don't get the 1970 analogy. Ed M = Ted Heath? Er, right....
The plan? Ed is clearly moving to the centre.
1970?
In 2015/1970 the Labour/Tory party came back after just 5/6 years in opposition. It was an unexpected result, that seemed very unlikely at the previous 2010/1996 general election. It is notable for a LoO defeating a more popular incumbent.
@Jonathan - I think you are displaying a bit of over optimism on both counts, but the best of British! But - tired old Wilsonian cliche imminent - if a week's a long time in politics....
However my dander is certainly up with the frankly rotten opposition that Labour is providing. The nation deserves so much better and do you really believe in your heart that Ed and co are a viable government in waiting ?
For me the Labour report card says "Fail. Must do much better."
Hi Jack. I think you can be critical without using language like "mental health". I hate to be po-faced and I know you're trying to be witty, but PB has a troll problem and this sort of stuff just feeds them.
Honestly, I wouldn't know how to score Labour's report card. Clearly, Labour is deliberately and quite carefully positioning itself. It may not be popular, but that is what you do two years out. Tories may be making hay after a pretty hard 18 months, but they miss the point that these u-turns are clearly part of a plan. When Dave draws attention to them, it helps Ed.
In terms of expectations. After a defeat on the scale of 2010 (a sub 30% vote), the fact Labour are even in contention for 2015 is pretty remarkable. This may have nothing to do with the Labour party per se, but rather the unique circumstances of the LD vote collapse. EdM does deserve credit for forging a pretty happy, unified party.
Either way, we're in uncharted territory, with perhaps 1970 the closest analogue for Labour to aim at. IMO there are two years of events that will determine the result. The Scottish Ref alone is a massive unknown.
Interesting times.
PB is well able to deal with trolls and has done so since the very first days.
I've always been of the view that good government is aided by decent opposition that is able to accurately and effectively portray itself as an able government in waiting. In this Labour has failed.
Rarely has such a motely crew of second raters been offered to the public. Little wonder brother David has opted for exile abroad and other Labour big hitters have opted for exile on the backbenches.
At the 2015 GE the nation will be deserving of a clear vision and alternative for the future from Labour. I see no prospect of that. Labour are sleep walking with Ed to disaster - a rudderless mass of inconsistency, a party without depth of conviction, a party unable to challenge its failures of the past, a party too reliant on the Union barons and above all a party led by a man manifestly out of his depth to be Prime Minister. As with Foot, Kinnock, IDS and Howard the nation will not buy into it.
@Jonathan - I think you are displaying a bit of over optimism on both counts, but the best of British! But - tired old Wilsonian cliche imminent - if a week's a long time in politics....
I am not showing any optimism.
(T)edM clearly has to aim at something and the remarkable 1970 victory is as good an analog as any. Whether he will achieve it is another matter.
The change in tone/postion in the Labour party is obviously deliberate. If I were to guess, it is a response to Spring polls and the May election. Labour could have easily carried on with an un-nuanced anti-cuts rhetoric and sustained a bigger poll lead. They made a choice not to do that. Who knows how things will play out.
A week is indeed a long time. Who knows what bumps and lumps there will be in the run in to 2015. The bump that is occupying my mind are the consequences of a very narrow vote in the Scot Ref. Either way, it could be hugely disruptive.
The story is garbage. Provincial Jewish newspapers live off stories of anti semitism. There's a new line of Jewish jokes which specialize in the genre.
Perhaps it is rubbish; it smells a little for the reasons I have given before. But surely you think any such allegation should be investigated?
Or are you saying that it is impossible, and should be ignored?
Should it be investigated? Yes
Should that investigation involve anything more than the senior officer on duty speaking to the individuals concerned and perhaps reviewing the paperwork and forming a judgement? No
Probably a good use of 2 hours of their day to check it out.
Yep, precisely right. *any* complaint received by an organisation should be investigated according to a well-defined process. Most will probably be rejected early with little effort, but some may require more work.
For one thing, I doubt anyone working within secure areas of Heathrow would be allowed to wear a burka for security reasons.
I go through security at Heathrow usually once or twice a week. It's not infrequent (may be 1/3 or 1/4 times) to have someone with a head covering - but their faces are always completely exposed. If I recall correctly that's a hijab rather than a burqa - it doesn't cause an issue. I've never seen anyone where either a burqa or a nijab.
That's my thinking as well, which does rather put doubt on the rest of the story.
As I've said before with the Rennard case and others, these sorts of things happen, and complaints will be raised, whether spurious or not. What is important is for there to be a set procedure for them to be investigated and that the procedure is followed. The results of that procedure (i.e. whether the complaint is upheld to any degree) should lead to a response. This may be nothing, a warning, a sacking, retraining or new procedures put into place.
This did not happen with the Rennard case. And to be fair, I bet it doesn't happen a lot in politics, which seems to be run as an old boys/girls club at times.
Some good points worth debating re the merits or othewise. I'm in favour of MPs having second jobs - it keeps their hands in/skills/knowledge up to speed.
No problem with that but any "outside" earnings should reduce their Parliamentary salary, to nil if necessary.
However my dander is certainly up with the frankly rotten opposition that Labour is providing. The nation deserves so much better and do you really believe in your heart that Ed and co are a viable government in waiting ?
For me the Labour report card says "Fail. Must do much better."
Hi Jack. I think you can be critical without using language like "mental health". I hate to be po-faced and I know you're trying to be witty, but PB has a troll problem and this sort of stuff just feeds them.
Honestly, I wouldn't know how to score Labour's report card. Clearly, Labour is deliberately and quite carefully positioning itself. It may not be popular, but that is what you do two years out. Tories may be making hay after a pretty hard 18 months, but they miss the point that these u-turns are clearly part of a plan. When Dave draws attention to them, it helps Ed.
In terms of expectations. After a defeat on the scale of 2010 (a sub 30% vote), the fact Labour are even in contention for 2015 is pretty remarkable. This may have nothing to do with the Labour party per se, but rather the unique circumstances of the LD vote collapse. EdM does deserve credit for forging a pretty happy, unified party.
Either way, we're in uncharted territory, with perhaps 1970 the closest analogue for Labour to aim at. IMO there are two years of events that will determine the result. The Scottish Ref alone is a massive unknown.
Interesting times.
I've always been of the view that good government is aided by decent opposition that is able to accurately and effectively portray itself as an able government in waiting. In this Labour has failed.
Rarely has such a motely crew of second raters been offered to the public. Little wonder brother David has opted for exile abroad and other Labour big hitters have opted for exile on the backbenches.
At the 2015 GE the nation will be deserving of a clear vision and alternative for the future from Labour. I see no prospect of that. Labour are sleep walking with Ed to disaster - a rudderless mass of inconsistency, a party without depth of conviction, a party unable to challenges its failures of the past, a party too reliant on the Union barons and above all a party led by a man manifestly out of his depth to be Prime Minister. .
This is where I find the sub questions most interesting - though most attention on here is given to the VI.
It's much harder to change views on trust, charisma, leadership, competence et al than to swing about re Labour vs Tory vs Kipper vs LD. I pay a lot more attention to those markers than VI because it's when I have the pencil in my hand that I truly consider these traits.
I may be in a minority - even a small one, but how I vote is an aggregation of these over a long period of time, not a knee jerk to a single event or speech.
Some good points worth debating re the merits or othewise. I'm in favour of MPs having second jobs - it keeps their hands in/skills/knowledge up to speed.
No problem with that but any "outside" earnings should reduce their Parliamentary salary, to nil if necessary.
Why? What's the logic here? That sounds like you think the value of an MP is zero unless its subsidised from taxation like Family Credit - why should the contribution they make be penalised by their other outside earnings? You do a job and get paid for it.
Rarely has such a motely crew of second raters been offered to the public.
You speak as if the Coalition is populated by political Leviathans. If anything characterises the age, it is the shallowness of talent on both front benches. There are some notable exceptions, but personally, I think the spadocracy has let us down.
But on the positive side, compared to some pols you see on the continent, the British HoC is still ahead.
That's my thinking as well, which does rather put doubt on the rest of the story.
As I've said before with the Rennard case and others, these sorts of things happen, and complaints will be raised, whether spurious or not. What is important is for there to be a set procedure for them to be investigated and that the procedure is followed.
The Kansas newspaper and TV interview (or at least the extract shown) have no rest of the story.
It is the later Israeli report, which is the one picked up by the bloggers and other sites, that alleges Cantor was deported.
But now this is in danger of becoming a diplomatic incident, the Home Secretary needs to pick up the phone.
Some good points worth debating re the merits or othewise. I'm in favour of MPs having second jobs - it keeps their hands in/skills/knowledge up to speed.
No problem with that but any "outside" earnings should reduce their Parliamentary salary, to nil if necessary.
Depends - whether you see the role of an MP as scrutiny or as some kind of super-councillor.
Someone can effectively manage the scrutiny bit alongside other roles. It's the caseload work that takes a lot of the time
Dead god - I thought Farron was a lot smarter than this.
"Ministers should think about banning Chinese lanterns before they cause an "appalling tragedy" that leads to loss of lives, Tim Farron, the Lib Dem president, has said."
There was a fire because tons of plastic was stored in the open - a lantern was apparently the cause of the blaze - how often does this happen? I can't think of a similar case.
Perhaps we should ban them because they're often confused with UFOs as well and get Lembit all excited - or was that asteriods ;^ )
ISTR that some moorland fires have been attribute to them as well.
Rarely has such a motely crew of second raters been offered to the public.
You speak as if the Coalition is populated by political Leviathans. If anything characterises the age, it is the shallowness of talent on both front benches. There are some notable exceptions, but personally, I think the spadocracy has let us down.
But on the positive side, compared to some pols you see on the continent, the British HoC is still ahead.
Would that make them political Latvians? Homophobic ones perhaps?
@Jonathan - It's all a bit academic but the analogy with 1970 doesn't work to your advantage. Labour's defeat was only suprising in that Wilson was deceived by only a few weeks of good poll results (even the local election results were mediocre for Labour) after 3 years of unremitting unpopularity and by-election losses.
But much more to the point, I can't believe you are seriously arguing that had Labour persisted with the "pure Balls" strategy of opposing all cuts, their lead would be stronger in the light of the latest economic news! I think it's a question of damage limitation whatever the party decides, not a confident strategic choice.
Dead god - I thought Farron was a lot smarter than this.
"Ministers should think about banning Chinese lanterns before they cause an "appalling tragedy" that leads to loss of lives, Tim Farron, the Lib Dem president, has said."
There was a fire because tons of plastic was stored in the open - a lantern was apparently the cause of the blaze - how often does this happen? I can't think of a similar case.
Perhaps we should ban them because they're often confused with UFOs as well and get Lembit all excited - or was that asteriods ;^ )
ISTR that some moorland fires have been attribute to them as well.
Being flippant for a moment - if we ran round banning everything that *may* cause a problem, the HSE would employ the entire working age population doing risk assessments.
I can't stand politicians bandwaggoning about such stuff - it happened, it was a one-off. I notice no one sane is demanding the police stop using dogs because one bit a child the other day. It wasn't put down either IIRC...but I'm sure someone will be screaming for it. The loss of commonsense and proportion these days is ...
However my dander is certainly up with the frankly rotten opposition that Labour is providing. The nation deserves so much better and do you really believe in your heart that Ed and co are a viable government in waiting ?
For me the Labour report card says "Fail. Must do much better."
Hi Jack. I think you can be critical without using language like "mental health". I hate to be po-faced and I know you're trying to be witty, but PB has a troll problem and this sort of stuff just feeds them.
Honestly, I wouldn't know how to score Labour's report card. Clearly, Labour is deliberately and quite carefully positioning itself. It may not be popular, but that is what you do two years out. Tories may be making hay after a pretty hard 18 months, but they miss the point that these u-turns are clearly part of a plan. When Dave draws attention to them, it helps Ed.
In terms of expectations. After a defeat on the scale of 2010 (a sub 30% vote), the fact Labour are even in contention for 2015 is pretty remarkable. This may have nothing to do with the Labour party per se, but rather the unique circumstances of the LD vote collapse. EdM does deserve credit for forging a pretty happy, unified party.
Either way, we're in uncharted territory, with perhaps 1970 the closest analogue for Labour to aim at. IMO there are two years of events that will determine the result. The Scottish Ref alone is a massive unknown.
Interesting times.
I've always been of the view that good government is aided by decent opposition that is able to accurately and effectively portray itself as an able government in waiting. In this Labour has failed.
Rarely has such a motely crew of second raters been offered to the public. Little wonder brother David has opted for exile abroad and other Labour big hitters have opted for exile on the backbenches.
At the 2015 GE the nation will be deserving of a clear vision and alternative for the future from Labour. I see no prospect of that. Labour are sleep walking with Ed to disaster - a rudderless mass of inconsistency, a party without depth of conviction, a party unable to challenges its failures of the past, a party too reliant on the Union barons and above all a party led by a man manifestly out of his depth to be Prime Minister. .
This is where I find the sub questions most interesting - though most attention on here is given to the VI.
It's much harder to change views on trust, charisma, leadership, competence et al than to swing about re Labour vs Tory vs Kipper vs LD. I pay a lot more attention to those markers than VI because it's when I have the pencil in my hand that I truly consider these traits.
I may be in a minority - even a small one, but how I vote is an aggregation of these over a long period of time, not a knee jerk to a single event or speech.
I'm sure you're not in a small minority at all, although the phycology of voting is a weird and wonderful beast in its own right.
One of the oddest I came across was a SWP chap who was voting for the National Front in the hope that John Tyndall would become Prime Minister and send his left wing opponents to internment camps et al. One obvious flaw there ....
However my dander is certainly up with the frankly rotten opposition that Labour is providing. The nation deserves so much better and do you really believe in your heart that Ed and co are a viable government in waiting ?
For me the Labour report card says "Fail. Must do much better."
Hi Jack. I think you can be critical without using language like "mental health". I hate to be po-faced and I know you're trying to be witty, but PB has a troll problem and this sort of stuff just feeds them.
Honestly, I wouldn't know how to score Labour's report card. Clearly, Labour is deliberately and quite carefully positioning itself. It may not be popular, but that is what you do two years out. Tories may be making hay after a pretty hard 18 months, but they miss the point that these u-turns are clearly part of a plan. When Dave draws attention to them, it helps Ed.
In terms of expectations. After a defeat on the scale of 2010 (a sub 30% vote), the fact Labour are even in contention for 2015 is pretty remarkable. This may have nothing to do with the Labour party per se, but rather the unique circumstances of the LD vote collapse. EdM does deserve credit for forging a pretty happy, unified party.
Either way, we're in uncharted territory, with perhaps 1970 the closest analogue for Labour to aim at. IMO there are two years of events that will determine the result. The Scottish Ref alone is a massive unknown.
Interesting times.
I've always been of the view that good government is aided by decent opposition that is able to accurately and effectively portray itself as an able government in waiting. In this Labour has failed.
Rarely has such a motely crew of second raters been offered to the public. Little wonder brother David has opted for exile abroad and other Labour big hitters have opted for exile on the backbenches.
At the 2015 GE the nation will be deserving of a clear vision and alternative for the future from Labour. I see no prospect of that. Labour are sleep walking with Ed to disaster - a rudderless mass of inconsistency, a party without depth of conviction, a party unable to challenges its failures of the past, a party too reliant on the Union barons and above all a party led by a man manifestly out of his depth to be Prime Minister. .
This is where I find the sub questions most interesting - though most attention on here is given to the VI.
It's much harder to change views on trust, charisma, leadership, competence et al than to swing about re Labour vs Tory vs Kipper vs LD. I pay a lot more attention to those markers than VI because it's when I have the pencil in my hand that I truly consider these traits.
I may be in a minority - even a small one, but how I vote is an aggregation of these over a long period of time, not a knee jerk to a single event or speech.
I'm sure you're not in a small minority at all, although the phycology of voting is a weird and wonderful beast in its own right.
One of the oddest I came across was a SWP chap who was voting for the National Front in the hope that John Tyndall would become Prime Minister and send his left wing opponents to internment camps et al. One obvious flaw there ....
@Jonathan - It's all a bit academic but the analogy with 1970 doesn't work to your advantage. Labour's defeat was only suprising in that Wilson was deceived by only a few weeks of good poll results (even the local election results were mediocre for Labour) after 3 years of unremitting unpopularity and by-election losses.
So what we have now are a few ok polls for the Tories after some pretty bad by-election and local election results.
But much more to the point, I can't believe you are seriously arguing that had Labour persisted with the "pure Balls" strategy of opposing all cuts, their lead would be stronger in the light of the latest economic news! I think it's a question of damage limitation whatever the party decides, not a confident strategic choice.
I really hope you're right and the economic news is all good from here on.
@Jonathan - Labour may be working to a plan, but if so they are doing a brilliant job in hiding it from the rest of us, and deploying chaff to disguise their direction. You say they are moving to the centre - well, yes, sort of, but that doesn't make it a 'plan'. Frankly it looks more like a panic U-turn.
In particular, if they are now moving to the 'centre' as part of a carefully worked-out long-term plan, why have they spent two years telling the world that the centre represents the end of civilised life as we know it, that you can't possibly make even the most trivial savings, that this whole deficit-reduction malarkey is just an Tory plot to shrink the state for ideological reasons, etc etc?
Whilst I very much welcome the fact that they now seem to be ackowledging that Osborne has got it right, it's hard to discern anything resembling a plan in all this. It's still unclear whether their criticism over the past couple of years is that the coalition has cut the deficit too fast or too slowly. That's a pretty basic confusion.
That's my thinking as well, which does rather put doubt on the rest of the story.
As I've said before with the Rennard case and others, these sorts of things happen, and complaints will be raised, whether spurious or not. What is important is for there to be a set procedure for them to be investigated and that the procedure is followed.
But now this is in danger of becoming a diplomatic incident, the Home Secretary needs to pick up the phone.
He was denied entry - not deported - it happens to Brits visiting the US:
It may have been something as simple as a Visa mix up - he was coming for a work placement....however, the anti-semitic comments are concerning and need investigating.
"On multiple fronts, the energy bill is proving a dismal failure. The problem arises because the private sector is being asked to finance not a market opportunity but a politically determined goal – decarbonised electricity supply. The consequent tensions are proving impossible to reconcile.
No government can tolerate the lights being off for long, so the all too likely end result of 20 years of dithering is that we will get both the suspension of emission targets and high prices. Quite a result."
Some good points worth debating re the merits or othewise. I'm in favour of MPs having second jobs - it keeps their hands in/skills/knowledge up to speed.
No problem with that but any "outside" earnings should reduce their Parliamentary salary, to nil if necessary.
Depends - whether you see the role of an MP as scrutiny or as some kind of super-councillor.
Someone can effectively manage the scrutiny bit alongside other roles. It's the caseload work that takes a lot of the time
I am actually more with Icarus on this one. MPs are paid so that (in theory at least) the HoC is not the playground of the rich and corrupt. MPs claim that their outside jobs give them an insight into the real world of work, business, medicine whatever. That may well be true but if it is then no doubt they will carry on obtaining that insight regardless.
It seems to me that we have 2 choices. The first is that we take away a lot of the pointless and absurd casework and accept that being an MP is a part time job that should be paid accordingly.
The alternative is that we keep it as the present well paid employment on the basis that it is a full time job in which case it seems to me that Icarus's solution is an elegant one.
Personally, I think back bench MPs are paid far too much. If they were not there wouldn't be so much competition for the role. OTOH I think ministers are paid far too little. It is absurd that some incompetent middle management for the BBC or senior management in a medium sized local authority gets paid more than the PM. If we want to attract people of real ability into Parliament we need to improve the rewards so it is not just the vain and the arrogant that are willing to make the financial sacrifices.
Do these people live in the real world? Have they even seen politics on the television? Playing the strong leader card works best when half your backbenchers don't want you replaced by Boris Johnson.
However my dander is certainly up with the frankly rotten opposition that Labour is providing. The nation deserves so much better and do you really believe in your heart that Ed and co are a viable government in waiting ?
For me the Labour report card says "Fail. Must do much better."
Hi Jack. I think you can be critical without using language like "mental health". I hate to be po-faced and I know you're trying to be witty, but PB has a troll problem and this sort of stuff just feeds them.
Honestly, I wouldn't know how to score Labour's report card. Clearly, Labour is deliberately and quite carefully positioning itself. It may not be popular, but that is what you do two years out. Tories may be making hay after a pretty hard 18 months, but they miss the point that these u-turns are clearly part of a plan. When Dave draws attention to them, it helps Ed.
In terms of expectations. After a defeat on the scale of 2010 (a sub 30% vote), the fact Labour are even in contention for 2015 is pretty remarkable. This may have nothing to do with the Labour party per se, but rather the unique circumstances of the LD vote collapse. EdM does deserve credit for forging a pretty happy, unified party.
Either way, we're in uncharted territory, with perhaps 1970 the closest analogue for Labour to aim at. IMO there are two years of events that will determine the result. The Scottish Ref alone is a massive unknown.
Interesting times.
I've always been of the view that good government is aided by decent opposition that is able to accurately and effectively portray itself as an able government in waiting. In this Labour has failed.
Rarely has such a motely crew of second raters been offered to the public. Little wonder brother David has opted for exile abroad and other Labour big hitters have opted for exile on the backbenches.
At the 2015 GE the nation will be deserving of a clear vision and alternative for the future from Labour. I see no prospect of that. Labour are sleep walking with Ed to disaster - a rudderless mass of inconsistency, a party without depth of conviction, a party unable to challenges its failures of the past, a party too reliant on the Union barons and above all a party led by a man manifestly out of his depth to be Prime Minister. .
This is where I find the sub questions most interesting - though most attention on here is given to the VI.
It's much harder to change views on trust, charisma, leadership, competence et al than to swing about re Labour vs Tory vs Kipper vs LD. I pay a lot more attention to those markers than VI because it's when I have the pencil in my hand that I truly consider these traits.
I may be in a minority - even a small one, but how I vote is an aggregation of these over a long period of time, not a knee jerk to a single event or speech.
in the hope that John Tyndall would become Prime Minister and send his left wing opponents to internment camps et al.
After the war the Nazi list of who would have been interned in Britain came to light - Communists, Trade Unionists, homosexuals and other undesirables.
Noel Coward remarked 'To think, the people we'd have been seen dead with...'
Construction PMI improvement down to "residential"
"09.36 Residential construction, which has been the target of government incentives to boost growth, again drove the industry. Commercial construction and civil engineering steadied after shrinking in recent months.
09.31 More green shoots? Construction has expanded for a second month in a row, according to the latest Markit/CIPS construction PMI. It edged up to 51 in June, up from 50.8 in May. The index has slightly undershot expectations though, with economists having expected a reading of 51.2."
"Little wonder brother David has opted for exile abroad"
Can you really read a lot into that though? There has never been anything impressive about D Miliband's judgment. He does not strike me as any more perceptive than Neil Kinnock, a man for whom the word mediocre might have been coined.
To be fair, mediocrity is the hallmark of every current politician except Michael Gove and Graham Stringer. Offhand, I really can't think of anyone else who doesn't come over as an almost total twit. Possibly I could if I thought about it for a bit longer.
"Little wonder brother David has opted for exile abroad"
Can you really read a lot into that though? There has never been anything impressive about D Miliband's judgment. He does not strike me as any more perceptive than Neil Kinnock, a man for whom the word mediocre might have been coined.
To be fair, mediocrity is the hallmark of every current politician except Michael Gove and Graham Stringer. Offhand, I really can't think of anyone else who doesn't come over as an almost total twit. Possibly I could if I thought about it for a bit longer.
In defence of DM - he was rather good at DEFRA when I was there - he tried hard to engage with his team, didn't eff up anything, came across as human/willing to be non-Spaded compared to the rest of them. He was entirely unsuited to the role of FSec however.
The perfect example of a man promoted over his abilities. That he's now in charge of International Rescue [no giggling at the back re Thunderbirds] concerns me - he's not a man for a crisis based on my experience.
Do these people live in the real world? Have they even seen politics on the television? Playing the strong leader card works best when half your backbenchers don't want you replaced by Boris Johnson.
But it is so innovative and original. When have the tories ever thought to challenge Labour about it's union links, funding, subservience etc. Really remarkable they have never done this before. That Crosby is certainly worth the money.
What will happen is: 1. There'll be a hung parilament. Dave may even get most votes. BFD. 2. Labour will have mst MPs and Redward becomes PM - minority govt or very fractious colaition with the Cleggmonster 3. No significant reforms are passable. Spending stays high. 4. Gilt prices start falling, interest rates start going up. 5. The economy suffers, mortgages become unaffordable, depression, death, tumbleweed etc 6. New dawn.
Curiously he wants ministers accountable for NHS problems - has anyone told Andy Burnham ?
"And it is right that there is scope for local decision making and local accountability for decisions that are made at local hospitals.
But on the broad direction of the standard of the NHS, whether it is performing well enough across the country or whether there is a postcode lottery, ministers should be accountable"
No mention of patients either...
"The next Labour government will start to put NHS values, not Tory values, back at the heart of it."
"This morning’s YouGov poll for the Sun has topline figures of CON 33%, LAB 38%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 12%. It shows Labour’s lead down to five points for the second YouGov poll in a row. I suspect these are two polls at the lower end of the normal margin of error and the underlying average will still turn out to be a six or seven point lead, but all the same, the lead appears to be falling. "
"Little wonder brother David has opted for exile abroad"
Can you really read a lot into that though? There has never been anything impressive about D Miliband's judgment. He does not strike me as any more perceptive than Neil Kinnock, a man for whom the word mediocre might have been coined.
To be fair, mediocrity is the hallmark of every current politician except Michael Gove and Graham Stringer. Offhand, I really can't think of anyone else who doesn't come over as an almost total twit. Possibly I could if I thought about it for a bit longer.
Frank Field strikes me as not a twit; ditto Gisela Stuart, Kate Hoey. Andrew Tyrie has done thoughtful work on the Commission on Banking Standards. Owen Paterson seems to know what he is talking about.
There may be more but those are the ones that come to mind most readily.
Labour added a million civil servants to the state payroll, for little proportionate benefit to the served. The public sector is paid more than the average wage, so by the time you factor in that and the employers' costs of employing them, these people must be costing us £40,000 million a year.
Taking out that amount of structural cost simply cannot be done in one term. Labour needs the Tories in for three or four terms, because that's how long it will take to restore the public finances. Until this is done Labour can't debauch them again, so what would be the point of power? At some point some glib new liar in the Blair mould will come along to argue that Labour's not that bad really, as his piggy eyes light on the money, and then it's 1997 all over again.
It used to be the case that Labour was authentically "for" the working man, but this hasn't been true for decades. Their support appears to be have crystallised into a coalition of those who take from the pot but don't put in; rich public sector employees, subsidised media types, postal voters, trade unions (but not trade unionists), and various special interest groups - Ecclestone, for example - who give them money in return for tax favours.
A few envious individuals then round out the picture. It's a pretty unedifying spectacle: a support base that feels entitled to the money of others, while hating and envying such people for having amassed anything in the first place.
Curiously he wants ministers accountable for NHS problems - has anyone told Andy Burnham ?
"And it is right that there is scope for local decision making and local accountability for decisions that are made at local hospitals.
But on the broad direction of the standard of the NHS, whether it is performing well enough across the country or whether there is a postcode lottery, ministers should be accountable"
No mention of patients either...
"The next Labour government will start to put NHS values, not Tory values, back at the heart of it."
There's a postcode lottery in the NHS at the moment, and there was before the last election. As I have said passim, the local surgery here is not fit for purpose in so many ways. The one we had down near Southampton was excellent. As we have moved around, we have found a wide range of quality in GP and hospital services.
Good luck (to any party) in sorting out these sort of disparities ...
"This morning’s YouGov poll for the Sun has topline figures of CON 33%, LAB 38%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 12%. It shows Labour’s lead down to five points for the second YouGov poll in a row. I suspect these are two polls at the lower end of the normal margin of error and the underlying average will still turn out to be a six or seven point lead, but all the same, the lead appears to be falling. "
"It is just a guess of course, and things are rarely explained by a single factor. I’ve seen some people ascribe it to Labour’s economic announcements over recent weeks, though personally I don’t think policy statements by opposition parties get noticed enough to have any real immediate effect on polls. Alternatively it could be the dividing lines emerging over welfare, or just the Conservative party avoiding being actively at each others throats for the last couple of weeks. It bottom line is that it’s difficult to know what actually moves voting intention, my only advice is to avoid the mistake of assuming that it must be the issue that you care about that’s done it."
Icarus, Charles, DavidL: Getting rid of casework (which means actually BANNING MPs from doing it, since otherwise in marginals they'll still feel they need to) would certainly allow MPs to be part-time, or to have fewer of them. The model of the latter is Euro-MPs, who are relatively few in number and have almost no casework. The downside is that only politics nerds know who they are - the casework (and the equally trivial opening of bazaars etc.) enable people to connect with politicians.
Not convinced by DavidL's view that ministers should be made lots more and backbenchers lots less, since that would really introduce a strong incentive to stick to the greasy pole at all costs, never express doubts, never resign, etc. At present, the extra income is welcome for Ministers but not so huge that losing it would be devastating.
The Commons dynamics of the reported £10K rise are interesting. My impression is that there are enough cheesed-off MPs on both sides to defeat legislation revoking IPSA's right to decide. We saw something similar in 1996, when there was a big pay rise (I remember having applied to stand when it was £34K, and being chuffed to find it was much more) and IIRC an upgrade to the pension scheme too. MPs were demob-happy and fed up and they just steamrollered it through.
Labour added a million civil servants to the state payroll, for little proportionate benefit to the served. The public sector is paid more than the average wage, so by the time you factor in that and the employers' costs of employing them, these people must be costing us £40,000 million a year.
Taking out that amount of structural cost simply cannot be done in one term. Labour needs the Tories in for three or four terms, because that's how long it will take to restore the public finances. Until this is done Labour can't debauch them again, so what would be the point of power? At some point some glib new liar in the Blair mould will come along to argue that Labour's not that bad really, as his piggy eyes light on the money, and then it's 1997 all over again.
It used to be the case that Labour was authentically "for" the working man, but this hasn't been true for decades. Their support appears to be have crystallised into a coalition of those who take from the pot but don't put in; rich public sector employees, subsidised media types, postal voters, trade unions (but not trade unionists), and various special interest groups - Ecclestone, for example - who give them money in return for tax favours.
A few envious individuals then round out the picture. It's a pretty unedifying spectacle: a support base that feels entitled to the money of others, while hating and envying such people for having amassed anything in the first place.
You could have just written "I really hate Labour voters" and saved yourself a lot of time.
Icarus, Charles, DavidL: Getting rid of casework (which means actually BANNING MPs from doing it, since otherwise in marginals they'll still feel they need to) would certainly allow MPs to be part-time, or to have fewer of them. The model of the latter is Euro-MPs, who are relatively few in number and have almost no casework. The downside is that only politics nerds know who they are - the casework (and the equally trivial opening of bazaars etc.) enable people to connect with politicians.
Not convinced by DavidL's view that ministers should be made lots more and backbenchers lots less, since that would really introduce a strong incentive to stick to the greasy pole at all costs, never express doubts, never resign, etc. At present, the extra income is welcome for Ministers but not so huge that losing it would be devastating.
The Commons dynamics of the reported £10K rise are interesting. My impression is that there are enough cheesed-off MPs on both sides to defeat legislation revoking IPSA's right to decide. We saw something similar in 1996, when there was a big pay rise (I remember having applied to stand when it was £34K, and being chuffed to find it was much more) and IIRC an upgrade to the pension scheme too. MPs were demob-happy and fed up and they just steamrollered it through.
Surely, the bottomline for a job is the available pool of talent? There is no shortage of candidates willing to endure the many and various demands right now - why pay them more?
It's a job that requires no training or education, can be in most seats a job for life and provides employment to family members.
Being paid £60k+ is perfectly acceptable - its 3x the average wage.
Labour added a million civil servants to the state payroll, for little proportionate benefit to the served. The public sector is paid more than the average wage, so by the time you factor in that and the employers' costs of employing them, these people must be costing us £40,000 million a year.
Taking out that amount of structural cost simply cannot be done in one term. Labour needs the Tories in for three or four terms, because that's how long it will take to restore the public finances. Until this is done Labour can't debauch them again, so what would be the point of power? At some point some glib new liar in the Blair mould will come along to argue that Labour's not that bad really, as his piggy eyes light on the money, and then it's 1997 all over again.
It used to be the case that Labour was authentically "for" the working man, but this hasn't been true for decades. Their support appears to be have crystallised into a coalition of those who take from the pot but don't put in; rich public sector employees, subsidised media types, postal voters, trade unions (but not trade unionists), and various special interest groups - Ecclestone, for example - who give them money in return for tax favours.
A few envious individuals then round out the picture. It's a pretty unedifying spectacle: a support base that feels entitled to the money of others, while hating and envying such people for having amassed anything in the first place.
You could have just written "I really hate Labour voters" and saved yourself a lot of time.
I find your (and Jonathon's) level of complacency regarding the direction of Labour worrying - and I'm not a Labour fan.
You may not like the message but on the other hand I've yet to see a robust defence of rEd's term as leader on any page let alone PB - I look forward to someone pointing one out or writing one.
Needs to be more than : "Being ahead in the polls" .
The Commons dynamics of the reported £10K rise are interesting. My impression is that there are enough cheesed-off MPs on both sides to defeat legislation revoking IPSA's right to decide. We saw something similar in 1996, when there was a big pay rise (I remember having applied to stand when it was £34K, and being chuffed to find it was much more) and IIRC an upgrade to the pension scheme too. MPs were demob-happy and fed up and they just steamrollered it through.
The crucial point here is that the IPSA recommendation will go through unless there is specific legislation to revoke it, for which as I understand it there is currently no provision. What I think we might see is the leaderships of all three main parties huffing, puffing and wringing their hands, but not actually being able to stop it (and, in reality, not wanting to). It does seem ridiculous that MPs' pay should always be a political time-bomb; the process we have now is supposed to defuse that, and I think passing the question of MPs pay to an independent body is one thing Gordon Brown got right.
"He was entirely unsuited to the role of FSec however.
The perfect example of a man promoted over his abilities. "
Well, that's what I mean, really. I read a remark once by someone else who had also worked for him, who observed that while he was a jolly nice man, did all the EQ stuff well, there was no sign at all of a first class mind there.
He would have made quite a good manager of a branch of Boots, though he'd have struggled I think with Toys 'R' Us, or anything with a bit of scale. But whenever judgment is called for he flops the test - if you look at all the stupid things he has done and said, there is no reason to think that his decamping to NY is a percipient move.
It seems likelier to me that he is simply a grasping individual who wants money and can't think past that immediate want.
First the facts and figures; MPs are paid a handsome £66,396 plus another £14,582 if they chair one of the 39 Select Committees. If they number among the 169 MPs who are ministers they also receive extra payments to compensate them for the burdens of the Red Box. If they make it to Cabinet they add an additional £68,827 – more than doubling their MP’s salary to £134,565. In short whereas the basic pay of an MP is more than triple the average £19,000 income of UK workers, almost a third of MPs are earning between 4 and 7 times average earnings. This is of course before any outside earnings are taken into account.
Icarus, Charles, DavidL: Getting rid of casework (which means actually BANNING MPs from doing it, since otherwise in marginals they'll still feel they need to) would certainly allow MPs to be part-time, or to have fewer of them. The model of the latter is Euro-MPs, who are relatively few in number and have almost no casework. The downside is that only politics nerds know who they are - the casework (and the equally trivial opening of bazaars etc.) enable people to connect with politicians.
Not convinced by DavidL's view that ministers should be made lots more and backbenchers lots less, since that would really introduce a strong incentive to stick to the greasy pole at all costs, never express doubts, never resign, etc. At present, the extra income is welcome for Ministers but not so huge that losing it would be devastating.
The Commons dynamics of the reported £10K rise are interesting. My impression is that there are enough cheesed-off MPs on both sides to defeat legislation revoking IPSA's right to decide. We saw something similar in 1996, when there was a big pay rise (I remember having applied to stand when it was £34K, and being chuffed to find it was much more) and IIRC an upgrade to the pension scheme too. MPs were demob-happy and fed up and they just steamrollered it through.
We are not exactly knee deep in principled resignations Nick. Can you recall the last minister who resigned from the UK government (there was that idiot in Wales although that may have been a "pushed" situation) because he disagreed with a policy position?
What do you think of Icarus's idea? That all outside earnings should be deducted from salary?
Edit. Maybe Robin Cook? Has there been one since then?
Agree re Field and Stuart - that's why I said if I thought about it a bit more I could possibly come up with more than two.
Even if we take all your names too, it's a bit depressing, isn't it? One per cent of the HoC are notably not abject twerps, and once we get past those six, we really have to think hard..!?
Interesting to see that Nick Palmer believes that MPs are so motivated by money. And there was I thinking that it was about public service.
To be clear, MPs should only get a substantial pay rise when they start performing their job to a remotely acceptable standard. Since they in general perform pitifully poorly, they should be in it together with the rest of the public.
The Commons dynamics of the reported £10K rise are interesting. My impression is that there are enough cheesed-off MPs on both sides to defeat legislation revoking IPSA's right to decide. We saw something similar in 1996, when there was a big pay rise (I remember having applied to stand when it was £34K, and being chuffed to find it was much more) and IIRC an upgrade to the pension scheme too. MPs were demob-happy and fed up and they just steamrollered it through.
The crucial point here is that the IPSA recommendation will go through unless there is specific legislation to revoke it, for which as I understand it there is currently no provision. What I think we might see is the leaderships of all three main parties huffing, puffing and wringing their hands, but not actually being able to stop it (and, in reality, not wanting to). It does seem ridiculous that MPs' pay should always be a political time-bomb; the process we have now is supposed to defuse that, and I think passing the question of MPs pay to an independent body is one thing Gordon Brown got right.
I must be feeling particularly argumentative this morning but to me passing MPs pay to an outside body was an abrogation of responsibility typical of the modern politician. It was also absolutely inevitable that it would lead to the current issue.
When was the last time an "independent" body looked at anybody's work, either in the public or the private sector and said, "you know what, he or she is currently a bit over paid.".
1% for public employees is government policy. They really cannot be different.
Icarus, Charles, DavidL: Getting rid of casework (which means actually BANNING MPs from doing it, since otherwise in marginals they'll still feel they need to) would certainly allow MPs to be part-time, or to have fewer of them. The model of the latter is Euro-MPs, who are relatively few in number and have almost no casework. The downside is that only politics nerds know who they are - the casework (and the equally trivial opening of bazaars etc.) enable people to connect with politicians.
Not convinced by DavidL's view that ministers should be made lots more and backbenchers lots less, since that would really introduce a strong incentive to stick to the greasy pole at all costs, never express doubts, never resign, etc. At present, the extra income is welcome for Ministers but not so huge that losing it would be devastating.
The Commons dynamics of the reported £10K rise are interesting. My impression is that there are enough cheesed-off MPs on both sides to defeat legislation revoking IPSA's right to decide. We saw something similar in 1996, when there was a big pay rise (I remember having applied to stand when it was £34K, and being chuffed to find it was much more) and IIRC an upgrade to the pension scheme too. MPs were demob-happy and fed up and they just steamrollered it through.
For me I would say there are two separate issues.
Firstly there is an argument for dividing the role of the MP into two halves: casework and scrutiny. (Let's say for the sake of argument pay them each £32,500). MPs all get paid for the scrutiny role, but can then opt to do the casework role - but not do any outside activities - or do outside activities but then not get paid for any casework that they may choose to do in addition. In theory the voters can then decide whether they are strongly opposed to one structure or not when it comes to an election.
The more important issue, for me, is to create a career structure for backbench MPs that doesn't involve becoming ministers. I have no issue with paid Select Committee chairman / members (and properly resourcing the committees) - make it viable for someone not to focus on the greasy pole. (Longer term, I think we would benefit from ministers not - in effect - having to be MPs, but that would take time to get to that position)
Any interpretation of polls in terms of seats is quite worthless without assumptions about the likely spread of the UKIP vote at a GE, which is unpredictable without special attention to the problem by the pollsters.I suspect most UKIP voters will realise which major political party is most likely to give them what they want - and that party is certainly not UKIP.Converting share to seats is wasted effort - and certainly no help to political betting.
It is always possible for researchers to find some quangos that do good work, whereas others (for example the Potato Council – yes, it does really exist and pays its staff an average of over £47,000 per year: www.potato.org.uk) have clearly had their chips. http://www.jonathanarnott.co.uk/2013/07/save-money-cut-a-quango/
The other irritating thing about MPs is that every time they benchmarked themselves they always seemed to pick someone who is a professional, subject to performance review or dismissal, and of whom certain prior qualifications, admisison criteria, and work output were expected.
So police officers, senior civil servants etc were always the preferred comparators according to who was getting paid most that week.
Labour added a million civil servants to the state payroll, for little proportionate benefit to the served. The public sector is paid more than the average wage, so by the time you factor in that and the employers' costs of employing them, these people must be costing us £40,000 million a year.
Taking out that amount of structural cost simply cannot be done in one term. Labour needs the Tories in for three or four terms, because that's how long it will take to restore the public finances. Until this is done Labour can't debauch them again, so what would be the point of power? At some point some glib new liar in the Blair mould will come along to argue that Labour's not that bad really, as his piggy eyes light on the money, and then it's 1997 all over again.
It used to be the case that Labour was authentically "for" the working man, but this hasn't been true for decades. Their support appears to be have crystallised into a coalition of those who take from the pot but don't put in; rich public sector employees, subsidised media types, postal voters, trade unions (but not trade unionists), and various special interest groups - Ecclestone, for example - who give them money in return for tax favours.
A few envious individuals then round out the picture. It's a pretty unedifying spectacle: a support base that feels entitled to the money of others, while hating and envying such people for having amassed anything in the first place.
You could have just written "I really hate Labour voters" and saved yourself a lot of time.
I find your (and Jonathon's) level of complacency regarding the direction of Labour worrying - and I'm not a Labour fan.
You may not like the message but on the other hand I've yet to see a robust defence of rEd's term as leader on any page let alone PB - I look forward to someone pointing one out or writing one.
Needs to be more than : "Being ahead in the polls" .
I am not complacent. And would actually prefer Labour not to win a majority. As I have said on here many times, I think Ed is a very poor leader. My wish is for a Lab/LD coalition - just as it was in 2010. My consistent view since then has been that we will get a hung Parliament in 2015 and I see nothing happening in the polls to indicate that I should change my mind.
To win outright in 2015 the Tories have to do something that no governing party has done for a very long time - they have to increase their vote share. I also look at that big jump in the Labour polling immediately after the coalition was announced - spomething that no-one on here seems to be able to find ever happening before to a party just thrown out of government - and I find it hard to conclude other than Labour will poll more than it did last time and that it is reasonable to assume it will probably be in the 34%-36% range on election day. No cpomplacency there, just a view based on what has happened up to now.
I have absolutely no doubt of two other things: if Alan Johnson or someone similar had stood for election as party leader in 2010 and won, Labour would be a lot further ahead in the polls; but if the Torioes had won outright in 2010, they would now be clear favourites to win big in 2015.
Icarus, Charles, DavidL: Getting rid of casework (which means actually BANNING MPs from doing it, since otherwise in marginals they'll still feel they need to) would certainly allow MPs to be part-time, or to have fewer of them. The model of the latter is Euro-MPs, who are relatively few in number and have almost no casework. The downside is that only politics nerds know who they are - the casework (and the equally trivial opening of bazaars etc.) enable people to connect with politicians.
Not convinced by DavidL's view that ministers should be made lots more and backbenchers lots less, since that would really introduce a strong incentive to stick to the greasy pole at all costs, never express doubts, never resign, etc. At present, the extra income is welcome for Ministers but not so huge that losing it would be devastating.
The Commons dynamics of the reported £10K rise are interesting. My impression is that there are enough cheesed-off MPs on both sides to defeat legislation revoking IPSA's right to decide. We saw something similar in 1996, when there was a big pay rise (I remember having applied to stand when it was £34K, and being chuffed to find it was much more) and IIRC an upgrade to the pension scheme too. MPs were demob-happy and fed up and they just steamrollered it through.
For me I would say there are two separate issues.
Firstly there is an argument for dividing the role of the MP into two halves: casework and scrutiny. (Let's say for the sake of argument pay them each £32,500). MPs all get paid for the scrutiny role, but can then opt to do the casework role - but not do any outside activities - or do outside activities but then not get paid for any casework that they may choose to do in addition. In theory the voters can then decide whether they are strongly opposed to one structure or not when it comes to an election.
The more important issue, for me, is to create a career structure for backbench MPs that doesn't involve becoming ministers. I have no issue with paid Select Committee chairman / members (and properly resourcing the committees) - make it viable for someone not to focus on the greasy pole. (Longer term, I think we would benefit from ministers not - in effect - having to be MPs, but that would take time to get to that position)
I think your division of labour is a little artificial and would be politically impossible for any prospective MP to opt out of. "Vote for me but don't think I care about your problems" doesn't sound a winning motto.
OTOH I agree that other options with pay as well as standing should be developed for backbench MPs who either don't want to be ministers or whose faces don't fit. Being chairs of the committees is one way but arguably (if the base salary was reduced) there should be more paid positions on such committees particularly for those that contribute to reports or the collation of useful information informing the work of the House.
The Commons dynamics of the reported £10K rise are interesting. My impression is that there are enough cheesed-off MPs on both sides to defeat legislation revoking IPSA's right to decide. We saw something similar in 1996, when there was a big pay rise (I remember having applied to stand when it was £34K, and being chuffed to find it was much more) and IIRC an upgrade to the pension scheme too. MPs were demob-happy and fed up and they just steamrollered it through.
The crucial point here is that the IPSA recommendation will go through unless there is specific legislation to revoke it, for which as I understand it there is currently no provision. What I think we might see is the leaderships of all three main parties huffing, puffing and wringing their hands, but not actually being able to stop it (and, in reality, not wanting to). It does seem ridiculous that MPs' pay should always be a political time-bomb; the process we have now is supposed to defuse that, and I think passing the question of MPs pay to an independent body is one thing Gordon Brown got right.
I must be feeling particularly argumentative this morning but to me passing MPs pay to an outside body was an abrogation of responsibility typical of the modern politician. It was also absolutely inevitable that it would lead to the current issue.
When was the last time an "independent" body looked at anybody's work, either in the public or the private sector and said, "you know what, he or she is currently a bit over paid.".
1% for public employees is government policy. They really cannot be different.
I wouldn't mind doubling MP's pay as long as they were not allowed to claim any expenses at all and no 'extras'. This means we could get rid of IPSA (a saving) and MP's wouldn't waste their or their assistants time on filling out expense claims.
Contributory money purchase pension as well.
Assistants should be provided from a pool in the civil service 1 per back bencher, perhaps more if they chair committees etc.
Any MP caught breaking these rules immediately recalled and a by election held with the MP concerned banned from standing.
The Commons dynamics of the reported £10K rise are interesting. My impression is that there are enough cheesed-off MPs on both sides to defeat legislation revoking IPSA's right to decide. We saw something similar in 1996, when there was a big pay rise (I remember having applied to stand when it was £34K, and being chuffed to find it was much more) and IIRC an upgrade to the pension scheme too. MPs were demob-happy and fed up and they just steamrollered it through.
The crucial point here is that the IPSA recommendation will go through unless there is specific legislation to revoke it, for which as I understand it there is currently no provision. What I think we might see is the leaderships of all three main parties huffing, puffing and wringing their hands, but not actually being able to stop it (and, in reality, not wanting to). It does seem ridiculous that MPs' pay should always be a political time-bomb; the process we have now is supposed to defuse that, and I think passing the question of MPs pay to an independent body is one thing Gordon Brown got right.
I must be feeling particularly argumentative this morning but to me passing MPs pay to an outside body was an abrogation of responsibility typical of the modern politician. It was also absolutely inevitable that it would lead to the current issue.
When was the last time an "independent" body looked at anybody's work, either in the public or the private sector and said, "you know what, he or she is currently a bit over paid.".
1% for public employees is government policy. They really cannot be different.
I wouldn't mind doubling MP's pay as long as they were not allowed to claim any expenses at all and no 'extras'. This means we could get rid of IPSA (a saving) and MP's wouldn't waste their or their assistants time on filling out expense claims.
Contributory money purchase pension as well.
Assistants should be provided from a pool in the civil service 1 per back bencher, perhaps more if they chair committees etc.
Any MP caught breaking these rules immediately recalled and a by election held with the MP concerned banned from standing.
One more thing. After this has all gone through, index link pay to the CPI (or RPI).
The Commons dynamics of the reported £10K rise are interesting. My impression is that there are enough cheesed-off MPs on both sides to defeat legislation revoking IPSA's right to decide. We saw something similar in 1996, when there was a big pay rise (I remember having applied to stand when it was £34K, and being chuffed to find it was much more) and IIRC an upgrade to the pension scheme too. MPs were demob-happy and fed up and they just steamrollered it through.
The crucial point here is that the IPSA recommendation will go through unless there is specific legislation to revoke it, for which as I understand it there is currently no provision. What I think we might see is the leaderships of all three main parties huffing, puffing and wringing their hands, but not actually being able to stop it (and, in reality, not wanting to). It does seem ridiculous that MPs' pay should always be a political time-bomb; the process we have now is supposed to defuse that, and I think passing the question of MPs pay to an independent body is one thing Gordon Brown got right.
I must be feeling particularly argumentative this morning but to me passing MPs pay to an outside body was an abrogation of responsibility typical of the modern politician. It was also absolutely inevitable that it would lead to the current issue.
When was the last time an "independent" body looked at anybody's work, either in the public or the private sector and said, "you know what, he or she is currently a bit over paid.".
1% for public employees is government policy. They really cannot be different.
I wouldn't mind doubling MP's pay as long as they were not allowed to claim any expenses at all and no 'extras'. This means we could get rid of IPSA (a saving) and MP's wouldn't waste their or their assistants time on filling out expense claims.
Contributory money purchase pension as well.
Assistants should be provided from a pool in the civil service 1 per back bencher, perhaps more if they chair committees etc.
Any MP caught breaking these rules immediately recalled and a by election held with the MP concerned banned from standing.
I can't agree with that. Expenses should be just that - recompense for genuine expenses met as part of the job. The way to make sure that they are genuine expenses is o publish everything, and let each MP's political opponents keep tabs on what they're up to. Equal salaries and no expenses would mean a London MP receiving the same salary as one from N Ireland or the north of Scotland when the latter has to maintain two homes and fly to and from London once a week.
MPs also genuinely need constituency office staff if they're to do the job properly (not necessarily one full time but certainly one part-time), as well as in London. Probably 1.5 should be adequate, though as you say, there ought to be provision for commitee chairs and ministers to have more given their additional workload.
As a principle, I dislike the idea of banning anyone from office. It should be down to the party to determine who is fit to fly their colours and the local electorate to decide who of those nominated they want to represent them.
The other irritating thing about MPs is that every time they benchmarked themselves they always seemed to pick someone who is a professional, subject to performance review or dismissal, and of whom certain prior qualifications, admisison criteria, and work output were expected.
So police officers, senior civil servants etc were always the preferred comparators according to who was getting paid most that week.
Yep, I heard some truly bizarre contributions on R5 yesterday morning on this topic. One was that MPs could work in the public sector when they lost their seats instead of getting a pension in positions like hospital managers. The repost was that hospital managers typically get more than MPs but what was unsaid is who on earth thinks your average MP is qualified for such a post?
At the moment MPs are some of the best paid social workers in the country but they do not have the qualifications or judgment that allows them to take on such a role. Maybe their pay should be the maximum (up to a limit of course) they have managed to earn before they came to Parliament.
I'm leaning to the view that Coalition supporters should be mindful of the mental health of our PB Labour supporters.
These poor souls handicapped as they are with blame for the state of the economy, a leader of the most dubious capability and a set of (non) policies and U turns so bewilderingly woeful as to drive them all barking mad or take up farming in Cheshire.
Accordingly I propose that for an experimental period that OGH adopts "Ed is Crap Tuesday" where the first thread of the day is devoted to this new sport. No other Ed is totally useless thread will then be allowed for the remainder of the week. Thus by lancing the boil and evacuating the poison for one short period only it may be possible for PB lefties to maintain some level of political equilibrium and lead a more fulfilling life.
Huzzah for "Ed is Crap Tuesday"
Jack you used to avoid this low-rent partisan crap. What changed?
Dare I say experience of the economic wasted years of Labour government and frankly the truly awful opposition that Ed is providing.
Labour has simply lost its way.
Sad loss to the dwindling band of reasonable posters. EdM has had a bad 2013, after a decent 2012. Not more to it than that. No reason to get excited.
Can't disagree with that per se, particularly as the election is still some way, but not that far off. And it's the looking ahead that should be causing Labour a certain disquiet. All the signs are that the economy is in genuine, albeit modest, recovery mode: it may not last until 2015, but the odds seem to be that it will. As a result the deficit is also likely to decline (another 'vindication' of the coalition).
And what if, finally, at last, people's living standards begin to improve; hardly a veritable feel good factor, but maybe a nascent, cautious mood of optimism.
Meanwhile, Labour are not carving a distinctive political niche for themselves; on the contrary, whether on the economy, education, even the NHS they are conceding the high ground to the government.
It could all change, of course it could, but you can understand the present spring in the step of us Blues.
My emphasis. One of the interesting things about living standards is that the ONS released some figures recently that showed that average income after tax had increased in real terms, presumably due to the large increases in the personal allowance and in employment.
For the majority of the population, austerity has not been as hard as you might think when looking at some of the figures, such as those often referred to as "living standards".
Labour is currently falling between two stools. On the one hand, it wants to be seen as prudent. On the other hand, it likes this sort of analysis:
Labour appear to be actively aiming for that kind of position, because they not unreasonably believes that's where the electorate is (people realise that the spending 'worked', but tougher times are necessary).
Labour's task then is, as you say, to articulate it more clearly, how they will sustain more of the "good" spending, whilst managing Osborne's spending totals more fairly and effectively. Not easy, but not a bad plan at all.
Worth remembering that Labour don't need to convince "the electorate", just 2010 Brown + enough 2010 Lib Dems, to see them home. If they do that then the Tories need to get up towards their 2010 share just to deprive Ed of a majority. That seems unlikely. The electoral dynamics still hugely favour Labour.
Though their lead does need to be either rock solid, or larger than it currently is, to withstand the inevitable campaign onslaught from the press, who are not going to give up their Tory Government without one hell of a scrap.
As a principle, I dislike the idea of banning anyone from office. It should be down to the party to determine who is fit to fly their colours and the local electorate to decide who of those nominated they want to represent them.
Even though a donkey wearing a blue or red rosette in certain seats would get in! I remember the 'right of being elected' attitude of Marcus Fox and welcomed his defeat - because of this attitude, even though I'm as blue as a clear day's sky!
Pirelli are being allowed to change the rear tyres for this weekend's race at the Nurburgring. The front tyres will remain the same as they have all season.
This is impressively fast work by Pirelli, and the FIA also need some commendation for having seen the need and steamrollered the changes past the teams.
I wonder if Pirelli had the new tyres in stock, or if they are having to build new ones (and transport) before Friday? If so that's exceptional: 22 cars with two rear tyres each is 44 tyres. Each car can have 11 sets of dry tyres available for the weekend. That is 484 tyres to be manufactured, tested and shipped in a few days.
I'm leaning to the view that Coalition supporters should be mindful of the mental health of our PB Labour supporters.
These poor souls handicapped as they are with blame for the state of the economy, a leader of the most dubious capability and a set of (non) policies and U turns so bewilderingly woeful as to drive them all barking mad or take up farming in Cheshire.
Accordingly I propose that for an experimental period that OGH adopts "Ed is Crap Tuesday" where the first thread of the day is devoted to this new sport. No other Ed is totally useless thread will then be allowed for the remainder of the week. Thus by lancing the boil and evacuating the poison for one short period only it may be possible for PB lefties to maintain some level of political equilibrium and lead a more fulfilling life.
Huzzah for "Ed is Crap Tuesday"
Jack you used to avoid this low-rent partisan crap. What changed?
Dare I say experience of the economic wasted years of Labour government and frankly the truly awful opposition that Ed is providing.
Labour has simply lost its way.
Sad loss to the dwindling band of reasonable posters. EdM has had a bad 2013, after a decent 2012. Not more to it than that. No reason to get excited.
Can't disagree with that per se, particularly as the election is still some way, but not that far off. And it's the looking ahead that should be causing Labour a certain disquiet. All the signs are that the economy is in genuine, albeit modest, recovery mode: it may not last until 2015, but the odds seem to be that it will. As a result the deficit is also likely to decline (another 'vindication' of the coalition).
And what if, finally, at last, people's living standards begin to improve; hardly a veritable feel good factor, but maybe a nascent, cautious mood of optimism.
Meanwhile, Labour are not carving a distinctive political niche for themselves; on the contrary, whether on the economy, education, even the NHS they are conceding the high ground to the government.
It could all change, of course it could, but you can understand the present spring in the step of us Blues.
My emphasis. One of the interesting things about living standards is that the ONS released some figures recently that showed that average income after tax had increased in real terms, presumably due to the large increases in the personal allowance and in employment.
For the majority of the population, austerity has not been as hard as you might think when looking at some of the figures, such as those often referred to as "living standards".
UK households saw the biggest decline in their disposable income in 26 years during the first three months of the year, according to official data released on Thursday, raising concerns over the ability of the economy to recover this year.
The Commons dynamics of the reported £10K rise are interesting. My impression is that there are enough cheesed-off MPs on both sides to defeat legislation revoking IPSA's right to decide. We saw something similar in 1996, when there was a big pay rise (I remember having applied to stand when it was £34K, and being chuffed to find it was much more) and IIRC an upgrade to the pension scheme too. MPs were demob-happy and fed up and they just steamrollered it through.
The crucial point here is that the IPSA recommendation will go through unless there is specific legislation to revoke it, for which as I understand it there is currently no provision. What I think we might see is the leaderships of all three main parties huffing, puffing and wringing their hands, but not actually being able to stop it (and, in reality, not wanting to). It does seem ridiculous that MPs' pay should always be a political time-bomb; the process we have now is supposed to defuse that, and I think passing the question of MPs pay to an independent body is one thing Gordon Brown got right.
I must be feeling particularly argumentative this morning but to me passing MPs pay to an outside body was an abrogation of responsibility typical of the modern politician. It was also absolutely inevitable that it would lead to the current issue.
When was the last time an "independent" body looked at anybody's work, either in the public or the private sector and said, "you know what, he or she is currently a bit over paid.".
1% for public employees is government policy. They really cannot be different.
I wouldn't mind doubling MP's pay as long as they were not allowed to claim any expenses at all and no 'extras'. This means we could get rid of IPSA (a saving) and MP's wouldn't waste their or their assistants time on filling out expense claims.
Contributory money purchase pension as well.
Assistants should be provided from a pool in the civil service 1 per back bencher, perhaps more if they chair committees etc.
Any MP caught breaking these rules immediately recalled and a by election held with the MP concerned banned from standing.
I can't agree with that. Expenses should be just that - recompense for genuine expenses met as part of the job. The way to make sure that they are genuine expenses is o publish everything, and let each MP's political opponents keep tabs on what they're up to. Equal salaries and no expenses would mean a London MP receiving the same salary as one from N Ireland or the north of Scotland when the latter has to maintain two homes and fly to and from London once a week.
One other thing. I HATE the idea of MP's profiting from unearned payments. If a system can be created that stops an MP from cashing in on a second home - that has been paid for by the taxpayer - then I may change my view. Unfortunately the impression is that all MP's are money grabbing lying b'stards.
The Commons dynamics of the reported £10K rise are interesting. My impression is that there are enough cheesed-off MPs on both sides to defeat legislation revoking IPSA's right to decide. We saw something similar in 1996, when there was a big pay rise (I remember having applied to stand when it was £34K, and being chuffed to find it was much more) and IIRC an upgrade to the pension scheme too. MPs were demob-happy and fed up and they just steamrollered it through.
The crucial point here is that the IPSA recommendation will go through unless there is specific legislation to revoke it, for which as I understand it there is currently no provision. What I think we might see is the leaderships of all three main parties huffing, puffing and wringing their hands, but not actually being able to stop it (and, in reality, not wanting to). It does seem ridiculous that MPs' pay should always be a political time-bomb; the process we have now is supposed to defuse that, and I think passing the question of MPs pay to an independent body is one thing Gordon Brown got right.
I must be feeling particularly argumentative this morning but to me passing MPs pay to an outside body was an abrogation of responsibility typical of the modern politician. It was also absolutely inevitable that it would lead to the current issue.
When was the last time an "independent" body looked at anybody's work, either in the public or the private sector and said, "you know what, he or she is currently a bit over paid.".
1% for public employees is government policy. They really cannot be different.
I wouldn't mind doubling MP's pay as long as they were not allowed to claim any expenses at all and no 'extras'. This means we could get rid of IPSA (a saving) and MP's wouldn't waste their or their assistants time on filling out expense claims.
Contributory money purchase pension as well.
Assistants should be provided from a pool in the civil service 1 per back bencher, perhaps more if they chair committees etc.
Any MP caught breaking these rules immediately recalled and a by election held with the MP concerned banned from standing.
I can't agree with that. Expenses should be just that - recompense for genuine expenses met as part of the job. The way to make sure that they are genuine expenses is o publish everything, and let each MP's political opponents keep tabs on what they're up to. Equal salaries and no expenses would mean a London MP receiving the same salary as one from N Ireland or the north of Scotland when the latter has to maintain two homes and fly to and from London once a week.
One other thing. I HATE the idea of MP's profiting from unearned payments. If a system can be created that stops an MP from cashing in on a second home - that has been paid for by the taxpayer - then I may change my view. Unfortunately the impression is that all MP's are money grabbing lying b'stards.
Don't know the current rules on paying mortgages (think they were banning them?).
However the easy solution would be just to effectively treat government-paid mortgages as equity.
Say an MP pays £100K for a house with a £10K deposit and a £90K interest only mortgage paid for by the state.
If he sells it for £200K, then he should be allowed to keep £20K (his proportionate share). However, of course, if the house goes down in value to £50K, then he should only lose half his deposit.
Comments
"...We should be going in precisely the opposite direction, paying MPs less, but encouraging them to have second jobs. No, let me rephrase that: being an MP should be your second job. Representatives should be compensated for their time Texas-style rather than making a living out of politics. The ideal, surely, is to have citizen-legislators, who give up their time out of a sense of patriotism and duty – much as, say, school governors do. Ah, you say, but they wouldn’t have time to do all the things they currently do. Yup: there’d be fewer laws.
Go back to the beginning of the twentieth century. Being an MP was a largely unremunerated part-time job, yet Parliament managed to oversee the greatest and most extensive empire the world has known. Here's what has happened to MPs' annual salaries since:
1911: £400
1946: £1,000
1964: £3,250
1980: £11,750
1990: £26,701
2000: £48,371
2010: £65,738
2013: £66,396
Adjusting for inflation, MPs are now paid twice what they were a century ago (the increases having come overwhelmingly under Labour Governments). Does anyone seriously argue that the quality of our parliamentarians has improved proportionately? http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100224176/you-wanted-mps-to-be-regulated-by-a-quango-so-dont-complain-if-it-offers-them-higher-salaries/
"More green shoots? Construction has expanded for a second month in a row, according to the latest Markit/CIPS construction PMI. It edged up to 51 in June, up from 50.8 in May. The index has slightly undershot expectations though, with economists having expected a reading of 51.2. "
With the better news on service exports the north sea is the only real drag factor for Q2. George in danger of looking smug again.
Honestly, I wouldn't know how to score Labour's report card. Clearly, Labour is deliberately and quite carefully positioning itself. It may not be popular, but that is what you do two years out. Tories may be making hay after a pretty hard 18 months, but they miss the point that these u-turns are clearly part of a plan. When Dave draws attention to them, it helps Ed.
In terms of expectations. After a defeat on the scale of 2010 (a sub 30% vote), the fact Labour are even in contention for 2015 is pretty remarkable. This may have nothing to do with the Labour party per se, but rather the unique circumstances of the LD vote collapse. EdM does deserve credit for forging a pretty happy, unified party.
Either way, we're in uncharted territory, with perhaps 1970 the closest analogue for Labour to aim at. IMO there are two years of events that will determine the result. The Scottish Ref alone is a massive unknown.
Interesting times.
Tricky one ....
"Labour must face up to the obvious challenge not that they were incompetent and irresponsible with the money (although true) but that they created this monster out of choice. And that they’d do it again if they could. They ARE the party of the public sector, of the trade unions, of wild spending and debts. To be trustable with the public finances they need to change who they are and who they represent. Labour is no more the party of the working class than it is of the landed gentry. It IS the party of the state, by the state for the state."
I couldn't agree more - EdM is to me a political academic playing at being 'man of the people' - the wordy speeches that say nothing, the rhetoric that vanishes the following day after a bit of push back from unions and lobby groups - he's a phoney in a way Tony wasn't.
Tony was all things to all people most of the time - EdM isn't even that, he spouts and retracts again and again - I can't see who he is *for* at all. And the policy vacuum/flip-flopping is beyond credible at this stage.
I certainly don't see him as anything but a self-righteous suit with very little idea of how ordinary folks live. I never felt like this about say Kinnock, or Foot or Smith. I didn't think much of David M either - but he was a lot more eloquent and better on TV.
Until Labour stops toadying up to the public sector/unions - they're dead in the water to me. Whatever you think of Tony - he tried to break the mould re funding and it backfired - but he understood Labour's problem = the party of no aspiration, against business and choice.
Except Hannan's part time job is writing for the Telegraph. No financial pressure there to tow (and vote) the proprieter's line.
I don't get the 1970 analogy. Ed M = Ted Heath? Er, right....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/02/labour-spending-worked-blair-brown-stealth
The failure is one of leadership: the leader needs to state decisively which of these he endorses. For what it's worth, it seems too late to me to take the line that Polly Toynbee suggests today. Ed Miliband and Ed Balls have hesitated too much to make this believable by 2015.
"Clearly, Labour is deliberately and quite carefully positioning itself."
Where exactly? You clearly know something many of us have missed.
Business confidence in the UK is at its highest level since 2007, the latest economic survey from a leading business group has suggested.
The quarterly survey from the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) is the latest indication that the UK's economic recovery is strengthening.
The BCC said export sales had grown by their fastest rate since it began publishing its survey in 1989.
It now expects GDP to grow by 0.6% in the second quarter of 2013.
That is significantly more positive than its previous forecast, where it predicted growth of 0.9% for the whole year.
1970?
In 2015/1970 the Labour/Tory party came back after just 5/6 years in opposition. It was an unexpected result, that seemed very unlikely at the previous 2010/1966 general election. It is notable for a LoO defeating a more popular incumbent.
"Ministers should think about banning Chinese lanterns before they cause an "appalling tragedy" that leads to loss of lives, Tim Farron, the Lib Dem president, has said."
There was a fire because tons of plastic was stored in the open - a lantern was apparently the cause of the blaze - how often does this happen? I can't think of a similar case.
Perhaps we should ban them because they're often confused with UFOs as well and get Lembit all excited - or was that asteriods ;^ )
I've always been of the view that good government is aided by decent opposition that is able to accurately and effectively portray itself as an able government in waiting. In this Labour has failed.
Rarely has such a motely crew of second raters been offered to the public. Little wonder brother David has opted for exile abroad and other Labour big hitters have opted for exile on the backbenches.
At the 2015 GE the nation will be deserving of a clear vision and alternative for the future from Labour. I see no prospect of that. Labour are sleep walking with Ed to disaster - a rudderless mass of inconsistency, a party without depth of conviction, a party unable to challenge its failures of the past, a party too reliant on the Union barons and above all a party led by a man manifestly out of his depth to be Prime Minister. As with Foot, Kinnock, IDS and Howard the nation will not buy into it.
(T)edM clearly has to aim at something and the remarkable 1970 victory is as good an analog as any. Whether he will achieve it is another matter.
The change in tone/postion in the Labour party is obviously deliberate. If I were to guess, it is a response to Spring polls and the May election. Labour could have easily carried on with an un-nuanced anti-cuts rhetoric and sustained a bigger poll lead. They made a choice not to do that. Who knows how things will play out.
A week is indeed a long time. Who knows what bumps and lumps there will be in the run in to 2015. The bump that is occupying my mind are the consequences of a very narrow vote in the Scot Ref. Either way, it could be hugely disruptive.
As I've said before with the Rennard case and others, these sorts of things happen, and complaints will be raised, whether spurious or not. What is important is for there to be a set procedure for them to be investigated and that the procedure is followed. The results of that procedure (i.e. whether the complaint is upheld to any degree) should lead to a response. This may be nothing, a warning, a sacking, retraining or new procedures put into place.
This did not happen with the Rennard case. And to be fair, I bet it doesn't happen a lot in politics, which seems to be run as an old boys/girls club at times.
It's much harder to change views on trust, charisma, leadership, competence et al than to swing about re Labour vs Tory vs Kipper vs LD. I pay a lot more attention to those markers than VI because it's when I have the pencil in my hand that I truly consider these traits.
I may be in a minority - even a small one, but how I vote is an aggregation of these over a long period of time, not a knee jerk to a single event or speech.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/07/who-governs-labour-is-perfect-new-tory-attack-line-on-milibands-weakness/
How fares PB's very own Christopher Columbus.
Off to tame the natives of Labour hinterlands ??
But on the positive side, compared to some pols you see on the continent, the British HoC is still ahead.
It is the later Israeli report, which is the one picked up by the bloggers and other sites, that alleges Cantor was deported.
But now this is in danger of becoming a diplomatic incident, the Home Secretary needs to pick up the phone.
Someone can effectively manage the scrutiny bit alongside other roles. It's the caseload work that takes a lot of the time
But much more to the point, I can't believe you are seriously arguing that had Labour persisted with the "pure Balls" strategy of opposing all cuts, their lead would be stronger in the light of the latest economic news! I think it's a question of damage limitation whatever the party decides, not a confident strategic choice.
I can't stand politicians bandwaggoning about such stuff - it happened, it was a one-off. I notice no one sane is demanding the police stop using dogs because one bit a child the other day. It wasn't put down either IIRC...but I'm sure someone will be screaming for it. The loss of commonsense and proportion these days is ...
One of the oddest I came across was a SWP chap who was voting for the National Front in the hope that John Tyndall would become Prime Minister and send his left wing opponents to internment camps et al. One obvious flaw there ....
Puffs chest with pride...
Coalition 41%
Labour 38%
OR
Tories/UKIP 45%
Labour 38%
In particular, if they are now moving to the 'centre' as part of a carefully worked-out long-term plan, why have they spent two years telling the world that the centre represents the end of civilised life as we know it, that you can't possibly make even the most trivial savings, that this whole deficit-reduction malarkey is just an Tory plot to shrink the state for ideological reasons, etc etc?
Whilst I very much welcome the fact that they now seem to be ackowledging that Osborne has got it right, it's hard to discern anything resembling a plan in all this. It's still unclear whether their criticism over the past couple of years is that the coalition has cut the deficit too fast or too slowly. That's a pretty basic confusion.
Do you think enabling :-) will tempt Ave-it back ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16810312
It may have been something as simple as a Visa mix up - he was coming for a work placement....however, the anti-semitic comments are concerning and need investigating.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/jeremy-warner/10153669/Obsolete-before-its-even-law-the-energy-bill-has-proved-a-dismal-failure.html
"On multiple fronts, the energy bill is proving a dismal failure. The problem arises because the private sector is being asked to finance not a market opportunity but a politically determined goal – decarbonised electricity supply. The consequent tensions are proving impossible to reconcile.
No government can tolerate the lights being off for long, so the all too likely end result of 20 years of dithering is that we will get both the suspension of emission targets and high prices. Quite a result."
It seems to me that we have 2 choices. The first is that we take away a lot of the pointless and absurd casework and accept that being an MP is a part time job that should be paid accordingly.
The alternative is that we keep it as the present well paid employment on the basis that it is a full time job in which case it seems to me that Icarus's solution is an elegant one.
Personally, I think back bench MPs are paid far too much. If they were not there wouldn't be so much competition for the role.
OTOH I think ministers are paid far too little. It is absurd that some incompetent middle management for the BBC or senior management in a medium sized local authority gets paid more than the PM. If we want to attract people of real ability into Parliament we need to improve the rewards so it is not just the vain and the arrogant that are willing to make the financial sacrifices.
Noel Coward remarked 'To think, the people we'd have been seen dead with...'
"09.36 Residential construction, which has been the target of government incentives to boost growth, again drove the industry. Commercial construction and civil engineering steadied after shrinking in recent months.
09.31 More green shoots? Construction has expanded for a second month in a row, according to the latest Markit/CIPS construction PMI. It edged up to 51 in June, up from 50.8 in May. The index has slightly undershot expectations though, with economists having expected a reading of 51.2."
"Little wonder brother David has opted for exile abroad"
Can you really read a lot into that though? There has never been anything impressive about D Miliband's judgment. He does not strike me as any more perceptive than Neil Kinnock, a man for whom the word mediocre might have been coined.
To be fair, mediocrity is the hallmark of every current politician except Michael Gove and Graham Stringer. Offhand, I really can't think of anyone else who doesn't come over as an almost total twit. Possibly I could if I thought about it for a bit longer.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23127953
These are truly magical days.
The perfect example of a man promoted over his abilities. That he's now in charge of International Rescue [no giggling at the back re Thunderbirds] concerns me - he's not a man for a crisis based on my experience.
1. There'll be a hung parilament. Dave may even get most votes. BFD.
2. Labour will have mst MPs and Redward becomes PM - minority govt or very fractious colaition with the Cleggmonster
3. No significant reforms are passable. Spending stays high.
4. Gilt prices start falling, interest rates start going up.
5. The economy suffers, mortgages become unaffordable, depression, death, tumbleweed etc
6. New dawn.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ed-miliband-writes-daily-mirror-2017513
Curiously he wants ministers accountable for NHS problems - has anyone told Andy Burnham ?
"And it is right that there is scope for local decision making and local accountability for decisions that are made at local hospitals.
But on the broad direction of the standard of the NHS, whether it is performing well enough
across the country or whether there is a postcode lottery, ministers should be accountable"
No mention of patients either...
"The next Labour government will start to put NHS values, not Tory values, back at the heart of it."
"This morning’s YouGov poll for the Sun has topline figures of CON 33%, LAB 38%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 12%. It shows Labour’s lead down to five points for the second YouGov poll in a row.
I suspect these are two polls at the lower end of the normal margin of error and the underlying average will still turn out to be a six or seven point lead, but all the same, the lead appears to be falling. "
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/7739
There may be more but those are the ones that come to mind most readily.
"The next Labour government will start to put NHS values, not Tory values, back at the heart of it."
Which ones are those? Paying GPs more to do less? Stafford, Morecombe et al? CQC covering up appalling treatment?
Pfft.
Excellent post.
Labour added a million civil servants to the state payroll, for little proportionate benefit to the served. The public sector is paid more than the average wage, so by the time you factor in that and the employers' costs of employing them, these people must be costing us £40,000 million a year.
Taking out that amount of structural cost simply cannot be done in one term. Labour needs the Tories in for three or four terms, because that's how long it will take to restore the public finances. Until this is done Labour can't debauch them again, so what would be the point of power? At some point some glib new liar in the Blair mould will come along to argue that Labour's not that bad really, as his piggy eyes light on the money, and then it's 1997 all over again.
It used to be the case that Labour was authentically "for" the working man, but this hasn't been true for decades. Their support appears to be have crystallised into a coalition of those who take from the pot but don't put in; rich public sector employees, subsidised media types, postal voters, trade unions (but not trade unionists), and various special interest groups - Ecclestone, for example - who give them money in return for tax favours.
A few envious individuals then round out the picture. It's a pretty unedifying spectacle: a support base that feels entitled to the money of others, while hating and envying such people for having amassed anything in the first place.
Good luck (to any party) in sorting out these sort of disparities ...
Indeed.
Not convinced by DavidL's view that ministers should be made lots more and backbenchers lots less, since that would really introduce a strong incentive to stick to the greasy pole at all costs, never express doubts, never resign, etc. At present, the extra income is welcome for Ministers but not so huge that losing it would be devastating.
The Commons dynamics of the reported £10K rise are interesting. My impression is that there are enough cheesed-off MPs on both sides to defeat legislation revoking IPSA's right to decide. We saw something similar in 1996, when there was a big pay rise (I remember having applied to stand when it was £34K, and being chuffed to find it was much more) and IIRC an upgrade to the pension scheme too. MPs were demob-happy and fed up and they just steamrollered it through.
It's a job that requires no training or education, can be in most seats a job for life and provides employment to family members.
Being paid £60k+ is perfectly acceptable - its 3x the average wage.
You may not like the message but on the other hand I've yet to see a robust defence of rEd's term as leader on any page let alone PB - I look forward to someone pointing one out or writing one.
Needs to be more than : "Being ahead in the polls" .
"He was entirely unsuited to the role of FSec however.
The perfect example of a man promoted over his abilities. "
Well, that's what I mean, really. I read a remark once by someone else who had also worked for him, who observed that while he was a jolly nice man, did all the EQ stuff well, there was no sign at all of a first class mind there.
He would have made quite a good manager of a branch of Boots, though he'd have struggled I think with Toys 'R' Us, or anything with a bit of scale. But whenever judgment is called for he flops the test - if you look at all the stupid things he has done and said, there is no reason to think that his decamping to NY is a percipient move.
It seems likelier to me that he is simply a grasping individual who wants money and can't think past that immediate want.
First the facts and figures; MPs are paid a handsome £66,396 plus another £14,582 if they chair one of the 39 Select Committees. If they number among the 169 MPs who are ministers they also receive extra payments to compensate them for the burdens of the Red Box. If they make it to Cabinet they add an additional £68,827 – more than doubling their MP’s salary to £134,565. In short whereas the basic pay of an MP is more than triple the average £19,000 income of UK workers, almost a third of MPs are earning between 4 and 7 times average earnings. This is of course before any outside earnings are taken into account.
We are not exactly knee deep in principled resignations Nick. Can you recall the last minister who resigned from the UK government (there was that idiot in Wales although that may have been a "pushed" situation) because he disagreed with a policy position?
What do you think of Icarus's idea? That all outside earnings should be deducted from salary?
Edit. Maybe Robin Cook? Has there been one since then?
Agree re Field and Stuart - that's why I said if I thought about it a bit more I could possibly come up with more than two.
Even if we take all your names too, it's a bit depressing, isn't it? One per cent of the HoC are notably not abject twerps, and once we get past those six, we really have to think hard..!?
To be clear, MPs should only get a substantial pay rise when they start performing their job to a remotely acceptable standard. Since they in general perform pitifully poorly, they should be in it together with the rest of the public.
When was the last time an "independent" body looked at anybody's work, either in the public or the private sector and said, "you know what, he or she is currently a bit over paid.".
1% for public employees is government policy. They really cannot be different.
Firstly there is an argument for dividing the role of the MP into two halves: casework and scrutiny. (Let's say for the sake of argument pay them each £32,500). MPs all get paid for the scrutiny role, but can then opt to do the casework role - but not do any outside activities - or do outside activities but then not get paid for any casework that they may choose to do in addition. In theory the voters can then decide whether they are strongly opposed to one structure or not when it comes to an election.
The more important issue, for me, is to create a career structure for backbench MPs that doesn't involve becoming ministers. I have no issue with paid Select Committee chairman / members (and properly resourcing the committees) - make it viable for someone not to focus on the greasy pole. (Longer term, I think we would benefit from ministers not - in effect - having to be MPs, but that would take time to get to that position)
It is always possible for researchers to find some quangos that do good work, whereas others (for example the Potato Council – yes, it does really exist and pays its staff an average of over £47,000 per year: www.potato.org.uk) have clearly had their chips. http://www.jonathanarnott.co.uk/2013/07/save-money-cut-a-quango/
The other irritating thing about MPs is that every time they benchmarked themselves they always seemed to pick someone who is a professional, subject to performance review or dismissal, and of whom certain prior qualifications, admisison criteria, and work output were expected.
So police officers, senior civil servants etc were always the preferred comparators according to who was getting paid most that week.
To win outright in 2015 the Tories have to do something that no governing party has done for a very long time - they have to increase their vote share. I also look at that big jump in the Labour polling immediately after the coalition was announced - spomething that no-one on here seems to be able to find ever happening before to a party just thrown out of government - and I find it hard to conclude other than Labour will poll more than it did last time and that it is reasonable to assume it will probably be in the 34%-36% range on election day. No cpomplacency there, just a view based on what has happened up to now.
I have absolutely no doubt of two other things: if Alan Johnson or someone similar had stood for election as party leader in 2010 and won, Labour would be a lot further ahead in the polls; but if the Torioes had won outright in 2010, they would now be clear favourites to win big in 2015.
OTOH I agree that other options with pay as well as standing should be developed for backbench MPs who either don't want to be ministers or whose faces don't fit. Being chairs of the committees is one way but arguably (if the base salary was reduced) there should be more paid positions on such committees particularly for those that contribute to reports or the collation of useful information informing the work of the House.
' and a set of (non) policies and U turns so bewilderingly woeful as to drive them all barking mad or take up farming in Cheshire.'
Some have even taken up Dressage in Toxteth.
Contributory money purchase pension as well.
Assistants should be provided from a pool in the civil service 1 per back bencher, perhaps more if they chair committees etc.
Any MP caught breaking these rules immediately recalled and a by election held with the MP concerned banned from standing.
Brilliant press release from Scottish Labour. It simply says “Draft 2 text”
MPs also genuinely need constituency office staff if they're to do the job properly (not necessarily one full time but certainly one part-time), as well as in London. Probably 1.5 should be adequate, though as you say, there ought to be provision for commitee chairs and ministers to have more given their additional workload.
As a principle, I dislike the idea of banning anyone from office. It should be down to the party to determine who is fit to fly their colours and the local electorate to decide who of those nominated they want to represent them.
At the moment MPs are some of the best paid social workers in the country but they do not have the qualifications or judgment that allows them to take on such a role. Maybe their pay should be the maximum (up to a limit of course) they have managed to earn before they came to Parliament.
For the majority of the population, austerity has not been as hard as you might think when looking at some of the figures, such as those often referred to as "living standards".
Labour's task then is, as you say, to articulate it more clearly, how they will sustain more of the "good" spending, whilst managing Osborne's spending totals more fairly and effectively. Not easy, but not a bad plan at all.
Worth remembering that Labour don't need to convince "the electorate", just 2010 Brown + enough 2010 Lib Dems, to see them home. If they do that then the Tories need to get up towards their 2010 share just to deprive Ed of a majority. That seems unlikely. The electoral dynamics still hugely favour Labour.
Though their lead does need to be either rock solid, or larger than it currently is, to withstand the inevitable campaign onslaught from the press, who are not going to give up their Tory Government without one hell of a scrap.
As a principle, I dislike the idea of banning anyone from office. It should be down to the party to determine who is fit to fly their colours and the local electorate to decide who of those nominated they want to represent them.
Even though a donkey wearing a blue or red rosette in certain seats would get in! I remember the 'right of being elected' attitude of Marcus Fox and welcomed his defeat - because of this attitude, even though I'm as blue as a clear day's sky!
Pirelli are being allowed to change the rear tyres for this weekend's race at the Nurburgring. The front tyres will remain the same as they have all season.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/23141389
This is impressively fast work by Pirelli, and the FIA also need some commendation for having seen the need and steamrollered the changes past the teams.
I wonder if Pirelli had the new tyres in stock, or if they are having to build new ones (and transport) before Friday? If so that's exceptional: 22 cars with two rear tyres each is 44 tyres. Each car can have 11 sets of dry tyres available for the weekend. That is 484 tyres to be manufactured, tested and shipped in a few days.
http://www.wall-street.com/uk-household-disposable-income-sharply-falls-in-q1-as-wages-decline/
If voters think they're all crap on the economy (which they do at the moment) then doesn't it more or less neutralise the issue?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100224324/the-next-general-election-is-now-david-camerons-to-lose/
However the easy solution would be just to effectively treat government-paid mortgages as equity.
Say an MP pays £100K for a house with a £10K deposit and a £90K interest only mortgage paid for by the state.
If he sells it for £200K, then he should be allowed to keep £20K (his proportionate share). However, of course, if the house goes down in value to £50K, then he should only lose half his deposit.