I suspect, that we’re moving towards a position where the universal welfare state is going to be questioned (which is a euphemism for slowly demolished) as a matter of necessity. Some Labour politicians privately concede this, or at least they did. I spoke to several Labour backbenchers in the months after the last election, and they talked of the need to reward those on low to middle incomes who contribute to the welfare system and recalibrate the range of services and support to benefit the more vulnerable (David Lammy wrote an excellent book about these and related matters). This was promising; but the party blinked under Miliband and Balls, safe in the knowledge that the cry of ‘evil Tory cuts’ would sweep it back into power as if it was 1945. In reality, 2015 beckons.
Oxfordshire nominations: Con 63, Lab 63, Grn 61, LD 60, UKIP 52, Ind 9, MRLP 1, HRG 1.
It looks like at least one of the LD gaps is deliberate to let a strong Ind in. A number of the Inds are very credible candidates including at least three former Lab councillors.
Big rise for UKIP.
The other oddity is that one of the sitting Green county councillors in Oxford is standing as a Tory against a Green city councillor. Presumably lost a selection or something?
"I don't think there has been a huge attitudional change."
From Blair's speechwriter, in the Times, today:
"In 1987, according to Ipsos MORI, 55 per cent of people thought that more should be spent on the poor even if it meant higher taxes. Now only 27 per cent agree."
Ed Balls has dealt with his speeding offence with considerable style.
I thought that earlier in fairness. I also think he has been extremely unlucky. 56 in a 50 and he is penalised? Must have been a fairly quiet day or he had a car that was in the canteen sweep.
Ed Conway @EdConwaySky 3m What's the French for "triple-dip"? Citi economists reckon France is "on the cusp of a triple-dip recession". UK may avoid one.
Ah, is the Widget of Pomposity and Self-Righteousness back already? Could I make a request of Edmund - how about an option to see PB through another poster's eyes?
It would be fun taking in the restricted view of certain people - like being a North Korean for a day.
Ed Balls has dealt with his speeding offence with considerable style.
I thought that earlier in fairness. I also think he has been extremely unlucky. 56 in a 50 and he is penalised? Must have been a fairly quiet day or he had a car that was in the canteen sweep.
It would be fun taking in the restricted view of certain people - like being a North Korean for a day.
It's going to be fun seeing exactly how long it lasts when stories break and they get upset, as they so often do. As I recall we've found out they were less than honest before about using it.
I think on benefit reform I tend to agree more with Southam than SeanT. Each time one of these stories comes out I think people are annoyed and more than a little bewildered but we are a long way from angry. I think most Brits recognise that many of the recipients are in fact deserving and still think it is right that we have some sort of safety net.
The details are just too bewildering to get a grip of and we are too tolerate as a nation to really, really want to do something about it unless we absolutely have to. Some may call this sloth but I think our tolerance and acceptance of our responsibilities to those less advantaged is something we should genuinely be proud of.
I really doubt the tories can change this is a big way but Labour gets little credit from the situation.
We don't know what his range is yet and won't for some while. All we know is that he is streets ahead of the best two and two and a half milers around. We are indebted to Cue Card for giving us some indication of just how good he is at those distances. Let's hope he gets tested over three now.
At a guess, I'd say he will win a GC one day, but it can only be a guess right now.
He's making me ache for next season already.
Incidentally, my three are all well and we are just waiting for the summer, whenever that may be.
"PB Tories. Always seeing patterns in things that aren't there."
The pattern is there. Whether it is statistically significant is hard to say, but it seems rational enough, so I'm inclined to the view that the obvious explanation is likely to apply.
Sorry to be so reasonable, but I'm sure your prejudices won't be in the least bit perturbed.
Talking of patterns that aren't there, can I look forward to another article like the International Business Times one posted yesterday? The conspiracy of the inverted commas was a joy.
think most Brits recognise that many of the recipients are in fact deserving and still think it is right that we have some sort of safety net.
The story is also over. He's going to Jail. Unless Cameron and Osborne plan to ghoulishly scour every court in the land for criminal cases involving those on welfare they've had their 'fun' and it's back to reality and their losing gap in the polls.
Those May local elections are also fast approaching and the UKIP vote does not look like vanishing.
May I again thank Ed for the vanilla widget - it makes such a difference to filter out the chaff.
I don't get the grandiose widgetspeak. Do you really think that the widgeted give a toss about not being read by posters who would use a widget? Use it fine, big deal. But banging on about it makes you look like a bit of a sad tw&t, tbh.
"I don't think there has been a huge attitudional change."
From Blair's speechwriter, in the Times, today:
"In 1987, according to Ipsos MORI, 55 per cent of people thought that more should be spent on the poor even if it meant higher taxes. Now only 27 per cent agree."
That was a generation ago. I am thinking more about the last 5 to 10 years. Sorry, I should have been clearer.
Why not, for once, simply admit you were provably and demonstrably wrong? It would make a change, and save this site from oblivion. Just a thought. The partisan inability of some commenters to ever admit error, because they are shillling, or just intectually insecure, makes pb increasingly unreadable.
Sorry - I thought you wanted a discussion, I did not realise you were engaged in one of your tedious lefty-bashing trolling exercises.
But for the record, I did say that I got it wrong. I should have bene clearer about the timeframe I was talking about.
Ed Balls has dealt with his speeding offence with considerable style.
I thought that earlier in fairness. I also think he has been extremely unlucky. 56 in a 50 and he is penalised? Must have been a fairly quiet day or he had a car that was in the canteen sweep.
I think on benefit reform I tend to agree more with Southam than SeanT. Each time one of these stories comes out I think people are annoyed and more than a little bewildered but we are a long way from angry. I think most Brits recognise that many of the recipients are in fact deserving and still think it is right that we have some sort of safety net.
The details are just too bewildering to get a grip of and we are too tolerate as a nation to really, really want to do something about it unless we absolutely have to. Some may call this sloth but I think our tolerance and acceptance of our responsibilities to those less advantaged is something we should genuinely be proud of.
I really doubt the tories can change this is a big way but Labour gets little credit from the situation.
Nice post, David. I think, as with refugees, on the left we're reluctant to wade in against individual cases because we find ourelves in the company of people who think "they're all like that".
"I don't get the grandiose widgetspeak. Do you really think that the widgeted give a toss about not being read by posters who would use a widget? Use it fine, big deal. But banging on about it makes you looks like a bit of a sad tw&t, tbh."
"Talking of patterns that aren't there, can I look forward to another article like the International Business Times one posted yesterday? The conspiracy of the inverted commas was a joy."
I am, as ever, grateful for your keen interest. I entered into a vague agreement before Christmas to write an article once a month for the IBT, and I've done four so far. But the policy on using bloggers seems to have changed recently, so I don't know whether my latest submission will ever appear.
By the way, the inverted commas thing wasn't a figment of my imagination - in particular I had in mind a certain Labour blogger called Alex Gallagher, who hilariously goes by the name of Braveheart. He never, ever, uses the word independence without putting it in inverted commas.
Ah, is the Widget of Pomposity and Self-Righteousness back already? Could I make a request of Edmund - how about an option to see PB through another poster's eyes?
It would be fun taking in the restricted view of certain people - like being a North Korean for a day.
Maybe for some people it's about blocking out other views, but I bet for many it's just about removing the abusive posters of whatever persuasion.
it seems to be systematically higher in the two regions (North and Scotland) with the highest of claimants and Labour voters, middling in Midlands/Wales, and lowest in London and the South.
The region with the most constituencies in the top 40 of benefit claims tables is the Midlands. (five in London, none in Scotland fyi)
I never knew you had a blog, Nick. My fault I am sure, but now I do I shall look forward to reading your posts and crying "Boll0cks!" from time to time.
P.S. I do like the blog title, "Positive Politics", something we as a nation are desperately short of.
Blair would have made it tighter (no poll I remember ever showed a Blair-led Labour sub-30% as Brown got) but Cameron would still have led the largest party
Ah, is the Widget of Pomposity and Self-Righteousness back already? Could I make a request of Edmund - how about an option to see PB through another poster's eyes?
It would be fun taking in the restricted view of certain people - like being a North Korean for a day.
Maybe for some people it's about blocking out other views, but I bet for many it's just about removing the abusive posters of whatever persuasion.
Really?
Bet you most widget users don't block abusive posters of their own political persuasion.
as a previous lurker and current toe-dipper I must say I don't get the reason for a widget. While I get the fact that we can't all be as witty, acute or incisive as I am, what on earth is the point of excluding elements of PB which make it what it is?
Like playing Mornington Crescent and marvelling at how clever you are.
Friday evening sharpener kicking in btw, sorry.
Looking forward to tomorrow. Today I agree SS wasn't jumping as fluently as you would have hoped and praps that's why NH said that 2m4f was it for him. Bit of a shame if so.
Alex Massie demonstrating that there are Tories other than the PB variety.
'The Philpott case is horrific; so is the attempt to highjack it for any political purpose
I regret to say that this kind of rancid authoritarianism has even infected the Spectator. Douglas Murray, for instance, thunders that “people who have no job and no prospect of getting one and yet have more children are bad and selfish people.” Perhaps they are. Should abortions be compulsory in such circumstances? Should there be a minimum income threshold below which you are not permitted more than one or, at a pinch, two children? How do you determine who has “no prospect” of getting a job? As Douglas says “exactly how this should be done can be debated”. I suppose it can! Welcome to Beijing-on-the-Humber. Not that Douglas Murray is alone in this. David Davis suggests child benefit should be limited to the first two children in any family. You can tell this is an idiotic idea because it is enthusiastically endorsed by Bernard Jenkin. As Freddy Gray says, there is something distasteful about the relish with which it is suddenly fine and dandy to express your revulsion at the feckless poor and their irresponsibly large families.'
as a previous lurker and current toe-dipper I must say I don't get the reason for a widget. While I get the fact that we can't all be as witty, acute or incisive as I am, what on earth is the point of excluding elements of PB which make it what it is?</blockquote>
I would never consider using it. I think one of its features is the ability to avoid (be blind to) certain posters. To my mind that is like the farmer's wife standing on a chair to avoid a mouse, but maybe I'm insensitive.
For all the polling supporting benefit reform, the public aren't on the whole heartless Rightwing swines. They want reform done fairly, carefully, compassionately, protecting the genuinely needy.
The Tories just look too nasty as they go about it with just a little too much relish, and they may gain no friends amongst the centrist / mild left floating voters they need for a majority.
On-topic. This is akin to asking whether Margaret Thatcher would have won a fourth term in 1992. How would Blair have reacted as PM to the onset of the financial crisis? Would he have allowed Brown free rein on the international financial stage or would he, to paraphrase Ken Clarke, have parked his tanks on Brown's lawn?
Would the financial crisis have been the final parting of the ways between Blair and Brown? We would not have had the lame duck PM that we had with Blair from 2005-07 but the question as to whether he would have wanted to serve a full fourth term under the economic circumstances is one to consider.
I think Blair would have found the debates hard going but he would have been more combative than Brown and probably would have landed more blows especially in the Foreign Policy debate though the economic debate wouldn't have played to his strengths.
The more I think about it, the less difference I think it would have made. I wonder if the residual anti-Blair (remembering Iraq) vote would have made Labour's task even harder and it's hard to see Blair being comfortable with Obama after 2009.
"This is akin to asking whether Margaret Thatcher would have won a fourth term in 1992"
That one's even simpler : no, she wouldn't. Perhaps voters would still have pulled back from the brink of giving Kinnock an overall majority, but the absolute most she could have hoped for would have been Labour as the largest party in a hung parliament.
o one feels that sorry for the poor, any more. Life is tuff for everyone. Suck it up, etc.
This is a potential election winner, for the Tories. And if they had a plausible WWC Tebbity leader in place, my guess is they'd win a majority. With Cam and Oz it is unlikely - but not impossible.
The obv irony is that PM Miliband will then have to enforce the biggest welfare cuts in UK history, anyway.
Absolutely bang on Sean, as usual. Is there anyone in the Tories who can do this? A Tebbitty figure, as you say. I can't think of anyone right now, other than Hague, who probably doesn't want it.
What odds on a Tory / UKIP coalition at the next election, where the North votes UKIP?
Blair is deluded. He just can't come to terms with the fact that he has completely lost the political standing he once had, and no amount of hot air can change that.
As John McEnroe puts it 'The older I get, the better I was'. But that feeling of how good one was doesn't actually change anything, sadly.
Comments
It looks like at least one of the LD gaps is deliberate to let a strong Ind in. A number of the Inds are very credible candidates including at least three former Lab councillors.
Big rise for UKIP.
The other oddity is that one of the sitting Green county councillors in Oxford is standing as a Tory against a Green city councillor. Presumably lost a selection or something?
"Philip Collins is shackled by the epithet ‘Tony Blair’s former speechwriter"
*tears of laughter etc*
Dan Hodges, now is the time for more Dan Hodges. That will definitely prove it.
@JananGanesh: Labour cannot let the impression settle among voters that a certain genre of campaigner-pundit speaks for the party.
I wondered what Chris Huhne thought if he got the chance to read this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22044198
Oh the might have been's.
What's the French for "triple-dip"? Citi economists reckon France is "on the cusp of a triple-dip recession". UK may avoid one.
Ah, is the Widget of Pomposity and Self-Righteousness back already? Could I make a request of Edmund - how about an option to see PB through another poster's eyes?
It would be fun taking in the restricted view of certain people - like being a North Korean for a day.
*chuckles*
The details are just too bewildering to get a grip of and we are too tolerate as a nation to really, really want to do something about it unless we absolutely have to. Some may call this sloth but I think our tolerance and acceptance of our responsibilities to those less advantaged is something we should genuinely be proud of.
I really doubt the tories can change this is a big way but Labour gets little credit from the situation.
We don't know what his range is yet and won't for some while. All we know is that he is streets ahead of the best two and two and a half milers around. We are indebted to Cue Card for giving us some indication of just how good he is at those distances. Let's hope he gets tested over three now.
At a guess, I'd say he will win a GC one day, but it can only be a guess right now.
He's making me ache for next season already.
Incidentally, my three are all well and we are just waiting for the summer, whenever that may be.
Sorry to be so reasonable, but I'm sure your prejudices won't be in the least bit perturbed.
Talking of patterns that aren't there, can I look forward to another article like the International Business Times one posted yesterday? The conspiracy of the inverted commas was a joy.
Those May local elections are also fast approaching and the UKIP vote does not look like vanishing.
But for the record, I did say that I got it wrong. I should have bene clearer about the timeframe I was talking about.
Hard to believe.
What I've said on my blog FWIW:
http://www.nickpalmer.org.uk/what-do-we-want-in-the-budget/#comment-9
As so often Carola puts her finger on the button.
I am, as ever, grateful for your keen interest. I entered into a vague agreement before Christmas to write an article once a month for the IBT, and I've done four so far. But the policy on using bloggers seems to have changed recently, so I don't know whether my latest submission will ever appear.
By the way, the inverted commas thing wasn't a figment of my imagination - in particular I had in mind a certain Labour blogger called Alex Gallagher, who hilariously goes by the name of Braveheart. He never, ever, uses the word independence without putting it in inverted commas.
As Carola hinted, if it is about that for some people then they won't be the ones to boast about using it.
(five in London, none in Scotland fyi)
http://tinyurl.com/6y9xaf3
"What I've said on my blog"
I never knew you had a blog, Nick. My fault I am sure, but now I do I shall look forward to reading your posts and crying "Boll0cks!" from time to time.
P.S. I do like the blog title, "Positive Politics", something we as a nation are desperately short of.
What about my personal favourite "Camerrhoid"?
Bet you most widget users don't block abusive posters of their own political persuasion.
Harry The Viking.
That's me.
as a previous lurker and current toe-dipper I must say I don't get the reason for a widget. While I get the fact that we can't all be as witty, acute or incisive as I am, what on earth is the point of excluding elements of PB which make it what it is?
Like playing Mornington Crescent and marvelling at how clever you are.
Friday evening sharpener kicking in btw, sorry.
Looking forward to tomorrow. Today I agree SS wasn't jumping as fluently as you would have hoped and praps that's why NH said that 2m4f was it for him. Bit of a shame if so.
'The Philpott case is horrific; so is the attempt to highjack it for any political purpose
I regret to say that this kind of rancid authoritarianism has even infected the Spectator. Douglas Murray, for instance, thunders that “people who have no job and no prospect of getting one and yet have more children are bad and selfish people.” Perhaps they are. Should abortions be compulsory in such circumstances? Should there be a minimum income threshold below which you are not permitted more than one or, at a pinch, two children? How do you determine who has “no prospect” of getting a job? As Douglas says “exactly how this should be done can be debated”. I suppose it can! Welcome to Beijing-on-the-Humber.
Not that Douglas Murray is alone in this. David Davis suggests child benefit should be limited to the first two children in any family. You can tell this is an idiotic idea because it is enthusiastically endorsed by Bernard Jenkin. As Freddy Gray says, there is something distasteful about the relish with which it is suddenly fine and dandy to express your revulsion at the feckless poor and their irresponsibly large families.'
http://tinyurl.com/cfsxp6y
as a previous lurker and current toe-dipper I must say I don't get the reason for a widget. While I get the fact that we can't all be as witty, acute or incisive as I am, what on earth is the point of excluding elements of PB which make it what it is?</blockquote>
I would never consider using it. I think one of its features is the ability to avoid (be blind to) certain posters. To my mind that is like the farmer's wife standing on a chair to avoid a mouse, but maybe I'm insensitive.
And that is the Tory problem in a nutshell.
For all the polling supporting benefit reform, the public aren't on the whole heartless Rightwing swines. They want reform done fairly, carefully, compassionately, protecting the genuinely needy.
The Tories just look too nasty as they go about it with just a little too much relish, and they may gain no friends amongst the centrist / mild left floating voters they need for a majority.
Chips, green salad and a side plate of onion rings is the minimum necessary.
And all washed down with a Hungarovin Vintners 'Bull's Blood' Szekszardi red wine.
Not a meal for a Prince but perfectly adequate for an informal supper with close friends.
On-topic. This is akin to asking whether Margaret Thatcher would have won a fourth term in 1992. How would Blair have reacted as PM to the onset of the financial crisis? Would he have allowed Brown free rein on the international financial stage or would he, to paraphrase Ken Clarke, have parked his tanks on Brown's lawn?
Would the financial crisis have been the final parting of the ways between Blair and Brown? We would not have had the lame duck PM that we had with Blair from 2005-07 but the question as to whether he would have wanted to serve a full fourth term under the economic circumstances is one to consider.
I think Blair would have found the debates hard going but he would have been more combative than Brown and probably would have landed more blows especially in the Foreign Policy debate though the economic debate wouldn't have played to his strengths.
The more I think about it, the less difference I think it would have made. I wonder if the residual anti-Blair (remembering Iraq) vote would have made Labour's task even harder and it's hard to see Blair being comfortable with Obama after 2009.
That one's even simpler : no, she wouldn't. Perhaps voters would still have pulled back from the brink of giving Kinnock an overall majority, but the absolute most she could have hoped for would have been Labour as the largest party in a hung parliament.
I'll have £100@1,000/1
As John McEnroe puts it 'The older I get, the better I was'. But that feeling of how good one was doesn't actually change anything, sadly.