I agree he won't put an end to normal politics. But Labour has different fault lines to the current government. Corbyn's critics have been primarily motivated by the fear that he would...
By contrast, the current Cabinet, with exceptions like Gove, seem to do little but maneouvre and brief about the uselessness of their rivals. What else is Boris, for instance, really about?
As a Corbynsceptic Labour member - who would've regarded myself as on the left - I have to say I disagree with this, my own primary fear, as well as those I speak to, is that the numbers are miles from adding up and the priorities set -i.e. £10 bn on tuition fees when ending the benefits freeze wasn't accounted for - that disaster is inevitable. That's not from a Tory 'money tree' perspective but one that largely agrees with the tax rises proposes but looking at past figures doesn't think they'll raise nearly as much as claimed - even before Brexit. Failure to deliver, or alternatively to raid those who were told others would pay, would cause deep anger and usher in yonks of Tory rule, and nastier, more uncompromising rule at that. Obviously, when Corbyn was an electoral joke, this wasn't the primary concern - you don't quibble over the details of the menu if heading for an iceberg, you shout 'iceberg'.
What's changed then? Well those I speak to are certainly prepared to be much more generous towards Corbyn, but still if pushed will admit deep worries that there's a black hole where explanations of how his promises will be delivered should be. If offered the chance to retire him to his allotment without another civil war, we would do it in a heartbeat, for most alternatives except the obvious. However, after the leadership election and the GE there's an acknowledgement that silence over this is the best policy, and to work constructively in areas where there's either agreement or potential sympathy - the biggest of course being Brexit, which Corbynism doesn't have much of a position on except to follow the people while being nicer than the Tories. But with the current Momentum recruited membership, kicking off again would be an exercise in futility.
There a plenty of people, particulary women, who'd be great alternative leaders. But any hint of a challenge would be suicide, and more importantly embolden the nastiest elements of Corbyn's support - who live for some new conspiracy and feed off it. No, we need to let all this play out and rebuild so that we're there to pick up the pieces.
What's interesting is if this holds if the Tories continue to implode and charge towards the no deal cliff but remain roughly as popular as the idea of a Corbyn government. The tensions are still there, they're merely dormant.
Entertainment company Netflix has severed ties with Kevin Spacey, star of its House of Cards show, amid a number of sex assault allegations against him.
But I am sure Rog told us that Kevin had handled this brilliantly and done nothing wrong....
Kev is a Democrat supporting friend of the Clintons. He's obviously the innocent victim of a witch hunt.
Kev did star in The Usual Suspects and Se7en so he will always have that going for him as well...
Keyser Soze!
....And American Beauty thoght I'm not sure he'll be talking too much about that one at the moment!
Nonetheless one of Hollywood's finest actors
People will look at American Beauty in a new light from now on I suspect.
He was/is a great actor. Portillo made the point on This Week that you have to differentiate the artist from the art.
However bad the Spacey revelations get (and at this point it looks like they are going to get pretty bad) I hope it won't damage the credibility of his past work...
I don't think in the long run it'll damage him at all or even his future work. For better or worse people don't see gay bad behaviour in the same way they do straight. It's complicated but when the dust settles I think you'll see this is true.
Netflix have said they will have nothing to do with a House of Cards that has Spacey in it and are discussing the remaining episodes with the production company. They also will not air his film about Gore Vidal which has been shot and is in post production.
Nexflix suing Spacey for the cost of production and cancellation would be rather amusing to watch. I wonder how much he’d settle for to avoid a public court case?
' 126,000 households - including 60,000 pensioners - get help from the current scheme. From April they, and anyone else who can't keep up their mortgage payments, will only be offered a loan. '
Why are my taxes being used to pay the mortgages of 60,000 pensioners ???
I think if their income has become so low they qualify for pension credit.
Given they are pensioners their mortgages should have been taken out in the 1990s when house prices were much lower.
Unless since then they've MEWed themselves an unearned lifestyle.
I'm assuming there's some significance to that phrase beyond the fact cats always miaow when they demand feeding - and they are always demanding feeding - but I can't see it. Could you enlighten me please?
Mortgage Equity Withdrawal.
When house values increase the owner takes a cash sum with that money being added onto the mortgage.
It was initially used as a funding source for things which would increase the value of the property - an extension or new kitchen for example.
But during the 2000s it was increasingly used as a way for people to live a lifestyle they couldn't otherwise afford.
I don't quite see how that closes the NHS down, the economy will slow down with the higher taxes but much of any of the extra revenue raised would go to the NHS.
When the Labour Party is already admitting they need to make preparations for a flight of capital if they get elected - which preparations will be in place only after the horse has long bolted if they look like winning - then those who pay for the NHS will have departed the UK tax regime. If Labour gets elected under Corbyn,
"– I warn you not to be ordinary
– I warn you not to be young
– I warn you not to fall ill
– I warn you not to get old.”
Poor post, which contains no analysis or Insight. If you believe it strongly, get out on the doorstep and put yourself up for office. If you don't, don't waste our time.
' 126,000 households - including 60,000 pensioners - get help from the current scheme. From April they, and anyone else who can't keep up their mortgage payments, will only be offered a loan. '
Why are my taxes being used to pay the mortgages of 60,000 pensioners ???
I think if their income has become so low they qualify for pension credit.
Given they are pensioners their mortgages should have been taken out in the 1990s when house prices were much lower.
Unless since then they've MEWed themselves an unearned lifestyle.
I'm assuming there's some significance to that phrase beyond the fact cats always miaow when they demand feeding - and they are always demanding feeding - but I can't see it. Could you enlighten me please?
Mortgage Equity Withdrawal.
When house values increase the owner takes a cash sum with that money being added onto the mortgage.
It was initially used as a funding source for things which would increase the value of the property - an extension or new kitchen for example.
But during the 2000s it was increasingly used as a way for people to live a lifestyle they couldn't otherwise afford.
Entertainment company Netflix has severed ties with Kevin Spacey, star of its House of Cards show, amid a number of sex assault allegations against him.
But I am sure Rog told us that Kevin had handled this brilliantly and done nothing wrong....
Kev is a Democrat supporting friend of the Clintons. He's obviously the innocent victim of a witch hunt.
Kev did star in The Usual Suspects and Se7en so he will always have that going for him as well...
Keyser Soze!
....And American Beauty thoght I'm not sure he'll be talking too much about that one at the moment!
Nonetheless one of Hollywood's finest actors
People will look at American Beauty in a new light from now on I suspect.
He was/is a great actor. Portillo made the point on This Week that you have to differentiate the artist from the art.
However bad the Spacey revelations get (and at this point it looks like they are going to get pretty bad) I hope it won't damage the credibility of his past work...
I don't think in the long run it'll damage him at all or even his future work. For better or worse people don't see gay bad behaviour in the same way they do straight. It's complicated but when the dust settles I think you'll see this is true.
Netflix have said they will have nothing to do with a House of Cards that has Spacey in it and are discussing the remaining episodes with the production company. They also will not air his film about Gore Vidal which has been shot and is in post production.
Nexflix suing Spacey for the cost of production and cancellation would be rather amusing to watch. I wonder how much he’d settle for to avoid a public court case?
I would hate to think how much House of Cards is worth to Netflix. $100 million? It is the equivalent of HBO having to cancel GoTs.
I don't quite see how that closes the NHS down, the economy will slow down with the higher taxes but much of any of the extra revenue raised would go to the NHS.
When the Labour Party is already admitting they need to make preparations for a flight of capital if they get elected - which preparations will be in place only after the horse has long bolted if they look like winning - then those who pay for the NHS will have departed the UK tax regime. If Labour gets elected under Corbyn,
"– I warn you not to be ordinary
– I warn you not to be young
– I warn you not to fall ill
– I warn you not to get old.”
The economy may crash, the City may weaken, strikes may increase and many of the rich may move abroad (though if Melenchon and Sanders get in left wing populism may not be unique to the UK) but the NHS will be about the least of our problems given most of any extra tax revenue will go to it and the middle classes are likely ultimately to be hit by higher taxes to pay for it and not just the rich.
The people who always hurt the most when Labour Governments fail the economy - as they inevitably do, because their business model is fundamentally broken - are the poorest in society. Those with least lose most - their future.
In terms of higher inflation Labour governments often bring certainly.
Though the rich also tend to see a significant rise in their tax bill from old Labour governments.
I don't quite see how that closes the NHS down, the economy will slow down with the higher taxes but much of any of the extra revenue raised would go to the NHS.
When the Labour Party is already admitting they need to make preparations for a flight of capital if they get elected - which preparations will be in place only after the horse has long bolted if they look like winning - then those who pay for the NHS will have departed the UK tax regime. If Labour gets elected under Corbyn,
"– I warn you not to be ordinary
– I warn you not to be young
– I warn you not to fall ill
– I warn you not to get old.”
Poor post, which contains no analysis or Insight. If you believe it strongly, get out on the doorstep and put yourself up for office. If you don't, don't waste our time.
If you'd read this blog for, let's say the past decade, you'd know how much of an activist I am.
But prepare to be unpopular. I find that every time I point out (with examples) that Labour's manifesto was uncosted, contradictory or both certain posters get very hot under the collar.
It's much easier to make friends pointing out the numbers in the Tory manifesto were just as lacking in credibility and considerably more brutal towards their voters. Even the Tories agree their manifesto was a shambles!
We have had discussions on here in the past about whether anyone ever changes their mind. The observation of Jo Brand above and the comments from a woman from the Equality Party on R5 when I was driving home yesterday have changed mine.
Yesterday or the day before I made a comment on here about the need to sort out the wheat from the chaff in respect of these allegations. I was completely wrong.
In a fully, free and fair democratic Germany, with a functioning constitution and impartial civil police force, I expect the Nazis would have achieved between 32%-35% of the vote in 1933, gone into coalition, and then won re-election in c.1937 off the back of their economic record, and populist moves on the Rhineland, union with Austria (which would probably have been narrowly carried anyway) and pulling out of the League of Nations.
Obviously, once WWII kicked off, all bets were off (even we didn't have elections) but whilst they might have had strong Reichstag support for moving against Czechoslovakia, Poland would probably have been approached differently and I very much doubt they'd have won a vote to initiate total war with Russia, which was very much a Nazi obsession.
The first two volumes of Victor Klemperer's diaries offer the best insight into pre-war and wartime Germany. Recommended as a hard going but rewarding read for those interested.
Thanks. I'll check it out.
I'm reading Simon Heffer's latest book at the moment: The Age of Decadence: Britain 1880 to 1914.
If you're not a fan of his, don't let the author's name put you off.
It's a surprisingly objective read, even if he can go on a bit, and, what struck me, is just how contemporary it feels by really immersing you in the politics of the 1880s and 1890s, particularly on issues like housing, land reform, extending the franchise and home rule in Ireland.
Thanks for the pointer. You're right, I wouldn't have given anything by Heffer even a glance. But writing that can place you "in the story" is always worth a look. That's the strength of Klemperer - written at the time with no subsequent editing. He's a Jewish guy, cousin of the famous Otto, who survives because of his non-Jewish wife, his WW1 service for Germany, and a fair dose of luck. He writes about everyday life in the 30s; the reader of course knows the fate that awaits his friends but his diaries are full of lots of people who think it won't last, will blow over, the government will soon collapse, or who are willing to stick with Hitler for fear of someone worse (yes, really). He goes from worrying about the repairs to his house and car in the opening chapters to having everything taken from him in the later ones. A memoir that only came to light recently. A fascinating read.
But prepare to be unpopular. I find that every time I point out (with examples) that Labour's manifesto was uncosted, contradictory or both certain posters get very hot under the collar.
It's much easier to make friends pointing out the numbers in the Tory manifesto were just as lacking in credibility and considerably more brutal towards their voters. Even the Tories agree their manifesto was a shambles!
It may have the world's largest supplies of oil - but they are the nastiest, gunkiest deposits of extra-heavy crude oil. Not very viable at current oil prices.
I don't quite see how that closes the NHS down, the economy will slow down with the higher taxes but much of any of the extra revenue raised would go to the NHS.
When the Labour Party is already admitting they need to make preparations for a flight of capital if they get elected - which preparations will be in place only after the horse has long bolted if they look like winning - then those who pay for the NHS will have departed the UK tax regime. If Labour gets elected under Corbyn,
"– I warn you not to be ordinary
– I warn you not to be young
– I warn you not to fall ill
– I warn you not to get old.”
Poor post, which contains no analysis or Insight. If you believe it strongly, get out on the doorstep and put yourself up for office. If you don't, don't waste our time.
If you'd read this blog for, let's say the past decade, you'd know how much of an activist I am.
Fine, but the post I called you out on has no obvious target. No one is here to be persuaded by stuff like that.
I don't quite see how that closes the NHS down, the economy will slow down with the higher taxes but much of any of the extra revenue raised would go to the NHS.
When the Labour Party is already admitting they need to make preparations for a flight of capital if they get elected - which preparations will be in place only after the horse has long bolted if they look like winning - then those who pay for the NHS will have departed the UK tax regime. If Labour gets elected under Corbyn,
"– I warn you not to be ordinary
– I warn you not to be young
– I warn you not to fall ill
– I warn you not to get old.”
The economy may crash, the City may weaken, strikes may increase and many of the rich may move abroad (though if Melenchon and Sanders get in left wing populism may not be unique to the UK) but the NHS will be about the least of our problems given most of any extra tax revenue will go to it and the middle classes are likely ultimately to be hit by higher taxes to pay for it and not just the rich.
The people who always hurt the most when Labour Governments fail the economy - as they inevitably do, because their business model is fundamentally broken - are the poorest in society. Those with least lose most - their future.
In terms of higher inflation Labour governments often bring certainly.
Though the rich also tend to see a significant rise in their tax bill from old Labour governments.
The rich tend to be in the best position to weather the storm on account of them, er, being rich....
Whether Labour (led by a guy who is 68), Conservative (PM who is 61) or Lib Dem 74, we are stuck with an aging political elite (average age 67 and a bit) - whilst Cameron was young ish, younger politicians seem so out of fashion, all so different from 2015 when they were all relatively young things......(Clegg, Cameron and Miliband)
Those "relatively young things" were rejected by the voters, either through their manifesto or their Referendum stance.
Basically they didn't get it - "it" being that the voters are not up for buying a pup. They've tried that - Blair, Cameron - and didn't like it, thank you very much.
Of course, they aren't liking experience much either, when it is the front and back of a wide-of-the-mark me-me-me election campaign; a retread Red Robbo (RIP) from the seventies; or a retread from the time when the LibDems could still ride two horses going in opposite directions...
Nobody older than 52 (Blair, 2005), has led any party to winning a majority in the last 30 years.
On the other hand I think I am right in saying that prior to that nobody younger than 48 (Wilson, 1964) had won a majority at a general election since 1812 (Lord Liverpool, 42).
Yes, I think so. Derby would have come very close in 1847 if he could have kept the Peelite faction on board (he was 48 at the time but then so was Wilson in 1964 so I'm assuming you're working with '48 and younger').
Yes. But the Peelites never had the slightest intention of working with Derby, and particularly Bentinck and Disraeli. So I think Wilson's crown is safe!
It is interesting to reflect that on raw numbers alone the Conservatives won every election from 1841good morning.
It is not difficult to see Labour getting more than 300 seats next time. Very likely to win 20 seats from the SNP plus a further 20 off the Tories. The Tories are likely to drop below 300.
On present polling Scotland would be largely unchanged from June but there would be a roughly 2% swing from the Tories to Labour which would probably see the Tories as largest party but a Labour minority government propped up by the SNP and LDs.
re- Scotland. I doubt that very much. The SNP might still end up with 35%/36% but Labour would probably exceed 30% by the end of the campaign. I would expect a change in the distribution of SNP support too - probably recovering a bit against the Tories in NE Scotland but losing heavily to Labour in Glasgow and the Central Belt.
We have had discussions on here in the past about whether anyone ever changes their mind. The observation of Jo Brand above and the comments from a woman from the Equality Party on R5 when I was driving home yesterday have changed mine.
Yesterday or the day before I made a comment on here about the need to sort out the wheat from the chaff in respect of these allegations. I was completely wrong.
Well played, sir.
The shot of Hislop & Letts looking like peeved but admonished wee boys is rather telling.
We have had discussions on here in the past about whether anyone ever changes their mind. The observation of Jo Brand above and the comments from a woman from the Equality Party on R5 when I was driving home yesterday have changed mine.
Yesterday or the day before I made a comment on here about the need to sort out the wheat from the chaff in respect of these allegations. I was completely wrong.
Well played, sir.
The shot of Hislop & Letts looking like peeved but admonished wee boys is rather telling.
As was the response of the audience. We may be slow but I think we’ve got there.
' 126,000 households - including 60,000 pensioners - get help from the current scheme. From April they, and anyone else who can't keep up their mortgage payments, will only be offered a loan. '
Why are my taxes being used to pay the mortgages of 60,000 pensioners ???
I think if their income has become so low they qualify for pension credit.
Given they are pensioners their mortgages should have been taken out in the 1990s when house prices were much lower.
Unless since then they've MEWed themselves an unearned lifestyle.
I'm assuming there's some significance to that phrase beyond the fact cats always miaow when they demand feeding - and they are always demanding feeding - but I can't see it. Could you enlighten me please?
Mortgage Equity Withdrawal.
When house values increase the owner takes a cash sum with that money being added onto the mortgage.
It was initially used as a funding source for things which would increase the value of the property - an extension or new kitchen for example.
But during the 2000s it was increasingly used as a way for people to live a lifestyle they couldn't otherwise afford.
' 126,000 households - including 60,000 pensioners - get help from the current scheme. From April they, and anyone else who can't keep up their mortgage payments, will only be offered a loan. '
Why are my taxes being used to pay the mortgages of 60,000 pensioners ???
I think if their income has become so low they qualify for pension credit.
Given they are pensioners their mortgages should have been taken out in the 1990s when house prices were much lower.
Unless since then they've MEWed themselves an unearned lifestyle.
I'm assuming there's some significance to that phrase beyond the fact cats always miaow when they demand feeding - and they are always demanding feeding - but I can't see it. Could you enlighten me please?
Mortgage Equity Withdrawal.
When house values increase the owner takes a cash sum with that money being added onto the mortgage.
It was initially used as a funding source for things which would increase the value of the property - an extension or new kitchen for example.
But during the 2000s it was increasingly used as a way for people to live a lifestyle they couldn't otherwise afford.
' 126,000 households - including 60,000 pensioners - get help from the current scheme. From April they, and anyone else who can't keep up their mortgage payments, will only be offered a loan. '
Why are my taxes being used to pay the mortgages of 60,000 pensioners ???
I think if their income has become so low they qualify for pension credit.
Given they are pensioners their mortgages should have been taken out in the 1990s when house prices were much lower with consequently lower mortgage payments.
Unless since then they've MEWed themselves an unearned lifestyle.
Obviously differing personal circumstances , divorce , buying property later in life , no personal pension etc . I am not aware of the means test and what income is required to apply for pension credit.However with the changes to UC for UE adding to the loan and no payments for 39 weeks if eligible the re possessions would increase.So I would think the original policy was to try and stop this.
I don't quite see how that closes the NHS down, the economy will slow down with the higher taxes but much of any of the extra revenue raised would go to the NHS.
When the Labour Party is already admitting they need to make preparations for a flight of capital if they get elected - which preparations will be in place only after the horse has long bolted if they look like winning - then those who pay for the NHS will have departed the UK tax regime. If Labour gets elected under Corbyn,
"– I warn you not to be ordinary
– I warn you not to be young
– I warn you not to fall ill
– I warn you not to get old.”
Poor post, which contains no analysis or Insight. If you believe it strongly, get out on the doorstep and put yourself up for office. If you don't, don't waste our time.
If you'd read this blog for, let's say the past decade, you'd know how much of an activist I am.
Fine, but the post I called you out on has no obvious target. No one is here to be persuaded by stuff like that.
I can see why you might be peeved, having Kinnock's words played back at you....
' 126,000 households - including 60,000 pensioners - get help from the current scheme. From April they, and anyone else who can't keep up their mortgage payments, will only be offered a loan. '
Why are my taxes being used to pay the mortgages of 60,000 pensioners ???
I think if their income has become so low they qualify for pension credit.
Given they are pensioners their mortgages should have been taken out in the 1990s when house prices were much lower.
Unless since then they've MEWed themselves an unearned lifestyle.
I'm assuming there's some significance to that phrase beyond the fact cats always miaow when they demand feeding - and they are always demanding feeding - but I can't see it. Could you enlighten me please?
Mortgage Equity Withdrawal.
When house values increase the owner takes a cash sum with that money being added onto the mortgage.
It was initially used as a funding source for things which would increase the value of the property - an extension or new kitchen for example.
But during the 2000s it was increasingly used as a way for people to live a lifestyle they couldn't otherwise afford.
But prepare to be unpopular. I find that every time I point out (with examples) that Labour's manifesto was uncosted, contradictory or both certain posters get very hot under the collar.
It's much easier to make friends pointing out the numbers in the Tory manifesto were just as lacking in credibility and considerably more brutal towards their voters. Even the Tories agree their manifesto was a shambles!
Just because Labour’s manifesto had numbers in it, didn’t mean it was close to being costed.
Heroic assumptions, like significant increases in tax rates not producing any changes in behaviour, a ‘National Care Service’ costing £3bn and writing off outstanding tuition fees being £10bn weren’t called out for what they were by their opponents during the campaign.
It may have the world's largest supplies of oil - but they are the nastiest, gunkiest deposits of extra-heavy crude oil. Not very viable at current oil prices.
Russia was the only major country to still have a peasant based agrarian economy in 1913. It still grew more grain than the USA.
And it was also the country that had two famines in the following two decades.
' 126,000 households - including 60,000 pensioners - get help from the current scheme. From April they, and anyone else who can't keep up their mortgage payments, will only be offered a loan. '
Why are my taxes being used to pay the mortgages of 60,000 pensioners ???
I think if their income has become so low they qualify for pension credit.
Given they are pensioners their mortgages should have been taken out in the 1990s when house prices were much lower.
Unless since then they've MEWed themselves an unearned lifestyle.
I'm assuming there's some significance to that phrase beyond the fact cats always miaow when they demand feeding - and they are always demanding feeding - but I can't see it. Could you enlighten me please?
Mortgage Equity Withdrawal.
When house values increase the owner takes a cash sum with that money being added onto the mortgage.
It was initially used as a funding source for things which would increase the value of the property - an extension or new kitchen for example.
But during the 2000s it was increasingly used as a way for people to live a lifestyle they couldn't otherwise afford.
But prepare to be unpopular. I find that every time I point out (with examples) that Labour's manifesto was uncosted, contradictory or both certain posters get very hot under the collar.
It's much easier to make friends pointing out the numbers in the Tory manifesto were just as lacking in credibility and considerably more brutal towards their voters. Even the Tories agree their manifesto was a shambles!
What numbers?
Those crazy numbers that May and Hill made up on the back of a fag packet.
I don't quite see how that closes the NHS down, the economy will slow down with the higher taxes but much of any of the extra revenue raised would go to the NHS.
When the Labour Party is already admitting they need to make preparations for a flight of capital if they get elected - which preparations will be in place only after the horse has long bolted if they look like winning - then those who pay for the NHS will have departed the UK tax regime. If Labour gets elected under Corbyn,
"– I warn you not to be ordinary
– I warn you not to be young
– I warn you not to fall ill
– I warn you not to get old.”
Poor post, which contains no analysis or Insight. If you believe it strongly, get out on the doorstep and put yourself up for office. If you don't, don't waste our time.
If you'd read this blog for, let's say the past decade, you'd know how much of an activist I am.
Fine, but the post I called you out on has no obvious target. No one is here to be persuaded by stuff like that.
I can see why you might be peeved, having Kinnock's words played back at you....
Not really. I dislike Labour almost as much as I detest the Tories.
' 126,000 households - including 60,000 pensioners - get help from the current scheme. From April they, and anyone else who can't keep up their mortgage payments, will only be offered a loan. '
Why are my taxes being used to pay the mortgages of 60,000 pensioners ???
I think if their income has become so low they qualify for pension credit.
Given they are pensioners their mortgages should have been taken out in the 1990s when house prices were much lower.
Unless since then they've MEWed themselves an unearned lifestyle.
I'm assuming there's some significance to that phrase beyond the fact cats always miaow when they demand feeding - and they are always demanding feeding - but I can't see it. Could you enlighten me please?
Mortgage Equity Withdrawal.
When house values increase the owner takes a cash sum with that money being added onto the mortgage.
It was initially used as a funding source for things which would increase the value of the property - an extension or new kitchen for example.
But during the 2000s it was increasingly used as a way for people to live a lifestyle they couldn't otherwise afford.
It was worth over £300bn of extra consumer spending pumped into the economy between 2001 and 2007.
Even before government borrowing went out of control the UK economy had become dependent upon debt fuelled consumption.
In fact it was the ending of this housing related borrowing which led to the increase in government borrowing.
I haven't come across this before, and it sounds interesting and relevant to something I'm working on. Do you have any links to further information on it? If you do I'd be grateful if you could post them. No worries if not.
Whether Labour (led by a guy who is 68), Conservative (PM who is 61) or Lib Dem 74, we are stuck with an aging political elite (average age 67 and a bit) - whilst Cameron was young ish, younger politicians seem so out of fashion, all so different from 2015 when they were all relatively young things......(Clegg, Cameron and Miliband)
Those "relatively young things" were rejected by the voters, either through their manifesto or their Referendum stance.
Basically they didn't get it - "it" being that the voters are not up for buying a pup. They've tried that - Blair, Cameron - and didn't like it, thank you very much.
Of course, they aren't liking experience much either, when it is the front and back of a wide-of-the-mark me-me-me election campaign; a retread Red Robbo (RIP) from the seventies; or a retread from the time when the LibDems could still ride two horses going in opposite directions...
Nobody older than 52 (Blair, 2005), has led any party to winning a majority in the last 30 years.
On the other hand I think I am right in saying that prior to that nobody younger than 48 (Wilson, 1964) had won a majority at a general election since 1812 (Lord Liverpool, 42).
.
It is not difficult to see Labour getting more than 300 seats next time. Very likely to win 20 seats from the SNP plus a further 20 off the Tories. The Tories are likely to drop below 300.
Which 20 do you see them taking off the Tories? And are you certain they won't lose any themselves?
There are some obvious targets - Preseli Pembrokeshire and Aberconway in Wales for starters and perhaps Arfon from Plaid.. In England Labour should be well placed in Southampton Itchen - Hastings & Rye - Pudsey - Chipping Barnet - Calder Valley - Telford - Norwich North - Broxtowe - Northampton North - Hendon- Putney - both the Milton Keynes seats .Quite likely too that Labour would win back seats such as Copeland - Mansfield - Walsall North.
But prepare to be unpopular. I find that every time I point out (with examples) that Labour's manifesto was uncosted, contradictory or both certain posters get very hot under the collar.
It's much easier to make friends pointing out the numbers in the Tory manifesto were just as lacking in credibility and considerably more brutal towards their voters. Even the Tories agree their manifesto was a shambles!
Just because Labour’s manifesto had numbers in it, didn’t mean it was close to being costed.
Heroic assumptions, like significant increases in tax rates not producing any changes in behaviour, a ‘National Care Service’ costing £3bn and writing off outstanding tuition fees being £10bn weren’t called out for what they were by their opponents during the campaign.
I think my sister's response was the best. She told a (victorious) Labour candidate that she couldn't vote for him because as an accountant she felt the numbers did not add up. When he tried the old 'it has been fully costed' dodge, she replied acidly, 'so has my six year old's Christmas shopping list, but that doesn't mean I can pay out the figures she's come up with!'
We have had discussions on here in the past about whether anyone ever changes their mind. The observation of Jo Brand above and the comments from a woman from the Equality Party on R5 when I was driving home yesterday have changed mine.
Yesterday or the day before I made a comment on here about the need to sort out the wheat from the chaff in respect of these allegations. I was completely wrong.
Well played, sir.
The shot of Hislop & Letts looking like peeved but admonished wee boys is rather telling.
As was the response of the audience. We may be slow but I think we’ve got there.
' 126,000 households - including 60,000 pensioners - get help from the current scheme. From April they, and anyone else who can't keep up their mortgage payments, will only be offered a loan. '
Why are my taxes being used to pay the mortgages of 60,000 pensioners ???
I think if their income has become so low they qualify for pension credit.
Given they are pensioners their mortgages should have been taken out in the 1990s when house prices were much lower.
Unless since then they've MEWed themselves an unearned lifestyle.
I'm assuming there's some significance to that phrase beyond the fact cats always miaow when they demand feeding - and they are always demanding feeding - but I can't see it. Could you enlighten me please?
Mortgage Equity Withdrawal.
When house values increase the owner takes a cash sum with that money being added onto the mortgage.
It was initially used as a funding source for things which would increase the value of the property - an extension or new kitchen for example.
But during the 2000s it was increasingly used as a way for people to live a lifestyle they couldn't otherwise afford.
There’s no way government should be paying mortgages for people who have retired at the usual age, that’s completely bonkers.
They were originally after 13 weeks paying the interest capped at 2.9% upto a max of 200k I believe.Direct to the mortgage company.
For people who have become temporarily unemployed or become sick, I can understand. It’s not in anyone’s interest for someone to be repossessed if they’re genuinely looking for a job.
But for retired people, no chance. They can either downsize or pay their own damn mortgages. Even MPs aren’t allowed to have the government buy them a house any more.
' 126,000 households - including 60,000 pensioners - get help from the current scheme. From April they, and anyone else who can't keep up their mortgage payments, will only be offered a loan. '
Why are my taxes being used to pay the mortgages of 60,000 pensioners ???
I think if their income has become so low they qualify for pension credit.
Given they are pensioners their mortgages should have been taken out in the 1990s when house prices were much lower.
Unless since then they've MEWed themselves an unearned lifestyle.
I'm assuming there's some significance to that phrase beyond the fact cats always miaow when they demand feeding - and they are always demanding feeding - but I can't see it. Could you enlighten me please?
Mortgage Equity Withdrawal.
When house values increase the owner takes a cash sum with that money being added onto the mortgage.
It was initially used as a funding source for things which would increase the value of the property - an extension or new kitchen for example.
But during the 2000s it was increasingly used as a way for people to live a lifestyle they couldn't otherwise afford.
There’s no way government should be paying mortgages for people who have retired at the usual age, that’s completely bonkers.
They were originally after 13 weeks paying the interest capped at 2.9% upto a max of 200k I believe.Direct to the mortgage company.
For people who have become temporarily unemployed or become sick, I can understand.
But for retired people, no chance. They can either downsize or pay their own damn mortgages. Even MPs aren’t allowed to have the government buy them a house any more.
Indeed 40% of people will never own and always rent, taxpayers cannot pay peoples' mortgages indefinitely.
But prepare to be unpopular. I find that every time I point out (with examples) that Labour's manifesto was uncosted, contradictory or both certain posters get very hot under the collar.
It's much easier to make friends pointing out the numbers in the Tory manifesto were just as lacking in credibility and considerably more brutal towards their voters. Even the Tories agree their manifesto was a shambles!
It's all a bit bizarre really - but a problem across both sides of politics. They're all like the Underpants Gnomes from South Park. Able to tell us the end destination (Buccaneering, prosperous, free-trading, and foreigner-free Brexit Britain or Socialist Jeztopia), but not any plausible, costed and road tested detail on how we get there.
I don't quite see how that closes the NHS down, the economy will slow down with the higher taxes but much of any of the extra revenue raised would go to the NHS.
When the Labour Party is already admitting they need to make preparations for a flight of capital if they get elected - which preparations will be in place only after the horse has long bolted if they look like winning - then those who pay for the NHS will have departed the UK tax regime. If Labour gets elected under Corbyn,
"– I warn you not to be ordinary
– I warn you not to be young
– I warn you not to fall ill
– I warn you not to get old.”
The economy may crash, the City may weaken, strikes may increase and many of the rich may move abroad (though if Melenchon and Sanders get in left wing populism may not be unique to the UK) but the NHS will be about the least of our problems given most of any extra tax revenue will go to it and the middle classes are likely ultimately to be hit by higher taxes to pay for it and not just the rich.
The people who always hurt the most when Labour Governments fail the economy - as they inevitably do, because their business model is fundamentally broken - are the poorest in society. Those with least lose most - their future.
In terms of higher inflation Labour governments often bring certainly.
Though the rich also tend to see a significant rise in their tax bill from old Labour governments.
The rich tend to be in the best position to weather the storm on account of them, er, being rich....
Of course but it would still be a storm they have to weather
Where I have slight qualms is with the alleged universal nature of it - the #yesallwomen angle. Sexual harassment is clearly widespread in politics, acting, the national media. Whenever I come into contact with Silicon Valley-style startups (and, more often, wannabe SV-style startups) I am horrified by how sexist the attitudes there are. But that is not to say that every area of employment is similarly afflicted, or that rural areas are as bad as city culture.
' 126,000 households - including 60,000 pensioners - get help from the current scheme. From April they, and anyone else who can't keep up their mortgage payments, will only be offered a loan. '
Why are my taxes being used to pay the mortgages of 60,000 pensioners ???
I think if their income has become so low they qualify for pension credit.
Given they are pensioners their mortgages should have been taken out in the 1990s when house prices were much lower.
Unless since then they've MEWed themselves an unearned lifestyle.
I'm assuming there's some significance to that phrase beyond the fact cats always miaow when they demand feeding - and they are always demanding feeding - but I can't see it. Could you enlighten me please?
Mortgage Equity Withdrawal.
When house values increase the owner takes a cash sum with that money being added onto the mortgage.
It was initially used as a funding source for things which would increase the value of the property - an extension or new kitchen for example.
But during the 2000s it was increasingly used as a way for people to live a lifestyle they couldn't otherwise afford.
There’s no way government should be paying mortgages for people who have retired at the usual age, that’s completely bonkers.
They were originally after 13 weeks paying the interest capped at 2.9% upto a max of 200k I believe.Direct to the mortgage company.
For people who have become temporarily unemployed or become sick, I can understand.
But for retired people, no chance. They can either downsize or pay their own damn mortgages. Even MPs aren’t allowed to have the government buy them a house any more.
Indeed 40% of people will never own and always rent, taxpayers cannot pay peoples' mortgages indefinitely.
So it's OK to pay the Mortgages of BTL landlords, but not those of owner occupiers?
Whether Labour (led by a guy who is 68), Conservative (PM who is 61) or Lib Dem 74, we are stuck with an aging political elite (average age 67 and a bit) - whilst Cameron was young ish, younger politicians seem so out of fashion, all so different from 2015 when they were all relatively young things......(Clegg, Cameron and Miliband)
Those "relatively young things" were rejected by the voters, either through their manifesto or their Referendum stance.
Basically they didn't get it - "it" being that the voters are not up for buying a pup. They've tried that - Blair, Cameron - and didn't like it, thank you very much.
Of course, they aren't liking experience much either, when it is rections...
Nobody older than 52 (Blair, 2005), has led any party to winning a majority in the last 30 years.
On the other hand I think I am right in saying that prior to that nobody younger than 48 (Wilson, 1964) had won a majority at a general election since 1812 (Lord Liverpool, 42).
Yes, I think so. Derby would have come very close in 1847 if he could have kept the Peelite faction on board (he was 48 at the time but then so was Wilson in 1964 so I'm assuming you're working with '48 and younger').
Yes. But the Peelites never had the slightest intention of working with Derby, and particularly Bentinck and Disraeli. So I think Wilson's crown is safe!
It is interesting to reflect that on raw numbers alone the Conservatives won every election from 1841good morning.
It is not difficult to see Labour getting more than 300 seats next time. Very likely to win 20 seats from the SNP plus a further 20 off the Tories. The Tories are likely to drop below 300.
On present polling Scotland would be largely unchanged from June but there would be a roughly 2% swing from the Tories to Labour which would probably see the Tories as largest party but a Labour minority government propped up by the SNP and LDs.
re- Scotland. I doubt that very much. The SNP might still end up with 35%/36% but Labour would probably exceed 30% by the end of the campaign. I would expect a change in the distribution of SNP support too - probably recovering a bit against the Tories in NE Scotland but losing heavily to Labour in Glasgow and the Central Belt.
There is not much change in current Scottish Wesminster polls from June and even of there was Corbyn is still likely to need SNP support to have a majority in the Commons.
' 126,000 households - including 60,000 pensioners - get help from the current scheme. From April they, and anyone else who can't keep up their mortgage payments, will only be offered a loan. '
Why are my taxes being used to pay the mortgages of 60,000 pensioners ???
I think if their income has become so low they qualify for pension credit.
Given they are pensioners their mortgages should have been taken out in the 1990s when house prices were much lower.
Unless since then they've MEWed themselves an unearned lifestyle.
I'm assuming there's some significance to that phrase beyond the fact cats always miaow when they demand feeding - and they are always demanding feeding - but I can't see it. Could you enlighten me please?
Mortgage Equity Withdrawal.
When house values increase the owner takes a cash sum with that money being added onto the mortgage.
It was initially used as a funding source for things which would increase the value of the property - an extension or new kitchen for example.
But during the 2000s it was increasingly used as a way for people to live a lifestyle they couldn't otherwise afford.
It was worth over £300bn of extra consumer spending pumped into the economy between 2001 and 2007.
Even before government borrowing went out of control the UK economy had become dependent upon debt fuelled consumption.
In fact it was the ending of this housing related borrowing which led to the increase in government borrowing.
I haven't come across this before, and it sounds interesting and relevant to something I'm working on. Do you have any links to further information on it? If you do I'd be grateful if you could post them. No worries if not.
There are some databases on this site which you can download:
' 126,000 households - including 60,000 pensioners - get help from the current scheme. From April they, and anyone else who can't keep up their mortgage payments, will only be offered a loan. '
Why are my taxes being used to pay the mortgages of 60,000 pensioners ???
I think if their income has become so low they qualify for pension credit.
Given they are pensioners their mortgages should have been taken out in the 1990s when house prices were much lower.
Unless since then they've MEWed themselves an unearned lifestyle.
I'm assuming there's some significance to that phrase beyond the fact cats always miaow when they demand feeding - and they are always demanding feeding - but I can't see it. Could you enlighten me please?
Mortgage Equity Withdrawal.
When house values increase the owner takes a cash sum with that money being added onto the mortgage.
It was initially used as a funding source for things which would increase the value of the property - an extension or new kitchen for example.
But during the 2000s it was increasingly used as a way for people to live a lifestyle they couldn't otherwise afford.
There’s no way government should be paying mortgages for people who have retired at the usual age, that’s completely bonkers.
They were originally after 13 weeks paying the interest capped at 2.9% upto a max of 200k I believe.Direct to the mortgage company.
For people who have become temporarily unemployed or become sick, I can understand.
But for retired people, no chance. They can either downsize or pay their own damn mortgages. Even MPs aren’t allowed to have the government buy them a house any more.
Indeed 40% of people will never own and always rent, taxpayers cannot pay peoples' mortgages indefinitely.
UC, for all the teething problems, should sort these things out. You’re right in what might sometimes appear to be a one-man crusade on here in defence of it. The implementation issues will be worked through and we should end up with something vaguely fit for purpose at the end of it all.
As someone said on here yesterday, Gordon Brown’s evil genius was taking £50bn of borrowed money and handing it out like sweeties at £1,300 an adult to more than 60% of the population - in such a way that the other 40% neither understand what’s happening nor the scope of the handouts.
' 126,000 households - including 60,000 pensioners - get help from the current scheme. From April they, and anyone else who can't keep up their mortgage payments, will only be offered a loan. '
Why are my taxes being used to pay the mortgages of 60,000 pensioners ???
I think if their income has become so low they qualify for pension credit.
Given they are pensioners their mortgages should have been taken out in the 1990s when house prices were much lower.
Unless since then they've MEWed themselves an unearned lifestyle.
I'm assuming there's some significance to that phrase beyond the fact cats always miaow when they demand feeding - and they are always demanding feeding - but I can't see it. Could you enlighten me please?
Mortgage Equity Withdrawal.
When house values increase the owner takes a cash sum with that money being added onto the mortgage.
It was initially used as a funding source for things which would increase the value of the property - an extension or new kitchen for example.
But during the 2000s it was increasingly used as a way for people to live a lifestyle they couldn't otherwise afford.
There’s no way government should be paying mortgages for people who have retired at the usual age, that’s completely bonkers.
They were originally after 13 weeks paying the interest capped at 2.9% upto a max of 200k I believe.Direct to the mortgage company.
For people who have become temporarily unemployed or become sick, I can understand.
But for retired people, no chance. They can either downsize or pay their own damn mortgages. Even MPs aren’t allowed to have the government buy them a house any more.
Indeed 40% of people will never own and always rent, taxpayers cannot pay peoples' mortgages indefinitely.
So it's OK to pay the Mortgages of BTL landlords, but not those of owner occupiers?
BTL landlords get their mortgages paid by their tenants, the fact a few of those tenants may be on benefits does not change the fact the taxpayer pays the tenant not the landlord to buy a property.
' 126,000 households - including 60,000 pensioners - get help from the current scheme. From April they, and anyone else who can't keep up their mortgage payments, will only be offered a loan. '
Why are my taxes being used to pay the mortgages of 60,000 pensioners ???
I think if their income has become so low they qualify for pension credit.
Given they are pensioners their mortgages should have been taken out in the 1990s when house prices were much lower.
Unless since then they've MEWed themselves an unearned lifestyle.
I'm assuming there's some significance to that phrase beyond the fact cats always miaow when they demand feeding - and they are always demanding feeding - but I can't see it. Could you enlighten me please?
Mortgage Equity Withdrawal.
When house values increase the owner takes a cash sum with that money being added onto the mortgage.
It was initially used as a funding source for things which would increase the value of the property - an extension or new kitchen for example.
But during the 2000s it was increasingly used as a way for people to live a lifestyle they couldn't otherwise afford.
There’s no way government should be paying mortgages for people who have retired at the usual age, that’s completely bonkers.
They were originally after 13 weeks paying the interest capped at 2.9% upto a max of 200k I believe.Direct to the mortgage company.
For people who have become temporarily unemployed or become sick, I can understand. It’s not in anyone’s interest for someone to be repossessed if they’re genuinely looking for a job.
But for retired people, no chance. They can either downsize or pay their own damn mortgages. Even MPs aren’t allowed to have the government buy them a house any more.
I was surprised that pensioners were eligible .I thought it was to cover unemployment redundancy or sickness .So to stop re possessions affecting the market after the 08 banking crisis.Also I guess not to pay unnecessary housing benefits if they had to be re housed in the private rented sector especially families with children , where there is a legal requirement for the local council to act.
' 126,000 households - including 60,000 pensioners - get help from the current scheme. From April they, and anyone else who can't keep up their mortgage payments, will only be offered a loan. '
Why are my taxes being used to pay the mortgages of 60,000 pensioners ???
I think if their income has become so low they qualify for pension credit.
Given they are pensioners their mortgages should have been taken out in the 1990s when house prices were much lower.
Unless since then they've MEWed themselves an unearned lifestyle.
I'm assuming there's some significance to that phrase beyond the fact cats always miaow when they demand feeding - and they are always demanding feeding - but I can't see it. Could you enlighten me please?
Mortgage Equity Withdrawal.
When house values increase the owner takes a cash sum with that money being added onto the mortgage.
It was initially used as a funding source for things which would increase the value of the property - an y bonkers.
They were originally after 13 weeks paying the interest capped at 2.9% upto a max of 200k I believe.Direct to the mortgage company.
For people who have become temporarily unemployed or become sick, I can understand.
But for retired people, no chance. They can either downsize or pay their own damn mortgages. Even MPs aren’t allowed to have the government buy them a house any more.
Indeed 40% of people will never own and always rent, taxpayers cannot pay peoples' mortgages indefinitely.
UC, for all the teething problems, should sort these things out. You’re right in what might sometimes appear to be a one-man crusade on here in defence of it. The implementation issues will be worked through and we shunned u with something fit for purpose at the end of it.
As someone said on here yesterday, Gordon Brown’s evil genius was taking £50bn of borrowed money and handing it out like sweeties at £1,300 an adult to more than 60% of the population - in such a way that the other 40% neither understand what’s happening nor the scope of the handouts.
There are some obvious targets - Preseli Pembrokeshire and Aberconway in Wales for starters and perhaps Arfon from Plaid.. In England Labour should be well placed in Southampton Itchen - Hastings & Rye - Pudsey - Chipping Barnet - Calder Valley - Telford - Norwich North - Broxtowe - Northampton North - Hendon- Putney - both the Milton Keynes seats .Quite likely too that Labour would win back seats such as Copeland - Mansfield - Walsall North.
They have no chance in Telford. They'll retake Cannock before challenging there. Similarly Aberconwy. They have even less chance in Arfon and as soon as Albert Owen retires they will be struggling badly in Ynys Mon. Preseli is possibly slightly more realistic but it's a long shot. Carmarthen West would be more plausible. Putney and Hastings are marginal on paper but except in truly epic defeats it's rare for cabinet ministers to lose seats so I would doubt if both will go. The three last you name are going the wrong way from Labour's point of view demographically - Copeland is now a semi-safe seat I would have said as is Calder Valley - and may well be joined by others anyway e.g. Newcastle under Lyme, Stroud, Canterbury possibly although that's perhaps a longer shot (I think even Bolsover can't be taken for granted when Skinner retires and Derby South may also be vulnerable should Beckett have had enough). Milton Keynes is a more difficult one to read either way and I don't know enough about it to speculate.
That leaves the following where I would agree with you.
I make that seven, and that barely balances the possible losses.
Although Corbyn is in a far stronger position than anyone expected, the fact is he is still a long way off largest party status, and changing that may take more time than he has left at the age of 68.
' 126,000 households - including 60,000 pensioners - get help from the current scheme. From April they, and anyone else who can't keep up their mortgage payments, will only be offered a loan. '
Why are my taxes being used to pay the mortgages of 60,000 pensioners ???
I think if their income has become so low they qualify for pension credit.
Given they are pensioners their mortgages should have been taken out in the 1990s when house prices were much lower.
Unless since then they've MEWed themselves an unearned lifestyle.
I'm assuming there's some significance to that phrase beyond the fact cats always miaow when they demand feeding - and they are always demanding feeding - but I can't see it. Could you enlighten me please?
Mortgage Equity Withdrawal.
When house values increase the owner takes a cash sum with that money being added onto the mortgage.
It was initially used as a funding source for things which would increase the value of the property - an extension or new kitchen for example.
But during the 2000s it was increasingly used as a way for people to live a lifestyle they couldn't otherwise afford.
It was worth over £300bn of extra consumer spending pumped into the economy between 2001 and 2007.
Even before government borrowing went out of control the UK economy had become dependent upon debt fuelled consumption.
In fact it was the ending of this housing related borrowing which led to the increase in government borrowing.
I haven't come across this before, and it sounds interesting and relevant to something I'm working on. Do you have any links to further information on it? If you do I'd be grateful if you could post them. No worries if not.
There are some databases on this site which you can download:
Where I have slight qualms is with the alleged universal nature of it - the #yesallwomen angle. Sexual harassment is clearly widespread in politics, acting, the national media. Whenever I come into contact with Silicon Valley-style startups (and, more often, wannabe SV-style startups) I am horrified by how sexist the attitudes there are. But that is not to say that every area of employment is similarly afflicted, or that rural areas are as bad as city culture.
I get a bit fed up with harping on about victims, though. Why do any women tolerate it more than very briefly?
Could a politician like Shirley Williams be commissioned by parliament to do a youtube video on how females should and can deal with groping, leering and other male bad behaviour by being a bit more assertive? She's on record that she dealt with it at the start of her political career, say 50-60 years ago, long before we had male and female 'equality'. Her advice was:
Don't let him get started; retaliate verbally or physically. Then he won't continue with it.
JHB was in as powerful a position as Fallon so perhaps found it easier to do this.
Given they are pensioners their mortgages should have been taken out in the 1990s when house prices were much lower.
Unless since then they've MEWed themselves an unearned lifestyle.
I'm assuming there's some significance to that phrase beyond the fact cats always miaow when they demand feeding - and they are always demanding feeding - but I can't see it. Could you enlighten me please?
Mortgage Equity Withdrawal.
When house values increase the owner takes a cash sum with that money being added onto the mortgage.
It was initially used as a funding source for things which would increase the value of the property - an extension or new kitchen for example.
But during the 2000s it was increasingly used as a way for people to live a lifestyle they couldn't otherwise afford.
It was worth over £300bn of extra consumer spending pumped into the economy between 2001 and 2007.
Even before government borrowing went out of control the UK economy had become dependent upon debt fuelled consumption.
In fact it was the ending of this housing related borrowing which led to the increase in government borrowing.
I haven't come across this before, and it sounds interesting and relevant to something I'm working on. Do you have any links to further information on it? If you do I'd be grateful if you could post them. No worries if not.
There are some databases on this site which you can download:
Thank you. Much appreciated. I shall get right on this.
As a result I have to leave. Have a good afternoon everyone!
This gives some idea of the economic effect MEW had:
' Consumer spending before the credit crunch was boosted by households using equity withdrawal on easy terms from lenders. At one point in 2006, equity withdrawal accounted for 4.7% of total spending in the economy. In stark contrast, the amount being paid off now represents 4.2% of post-tax income, as consumers reduce debt and improve their personal balance sheets. '
Jesus. Any Answers is eye-opening re: sexual harassment. Feminism, make-up and women with no backbone blamed in the first 5 minutes... Edit: Now wolf-whistling makes women feel good. It only stops because they are old.
There are some obvious targets - Preseli Pembrokeshire and Aberconway in Wales for starters and perhaps Arfon from Plaid.. In England Labour should be well placed in Southampton Itchen - Hastings & Rye - Pudsey - Chipping Barnet - Calder Valley - Telford - Norwich North - Broxtowe - Northampton North - Hendon- Putney - both the Milton Keynes seats .Quite likely too that Labour would win back seats such as Copeland - Mansfield - Walsall North.
possibly although that's perhaps a longer shot (I think even Bolsover can't be taken for granted when Skinner retires and Derby South may also be vulnerable should Beckett have had enough). Milton Keynes is a more difficult one to read either way and I don't know enough about it to speculate.
That leaves the following where I would agree with you.
I make that seven, and that barely balances the possible losses.
Although Corbyn is in a far stronger position than anyone expected, the fact is he is still a long way off largest party status, and changing that may take more time than he has left at the age of 68.
I must ask whether you have actually looked at the election results in these seats? How can you possibly say that Labour has no chance at all in Telford where the Tory majority was a mere 720 votes? Labour requires a swing of 0.9% to take it.The Tory majority in Aberconway was 635 and was slashed to just 317 in Preseli Pembrokeshire. In both cases, only tiny swings are needed to win there.As for Calder Valley and Copeland now being semi-safe seats, Labour needs a swing of 0.5% to remove the Tory majority in the former - just 609 last June. Copeland was almost certainly only won by the Tories because of the by-election in the same seat at the end of February. When a seat changes hands in a by election the winning party invariably outperforms at the subsequent General Election. Given that Labour managed to hold Barrow - which was more vulnerable! - Labour would have retained Copeland had the by election not taken place. I really do not know why you believe that Cabinet Ministers are more secure than other MPs. Ben Gummer lost his seat at Ipswich. Amber Rudd saw her majority slashed from 4600 to 346 and Justine Greenings majority at Putney collapsed from 10000 to just 1554.Given the big swings which have already occured there , why is a very small additional swing so unlikely next time? I could also have added to my list seats such as Pendle - Morecambe & Lunesdale - Harrow East - and Camborne & Redruth.
Jesus. Any Answers is eye-opening re: sexual harassment. Feminism, make-up and women with no backbone blamed in the first 5 minutes... Edit: Now wolf-whistling makes women feel good. It only stops because they are old.
Jesus. Any Answers is eye-opening re: sexual harassment. Feminism, make-up and women with no backbone blamed in the first 5 minutes...
The problem is that abuse, odd (but consensual) sexual behaviour, flirtation, inappropriate (but not abusive) behaviour are getting mixed up in these allegations.
Jesus. Any Answers is eye-opening re: sexual harassment. Feminism, make-up and women with no backbone blamed in the first 5 minutes... Edit: Now wolf-whistling makes women feel good. It only stops because they are old.
As Yougov showed, most people don't regard wolf-whistling as sexual harassment, but most women aged 18-24 do.
Jesus. Any Answers is eye-opening re: sexual harassment. Feminism, make-up and women with no backbone blamed in the first 5 minutes...
The problem is that abuse, odd (but consensual) sexual behaviour, flirtation, inappropriate (but not abusive) behaviour are getting mixed up in these allegations.
I would agree with you on that regarding consent/non-consent. However, it would appear that there are many men (skewed possibly to the older ages), who seem to think it is their right to touch women when they want. Indeed I overheard 2 elderly gentlemen agreeing on this in the local library yesterday.
Jesus. Any Answers is eye-opening re: sexual harassment. Feminism, make-up and women with no backbone blamed in the first 5 minutes... Edit: Now wolf-whistling makes women feel good. It only stops because they are old.
Jesus. Any Answers is eye-opening re: sexual harassment. Feminism, make-up and women with no backbone blamed in the first 5 minutes...
The problem is that abuse, odd (but consensual) sexual behaviour, flirtation, inappropriate (but not abusive) behaviour are getting mixed up in these allegations.
I would agree with you on that regarding consent/non-consent. However, it would appear that there are many men (skewed possibly to the older ages), who seem to think it is their right to touch women when they want. Indeed I overheard 2 elderly gentlemen agreeing on this in the local library yesterday.
In a fully, free and fair democratic Germany, with a functioning constitution and impartial civil police force, I expect the Nazis would have achieved between 32%-35% of the vote in 1933, gone into coalition, and then won re-election in c.1937 off the back of their economic record, and populist moves on the Rhineland, union with Austria (which would probably have been narrowly carried anyway) and pulling out of the League of Nations.
The
Thanks. I'll check it out.
I'm reading Simon Heffer's latest book at the moment: The Age of Decadence: Britain 1880 to 1914.
If you're not a fan of his, don't let the author's name put you off.
It's a surprisingly objective read, even if he can go on a bit, and, what struck me, is just how contemporary it feels by really immersing you in the politics of the 1880s and 1890s, particularly on issues like housing, land reform, extending the franchise and home rule in Ireland.
Thanks for the pointer. You're right, I wouldn't have given anything by Heffer even a glance. But writing that can place you "in the story" is always worth a look. That's the strength of Klemperer - written at the time with no subsequent editing. He's a Jewish guy, cousin of the famous Otto, who survives because of his non-Jewish wife, his WW1 service for Germany, and a fair dose of luck. He writes about everyday life in the 30s; the reader of course knows the fate that awaits his friends but his diaries are full of lots of people who think it won't last, will blow over, the government will soon collapse, or who are willing to stick with Hitler for fear of someone worse (yes, really). He goes from worrying about the repairs to his house and car in the opening chapters to having everything taken from him in the later ones. A memoir that only came to light recently. A fascinating read.
We tend to judge history by the standards and knowledge of today when, truth be told, the fact is that many of us would have reached similar conclusions had we been alive at the time.
Jesus. Any Answers is eye-opening re: sexual harassment. Feminism, make-up and women with no backbone blamed in the first 5 minutes... Edit: Now wolf-whistling makes women feel good. It only stops because they are old.
Jesus. Any Answers is eye-opening re: sexual harassment. Feminism, make-up and women with no backbone blamed in the first 5 minutes... Edit: Now wolf-whistling makes women feel good. It only stops because they are old.
Jesus. Any Answers is eye-opening re: sexual harassment. Feminism, make-up and women with no backbone blamed in the first 5 minutes...
The problem is that abuse, odd (but consensual) sexual behaviour, flirtation, inappropriate (but not abusive) behaviour are getting mixed up in these allegations.
Yes, the media (including HIGNFY) are going on and on about knee-touching, and ignoring abusive relationships, serious sensual assaults and, most importantly, coverups by political parties of abuse by senior people.
Jesus. Any Answers is eye-opening re: sexual harassment. Feminism, make-up and women with no backbone blamed in the first 5 minutes... Edit: Now wolf-whistling makes women feel good. It only stops because they are old.
What about FGM, forced marriages, etc?
And the ‘Rotherham’ problem.
Again. What aboout it?
Why a politician touching a journalist’s knee is headline news, but systematic rape of thousands of vulnerable young people in what we call ‘care’ is being ignored in all of the discussions about abuse.
Jesus. Any Answers is eye-opening re: sexual harassment. Feminism, make-up and women with no backbone blamed in the first 5 minutes... Edit: Now wolf-whistling makes women feel good. It only stops because they are old.
What about FGM, forced marriages, etc?
And the ‘Rotherham’ problem.
Again. What aboout it?
Why a politician touching a journalist’s knee is headline news, but systematic rape of thousands of vulnerable young people in what we call ‘care’ is being ignored in all of the discussions about abuse.
The abuse of vulnerable women exists on a spectrum. Because one example is infinitely worse than another does not negate the validity of another. The attitudes displayed by some on Any Answers were exactly the same as those displayed in Rotherham. ie, blame the victim, excuse the perpetrator.
Jesus. Any Answers is eye-opening re: sexual harassment. Feminism, make-up and women with no backbone blamed in the first 5 minutes... Edit: Now wolf-whistling makes women feel good. It only stops because they are old.
As Yougov showed, most people don't regard wolf-whistling as sexual harassment, but most women aged 18-24 do.
Personally, I've always thought wolf-whistling both a crass and embarrassing thing to do. There is also a more aggressive sort: my wife had a white van driver lean out of his window as he was driving past, and make a sexually explicit gesture to her, as she was walking to the station, only 3 weeks ago. She ignored it, but she was irritated by it.
But, I don't share the view of some radical feminists that all forms of male flirting are some sort of microaggression. You have to use your judgement, you will occasionally get it wrong, then you apologise, move on and don't do it again.
Some men need to be a bit more understanding and some women a little more forgiving.
Jesus. Any Answers is eye-opening re: sexual harassment. Feminism, make-up and women with no backbone blamed in the first 5 minutes... Edit: Now wolf-whistling makes women feel good. It only stops because they are old.
As Yougov showed, most people don't regard wolf-whistling as sexual harassment, but most women aged 18-24 do.
Personally, I've always thought wolf-whistling both a crass and embarrassing thing to do. There is also a more aggressive sort: my wife had a white van driver lean out of his window as he was driving past, and make a sexually explicit gesture to her, as she was walking to the station, only 3 weeks ago. She ignored it, but she was irritated by it.
But, I don't share the view of some radical feminists that all forms of male flirting are some sort of microaggression. You have to use your judgement, you will occasionally get it wrong, then you apologise, move on and don't do it again.
Some men need to be a bit more understanding and some women a little more forgiving.
In construction, the Considerate Constructors Scheme has tried to stop builders wolf-whistling at women:
Just to add to that, Mr. Dean, a third of Rotherham victims were male (as reported at the time, but not often). People are very happy to conceive of male failures or male perpetrators, but male victims occupy a small space in the media's collective mind.
Just to add to that, Mr. Dean, a third of Rotherham victims were male (as reported at the time, but not often). People are very happy to conceive of male failures or male perpetrators, but male victims occupy a small space in the media's collective mind.
Indeed. Could not agree more. Was in error not mentioning it. It is an abuse of power, not an abuse of a gender.
Jesus. Any Answers is eye-opening re: sexual harassment. Feminism, make-up and women with no backbone blamed in the first 5 minutes... Edit: Now wolf-whistling makes women feel good. It only stops because they are old.
As Yougov showed, most people don't regard wolf-whistling as sexual harassment, but most women aged 18-24 do.
Personally, I've always thought wolf-whistling both a crass and embarrassing thing to do. There is also a more aggressive sort: my wife had a white van driver lean out of his window as he was driving past, and make a sexually explicit gesture to her, as she was walking to the station, only 3 weeks ago. She ignored it, but she was irritated by it.
But, I don't share the view of some radical feminists that all forms of male flirting are some sort of microaggression. You have to use your judgement, you will occasionally get it wrong, then you apologise, move on and don't do it again.
Some men need to be a bit more understanding and some women a little more forgiving.
In construction, the Considerate Constructors Scheme has tried to stop builders wolf-whistling at women:
Mr. Urquhart, to be fair, numbers aren't her strong suit. Or she might be talking about the 16 year olds that came over from Calais, before barriers had to be put up to stop the public from seeing the youngsters' cheeky grins and crow's feet.
Whether Labour (led by a guy who is 68), Conservative (PM who is 61) or Lib Dem 74, we are stuck with an aging political elite (average age 67 and a bit) - whilst Cameron was young ish, younger politicians seem so out of fashion, all so different from 2015 when they were all relatively young things......(Clegg, Cameron and Miliband)
Basically they didn't get it - "it" being that the voters are not up for buying a pup. They've tried that - Blair, Cameron - and didn't like it, thank you very much.
Of course, they aren't liking experience much either, when it is the front and back of a wide-of-the-mark me-me-me election campaign; a retread Red Robbo (RIP) from the seventies; or a retread from the time when the LibDems could still ride two horses going in opposite directions...
Nobody older than 52 (Blair, 2005), has led any party to winning a majority in the last 30 years.
On the other hand I think I am right in saying that prior to that nobody younger than 48 (Wilson, 1964) had won a majority at a general election since 1812 (Lord Liverpool, 42).
Yes, I think so. Derby would have come very close in 1847 if he could have kept the Peelite faction on board (he was 48 at the time but then so was Wilson in 1964 so I'm assuming you're working with '48 and younger').
Yes. But the Peelites never had the slightest intention of working with Derby, and particularly Bentinck and Disraeli. So I think Wilson's crown is safe!
It is interesting to reflect that on raw numbers alone the Conservatives won every election from 1841good morning.
It is not difficult to see Labour getting more than 300 seats next time. Very likely to win 20 seats from the SNP plus a further 20 off the Tories. The Tories are likely to drop below 300.
On present polling Scotland would be largely unchanged from June but there would be a roughly 2% swing from the Tories to Labour which would probably see the Tories as largest party but a Labour minority government propped up by the SNP and LDs.
re- Scotland. I doubt that very much. The SNP might still end up with 35%/36% but Labour would probably exceed 30% by the end of the campaign. I would expect a change in the distribution of SNP support too - probably recovering a bit against the Tories in NE Scotland but losing heavily to Labour in Glasgow and the Central Belt.
An interesting article by Mr Herdson, I don't think we are seeing a rerun of the 1990s. This is because for all the faults of the current government the opposition seem unable to capitalise on the obvious failures of HMG. It did get me thinking though back to previous decades and scandals.
Given that in the 1990s IIRC, a then government whip is on record as saying that some Tory MPs were involved in child sex abuse, which was covered up by the establishment. It makes you wonder what Tory MPs may have been up to in recent years. Maybe tomorrow will have headlines about current Tory MPs buggering young boys. I cringe when ever I see the clips of Cyril Smith, knowing what we know of him now. Can you imagine the terror of young boys being sexually assaulted by that grotesque, very fat man. I can remember a Lib Dem Cllr many years ago in my social circle boasting about having such a flamboyant individual in their party. All I can say is I wish I was still in contact with the Cllr as I would like to see them squirm on the smith issue! Anyway, one has to wonder what the press is about to disclose, maybe Nov 5th will see some more ministers career on the bonfire.
This has now become a complex and complicated issue. Part of it relates to how political parties and the wider Westminster organisation should respond to allegations of sexual misconduct. It surprises me how inadequate the processes and procedures of all parties seem to be - they are serious businesses allegedly employing numbers of people and presumably wishing to create and cultivate a positive image for themselves.
I've worked in a number of large organisations and all had very strong internal procedures and processes for resolving harassment, bullying and sexual misconduct allegations. Yes, complaints and allegations have to be thoroughly investigated using transparent and accessible processes but that transparency and accessibility needs to exist for both alleged victim and alleged perpetrator governed by the principle that the burden of proof must fall on the accuser.
No one should face bullying or sexual harassment in silence but nor should any individual's career, reputation or livelihood be destroyed or damaged by unfounded allegations. I am surprised neither Westminster nor the parties seem to have the procedures in place nor recourse to an independent process to deal with these issues and this shortcoming will surely be resolved as a result of these episodes.
This has split out into wider questions of what represents "acceptable" behaviour and how we wish our MPs to comport themselves (we now seem to see the role as 24/7, 365 days a year which is a tad harsh I think). I have my view of "acceptable" and that won't be the same as other people's - the best we can hope to do is define what is completely unacceptable and work from there. Part of me says it's incredibly difficult and potentially undesirable to try and litigate as to how consenting adults should behave but the occasional reminder of how the goal posts have changed or been redefined may be no bad thing.
One of the problems, Stodge, is that political parties are almost exclusively run and managed by volunteers - who have neither the time nor the skill to resolve complex issues surrounding bullying and inappropriate behaviour. I dropped out of active politics when the personality issues became bigger than the political purpose we were supposed to be campaigning for. When they tried to sort out the numerous complaints, the party hierarchy (all volunteers, bar one) backed the "dominant" campaigner, who was actually a significant part of the problem. But what else could they do?
Mr. Calum, do you think it'll play out that way, given the next election might be in 2022?
I think the next election is shaping up to be before 2022.
In the short term everything seems to be aligning for the SNP - WM in chaos, Brexit only going to get worse, SLAB leadership election in disarray and SCON's support level has disengaged from Ruth's.
In terms of Holyrood the SNP will focus on delivering their own populist policies while happily stealing anyone else's.
The next election is shaping up to being a proper battle between the Tories and Labour. This will result in much of the anti-SNP tactical voting unwinding. Taking Stirling as an example - the Orange Trade Union Corbynista faction helped deliver Stirling to the Tories. I sense a number of these good fellows are still struggling to sleep at night.
Taking account of all of the above factors I can't see any reason why the SNP's recovery continues back up to the 45% level which would bring them very much back into the 45-50 territory.
Entertainment company Netflix has severed ties with Kevin Spacey, star of its House of Cards show, amid a number of sex assault allegations against him.
But I am sure Rog told us that Kevin had handled this brilliantly and done nothing wrong....
Kev is a Democrat supporting friend of the Clintons. He's obviously the innocent victim of a witch hunt.
Kev did star in The Usual Suspects and Se7en so he will always have that going for him as well...
Keyser Soze!
....And American Beauty thoght I'm not sure he'll be talking too much about that one at the moment!
Nonetheless one of Hollywood's finest actors
People will look at American Beauty in a new light from now on I suspect.
He was/is a great actor. Portillo made the point on This Week that you have to differentiate the artist from the art.
However bad the Spacey revelations get (and at this point it looks like they are going to get pretty bad) I hope it won't damage the credibility of his past work...
I don't think in the long run it'll damage him at all or even his future work. For better or worse people don't see gay bad behaviour in the same way they do straight. It's complicated but when the dust settles I think you'll see this is true.
Netflix have said they will have nothing to do with a House of Cards that has Spacey in it and are discussing the remaining episodes with the production company. They also will not air his film about Gore Vidal which has been shot and is in post production.
Nexflix suing Spacey for the cost of production and cancellation would be rather amusing to watch. I wonder how much he’d settle for to avoid a public court case?
That would indeed be ironic. Of all the sleazy behaviour I've seen the vast majority is from production rather than talent who generally suffer far more threat from sex pests (usually women on men ) than they pose to others. Weinstein being not untypical.
Just read it. The headline seems to bear no relationship to what Moore actually wrote.
'The emerging solution to Ruth Davidson’s point with which I began is surely power-sharing. I am sorry if this sounds rather wet and middle-of-the-road, but the alternative which we are currently witnessing is detestable.'
His conclusion here is pretty much a reiteration of the headline - implying that the 'alternative' we are witnessing is the opposite of power-sharing, and thus seeming to assert that 'women are on top.'
He is getting dragged on Twitter for this article - this is another example:
Mr. Calum, do you think it'll play out that way, given the next election might be in 2022?
I think the next election is shaping up to be before 2022.
In the short term everything seems to be aligning for the SNP - WM in chaos, Brexit only going to get worse, SLAB leadership election in disarray and SCON's support level has disengaged from Ruth's.
In terms of Holyrood the SNP will focus on delivering their own populist policies while happily stealing anyone else's.
The next election is shaping up to being a proper battle between the Tories and Labour. This will result in much of the anti-SNP tactical voting unwinding. Taking Stirling as an example - the Orange Trade Union Corbynista faction helped deliver Stirling to the Tories. I sense a number of these good fellows are still struggling to sleep at night.
Taking account of all of the above factors I can't see any reason why the SNP's recovery continues back up to the 45% level which would bring them very much back into the 45-50 territory.
On current polls the SNP will still be on 35 to 40%, below 2015 levels but enough to hold the balance of power at Westminster and install Corbyn as PM.
The SNP would therefore effectively control the UK government as well as the Scottish government and be arguably the most powerful political party in real terms in the country even if independence has fallen by the wayside.
Entertainment company Netflix has severed ties with Kevin Spacey, star of its House of Cards show, amid a number of sex assault allegations against him.
But I am sure Rog told us that Kevin had handled this brilliantly and done nothing wrong....
Kev is a Democrat supporting friend of the Clintons. He's obviously the innocent victim of a witch hunt.
Kev did star in The Usual Suspects and Se7en so he will always have that going for him as well...
Keyser Soze!
....And American Beauty thoght I'm not sure he'll be talking too much about that one at the moment!
Nonetheless one of Hollywood's finest actors
People will look at American Beauty in a new light from now on I suspect.
He was/is a great actor. Portillo made the point on This Week that you have to differentiate the artist from the art.
However bad the Spacey revelations get (and at this point it looks like they are going to get pretty bad) I hope it won't damage the credibility of his past work...
I don't think in the long run it'll damage him at all or even his future work. For better or worse people don't see gay bad behaviour in the same way they do straight. It's complicated but when the dust settles I think you'll see this is true.
Netflix have said they will have nothing to do with a House of Cards that has Spacey in it and are discussing the remaining episodes with the production company. They also will not air his film about Gore Vidal which has been shot and is in post production.
Nexflix suing Spacey for the cost of production and cancellation would be rather amusing to watch. I wonder how much he’d settle for to avoid a public court case?
That would indeed be ironic. Of all the sleazy behaviour I've seen the vast majority is from production rather than talent who generally suffer far more threat from sex pests (usually women on men ) than they pose to others. Weinstein being not untypical.
Your mate kev is an executive producer on house of cards...that is why many staff didn’t feel able to speak out of his alleged regular abuse. Same at the old Vic where again he wasn’t “the talent”.
Mr. Calum, do you think it'll play out that way, given the next election might be in 2022?
I think the next election is shaping up to be before 2022.
In the short term everything seems to be aligning for the SNP - WM in chaos, Brexit only going to get worse, SLAB leadership election in disarray and SCON's support level has disengaged from Ruth's.
In terms of Holyrood the SNP will focus on delivering their own populist policies while happily stealing anyone else's.
The next election is shaping up to being a proper battle between the Tories and Labour. This will result in much of the anti-SNP tactical voting unwinding. Taking Stirling as an example - the Orange Trade Union Corbynista faction helped deliver Stirling to the Tories. I sense a number of these good fellows are still struggling to sleep at night.
Taking account of all of the above factors I can't see any reason why the SNP's recovery continues back up to the 45% level which would bring them very much back into the 45-50 territory.
I don't believe it - crossbreak in last Yougov had SNP at 36 with Labour on 30. In recent years the SNP has underperformed the polls in real elections.I will be surprised if they exceed 35% at the next Westminster elections - and may well be behind Labour.
Jesus. Any Answers is eye-opening re: sexual harassment. Feminism, make-up and women with no backbone blamed in the first 5 minutes... Edit: Now wolf-whistling makes women feel good. It only stops because they are old.
As Yougov showed, most people don't regard wolf-whistling as sexual harassment, but most women aged 18-24 do.
Personally, I've always thought wolf-whistling both a crass and embarrassing thing to do. There is also a more aggressive sort: my wife had a white van driver lean out of his window as he was driving past, and make a sexually explicit gesture to her, as she was walking to the station, only 3 weeks ago. She ignored it, but she was irritated by it.
But, I don't share the view of some radical feminists that all forms of male flirting are some sort of microaggression. You have to use your judgement, you will occasionally get it wrong, then you apologise, move on and don't do it again.
Some men need to be a bit more understanding and some women a little more forgiving.
During the Miners' strike, my mother was driving my sister and her friends, and was stuck in a traffic jam, next to a coach load of flying pickets, several of whom amused themselves by mooning at them. I really don't think they helped their cause.
Mr. Calum, do you think it'll play out that way, given the next election might be in 2022?
I think the next election is shaping up to be before 2022.
In the short term everything seems to be aligning for the SNP - WM in chaos, Brexit only going to get worse, SLAB leadership election in disarray and SCON's support level has disengaged from Ruth's.
In terms of Holyrood the SNP will focus on delivering their own populist policies while happily stealing anyone else's.
The next election is shaping up to being a proper battle between the Tories and Labour. This will result in much of the anti-SNP tactical voting unwinding. Taking Stirling as an example - the Orange Trade Union Corbynista faction helped deliver Stirling to the Tories. I sense a number of these good fellows are still struggling to sleep at night.
Taking account of all of the above factors I can't see any reason why the SNP's recovery continues back up to the 45% level which would bring them very much back into the 45-50 territory.
I don't believe it - crossbreak in last Yougov had SNP at 36 with Labour on 30. In recent years the SNP has underperformed the polls in real elections.I will be surprised if they exceed 35% at the next Westminster elections - and may well be behind Labour.
Even then they would still be able to effectively dictate terms to Corbyn much as the DUP did to May.
One of the problems, Stodge, is that political parties are almost exclusively run and managed by volunteers - who have neither the time nor the skill to resolve complex issues surrounding bullying and inappropriate behaviour. I dropped out of active politics when the personality issues became bigger than the political purpose we were supposed to be campaigning for. When they tried to sort out the numerous complaints, the party hierarchy (all volunteers, bar one) backed the "dominant" campaigner, who was actually a significant part of the problem. But what else could they do?
Nice to see you back, AC, a long missed sensible voice.
I'm not sure modern parties are as basic as you suggest - the main parties all have a core of paid employees and workers. Within that should be the capacity to ensure the party operates in an acceptable way and a culture which incites and condones the harassment of volunteers isn't allowed to develop and fester.
Mr. Calum, do you think it'll play out that way, given the next election might be in 2022?
I think the next election is shaping up to be before 2022.
In the short term everything seems to be aligning for the SNP - WM in chaos, Brexit only going to get worse, SLAB leadership election in disarray and SCON's support level has disengaged from Ruth's.
In terms of Holyrood the SNP will focus on delivering their own populist policies while happily stealing anyone else's.
The next election is shaping up to being a proper battle between the Tories and Labour. This will result in much of the anti-SNP tactical voting unwinding. Taking Stirling as an example - the Orange Trade Union Corbynista faction helped deliver Stirling to the Tories. I sense a number of these good fellows are still struggling to sleep at night.
Taking account of all of the above factors I can't see any reason why the SNP's recovery continues back up to the 45% level which would bring them very much back into the 45-50 territory.
I don't believe it - crossbreak in last Yougov had SNP at 36 with Labour on 30. In recent years the SNP has underperformed the polls in real elections.I will be surprised if they exceed 35% at the next Westminster elections - and may well be behind Labour.
Even then they would still be able to effectively dictate terms to Corbyn much as the DUP did to May.
Not really - Corbyn would simply dare them to bring him down. Given what happened to them in 1979, he would have little to fear from them.
This has now become a complex and complicated issue. Part of it relates to how political parties and the wider Westminster organisation should respond to allegations of sexual misconduct. It surprises me how inadequate the processes and procedures of all parties seem to be - they are serious businesses allegedly employing numbers of people and presumably wishing to create and cultivate a positive image for themselves.
I've worked in a number of large organisations and all had very strong internal procedures and processes for resolving harassment, bullying and sexual misconduct allegations. Yes, complaints and allegations have to be thoroughly investigated using transparent and accessible processes but that transparency and accessibility needs to exist for both alleged victim and alleged perpetrator governed by the principle that the burden of proof must fall on the accuser.
No one should face bullying or sexual harassment in silence but nor should any individual's career, reputation or livelihood be destroyed or damaged by unfounded allegations. I am surprised neither Westminster nor the parties seem to have the procedures in place nor recourse to an independent process to deal with these issues and this shortcoming will surely be resolved as a result of these episodes.
This has split out into wider questions of what represents "acceptable" behaviour and how we wish our MPs to comport themselves (we now seem to see the role as 24/7, 365 days a year which is a tad harsh I think). I have my view of "acceptable" and that won't be the same as other people's - the best we can hope to do is define what is completely unacceptable and work from there. Part of me says it's incredibly difficult and potentially undesirable to try and litigate as to how consenting adults should behave but the occasional reminder of how the goal posts have changed or been redefined may be no bad thing.
In my experience, a lot of people (men and women) are very tactile, and will touch you when talking to you. Anyone with a brain should realise that touching intimate body parts is unacceptable, but touching arms, backs, knees should not be considered harassment, unless you ask them to stop and they keep doing it.
Just read it. The headline seems to bear no relationship to what Moore actually wrote.
'The emerging solution to Ruth Davidson’s point with which I began is surely power-sharing. I am sorry if this sounds rather wet and middle-of-the-road, but the alternative which we are currently witnessing is detestable.'
His conclusion here is pretty much a reiteration of the headline - implying that the 'alternative' we are witnessing is the opposite of power-sharing, and thus seeming to assert that 'women are on top.'
He is getting dragged on Twitter for this article - this is another example:
Nah, when you have to start teasing out implications from vague sentences you're on to a loser. Anyway, he actually asserts in his previous paragraph that the gynocracy hasn't yet arrived. It was just a limp and anodyne piece that the subs gave an incendiary headline to, no doubt to generate some traffic. Not worth worrying about.
Comments
What's changed then? Well those I speak to are certainly prepared to be much more generous towards Corbyn, but still if pushed will admit deep worries that there's a black hole where explanations of how his promises will be delivered should be. If offered the chance to retire him to his allotment without another civil war, we would do it in a heartbeat, for most alternatives except the obvious. However, after the leadership election and the GE there's an acknowledgement that silence over this is the best policy, and to work constructively in areas where there's either agreement or potential sympathy - the biggest of course being Brexit, which Corbynism doesn't have much of a position on except to follow the people while being nicer than the Tories. But with the current Momentum recruited membership, kicking off again would be an exercise in futility.
There a plenty of people, particulary women, who'd be great alternative leaders. But any hint of a challenge would be suicide, and more importantly embolden the nastiest elements of Corbyn's support - who live for some new conspiracy and feed off it. No, we need to let all this play out and rebuild so that we're there to pick up the pieces.
What's interesting is if this holds if the Tories continue to implode and charge towards the no deal cliff but remain roughly as popular as the idea of a Corbyn government. The tensions are still there, they're merely dormant.
When house values increase the owner takes a cash sum with that money being added onto the mortgage.
It was initially used as a funding source for things which would increase the value of the property - an extension or new kitchen for example.
But during the 2000s it was increasingly used as a way for people to live a lifestyle they couldn't otherwise afford.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage_equity_withdrawal
Though the rich also tend to see a significant rise in their tax bill from old Labour governments.
Well said.
But prepare to be unpopular. I find that every time I point out (with examples) that Labour's manifesto was uncosted, contradictory or both certain posters get very hot under the collar.
It's much easier to make friends pointing out the numbers in the Tory manifesto were just as lacking in credibility and considerably more brutal towards their voters. Even the Tories agree their manifesto was a shambles!
Yesterday or the day before I made a comment on here about the need to sort out the wheat from the chaff in respect of these allegations. I was completely wrong.
The shot of Hislop & Letts looking like peeved but admonished wee boys is rather telling.
Even before government borrowing went out of control the UK economy had become dependent upon debt fuelled consumption.
In fact it was the ending of this housing related borrowing which led to the increase in government borrowing.
Heroic assumptions, like significant increases in tax rates not producing any changes in behaviour, a ‘National Care Service’ costing £3bn and writing off outstanding tuition fees being £10bn weren’t called out for what they were by their opponents during the campaign.
And it was also the country that had two famines in the following two decades.
It was the vacuity of your post that offended.
But for retired people, no chance. They can either downsize or pay their own damn mortgages. Even MPs aren’t allowed to have the government buy them a house any more.
Where I have slight qualms is with the alleged universal nature of it - the #yesallwomen angle. Sexual harassment is clearly widespread in politics, acting, the national media. Whenever I come into contact with Silicon Valley-style startups (and, more often, wannabe SV-style startups) I am horrified by how sexist the attitudes there are. But that is not to say that every area of employment is similarly afflicted, or that rural areas are as bad as city culture.
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/statistics/Pages/hew/2017/mar.aspx
As someone said on here yesterday, Gordon Brown’s evil genius was taking £50bn of borrowed money and handing it out like sweeties at £1,300 an adult to more than 60% of the population - in such a way that the other 40% neither understand what’s happening nor the scope of the handouts.
That leaves the following where I would agree with you.
Southampton Itchen, Pudsey, Chipping Barnet, Norwich North, Broxtowe, Northampton North, Hendon.
I make that seven, and that barely balances the possible losses.
Although Corbyn is in a far stronger position than anyone expected, the fact is he is still a long way off largest party status, and changing that may take more time than he has left at the age of 68.
As a result I have to leave. Have a good afternoon everyone!
Could a politician like Shirley Williams be commissioned by parliament to do a youtube video on how females should and can deal with groping, leering and other male bad behaviour by being a bit more assertive? She's on record that she dealt with it at the start of her political career, say 50-60 years ago, long before we had male and female 'equality'. Her advice was:
Don't let him get started; retaliate verbally or physically. Then he won't continue with it.
JHB was in as powerful a position as Fallon so perhaps found it easier to do this.
' Consumer spending before the credit crunch was boosted by households using equity withdrawal on easy terms from lenders. At one point in 2006, equity withdrawal accounted for 4.7% of total spending in the economy. In stark contrast, the amount being paid off now represents 4.2% of post-tax income, as consumers reduce debt and improve their personal balance sheets. '
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/jul/06/uk-households-paying-off-mortgages-debt-repayment-bank-of-england
Edit: Now wolf-whistling makes women feel good. It only stops because they are old.
How can you possibly say that Labour has no chance at all in Telford where the Tory majority was a mere 720 votes? Labour requires a swing of 0.9% to take it.The Tory majority in Aberconway was 635 and was slashed to just 317 in Preseli Pembrokeshire. In both cases, only tiny swings are needed to win there.As for Calder Valley and Copeland now being semi-safe seats, Labour needs a swing of 0.5% to remove the Tory majority in the former - just 609 last June. Copeland was almost certainly only won by the Tories because of the by-election in the same seat at the end of February. When a seat changes hands in a by election the winning party invariably outperforms at the subsequent General Election. Given that Labour managed to hold Barrow - which was more vulnerable! - Labour would have retained Copeland had the by election not taken place.
I really do not know why you believe that Cabinet Ministers are more secure than other MPs. Ben Gummer lost his seat at Ipswich. Amber Rudd saw her majority slashed from 4600 to 346 and Justine Greenings majority at Putney collapsed from 10000 to just 1554.Given the big swings which have already occured there , why is a very small additional swing so unlikely next time?
I could also have added to my list seats such as Pendle - Morecambe & Lunesdale - Harrow East - and Camborne & Redruth.
However, it would appear that there are many men (skewed possibly to the older ages), who seem to think it is their right to touch women when they want.
Indeed I overheard 2 elderly gentlemen agreeing on this in the local library yesterday.
Back to this brave young lady again...
https://twitter.com/bexbailey/status/925726372730949632
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/03/scandal-shows-women-now-top-pray-share-power-men-not-crush-us/
The attitudes displayed by some on Any Answers were exactly the same as those displayed in Rotherham.
ie, blame the victim, excuse the perpetrator.
But, I don't share the view of some radical feminists that all forms of male flirting are some sort of microaggression. You have to use your judgement, you will occasionally get it wrong, then you apologise, move on and don't do it again.
Some men need to be a bit more understanding and some women a little more forgiving.
http://www.ccscheme.org.uk/industry-image/indexphp/component/content/article/19-issue-25/374-no-whistling-at-work.html
Just to add to that, Mr. Dean, a third of Rotherham victims were male (as reported at the time, but not often). People are very happy to conceive of male failures or male perpetrators, but male victims occupy a small space in the media's collective mind.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5049521/Diane-Abbott-wrongly-claims-16-year-olds-fight.html
Mr. Urquhart, to be fair, numbers aren't her strong suit. Or she might be talking about the 16 year olds that came over from Calais, before barriers had to be put up to stop the public from seeing the youngsters' cheeky grins and crow's feet.
Given that in the 1990s IIRC, a then government whip is on record as saying that some Tory MPs were involved in child sex abuse, which was covered up by the establishment. It makes you wonder what Tory MPs may have been up to in recent years. Maybe tomorrow will have headlines about current Tory MPs buggering young boys. I cringe when ever I see the clips of Cyril Smith, knowing what we know of him now. Can you imagine the terror of young boys being sexually assaulted by that grotesque, very fat man. I can remember a Lib Dem Cllr many years ago in my social circle boasting about having such a flamboyant individual in their party. All I can say is I wish I was still in contact with the Cllr as I would like to see them squirm on the smith issue! Anyway, one has to wonder what the press is about to disclose, maybe Nov 5th will see some more ministers career on the bonfire.
Lots of politicians and entertainers probably getting phone calls sometime around now...
This has now become a complex and complicated issue. Part of it relates to how political parties and the wider Westminster organisation should respond to allegations of sexual misconduct. It surprises me how inadequate the processes and procedures of all parties seem to be - they are serious businesses allegedly employing numbers of people and presumably wishing to create and cultivate a positive image for themselves.
I've worked in a number of large organisations and all had very strong internal procedures and processes for resolving harassment, bullying and sexual misconduct allegations. Yes, complaints and allegations have to be thoroughly investigated using transparent and accessible processes but that transparency and accessibility needs to exist for both alleged victim and alleged perpetrator governed by the principle that the burden of proof must fall on the accuser.
No one should face bullying or sexual harassment in silence but nor should any individual's career, reputation or livelihood be destroyed or damaged by unfounded allegations. I am surprised neither Westminster nor the parties seem to have the procedures in place nor recourse to an independent process to deal with these issues and this shortcoming will surely be resolved as a result of these episodes.
This has split out into wider questions of what represents "acceptable" behaviour and how we wish our MPs to comport themselves (we now seem to see the role as 24/7, 365 days a year which is a tad harsh I think). I have my view of "acceptable" and that won't be the same as other people's - the best we can hope to do is define what is completely unacceptable and work from there. Part of me says it's incredibly difficult and potentially undesirable to try and litigate as to how consenting adults should behave but the occasional reminder of how the goal posts have changed or been redefined may be no bad thing.
https://twitter.com/martinbelam/status/926790483208110080
In the short term everything seems to be aligning for the SNP - WM in chaos, Brexit only going to get worse, SLAB leadership election in disarray and SCON's support level has disengaged from Ruth's.
In terms of Holyrood the SNP will focus on delivering their own populist policies while happily stealing anyone else's.
The next election is shaping up to being a proper battle between the Tories and Labour. This will result in much of the anti-SNP tactical voting unwinding. Taking Stirling as an example - the Orange Trade Union Corbynista faction helped deliver Stirling to the Tories. I sense a number of these good fellows are still struggling to sleep at night.
Taking account of all of the above factors I can't see any reason why the SNP's recovery continues back up to the 45% level which would bring them very much back into the 45-50 territory.
Stephen Fry not to be sued for blasphemy
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/a-wonderfully-irish-solution-stephen-fry-weighs-in-on-blasphemy-laws-after-finding-himself-at-centre-of-garda-investigation-36289204.html
His conclusion here is pretty much a reiteration of the headline - implying that the 'alternative' we are witnessing is the opposite of power-sharing, and thus seeming to assert that 'women are on top.'
He is getting dragged on Twitter for this article - this is another example:
https://twitter.com/pickardje/status/926785999086194688
The SNP would therefore effectively control the UK government as well as the Scottish government and be arguably the most powerful political party in real terms in the country even if independence has fallen by the wayside.
"Venezuela’s economic catastrophe dwarfs any in the history of the US, Western Europe, or the rest of Latin America,” he said."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/11/03/venezuela-faces-epic-default-china-russia-pull-plug/
I'm not sure modern parties are as basic as you suggest - the main parties all have a core of paid employees and workers. Within that should be the capacity to ensure the party operates in an acceptable way and a culture which incites and condones the harassment of volunteers isn't allowed to develop and fester.