The overriding theme of the Thatcher coverage is how the world has changed and the [political centre has moved. Basically, we keep getting told that Labour is not scary any more. Cameron essentially said that yesterday in the Commons.
depends on your view, their approach to the economy scare the crap out of me.
A suggestion about housing and it shouldn't cost a huge amount.
Allow all VAT to be reclaimed for refurbishment of derelict/unused properties when those properties are either rented or sold. The tax return from rental or the return from stamp duty should offset the loss in VAT take.
The truth is, there really wasn't any justification for recalling parliament.A waste of time and money, and no matter how fine the speeches ( and Milliband and Cameron both did well, but Milliband edged it) there is a valid question for Cameron to answer in why he pushed for it.
Spot on TFS, a total waste of time and doubt the old girl would have approved either.
@NickPalmer - If Labour are so sure that they'll win in 2015 (and they may well be right), then why on earth are they storing up problems for themselves by making absolutely no attempt whatsoever to prepare their supporters for the difficult choices of government?
I find this completely baffling, the most outstandingly obvious point about UK politics today. Not only is it obvious in itself, if anyone had the slightlest doubt about the trouble they are making for themselves, they only need to look 20 miles across the Channel to see it all laid out in the clearest possible terms.
Of course, sensible Labour politicians and pundits (Blair, Hodges, Peter Watt) have said much the same in public, and I'm quite certain many more are saying the same in private. The baffling thing is that Ed M, who is not thick, doesn't seem to have got the message, or is choosing to ignore it.
LibDems pick Hugh Annand for South Sheilds. Stood in Hertfordshire North East in 2010. 2014 Euro candidate in East of England (last place of the LD list).
Ruth Dudley-Edwards has her 2p on the GFA - which is 15yrs old.
"Gerry Adams moans in The Guardian about how Margaret Thatcher’s policies on Northern Ireland "entrenched sectarian divisions, handed draconian military powers powers over to the securocrats, and subverted basic human rights", which coming from a chap who was running the IRA when it tried to murder her is a bit rich. But Adams is easily vexed these days, for 15 years on from the Good Friday Agreement, the project to which he has devoted his life and for which more than 3,000 died – mostly unwittingly – is kaput.
Sinn Fein try to persuade us that the IRA fought for civil rights and that after more than three decades in the Good Friday Agreement, which is fifteen today, they won first-class citizenship for Catholics. The truth is that by 1972 all the legitimate complaints of the minority population had been dealt with by Westminster. What the IRA were killing for was a United Ireland, which proved to be a mirage.
I don't normally comment on the polls but if blues are allegedly closing the gap yesterday followed by falling hugely behind today it's probably saying more about You Gov than how people intend to vote.
You Gov tells us nothing more than the other pollsters ie that the blues are behind the reds but the red lead is soft. The daily poll is becoming a waste of time.
It might well be mostly random fluctuation though it's too large a shift to be likely to be entirely accidental. I'd disagree that the red lead is soft, at least in terms of Labour's share (clearly the Tory share fluctuates with UKIP etc.) - I don't remember a time when a party's support has been so entirely stable over such a long time. Around 38-40% of the electorate seem to have made up its mind to vote Labour, regardlesss (sorry, Hodges) of their view of events and issues and personal ratings (all of which fluctuate) and indeed regardless of the economic news.
If this is to be a large shift Nick, it will need to be held for a week or two before we can say it is. It's more likely that we'll be be back to the 9-11% range next week imo. As for the Labour lead, you have a point but I'd say it's soft since it should be much higher at this point in the cycle with a not all that popular govt. To me this says, sublect to events, we're still in HP territory. The difficulty I'd say for Labour is I'd expect us to see some sort of economic comeback as recovery finds its feet this year and continues in to 2014 and 2015. None of this is due to GO but he'll claim the credit anyway, but hey that's politics.
Yes, as Oblitus observes it could be an outlier and tomorrow we might be back at 40-32. But my point is more that we're not seeing normal midterm behaviour. On the one hand, you're right that we're not seeing gigantic Opposition leads as in the past (though some of those seem to have related to methodology). But we're also seeing an immunity to issue-based impact. It's not hard to find people who respected Thatcher, agree with Government policy on benefits, believe the economy is recovering, think Cameron is a bit more prime ministerial, and nonetheless are perfectly clear that they're going to vote Labour, sometimes because they find the Tories alien, sometimes as a matter of habit and culture. It's that combination of 29% who voted for Gordon and 10% who were on the left edge of the LibDems which is completely resistant to Conservative appeal and not soft at all. I can't see them voting suddenly Tory because economic growth in 2015 is, say, 1.2%.
I would say you're may be looking at the wrong bit. This is closer to Lab\SDP early 80s than Con\Lab switching. The Labour vote hasn't wobbled much, much of the lead for Labor comes from the blues dropping rather than Labour surging. The Labour surge came post the 2012 budget. Most of the Con \ Lab differential is based more round UKIP polling well or badly. But we're now 2 years out. Currently Labour are saying nothing about what they would do, you tell me that's clever politics I disagree, if a policy is crap it's crap 2 years out or 2 days out and will switch people off, really you've got a comfort blanket from saying nothing, but eventually you'll have to say soemthing and the voters will react. Cameron's problem is bigger; he can't manage a broad church Centre right coalition so he's losing votes to UKIP or to the stay at homes and at present he has nothing to bring people on board. Speeches won't do it since his missing voters are as likely to look at what he's done rather than what he's said.
The truth is, there really wasn't any justification for recalling parliament.A waste of time and money, and no matter how fine the speeches ( and Milliband and Cameron both did well, but Milliband edged it) there is a valid question for Cameron to answer in why he pushed for it.
Spot on TFS, a total waste of time and doubt the old girl would have approved either.
The next scrap is over whether next weeks PMQs should be cancelled or postponed into later in the day.
We know what Thatcher would have done - I hope Bercow holds the line.
On the recall Cameron's damned if he did ('waste of money') damned if he didn't (waste of Parliamentary time, lack of respect etc etc).
Good our friends on the left have got something to raise their blood pressure over too - Ding Dong!
Richard I'm sure there is a grid - with the red letter day of the conference 2014 where policy will be announced and magically revealed to the voters who will lap it up.
Kind of makes rEd a hostage to "events" and is an all in bet on the economy not recovering.
Will EdM hope to tack back to the centre as GE2015 comes into view and hope that Labour voters have no where else to go/will come home from Kipper flirting?
If that's not his logic - then he's asking for it as his left-wing is very vocal when he doesn't do what they want.
"Following in the footsteps of my great grandfather, James Annand, who was a Liberal activist and newspaper editor on Tyneside in the late 19th century, it is a great honour to have been selected as the Liberal Democrat candidate for South Shields in the forthcoming by-election."
The truth is, there really wasn't any justification for recalling parliament.A waste of time and money, and no matter how fine the speeches ( and Milliband and Cameron both did well, but Milliband edged it) there is a valid question for Cameron to answer in why he pushed for it.
Spot on TFS, a total waste of time and doubt the old girl would have approved either.
The next scrap is over whether next weeks PMQs should be cancelled or postponed into later in the day.
We know what Thatcher would have done - I hope Bercow holds the line.
On the recall Cameron's damned if he did ('waste of money') damned if he didn't (waste of Parliamentary time, lack of respect etc etc).
Good our friends on the left have got something to raise their blood pressure over too - Ding Dong!
Yes it was probably a difficult call, but really, a waste of Parliamentary time ? It's not as if they're doing that much, a two day debate on Mrs T. would have been a bonus as they'd have less time to pass some more pratty laws nobody wants.
Richard I'm sure there is a grid - with the red letter day of the conference 2014 where policy will be announced and magically revealed to the voters who will lap it up.
Kind of makes rEd a hostage to "events" and is an all in bet on the economy not recovering.
Seems mad to me but carry on I say.
If Labour left it until Oct 2014 to start to set their stall out sounds rather high-wire. I'm assuming the Coalition will have informally broken down a while before then so that the Tories/LDs can become themselves more clearly.
And if EdM tries to ignore his left-wing until the final heave, then it'll be very high-profile squabbling during the 6 months up to polling day - that can't make sense.
If Labour are so sure that they'll win in 2015 (and they may well be right), then why on earth are they storing up problems for themselves by making absolutely no attempt whatsoever to prepare their supporters for the difficult choices of government?
The basic line is going to be, "Tories cut too far and too fast, broke the economy and ruined the recovery, we're now going to have to cut far and fast". Obviously that doesn't work if you advocate cutting far and fast at the same time the Tories are.
Also, noticing that current trends point to a Labour win isn't the same thing as saying Lab Maj Nailed On. There are plenty of things to go wrong in the meantime, many of which we haven't thought of.
On the plus side for the Conservatives, at least they don't any more have a highly successful former Prime Minister who is wont to say inconvenient things in public:
"... then why on earth are they storing up problems for themselves by making absolutely no attempt whatsoever to prepare their supporters for the difficult choices of government? "
Possibly because their goal is limited to the next election, to achieving power not what they intend to do with it. These are Brown's people, remember.
I read this morning that Miliband is hoping to get into Downing Street with 35% of the vote, the 29% that voted for Brown and 6% of disaffected Lib Dems. Due to the way our electoral system works, that may well be realistic, but he can't afford to scare off any of his target voters. If he starts talking about the choices he will have to make scare them off he might. So his best bet could well be to "lie low and say nuffin". I expect a Labour Manifesto big on aspirational promises and very small on specific, costed, policies.
I appreciate that you are desperate for Miliband to repeat Osborne and Cameron's massive mistakes in opposition, but it's not going to happen
In the meantime surely you should be more concerned at who on your own side thought "I know just the right Baronet to front our benefits campaign, but first we have to spray him orange and get him to talk like Dick Van Dyke"
isn't Tony quite orange these days with a strange accent ? Seems to be a thing among politicians. I see the policy debate hasn't moved on much, you're still on personalities.
"OF ALL Margaret Thatcher’s many, many achievements, it is easy to forget just how revolutionary and successful was her programme of privatisation. Every single privatisation was, after all, opposed by Labour – and by many nominally on her own side. Former Conservative Prime Minister Harold MacMillan lamented that it was tantamount to “selling off the family silver”. Yet this precious metal analogy was wrong: privatisation was a goose that continued to lay golden eggs throughout Thatcher’s term in office, and beyond.
This was a policy, originally developed at thinks tanks like the Centre for Policy Studies (CPS) and the Institute of Economic Affairs, which broke a ratchet that since 1945 had seen more and more industries taken under state control. Even the travel agent Thomas Cook was state-owned. But when Thatcher left office, privatisation was a policy that had not only transformed Britain but which had swept across the world.
Privatisation worked. It benefited taxpayers, shareholders and consumers. Consider the results of a series of reports, commissioned by the CPS in 1996, from NERA Economic Consulting. One studied the financial flows to and from the Treasury of the 33 major companies privatised between 1984 and 1991 (Associated British Ports, BAA, British Airways, British Gas, British Steel, British Telecom, the 17 electricity companies and the 10 water and sewerage companies).
[lots of figs here so read the article]...Privatisation worked for the simple reason that it exposed firms to all the forces and incentives of the free market. These companies now had to respond to the demands of investors, managers, employees and customers. Failure to do so would lead to extinction. And particularly when combined with an exposure to greater competitive pressures, these companies flourished.
Encouragingly, the coalition is planning to privatise the Royal Mail. And from time to time it says that it wants to sell off its stakes in RBS and Lloyds. Worryingly, however, it failed to see off the vested interests when it tried to privatise the Forestry Commission; and it failed to implement Labour’s plans to sell the state interest in the Dartford Crossing.
But there are more golden eggs which the coalition should encourage to come forth. Why for example are the following organisations ultimately owned by the state? London Underground, the Crown Estates, the Trust Ports, the Commonwealth Development Corporation, the Royal Mint, the Met Office, Enrichment Holdings, Glas Cymru, Channel 4 and local authority-owned airports (like Manchester). The evidence suggests that we would all be better off if these organisations were in the private sector.
I wondered if Annand was related. His ancestor was the second shortest serving MP in history who dropped dead 16 days after his election in 1906, never taking his seat.
So his best bet could well be to "lie low and say nuffin". I expect a Labour Manifesto big on aspirational promises and very small on specific, costed, policies.
Disagree. They'll be scared of a "tax bombshell" type of attack. The low-risk move would be go small, specific and low-key. And if they look like they're heading for a win they'll want to do the low-risk thing.
On the plus side for the Conservatives, at least they don't any more have a highly successful former Prime Minister who is wont to say inconvenient things in public:
I read a very strange article the other day that said Thatcher had kept her mouth shut after standing down - I was WTF? I thought her conduct after Hague got the poisoned chalice was dreadful backseat driving.
She clearly saw him as her political son and made his life hell as she forever pulled the strings in public. He didn't have a chance. Meddling doesn't even come close.
The basic line is going to be, "Tories cut too far and too fast, broke the economy and ruined the recovery, we're now going to have to cut far and fast". .
Hmm, so the message will be 'Those evil Tories cut benefits and slashed spending, that was bad and we said so at the time (implicitly promising to do the opposite), so now we're not only going to keep every single one of the cuts, we're also going to cut even more'.
I hate to be a prophet of doom, but I can't help feeling that is bound to lead to massive disgruntlement amongst those foolish enough to have voted Labour in the belief that the laws of arithmetic would be suspended as a result of Ed M entering 10 Downing St.
Even more dangerous is the possibility which you rightly allude to that they won't have a majority. Shafting your supporters when you're safely in with a majority is one thing; doing so when you're jostling for votes with perfidious partner parties looking to eat into your vote share is even more destabilising.
What makes this all even more mysterious is that espousing fantasy economics makes it less, not more, likely that Labour will win. It's not even justified as a cynical short-term calculation.
I wondered if Annand was related. His ancestor was the second shortest serving MP in history who dropped dead 16 days after his election in 1906, never taking his seat.
Quite possibly:
"Thereafter, he edited several newspapers in North East England: from 1874 to 1877 he edited the Newcastle Daily Chronicle, from 1877 to 1885 the South Shields Gazette,"
Thank you Glenda Jackson for reminding me about the patients on trolleys, crumbling classrooms, empty library shelves, homeless sleeping rough etc etc which characterised the era of Thatcherism. Furthermore when greed becomes a virtue then humanity is debased.
Glenda Jackson's eloquence spoke volumes and she gave voice to the millions who have suffered from attacks on their communities and employment prospects. On Wednesday society will pay for her funeral, but didn't she say 'there was no such thing as society.'
British Airways is in my book the biggest privatisation success story,
The trains - well Virgin has been pretty good but the tracks are quasi-nationalised through mountains of subsidy. Virgin, yes please ! First - No thanks
BT - Its gone 'Fair to Good' although unhealthily they have a monopoly on the 'backbone' of the infrastructure. More competition especially on the backbone needed (BT Wholesale)
Water - the threat of rationing after the wettest year on record ? Really ?! Must do better
Energy - Could well come home to roost during Ed's time in office.
Channel 4, BBC, Crown Estates, Royal Mint all should be privatised ASAP from that list - no real reason not to.
London Underground, hmm it could well end up another 'Network Rail' for years... anyway Transport for London is already run by Crapita.
Glas Cymru ? No idea what it is, straight into the Welsh Assembly budget though if its not already.
Those evil Tories cut benefits and slashed spending,
No, it won't be that.
"Those incompetent Tories tried to cut benefits and spending but ended up spending more"
Is both true and politically smarter.
Err, but the Labour line has been that spending more is a good thing, so I can't see that one flying. As we have seen with the reaction to even the most innocuous of savings such as not paying Child Benefit to the well-off, everyone thinks someone else should pay. At least Osborne warned in the clearest terms that savings would have to be made; Labour are pretending the opposite. They are being even more dishonest than Hollande was, and that is saying something.
The overriding theme of the Thatcher coverage is how the world has changed and the [political centre has moved. Basically, we keep getting told that Labour is not scary any more. Cameron essentially said that yesterday in the Commons.
depends on your view, their approach to the economy scare the crap out of me.
But you are never going to vote Labour. Your vote is gone and discounted, just as mine is with regards to the Tories.
From a non-anorak perspective, the constant themes of the coverage we have had over the last few days is that Britain has changed forever since 1979 because the political centre has moved: Thatcher won, her greatest achievement was Tony Blair, and so on. As Cameron said in the Commons yesterday, there may still be arguments but no side is advocating a return to the way things used to be done. We can argue over whether it's actually true or not, but what everyone is saying is that there is no extremism in the political mainstream these days - none of the major parties is scary in the way that they once may have been. I know you disagree with that message, but that is the message. That can only help Labour when Cameron says it. And it makes any claims of a Labour shift to the left, being in the pockets of the unions etc far less effective.
Thank you Glenda Jackson for reminding me about the patients on trolleys, crumbling classrooms, empty library shelves, homeless sleeping rough etc etc which characterised the era of Thatcherism. Furthermore when greed becomes a virtue then humanity is debased.
Glenda Jackson's eloquence spoke volumes and she gave voice to the millions who have suffered from attacks on their communities and employment prospects. On Wednesday society will pay for her funeral, but didn't she say 'there was no such thing as society.'
Ms Jackson provided a masterclass in history; reminding voters in their 40s and 50s what made Labour unelectable for so long - though she left out the intimidation, the closed shops, the huge and inefficient state sector, the flying pickets, the uncollected refuse, the power blackouts, the unburied dead. She remains one of the unacceptable facets of hard left socialism which contributed to Thatcher's rise.
Did the heroic Ms Jackson ever ask Burnham, Bradshaw, Johnson what was going on in NHS hospitals in Staffordshire from 2004.
"And it makes any claims of a Labour shift to the left, being in the pockets of the unions etc far less effective."
And here I disagree - when the BBC has their pet Lefty Owen Jones on twice a day, and the unions threatening/striking using bleeding stump rhetoric - it gives a very distinct message. Whilst the policies or lack of them in Labour's case may be luke warm - those with an ideological axe to grind are in full gobby mode.
One can't just pick out sensible Lefties and say they represent what the public hears yet simultaneously talk about UKIP fruitcakes and Peter Bone/Mad Nad on the other. It cuts both ways.
Just out of interest what Tory policies did we know about in clear terms in February 2008? From memory, there was talk of hard choices, but not much else. In fact, it was all pretty similar to what Labour is saying now:
"My starting point is, I am afraid, we are going to have keep all these cuts. There is a big squeeze happening on budgets across the piece. The squeeze on defence spending, for instance, is £15bn by 2015. We are going to have to start from that being the baseline. At this stage, we can make no commitments to reverse any of that, on spending or on tax. So I am being absolutely clear about that."
I hate to be a prophet of doom, but I can't help feeling that is bound to lead to massive disgruntlement amongst those foolish enough to have voted Labour in the belief that the laws of arithmetic would be suspended as a result of Ed M entering 10 Downing St.
I'm saying they'll make the move before the election, but not too far before the election. The template will be Blair/Brown in 1997: Accept the government's spending plans for at least two years, blame anything bad about them on the government, add a few costed, small-bore, symbolic differences.
This works for oppositions because the media want to talk about conflicts not areas of agreement. So if you say, "Tax on caviar to pay for a new dialysis machine in Bolton", and the Tories respond, "Politics of envy, caviar-loving job-creators will move to Azerbaijan instead", everyone will argue about that, instead of all the other things where the positions of both parties are exactly the same.
@tim - People understand only one thing: less spending or more spending. Labour cannot possibly argue that Osborne cut 'too far too fast', and also argue that he has spent too much. That is just far too confused a message.
In any case the point I'm making isn't about the Tories or point-scoring between parties, it's about Labour's ability to govern after 2015, on the assumption that they form the next government. Ed M seems to be acting as though this cannot happen, and therefore it doesn't matter what impression they give to their supporters. Seems barmy to me, but it should provide some good opportunities for betting on a 2020 Tory majority.
"And it makes any claims of a Labour shift to the left, being in the pockets of the unions etc far less effective."
And here I disagree - when the BBC has their pet Lefty Owen Jones on twice a day, and the unions threatening/striking using bleeding stump rhetoric - it gives a very distinct message. Whilst the policies or lack of them in Labour's case may be luke warm - those with an ideological axe to grind are in full gobby mode.
One can't just pick out sensible Lefties and say they represent what the public hears yet simultaneously talk about UKIP fruitcakes and Peter Bone/Mad Nad on the other. It cuts both ways.
Yes, the hard left is very angry. You have to ask yourself why. It's because it is now irrelevant. And that has essentially been one of the main mesages from all sides over the last few days.
"My starting point is, I am afraid, we are going to have keep all these cuts. There is a big squeeze happening on budgets across the piece. The squeeze on defence spending, for instance, is £15bn by 2015. We are going to have to start from that being the baseline. At this stage, we can make no commitments to reverse any of that, on spending or on tax. So I am being absolutely clear about that."
Yes, there was a brief moment in January 2012 when Labour seemed to be moving towards a semblance of sanity. It lasted about a week, and has never been heard of since.
The overriding theme of the Thatcher coverage is how the world has changed and the [political centre has moved. Basically, we keep getting told that Labour is not scary any more. Cameron essentially said that yesterday in the Commons.
depends on your view, their approach to the economy scare the crap out of me.
But you are never going to vote Labour. Your vote is gone and discounted, just as mine is with regards to the Tories.
From a non-anorak perspective, the constant themes of the coverage we have had over the last few days is that Britain has changed forever since 1979 because the political centre has moved: Thatcher won, her greatest achievement was Tony Blair, and so on. As Cameron said in the Commons yesterday, there may still be arguments but no side is advocating a return to the way things used to be done. We can argue over whether it's actually true or not, but what everyone is saying is that there is no extremism in the political mainstream these days - none of the major parties is scary in the way that they once may have been. I know you disagree with that message, but that is the message. That can only help Labour when Cameron says it. And it makes any claims of a Labour shift to the left, being in the pockets of the unions etc far less effective.
I think there is some truth in that Southam but it has limits. So we no longer have a Labour party who are committed to owning the commanding heights of the economy, who are unilateral disarmers, who believe in squeezing the rich until the pips squeek. A large part of the post Thatcher consensus is common ground.
But we still have a Labour party who seriously believe that the way to create future wealth and prosperity is to spend government money, whether raised from tax or borrowed; that it is still possible to accelerate the underlying growth rate of the economy by government borrowing and that the state is a better judge of where to invest scarce resources than the market or individuals. These are serious errors. They were serious in Thatcher's day and they were demonstrated to be false from 2007 onwards.
Unless Labour are willing to acknowledge these faults and accept the second part of Thatcher's lesson about the importance of sound money, liberating the individual, a property owning democracy and not spending what you have not earned we are facing disaster. A Labour government looks almost inevitable at this point and it is scary how little they have learned from truly horrendous mistakes.
For those bored stiff with Thatcher talk - there's an interesting stat aired today re organ donation = half of relatives block donations despite it being the wish of the deceased.
I'm really surprised its so high. If any of my organs are useful after I'm done with them - I've no problem and am a registered donor. But I can sympathise with those who feel a loved one should be buried whole. If you're cremated - I can't see the argument unless its part of your religion to be burned to release your spirit or whatever.
I'm 100% against presumed consent where your corpse becomes the property of the State for donation purposes unless you opt out.
@tim - People understand only one thing: less spending or more spending. Labour cannot possibly argue that Osborne cut 'too far too fast', and also aergue that he has spent too much. That is just far too confused a message.
In any case the point I'm making isn't about the Tories or point-scoring between parties, it's about Labour's ability to govern after 2015, on the assumption that they form the next government. Ed M seems to be acting as though this cannot happen, and therefore it doesn't matter what impression they give to their supporters. Seems barmy to me, but it should provide some good opportunities for betting on a 2020 Tory majority.
If the Tories lose in 2015 the resulting civil war may well make them unelectable in 2020, if they still exist at all in their present form.
If the polls are right, most people seem to accept the need for a level of austerity. It's the form it takes and how it is implemented that is the issue.
I'm saying they'll make the move before the election, but not too far before the election. The template will be Blair/Brown in 1997: Accept the government's spending plans for at least two years, blame anything bad about them on the government, add a few costed, small-bore, symbolic differences.
1997 was utterly different; the economy was in great shape, the City was booming as never before, the world economic outlook was good. All Blair needed to do was neutralise the issue and reassure people that Labour wouldn't wreck it.
Saying you'll accept the government's spending plans when you've spent the last four years lambasting them as crazed ideological madness ruining the economy is another matter altogether.
Just out of interest what Tory policies did we know about in clear terms in February 2008? From memory, there was talk of hard choices, but not much else.
But were the Tories opposed to every government cut?
"My starting point is, I am afraid, we are going to have keep all these cuts. There is a big squeeze happening on budgets across the piece. The squeeze on defence spending, for instance, is £15bn by 2015. We are going to have to start from that being the baseline. At this stage, we can make no commitments to reverse any of that, on spending or on tax. So I am being absolutely clear about that."
Yes, there was a brief moment in January 2012 when Labour seemed to be moving towards a semblance of sanity. It lasted about a week, and has never been heard of since.
It actually lasted less than 24hrs as Len McCluskey torpedoed it in the Guardian when he discovered what Balls/EdM planned to say. IIRC back then Labour had made 1600 press releases - only one of which mentioned cuts as something that needed to be made... I can't recall another since.
The overriding theme of the Thatcher coverage is how the world has changed and the [political centre has moved. Basically, we keep getting told that Labour is not scary any more. Cameron essentially said that yesterday in the Commons.
depends on your view, their approach to the economy scare the crap out of me.
But you are never going to vote Labour. Your vote is gone and discounted, just as mine is with regards to the Tories.
From a non-anorak perspective, the constant themes of the coverage we have had over the last few days is that Britain has changed forever since 1979 because the political centre has moved: Thatcher won, her greatest achievement was Tony Blair, and so on. As Cameron said in the Commons yesterday, there may still be arguments but no side is advocating a return to the way things used to be done. We can argue over whether it's actually true or not, but what everyone is saying is that there is no extremism in the political mainstream these days - none of the major parties is scary in the way that they once may have been. I know you disagree with that message, but that is the message. That can only help Labour when Cameron says it. And it makes any claims of a Labour shift to the left, being in the pockets of the unions etc far less effective.
I think there is some truth in that Southam but it has limits. So we no longer have a Labour party who are committed to owning the commanding heights of the economy, who are unilateral disarmers, who believe in squeezing the rich until the pips squeek. A large part of the post Thatcher consensus is common ground.
But we still have a Labour party who seriously believe that the way to create future wealth and prosperity is to spend government money, whether raised from tax or borrowed; that it is still possible to accelerate the underlying growth rate of the economy by government borrowing and that the state is a better judge of where to invest scarce resources than the market or individuals. These are serious errors. They were serious in Thatcher's day and they were demonstrated to be false from 2007 onwards.
Unless Labour are willing to acknowledge these faults and accept the second part of Thatcher's lesson about the importance of sound money, liberating the individual, a property owning democracy and not spending what you have not earned we are facing disaster. A Labour government looks almost inevitable at this point and it is scary how little they have learned from truly horrendous mistakes.
I am seeking to explain why Thatcher's death may have played well for Labour. Essentially, the messaging has worked for them in underlining that the party is very different to the one that it used to be and that it has accepted the shift in the political centre. Both Cameron and Miliband said it in the Commons yesterday and it has been repeated countless times across the TV and the newspapers. Obviously, the day to day political arguments continue.
"My starting point is, I am afraid, we are going to have keep all these cuts. There is a big squeeze happening on budgets across the piece. The squeeze on defence spending, for instance, is £15bn by 2015. We are going to have to start from that being the baseline. At this stage, we can make no commitments to reverse any of that, on spending or on tax. So I am being absolutely clear about that."
Yes, there was a brief moment in January 2012 when Labour seemed to be moving towards a semblance of sanity. It lasted about a week, and has never been heard of since.
Most voters accept the need for austerity. That would indicate they understand whoever is in government after 2015 will not be flashing the cash. The issue is going to be who should manage the austerity.
Estimed impact of Welfare reform research by University of Sheddield Hallam
"The following list shows which towns and cities in each British region will be hardest hit by Government welfare reforms. Figures show the average amount that every working-age adult stands to lose per year.
North-East: Middlesbrough £720 North West: Blackpool £920 Yorkshire and the Humber: Hull £630 East Midlands: East Lindsey £610 West Midlands: Stoke £670 East of England: Tendring £620 London: Westminster £820 South East: Hastings £690 South West: Torbay £700 Wales: Merthyr Tydfil £720 Scotland: Glasgow: £650
But to audible boos from the crowd, the Labour leader said tough decisions would have to be made whoever was in government.
"Of course, there will still be hard choices. With borrowing rising not falling today, I have said that whoever was in government now would have to make some cuts,” he said.
"I do not promise easy times. But I do promise a different and fairer approach.
Most voters accept the need for austerity. That would indicate they understand whoever is in government after 2015 will not be flashing the cash. The issue is going to be who should manage the austerity.
No, the issue is going to be: "When the evil Tories were in power, you told us that cuts X, Y and Z were unnecessary, damaging and dreadfully unfair. Now you are in power, why are you not only failing to reverse them, but are actually making more of the same?"
Just look at France; it could not be a clearer illustration of my point about the failure to prepare supporters.
The overriding theme of the Thatcher coverage is how the world has changed and the [political centre has moved. Basically, we keep getting told that Labour is not scary any more. Cameron essentially said that yesterday in the Commons.
depends on your view, their approach to the economy scare the crap out of me.
But you are never going to vote Labour. Your vote is gone and discounted, just as mine is with regards to the Tories.
From a non-anorak perspective, the constant themes of the coverage we have had over the last few days is that Britain has changed forever since 1979 because the political centre has moved: Thatcher won, her greatest achievement was Tony Blair, and so on. As Cameron said in the Commons yesterday, there may still be arguments but no side is advocating a return to the way things used to be done. We can argue over whether it's actually true or not, but what everyone is saying is that there is no extremism in the political mainstream these days - none of the major parties is scary in the way that they once may have been. I know you disagree with that message, but that is the message. That can only help Labour when Cameron says it. And it makes any claims of a Labour shift to the left, being in the pockets of the unions etc far less effective.
I think there is some truth in that Southam but it has limits. So we no longer have a Labour party who are committed to owning the commanding heights of the economy, who are unilateral disarmers, who believe in squeezing the rich until the pips squeek. A large part of the post Thatcher consensus is common ground.
But we still have a Labour party who seriously believe that the way to create future wealth and prosperity is to spend government money, whether raised from tax or borrowed; that it is still possible to accelerate the underlying growth rate of the economy by government borrowing and that the state is a better judge of where to invest scarce resources than the market or individuals. These are serious errors. They were serious in Thatcher's day and they were demonstrated to be false from 2007 onwards.
Unless Labour are willing to acknowledge these faults and accept the second part of Thatcher's lesson about the importance of sound money, liberating the individual, a property owning democracy and not spending what you have not earned we are facing disaster. A Labour government looks almost inevitable at this point and it is scary how little they have learned from truly horrendous mistakes.
I am seeking to explain why Thatcher's death may have played well for Labour. Essentially, the messaging has worked for them in underlining that the party is very different to the one that it used to be and that it has accepted the shift in the political centre. Both Cameron and Miliband said it in the Commons yesterday and it has been repeated countless times across the TV and the newspapers. Obviously, the day to day political arguments continue.
I said last night that I thought Ed's speech yesterday was outstanding and if can maintain that line and balance the tories are in serious trouble. I have my doubts but he surprised me yesterday.
On why Thatcher has played badly for the tories in the polls I think the answer is more straightforward. Those opposed to Thatcher and her world view really only have one choice at the moment. Those who favour her world view have at least 2 and arguably 3 if you count the Lib Dems. Many, many Thatcherites do not accept the compromises of the current Coalition as we see on here day in day out.
Saying you'll accept the government's spending plans when you've spent the last four years lambasting them as crazed ideological madness ruining the economy is another matter altogether.
Blair and Brown spent four years lambasting the government for underfunding schools and hospitals, then turned around and promised to continue the same levels of funding for schools and hospitals. Maybe oppositions shouldn't be able to get away with this kind of thing, but they do.
I am seeking to explain why Thatcher's death may have played well for Labour. Essentially, the messaging has worked for them in underlining that the party is very different to the one that it used to be and that it has accepted the shift in the political centre. Both Cameron and Miliband said it in the Commons yesterday and it has been repeated countless times across the TV and the newspapers. Obviously, the day to day political arguments continue.
Thatcher's death will play well for Labour partly due to Miliband's skillful navigation of the issue but also because it reminds many people that they disliked her intensely (and she was widely disliked when she left office - that was why the Tories removed her). This will be negative for the more centrist Tory voters who Cameron has been trying to attract back. And for those who liked her - a minority - it reminds them how her Tory successors have failed to live up to the standards she set. This will be negative for more rightwing voters who will tend to drift off to UKIP. So Thatcher's death is likely to lead to a drop in Tory support.
Shame you weren't advising Dave when he was lambasting Labour for reorganising the NHS.
Have you seen Blair's very interesting article? Even though it is written in code, it's not hard to decipher. For example, this bit is clearly about the need to radically restructure the NHS:
Demographics – the age profile of our population – technology and globalisation all mean that the systems we created post-1945 have to change radically. This is so, irrespective of the financial catastrophe of 2008 and its aftermath.
If the polls are right, most people seem to accept the need for a level of austerity. It's the form it takes and how it is implemented that is the issue.
I agree with this completely.
The one thing that I cannot quite get my head round is how the Tories have managed to (apparently) balls this up. With "we're all in this together" you can see that they had an understanding of what it would take to have the country accept the medicine.
So why has their implementation been so inept? Why have they comprehensively abandoned the we're all in this together message for a dividing lines strategy of "Skivers vs strivers"?
The only caveat I would add is that Balls has too often given the impression of being against austerity in its entirety, rather than the details of its implementation.
Thank you Glenda Jackson for reminding me about the patients on trolleys, crumbling classrooms, empty library shelves, homeless sleeping rough etc etc which characterised the era of Thatcherism. Furthermore when greed becomes a virtue then humanity is debased.
Glenda Jackson's eloquence spoke volumes and she gave voice to the millions who have suffered from attacks on their communities and employment prospects. On Wednesday society will pay for her funeral, but didn't she say 'there was no such thing as society.'
I don't think that's how most people experienced the 1980s. For most, it was a time of rapidly rising living standards.
Most voters accept the need for austerity. That would indicate they understand whoever is in government after 2015 will not be flashing the cash. The issue is going to be who should manage the austerity.
No, the issue is going to be: "When the evil Tories were in power, you told us that cuts X, Y and Z were unnecessary, damaging and dreadfully unfair. Now you are in power, why are you not only failing to reverse them, but are actually making more of the same?"
Just look at France; it could not be a clearer illustration of my point about the failure to prepare supporters.
We will have to disagree. My gut feeling is that those who vote Labour in 2015 will not be expecting bread and circuses should we end up with a Labour government. I don't see any polling evidence for this - most people seem to believe austerity is necessary, most people seem to agree that public spending cuts are necessary. But maybe I am wrong.
The overriding theme of the Thatcher coverage is how the world has changed and the [political centre has moved. Basically, we keep getting told that Labour is not scary any more. Cameron essentially said that yesterday in the Commons.
depends on your view, their approach to the economy scare the crap out of me.
But you are never going to vote Labour. Your vote is gone and discounted, just as mine is with regards to the Tories.
From a non-anorak perspective, the constant themes of the coverage we have had over the last few days is that Britain has changed forever since 1979 because the political centre has moved: Thatcher won, her greatest achievement was Tony Blair, and so on. As Cameron said in the Commons yesterday, there may still be arguments but no side is advocating a return to the way things used to be done. We can argue over whether it's actually true or not, but what everyone is saying is that there is no extremism in the political mainstream these days - none of the major parties is scary in the way that they once may have been. I know you disagree with that message, but that is the message. That can only help Labour when Cameron says it. And it makes any claims of a Labour shift to the left, being in the pockets of the unions etc far less effective.
With most parties accepting the Thatcher consensus, I would argue the labels of Left and Right haven't actually fully caught up. While you and I might agree on certain national objectives we differ on how to achieve them. You are an advocate of a big state whereas I am a for small one . Increasingly politics is about how big the state should be and whether it should intervene at all. Until there's a clearer realignment we'll have a few more years of cross dressing politics.
To move on from matters Thatcher, the County Council elections are three weeks away and last evening I had a srink with my friend who works for Surrey and we were musing on what happen. He thought 2-3 UKIP seats was a strong possibility - Shalford, where the Conservatives have thrown away the seat and Weybridge where the sitting County Councillor defected to UKIP a few weeks ago and he thought maybe one other.
He thought that IF the Conservatives loat 10 seats, that could trigger a leadership challenge against David Hodge but he didn't think 2-3 UKIP Councillors would be any more than nuisance value.
I took a look at the Guildford County Council seats - the boundaries are the same as in 2009 unlike some other parts of the County. I think it has to be remembered that the 2009 County elections took place with the European Parliamentary elections and I'm wondering the extent to which UKIP doesn't start from as low a base as some imagine.
The ten Guildford seats split 7-3 between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats last time. Looking at them, Ash looks fascinating with UKIP starting from 16% - a strong UKIP second looks probable but the sitting Councillor should be ok. The UKIP candidate here stood in Guildford SE last time and got just 4%.
Guildford East looks very close on paper - the Tories won the seat narrowly in 2005 and it wouldn't be the biggest surprise if the LDs regained it this time. The LDs should hold Guildford North but Guildford SE looks another fascinating battle with not much between the Conservatives and Lib Dems.
Guildford SW and Guildford West should be holds for the Lib Dems though UKIP didn't do too badly in Guildford West and this might be one to watch.
The Conservatives should hold Horsleys comfortably and I'd expect UKIP to finish second here and Shere is pretty much the same though UKIP didn't stand here last time. Shalford has been discussed and it may well be that UKIP will throw all their effort in here which may save other Conservatives from any embarrassment.
Worplesdon is another interesting seat. It was Lib Dem in the 1990s but the Conservatives won it back in 2005 and the Lib Dems performed poorly in 2009. This may be a seat where UKIP (12% in 2009) might come up fast and while I don't see it changing hands, I think it will be tighter than many believe.
So I think the current 7-3 could switch to 5-4-1 with UKIP picking up Shalford and the LDs gaining Guildford East but that's just my view.
One of the points of any UKIP performance will be not only vote share and even seats won but the impact that result has on other parties. My Surrey friend says that IF UKIP do well in the elections, the Conservative leadership will feel it has to tack more to the Right and that might be reflected in Cabinet changes. It will be interesting to see if that pattern is reflected in other shire counties post-May.
Estimed impact of Welfare reform research by University of Sheddield Hallam
"The following list shows which towns and cities in each British region will be hardest hit by Government welfare reforms. Figures show the average amount that every working-age adult stands to lose per year.
North-East: Middlesbrough £720 North West: Blackpool £920 Yorkshire and the Humber: Hull £630 East Midlands: East Lindsey £610 West Midlands: Stoke £670 East of England: Tendring £620 London: Westminster £820 South East: Hastings £690 South West: Torbay £700 Wales: Merthyr Tydfil £720 Scotland: Glasgow: £650
It's not hard to find people who ... think Cameron is a bit more prime ministerial, and nonetheless are perfectly clear that they're going to vote Labour
Mr Cameron's 'nil points' result in the recent 'best PM' poll will hopefully explode the Conservatives Cameron-centric election strategy. He's seen as an empty suit.
'Better than Ed', and 'worth having' are two different things.
"For those bored stiff with Thatcher talk - there's an interesting stat aired today re organ donation = half of relatives block donations despite it being the wish of the deceased.
I'm really surprised its so high."
I am not. When my mother died we were asked for consent for her corneas to be donated. The children were all for it, help yourself to whatever might help someone else was our view. However, my step-father vetoed it. He said later that he couldn't bear the thought of someone taking a knife to his beloved wife. As there was going to have to be a post-mortem it was perhaps an odd attitude to take, but the recently bereaved (remember that these requests are sometimes made minutes after the death) are not always thinking rationally.
Estimed impact of Welfare reform research by University of Sheddield Hallam
"The following list shows which towns and cities in each British region will be hardest hit by Government welfare reforms. Figures show the average amount that every working-age adult stands to lose per year.
North-East: Middlesbrough £720 North West: Blackpool £920 Yorkshire and the Humber: Hull £630 East Midlands: East Lindsey £610 West Midlands: Stoke £670 East of England: Tendring £620 London: Westminster £820 South East: Hastings £690 South West: Torbay £700 Wales: Merthyr Tydfil £720 Scotland: Glasgow: £650
Tories think its safest (net safe) +98 - UKIP still think safe, but least persuaded +54.
While the population supports compulsion (net support) +27, this is lower in HH with young kids:
0-2 (+12), 3-4 (+7), 5-6 (+13), 7-8 (+9) >8 (+25)
UKIP's results there are truly bizarre - they aren't replicated in any age group, social grade or region - not by a long way.
Also intriguing 12% of men think their child has not and will not get the vaccine and 8% of women - which I think might be divergent partly as a result of memory...
"For those bored stiff with Thatcher talk - there's an interesting stat aired today re organ donation = half of relatives block donations despite it being the wish of the deceased.
I'm really surprised its so high."
I am not. When my mother died we were asked for consent for her corneas to be donated. The children were all for it, help yourself to whatever might help someone else was our view. However, my step-father vetoed it. He said later that he couldn't bear the thought of someone taking a knife to his beloved wife. As there was going to have to be a post-mortem it was perhaps an odd attitude to take, but the recently bereaved (remember that these requests are sometimes made minutes after the death) are not always thinking rationally.
I'd be livid if anyone told me at the pearly gates that my organs weren't being donated !
"In the carriage with us is the man Miliband thinks might hold an antidote to such fatalism. Arnie Graf is the 69-year-old US veteran trainer of “community organisers”. If all goes according to plan, Graf’s system will transform the Labour Party from a centralised, rusty machine for mass leaflet delivery into a thriving ecosystem of grassroots campaigners. The key, Graf tells me, lies in giving ordinary members ownership of the policymaking process. "
Oh dear - Chuka has been caught red-handed calling himself the British Obama - what a silly billy
"Today it is revealed that the reference to Chuka being Britain’s Barack Obama was made in January 2008 by IP 83.105.87.81. The IP address of law firm Rochman Landau LLP. As Chuka’s extensive Wikipedia page tells us, that is where he worked in January 2008. He tried to blame a mythical campaign aide and has been caught red handed. There is being two faced and then there is simple dishonesty…
As the Standard reminds us:
“In a 2011 newspaper interview the Streatham MP said of the Obama comparison: “It annoys me a bit. You get lazy journalists and the odd blogger who’ll suggest that I fancy myself as ‘Britain’s Obama’ and that I seek to encourage the comparison. It’s never been something I’ve encouraged.”
Also intriguing 12% of men think their child has not and will not get the vaccine and 8% of women - which I think might be divergent partly as a result of memory
Or the fact that their are more children living with their mother than with their father.
I don't know what you mean, unless you mean that absent fathers aren't aware their child has had the MMR - but I meant to include that in "memory".
Whilst it is true that Thatcher was more unpopular than Cameron at this point in the 79-83 Parliament and went on to win the 83 election, there are several issues;
1. The economy did actually recover in 1982 and by 1983 everyone felt much better. Theres absolutely no sign of such a recovery happening any time soon for Cameron.
2. Thatcher managed to defeat Argentina in a war - Not very likely that Cameron will be going to war with Kerchner any time soon.
3. Thatcher and Howe, while not at all liked, were at least highly competent as PM and Chancellor. Cameron may be likable, but he isn't competent. Osborne is voter repellent and incompetent also. Thats a disasterous combination for PM and Chancellor.
The overriding theme of the Thatcher coverage is how the world has changed and the [political centre has moved. Basically, we keep getting told that Labour is not scary any more. Cameron essentially said that yesterday in the Commons.
depends on your view, their approach to the economy scare the crap out of me.
But you are never going to vote Labour. Your vote is gone and discounted, just as mine is with regards to the Tories.
From a non-anorak perspective, the constant themes of the coverage we have had over the last few days is that Britain has changed forever since 1979 because the political centre has moved: Thatcher won, her greatest achievement was Tony Blair, and so on. As Cameron said in the Commons yesterday, there may still be arguments but no side is advocating a return to the way things used to be done. We can argue over whether it's actually true or not, but what everyone is saying is that there is no extremism in the political mainstream these days - none of the major parties is scary in the way that they once may have been. I know you disagree with that message, but that is the message. That can only help Labour when Cameron says it. And it makes any claims of a Labour shift to the left, being in the pockets of the unions etc far less effective.
With most parties accepting the Thatcher consensus, I would argue the labels of Left and Right haven't actually fully caught up. While you and I might agree on certain national objectives we differ on how to achieve them. You are an advocate of a big state whereas I am a for small one . Increasingly politics is about how big the state should be and whether it should intervene at all. Until there's a clearer realignment we'll have a few more years of cross dressing politics.
I'd say that I believe in a bigger state than you do; not necessarily in a big state.
The overriding theme of the Thatcher coverage is how the world has changed and the [political centre has moved. Basically, we keep getting told that Labour is not scary any more. Cameron essentially said that yesterday in the Commons.
depends on your view, their approach to the economy scare the crap out of me.
But you are never going to vote Labour. Your vote is gone and discounted, just as mine is with regards to the Tories.
From a non-anorak perspective, the constant themes of the coverage we have had over the last few days is that Britain has changed forever since 1979 because the political centre has moved: Thatcher won, her greatest achievement was Tony Blair, and so on. As Cameron said in the Commons yesterday, there may still be arguments but no side is advocating a return to the way things used to be done. We can argue over whether it's actually true or not, but what everyone is saying is that there is no extremism in the political mainstream these days - none of the major parties is scary in the way that they once may have been. I know you disagree with that message, but that is the message. That can only help Labour when Cameron says it. And it makes any claims of a Labour shift to the left, being in the pockets of the unions etc far less effective.
With most parties accepting the Thatcher consensus, I would argue the labels of Left and Right haven't actually fully caught up. While you and I might agree on certain national objectives we differ on how to achieve them. You are an advocate of a big state whereas I am a for small one . Increasingly politics is about how big the state should be and whether it should intervene at all. Until there's a clearer realignment we'll have a few more years of cross dressing politics.
I'd say that I believe in a bigger state than you do; not necessarily in a big state.
given the size of the state I'd like to see that's a Big State ;-)
Other than a load of mad lefties (and they would have made fools of themselves whatever funeral Mrs T had) where is this supposed backlash against Thatchers funeral?
Most people I know seem at most indifferent to the whole thing.
Whilst it is true that Thatcher was more unpopular than Cameron at this point in the 79-83 Parliament and went on to win the 83 election, there are several issues;
1. The economy did actually recover in 1982 and by 1983 everyone felt much better. Theres absolutely no sign of such a recovery happening any time soon for Cameron.
2. Thatcher managed to defeat Argentina in a war - Not very likely that Cameron will be going to war with Kerchner any time soon.
3. Thatcher and Howe, while not at all liked, were at least highly competent as PM and Chancellor. Cameron may be likable, but he isn't competent. Osborne is voter repellent and incompetent also. Thats a disasterous combination for PM and Chancellor.
I've posted this story on before but I remember canvassing in February 1982 for the upcoming London Borough elections as a young Liberal (out with a couple of even more naive SDP chaps). I lived in a very Tory area and found a typical street which, by my estimation, was about 70% Conservative (or had been).
I remember in house after house people telling me they were either going to abstain or vote SDP. Had the Falklands not intervened, I think the May 1982 elections would have been a bloodbath for the Conservatives with all that would have ensued. I don't think it would have been a straight line to a re-election victory in 1983 or 1984.
As I've often argued on here, the Falklands didn't just rescue Margaret Thatcher but it also rescued Labour. In my view, there's every chance that without the Falklands, a 1983 or 1984 election would have resulted in a hung Parliament with the Alliance parties outpolling Labour in terms of votes if not seats.
As regards the current situation, go back to the 1970-74 Parliament. Sutton and Cheam occuured two and a half years in, Ripon just over three and Berwick at three and a half. If memory serves, the swing against the Conservatives was less marked at Berwick than at Ripon or Sutton. May might (or indeed may) be the nadir electorally for the Conservatives though there's no guarantee they'll recover enough to prevent a Labour majority in 2015.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiMs165tVdw
But again, perhaps what's going on is the cognitive dissonance with some cherished beliefs:
- The Greenham Common women ended the Cold War
- The TUC brought down the Communist Dictatorships of Eastern Europe
- Peter Hain & the Barclays Boycott ended Apartheid
- Tony Blair reformed the CAP by giving up some of Thatcher's rebate
- Irish freedom fighters were only ever victims and the Brighton 'bomb' was a gas leak....
- The Argentinians were forced into democracy and preferred a military dictatorship
- British motorists would rather drive British Leyland cars than Nissan or Honda
- British tourists would prefer capital controls so they can't overspend on holiday
- Who needs mobile phones when the GPO can fit you a land line within 3 months (subject to survey)?
- BOAC was much better than BA....okay, you've got me on that one....
Allow all VAT to be reclaimed for refurbishment of derelict/unused properties when those properties are either rented or sold. The tax return from rental or the return from stamp duty should offset the loss in VAT take.
I find this completely baffling, the most outstandingly obvious point about UK politics today. Not only is it obvious in itself, if anyone had the slightlest doubt about the trouble they are making for themselves, they only need to look 20 miles across the Channel to see it all laid out in the clearest possible terms.
Of course, sensible Labour politicians and pundits (Blair, Hodges, Peter Watt) have said much the same in public, and I'm quite certain many more are saying the same in private. The baffling thing is that Ed M, who is not thick, doesn't seem to have got the message, or is choosing to ignore it.
Tories will reveal candidate tonight
"Gerry Adams moans in The Guardian about how Margaret Thatcher’s policies on Northern Ireland "entrenched sectarian divisions, handed draconian military powers powers over to the securocrats, and subverted basic human rights", which coming from a chap who was running the IRA when it tried to murder her is a bit rich. But Adams is easily vexed these days, for 15 years on from the Good Friday Agreement, the project to which he has devoted his life and for which more than 3,000 died – mostly unwittingly – is kaput.
Sinn Fein try to persuade us that the IRA fought for civil rights and that after more than three decades in the Good Friday Agreement, which is fifteen today, they won first-class citizenship for Catholics. The truth is that by 1972 all the legitimate complaints of the minority population had been dealt with by Westminster. What the IRA were killing for was a United Ireland, which proved to be a mirage.
Until quite recently, Martin McGuinness used to claim that there would be a United Ireland in 2016, the centenary of the Easter Rebellion. Yet the simple truth is that he is ending his career as Deputy First Minister in a province of the United Kingdom where polls show that Irish unity has the support of only about 20 per cent... http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ruthdudleyedwards/100211627/the-good-friday-agreement-was-better-than-we-feared/
We know what Thatcher would have done - I hope Bercow holds the line.
On the recall Cameron's damned if he did ('waste of money') damned if he didn't (waste of Parliamentary time, lack of respect etc etc).
Good our friends on the left have got something to raise their blood pressure over too - Ding Dong!
Kind of makes rEd a hostage to "events" and is an all in bet on the economy not recovering.
Seems mad to me but carry on I say.
Will EdM hope to tack back to the centre as GE2015 comes into view and hope that Labour voters have no where else to go/will come home from Kipper flirting?
If that's not his logic - then he's asking for it as his left-wing is very vocal when he doesn't do what they want.
https://www.facebook.com/hughannand.libdem
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2013/04/11/why-has-ed-allowed-the-unions-to-stitch-up-the-euro-candidate-selections-what-happened-to-the-new-politics/
And if EdM tries to ignore his left-wing until the final heave, then it'll be very high-profile squabbling during the 6 months up to polling day - that can't make sense.
Also, noticing that current trends point to a Labour win isn't the same thing as saying Lab Maj Nailed On. There are plenty of things to go wrong in the meantime, many of which we haven't thought of.
http://www.politicshome.com/uk/story/34079/
Possibly because their goal is limited to the next election, to achieving power not what they intend to do with it. These are Brown's people, remember.
I read this morning that Miliband is hoping to get into Downing Street with 35% of the vote, the 29% that voted for Brown and 6% of disaffected Lib Dems. Due to the way our electoral system works, that may well be realistic, but he can't afford to scare off any of his target voters. If he starts talking about the choices he will have to make scare them off he might. So his best bet could well be to "lie low and say nuffin". I expect a Labour Manifesto big on aspirational promises and very small on specific, costed, policies.
"OF ALL Margaret Thatcher’s many, many achievements, it is easy to forget just how revolutionary and successful was her programme of privatisation. Every single privatisation was, after all, opposed by Labour – and by many nominally on her own side. Former Conservative Prime Minister Harold MacMillan lamented that it was tantamount to “selling off the family silver”. Yet this precious metal analogy was wrong: privatisation was a goose that continued to lay golden eggs throughout Thatcher’s term in office, and beyond.
This was a policy, originally developed at thinks tanks like the Centre for Policy Studies (CPS) and the Institute of Economic Affairs, which broke a ratchet that since 1945 had seen more and more industries taken under state control. Even the travel agent Thomas Cook was state-owned. But when Thatcher left office, privatisation was a policy that had not only transformed Britain but which had swept across the world.
Privatisation worked. It benefited taxpayers, shareholders and consumers. Consider the results of a series of reports, commissioned by the CPS in 1996, from NERA Economic Consulting. One studied the financial flows to and from the Treasury of the 33 major companies privatised between 1984 and 1991 (Associated British Ports, BAA, British Airways, British Gas, British Steel, British Telecom, the 17 electricity companies and the 10 water and sewerage companies).
[lots of figs here so read the article]...Privatisation worked for the simple reason that it exposed firms to all the forces and incentives of the free market. These companies now had to respond to the demands of investors, managers, employees and customers. Failure to do so would lead to extinction. And particularly when combined with an exposure to greater competitive pressures, these companies flourished.
Encouragingly, the coalition is planning to privatise the Royal Mail. And from time to time it says that it wants to sell off its stakes in RBS and Lloyds. Worryingly, however, it failed to see off the vested interests when it tried to privatise the Forestry Commission; and it failed to implement Labour’s plans to sell the state interest in the Dartford Crossing.
But there are more golden eggs which the coalition should encourage to come forth. Why for example are the following organisations ultimately owned by the state? London Underground, the Crown Estates, the Trust Ports, the Commonwealth Development Corporation, the Royal Mint, the Met Office, Enrichment Holdings, Glas Cymru, Channel 4 and local authority-owned airports (like Manchester). The evidence suggests that we would all be better off if these organisations were in the private sector.
Privatising these bodies would be a true tribute to Thatcher’s memory. And if a government were to be truly bold, it could push out the two biggest golden eggs of all: the NHS and the BBC. Those would be battles worth fighting. http://www.cityam.com/article/privatisations-1980s-attest-success-thatcher-s-revolution
She clearly saw him as her political son and made his life hell as she forever pulled the strings in public. He didn't have a chance. Meddling doesn't even come close.
I hate to be a prophet of doom, but I can't help feeling that is bound to lead to massive disgruntlement amongst those foolish enough to have voted Labour in the belief that the laws of arithmetic would be suspended as a result of Ed M entering 10 Downing St.
Even more dangerous is the possibility which you rightly allude to that they won't have a majority. Shafting your supporters when you're safely in with a majority is one thing; doing so when you're jostling for votes with perfidious partner parties looking to eat into your vote share is even more destabilising.
What makes this all even more mysterious is that espousing fantasy economics makes it less, not more, likely that Labour will win. It's not even justified as a cynical short-term calculation.
"Thereafter, he edited several newspapers in North East England: from 1874 to 1877 he edited the Newcastle Daily Chronicle, from 1877 to 1885 the South Shields Gazette,"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Annand
Hugh Annand:
Following in the footsteps of my great grandfather, James Annand, who was a Liberal activist and newspaper editor on Tyneside in the late 19th century
RT @EdConwaySky: Wow: UK govt sells £1.6bn 11-year index-linked (eg inflation proof) bonds at real yield of -1.262%. Most negative ever
Glenda Jackson's eloquence spoke volumes and she gave voice to the millions who have suffered from attacks on their communities and employment prospects. On Wednesday society will pay for her funeral, but didn't she say 'there was no such thing as society.'
The trains - well Virgin has been pretty good but the tracks are quasi-nationalised through mountains of subsidy. Virgin, yes please ! First - No thanks
BT - Its gone 'Fair to Good' although unhealthily they have a monopoly on the 'backbone' of the infrastructure. More competition especially on the backbone needed (BT Wholesale)
Water - the threat of rationing after the wettest year on record ? Really ?! Must do better
Energy - Could well come home to roost during Ed's time in office.
Channel 4, BBC, Crown Estates, Royal Mint all should be privatised ASAP from that list - no real reason not to.
London Underground, hmm it could well end up another 'Network Rail' for years... anyway Transport for London is already run by Crapita.
Glas Cymru ? No idea what it is, straight into the Welsh Assembly budget though if its not already.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BHj-kJhCIAA6zgj.jpg:large
From a non-anorak perspective, the constant themes of the coverage we have had over the last few days is that Britain has changed forever since 1979 because the political centre has moved: Thatcher won, her greatest achievement was Tony Blair, and so on. As Cameron said in the Commons yesterday, there may still be arguments but no side is advocating a return to the way things used to be done. We can argue over whether it's actually true or not, but what everyone is saying is that there is no extremism in the political mainstream these days - none of the major parties is scary in the way that they once may have been. I know you disagree with that message, but that is the message. That can only help Labour when Cameron says it. And it makes any claims of a Labour shift to the left, being in the pockets of the unions etc far less effective.
Did the heroic Ms Jackson ever ask Burnham, Bradshaw, Johnson what was going on in NHS hospitals in Staffordshire from 2004.
"And it makes any claims of a Labour shift to the left, being in the pockets of the unions etc far less effective."
And here I disagree - when the BBC has their pet Lefty Owen Jones on twice a day, and the unions threatening/striking using bleeding stump rhetoric - it gives a very distinct message. Whilst the policies or lack of them in Labour's case may be luke warm - those with an ideological axe to grind are in full gobby mode.
One can't just pick out sensible Lefties and say they represent what the public hears yet simultaneously talk about UKIP fruitcakes and Peter Bone/Mad Nad on the other. It cuts both ways.
Just checking like
"My starting point is, I am afraid, we are going to have keep all these cuts. There is a big squeeze happening on budgets across the piece. The squeeze on defence spending, for instance, is £15bn by 2015. We are going to have to start from that being the baseline. At this stage, we can make no commitments to reverse any of that, on spending or on tax. So I am being absolutely clear about that."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jan/13/ed-balls-labour-party-economic-redibility
This works for oppositions because the media want to talk about conflicts not areas of agreement. So if you say, "Tax on caviar to pay for a new dialysis machine in Bolton", and the Tories respond, "Politics of envy, caviar-loving job-creators will move to Azerbaijan instead", everyone will argue about that, instead of all the other things where the positions of both parties are exactly the same.
In any case the point I'm making isn't about the Tories or point-scoring between parties, it's about Labour's ability to govern after 2015, on the assumption that they form the next government. Ed M seems to be acting as though this cannot happen, and therefore it doesn't matter what impression they give to their supporters. Seems barmy to me, but it should provide some good opportunities for betting on a 2020 Tory majority.
But we still have a Labour party who seriously believe that the way to create future wealth and prosperity is to spend government money, whether raised from tax or borrowed; that it is still possible to accelerate the underlying growth rate of the economy by government borrowing and that the state is a better judge of where to invest scarce resources than the market or individuals. These are serious errors. They were serious in Thatcher's day and they were demonstrated to be false from 2007 onwards.
Unless Labour are willing to acknowledge these faults and accept the second part of Thatcher's lesson about the importance of sound money, liberating the individual, a property owning democracy and not spending what you have not earned we are facing disaster. A Labour government looks almost inevitable at this point and it is scary how little they have learned from truly horrendous mistakes.
I'm really surprised its so high. If any of my organs are useful after I'm done with them - I've no problem and am a registered donor. But I can sympathise with those who feel a loved one should be buried whole. If you're cremated - I can't see the argument unless its part of your religion to be burned to release your spirit or whatever.
I'm 100% against presumed consent where your corpse becomes the property of the State for donation purposes unless you opt out.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/22106490
He might as well go whole the hog and give Horner a gimp mask.
If the polls are right, most people seem to accept the need for a level of austerity. It's the form it takes and how it is implemented that is the issue.
Saying you'll accept the government's spending plans when you've spent the last four years lambasting them as crazed ideological madness ruining the economy is another matter altogether.
Contains some inaccuracies. Churchill won one not 2 elections, and in terms of the popular vote actually won none.
"The following list shows which towns and cities in each British region will be hardest hit by Government welfare reforms. Figures show the average amount that every working-age adult stands to lose per year.
North-East: Middlesbrough £720
North West: Blackpool £920
Yorkshire and the Humber: Hull £630
East Midlands: East Lindsey £610
West Midlands: Stoke £670
East of England: Tendring £620
London: Westminster £820
South East: Hastings £690
South West: Torbay £700
Wales: Merthyr Tydfil £720
Scotland: Glasgow: £650
Full data
http://ig.ft.com/austerity-map/
But to audible boos from the crowd, the Labour leader said tough decisions would have to be made whoever was in government.
"Of course, there will still be hard choices. With borrowing rising not falling today, I have said that whoever was in government now would have to make some cuts,” he said.
"I do not promise easy times. But I do promise a different and fairer approach.
http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/63943/tough_choices_ahead_miliband_tells_tuc_march.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2013/apr/11/blair-miliband-thatcher-funeral-live#block-5166784de4b0db22a31b5de4
Just look at France; it could not be a clearer illustration of my point about the failure to prepare supporters.
On why Thatcher has played badly for the tories in the polls I think the answer is more straightforward. Those opposed to Thatcher and her world view really only have one choice at the moment. Those who favour her world view have at least 2 and arguably 3 if you count the Lib Dems. Many, many Thatcherites do not accept the compromises of the current Coalition as we see on here day in day out.
Re: privatisations.
Ugh. What an uncritically lightweight, sycophantic, oily article that is.
He knows the price of our national assets, but forgets the value in the accountability from common ownership of them.
The Royal Mail privatisation is another guaranteed cock up about to be unleashed from this obselete and wretched strategy.
Demographics – the age profile of our population – technology and globalisation all mean that the systems we created post-1945 have to change radically. This is so, irrespective of the financial catastrophe of 2008 and its aftermath.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/04/labour-must-search-answers-and-not-merely-aspire-be-repository-peoples-anger
The one thing that I cannot quite get my head round is how the Tories have managed to (apparently) balls this up. With "we're all in this together" you can see that they had an understanding of what it would take to have the country accept the medicine.
So why has their implementation been so inept? Why have they comprehensively abandoned the we're all in this together message for a dividing lines strategy of "Skivers vs strivers"?
The only caveat I would add is that Balls has too often given the impression of being against austerity in its entirety, rather than the details of its implementation.
Perhaps the nasty party need to bang on about welfare and Thatcher more?
*tears of laughter etc.*
Senile old bag.
To move on from matters Thatcher, the County Council elections are three weeks away and last evening I had a srink with my friend who works for Surrey and we were musing on what happen. He thought 2-3 UKIP seats was a strong possibility - Shalford, where the Conservatives have thrown away the seat and Weybridge where the sitting County Councillor defected to UKIP a few weeks ago and he thought maybe one other.
He thought that IF the Conservatives loat 10 seats, that could trigger a leadership challenge against David Hodge but he didn't think 2-3 UKIP Councillors would be any more than nuisance value.
I took a look at the Guildford County Council seats - the boundaries are the same as in 2009 unlike some other parts of the County. I think it has to be remembered that the 2009 County elections took place with the European Parliamentary elections and I'm wondering the extent to which UKIP doesn't start from as low a base as some imagine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrey_County_Council_election,_2009,_Guildford
The ten Guildford seats split 7-3 between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats last time. Looking at them, Ash looks fascinating with UKIP starting from 16% - a strong UKIP second looks probable but the sitting Councillor should be ok. The UKIP candidate here stood in Guildford SE last time and got just 4%.
Guildford East looks very close on paper - the Tories won the seat narrowly in 2005 and it wouldn't be the biggest surprise if the LDs regained it this time. The LDs should hold Guildford North but Guildford SE looks another fascinating battle with not much between the Conservatives and Lib Dems.
Guildford SW and Guildford West should be holds for the Lib Dems though UKIP didn't do too badly in Guildford West and this might be one to watch.
The Conservatives should hold Horsleys comfortably and I'd expect UKIP to finish second here and Shere is pretty much the same though UKIP didn't stand here last time. Shalford has been discussed and it may well be that UKIP will throw all their effort in here which may save other Conservatives from any embarrassment.
Worplesdon is another interesting seat. It was Lib Dem in the 1990s but the Conservatives won it back in 2005 and the Lib Dems performed poorly in 2009. This may be a seat where UKIP (12% in 2009) might come up fast and while I don't see it changing hands, I think it will be tighter than many believe.
So I think the current 7-3 could switch to 5-4-1 with UKIP picking up Shalford and the LDs gaining Guildford East but that's just my view.
One of the points of any UKIP performance will be not only vote share and even seats won but the impact that result has on other parties. My Surrey friend says that IF UKIP do well in the elections, the Conservative leadership will feel it has to tack more to the Right and that might be reflected in Cabinet changes. It will be interesting to see if that pattern is reflected in other shire counties post-May.
'Better than Ed', and 'worth having' are two different things.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4880665/margaret-thatcher-best-pm-ahead-of-churchill.html
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/jx8g4k4srj/YouGov-Sun-results-Thatcher-legacy-130409.pdf
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/2ymajaut1j/YG-Archive-MMR-results-130408.pdf
Tories think its safest (net safe) +98 - UKIP still think safe, but least persuaded +54.
While the population supports compulsion (net support) +27, this is lower in HH with young kids:
0-2 (+12),
3-4 (+7),
5-6 (+13),
7-8 (+9)
>8 (+25)
Good economics is not always good politics....
"For those bored stiff with Thatcher talk - there's an interesting stat aired today re organ donation = half of relatives block donations despite it being the wish of the deceased.
I'm really surprised its so high."
I am not. When my mother died we were asked for consent for her corneas to be donated. The children were all for it, help yourself to whatever might help someone else was our view. However, my step-father vetoed it. He said later that he couldn't bear the thought of someone taking a knife to his beloved wife. As there was going to have to be a post-mortem it was perhaps an odd attitude to take, but the recently bereaved (remember that these requests are sometimes made minutes after the death) are not always thinking rationally.
Westminster o_O ?!
UKIP's results there are truly bizarre - they aren't replicated in any age group, social grade or region - not by a long way.
Also intriguing 12% of men think their child has not and will not get the vaccine and 8% of women - which I think might be divergent partly as a result of memory...
“It’s a classic mistake of using devices that maybe look good for a day and then come apart.
Pre-distribution.
If they can pull this off:
"In the carriage with us is the man Miliband thinks might hold an antidote to such fatalism. Arnie Graf is the 69-year-old US veteran trainer of “community organisers”. If all goes according to plan, Graf’s system will transform the Labour Party from a centralised, rusty machine for mass leaflet delivery into a thriving ecosystem of grassroots campaigners. The key, Graf tells me, lies in giving ordinary members ownership of the policymaking process. "
They could do very well.....
"Today it is revealed that the reference to Chuka being Britain’s Barack Obama was made in January 2008 by IP 83.105.87.81. The IP address of law firm Rochman Landau LLP. As Chuka’s extensive Wikipedia page tells us, that is where he worked in January 2008. He tried to blame a mythical campaign aide and has been caught red handed. There is being two faced and then there is simple dishonesty…
As the Standard reminds us:
“In a 2011 newspaper interview the Streatham MP said of the Obama comparison: “It annoys me a bit. You get lazy journalists and the odd blogger who’ll suggest that I fancy myself as ‘Britain’s Obama’ and that I seek to encourage the comparison. It’s never been something I’ve encouraged.”
http://order-order.com/
interesting piece on Ed standard class Miliband.
Not sure that the community organisers sounds good - smacks of East German socialism.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9984829/Britain-ranked-second-only-to-Sweden-in-table-of-most-advanced-countries.html
A simple sanity check would have told the report's compilers that Britain should not finish second in this list.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/11/thatcher-imperial-funeral-farcical?CMP=twt_gu
Whilst it is true that Thatcher was more unpopular than Cameron at this point in the 79-83 Parliament and went on to win the 83 election, there are several issues;
1. The economy did actually recover in 1982 and by 1983 everyone felt much better. Theres absolutely no sign of such a recovery happening any time soon for Cameron.
2. Thatcher managed to defeat Argentina in a war - Not very likely that Cameron will be going to war with Kerchner any time soon.
3. Thatcher and Howe, while not at all liked, were at least highly competent as PM and Chancellor. Cameron may be likable, but he isn't competent. Osborne is voter repellent and incompetent also. Thats a disasterous combination for PM and Chancellor.
Ha bloody ha.
Do you do irony, or have you still to find it in the OED?
Red Bull team unity in flames ! Webber won't turn his engine down again
Brilliant - enough needle in the team to ensure fantastic & aggressive racing between them for the rest of the season now.
BREAKING NEWS:Labour leader Ed Miliband says "Labour Party is moving on and moving forward" in response to magazine article by Tony Blair
Most people I know seem at most indifferent to the whole thing.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/mystery-deepens-over-who-changed-wikipedia-entry-of-labour-star-chuka-umunna-8568406.html?origin=internalSearch
*Is this new 'code'? What sort of 'Jetrosexual' parties in South Beach Miami?
I remember in house after house people telling me they were either going to abstain or vote SDP. Had the Falklands not intervened, I think the May 1982 elections would have been a bloodbath for the Conservatives with all that would have ensued. I don't think it would have been a straight line to a re-election victory in 1983 or 1984.
As I've often argued on here, the Falklands didn't just rescue Margaret Thatcher but it also rescued Labour. In my view, there's every chance that without the Falklands, a 1983 or 1984 election would have resulted in a hung Parliament with the Alliance parties outpolling Labour in terms of votes if not seats.
As regards the current situation, go back to the 1970-74 Parliament. Sutton and Cheam occuured two and a half years in, Ripon just over three and Berwick at three and a half. If memory serves, the swing against the Conservatives was less marked at Berwick than at Ripon or Sutton. May might (or indeed may) be the nadir electorally for the Conservatives though there's no guarantee they'll recover enough to prevent a Labour majority in 2015.