Reading and hearing the reports about McBride's book makes me wonder if we are just one step away from a fundamental bombshell over Ed Milliband. I also wonder how well has McBride insulated his former "boss" Ed Balls from his links to McBride?
You can look for other excuses all day long but in the end you have to come back to the basic point.
Why did a man who used his personal circumstances to make promises on the NHS for four years break his word within six weeks of coming to office.
Until you recognise this you haven't a hope in hell of solving your dilemma.
I don't think it is just that, although it doesn't really help. I think it is partly down to the general cynicism and grumpiness of the British people. I know people that after a decade of complaining about government bureaucracy, centralisation and waste under Labour switch immeditately to complaining about any potential cuts under the Tories when they got in. They want perfect solutions without any pain at all.
The NHS is similar in that when Labour were in charge they complained about how it was run and then complained about any possible changes. The biggest boost to Labours ratings on the NHS is the fact that they no longer run it.
Alan Sked monstering Farage on Sky, trying to link him to Nazis...
I am really no fan of Farage but Sked is a bitter twisted old man who never forgave Farage for having made a success of UKIP when Sked himself had failed so badly. He is a UKIP version of Ted Heath in his attitudes to his successors.
What the coalition should have done immediately was to cap public sector, including the BBC, earnings at ten times minimum wage.
The resulting howling from various council executives, hospital bosses, BBC managers and quangocrats would have highlighted how much the public sector had fallen victim to 'producer capture' under the Labour government.
It would also have put Labour in a difficult spot politically - either having to explain why these public sector fat cats deserved such earnings or explain why they had allowed their earnings to reach such excessive levels while they were in government.
The problem is though that the Cameroons see nothing wrong with said groups being paid six figures sums as to them a six figure sum is merely average earnings.
Maybe the Cameroons have a better grasp of the law of contract. Did you not think Labour had got the deficit big enough?
This is exactly what I mean by 'producer capture' or more specifically executive capture.
The fatcats control the organisation and ensure that they are the ones to gain from it.
Clearly neither the Cameroons or you think there's anything wrong with tha but I'm sure action could be taken if you wanted to - 100% income tax rates above a certain level of earnings for example.
Oh I agree that public sector pay got completely out of control and the money we pay our senior managers/ LG officers/BBC executives etc etc is bordering on the obscene. I just think your solutions are a little simplistic and, well illegal. How could you have different tax rules for the public and private sectors for example?
When the Coalition was first appointed Osborne said he wanted to approve every appointment where the salary being offered was more than the PMs. Presumably the queue made it very difficult to get in and out of Downing Street. Personally I would stipulate that every time someone in one of these high paid positions is replaced the salary should be 10% less than the outgoing person got paid. It would take longer but it would be worth it.
Reading and hearing the reports about McBride's book makes me wonder if we are just one step away from a fundamental bombshell over Ed Milliband. I also wonder how well has McBride insulated his former "boss" Ed Balls from his links to McBride?
I wasn't really expecting so many unhelpful juicy morsels in McPoison's book.
When is EdM's BIG SPEECH? Or have we already had it and we didn't notice? I suspect the Mail is keeping the worst til last.
Easterross, RichardDodd - Stafford has had lots of coverage, and I think most people see it as horrible but unusual and not in keeping with their personal experience. But don't let me second-guess you - to what do YOU attribute Labour's persistent large lead on health?
One thing I never could understand was Burnham's lack of interest or curiosity on this subject.
Reading and hearing the reports about McBride's book makes me wonder if we are just one step away from a fundamental bombshell over Ed Milliband. I also wonder how well has McBride insulated his former "boss" Ed Balls from his links to McBride?
I wasn't really expecting so many unhelpful juicy morsels in McPoison's book. When is EdM's BIG SPEECH? Or have we already had it and we didn't notice? I suspect the Mail is keeping the worst til last.
The full book may lay out a wider picture on how close Balls was to McBride or "Mr McBride" as Balls called him in public. The Blairites may also have a smoking gun or two in evidence that ties EdM or EdB into the smearing. With EdM looking fragile and the Blairites seeking some revenge over David M, this is a festering brew fermenting away.
You can look for other excuses all day long but in the end you have to come back to the basic point.
Why did a man who used his personal circumstances to make promises on the NHS for four years break his word within six weeks of coming to office.
Until you recognise this you haven't a hope in hell of solving your dilemma.
I don't think it is just that, although it doesn't really help. I think it is partly down to the general cynicism and grumpiness of the British people. I know people that after a decade of complaining about government bureaucracy, centralisation and waste under Labour switch immeditately to complaining about any potential cuts under the Tories when they got in. They want perfect solutions without any pain at all.
The NHS is similar in that when Labour were in charge they complained about how it was run and then complained about any possible changes. The biggest boost to Labours ratings on the NHS is the fact that they no longer run it.
I agree with that. The reorganisation looms extremely large in Tim's mind but I wonder how many of the general public even know it happened, what it amounted to and what effect, if any, it has had on the service (tbh I don't have a clue about the last one either). The bad news stories about the NHS hurt the tories whenever they happened because they are now in charge. It really is that simple.
"Mr McBride tells of numerous plots and dirty tricks campaigns run against Brown’s ministerial rivals such as John Reid, the former home secretary, and he shows just how bad it got between No 10 and No 11 under Mr Blair and Mr Brown, when the rival camps were dedicated to destroying each other.
Relations became so bad that the chancellor’s press man even ran a campaign to “knife” Tony Blair’s wife, Cherie. He leaked details of an investigation by customs into unpaid VAT and customs duty on pearls she had brought back from China. The intention, writes Mr McBride, was to make her look “simultaneously filthy rich, out of touch and a tax-dodger”.
As a result of the colourful revelations, Labour’s conference in Brighton this week is getting off to a highly entertaining and potentially disastrous start. For Ed Miliband, this book could not have come at a worse time, as he endeavours to relaunch his leadership against a backdrop of a recovering economy and an evaporating opinion poll lead. Just when the party’s high command should be devoted to trying to explain to the country what Mr Miliband would do if he makes it to Downing Street, they are instead dealing with the fallout from the Mr McBride revelations.
Frantic efforts are being made to distance the leadership from the row. Some of the main characters in Gordon Brown’s inner circle now claim bafflingly to have had only the most passing of acquaintances with the former special adviser.
Indeed, Ed Balls has professed himself astonished by what his erstwhile comrade and close collaborator was up to. Damian McBride was “a law unto himself”, the shadow chancellor said yesterday. He describes the smears perpetrated against Mr Brown’s enemies as “despicable” and says he did not know about the worst examples. But it is very difficult for Labour to present Mr McBride as a “lone wolf” operating without the consent and approval of his bosses and close colleagues. At the time, many of them revelled in the supposed power and ruthless efficiency of the Brownite media machine... http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100237207/labour-cant-shake-the-toxic-legacy-of-gordon-browns-poisonous-campaign-to-usurp-tony-blair/
Though Labour might have mortgaged the family silver to put it back on track at least everyone knows and can see where the money went. The odd aberration like Stafford is neither here nor there because people know that Labour's rescue mission was genuine and necessary. If anything it just reminds people of the massive task they faced.
Really, Roger? Really?
Stafford provided clear evidence of the consequences of a cultural shift in the NHS away from the basic care for patients. You can argue about the causes of this shift (in my view it partly mirrors an atomisation of society as a whole; partly the increased reliance on contract nurses; partly the academisation of nursing; and partly the trend towards management by target rather than delegating authority to autonomous professionals), but it happened on Labour;s watch.
I'm not one of those people who claims X people died at Stafford (because it is an abuse of statistics to come up with those numbers). However, it clearly indicates that something is very wrong in the NHS and shouldn't be blithely dismissed like you have.
Surely your causes began under the previous Conservative government? And at risk of relying too much on anecdote, I recall a couple of nurse acquaintances predicting in the 1980s that loss of a shared "nursing culture" would result from selling off the nurses' homes (where student and recently qualified nurses would live together on hospital premises).
I'm sure it did, to some extent (probably all the themes I mentioned started, but Labour developed them further. A similar example could be PFI - under Clarke it was used selectively and sensibly; Brown saw it as clever off balance sheet financing and abused it).
I'm less convinced by the sale of the nursing homes element - that misses the point on "culture" (and I generally don't like tied accommodation). I would point to the conversion of nursing from a practical / apprentice based training to a primarily academic one and to the removal of the responsibility for ward cleanliness from the senior duty nurse as critical elements.
PoliticsHome @politicshome .@RachelReevesMP on Clegg saying he can work with Labour: "That’s very generous of Nick Clegg to say that, with his poll ratings of 9%".
What the coalition should have done immediately was to cap public sector, including the BBC, earnings at ten times minimum wage.
If you believe in a market economy for talent, then such a cap would mean public sector organisations would be unable to compete. If the BBC wants to hire Wayne Rooney to present weather forecasts, it must pay more than Manchester United pays him to play football. If you do not favour such a market, then why not apply the limit to the private sector as well? Surely the real scandal is the gulf between top floor and shop floor.
Because the public sector aren't in a market economy they receive their income from the taxpayers.
And who makes the decisions at the BBC ? The ordinary employees ? The licensepayers ? No, a self perpetuating and self rewarding oligarchy of executives and middle managers. Fatcats whose principle concern is the wellbeing of fatcats.
So looking at it as 'how much would the BBC have to pay to get Wayne Rooney' is the wrong way round. The correct question is 'how much would the BBC executives and middle managers get paid in the private sector'.
What the private sector does with its money is its business, if organisations within it are mismanaged then they go out of business.
Though to be fair much of the private sector has also fallen victim to 'producer capture'. A comparison between changes in share prices, executive earnings and employee earnings since 2000 shows that the executive class has effectively stolen both the fruits of the shareholders investment and the fruits of the employees labour.
It is the same question. If the market rate for "head of paperclips" is £180,000 a year then public or private sector companies looking to recruit a "head of paperclips" must pay that much, or even more if necessary to tempt their target away from its rival.
What the coalition should have done immediately was to cap public sector, including the BBC, earnings at ten times minimum wage.
If you believe in a market economy for talent, then such a cap would mean public sector organisations would be unable to compete. If the BBC wants to hire Wayne Rooney to present weather forecasts, it must pay more than Manchester United pays him to play football. If you do not favour such a market, then why not apply the limit to the private sector as well? Surely the real scandal is the gulf between top floor and shop floor.
The public sector shouldn't be operating in areas where there is effective private sector provision.
This is exactly what I mean by 'producer capture' or more specifically executive capture.
The fatcats control the organisation and ensure that they are the ones to gain from it.
Clearly neither the Cameroons or you think there's anything wrong with tha but I'm sure action could be taken if you wanted to - 100% income tax rates above a certain level of earnings for example.
Oh I agree that public sector pay got completely out of control and the money we pay our senior managers/ LG officers/BBC executives etc etc is bordering on the obscene. I just think your solutions are a little simplistic and, well illegal. How could you have different tax rules for the public and private sectors for example?
When the Coalition was first appointed Osborne said he wanted to approve every appointment where the salary being offered was more than the PMs. Presumably the queue made it very difficult to get in and out of Downing Street. Personally I would stipulate that every time someone in one of these high paid positions is replaced the salary should be 10% less than the outgoing person got paid. It would take longer but it would be worth it.
Did Osborne approve the £300K that James Purnell was given after his appointment as BBC's 'Director of Strategy' ? A position which IIRC wasn't publicly advertised.
And your idea that replacements for fatcats be automatically paid less is naive in the extreme. With your solution no fatcat would ever be replaced, instead new positions would be created to replace the old ones with the new positions naturally having higher not lower pay.
Marcher Lord @MarcherLord1 YouGov/Sun poll: CON 34%, LAB 35%, LDEM 11%, UKIP 11% - @UKLabour on lowest since July 2010 - a splendid start to conference #lab13 #SaveEd
@Plato – “Relations became so bad that the chancellor’s press man even ran a campaign to “knife” Tony Blair’s wife, Cherie. He leaked details of an investigation by customs into unpaid VAT and customs duty on pearls she had brought back from China.”
I remember one Labour conference where, in a speech given by Gordon Brown, he declared his support for Tony Blair – to which Cherie ‘allegedly’ was overheard calling Gordon Brown a liar.
I agree with that. The reorganisation looms extremely large in Tim's mind but I wonder how many of the general public even know it happened, what it amounted to and what effect, if any, it has had on the service (tbh I don't have a clue about the last one either). The bad news stories about the NHS hurt the tories whenever they happened because they are now in charge. It really is that simple.
Voters may not know the reorganisation happened but they do know if their experience of the NHS has declined, as the professionals and pretty much everyone bar Andrew Lansley (and including some in the Cabinet) forecast would result.
It is the same with schools. As a parent, you might not know the difference between a Free School and an Academy, or how community and foundations schools compare, but you will certainly know if there is no room for your nipper at the local primary, and you might even be inclined to blame the government.
What the coalition should have done immediately was to cap public sector, including the BBC, earnings at ten times minimum wage.
If you believe in a market economy for talent, then such a cap would mean public sector organisations would be unable to compete. If the BBC wants to hire Wayne Rooney to present weather forecasts, it must pay more than Manchester United pays him to play football. If you do not favour such a market, then why not apply the limit to the private sector as well? Surely the real scandal is the gulf between top floor and shop floor.
The public sector shouldn't be operating in areas where there is effective private sector provision.
Even if you were right, they'd still be fishing in the same pools for lawyers, accountants, HR-ists, computer staff and so on, not to mention managers.
This is exactly what I mean by 'producer capture' or more specifically executive capture.
The fatcats control the organisation and ensure that they are the ones to gain from it.
Clearly neither the Cameroons or you think there's anything wrong with tha but I'm sure action could be taken if you wanted to - 100% income tax rates above a certain level of earnings for example.
Oh I agree that public sector pay got completely out of control and the money we pay our senior managers/ LG officers/BBC executives etc etc is bordering on the obscene. I just think your solutions are a little simplistic and, well illegal. How could you have different tax rules for the public and private sectors for example?
When the Coalition was first appointed Osborne said he wanted to approve every appointment where the salary being offered was more than the PMs. Presumably the queue made it very difficult to get in and out of Downing Street. Personally I would stipulate that every time someone in one of these high paid positions is replaced the salary should be 10% less than the outgoing person got paid. It would take longer but it would be worth it.
Did Osborne approve the £300K that James Purnell was given after his appointment as BBC's 'Director of Strategy' ? A position which IIRC wasn't publicly advertised.
And your idea that replacements for fatcats be automatically paid less is naive in the extreme. With your solution no fatcat would ever be replaced, instead new positions would be created to replace the old ones with the new positions naturally having higher not lower pay.
Osborne gave Mark Carney a £250k per year housing allowance.
What the coalition should have done immediately was to cap public sector, including the BBC, earnings at ten times minimum wage.
If you believe in a market economy for talent, then such a cap would mean public sector organisations would be unable to compete. If the BBC wants to hire Wayne Rooney to present weather forecasts, it must pay more than Manchester United pays him to play football. If you do not favour such a market, then why not apply the limit to the private sector as well? Surely the real scandal is the gulf between top floor and shop floor.
Because the public sector aren't in a market economy they receive their income from the taxpayers.
And who makes the decisions at the BBC ? The ordinary employees ? The licensepayers ? No, a self perpetuating and self rewarding oligarchy of executives and middle managers. Fatcats whose principle concern is the wellbeing of fatcats.
So looking at it as 'how much would the BBC have to pay to get Wayne Rooney' is the wrong way round. The correct question is 'how much would the BBC executives and middle managers get paid in the private sector'.
What the private sector does with its money is its business, if organisations within it are mismanaged then they go out of business.
Though to be fair much of the private sector has also fallen victim to 'producer capture'. A comparison between changes in share prices, executive earnings and employee earnings since 2000 shows that the executive class has effectively stolen both the fruits of the shareholders investment and the fruits of the employees labour.
It is the same question. If the market rate for "head of paperclips" is £180,000 a year then public or private sector companies looking to recruit a "head of paperclips" must pay that much, or even more if necessary to tempt their target away from its rival.
You may be right about the marzipan layer.
Noted an advertisement in the Graun yesterday for an MD in the engineering industry. Among the "necessaries" in the advert "experience of engineering" was conspicuous by it's absence.
How does crime ( for instance ) not affect people directly?
Some people worry about being victims of crime a great deal, but most don't - like falling down the stairs, it's something to watch out against but not an everyday preoccupation like the cost of living. You could say the same about health but I think more people fret about health care, and taking everything into account trust the Conservatives less on the issue, since they believe the Tories would really like to change the system but don't quite dare to say so.
The abstract vs personal divide is important. Imagine going on a doorstep and saying "Our party has made bold steps in quantitative easing which are resulting in improved M3 money supply, despite a risk to inflation which we discount." Perfectly true, possibly a jolly good thing, but...
I get your drift though I suppose what affects you personally depends on who you are and what your circumstances are. I am very affected professionally ( and by extension therefore personally in my pocket) by QE and currency rates, I've happily not been a victim of crime for more than 20 years so at this point in life QE is the more " affecting". Now I accept that's a little out of kilter with most folk I've no doubt but it is " my truth ", right now. If I'm hit over the back of the head tomorrow walking down the street QE won't be foremost in my thoughts I'm sure.
Thing is though the " general " as defined in the thread opener does eventually have an effect on the more specific. If the country is broke it can't pay for better health or police than if its doing well.
What the coalition should have done immediately was to cap public sector, including the BBC, earnings at ten times minimum wage.
The resulting howling from various council executives, hospital bosses, BBC managers and quangocrats would have highlighted how much the public sector had fallen victim to 'producer capture' under the Labour government.
It would also have put Labour in a difficult spot politically - either having to explain why these public sector fat cats deserved such earnings or explain why they had allowed their earnings to reach such excessive levels while they were in government.
The problem is though that the Cameroons see nothing wrong with said groups being paid six figures sums as to them a six figure sum is merely average earnings.
Yup, get to the principle of the thing. What is equitable where wages are paid with other people's taxes.
The problem is though that the Cameroons see nothing wrong with said groups being paid six figures sums as to them a six figure sum is merely average earnings.
Where on earth did you get that idea from? This Cameroon has repeatedly criticised the ludicrously high pay which the administrative classes in government, quangos, charities, the NHS, the Beeb etc have got into the habit of paying themselves. It was one of the massive failures of the Blair/Brown years. And Cameron himself, and other Cameroons, have laid into it repeatedly for years, and are doing something about it:
Between 2006 and July 2009, she worked as a business planner and analyst for Halifax Bank of Scotland - she did a good job there didn't she.
Represents Leeds West constituency - a place where £60,000pa would put you in the top 1%.
And one of the 'Stepford Socialists'.
To be fair to Rachel Reeves, the technical term in business for a "business planner and analyst" is "muppet." Nothing she said or did would have affected the outcome in any way whatsoever.
Also OVERWHELMING support for completely banning them in public places like courts, schools, etc.
A large majority of the British public also want a return of the death penalty. That doesn't mean it the right thing to do.
In your twitching, drooling hatred of the burqa you are blind to the fact that banning stuff just because people don't like it is a fundamentalist (note that word) position to take. One more associated with the very cultures you are so afraid of.
It is an infantile position and one that no serious party should be contemplating. So well done to UKIP for having grown up just a bit on this issue.
What the coalition should have done immediately was to cap public sector, including the BBC, earnings at ten times minimum wage.
If you believe in a market economy for talent, then such a cap would mean public sector organisations would be unable to compete. If the BBC wants to hire Wayne Rooney to present weather forecasts, it must pay more than Manchester United pays him to play football. If you do not favour such a market, then why not apply the limit to the private sector as well? Surely the real scandal is the gulf between top floor and shop floor.
The public sector shouldn't be operating in areas where there is effective private sector provision.
Even if you were right, they'd still be fishing in the same pools for lawyers, accountants, HR-ists, computer staff and so on, not to mention managers.
Yes, but most of those people don't have the super high salaries that people get so exercised about.
Also OVERWHELMING support for completely banning them in public places like courts, schools, etc.
A large majority of the British public also want a return of the death penalty. That doesn't mean it the right thing to do.
In your twitching, drooling hatred of the burqa you are blind to the fact that banning stuff just because people don't like it is a fundamentalist (note that word) position to take. One more associated with the very cultures you are so afraid of.
It is an infantile position and one that no serious party should be contemplating. So well done to UKIP for having grown up just a bit on this issue.
Isn't that what democracy is about? Taking the rough with the smooth when it comes to implementing the will of the people.
As it happens I don't think that the general public would vote to bring back the death penalty if consulted in a referendum.
What the coalition should have done immediately was to cap public sector, including the BBC, earnings at ten times minimum wage.
The resulting howling from various council executives, hospital bosses, BBC managers and quangocrats would have highlighted how much the public sector had fallen victim to 'producer capture' under the Labour government.
It would also have put Labour in a difficult spot politically - either having to explain why these public sector fat cats deserved such earnings or explain why they had allowed their earnings to reach such excessive levels while they were in government.
The problem is though that the Cameroons see nothing wrong with said groups being paid six figures sums as to them a six figure sum is merely average earnings.
Yup, get to the principle of the thing. What is equitable where wages are paid with other people's taxes.
Also OVERWHELMING support for completely banning them in public places like courts, schools, etc.
SeanT, I had that face to face talk with Paul Nuttall about this problem on the green on Friday, first day of conference. In essence he completely agrees with me. Watch for a reinstatement of the full burqa and niqab ban after a suitable time lapse.
The problem is though that the Cameroons see nothing wrong with said groups being paid six figures sums as to them a six figure sum is merely average earnings.
Where on earth did you get that idea from? This Cameroon has repeatedly criticised the ludicrously high pay which the administrative classes in government, quangos, charities, the NHS, the Beeb etc have got into the habit of paying themselves. It was one of the massive failures of the Blair/Brown years. And Cameron himself, and other Cameroons, have laid into it repeatedly for years, and are doing something about it:
Lots of hot air then , can you show us a cut that has happened so far. We had example of Carney getting £250K housing allowance on top of monster salary, does not seem to support the false histrionics from cameron et al.
I agree with that. The reorganisation looms extremely large in Tim's mind but I wonder how many of the general public even know it happened, what it amounted to and what effect, if any, it has had on the service (tbh I don't have a clue about the last one either). The bad news stories about the NHS hurt the tories whenever they happened because they are now in charge. It really is that simple.
Voters may not know the reorganisation happened but they do know if their experience of the NHS has declined, as the professionals and pretty much everyone bar Andrew Lansley (and including some in the Cabinet) forecast would result.
It is the same with schools. As a parent, you might not know the difference between a Free School and an Academy, or how community and foundations schools compare, but you will certainly know if there is no room for your nipper at the local primary, and you might even be inclined to blame the government.
And if there's no room in your primary for your nipper maybe people will remember Labour's open-door immigration policy and failure to plan for extra school places. Unfortunately, Labour were too busy stabbing each other in the back to worry about long term policy.
People are strange, how on earth would anyone put Labour ahead on unemployment?
chance of being unemployed vs consequences
Q: how on earth would anyone put Labour ahead on unemployment? A: Because Labour are very successful at increasing unemployment and the voters recognise that Labour are best at that?
Lots of hot air then , can you show us a cut that has happened so far. We had example of Carney getting £250K housing allowance on top of monster salary, does not seem to support the false histrionics from cameron et al.
Err, I rather think the going rate for hiring a top central banker (available pool of talent with the right experience and market credibility: about half a dozen in the world maybe?) is hardly comparable with the types of routine admin jobs I was talking about, such as managing a housing association, being a chief executive of a small local council , or being a 'manager' or 'director' with zero responsibility in the Beeb.
Also OVERWHELMING support for completely banning them in public places like courts, schools, etc.
A large majority of the British public also want a return of the death penalty. That doesn't mean it the right thing to do.
In your twitching, drooling hatred of the burqa you are blind to the fact that banning stuff just because people don't like it is a fundamentalist (note that word) position to take. One more associated with the very cultures you are so afraid of.
It is an infantile position and one that no serious party should be contemplating. So well done to UKIP for having grown up just a bit on this issue.
Isn't that what democracy is about? Taking the rough with the smooth when it comes to implementing the will of the people.
As it happens I don't think that the general public would vote to bring back the death penalty if consulted in a referendum.
There are, and always have been, limits on pure democracy in Britain. Indeed we are a very long way from a pure democracy. If, for example, the majority decided that a specific minority should be executed or expelled from the country, then one would expect the system to be robust enough to resist such moves.
We have certain cultural standards in Britain which are used to temper our democracy and stop it becoming mob rule. The removal of state sanctioned killings of its own citizens is one example. I would contend that banning of items of clothing for no other reason than some people don't like them is another.
Interesting that given all the reasons the PB Tories have trotted out in the thread for why Labour ought to be behind on the NHS, Unemployment and Housing that voters in general seem to completely disagree. Damn those pesky voters.
Labour were behind on the NHS - very briefly - mainly over years of MRSA type stuff combined with the Cameroons saying they were going to leave it alone. Going back on that within weeks of the election reset the game (the actual changes are irrelevant to this).
@SeanT And Farage is clearly knackered. The signs aren't good.
Farage is clearly in need of a long holiday and a bit of a rest. He didn't look his best at conference. Whether he will take it is another matter. However you are wrong about UKIP SeanT, There are some much younger and in my opinion, equally charismatic members who will be coming into prominence quite shortly.
Lots of hot air then , can you show us a cut that has happened so far. We had example of Carney getting £250K housing allowance on top of monster salary, does not seem to support the false histrionics from cameron et al.
Err, I rather think the going rate for hiring a top central banker (available pool of talent with the right experience and market credibility: about half a dozen in the world maybe?) is hardly comparable with the types of routine admin jobs I was talking about, such as managing a housing association, being a chief executive of a small local council , or being a 'manager' or 'director' with zero responsibility in the Beeb.
So going by your bluster I can assume you have ZERO examples of Cameron or his chums doing anything about it.
Edit: Given the hash previous incumbents made of it I would also say just about anybody who can speak publicly could do the job, all you do is talk hot air and fire up the printing presses when you have made a hash of it.
Also OVERWHELMING support for completely banning them in public places like courts, schools, etc.
A large majority of the British public also want a return of the death penalty. That doesn't mean it the right thing to do.
In your twitching, drooling hatred of the burqa you are blind to the fact that banning stuff just because people don't like it is a fundamentalist (note that word) position to take. One more associated with the very cultures you are so afraid of.
It is an infantile position and one that no serious party should be contemplating. So well done to UKIP for having grown up just a bit on this issue.
Isn't that what democracy is about? Taking the rough with the smooth when it comes to implementing the will of the people.
As it happens I don't think that the general public would vote to bring back the death penalty if consulted in a referendum.
There are, and always have been, limits on pure democracy in Britain. Indeed we are a very long way from a pure democracy. If, for example, the majority decided that a specific minority should be executed or expelled from the country, then one would expect the system to be robust enough to resist such moves.
We have certain cultural standards in Britain which are used to temper our democracy and stop it becoming mob rule. The removal of state sanctioned killings of its own citizens is one example. I would contend that banning of items of clothing for no other reason than some people don't like them is another.
I'd say you have this the wrong way around. The system is moderate because the majority of the people are.
In other countries where the population is more extreme the government enacts more extreme policies.
So going by your bluster I can assume you have ZERO examples of Cameron or his chums doing anything about it.
Yawn.
When did pointing out an important distinction become 'bluster'?
As for this government taking steps to address the matter, have you tried reading a newspaper or using Google? I really can't be bothered to go through the list.
Farage is clearly in need of a long holiday and a bit of a rest. He didn't look his best at conference. Whether he will take it is another matter. However you are wrong about UKIP SeanT, There are some much younger and in my opinion, equally charismatic members who will be coming into prominence quite shortly.
One of the problems often levied at Farage, by other UKIP members I hasten to add, is his inability to delegate responsibility to others further down the food change. Which is why his style of leaderships is often described as ‘dictatorial’ – Are you claiming that that is about to change, and how so?
The problem is though that the Cameroons see nothing wrong with said groups being paid six figures sums as to them a six figure sum is merely average earnings.
Where on earth did you get that idea from? This Cameroon has repeatedly criticised the ludicrously high pay which the administrative classes in government, quangos, charities, the NHS, the Beeb etc have got into the habit of paying themselves. It was one of the massive failures of the Blair/Brown years. And Cameron himself, and other Cameroons, have laid into it repeatedly for years, and are doing something about it:
Besides, as I've told you several million times, though you are clearly too thick to comprehend this point - I personally would NOT ban them. And nor - again - have I asked for them to be banned today. I merely point out that reversing the ban was electorally stupid, when it was one of UKIP's most popular policies, supported by a big majority of Brits, and one that marked them out from all the other parties.
How difficult is this? Really?
I would ban them from courts, schools, customs, etc. In private people can wear what they like; though I'd hope society would send out strong signals, via the education system and elsewhere, that this kind of repression of women is NOT desirable in Britain.
Ditto abortion of girl fetuses. The fact these doctors are not being prosecuted is abhorrent.
Actually in that case Sean I apologise. I had not read previously (or rather had glossed over) the fact that you would not personally advocate a ban. As such we are in agreement as I also believe there should be restrictions conducive to the proper running of public services along the same lines you are suggesting.
But I do disagree with you claiming that UKIP were wrong to reverse the proposed ban. There are certain issues where one has to go with what is right rather than what is popular. So my example of the death penalty still stands. If UKIP really want to be a successful party they have to show they are different in a responsible way rather than just reflecting mob rule. They have to show that they understand the values that underpin British culture whilst also understanding that simply banning surface representations or anything they don't particularly like is not the way to proceed and is actually counter to the very thing they are trying to defend.
What UKIP need to concentrate on is those areas where islamic (or any other) culture is subverting British legal and cultural principles. They are a large number of these which are far more important than what people wear and the burqa is just a stupid distraction and one that leaves a lot of people thinking that UKIP are more interested in the age old political principle of appearing to do something because it is obvious rather than actually doing anything that might make a real difference.
The RSPCA destroys nearly half the animals it ‘rescues’ each year, with thousands being put down for non-medical reasons, shocking figures obtained by The Mail on Sunday reveal.
The animal-welfare charity destroyed 53,000 animals last year – 44 per cent of those it took in – leading critics to claim that the organisation spends too much time on prosecuting cases of neglect and cruelty and not enough on finding new homes for animals.
The charity insists the vast majority of the animals were put down to end their suffering, but it admits that last year alone 3,400 animals were destroyed for ‘non-medical’ reasons, such as the lack of space in kennels and catteries.
@SeanT And Farage is clearly knackered. The signs aren't good.
Farage is clearly in need of a long holiday and a bit of a rest. He didn't look his best at conference. Whether he will take it is another matter. However you are wrong about UKIP SeanT, There are some much younger and in my opinion, equally charismatic members who will be coming into prominence quite shortly.
Half of me hopes you are right. I was enjoying the UKIP surge and the way it scared all the other parties. But if you abandon your non-PC but popular policies then you will disappear very swiftly.
The other half of me of course wants Labour soundly defeated, and sadly the Tory party - feeble as it is - is the only way of doing that. And Cameron needs the kipper voters onside.
OK now I must iron flamboyant shirts for sunny Crete.
It is not about abandoning non PC positions. It is about adopting positions that are sensible and right irrespective of whether they are PC or not. Simply opposing everything on the grounds that it is something that 'lefties' or 'liberals' might agree with does not make one popular. In the end it just makes you look stupid and extreme.
Just on very briefly today, but I would like to voice my support for a UKIP policy, which is to set up a sovereign wealth fund from the proceeds of fracking. This is an excellent idea.
Lots of hot air then , can you show us a cut that has happened so far. We had example of Carney getting £250K housing allowance on top of monster salary, does not seem to support the false histrionics from cameron et al.
Err, I rather think the going rate for hiring a top central banker (available pool of talent with the right experience and market credibility: about half a dozen in the world maybe?) is hardly comparable with the types of routine admin jobs I was talking about, such as managing a housing association, being a chief executive of a small local council , or being a 'manager' or 'director' with zero responsibility in the Beeb.
Where's the evidence that Mark Carney is any better than any other central banker or for that matter anybody you could find in any town centre bank ?
In the summer of 2007 I suspect that you would have been claiming that the likes of Applegrath, Goodwin and Hornby were top bankers and deserving of everything, and more, that they were getting paid.
Have there been clauses written in Carney's contract stipulating he must repay his earnings if his performance doesn't shape up?
German election "...we’ll get the exit polls on public broadcasters ZDF and ARD (and private broadcaster RTL) at 1700 London time.
From then on we’ll get updated “estimates” every 15 to 30 minutes for the next three or four hours. These estimates are based on sampling of real votes as they are counted, and as the night goes on they are increasingly accurate. Then at around 1.30-2.30am we’ll get provisional official results. "
What the coalition should have done immediately was to cap public sector, including the BBC, earnings at ten times minimum wage.
The resulting howling from various council executives, hospital bosses, BBC managers and quangocrats would have highlighted how much the public sector had fallen victim to 'producer capture' under the Labour government.
It would also have put Labour in a difficult spot politically - either having to explain why these public sector fat cats deserved such earnings or explain why they had allowed their earnings to reach such excessive levels while they were in government.
The problem is though that the Cameroons see nothing wrong with said groups being paid six figures sums as to them a six figure sum is merely average earnings.
Yup, get to the principle of the thing. What is equitable where wages are paid with other people's taxes.
Presume this would also apply to Circle Directors
I don't know what a circle director is.
I'm generally pro welfare state but one of the problems it currently has is it doesn't take account the basic principle of thing i.e. BBC directors being paid from the taxes off dinner ladies. Their needs to be a principle to it not just them taking what they want.
I'd say you have this the wrong way around. The system is moderate because the majority of the people are.
In other countries where the population is more extreme the government enacts more extreme policies.
I would disagree. Our country and its population are moderate in the main because of the system they have grown up with and the cultural mores that are prevalent. But I do not for a minute think that we could not find ourselves with a growth of extremism if our system did not act to temper it.
Where's the evidence that Mark Carney is any better than any other central banker or for that matter anybody you could find in any town centre bank ?
Well, he's actually done the job very successfully. Even more importantly, the markets think he did the job successfully.
This is a really silly example to use to criticise public sector fat-cat pay. Of all the jobs in the country, up to and including PM, this is probably the most significant of all, in terms of the effect on the economy of the individual chosen. Given that every thing he says might have a dramatic effect on the nation's borrowing costs and on pensions via the stock market, let alone the challenge of getting broad monetary policy right, this is one appointment where you really do want to try to get the very best.
I actually agree with you on the more routine senior appointments, where routine pay awards have become absolutely ludicrous. But Carney's is not one of those.
Why would anyone give them money? The RSPCA destroys nearly half the animals it ‘rescues’ each year, with thousands being put down for non-medical reasons, shocking figures obtained by The Mail on Sunday reveal........
This is why there are charities such as the Dogs Trust and the Cats Protection League.
People are strange, how on earth would anyone put Labour ahead on unemployment?
chance of being unemployed vs consequences
Q: how on earth would anyone put Labour ahead on unemployment? A: Because Labour are very successful at increasing unemployment and the voters recognise that Labour are best at that?
It's very simple. Tories who can't see it don't want to see it.
10 year bond yields have risen hugely since he started.
I realise that falling bond yields AND rising bond yields are both a sign of Osbornes genius no matter which way they go, but it rather appears that there's some doubt in the markets as to whether Carney's "forward guidance" will hold.
Yes, tim, bond yields have risen. So have US bond yields. Both will rise more over the next year or two (I'm positioning my portfolio accordingly). And your point is what, exactly?
I'd say you have this the wrong way around. The system is moderate because the majority of the people are.
In other countries where the population is more extreme the government enacts more extreme policies.
I would disagree. Our country and its population are moderate in the main because of the system they have grown up with and the cultural mores that are prevalent. But I do not for a minute think that we could not find ourselves with a growth of extremism if our system did not act to temper it.
Exactly, it's the culture that sets the tone, the government merely follows. If there were votes in being extreme then you can bet there would be a popular party to match those views.
The fact that you agree that extremism can grow even with the current system shows that you don't believe it is just the government keeping a lid on things.
Regards banning the burqa, claiming it is extreme to want to ban it is subjective. You could argue that the garment itself is evidence of extremism and should be tackled.
Well, he's actually done the job very successfully. Even more importantly, the markets think he did the job successfully.
10 year bond yields have risen hugely since he started.
I realise that falling bond yields AND rising bond yields are both a sign of Osbornes genius no matter which way they go, but it rather appears that there's some doubt in the markets as to whether Carney's "forward guidance" will hold.
Bond yields rise and fall globally in cycles. To measure success you need to plot their movements against the average of Western nations.
Not that I think Osborne is doing a good job at all.
"Good morning. Andrew Marr called it an 'extraordinary' interview, and there won't be many who will disagree. If Ed Miliband wanted to answer the critics about his capacity to lead, he chose a funny way of going about it. The media is often criticised for focusing on the trivial and ignoring the substance. In this case there was very little substance to consider, mainly because Mr Miliband side-stepped so many questions (towards the end Mr Marr was reduced to pleading 'is there nothing you can say about tax?'). The odd glimmers of policy precision happened almost by accident – he left open, for example, the possibility that Labour could levy a mansion tax on the full value of the mansion, not just the marginal difference, and suggested Labour was considering introducing different, sector-specific minimum wage levels. Where Mr Miliband talked about substance it was all too often wrapped in truisms and cliches. At the centre of his analysis is a concern for living standards and a complaint that the recovery is not doing enough for those at the bottom. What he has still not answered is how a Labour model would generate the wealth necessary to push up living standards.
We can't escape the style though. Anyone tuning in will, I suspect, have been distracted by how he performed. Has he done something to his voice, which sounded an octave lower? Has he had some kind of voice coaching to explain the languor that has crept into his speech patterns, a sort of drawly falling away at the end of sentences to suggest coolness? Has he been told to smile a lot more when he speaks, giving him that Gordon Brown rictus thing? And what was with the diminished eye contact? Mr Miliband is not shy and unlike his brother is great at making a connection with the person he's addressing. Today though he spent a lot of time staring down at the floor and leaning away from Mr Marr. It was quite odd and distracting (that and the ferris wheel turning into his head).
Has he tweeted how much George Osborne has borrowed?
DJL, you are re-tyred-ing into a phallus:
Alistair Darling brought-forward expenditure prior to the 2010 GE. This left unfunded expenditure for 2010-thro'-2015.
A prefect example: The Astute-class. Gormless bought one in twelve years but claimed - via the badger-puppet - to have funded another two in March 2010. No doubt the MP for Barrow owes his career to Gormless and "Lord" West!**
Lo-and-behold the funding needed to be found (c.f. the "£38-billion" black-hole)*. The result was the SDSR which ditched the non-'Haddon-Cave' MRA4 and culled the last T22s (with large crews and ancient Sea-Wolf). Now, thanks to "Spreadseet-Phil" we can see where all the promises were; the lives needlessly lost; and the cuts should have been made prior to the election....
* Can be found in the "Ten-Year" Equipment Budget (under Royal-Navy/SS[B]N). And this is before the Lib-Dhimmies*** thought that they could be as good naval-architects as McBruin...!
** Eight Type 45s is the minimum. Just like his statement on 'Ninety-Days Detention': Absolutely meaningless....
*** Barrow needs to build subs; even Danny Alexander recognises that. To be able to replace the (now almost free) Trident system we need to:
Design new warheads (cylinders not cones); Extra delivery-systems to replace the decoys fitted on a single Trident****; More subs for transit and maintenance times (due to our enemies not be happily located in Brussel, Paris and Berlin but in Tehran, Pyong-Yang, Peking and Moscow); and Suitable delivery-systems (as not yet designed).
[One active SSBN covers all from the Mid-Altantic (and can launch slightly west of Glasgae). A 1000 nm missile-system would struggle with a 'Great Circle' (and would surely be self-defeated by AntiFrank's Earthly-Crust solution)....]
**** Twelve deliverables: A max of eight 'active' and the rest - decoys - to pee-off the ABMS.
Why would anyone give them money? The RSPCA destroys nearly half the animals it ‘rescues’ each year, with thousands being put down for non-medical reasons, shocking figures obtained by The Mail on Sunday reveal........
This is why there are charities such as the Dogs Trust and the Cats Protection League.
Why are the RSPCA only destroying half the cat vermin they collect? They need incentivising, slackers.
I do believe people have some strange views about animals. Right now the social networks are filled with people howling at the Romanian government because they are trying to do something about the feral dog population in their cities. There are hundreds of thousands of tray dogs in their cities and large problems with rabies and dog attacks. After a four year old boy was savaged to death by dogs in a park playing with his brother the authorities have decided there must be a cull and any stray dogs that are not taken in by shelters will be killed.
The uproar from animal rights people in the west is huge. Yet what else would they have happen given that the numbers of dogs involved far exceed the ability of the government to get them off the streets any other way?
I'd say you have this the wrong way around. The system is moderate because the majority of the people are.
In other countries where the population is more extreme the government enacts more extreme policies.
I would disagree. Our country and its population are moderate in the main because of the system they have grown up with and the cultural mores that are prevalent. But I do not for a minute think that we could not find ourselves with a growth of extremism if our system did not act to temper it.
Exactly, it's the culture that sets the tone, the government merely follows. If there were votes in being extreme then you can bet there would be a popular party to match those views.
The fact that you agree that extremism can grow even with the current system shows that you don't believe it is just the government keeping a lid on things.
Regards banning the burqa, claiming it is extreme to want to ban it is subjective. You could argue that the garment itself is evidence of extremism and should be tackled.
As with so many other examples one does not deal with extremism by adopting similarly extreme measures. If you change your fundamental values as a means of dealing with extremism then the extremists have won.
Farage is clearly in need of a long holiday and a bit of a rest. He didn't look his best at conference. Whether he will take it is another matter. However you are wrong about UKIP SeanT, There are some much younger and in my opinion, equally charismatic members who will be coming into prominence quite shortly.
One of the problems often levied at Farage, by other UKIP members I hasten to add, is his inability to delegate responsibility to others further down the food change. Which is why his style of leaderships is often described as ‘dictatorial’ – Are you claiming that that is about to change, and how so?
THe election for UKIP MEP's has been done, all the votes are supposed to be in by 20th September (last Friday) all that remains are for the votes to be counted. Among the candidates are some popular younger members that should get their batons. These guys will not let Farage lead them by the nose. It's also a fact that Farage looks exausted; he really has given his all for the party in the last eighteen months, and would more than welcome help with the MSM barrage to come and a more professional PR team.
The Kipper Effect on EdM... and who actually believes this?
In his boldest pledge on the issue to date, the Labour leader said he would impose curbs on the number of low-skilled migrants allowed to enter Britain. This would result in a reduction in the total number of people moving to the UK, he said.
Mr Miliband’s promise, as Labour’s annual conference began in Brighton, represents a clear attempt to demonstrate that the party has broken with its past in which it was seen as “soft” on immigration.
He outlined plans which would require all companies to appoint a British apprentice for every worker they hire from outside the European Union.
Where's the evidence that Mark Carney is any better than any other central banker or for that matter anybody you could find in any town centre bank ?
Well, he's actually done the job very successfully. Even more importantly, the markets think he did the job successfully.
This is a really silly example to use to criticise public sector fat-cat pay. Of all the jobs in the country, up to and including PM, this is probably the most significant of all, in terms of the effect on the economy of the individual chosen. Given that every thing he says might have a dramatic effect on the nation's borrowing costs and on pensions via the stock market, let alone the challenge of getting broad monetary policy right, this is one appointment where you really do want to try to get the very best.
I actually agree with you on the more routine senior appointments, where routine pay awards have become absolutely ludicrous. But Carney's is not one of those.
I note that you didn't reply to the suggestion that Carney's contract should have clauses requireing payback if he doesn't succeed.
Now I'm sure we all hope that Carney does succeed and for example doesn't fail to notice a £100bn per year credit bubble forming.
But what if he doesn't do well (and you can already find high profile economists critising his policies) ?
The British taxpayers in that case would have effectively guaranteed a multi year, multi million pound reward for failure.
This is the salient issue with executive fatcats in both public and private sectors.
When they fck up, as they all too often do, then they walk away keeping the money they've 'earnt' and as likely as not with huge payoffs. While taxpayers have to make bailouts, shareholders lose their investments and employees their jobs.
Followed by governments doing nothing but uttering mealy-mouthed phrases such as 'lessons have been learnt' and then allowing another set of executive fatcats to be appointed at even higher levels of earnings.
Well, he's actually done the job very successfully. Even more importantly, the markets think he did the job successfully.
10 year bond yields have risen hugely since he started.
I realise that falling bond yields AND rising bond yields are both a sign of Osbornes genius no matter which way they go, but it rather appears that there's some doubt in the markets as to whether Carney's "forward guidance" will hold.
You know RN was referring to his tenure in Canada, particularly as the second sentence is in the past tense!
However, why miss another opportunity for a gratuitous dig at Osborne?
Why does Osborne preoccupy and frighten you lot so much? It couldn't be that events (dear boy) are proving him right, would it?
Farage is clearly in need of a long holiday and a bit of a rest. He didn't look his best at conference. Whether he will take it is another matter. However you are wrong about UKIP SeanT, There are some much younger and in my opinion, equally charismatic members who will be coming into prominence quite shortly.
One of the problems often levied at Farage, by other UKIP members I hasten to add, is his inability to delegate responsibility to others further down the food change. Which is why his style of leaderships is often described as ‘dictatorial’ – Are you claiming that that is about to change, and how so?
THe election for UKIP MEP's has been done, all the votes are supposed to be in by 20th September (last Friday) all that remains are for the votes to be counted. Among the candidates are some popular younger members that should get their batons. These guys will not let Farage lead them by the nose. It's also a fact that Farage looks exausted; he really has given his all for the party in the last eighteen months, and would more than welcome help with the MSM barrage to come and a more professional PR team.
Thanks for your reply MikeK – still a little unclear as to what changes have been made specifically, but much appreciated none the less.
@BBCNormanS: Harreit Harman appeals for "good coversation....positive discussion " over union reforms #lab13 #takecover #kennyonthewarpath
@BBCNormanS: Paul Kenny@gmb_unon warns ending collective voice of unions in labour party "Will not be washed away for an electoral #lab13
Ed, Strong, Decisive. Powerless over the unions
I missed Marr as I was watching Breaking Bad's final episode [hmm BTW] - I can't quite get my head around what an omniscrambles this is for EdM - I've only seen a few tweets and a few articles but the criticism is fierce.
When is his Speech of a Lifetime? I must watch his perf on Marr - it sounds very weird.
I must watch his perf on Marr - it sounds very weird.
Aside from the content, Miliband performance was rather bizarre. We’re all used to Miliband’s nasally twang but as Benedict Brogan describes in his morning briefing, he was speaking lower than usual and didn’t look very comfortable.
By avoiding Marr’s questions, he didn’t offer anything much new and he certainly didn’t come across as confident and assured. Not an assured start to Labour’s conference. It wasn’t, as James suggests, the big moment Miliband needed.
Anyone who doesn't hate the burqa is a racist and a sexist. "It's OK for brown women to be oppressed, who cares". So you are a racist and a sexist. Ugh. Well done.
Eh? All muzzies are brown? T'ick you'se iz not...?
Farage is clearly in need of a long holiday and a bit of a rest. He didn't look his best at conference. Whether he will take it is another matter. However you are wrong about UKIP SeanT, There are some much younger and in my opinion, equally charismatic members who will be coming into prominence quite shortly.
One of the problems often levied at Farage, by other UKIP members I hasten to add, is his inability to delegate responsibility to others further down the food change. Which is why his style of leaderships is often described as ‘dictatorial’ – Are you claiming that that is about to change, and how so?
THe election for UKIP MEP's has been done, all the votes are supposed to be in by 20th September (last Friday) all that remains are for the votes to be counted. Among the candidates are some popular younger members that should get their batons. These guys will not let Farage lead them by the nose. It's also a fact that Farage looks exausted; he really has given his all for the party in the last eighteen months, and would more than welcome help with the MSM barrage to come and a more professional PR team.
I hope you are right Mike but after so many disappointments I will reserve judgement until I see a real change of attitude. So far that has not been forthcoming.
Even the selection of the candidates for the EU elections next year has been badly handled. It is entirely possible that systems could have been put in place that would allow new, dynamic candidates to stand. But whatever system was used had to be transparent. The system that was adopted of having panels assess people's speaking and presentational skills and then deciding who should or should not stand without giving any clear reasons was clearly open to accusations of fixing - particularly when it was chaired by the party Chairman.
And in the end this was a system that passed Godfrey Bloom but kicked out Mike Nattrass
So far it appears UKIP have learned little from past mistakes and have achieved nothing more than generating a new set of former loyal members who now view the party with disdain or despair.
'In his boldest pledge on the issue to date, the Labour leader said he would impose curbs on the number of low-skilled migrants allowed to enter Britain. This would result in a reduction in the total number of people moving to the UK, he said.'
And Gordon Brown said exactly the same thing,we've heard all that b.ll..s before.
Of all the McPoison fall-out, this from Martin Bright horrified me. I knew John Kamphner a little way before the whole smear machine took hold and he was a good man. I also knew Geoffrey Robinson and others at the Staggers. This whole period was one sharp decline based on thuggery.
"...Shortly after this incident another Brownite, the caricature mockney thug Charlie Whelan, decided to threaten my wife, also a journalist, at a press awards ceremony. Rather than offer his congratulations for the nomination she had received, the charmless spinner yelled that he was going to get her husband sacked for his treachery.
By now, the atmosphere at the New Statesman was intolerable. John Kampfner, who supported me over the Livingstone film, was under increasing pressure to stick to the Brownite line. Eventually his position became impossible and he resigned. High hopes for the new multi-millionaire owner Mike Danson were dashed when he threw in his lot with the Brownites and effectively gave Mr Robinson control over the appointment of the new Editor.
I tried to hang on but I knew the game was up when I went for lunch with a former Fleet Street editor who told me that Patrick Hennessy, the Brownite political editor of the Sunday Telegraph, had been approached for the editorship and was told his first task would be to fire me. When I eventually left the New Statesman in early 2009, it felt like a huge weight had lifted from my shoulders. Sure enough, the magazine became slavishly loyal to Mr Brown (much good that it did him) and went on to champion the rise of his political heir, Ed Milband. >> http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/thunderer/article3875368.ece
'In his boldest pledge on the issue to date, the Labour leader said he would impose curbs on the number of low-skilled migrants allowed to enter Britain. This would result in a reduction in the total number of people moving to the UK, he said.'
And Gordon Brown said exactly the same thing,we've heard all that b.ll..s before.
Labour has absolutely zip credibility here - and they did it to themselves.
Where's the evidence that Mark Carney is any better than any other central banker or for that matter anybody you could find in any town centre bank ?
Well, he's actually done the job very successfully. Even more importantly, the markets think he did the job successfully.
This is a really silly example to use to criticise public sector fat-cat pay. Of all the jobs in the country, up to and including PM, this is probably the most significant of all, in terms of the effect on the economy of the individual chosen. Given that every thing he says might have a dramatic effect on the nation's borrowing costs and on pensions via the stock market, let alone the challenge of getting broad monetary policy right, this is one appointment where you really do want to try to get the very best.
I actually agree with you on the more routine senior appointments, where routine pay awards have become absolutely ludicrous. But Carney's is not one of those.
Carney became the central banker of a resource based economy with minimal financial sector compared to the US and UK in 2007. He can hardly be credited with having saved Canada from financial crisis when the country's conservative banking system was never that exposed. However there is a view that in trying to get the economy moving again after the turbulence of 08-09 he started a housing bubble and decided to jump ship just in time. It's just a view but I really don't see why he should be treated as the great banker of the age based on relatively little.
"In his memoirs, Damien McBride, Gordon Brown’s former spin doctor, said the Labour leader “might have problems” if his exchanges with Derek Draper were revealed."
"In his memoirs, Damien McBride, Gordon Brown’s former spin doctor, said the Labour leader “might have problems” if his exchanges with Derek Draper were revealed."
I really can't tell what Mr McBride is attempting to achieve. He's in love with Gordon Brown but has his wrecking ball out against lots of Brownites? I'm puzzled - I really am.
As Kremlinology goes - it is all revenge? And over what Or killing off others to lead the path clear for another?
"A riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma".
Ed Miliband's performance this morning on the Andrew Marr show reminds me of that old description of Winston Churchill's.
On the one hand, the Labour leader has done what many have demanded of him. He has unveiled not just one policy but a string of them - a reversal of what critics call the "bedroom tax", the strengthening of the minimum wage and an obligation on larger firms to train an apprentice for every non-EU skilled immigrant they hire.
On the other, he spent his conference curtain-raising interview with Andrew Marr sounding evasive about many other key policy questions.
Will the public sector pay cap be lifted?
Will top rate tax rise, let alone tax on those who the party now says are not rich (ie those earning £60,000)?
Will Labour change its opposition to an EU referendum?
Will the minimum wage go up under Labour? Will immigration go down?
The answer in each case was a mixture of little more than a wish - eg "I want to see the overall level of immigration fall/minimum wage go up" - or wait and see - "we'll spell out our plans at the next election."
This can partly be put down to Ed Miliband's unwillingness to promise what he knows he can't be sure to deliver (after all the government couldn't tell you the tax or immigration rate in 3 years time);.
It's partly due to his natural caution but it's also to do with style.
What is so shocking about the thuggish Brownite operation was the sheer brute nullity of it, not to make the case for a policy on health or education or the economy, not even to win an election, but just to get Brown the top job. When he got to No 10 he didn’t know what to do with it, except preside. A prime minister needs to inspire, to lead, to set a course.
The few plaudits that Brown won were for reacting to events such as the Glasgow airport bomb, the summer floods and even saving the world (economy). Miliband, his protégé, is in danger of slipping into a similar reactive mode.
A contrarian analysis argued last week that “Ed Miliband is proving himself to be a brave and adroit leader” because of his responses to phone hacking, Labour’s trade union links and Syrian chemical weapons.
Leaving aside the great uncertainty of what exactly has been achieved in each case, or that Miliband’s initiatives followed where others in his party had already led, the point surely is that these “big and important things” were just, well, responses.
Unlike Blair or David Cameron in opposition, Miliband is still a long way from making his own weather or his own luck.
Comments
The NHS is similar in that when Labour were in charge they complained about how it was run and then complained about any possible changes. The biggest boost to Labours ratings on the NHS is the fact that they no longer run it.
(Edited for spelling)
When the Coalition was first appointed Osborne said he wanted to approve every appointment where the salary being offered was more than the PMs. Presumably the queue made it very difficult to get in and out of Downing Street. Personally I would stipulate that every time someone in one of these high paid positions is replaced the salary should be 10% less than the outgoing person got paid. It would take longer but it would be worth it.
When is EdM's BIG SPEECH? Or have we already had it and we didn't notice? I suspect the Mail is keeping the worst til last.
How many times was an investigation sidestepped?
Of course Stafford wasn't a one off was it.
Still, I am sure "lessons have been learned"
"Mr McBride tells of numerous plots and dirty tricks campaigns run against Brown’s ministerial rivals such as John Reid, the former home secretary, and he shows just how bad it got between No 10 and No 11 under Mr Blair and Mr Brown, when the rival camps were dedicated to destroying each other.
Relations became so bad that the chancellor’s press man even ran a campaign to “knife” Tony Blair’s wife, Cherie. He leaked details of an investigation by customs into unpaid VAT and customs duty on pearls she had brought back from China. The intention, writes Mr McBride, was to make her look “simultaneously filthy rich, out of touch and a tax-dodger”.
As a result of the colourful revelations, Labour’s conference in Brighton this week is getting off to a highly entertaining and potentially disastrous start. For Ed Miliband, this book could not have come at a worse time, as he endeavours to relaunch his leadership against a backdrop of a recovering economy and an evaporating opinion poll lead. Just when the party’s high command should be devoted to trying to explain to the country what Mr Miliband would do if he makes it to Downing Street, they are instead dealing with the fallout from the Mr McBride revelations.
Frantic efforts are being made to distance the leadership from the row. Some of the main characters in Gordon Brown’s inner circle now claim bafflingly to have had only the most passing of acquaintances with the former special adviser.
Indeed, Ed Balls has professed himself astonished by what his erstwhile comrade and close collaborator was up to. Damian McBride was “a law unto himself”, the shadow chancellor said yesterday. He describes the smears perpetrated against Mr Brown’s enemies as “despicable” and says he did not know about the worst examples. But it is very difficult for Labour to present Mr McBride as a “lone wolf” operating without the consent and approval of his bosses and close colleagues. At the time, many of them revelled in the supposed power and ruthless efficiency of the Brownite media machine... http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100237207/labour-cant-shake-the-toxic-legacy-of-gordon-browns-poisonous-campaign-to-usurp-tony-blair/
I'm less convinced by the sale of the nursing homes element - that misses the point on "culture" (and I generally don't like tied accommodation). I would point to the conversion of nursing from a practical / apprentice based training to a primarily academic one and to the removal of the responsibility for ward cleanliness from the senior duty nurse as critical elements.
PoliticsHome @politicshome
.@RachelReevesMP on Clegg saying he can work with Labour: "That’s very generous of Nick Clegg to say that, with his poll ratings of 9%".
You may be right about the marzipan layer.
And your idea that replacements for fatcats be automatically paid less is naive in the extreme. With your solution no fatcat would ever be replaced, instead new positions would be created to replace the old ones with the new positions naturally having higher not lower pay.
Marcher Lord @MarcherLord1
YouGov/Sun poll: CON 34%, LAB 35%, LDEM 11%, UKIP 11% - @UKLabour on lowest since July 2010 - a splendid start to conference #lab13 #SaveEd
I remember one Labour conference where, in a speech given by Gordon Brown, he declared his support for Tony Blair – to which Cherie ‘allegedly’ was overheard calling Gordon Brown a liar.
It rang true then – and even more so, now.
It is the same with schools. As a parent, you might not know the difference between a Free School and an Academy, or how community and foundations schools compare, but you will certainly know if there is no room for your nipper at the local primary, and you might even be inclined to blame the government.
Yet another Oxford PPE
Between 2006 and July 2009, she worked as a business planner and analyst for Halifax Bank of Scotland - she did a good job there didn't she.
Represents Leeds West constituency - a place where £60,000pa would put you in the top 1%.
And one of the 'Stepford Socialists'.
Jim @toryjim
For Labour it's either "things are good we can afford to borrow"or "things are so bad we can't afford not to borrow". Spot the problem?
I get your drift though I suppose what affects you personally depends on who you are and what your circumstances are. I am very affected professionally ( and by extension therefore personally in my pocket) by QE and currency rates, I've happily not been a victim of crime for more than 20 years so at this point in life QE is the more " affecting". Now I accept that's a little out of kilter with most folk I've no doubt but it is " my truth ", right now. If I'm hit over the back of the head tomorrow walking down the street QE won't be foremost in my thoughts I'm sure.
Thing is though the " general " as defined in the thread opener does eventually have an effect on the more specific. If the country is broke it can't pay for better health or police than if its doing well.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2316337/Why-NHS-chiefs-Cameron-launches-fresh-assault-public-sector-pay.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1313489/9000-public-sector-staff-earn-PM.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/7731211/David-Cameron-declares-war-on-public-sector-pay.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/8323534/David-Cameron-tells-councils-Cut-pay-not-the-Big-Society.html
In your twitching, drooling hatred of the burqa you are blind to the fact that banning stuff just because people don't like it is a fundamentalist (note that word) position to take. One more associated with the very cultures you are so afraid of.
It is an infantile position and one that no serious party should be contemplating. So well done to UKIP for having grown up just a bit on this issue.
As it happens I don't think that the general public would vote to bring back the death penalty if consulted in a referendum.
A: Because Labour are very successful at increasing unemployment and the voters recognise that Labour are best at that?
You, sir, are trying to have your cake and eat it. Paid for by someone else.
We have certain cultural standards in Britain which are used to temper our democracy and stop it becoming mob rule. The removal of state sanctioned killings of its own citizens is one example. I would contend that banning of items of clothing for no other reason than some people don't like them is another.
And Farage is clearly knackered. The signs aren't good.
Farage is clearly in need of a long holiday and a bit of a rest. He didn't look his best at conference. Whether he will take it is another matter. However you are wrong about UKIP SeanT, There are some much younger and in my opinion, equally charismatic members who will be coming into prominence quite shortly.
Edit: Given the hash previous incumbents made of it I would also say just about anybody who can speak publicly could do the job, all you do is talk hot air and fire up the printing presses when you have made a hash of it.
In other countries where the population is more extreme the government enacts more extreme policies.
When did pointing out an important distinction become 'bluster'?
As for this government taking steps to address the matter, have you tried reading a newspaper or using Google? I really can't be bothered to go through the list.
Well the public sector proles got a pay freeze while the public sector fatcats got a tax cut.
And of course there are always 'exceptions' when it suits them.
But I do disagree with you claiming that UKIP were wrong to reverse the proposed ban. There are certain issues where one has to go with what is right rather than what is popular. So my example of the death penalty still stands. If UKIP really want to be a successful party they have to show they are different in a responsible way rather than just reflecting mob rule. They have to show that they understand the values that underpin British culture whilst also understanding that simply banning surface representations or anything they don't particularly like is not the way to proceed and is actually counter to the very thing they are trying to defend.
What UKIP need to concentrate on is those areas where islamic (or any other) culture is subverting British legal and cultural principles. They are a large number of these which are far more important than what people wear and the burqa is just a stupid distraction and one that leaves a lot of people thinking that UKIP are more interested in the age old political principle of appearing to do something because it is obvious rather than actually doing anything that might make a real difference.
The RSPCA destroys nearly half the animals it ‘rescues’ each year, with thousands being put down for non-medical reasons, shocking figures obtained by The Mail on Sunday reveal.
The animal-welfare charity destroyed 53,000 animals last year – 44 per cent of those it took in – leading critics to claim that the organisation spends too much time on prosecuting cases of neglect and cruelty and not enough on finding new homes for animals.
The charity insists the vast majority of the animals were put down to end their suffering, but it admits that last year alone 3,400 animals were destroyed for ‘non-medical’ reasons, such as the lack of space in kennels and catteries.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2254729/RSPCA-destroys-HALF-animals-rescues--thousands-completely-healthy.html#ixzz2fcR7co5w
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
In the summer of 2007 I suspect that you would have been claiming that the likes of Applegrath, Goodwin and Hornby were top bankers and deserving of everything, and more, that they were getting paid.
Have there been clauses written in Carney's contract stipulating he must repay his earnings if his performance doesn't shape up?
"...we’ll get the exit polls on public broadcasters ZDF and ARD (and private broadcaster RTL) at 1700 London time.
From then on we’ll get updated “estimates” every 15 to 30 minutes for the next three or four hours. These estimates are based on sampling of real votes as they are counted, and as the night goes on they are increasingly accurate. Then at around 1.30-2.30am we’ll get provisional official results. "
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/international/2013/09/from-andrewimarshall-bundestagswahlen-for-beginners-.html
I'm generally pro welfare state but one of the problems it currently has is it doesn't take account the basic principle of thing i.e. BBC directors being paid from the taxes off dinner ladies. Their needs to be a principle to it not just them taking what they want.
This is a really silly example to use to criticise public sector fat-cat pay. Of all the jobs in the country, up to and including PM, this is probably the most significant of all, in terms of the effect on the economy of the individual chosen. Given that every thing he says might have a dramatic effect on the nation's borrowing costs and on pensions via the stock market, let alone the challenge of getting broad monetary policy right, this is one appointment where you really do want to try to get the very best.
I actually agree with you on the more routine senior appointments, where routine pay awards have become absolutely ludicrous. But Carney's is not one of those.
norman smith @BBCNormanS
Ray Collins gives no hint of his plans for union reform -" I look forward to hearing your views" #lab13
The fact that you agree that extremism can grow even with the current system shows that you don't believe it is just the government keeping a lid on things.
Regards banning the burqa, claiming it is extreme to want to ban it is subjective. You could argue that the garment itself is evidence of extremism and should be tackled.
Not that I think Osborne is doing a good job at all.
"Good morning. Andrew Marr called it an 'extraordinary' interview, and there won't be many who will disagree. If Ed Miliband wanted to answer the critics about his capacity to lead, he chose a funny way of going about it. The media is often criticised for focusing on the trivial and ignoring the substance. In this case there was very little substance to consider, mainly because Mr Miliband side-stepped so many questions (towards the end Mr Marr was reduced to pleading 'is there nothing you can say about tax?'). The odd glimmers of policy precision happened almost by accident – he left open, for example, the possibility that Labour could levy a mansion tax on the full value of the mansion, not just the marginal difference, and suggested Labour was considering introducing different, sector-specific minimum wage levels. Where Mr Miliband talked about substance it was all too often wrapped in truisms and cliches. At the centre of his analysis is a concern for living standards and a complaint that the recovery is not doing enough for those at the bottom. What he has still not answered is how a Labour model would generate the wealth necessary to push up living standards.
We can't escape the style though. Anyone tuning in will, I suspect, have been distracted by how he performed. Has he done something to his voice, which sounded an octave lower? Has he had some kind of voice coaching to explain the languor that has crept into his speech patterns, a sort of drawly falling away at the end of sentences to suggest coolness? Has he been told to smile a lot more when he speaks, giving him that Gordon Brown rictus thing? And what was with the diminished eye contact? Mr Miliband is not shy and unlike his brother is great at making a connection with the person he's addressing. Today though he spent a lot of time staring down at the floor and leaning away from Mr Marr. It was quite odd and distracting (that and the ferris wheel turning into his head).
>> more of the same withering comment here http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100237259/labour-conference-ed-milibands-extraordinary-interview-is-a-bad-start/
Alistair Darling brought-forward expenditure prior to the 2010 GE. This left unfunded expenditure for 2010-thro'-2015.
A prefect example: The Astute-class. Gormless bought one in twelve years but claimed - via the badger-puppet - to have funded another two in March 2010. No doubt the MP for Barrow owes his career to Gormless and "Lord" West!**
Lo-and-behold the funding needed to be found (c.f. the "£38-billion" black-hole)*. The result was the SDSR which ditched the non-'Haddon-Cave' MRA4 and culled the last T22s (with large crews and ancient Sea-Wolf). Now, thanks to "Spreadseet-Phil" we can see where all the promises were; the lives needlessly lost; and the cuts should have been made prior to the election....
* Can be found in the "Ten-Year" Equipment Budget (under Royal-Navy/SS[B]N). And this is before the Lib-Dhimmies*** thought that they could be as good naval-architects as McBruin...!
** Eight Type 45s is the minimum. Just like his statement on 'Ninety-Days Detention': Absolutely meaningless....
*** Barrow needs to build subs; even Danny Alexander recognises that. To be able to replace the (now almost free) Trident system we need to:
Design new warheads (cylinders not cones);
Extra delivery-systems to replace the decoys fitted on a single Trident****;
More subs for transit and maintenance times (due to our enemies not be happily located in Brussel, Paris and Berlin but in Tehran, Pyong-Yang, Peking and Moscow); and
Suitable delivery-systems (as not yet designed).
[One active SSBN covers all from the Mid-Altantic (and can launch slightly west of Glasgae). A 1000 nm missile-system would struggle with a 'Great Circle' (and would surely be self-defeated by AntiFrank's Earthly-Crust solution)....]
**** Twelve deliverables: A max of eight 'active' and the rest - decoys - to pee-off the ABMS.
The uproar from animal rights people in the west is huge. Yet what else would they have happen given that the numbers of dogs involved far exceed the ability of the government to get them off the streets any other way?
Bond Yields
RSPCA
Osbornes borrowing levels.
Burqa
Public sector fatcat pay levels
And its just after lunch...bodes well
In his boldest pledge on the issue to date, the Labour leader said he would impose curbs on the number of low-skilled migrants allowed to enter Britain. This would result in a reduction in the total number of people moving to the UK, he said.
Mr Miliband’s promise, as Labour’s annual conference began in Brighton, represents a clear attempt to demonstrate that the party has broken with its past in which it was seen as “soft” on immigration.
He outlined plans which would require all companies to appoint a British apprentice for every worker they hire from outside the European Union.
An immigration Bill would be introduced within 12 months of Labour taking office, if the party wins the 2015 election, he said. >> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10326285/Ed-Miliband-Labour-will-cut-immigration-if-we-win-next-election.html
@BBCNormanS: Paul Kenny@gmb_unon warns ending collective voice of unions in labour party "Will not be washed away for an electoral #lab13
Ed, Strong, Decisive. Powerless over the unions
Now I'm sure we all hope that Carney does succeed and for example doesn't fail to notice a £100bn per year credit bubble forming.
But what if he doesn't do well (and you can already find high profile economists critising his policies) ?
The British taxpayers in that case would have effectively guaranteed a multi year, multi million pound reward for failure.
This is the salient issue with executive fatcats in both public and private sectors.
When they fck up, as they all too often do, then they walk away keeping the money they've 'earnt' and as likely as not with huge payoffs. While taxpayers have to make bailouts, shareholders lose their investments and employees their jobs.
Followed by governments doing nothing but uttering mealy-mouthed phrases such as 'lessons have been learnt' and then allowing another set of executive fatcats to be appointed at even higher levels of earnings.
However, why miss another opportunity for a gratuitous dig at Osborne?
Why does Osborne preoccupy and frighten you lot so much? It couldn't be that events (dear boy) are proving him right, would it?
When is his Speech of a Lifetime? I must watch his perf on Marr - it sounds very weird.
:stupidity-has-no-colour:
Even the selection of the candidates for the EU elections next year has been badly handled. It is entirely possible that systems could have been put in place that would allow new, dynamic candidates to stand. But whatever system was used had to be transparent. The system that was adopted of having panels assess people's speaking and presentational skills and then deciding who should or should not stand without giving any clear reasons was clearly open to accusations of fixing - particularly when it was chaired by the party Chairman.
And in the end this was a system that passed Godfrey Bloom but kicked out Mike Nattrass
So far it appears UKIP have learned little from past mistakes and have achieved nothing more than generating a new set of former loyal members who now view the party with disdain or despair.
update: Israeli Foreign Ministry refuses to confirm or deny 'any involvement'...
'In his boldest pledge on the issue to date, the Labour leader said he would impose curbs on the number of low-skilled migrants allowed to enter Britain. This would result in a reduction in the total number of people moving to the UK, he said.'
And Gordon Brown said exactly the same thing,we've heard all that b.ll..s before.
"...Shortly after this incident another Brownite, the caricature mockney thug Charlie Whelan, decided to threaten my wife, also a journalist, at a press awards ceremony. Rather than offer his congratulations for the nomination she had received, the charmless spinner yelled that he was going to get her husband sacked for his treachery.
By now, the atmosphere at the New Statesman was intolerable. John Kampfner, who supported me over the Livingstone film, was under increasing pressure to stick to the Brownite line. Eventually his position became impossible and he resigned. High hopes for the new multi-millionaire owner Mike Danson were dashed when he threw in his lot with the Brownites and effectively gave Mr Robinson control over the appointment of the new Editor.
I tried to hang on but I knew the game was up when I went for lunch with a former Fleet Street editor who told me that Patrick Hennessy, the Brownite political editor of the Sunday Telegraph, had been approached for the editorship and was told his first task would be to fire me. When I eventually left the New Statesman in early 2009, it felt like a huge weight had lifted from my shoulders. Sure enough, the magazine became slavishly loyal to Mr Brown (much good that it did him) and went on to champion the rise of his political heir, Ed Milband. >> http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/thunderer/article3875368.ece
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10324846/Miliband-faces-problems-over-smeargate-emails-says-McBride.html
"In his memoirs, Damien McBride, Gordon Brown’s former spin doctor, said the Labour leader “might have problems” if his exchanges with Derek Draper were revealed."
'coming here undercutting workers already here and says to big companies brining people from outside the EU that they can do within a cap,'
And idiot Ed has been spending the last 3 years opposing a cap on non EU immigration,another day another u-turn.
As Kremlinology goes - it is all revenge? And over what Or killing off others to lead the path clear for another?
Ed Miliband's performance this morning on the Andrew Marr show reminds me of that old description of Winston Churchill's.
On the one hand, the Labour leader has done what many have demanded of him. He has unveiled not just one policy but a string of them - a reversal of what critics call the "bedroom tax", the strengthening of the minimum wage and an obligation on larger firms to train an apprentice for every non-EU skilled immigrant they hire.
On the other, he spent his conference curtain-raising interview with Andrew Marr sounding evasive about many other key policy questions.
Will the public sector pay cap be lifted?
Will top rate tax rise, let alone tax on those who the party now says are not rich (ie those earning £60,000)?
Will Labour change its opposition to an EU referendum?
Will the minimum wage go up under Labour? Will immigration go down?
The answer in each case was a mixture of little more than a wish - eg "I want to see the overall level of immigration fall/minimum wage go up" - or wait and see - "we'll spell out our plans at the next election."
This can partly be put down to Ed Miliband's unwillingness to promise what he knows he can't be sure to deliver (after all the government couldn't tell you the tax or immigration rate in 3 years time);.
It's partly due to his natural caution but it's also to do with style.
The Labour leader seemed to regard today's questions as an invitation not to give an answer but to deliver a pre-tested soundbite on a vaguely related issue. >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24195015#TWEET897918