Someone said this morning-I think it was our other best selling author who's name escapes me-that people just want their taxes lowered. He described it as 'the selfish gene'.
I don't think he's right. I believe people's main concern is for fair taxation-their's and everyone elses.
This is why Labour's attack on the energy companies gained traction and why -Michel Gove apart-no Tory or Lib Dem realized that going out to bat for the likes of Centrica-whose MD earns £5,000,000 a year-was not a smart idea.
Didn't realise Gove had struck out alone. What did he say?
Nice poll, but usual convention caution is appropriate. I'd think Ed's rating will remain higher than it was, though - a lot of the critical voices were Labour people worried that we're not doing well enough, and if we stay steadily ahead they'll relax.
Someone said this morning-I think it was our other best selling author who's name escapes me-that people just want their taxes lowered. He described it as 'the selfish gene'.
I don't think he's right. I believe people's main concern is for fair taxation-their's and everyone elses.
This is why Labour's attack on the energy companies gained traction and why -Michel Gove apart-no Tory or Lib Dem realized that going out to bat for the likes of Centrica-whose MD earns £5,000,000 a year-was not a smart idea.
Didn't realise Gove had struck out alone. What did he say?
His response to a Q on QT. It could have been his usual 'disarm with a compliment first' tactic - I didn't watch it - but apparently he went on to say 'something must be done/bills are high/these tough times' or something blah.
Your figures simply aren't correct. What you are doing is multiplying last year's projected borrowing figure (excluding financial interventions, transfer of RM pension assets, BoE APF transfers, asset sales etc etc) and multiplied it by 5.
The actual PSND ex figure - i,e. what the government borrowed - last year was £81.3 bn according to OBR's March EFO. The ONS have, since the March EFO, revised down 2011-12 PSND ex by £7.5 bn and 2012-13 by £5.2 bn. The OBR have forecast PSND ex to be £107.7 bn for 2013-14 yet, in the first five months, cumulative borrowing has been only £34.6 bn, indicating it is likely to underrun last years total of £81.3 even without the effect of above trend growth in the second half. So the deficit is being reduced at a reasonable rate.
...........................
Avery
That is precisely the sort of crap I was referring to.
The government has been borrowing over £100bn per year and will continue to do so until household borrowing restarts.
I could link to the ONS publication on government finances but I can't be arsed.
Its your sort of bollox which has convinced too many people that debt is being paid off.
As nobody else on this site peddles the line might I suggest you give it up and stop wasting your time.
@Bobajob - You're right, I give in. "The market has... become a perverse mechanism". In fact, having thought about it, I now realise that the only criticism one can have of Ed is lack of boldness, but maybe he's keeping the best until just before the election:
Someone said this morning-I think it was our other best selling author who's name escapes me-that people just want their taxes lowered. He described it as 'the selfish gene'.
I don't think he's right. I believe people's main concern is for fair taxation-their's and everyone elses.
This is why Labour's attack on the energy companies gained traction and why -Michel Gove apart-no Tory or Lib Dem realized that going out to bat for the likes of Centrica-whose MD earns £5,000,000 a year-was not a smart idea.
Didn't realise Gove had struck out alone. What did he say?
His response to a Q on QT. It could have been his usual 'disarm with a compliment first' tactic - I didn't watch it - but apparently he went on to say 'something must be done/bills are high/these tough times' or something blah.
Chavezist cuckoo in the nest. How long can it be before he strikes a cheap fuel deal with Venezuela to power his free schools?
"Didn't realise Gove had struck out alone. What did he say? "
On Question Time that Ed had made a very valid point and the behaviour of the elecricity companies left a great deal to be desired and he was right to bring it up. He said he wasn't sure a statutory freeze was the best answer but something had to be done....
The irony was that while he was saying that some hapless dumbo fro the Lib Dems (under minister for energy?) was saying it was a ridiculous idea.
So, in summary, Labour supporters are cock-a-hoop because, despite admitting that their last PM was the worst in living memory, they hope to win the next election by relying on gerrymandered boundaries, stirring up hatred against non-existent profiteers, bribing voters with money from their own pension funds, and incidentally wrecking desperately needed investment in power generation.
Surely, the most decisive moment of this Parliament was not any of the budgets [ unlike G Howe's '79 budget ], the Syria vote, and some of the Tory backbench rebellions.
It was the Tory backbench rebillion not to support the Lib DEm HoL reforms. It's chain reaction led to Clegg withdrawing support for the change in boundaries.
So, in summary, Labour supporters are cock-a-hoop because, despite admitting that their last PM was the worst in living memory, they hope to win the next election by relying on gerrymandered boundaries, stirring up hatred against non-existent profiteers, bribing voters with money from their own pension funds, and incidentally wrecking desperately needed investment in power generation.
Well, it might work.
But then what?
There is a slight element of bitterness in your comments !
@Bobajob - You're right, I give in. "The market has... become a perverse mechanism". In fact, having thought about it, I now realise that the only criticism one can have of Ed is lack of boldness, but maybe he's keeping the best until just before the election:
After a week in the US following the Labour conference on PB I had expected what seemed to be an unmitigated disaster of unprecedented proportions to have delivered a Tory poll lead. Maybe it wasn't quite the endless tsunami of horror I'd been led to believe!
No easy solutions RN but this is a subject which we need to think about and I don't see any evidence that the PPE boys are interested in doing so.
As globalisation isn't going to stop (and why should it - there's no reason people in the western world deserve the best lifestyles simply from having been born where they were) we will need to deal with the consequences. Two ideas:
1) We need to emphasise quality of life issues instead of living standards. Throughout the 20th century we had rising living standards and governments concentrated on them as a means to reelection. The consumption of material goods etc was seen as a mark of personal success, 'keeping up with the Joneses'. But in a world where living standards stagnate for most people but those in the top 1% are able to consume ever more and ever more publicly this will not lead to social harmony.
As most in the western world already have enough for a comfortable lifestyle, social harmony would be improved if excessive and 'flamboyant' wealth consumption was viewed as crass vulgarity rather than something to be aspired to.
2) We need more 'stakeholder democracy' - something which I raised at the beginning of the thread. People need to feel that society is 'fair', that it isn't 'one rule for them and another rule for us'.
I'm all for free market capitalism and shareholder democracy, but we don't have that at the moment. Instead we have had capitalism perverted into the business branch of executive oligarchy. Likewise the public services are increasingly being perverted into the public sector branch of the executive oligarchy.
Roughly speaking idea (1) would result in the gains of the top 1% seeming less important than they do now while idea (2) would make the top 1% seem more 'controlled' than they do now.
There is an slight element of bitterness in your comments !
Not slight at all. We currently have the best government, bar Maggie, for 50 years. There's a hell of a lot more to do, though - I always knew it would take three terms to sort out the mess Labour left, and, even though progress has been better than I expected from a coalition, that remains the case. That any sentient being could think that price controls are the answer to anything, let along a good idea in an industry trying to raise between £110bn and £200bn of investment over the next few years, is indeed very depressing.
One has to hope that people will come to their senses; we shall see how things develop over the next couple of weeks, and of course there are still some 20 months to go. But what is clear - it started with Syria, and was unambiguously confirmed this week - is that Ed Miliband is not just a bit of a joke who would set back much-needed progress,he's much worse than that, and would be an absolutely appalling PM, worse even than Brown. His unique combination of dithering, displacement activity, ruthlessness, opportunism, and irresponsibility is quite extraordinary. I still find it hard to get my head around the concept that, searching for some cheap scapegoat, he's was so irresponsible that he managed to wreck investment in keeping the lights on. Quite extraordinary.
Looking back at some of the quotes from on here from the P.B.H.'s on Ed's speech
"Toe curling"
"Total disaster"
"Can it get any worse"
"Utter rubbish"
"Will turn the voters off"
"Labour lead to Conservative lead will now happen imminently"
Nice to see the P.B.H's have their finger on the political pulse of the voters.
One for Avery LP. Even though you actually got the polling company wrong and was stating the Ed's speech had sent the Labour Yougov lead from 10% to 5% (it was actually a TNS/BRMB poll and he was mixing polling companies) the lead is now 11%....it was that good.
So, in summary, Labour supporters are cock-a-hoop because, despite admitting that their last PM was the worst in living memory, they hope to win the next election by relying on gerrymandered boundaries, stirring up hatred against non-existent profiteers, bribing voters with money from their own pension funds, and incidentally wrecking desperately needed investment in power generation.
Well, it might work.
But then what?
I'd phrase it like this: Labour supporters are cautiously optimistic [but nervous because, let's face it, their leader still seems a bit crap] because, despite accepting that their last PM was the worst for a fair while [but, in the light of the low quality of his successor, doesn't look quite so bad] think the maths looks like they could well win the next election on the boundaries which the current PM had it in his power to change, but screwed it up through complacency and poor party management [gerrymandered? dunno, but you can only play what's put in front of you] by doing things which can be characterised negatively within a neo-liberal paradigm [but within other paradigms less skewed in favour of money at the expense of people might not be such bad ideas].
It might work.
And then we carry on with the task of finding a better way forward than reflating a debt bubble and continuing passing resources from poor to rich so that we don't end up with 2007 all over again. How? Don't know. But that's not a reason to give up on trying to find a better way, cos the current one's not working.
@another_richard - Thanks for that. Too much to discuss at this late hour, but I thought your suggestion upthread for controlling management pay was intriguing. Robert S slightly missed the point, I think - I agree with you that shareholders (who are the ultimate employers, after all) don't have effective control of executive pay.
There is an slight element of bitterness in your comments !
Not slight at all. We currently have the best government, bar Maggie, for 50 years. There's a hell of a lot more to do, though - I always knew it would take three terms to sort out the mess Labour left, an, even though progress has been better than I expected from a coalition, that remains the case. That any sentient being could think that price controls are the answer to anything, let along a good idea in an industry trying to raise between £110bn and £200bn of investment over the next few years, is indeed very depressing.
One has to hope that people will come to their senses; we shall see how things develop over the next couple of weeks, and of course there are still some 20 months to go. But what is clear - it started with Syria, and was unambiguously confirmed this week - is that Ed Miliband is not just a bit of a joke who would set back much-needed progress,he's much worse than that, and would be an absolutely appalling PM, worse even than Brown. His unique combination of dithering, displacement activity, ruthlessness, opportunism, and irresponsibility is quite extraordinary. I still find it hard to get my head around the concept that, searching for some cheap scapegoat, he's was so irresponsible that he's managed to wreck investment in keeping the lights on. Quite extraordinary.
Richard... what do you think of the 'Maggies Shop' business and - according to what I've read - starting the conference with a tribute to her?
There is an slight element of bitterness in your comments !
Not slight at all. We currently have the best government, bar Maggie, for 50 years. There's a hell of a lot more to do, though - I always knew it would take three terms to sort out the mess Labour left, an, even though progress has been better than I expected from a coalition, that remains the case. That any sentient being could think that price controls are the answer to anything, let along a good idea in an industry trying to raise between £110bn and £200bn of investment over the next few years, is indeed very depressing.
One has to hope that people will come to their senses; we shall see how things develop over the next couple of weeks, and of course there are still some 20 months to go. But what is clear - it started with Syria, and was unambiguously confirmed this week - is that Ed Miliband is not just a bit of a joke who would set back much-needed progress,he's much worse than that, and would be an absolutely appalling PM, worse even than Brown. His unique combination of dithering, displacement activity, ruthlessness, opportunism, and irresponsibility is quite extraordinary. I still find it hard to get my head around the concept that, searching for some cheap scapegoat, he's was so irresponsible that he's managed to wreck investment in keeping the lights on. Quite extraordinary.
No easy solutions RN but this is a subject which we need to think about and I don't see any evidence that the PPE boys are interested in doing so.
As globalisation isn't going to stop (and why should it - there's no reason people in the western world deserve the best lifestyles simply from having been born where they were) we will need to deal with the consequences. Two ideas:
1) We need to emphasise quality of life issues instead of living standards. Throughout the 20th century we had rising living standards and governments concentrated on them as a means to reelection. The consumption of material goods etc was seen as a mark of personal success, 'keeping up with the Joneses'. But in a world where living standards stagnate for most people but those in the top 1% are able to consume ever more and ever more publicly this will not lead to social harmony.
As most in the western world already have enough for a comfortable lifestyle, social harmony would be improved if excessive and 'flamboyant' wealth consumption was viewed as crass vulgarity rather than something to be aspired to.
2) We need more 'stakeholder democracy' - something which I raised at the beginning of the thread. People need to feel that society is 'fair', that it isn't 'one rule for them and another rule for us'.
I'm all for free market capitalism and shareholder democracy, but we don't have that at the moment. Instead we have had capitalism perverted into the business branch of executive oligarchy. Likewise the public services are increasingly being perverted into the public sector branch of the executive oligarchy.
Roughly speaking idea (1) would result in the gains of the top 1% seeming less important than they do now while idea (2) would make the top 1% seem more 'controlled' than they do now.
1) I seem to remember you mocking Cameron's concept of Gross National Happiness and the Big Society. Both were attempts to create more meaning to life than just material wealth.
2) I broadly agree with you. Politicians needs less time listening to big business and more time thinking about the little guy
To calm things down, I've got a non-partisan question: why does the ordering of the conferences remain the same every year? It should surely be shuffled?
There is an slight element of bitterness in your comments !
Not slight at all. We currently have the best government, bar Maggie, for 50 years. There's a hell of a lot more to do, though - I always knew it would take three terms to sort out the mess Labour left, and, even though progress has been better than I expected from a coalition, that remains the case. That any sentient being could think that price controls are the answer to anything, let along a good idea in an industry trying to raise between £110bn and £200bn of investment over the next few years, is indeed very depressing.
One has to hope that people will come to their senses; we shall see how things develop over the next couple of weeks, and of course there are still some 20 months to go. But what is clear - it started with Syria, and was unambiguously confirmed this week - is that Ed Miliband is not just a bit of a joke who would set back much-needed progress,he's much worse than that, and would be an absolutely appalling PM, worse even than Brown. His unique combination of dithering, displacement activity, ruthlessness, opportunism, and irresponsibility is quite extraordinary. I still find it hard to get my head around the concept that, searching for some cheap scapegoat, he's was so irresponsible that he managed to wreck investment in keeping the lights on. Quite extraordinary.
Surely, the most decisive moment of this Parliament was not any of the budgets [ unlike G Howe's '79 budget ], the Syria vote, and some of the Tory backbench rebellions.
It was the Tory backbench rebillion not to support the Lib DEm HoL reforms. It's chain reaction led to Clegg withdrawing support for the change in boundaries.
Indeed. History may rank this decision alongside other catastrophic electoral blunders such as Callaghan's decision not to hold an election in 1978 and Heath's decision to hold one in 1974. Redrawing the boundaries should have been the Tories no 1 priority, far, far more important than the composition of the House of Lords. It's still almost impossible to believe that they threw away this golden opportunity.
To calm things down, I've got a non-partisan question: why does the ordering of the conferences remain the same every year? It should surely be shuffled?
Tradition, however, next year it is being shuffled around.
The Lib Dems go last, as their scheduled date for conference coincided with the Indy ref.
@another_richard - Thanks for that. Too much to discuss at this late hour, but I thought your suggestion upthread for controlling management pay was intriguing. Robert S slightly missed the point, I think - I agree with you that shareholders (who are the ultimate employers, after all) don't have effective control of executive pay.
"I agree with you that shareholders (who are the ultimate employers, after all) don't have effective control of executive pay." -
There I do agree with you ! When pension funds own 60% of all stocks, what do you expect ? They prefer to have lunch with the board.
To calm things down, I've got a non-partisan question: why does the ordering of the conferences remain the same every year? It should surely be shuffled?
Reverse alphabetical order. (Lib, Lab, Con). Except UKIP, who don't play by the rules.
To calm things down, I've got a non-partisan question: why does the ordering of the conferences remain the same every year? It should surely be shuffled?
Reverse alphabetical order. (Lib, Lab, Con). Except UKIP, who don't play by the rules.
To calm things down, I've got a non-partisan question: why does the ordering of the conferences remain the same every year? It should surely be shuffled?
Reverse alphabetical order. (Lib, Lab, Con). Except UKIP, who don't play by the rules.
Yes, but why not shuffle it?
Because then it wouldn't be reverse alphabetical order. Durrrr.
(By the way, I actually have no idea. Some things just are.)
That is precisely the sort of crap I was referring to.
The government has been borrowing over £100bn per year and will continue to do so until household borrowing restarts.
I could link to the ONS publication on government finances but I can't be arsed.
Its your sort of bollox which has convinced too many people that debt is being paid off.
As nobody else on this site peddles the line might I suggest you give it up and stop wasting your time.
ar
There is no need to lose your cool on this.
The stats available from the ONS are there for all to see and quote.
If you disagree with any figure I have quoted speak and I shall try to answer.
And what I was saying is that PSND is likely to fall over the course of this parliament (as it has already but by small amounts relative to its total (from 2,228,308 end FY 2010-11 to 2,168,197 end Aug 2013). Over the same period PSND ex has risen from 828,419 to 1,193,298. All figures in £miillion.
So overall debt, PSND, has already fallen (by 60,111) even though the subset measurement of PSND ex has risen by 364,879. This effectively means that the income flows from the financial interventions (substantial but not significant) plus the fall in value of the intervened banks net liabilities (very substantial and significant) of 424,990 have more than covered 'deficit' borrowing increases of 364,879.
Given that Lloyds sale will bring in around 25 bn for the shares plus a transfer of, say, 40% of net intervened banking liabilities from the public to the private sector (40% x 917.8 = 367.1 bn - I need to check the LBG share), we can see a further reduction of circa £400 bn of PSND before the GE in 2015.
So it is quite reasonable to forecast that PSND will reduce from around £2.2 trillion to around £1.7 trillion by the end of this term (Lloyds sale plus 0.1 of further reduction).
You may not like the way this is accounted for or that it camouflages 'current' deficits, but there is no argument that the figures stack up and that the country will have benefitted as a result.
And yes there is still a long,.long way to go but distance will have been covered in the right direction.
@another_richard - Thanks for that. Too much to discuss at this late hour, but I thought your suggestion upthread for controlling management pay was intriguing. Robert S slightly missed the point, I think - I agree with you that shareholders (who are the ultimate employers, after all) don't have effective control of executive pay.
"I agree with you that shareholders (who are the ultimate employers, after all) don't have effective control of executive pay." -
There I do agree with you ! When pension funds own 60% of all stocks, what do you expect ? They prefer to have lunch with the board.
I think in 'The New Few' Ferdinand Mount said that culture was changing, and that institutional investors were taking a closer interest.
To calm things down, I've got a non-partisan question: why does the ordering of the conferences remain the same every year? It should surely be shuffled?
Reverse alphabetical order. (Lib, Lab, Con). Except UKIP, who don't play by the rules.
Charles, I asked that the other night but I don't think anyone gave an answer. I would have thought it would always give the party who has it last an advantage of attacking the other two.
Surely, the most decisive moment of this Parliament was not any of the budgets [ unlike G Howe's '79 budget ], the Syria vote, and some of the Tory backbench rebellions.
It was the Tory backbench rebillion not to support the Lib DEm HoL reforms. It's chain reaction led to Clegg withdrawing support for the change in boundaries.
Indeed. History may rank this decision alongside other catastrophic electoral blunders such as Callaghan's decision not to hold an election in 1978 and Heath's decision to hold one in 1974. Redrawing the boundaries should have been the Tories no 1 priority, far, far more important than the composition of the House of Lords. It's still almost impossible to believe that they threw away this golden opportunity.
You missed Brown's Bottled Election (over a little panic about inheritance tax which would almost certainly not have affected the result once the electorate at large remembered how little money they were likely to die with after paying for their old-age care). If he'd had some balls (no relation) we'd be into the 17th year of Labour government about now, awaiting an imminent landslide victory for Theresa May's Conservative party.
This will only get worse as the election approaches as they will not be able to build these one/two bedroom houses or flats to accommodate all these people trying to downsize.
I'm sick of "housing ladder". It's not a ladder that we must constantly strive to climb. It's a market for a social need. If I buy bacon from Tescos, I'm not getting on the food ladder. I'm meeting a need.
The way to make housing affordable is to make it cheaper. The end. Stuff the ladder.
Right, if political parties are going to base their policies on probably-unwise expectations of continual asset price inflation I want to know what they're going to do to get more people on the bitcoin ladder.
To calm things down, I've got a non-partisan question: why does the ordering of the conferences remain the same every year? It should surely be shuffled?
Reverse alphabetical order. (Lib, Lab, Con). Except UKIP, who don't play by the rules.
Charles, I asked that the other night but I don't think anyone gave an answer. I would have thought it would always give the party who has it last an advantage of attacking the other two.
Yes - sorry Red Rag - I did see your post. I've been mulling this 'game'. Is it more like Holdem, where last position (the button) is strongest, or more like Chess, where going first (white) is stronger? I think is probably the former, for the reasons you say.
Surely, the most decisive moment of this Parliament was not any of the budgets [ unlike G Howe's '79 budget ], the Syria vote, and some of the Tory backbench rebellions.
It was the Tory backbench rebillion not to support the Lib DEm HoL reforms. It's chain reaction led to Clegg withdrawing support for the change in boundaries.
Indeed. History may rank this decision alongside other catastrophic electoral blunders such as Callaghan's decision not to hold an election in 1978 and Heath's decision to hold one in 1974. Redrawing the boundaries should have been the Tories no 1 priority, far, far more important than the composition of the House of Lords. It's still almost impossible to believe that they threw away this golden opportunity.
You missed Brown's Bottled Election (over a little panic about inheritance tax which would almost certainly not have affected the result once the electorate at large remembered how little money they were likely to die with after paying for their old-age care). If he'd had some balls (no relation) we'd be into the 17th year of Labour government about now, awaiting an imminent landslide victory for Theresa May's Conservative party.
If the election that never was in 2007, we'd be one year into a David Davis Premiership, as the election would have been held in 2012.
I actually think the Tory Election strategists have clicked on that the "ED is Crap" line is about as useful as a chocolate fire guard. I have noticed a distinct lack of attacking recently, unless they are storing it all up for the CPC....hope so.
To calm things down, I've got a non-partisan question: why does the ordering of the conferences remain the same every year? It should surely be shuffled?
Reverse alphabetical order. (Lib, Lab, Con). Except UKIP, who don't play by the rules.
Charles, I asked that the other night but I don't think anyone gave an answer. I would have thought it would always give the party who has it last an advantage of attacking the other two.
Yes - sorry Red Rag - I did see your post. I've been mulling this 'game'. Is it more like Holdem, where last position (the button) is strongest, or more like Chess, where going first (white) is stronger? I think is probably the former, for the reasons you say.
It would depend on the protagonists. When they're all pretty good, it's an advantage to go last, because your good qualities are more likely to stick in the mind of the electorate as the most recent beneficiary of media exposure. When they're all complete mediocrities, the opposite applies. I'm sure that there will be various opinions available about which situation obtains here, but let's just say that, as someone who would prefer a Labour majority out of all the undesirable outcomes available, I'm glad that Labour didn't get to go last.
Surely, the most decisive moment of this Parliament was not any of the budgets [ unlike G Howe's '79 budget ], the Syria vote, and some of the Tory backbench rebellions.
It was the Tory backbench rebillion not to support the Lib DEm HoL reforms. It's chain reaction led to Clegg withdrawing support for the change in boundaries.
Indeed. History may rank this decision alongside other catastrophic electoral blunders such as Callaghan's decision not to hold an election in 1978 and Heath's decision to hold one in 1974. Redrawing the boundaries should have been the Tories no 1 priority, far, far more important than the composition of the House of Lords. It's still almost impossible to believe that they threw away this golden opportunity.
You missed Brown's Bottled Election (over a little panic about inheritance tax which would almost certainly not have affected the result once the electorate at large remembered how little money they were likely to die with after paying for their old-age care). If he'd had some balls (no relation) we'd be into the 17th year of Labour government about now, awaiting an imminent landslide victory for Theresa May's Conservative party.
If the election that never was in 2007, we'd be one year into a David Davis Premiership, as the election would have been held in 2012.
David Davis Premiership?
What the eff have I been smoking?
You're right; for some reason I thought it was 2008, not October 2007. And funnily enough, I originally typed David Davis and then just thought "no.. surely that wouldn't have happened". Actually, I think it might have done. Wouldn't have been a landslide though, given DD's track record of alienating colleagues.
To calm things down, I've got a non-partisan question: why does the ordering of the conferences remain the same every year? It should surely be shuffled?
Reverse alphabetical order. (Lib, Lab, Con). Except UKIP, who don't play by the rules.
Charles, I asked that the other night but I don't think anyone gave an answer. I would have thought it would always give the party who has it last an advantage of attacking the other two.
Yes - sorry Red Rag - I did see your post. I've been mulling this 'game'. Is it more like Holdem, where last position (the button) is strongest, or more like Chess, where going first (white) is stronger? I think is probably the former, for the reasons you say.
The disaster that was Ed's policy of "Freeze the energy prices" is a perfect example. It has given the party with the conference a week later a few days to try and trash it and then formulate a policy as eye catching to better it. This has lead to the all out attack given to the policy by the party and their friends in the press which has resulted in the public turning against the policy and Labour plummeting in the polls *** switches of sarcasm switch ***
Surely, the most decisive moment of this Parliament was not any of the budgets [ unlike G Howe's '79 budget ], the Syria vote, and some of the Tory backbench rebellions.
It was the Tory backbench rebillion not to support the Lib DEm HoL reforms. It's chain reaction led to Clegg withdrawing support for the change in boundaries.
Indeed. History may rank this decision alongside other catastrophic electoral blunders such as Callaghan's decision not to hold an election in 1978 and Heath's decision to hold one in 1974. Redrawing the boundaries should have been the Tories no 1 priority, far, far more important than the composition of the House of Lords. It's still almost impossible to believe that they threw away this golden opportunity.
You missed Brown's Bottled Election (over a little panic about inheritance tax which would almost certainly not have affected the result once the electorate at large remembered how little money they were likely to die with after paying for their old-age care). If he'd had some balls (no relation) we'd be into the 17th year of Labour government about now, awaiting an imminent landslide victory for Theresa May's Conservative party.
If the election that never was in 2007, we'd be one year into a David Davis Premiership, as the election would have been held in 2012.
David Davis Premiership?
What the eff have I been smoking?
You're right; for some reason I thought it was 2008, not October 2007. And funnily enough, I originally typed David Davis and then just thought "no.. surely that wouldn't have happened". Actually, I think it might have done. Wouldn't have been a landslide though, given DD's track record of alienating colleagues.
I wonder if he would have resigned as an MP if he were Tory leader over civil liberties?
Will gay marriages get Camerons tax cut? Oh, and earlier @tomnewtondunn said he had an exclusive and asked if Vince Cable will resign because of it....was it the Help to Buy scheme being brought forward three months. If so, has Tom been taken drugs, why would he resign for that?
Just looking back to last year, the YouGovs published on the Thurs, Fri and Sun after Ed M's speech were Lab leads of 14, 11 and 14.
The following week (Con Conference) the Lab leads went 10, 12, 7, 7, 10.
However this does look like a very, very good Conference bounce for Lab. Only 10 days ago YouGov had a tie and then the next day a Lab lead of 1. So I think this is a much bigger bounce than would normally be expected - reflecting just how popular the fuel price freeze is.
Surely, the most decisive moment of this Parliament was not any of the budgets [ unlike G Howe's '79 budget ], the Syria vote, and some of the Tory backbench rebellions.
It was the Tory backbench rebillion not to support the Lib DEm HoL reforms. It's chain reaction led to Clegg withdrawing support for the change in boundaries.
Indeed. History may rank this decision alongside other catastrophic electoral blunders such as Callaghan's decision not to hold an election in 1978 and Heath's decision to hold one in 1974. Redrawing the boundaries should have been the Tories no 1 priority, far, far more important than the composition of the House of Lords. It's still almost impossible to believe that they threw away this golden opportunity.
You missed Brown's Bottled Election (over a little panic about inheritance tax which would almost certainly not have affected the result once the electorate at large remembered how little money they were likely to die with after paying for their old-age care). If he'd had some balls (no relation) we'd be into the 17th year of Labour government about now, awaiting an imminent landslide victory for Theresa May's Conservative party.
If the election that never was in 2007, we'd be one year into a David Davis Premiership, as the election would have been held in 2012.
David Davis Premiership?
What the eff have I been smoking?
You're right; for some reason I thought it was 2008, not October 2007. And funnily enough, I originally typed David Davis and then just thought "no.. surely that wouldn't have happened". Actually, I think it might have done. Wouldn't have been a landslide though, given DD's track record of alienating colleagues.
I wonder if he would have resigned as an MP if he were Tory leader over civil liberties?
This should be popular, and work well in reducing re-offending rates (from the Sunday Times)
CHRIS GRAYLING, the justice secretary, is to stop police letting people off serious offences with a “slap on the wrist” by issuing them with cautions.
Grayling believes it is “unacceptable” that the police issue hundreds of unconditional cautions a year for crimes as serious as threats to murder, wounding, sex offences and perverting the course of justice. In one case last year an offender was cautioned for rape.
In addition to scrapping the issuing of cautions without conditions for dozens of crimes, the government is to review all punishments that do not go through courts — ranging from cautions to penalty notices, cannabis warnings and restorative justice.
To calm things down, I've got a non-partisan question: why does the ordering of the conferences remain the same every year? It should surely be shuffled?
Reverse alphabetical order. (Lib, Lab, Con). Except UKIP, who don't play by the rules.
Yes, but why not shuffle it?
I rather agree - no reason that I can see why Labour shouldn't do what the LibDems are by accident doing next year - take the last week before parliament resumes. There is, I guess, a case for saying that going last has its drawbacks: people with only a passing interest in politics presumably get fed up by Act 3 and turn to studying Ant and Dec or whoever.
However, the strength of evidence that the conference season normally makes no net difference at all probably indicates that we shouldn't worry our pretty heads about it. The current UKIP figure looks too high to me - can't see why they should have bounced in the last 24 hours. Amazing Tory recovery to say -5 on Tuesday?
Richard N: doesn't it worry you a bit that the 69% who approve of an energy price freeze appear to include much of the Cabinet, led by Michael Gove?
"The 14 donors who have switched support to Ukip are led by Stuart Wheeler, the party's Treasurer, who gave £3.9m in the last Parliament to Mr Cameron's party. He has given £300,000 to Ukip since May 2010. Others include Lord Hesketh, who has donated £30,000 to Ukip, and Andrew Perloff, the chairman of Panther Securities.
Other former Tory donors who have defected to Ukip are: James Hanson, £10,000; William Cole, £2,000; Robin Birley, £15,000; Michael Stone, £20,000; John Scott, £7,500; Sir John Craven, £12,500; William MacDougall, £8,000; David Caldow, £16,000; Lord Stevens of Ludgate, £10,002; Lord Dartmouth, £11,000; Patrick Barbour, £20,000.
Overall, between Mr Cameron's election as leader in December 2005 and the May 2010 election, the Tories received money from 1,923 donors, but in the past three years the party has received money from around half that number, 1,056."
TSE That assumes a narrow Brown victory over Cameron would have forced Cameron to resign or seen him toppled and replaced with David Davis. Davis would then have won in 2012 against either Brown alone or a Labour/Liberal coalition. In which case we would have had our very own Tony Abbott as PM before the Aussies got one!
The stats available from the ONS are there for all to see and quote.
If you disagree with any figure I have quoted speak and I shall try to answer.
And what I was saying is that PSND is likely to fall over the course of this parliament (as it has already but by small amounts relative to its total (from 2,228,308 end FY 2010-11 to 2,168,197 end Aug 2013). Over the same period PSND ex has risen from 828,419 to 1,193,298. All figures in £miillion.
So overall debt, PSND, has already fallen (by 60,111) even though the subset measurement of PSND ex has risen by 364,879. This effectively means that the income flows from the financial interventions (substantial but not significant) plus the fall in value of the intervened banks net liabilities (very substantial and significant) of 424,990 have more than covered 'deficit' borrowing increases of 364,879.
Given that Lloyds sale will bring in around 25 bn for the shares plus a transfer of, say, 40% of net intervened banking liabilities from the public to the private sector (40% x 917.8 = 367.1 bn - I need to check the LBG share), we can see a further reduction of circa £400 bn of PSND before the GE in 2015.
So it is quite reasonable to forecast that PSND will reduce from around £2.2 trillion to around £1.7 trillion by the end of this term (Lloyds sale plus 0.1 of further reduction).
You may not like the way this is accounted for or that it camouflages 'current' deficits, but there is no argument that the figures stack up and that the country will have benefitted as a result.
And yes there is still a long,.long way to go but distance will have been covered in the right direction.
As I said I can't be arsed to look up the last ONS report.
But I will point out that the government selling its Lloyds shares doesn't get rid of debt it merely moves it off the government books.
Which thus destroys your entire argument.
And I doubt even you would deny that the government has borrowed over £100bn each year since 2010.
@another_richard - Thanks for that. Too much to discuss at this late hour, but I thought your suggestion upthread for controlling management pay was intriguing. Robert S slightly missed the point, I think - I agree with you that shareholders (who are the ultimate employers, after all) don't have effective control of executive pay.
Thanks.
I haven't thought these ideas fully through and I don't have the knowledge to formulate details.
But I think this is an issue which is going to become increasingly prominent.
While globalisation has brought downward pressure on employee earnings, at least in the western world, it has been used to justify increased executive earnings - "we have to pay our top people the going rate or they'll all move overseas".
This is then used as an excuse to increase executive earnings in the public services - "we have to pay our top people the going rate or the'll all move to the private sector".
The consequece is an executive class which is increasingly separated from its employees, its shareholders and its ultimate customers. Something which is not healthy for those organisations or for society as a whole.
Back in the earlier days of PB, didn't we tend to see a wider array of polling from the phone firms over the party Conference season? As we head to the next GE, we are relying more and more on an ever growing collection of online polling firms. Its going to be interesting to see how accurate they are come the next GE.
Just looking back to last year, the YouGovs published on the Thurs, Fri and Sun after Ed M's speech were Lab leads of 14, 11 and 14.
The following week (Con Conference) the Lab leads went 10, 12, 7, 7, 10.
However this does look like a very, very good Conference bounce for Lab. Only 10 days ago YouGov had a tie and then the next day a Lab lead of 1. So I think this is a much bigger bounce than would normally be expected - reflecting just how popular the fuel price freeze is.
1) I seem to remember you mocking Cameron's concept of Gross National Happiness and the Big Society. Both were attempts to create more meaning to life than just material wealth.
I've been saying similar things about my preference for quality of life issues rather than consumerist living standards for several years. Before you were on this site, before Cameron ever mentioned Big Society and before the banks crashed.
Cameron's Gross National Happiness and Big Society were back of a fag packet ideas which had no substance and which Cameron himself has long forgotten about - which is why he's back to meddling in the mortgage market.
Cameron's problem for me is that after his cycle & chauffer photostunt I've marked him down as a phony. So if he wants people to believe in the 'Big Society' he needs to show that its more substance and less soundbite.
Comments
I am very upset that the energy companies are not heaping further opprobrium on rEd.
I also have noted that the Tories are going to restore partially the Married Tax Allowance abolished by a.......Tory government.
Plato's £25 may indeed have been wasted.
Nabavite Capitalists 26%
Think Ant has since disowned them and gone back to supporting Labour. Sounds more like Dave's wife.
Never realised IDS was so perceptive.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-15850784
"Didn't realise Gove had struck out alone. What did he say? "
On Question Time that Ed had made a very valid point and the behaviour of the elecricity companies left a great deal to be desired and he was right to bring it up. He said he wasn't sure a statutory freeze was the best answer but something had to be done....
The irony was that while he was saying that some hapless dumbo fro the Lib Dems (under minister for energy?) was saying it was a ridiculous idea.
Well Done.
Well, it might work.
But then what?
It may be terrible for the economy.
But it can be quite popular.
It was the Tory backbench rebillion not to support the Lib DEm HoL reforms. It's chain reaction led to Clegg withdrawing support for the change in boundaries.
Comrades:
YouGov/The Sunil on Sunday:
Progressives 51% (!!!)
Tory/UKIP 44%
Tories lurch to the right and make themselves unelectable for a generation?
Right wingers leave the country in protest?
Early night for PB Tories
An "Ed is Crap" thread in PB.
New series starring Ant and Dec on ITV1 from end of October
With YouGov last year, after Labour's conference, Lab were on 45% and had a 14% lead.
And Ed's rating was minus 9, this year it is closer to minus 40
As globalisation isn't going to stop (and why should it - there's no reason people in the western world deserve the best lifestyles simply from having been born where they were) we will need to deal with the consequences. Two ideas:
1) We need to emphasise quality of life issues instead of living standards. Throughout the 20th century we had rising living standards and governments concentrated on them as a means to reelection. The consumption of material goods etc was seen as a mark of personal success, 'keeping up with the Joneses'. But in a world where living standards stagnate for most people but those in the top 1% are able to consume ever more and ever more publicly this will not lead to social harmony.
As most in the western world already have enough for a comfortable lifestyle, social harmony would be improved if excessive and 'flamboyant' wealth consumption was viewed as crass vulgarity rather than something to be aspired to.
2) We need more 'stakeholder democracy' - something which I raised at the beginning of the thread. People need to feel that society is 'fair', that it isn't 'one rule for them and another rule for us'.
I'm all for free market capitalism and shareholder democracy, but we don't have that at the moment. Instead we have had capitalism perverted into the business branch of executive oligarchy. Likewise the public services are increasingly being perverted into the public sector branch of the executive oligarchy.
Roughly speaking idea (1) would result in the gains of the top 1% seeming less important than they do now while idea (2) would make the top 1% seem more 'controlled' than they do now.
One has to hope that people will come to their senses; we shall see how things develop over the next couple of weeks, and of course there are still some 20 months to go. But what is clear - it started with Syria, and was unambiguously confirmed this week - is that Ed Miliband is not just a bit of a joke who would set back much-needed progress,he's much worse than that, and would be an absolutely appalling PM, worse even than Brown. His unique combination of dithering, displacement activity, ruthlessness, opportunism, and irresponsibility is quite extraordinary. I still find it hard to get my head around the concept that, searching for some cheap scapegoat, he's was so irresponsible that he managed to wreck investment in keeping the lights on. Quite extraordinary.
Looking back at some of the quotes from on here from the P.B.H.'s on Ed's speech
"Toe curling"
"Total disaster"
"Can it get any worse"
"Utter rubbish"
"Will turn the voters off"
"Labour lead to Conservative lead will now happen imminently"
Nice to see the P.B.H's have their finger on the political pulse of the voters.
One for Avery LP. Even though you actually got the polling company wrong and was stating the Ed's speech had sent the Labour Yougov lead from 10% to 5% (it was actually a TNS/BRMB poll and he was mixing polling companies) the lead is now 11%....it was that good.
Farage also picks up smaller donations as numbers giving to Conservatives halved."
twitter.com/SkyNews/status/384052817708584960/photo/1
No sign of big money in UKIP's published accounts.
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/political-parties-campaigning-and-donations/political-parties-annual-accounts/2012#UKIP
At the UKIP conference Mr Wheeler did say that UKIP would like to spend £4 million on the 2014 elections. He didn't say UKIP had £4 million to spend.
It might work.
And then we carry on with the task of finding a better way forward than reflating a debt bubble and continuing passing resources from poor to rich so that we don't end up with 2007 all over again. How? Don't know. But that's not a reason to give up on trying to find a better way, cos the current one's not working.
Another climbdown !
2) I broadly agree with you. Politicians needs less time listening to big business and more time thinking about the little guy
The Lib Dems go last, as their scheduled date for conference coincided with the Indy ref.
There I do agree with you ! When pension funds own 60% of all stocks, what do you expect ? They prefer to have lunch with the board.
(By the way, I actually have no idea. Some things just are.)
There is no need to lose your cool on this.
The stats available from the ONS are there for all to see and quote.
If you disagree with any figure I have quoted speak and I shall try to answer.
And what I was saying is that PSND is likely to fall over the course of this parliament (as it has already but by small amounts relative to its total (from 2,228,308 end FY 2010-11 to 2,168,197 end Aug 2013). Over the same period PSND ex has risen from 828,419 to 1,193,298. All figures in £miillion.
So overall debt, PSND, has already fallen (by 60,111) even though the subset measurement of PSND ex has risen by 364,879. This effectively means that the income flows from the financial interventions (substantial but not significant) plus the fall in value of the intervened banks net liabilities (very substantial and significant) of 424,990 have more than covered 'deficit' borrowing increases of 364,879.
Given that Lloyds sale will bring in around 25 bn for the shares plus a transfer of, say, 40% of net intervened banking liabilities from the public to the private sector (40% x 917.8 = 367.1 bn - I need to check the LBG share), we can see a further reduction of circa £400 bn of PSND before the GE in 2015.
So it is quite reasonable to forecast that PSND will reduce from around £2.2 trillion to around £1.7 trillion by the end of this term (Lloyds sale plus 0.1 of further reduction).
You may not like the way this is accounted for or that it camouflages 'current' deficits, but there is no argument that the figures stack up and that the country will have benefitted as a result.
And yes there is still a long,.long way to go but distance will have been covered in the right direction.
But that wasn't the point of the analogy.
Another great 70s film incidentally.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bedroom-tax-leaves-3200-waiting-2297862
I've been mulling this 'game'.
Is it more like Holdem, where last position (the button) is strongest, or more like Chess, where going first (white) is stronger?
I think is probably the former, for the reasons you say.
David Davis Premiership?
What the eff have I been smoking?
:-)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7450627.stm
The following week (Con Conference) the Lab leads went 10, 12, 7, 7, 10.
However this does look like a very, very good Conference bounce for Lab. Only 10 days ago YouGov had a tie and then the next day a Lab lead of 1. So I think this is a much bigger bounce than would normally be expected - reflecting just how popular the fuel price freeze is.
CHRIS GRAYLING, the justice secretary, is to stop police letting people off serious offences with a “slap on the wrist” by issuing them with cautions.
Grayling believes it is “unacceptable” that the police issue hundreds of unconditional cautions a year for crimes as serious as threats to murder, wounding, sex offences and perverting the course of justice. In one case last year an offender was cautioned for rape.
In addition to scrapping the issuing of cautions without conditions for dozens of crimes, the government is to review all punishments that do not go through courts — ranging from cautions to penalty notices, cannabis warnings and restorative justice.
However, the strength of evidence that the conference season normally makes no net difference at all probably indicates that we shouldn't worry our pretty heads about it. The current UKIP figure looks too high to me - can't see why they should have bounced in the last 24 hours. Amazing Tory recovery to say -5 on Tuesday?
Richard N: doesn't it worry you a bit that the 69% who approve of an energy price freeze appear to include much of the Cabinet, led by Michael Gove?
Other former Tory donors who have defected to Ukip are: James Hanson, £10,000; William Cole, £2,000; Robin Birley, £15,000; Michael Stone, £20,000; John Scott, £7,500; Sir John Craven, £12,500; William MacDougall, £8,000; David Caldow, £16,000; Lord Stevens of Ludgate, £10,002; Lord Dartmouth, £11,000; Patrick Barbour, £20,000.
Overall, between Mr Cameron's election as leader in December 2005 and the May 2010 election, the Tories received money from 1,923 donors, but in the past three years the party has received money from around half that number, 1,056."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-conference-exclusive-donors-are-deserting-the-conservatives-for-ukip-8846599.html
Cameron - 19 (-5)
Miliband - 30 (+15)
Clegg -48 (-2)
Do you think it is likely there will be a coalition govt after the next election
Yes 45%
No 35%
Don't Know 20%
But I will point out that the government selling its Lloyds shares doesn't get rid of debt it merely moves it off the government books.
Which thus destroys your entire argument.
And I doubt even you would deny that the government has borrowed over £100bn each year since 2010.
All voters
Yes 18%
No 54%
DK 28%
Con voters
Yes 37%
No 48%
DK 15%
I've completed the full set of troll badges now
I haven't thought these ideas fully through and I don't have the knowledge to formulate details.
But I think this is an issue which is going to become increasingly prominent.
While globalisation has brought downward pressure on employee earnings, at least in the western world, it has been used to justify increased executive earnings - "we have to pay our top people the going rate or they'll all move overseas".
This is then used as an excuse to increase executive earnings in the public services - "we have to pay our top people the going rate or the'll all move to the private sector".
The consequece is an executive class which is increasingly separated from its employees, its shareholders and its ultimate customers. Something which is not healthy for those organisations or for society as a whole.
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2013/09/from-harryph-ukipconservative-vote-swapping-toby-young-is-the-conservatives-billy-bragg.html#idc-cover
Cameron's Gross National Happiness and Big Society were back of a fag packet ideas which had no substance and which Cameron himself has long forgotten about - which is why he's back to meddling in the mortgage market.
Cameron's problem for me is that after his cycle & chauffer photostunt I've marked him down as a phony. So if he wants people to believe in the 'Big Society' he needs to show that its more substance and less soundbite.