Back in 2002, I went to a rather strange conference, where one speaker asserted that Ian Gow was murdered on the orders of the EU commission.
Wacko conspiracy theories have always been with us, now amplified by social media I guess. I think the msm seem to have a much greater inclination to repeat them though.
Notably his final comment shows he either didn't understand her point or is deliberately misrepresenting as a suggestion he shouldn't comment on the media, when it seems more about how he is not a journalist, which presumably isn't in dispute, commenting about journalism as though he is one. He's a commentator and pundit, a media figure, but no journalist, that shouldn't upset him.
I'd say we have reached the point where Jones should pack in opinion writing and stand as an actual candidate.
No.
We have reached the point where Jones should just pack up and keep his thoughts to himself. He has been given easy access to too many platforms and has too frequently gone without proper scrutiny.
He has never shown any desire to actually do anything constructive or positive. His entire raison d'etre has been to be negative.
He's very positive about the forthcoming Marxist government.
I agree with Foxy that there’s not much interest in centrism. Not just because of how the LDs are doing, but that those who spend half their time talking about a new centrist party is needed within the media and politics would have set one up by now if there was. Instead I think the new opening in politics is for a hang em and flog em anti immigration party who are sceptical of the current economic settlement.
Notably his final comment shows he either didn't understand her point or is deliberately misrepresenting as a suggestion he shouldn't comment on the media, when it seems more about how he is not a journalist, which presumably isn't in dispute, commenting about journalism as though he is one. He's a commentator and pundit, a media figure, but no journalist, that shouldn't upset him.
I'd say we have reached the point where Jones should pack in opinion writing and stand as an actual candidate.
No.
We have reached the point where Jones should just pack up and keep his thoughts to himself. He has been given easy access to too many platforms and has too frequently gone without proper scrutiny.
He has never shown any desire to actually do anything constructive or positive. His entire raison d'etre has been to be negative.
He's very positive about the forthcoming Marxist government.
I suspect it will come as unsurprising if I cannot see how anyone can be positive about such a prospect...! Wanting to see such a destructive force is not positive to my mind.
Notably his final comment shows he either didn't understand her point or is deliberately misrepresenting as a suggestion he shouldn't comment on the media, when it seems more about how he is not a journalist, which presumably isn't in dispute, commenting about journalism as though he is one. He's a commentator and pundit, a media figure, but no journalist, that shouldn't upset him.
I'd say we have reached the point where Jones should pack in opinion writing and stand as an actual candidate.
No.
We have reached the point where Jones should just pack up and keep his thoughts to himself. He has been given easy access to too many platforms and has too frequently gone without proper scrutiny.
He has never shown any desire to actually do anything constructive or positive. His entire raison d'etre has been to be negative.
He is also very quick to scream homophobia when things don't go his way or somebody upsets him.
Until he had that mega meltdown for no reason on Sky paper review I actually had no idea he was gay (or cared).
Interesting article as usual - Many thanks, David.
Haven't read the thread yet so apologies if others have already made the same remark: myself, I don't believe a Labour split would be successful unless/until a majority of Labour members were openly uneasy with the leadership. It would need people like @RochdalePioneers to be convinced of the need to fight for 'true' Labour values rather than wait for those values to reassert themselves.
Notably his final comment shows he either didn't understand her point or is deliberately misrepresenting as a suggestion he shouldn't comment on the media, when it seems more about how he is not a journalist, which presumably isn't in dispute, commenting about journalism as though he is one. He's a commentator and pundit, a media figure, but no journalist, that shouldn't upset him.
I'd say we have reached the point where Jones should pack in opinion writing and stand as an actual candidate.
No.
We have reached the point where Jones should just pack up and keep his thoughts to himself. He has been given easy access to too many platforms and has too frequently gone without proper scrutiny.
He has never shown any desire to actually do anything constructive or positive. His entire raison d'etre has been to be negative.
He is also very quick to scream homophobia when things don't go his way or somebody upsets him.
That makes him a very bad gay in my book. Using your sexuality to make out that you are a victim when you are nothing of the sort is cheap and disrespectful to those LGBT+ people who are still living lives where they really are victims.
Also re the last thread, given how much support Corbyn has among the membership, I don’t think you can call his grouping ‘fringe’ within the Labour Party. Some of the commentary on Labour seems to imply that the party has some kind of obligation to be a specific kind of New Labour style party, as opposed to simply just dealing with the problems of racism in its ranks now. It should do that, and could be a Soft left party and the world wouldn’t fall apart.
I agree with Foxy that there’s not much interest in centrism. Not just because of how the LDs are doing, but that those who spend half their time talking about a new centrist party is needed within the media and politics would have set one up by now if there was. Instead I think the new opening in politics is for a hang em and flog em anti immigration party who are sceptical of the current economic settlement.
'Centrism' is meaningless. The electorate votes for the party with the 'best' overall offer. It's political anoraks who label governments 'left' and 'right'. Look at the tax rates during Maggie's term of office. They'd do any left of centre government proud.
What, for example, would Yvette Cooper or Chukka Ummuna do for us? How would they make our lives better?
The criticism of the BBC isn’t limited to the most rabid of Corbynistas. It’s actually something which also features among FBPE types as well. Reading some of the debate going on twitter, there are less rabid and much more interesting contributions which are sympathetic to Jones’ POV than tweets like that.
At the next election coverage time allocated by the Broadcasters to the LibDems and UKIP will surely be much more limited than in recent years on account of their poor performance in terms of seat and votes at the General Elections of 2015 & 2017. Entitlement to PPBs will be restricted. Any new party would be hamstrung in the same way - unless it manages to achieve by election victories or very high poll ratings over an extended period.
I agree with Foxy that there’s not much interest in centrism. Not just because of how the LDs are doing, but that those who spend half their time talking about a new centrist party is needed within the media and politics would have set one up by now if there was. Instead I think the new opening in politics is for a hang em and flog em anti immigration party who are sceptical of the current economic settlement.
'Centrism' is meaningless. The electorate votes for the party with the 'best' overall offer. It's political anoraks who label governments 'left' and 'right'. Look at the tax rates during Maggie's term of office. They'd do any left of centre government proud.
What, for example, would Yvette Cooper or Chukka Ummuna do for us? How would they make our lives better?
Agree with a lot of what you say here. I think the struggle of Labour’s moderates to really articulate that since 2010 is one of the reasons why they’ve ended up in the place they are now.
Its clearly the publics fault they don't buy more copies of the Guardian, Mirror and Indy (when it was still in print). Also, the FT have regularly backed Labour and the Times have to in modern era.
Also the Mirror Group now own the Express and Star.
Left wing opinion / news through that filter is freely available to purchase every day, it just isn't that popular with the paying public. Is more popular with non-payers. Its not Rupert Murdoch's fault the likes of the Guardian haven't found a way of making their product profitable.
They thrive on the criticism that would end the career of a normal politician because their offer and attraction is based on them not being a normal politician.
The wackier they are, the stronger they get.
With their base maybe.
That would be a mistake if the go
The way Corbyn stacks up votes where he doesn' t need them, he can't win power without getting most votes.
That's probably going to be the case, but there could be a very small window where he gets a minority govt but less votes than the Tories
I don't know if it's a Corbyn
I think that we are seeing a certain
Calling Unified National Swing dead is probably premature. It is a surprisingly good overall indicator.
At the moment, there is a slight bias in favour of the Conservatives, in the system. If the two parties finish level-pegging, the Conservatives should be about 20 seats ahead of Labour (although, that would not be a large enough lead to govern). The Conservative vote is a bit more efficiently distributed than Labour's. Only Christchurch has a Conservative vote share of 70%, whereas 33 Labour seats have vote shares higher than 70%.
From 1997 to 2010, there was a huge bias in favour of Labour, reaching a peak in 2001. Labour would have been 110 seats ahead of the Conservatives, even if both parties had been level-pegging. Blair's real success was in getting votes where they mattered, rather than in winning a particularly big overall vote.
In places like Harborough, and other rural seats, Labour has basically regained the vote it had in the Fifties and Sixties, before they began voting tactically for Liberals.
Harborough is an interesting example, and one I know well.
If we look at the 2017 election there was a 7.92% swing to Lab, up 15.4%, while the LDs dropped a little over a percent, most of the swing came from UKIP who dropped from 14.4% to 2.5%. How much of this was a direct switch and how much churn is uncertain.
If it were just Remaniacs then why go Corbyn rather than LD? The LDs are strong at the Oadby and Wigston end, controlling the council since 1991. The rest of the constituency is the posh villages and increasingly London commuter town of Market Harborough.
Harborough is not unique, and clearly Corbynism is not the anathema in shire England that some on PB opine.
Even in shire England there are plenty of public sector workers, house renters and students.
At the next election coverage time allocated by the Broadcasters to the LibDems and UKIP will surely be much more limited than in recent years on account of their poor performance in terms of seat and votes at the General Elections of 2015 & 2017. Entitlement to PPBs will be restricted. Any new party would be hamstrung in the same way - unless it manages to achieve by election victories or very high poll ratings over an extended period.
I really don't think that PPBs matter that much these days. They have been sidelined in terms of prominence within the broadcast schedule and, of course, the way we consume television has radically shifted with the growth of on demand services.
There would be massive media interest in a new party created as a split from Labour under these circumstances. I think they could survive not having equal number of PPBs.
Its clearly the publics fault they don't buy more copies of the Guardian, Mirror and Indy (when it was still in print). Also, the FT have regularly backed Labour and the Times have to in modern era.
Also the Mirror Group now own the Express and Star.
Left wing opinion / news through that filter is freely available to purchase every day, it just isn't that popular with the paying public. Is more popular with non-payers.
He has a point. If the system isn't rigged, how do you explain him being given a huge platform by it?
At the next election coverage time allocated by the Broadcasters to the LibDems and UKIP will surely be much more limited than in recent years on account of their poor performance in terms of seat and votes at the General Elections of 2015 & 2017. Entitlement to PPBs will be restricted. Any new party would be hamstrung in the same way - unless it manages to achieve by election victories or very high poll ratings over an extended period.
I really don't think that PPBs matter that much these days. They have been sidelined in terms of prominence within the broadcast schedule and, of course, the way we consume television has radically shifted with the growth of on demand services.
There would be massive media interest in a new party created as a split from Labour under these circumstances. I think they could survive not having equal number of PPBs.
I don't know the last time I watched live tv that wasn't sport.
Ms. Apocalypse, worth noting that centrism might be popular but we cannot divorce political parties and individuals from their baggage. Trying to assess something like 'centrism' objectively can't be done because it has to be funnelled through politicians and parties, and people have pre-determined views on such things. Political philosophy doesn't exist in a pure vacuum, it's tainted and coloured by contact with actual politics.
At the next election coverage time allocated by the Broadcasters to the LibDems and UKIP will surely be much more limited than in recent years on account of their poor performance in terms of seat and votes at the General Elections of 2015 & 2017. Entitlement to PPBs will be restricted. Any new party would be hamstrung in the same way - unless it manages to achieve by election victories or very high poll ratings over an extended period.
I really don't think that PPBs matter that much these days. They have been sidelined in terms of prominence within the broadcast schedule and, of course, the way we consume television has radically shifted with the growth of on demand services.
There would be massive media interest in a new party created as a split from Labour under these circumstances. I think they could survive not having equal number of PPBs.
I don't know the last time I watched live tv that wasn't sport.
I tend to watch the final of cookery competitions live - as I don't then have to avoid spoilers. So not that different to live sport.
Its clearly the publics fault they don't buy more copies of the Guardian, Mirror and Indy (when it was still in print). Also, the FT have regularly backed Labour and the Times have to in modern era.
Also the Mirror Group now own the Express and Star.
Left wing opinion / news through that filter is freely available to purchase every day, it just isn't that popular with the paying public. Is more popular with non-payers. Its not Rupert Murdoch's fault the likes of the Guardian haven't found a way of making their product profitable.
As I think Iain Martin retorted to Jones: your generation doesn't buy any newspapers.
They thrive on the criticism that would end the career of a normal politician because their offer and attraction is based on them not being a normal politician.
The wackier they are, the stronger they get.
With their base maybe.
That would be a mistake if the go
The way Corbyn stacks up votes where he doesn' t need them, he can't win power without getting most votes.
That's probably going to be the case, but there could be a very small window where he gets a minority govt but less votes than the Tories
I don't know if it's a Corbyn
I think that we are seeing a certain
Calling Unified National Swing dead is probably premature. It is a surprisingly good overall indicator.
In places like Harborough, and other rural seats, Labour has basically regained the vote it had in the Fifties and Sixties, before they began voting tactically for Liberals.
Harborough is an interesting example, and one I know well.
If we look at the 2017 election there was a 7.92% swing to Lab, up 15.4%, while the LDs dropped a little over a percent, most of the swing came from UKIP who dropped from 14.4% to 2.5%. How much of this was a direct switch and how much churn is uncertain.
If it were just Remaniacs then why go Corbyn rather than LD? The LDs are strong at the Oadby and Wigston end, controlling the council since 1991. The rest of the constituency is the posh villages and increasingly London commuter town of Market Harborough.
Harborough is not unique, and clearly Corbynism is not the anathema in shire England that some on PB opine.
Even in shire England there are plenty of public sector workers, house renters and students.
More than 2015?
I think like other PB Tories the attraction of Jezza is incomprehensible to you. Nonetheless he clearly has mass appeal. I understand some of it, and even like it in parts while other bits are quite unsavory.
Anti Tory voters chose Corbyn over the other possibilities in Harborough. Maybe Centrism isn't as popular as some would have, at least at present.
F1: backed Raikkonen for pole at 5.5, each way (third the odds, top 2). It's likely a three horse race. Red Bull off the pace and Bottas set up for overtaking as he starts from the back. Raikkonen has a strong record at Spa.
Its clearly the publics fault they don't buy more copies of the Guardian, Mirror and Indy (when it was still in print). Also, the FT have regularly backed Labour and the Times have to in modern era.
Also the Mirror Group now own the Express and Star.
Left wing opinion / news through that filter is freely available to purchase every day, it just isn't that popular with the paying public. Is more popular with non-payers. Its not Rupert Murdoch's fault the likes of the Guardian haven't found a way of making their product profitable.
As I think Iain Martin retorted to Jones: your generation doesn't buy any newspapers.
No they get it from reddit and twitter.
Reddit I get even less than twitter, but it is mega popular, especially with the yuff.
But all of Jones' problems with be solved when we have JezBook and JezFlix.
On topic, to break FPTP you need a support base that is geographically concentrated - as was early Labour's - or to achieve a dominant share of the vote - as did the SNP within Scotland.
The SDP's problem was always that it's appeal was broad rather than deep, and insofar as there was any concentration (being perjorative, in areas with lots of Waitrose shoppers), these tended to be seats already hard fought between active branches of the two main parties (like York, Cambridge, Oxford and north London).
The changing demographics of the country and the greater age/education basis of leave/Remain might offer somewhat more concentration today (although you could argue to what extent 'remain' is the right and sustainable long-term base for a new party?), but the biggest difference would be that it zooms in on mostly safe Labour seats, rather than marginals as before. The new party would therefore be head-to-head with Labour from the outset and would need to shatter its base in places like north London and university towns in order to secure at least a beachhead.
With respect, I think that's adopting all the mistakes the Lib Dems made - eschewing broad appeal in favour of limited targets, which is a dead-end street.
The SDP adventure has now entirely played itself out. It was an play in three acts.
Prologue: The Liberals won 12 seats in 1979. Act I: SDP split and 1980s - wide support but insufficient to break through in a big way. 20+ seats. Act II: 1990s, 2000s. Acceptance of third-party status; concentration on winning targets and letting support elsewhere decay, except for ad hoc tactical opportunities. Increase to 60+ seats. Act III: 2010s. The ultimately inevitable hung parliament exposed the strategic and tactical contradictions of the previous plan and brought support crashing down. Epoilogue: The Lib Dems won 12 seats in 2017.
For any new breakaway to work, they *have* to aspire to rise above third-party status and should aim to win *at least* 200 seats - or, realistically, 35%+ of the vote, which would bring those gains automatically.
That is possible, in my opinion. As I said in the article, the SDP consistently polled 40%+ in 1981/2 and politics is less tribal and more retail now than it was then. Against an internally split and drifting Tory party, and an extreme Labour, I could see an SDP2 doing at least that well initially. Whether they could sustain that would depend on the political skills of their leadership.
Interestingly legalization in California has led to a massive rise in the illegal market, including the Mexican cartels sending people to grow there (rather than in Mexico).
It is a double whammy of not having to adhere to all the red tape / pay taxes, with the fact that getting caught growing illegal is now only a minor criminal offensive.
At the next election coverage time allocated by the Broadcasters to the LibDems and UKIP will surely be much more limited than in recent years on account of their poor performance in terms of seat and votes at the General Elections of 2015 & 2017. Entitlement to PPBs will be restricted. Any new party would be hamstrung in the same way - unless it manages to achieve by election victories or very high poll ratings over an extended period.
I really don't think that PPBs matter that much these days. They have been sidelined in terms of prominence within the broadcast schedule and, of course, the way we consume television has radically shifted with the growth of on demand services.
There would be massive media interest in a new party created as a split from Labour under these circumstances. I think they could survive not having equal number of PPBs.
The media might be interested but the Broadcasters would be strictly limited in terms of the coverage given during the campaign itself.
At the next election coverage time allocated by the Broadcasters to the LibDems and UKIP will surely be much more limited than in recent years on account of their poor performance in terms of seat and votes at the General Elections of 2015 & 2017. Entitlement to PPBs will be restricted. Any new party would be hamstrung in the same way - unless it manages to achieve by election victories or very high poll ratings over an extended period.
I really don't think that PPBs matter that much these days. They have been sidelined in terms of prominence within the broadcast schedule and, of course, the way we consume television has radically shifted with the growth of on demand services.
There would be massive media interest in a new party created as a split from Labour under these circumstances. I think they could survive not having equal number of PPBs.
I don't know the last time I watched live tv that wasn't sport.
You didn't tune into the Royal Wedding? Shame on you, sir.
At the next election coverage time allocated by the Broadcasters to the LibDems and UKIP will surely be much more limited than in recent years on account of their poor performance in terms of seat and votes at the General Elections of 2015 & 2017. Entitlement to PPBs will be restricted. Any new party would be hamstrung in the same way - unless it manages to achieve by election victories or very high poll ratings over an extended period.
I really don't think that PPBs matter that much these days. They have been sidelined in terms of prominence within the broadcast schedule and, of course, the way we consume television has radically shifted with the growth of on demand services.
There would be massive media interest in a new party created as a split from Labour under these circumstances. I think they could survive not having equal number of PPBs.
The media might be interested but the Broadcasters would be strictly limited in terms of the coverage given during the campaign itself.
But how many voters really pay attention to what the broadcasters are doing these days?
Also re the last thread, given how much support Corbyn has among the membership, I don’t think you can call his grouping ‘fringe’ within the Labour Party.
Indeed. Leaving aside the less pleasant parts of Corbyn's tenure most of his proposed progamme seems to be heightened versions of what they have had before and clearly has mass support of the membership to boot - Corbyn himself is not all there is to Labour, but Corbynism is clearly the majority position of the party and that will be the case even if he is not leader.
Notably his final comment shows he either didn't understand her point or is deliberately misrepresenting as a suggestion he shouldn't comment on the media, when it seems more about how he is not a journalist, which presumably isn't in dispute, commenting about journalism as though he is one. He's a commentator and pundit, a media figure, but no journalist, that shouldn't upset him.
I'd say we have reached the point where Jones should pack in opinion writing and stand as an actual candidate.
I doubt he wants that - he wants to be have influence in the movement of the Left, and be cool within that movement, which would be far nicer than the grubby world of political candidacy.
The pro Euro Conservatives failed as the number of Tories who wanted to support joining the Euro was barely an asterisk.
The Reform Party, the SDP and the SNP succeeded in getting a quarter of the votes or more as the number of Canadians who wanted a social conservative party, the number of Britains who wanted a centrist alternative to Thatcher's Tories and Foot's Labour Party and the number of Scots who supported independence was significantly more.
If a new centrist party were to gain significant support it would likely need to be launched after Brexit and we had left the EEA and after the next general election with Corbynism still holding the leadership of the Labour Party so there was real scope for an alternative and with a new charismatic leader as Macron was with En Marche e.g. Umunna
At the next election coverage time allocated by the Broadcasters to the LibDems and UKIP will surely be much more limited than in recent years on account of their poor performance in terms of seat and votes at the General Elections of 2015 & 2017. Entitlement to PPBs will be restricted. Any new party would be hamstrung in the same way - unless it manages to achieve by election victories or very high poll ratings over an extended period.
I really don't think that PPBs matter that much these days. They have been sidelined in terms of prominence within the broadcast schedule and, of course, the way we consume television has radically shifted with the growth of on demand services.
There would be massive media interest in a new party created as a split from Labour under these circumstances. I think they could survive not having equal number of PPBs.
I don't know the last time I watched live tv that wasn't sport.
You didn't tune into the Royal Wedding? Shame on you, sir.
But I am much the same.
Does being at a street party, where I was distracted by the homemade scones and large G&T's on offer during most of the ceremony count?
The DUP made a big mistake hitching their star to Brexit IMO. Brexit exposes that few in GB care about their people. Brexiteers are perfectly happy to throw the DUP under a £350 million a week for the NHS bus if it means a break with the EU. I suppose the DUP found the prospect of a hard border with Ireland just too attractive to resist.
No Deal isn't a viable end state. As we will be an EU rule taker with loads of extra bureaucracy under any realistic Brexit scenario, we might as well go full vassal state and the NI border problem goes away.
I know that "middle class" is a term of abuse for many people, but It always struck me that Owen Jones is very middle class indeed.
He is. Anyone who has two Oxford degrees and does all that media work has lost any right to be considered as working class.
Does he say he is working class (I have no idea). If he thinks he can authentically speak for the aspirations of the working class (and in a better way than the proles no doubt) then that's fine, so long as he doesn't think he is one.
But then it is hardly a unique observation that for all the importance we ascribe to it class is more flexible than we tend to think, at the very least in how people perceive themselves. I grew up poor but was I working class? Probably not.
At the next election coverage time allocated by the Broadcasters to the LibDems and UKIP will surely be much more limited than in recent years on account of their poor performance in terms of seat and votes at the General Elections of 2015 & 2017. Entitlement to PPBs will be restricted. Any new party would be hamstrung in the same way - unless it manages to achieve by election victories or very high poll ratings over an extended period.
I really don't think that PPBs matter that much these days. They have been sidelined in terms of prominence within the broadcast schedule and, of course, the way we consume television has radically shifted with the growth of on demand services.
There would be massive media interest in a new party created as a split from Labour under these circumstances. I think they could survive not having equal number of PPBs.
I don't know the last time I watched live tv that wasn't sport.
You didn't tune into the Royal Wedding? Shame on you, sir.
But I am much the same.
Does being at a street party, where I was distracted by the homemade scones and large G&T's on offer during most of the ceremony count?
It gives you extra Citizen points for going one better than merely watching it.
I agree with Foxy that there’s not much interest in centrism. Not just because of how the LDs are doing, but that those who spend half their time talking about a new centrist party is needed within the media and politics would have set one up by now if there was. Instead I think the new opening in politics is for a hang em and flog em anti immigration party who are sceptical of the current economic settlement.
'Centrism' is meaningless. The electorate votes for the party with the 'best' overall offer. It's political anoraks who label governments 'left' and 'right'. Look at the tax rates during Maggie's term of office. They'd do any left of centre government proud.
What, for example, would Yvette Cooper or Chukka Ummuna do for us? How would they make our lives better?
The top income tax rate under Thatcher fell from 83% to 40% (lower than the 45% now) and the basic rate to 30%
Notably his final comment shows he either didn't understand her point or is deliberately misrepresenting as a suggestion he shouldn't comment on the media, when it seems more about how he is not a journalist, which presumably isn't in dispute, commenting about journalism as though he is one. He's a commentator and pundit, a media figure, but no journalist, that shouldn't upset him.
Notably his final comment shows he either didn't understand her point or is deliberately misrepresenting as a suggestion he shouldn't comment on the media, when it seems more about how he is not a journalist, which presumably isn't in dispute, commenting about journalism as though he is one. He's a commentator and pundit, a media figure, but no journalist, that shouldn't upset him.
In that case he should call himself a journalist (opinion) not a journalist (news reporting) - unless he did both - so he cannot be accused of being misleading about his job.
Banning it certainly didn't stop this individual from taking it, but taxing and regulating it would help take the more potent strains of "super skunk" off the market while providing much needed revenue which could be allocated to NHS services for psychiatric care and treatment of addiction.
I agree with Foxy that there’s not much interest in centrism. Not just because of how the LDs are doing, but that those who spend half their time talking about a new centrist party is needed within the media and politics would have set one up by now if there was. Instead I think the new opening in politics is for a hang em and flog em anti immigration party who are sceptical of the current economic settlement.
'Centrism' is meaningless. The electorate votes for the party with the 'best' overall offer. It's political anoraks who label governments 'left' and 'right'. Look at the tax rates during Maggie's term of office. They'd do any left of centre government proud.
What, for example, would Yvette Cooper or Chukka Ummuna do for us? How would they make our lives better?
The top income tax rate under Thatcher fell from 83% to 40% (lower than the 45% now) and the basic rate to 30%
I was 19 when Maggie came to power. I'm pretty familiar with her legislative program, and stand by my comment.
At the next election coverage time allocated by the Broadcasters to the LibDems and UKIP will surely be much more limited than in recent years on account of their poor performance in terms of seat and votes at the General Elections of 2015 & 2017. Entitlement to PPBs will be restricted. Any new party would be hamstrung in the same way - unless it manages to achieve by election victories or very high poll ratings over an extended period.
I really don't think that PPBs matter that much these days. They have been sidelined in terms of prominence within the broadcast schedule and, of course, the way we consume television has radically shifted with the growth of on demand services.
There would be massive media interest in a new party created as a split from Labour under these circumstances. I think they could survive not having equal number of PPBs.
The media might be interested but the Broadcasters would be strictly limited in terms of the coverage given during the campaign itself.
But how many voters really pay attention to what the broadcasters are doing these days?
I agree with Foxy that there’s not much interest in centrism. Not just because of how the LDs are doing, but that those who spend half their time talking about a new centrist party is needed within the media and politics would have set one up by now if there was. Instead I think the new opening in politics is for a hang em and flog em anti immigration party who are sceptical of the current economic settlement.
'Centrism' is meaningless. The electorate votes for the party with the 'best' overall offer. It's political anoraks who label governments 'left' and 'right'. Look at the tax rates during Maggie's term of office. They'd do any left of centre government proud.
What, for example, would Yvette Cooper or Chukka Ummuna do for us? How would they make our lives better?
The top income tax rate under Thatcher fell from 83% to 40% (lower than the 45% now) and the basic rate to 30%
Lawson reduced income tax to 25% in the late 1980s.
At the next election coverage time allocated by the Broadcasters to the LibDems and UKIP will surely be much more limited than in recent years on account of their poor performance in terms of seat and votes at the General Elections of 2015 & 2017. Entitlement to PPBs will be restricted. Any new party would be hamstrung in the same way - unless it manages to achieve by election victories or very high poll ratings over an extended period.
I really don't think that PPBs matter that much these days. They have been sidelined in terms of prominence within the broadcast schedule and, of course, the way we consume television has radically shifted with the growth of on demand services.
There would be massive media interest in a new party created as a split from Labour under these circumstances. I think they could survive not having equal number of PPBs.
The media might be interested but the Broadcasters would be strictly limited in terms of the coverage given during the campaign itself.
But how many voters really pay attention to what the broadcasters are doing these days?
Mainstream TV is no longer the force it once was.
Indeed so - but that is also true of the press!
It will come down to who has the better press operation - in terms of digital engagement.
And one thing that has become very clear in recent weeks is that Corbyn's current press team is woeful.
Banning it certainly didn't stop this individual from taking it, but taxing and regulating it would help take the more potent strains of "super skunk" off the market while providing much needed revenue which could be allocated to NHS services for psychiatric care and treatment of addiction.
I have seen too many lives ruined by Cannabis psychosis to favour legalisation. Portugal style decriminalisation and compulsory treatment may well be a better way.
Notably his final comment shows he either didn't understand her point or is deliberately misrepresenting as a suggestion he shouldn't comment on the media, when it seems more about how he is not a journalist, which presumably isn't in dispute, commenting about journalism as though he is one. He's a commentator and pundit, a media figure, but no journalist, that shouldn't upset him.
In that case he should call himself a journalist (opinion) not a journalist (news reporting) - unless he did both - so he cannot be accused of being misleading about his job.
Or he could expand his skillset.
He should call himself a writer imho. He writes opinion pieces and books for a living.
I agree with Foxy that there’s not much interest in centrism. Not just because of how the LDs are doing, but that those who spend half their time talking about a new centrist party is needed within the media and politics would have set one up by now if there was. Instead I think the new opening in politics is for a hang em and flog em anti immigration party who are sceptical of the current economic settlement.
'Centrism' is meaningless. The electorate votes for the party with the 'best' overall offer. It's political anoraks who label governments 'left' and 'right'. Look at the tax rates during Maggie's term of office. They'd do any left of centre government proud.
What, for example, would Yvette Cooper or Chukka Ummuna do for us? How would they make our lives better?
The top income tax rate under Thatcher fell from 83% to 40% (lower than the 45% now) and the basic rate to 30%
Lawson reduced income tax to 25% in the late 1980s.
Notably his final comment shows he either didn't understand her point or is deliberately misrepresenting as a suggestion he shouldn't comment on the media, when it seems more about how he is not a journalist, which presumably isn't in dispute, commenting about journalism as though he is one. He's a commentator and pundit, a media figure, but no journalist, that shouldn't upset him.
In that case he should call himself a journalist (opinion) not a journalist (news reporting) - unless he did both - so he cannot be accused of being misleading about his job.
Or he could expand his skillset.
Indeed. He could retrain as a journalist. All he has to learn about is talking to other people, gathering evidence, discerning facts from them, and presenting them in an intelligible ways. It'll take time, but he'd get there.
At the next election coverage time allocated by the Broadcasters to the LibDems and UKIP will surely be much more limited than in recent years on account of their poor performance in terms of seat and votes at the General Elections of 2015 & 2017. Entitlement to PPBs will be restricted. Any new party would be hamstrung in the same way - unless it manages to achieve by election victories or very high poll ratings over an extended period.
I really don't think that PPBs matter that much these days. They have been sidelined in terms of prominence within the broadcast schedule and, of course, the way we consume television has radically shifted with the growth of on demand services.
There would be massive media interest in a new party created as a split from Labour under these circumstances. I think they could survive not having equal number of PPBs.
The media might be interested but the Broadcasters would be strictly limited in terms of the coverage given during the campaign itself.
But how many voters really pay attention to what the broadcasters are doing these days?
Mainstream TV is no longer the force it once was.
Indeed so - but that is also true of the press!
It will come down to who has the better press operation - in terms of digital engagement.
And one thing that has become very clear in recent weeks is that Corbyn's current press team is woeful.
Maybe so - but that point was made many times prior to the 2017 election campaign.
I agree with Foxy that there’s not much interest in centrism. Not just because of how the LDs are doing, but that those who spend half their time talking about a new centrist party is needed within the media and politics would have set one up by now if there was. Instead I think the new opening in politics is for a hang em and flog em anti immigration party who are sceptical of the current economic settlement.
'Centrism' is meaningless. The electorate votes for the party with the 'best' overall offer. It's political anoraks who label governments 'left' and 'right'. Look at the tax rates during Maggie's term of office. They'd do any left of centre government proud.
What, for example, would Yvette Cooper or Chukka Ummuna do for us? How would they make our lives better?
The top income tax rate under Thatcher fell from 83% to 40% (lower than the 45% now) and the basic rate to 30%
Lawson reduced income tax to 25% in the late 1980s.
VAT rose from 8 to 17.5 per cent. Perhaps the real Thatcherite miracle was persuading us that VAT is not a tax. Under Cameron and Osborne, VAT rose again.
I agree with Foxy that there’s not much interest in centrism. Not just because of how the LDs are doing, but that those who spend half their time talking about a new centrist party is needed within the media and politics would have set one up by now if there was. Instead I think the new opening in politics is for a hang em and flog em anti immigration party who are sceptical of the current economic settlement.
'Centrism' is meaningless. The electorate votes for the party with the 'best' overall offer. It's political anoraks who label governments 'left' and 'right'. Look at the tax rates during Maggie's term of office. They'd do any left of centre government proud.
What, for example, would Yvette Cooper or Chukka Ummuna do for us? How would they make our lives better?
The top income tax rate under Thatcher fell from 83% to 40% (lower than the 45% now) and the basic rate to 30%
I was 19 when Maggie came to power. I'm pretty familiar with her legislative program, and stand by my comment.
When Thatcher came into office we were a Union dominated, high taxed economy with our utilities, national telephone and air companies all nationalised. By the time she left office we had much weaker Unions, a relatively low tax economy and most utilities, BT and BA were privatised. The fact she did not do it all in 1980 does not make her government a left-wing one, in terms of the direction it shifted the country in it was the most right wing and economically liberal since WW2
The DUP made a big mistake hitching their star to Brexit IMO. Brexit exposes that few in GB care about their people. Brexiteers are perfectly happy to throw the DUP under a £350 million a week for the NHS bus if it means a break with the EU. I suppose the DUP found the prospect of a hard border with Ireland just too attractive to resist.
No Deal isn't a viable end state. As we will be an EU rule taker with loads of extra bureaucracy under any realistic Brexit scenario, we might as well go full vassal state and the NI border problem goes away.
Most NI Protestants voted Leave and the likely end state of staying in the single market for goods largely resolves the Irish border issue
On topic, there are several ways to leave your party:
- Join another party - Set up a new party - Become an independent / non party member
What is happening among sectors of the membership is the third option - membership has fallen in my CLP over the past year, for example. This is also the option of choice for a couple of ad-hoc MPs , but does not give them a parliamentary future.
I can't see a mass Labxit amongst our MPs. Unless they are deselected they stand a much greater chance of keeping their seats as Labour candidates, and in a future scenario of a minority Labour government they will have a lot of clout in deciding what to support and what to rebel against.
For me, whether our next leader is John McDonnell, Chuka or anyone in between, I'll still be a member.
The way Corbyn stacks up votes where he doesn' t need them, he can't win power without getting most votes.
That's probably going to be the case, but there could be a very small window where he gets a minority govt but less votes than the Tories
I don't know if it's a Corbyn
I think that we are seeing a certain
Calling Unified National Swing dead is probably premature. It is a surprisingly good overall indicator.
In places like Harborough, and other rural seats, Labour has basically regained the vote it had in the Fifties and Sixties, before they began voting tactically for Liberals.
Harborough is an interesting example, and one I know well.
If we look at the 2017 election there was a 7.92% swing to Lab, up 15.4%, while the LDs dropped a little over a percent, most of the swing came from UKIP who dropped from 14.4% to 2.5%. How much of this was a direct switch and how much churn is uncertain.
If it were just Remaniacs then why go Corbyn rather than LD? The LDs are strong at the Oadby and Wigston end, controlling the council since 1991. The rest of the constituency is the posh villages and increasingly London commuter town of Market Harborough.
Harborough is not unique, and clearly Corbynism is not the anathema in shire England that some on PB opine.
Even in shire England there are plenty of public sector workers, house renters and students.
More than 2015?
I think like other PB Tories the attraction of Jezza is incomprehensible to you. Nonetheless he clearly has mass appeal. I understand some of it, and even like it in parts while other bits are quite unsavory.
Anti Tory voters chose Corbyn over the other possibilities in Harborough. Maybe Centrism isn't as popular as some would have, at least at present.
Who are you calling a PB Tory ?
And yes Labour did have much more attraction to public sector workers, house renters and students in 2017 than in 2015.
For example I don't recall Labour promising to get rid of student fees in 2015.
There is though an anti-capitalism vote that Corbyn was also able to harness - which in 2015 would have voted Green or TUSC or not voted at all - based upon those people who seem to want to nationalise everything.
The tolerance show by successive governments to corporate misconduct has certainly increased the number of these voters.
I agree with Foxy that there’s not much interest in centrism. Not just because of how the LDs are doing, but that those who spend half their time talking about a new centrist party is needed within the media and politics would have set one up by now if there was. Instead I think the new opening in politics is for a hang em and flog em anti immigration party who are sceptical of the current economic settlement.
'Centrism' is meaningless. The electorate votes for the party with the 'best' overall offer. It's political anoraks who label governments 'left' and 'right'. Look at the tax rates during Maggie's term of office. They'd do any left of centre government proud.
What, for example, would Yvette Cooper or Chukka Ummuna do for us? How would they make our lives better?
The top income tax rate under Thatcher fell from 83% to 40% (lower than the 45% now) and the basic rate to 30%
Lawson reduced income tax to 25% in the late 1980s.
VAT rose from 8 to 17.5 per cent. Perhaps the real Thatcherite miracle was persuading us that VAT is not a tax. Under Cameron and Osborne, VAT rose again.
Party of the wealthy increase regressive taxation. What else would one expect?
I agree with Foxy that there’s not much interest in centrism. Not just because of how the LDs are doing, but that those who spend half their time talking about a new centrist party is needed within the media and politics would have set one up by now if there was. Instead I think the new opening in politics is for a hang em and flog em anti immigration party who are sceptical of the current economic settlement.
'Centrism' is meaningless. The electorate votes for the party with the 'best' overall offer. It's political anoraks who label governments 'left' and 'right'. Look at the tax rates during Maggie's term of office. They'd do any left of centre government proud.
What, for example, would Yvette Cooper or Chukka Ummuna do for us? How would they make our lives better?
The top income tax rate under Thatcher fell from 83% to 40% (lower than the 45% now) and the basic rate to 30%
Lawson reduced income tax to 25% in the late 1980s.
VAT rose from 8 to 17.5 per cent. Perhaps the real Thatcherite miracle was persuading us that VAT is not a tax. Under Cameron and Osborne, VAT rose again.
Taxing wealth consumption rather than work is a good thing.
The way Corbyn stacks up votes where he doesn' t need them, he can't win power without getting most votes.
That's probably going to be the case, but there could be a very small window where he gets a minority govt but less votes than the Tories
I don't know if it's a Corbyn
I think that we are seeing a certain
Calling Unified National Swing dead is probably premature. It is a surprisingly good overall indicator.
In places like Harborough, and other rural seats, Labour has basically regained the vote it had in the Fifties and Sixties, before they began voting tactically for Liberals.
Harborough is an interesting example, and one I know well.
Harborough is not unique, and clearly Corbynism is not the anathema in shire England that some on PB opine.
Even in shire England there are plenty of public sector workers, house renters and students.
More than 2015?
I think like other PB Tories the attraction of Jezza is incomprehensible to you. Nonetheless he clearly has mass appeal. I understand some of it, and even like it in parts while other bits are quite unsavory.
Anti Tory voters chose Corbyn over the other possibilities in Harborough. Maybe Centrism isn't as popular as some would have, at least at present.
Who are you calling a PB Tory ?
And yes Labour did have much more attraction to public sector workers, house renters and students in 2017 than in 2015.
For example I don't recall Labour promising to get rid of student fees in 2015.
There is though an anti-capitalism vote that Corbyn was also able to harness - which in 2015 would have voted Green or TUSC or not voted at all - based upon those people who seem to want to nationalise everything.
The tolerance show by successive governments to corporate misconduct has certainly increased the number of these voters.
Corbyn's position on student fees is laughable. He couldn't articulate a consistent position. And there was no viable financial plan to pay for any version of what he was proposing.
Yes, it is very easy to make big promises. It is far harder to actually deliver on them when you don't have any money.
I agree with Foxy that there’s not much interest in centrism. Not just because of how the LDs are doing, but that those who spend half their time talking about a new centrist party is needed within the media and politics would have set one up by now if there was. Instead I think the new opening in politics is for a hang em and flog em anti immigration party who are sceptical of the current economic settlement.
'Centrism' is meaningless. The electorate votes for the party with the 'best' overall offer. It's political anoraks who label governments 'left' and 'right'. Look at the tax rates during Maggie's term of office. They'd do any left of centre government proud.
What, for example, would Yvette Cooper or Chukka Ummuna do for us? How would they make our lives better?
The top income tax rate under Thatcher fell from 83% to 40% (lower than the 45% now) and the basic rate to 30%
I was 19 when Maggie came to power. I'm pretty familiar with her legislative program, and stand by my comment.
When Thatcher came into office we were a Union dominated, high taxed economy with our utilities, national telephone and air companies all nationalised. By the time she left office we had much weaker Unions, a relatively low tax economy and most utilities, BT and BA were privatised. The fact she did not do it all in 1980 does not make her government a left-wing one, in terms of the direction it shifted the country in it was the most right wing and economically liberal since WW2
Another Thatcher tax myth? By doubling VAT (technically 8% to 15% means the Tories were not actually lying when denying they planned to double VAT) Mrs Thatcher's government increased the tax take, even after income tax reductions.
I agree with Foxy that there’s not much interest in centrism. Not just because of how the LDs are doing, but that those who spend half their time talking about a new centrist party is needed within the media and politics would have set one up by now if there was. Instead I think the new opening in politics is for a hang em and flog em anti immigration party who are sceptical of the current economic settlement.
'Centrism' is meaningless. The electorate votes for the party with the 'best' overall offer. It's political anoraks who label governments 'left' and 'right'. Look at the tax rates during Maggie's term of office. They'd do any left of centre government proud.
What, for example, would Yvette Cooper or Chukka Ummuna do for us? How would they make our lives better?
The top income tax rate under Thatcher fell from 83% to 40% (lower than the 45% now) and the basic rate to 30%
I was 19 when Maggie came to power. I'm pretty familiar with her legislative program, and stand by my comment.
When Thatcher came into office we were a Union dominated, high taxed economy with our utilities, national telephone and air companies all nationalised. By the time she left office we had much weaker Unions, a relatively low tax economy and most utilities, BT and BA were privatised. The fact she did not do it all in 1980 does not make her government a left-wing one, in terms of the direction it shifted the country in it was the most right wing and economically liberal since WW2
Another Thatcher tax myth? By doubling VAT (technically 8% to 15% means the Tories were not actually lying when denying they planned to double VAT) Mrs Thatcher's government increased the tax take, even after income tax reductions.
Rubbish. The top income tax rate fell 43% under Thatcher, the fact VAT rose 7% ie less than double does not change the fact tax fell overall and of course she cut corporation tax too from 52% to 35% and Lawson cut Stamp Duty as well as Thatcher's Chancellor
The DUP made a big mistake hitching their star to Brexit IMO. Brexit exposes that few in GB care about their people. Brexiteers are perfectly happy to throw the DUP under a £350 million a week for the NHS bus if it means a break with the EU. I suppose the DUP found the prospect of a hard border with Ireland just too attractive to resist.
No Deal isn't a viable end state. As we will be an EU rule taker with loads of extra bureaucracy under any realistic Brexit scenario, we might as well go full vassal state and the NI border problem goes away.
Most NI Protestants voted Leave and the likely end state of staying in the single market for goods largely resolves the Irish border issue
I agree with Foxy that there’s not much interest in centrism. Not just because of how the LDs are doing, but that those who spend half their time talking about a new centrist party is needed within the media and politics would have set one up by now if there was. Instead I think the new opening in politics is for a hang em and flog em anti immigration party who are sceptical of the current economic settlement.
'Centrism' is meaningless. The electorate votes for the party with the 'best' overall offer. It's political anoraks who label governments 'left' and 'right'. Look at the tax rates during Maggie's term of office. They'd do any left of centre government proud.
What, for example, would Yvette Cooper or Chukka Ummuna do for us? How would they make our lives better?
The top income tax rate under Thatcher fell from 83% to 40% (lower than the 45% now) and the basic rate to 30%
I was 19 when Maggie came to power. I'm pretty familiar with her legislative program, and stand by my comment.
When Thatcher came into office we were a Union dominated, high taxed economy with our utilities, national telephone and air companies all nationalised. By the time she left office we had much weaker Unions, a relatively low tax economy and most utilities, BT and BA were privatised. The fact she did not do it all in 1980 does not make her government a left-wing one, in terms of the direction it shifted the country in it was the most right wing and economically liberal since WW2
Another Thatcher tax myth? By doubling VAT (technically 8% to 15% means the Tories were not actually lying when denying they planned to double VAT) Mrs Thatcher's government increased the tax take, even after income tax reductions.
Rubbish. The top income tax rate fell 43% under Thatcher, the fact VAT rose 7% ie less than double does not change the fact tax fell overall and of course she cut corporation tax too from 52% to 35%
Tax take as a percentage of GDP rose to over 40 per cent and then fell to a level still higher than inherited from Labour, or now.
The DUP made a big mistake hitching their star to Brexit IMO. Brexit exposes that few in GB care about their people. Brexiteers are perfectly happy to throw the DUP under a £350 million a week for the NHS bus if it means a break with the EU. I suppose the DUP found the prospect of a hard border with Ireland just too attractive to resist.
No Deal isn't a viable end state. As we will be an EU rule taker with loads of extra bureaucracy under any realistic Brexit scenario, we might as well go full vassal state and the NI border problem goes away.
Most NI Protestants voted Leave and the likely end state of staying in the single market for goods largely resolves the Irish border issue
"Largely" resolving it isn't sufficient.
It is though of course ideologically you will diss any attempt at a compromise as your agenda is solely to reverse Brexit
I agree with Foxy that there’s not much interest in centrism. Not just because of how the LDs are doing, but that those who spend half their time talking about a new centrist party is needed within the media and politics would have set one up by now if there was. Instead I think the new opening in politics is for a hang em and flog em anti immigration party who are sceptical of the current economic settlement.
'Centrism' is meaningless. The electorate votes for the party with the 'best' overall offer. It's political anoraks who label governments 'left' and 'right'. Look at the tax rates during Maggie's term of office. They'd do any left of centre government proud.
What, for example, would Yvette Cooper or Chukka Ummuna do for us? How would they make our lives better?
The top income tax rate under Thatcher fell from 83% to 40% (lower than the 45% now) and the basic rate to 30%
Lawson reduced income tax to 25% in the late 1980s.
VAT rose from 8 to 17.5 per cent. Perhaps the real Thatcherite miracle was persuading us that VAT is not a tax. Under Cameron and Osborne, VAT rose again.
Indeed - the increase in VAT to 17.5% was under Major when Lamont was Chancellor.
I agree with Foxy that there’s not much interest in centrism. Not just because of how the LDs are doing, but that those who spend half their time talking about a new centrist party is needed within the media and politics would have set one up by now if there was. Instead I think the new opening in politics is for a hang em and flog em anti immigration party who are sceptical of the current economic settlement.
'Centrism' is meaningless. The electorate votes for the party with the 'best' overall offer. It's political anoraks who label governments 'left' and 'right'. Look at the tax rates during Maggie's term of office. They'd do any left of centre government proud.
What, for example, would Yvette Cooper or Chukka Ummuna do for us? How would they make our lives better?
The top income tax rate under Thatcher fell from 83% to 40% (lower than the 45% now) and the basic rate to 30%
I was 19 when Maggie came to power. I'm pretty familiar with her legislative program, and stand by my comment.
When Thatcher came into office we were a Union dominated, high taxed economy with our utilities, national telephone and air companies all nationalised. By the time she left office we had much weaker Unions, a relatively low tax economy and most utilities, BT and BA were privatised. The fact she did not do it all in 1980 does not make her government a left-wing one, in terms of the direction it shifted the country in it was the most right wing and economically liberal since WW2
Another Thatcher tax myth? By doubling VAT (technically 8% to 15% means the Tories were not actually lying when denying they planned to double VAT) Mrs Thatcher's government increased the tax take, even after income tax reductions.
Rubbish. The top income tax rate fell 43% under Thatcher, the fact VAT rose 7% ie less than double does not change the fact tax fell overall and of course she cut corporation tax too from 52% to 35%
Tax take as a percentage of GDP rose to over 40 per cent and then fell to a level still higher than inherited from Labour, or now.
The tax take by the time Thatcher left office in 1990 as a percentage of GDP was the lowest since 1960.
It was also higher when Brown left office in 2010 than it it was in 1990. Brown left a top income tax rate of 50% for starters, 10% higher than the 40% Thatcher left.
Spending as a percentage of GDP was also about 5% less when Thatcher left office than it is now
When Thatcher came into office we were a Union dominated, high taxed economy with our utilities, national telephone and air companies all nationalised. By the time she left office we had much weaker Unions, a relatively low tax economy and most utilities, BT and BA were privatised. The fact she did not do it all in 1980 does not make her government a left-wing one, in terms of the direction it shifted the country in it was the most right wing and economically liberal since WW2
Another Thatcher tax myth? By doubling VAT (technically 8% to 15% means the Tories were not actually lying when denying they planned to double VAT) Mrs Thatcher's government increased the tax take, even after income tax reductions.
Rubbish. The top income tax rate fell 43% under Thatcher, the fact VAT rose 7% ie less than double does not change the fact tax fell overall and of course she cut corporation tax too from 52% to 35%
Tax take as a percentage of GDP rose to over 40 per cent and then fell to a level still higher than inherited from Labour, or now.
The tax take by the time Thatcher left office in 1990 as a percentage of GDP was the lowest since 1960.
It was also higher when Brown left office in 2010 than it it was in 1990. Brown left a top income tax rate of 50% for starters, 10% higher than the 40% Thatcher left.
Spending as a percentage of GDP was also about 5% less when Thatcher left office than it is now
From your link, the numbers for tax take as a percentage of gdp would seem to be as follows, so perhaps we are looking at different graphs or tables:
1974 35.57 1975 35.87 1976 38.37 1977 38.85 1978 37.64 1979 35.65 1980 37.22 1981 40.27 1982 43.47 1983 43.32 1984 42.92 1985 41.87 1986 41.68 1987 39.66 1988 38.55 1989 38.42 1990 38.12 And never again to reach 40 per cent, not even at the height of the global financial crisis.
When Thatcher came into office we were a Union dominated, high taxed economy with our utilities, national telephone and air companies all nationalised. By the time she left office we had much weaker Unions, a relatively low tax economy and most utilities, BT and BA were privatised. The fact she did not do it all in 1980 does not make her government a left-wing one, in terms of the direction it shifted the country in it was the most right wing and economically liberal since WW2
Another Thatcher tax myth? By doubling VAT (technically 8% to 15% means the Tories were not actually lying when denying they planned to double VAT) Mrs Thatcher's government increased the tax take, even after income tax reductions.
Rubbish. The top income tax rate fell 43% under Thatcher, the fact VAT rose 7% ie less than double does not change the fact tax fell overall and of course she cut corporation tax too from 52% to 35%
Tax take as a percentage of GDP rose to over 40 per cent and then fell to a level still higher than inherited from Labour, or now.
The tax take by the time Thatcher left office in 1990 as a percentage of GDP was the lowest since 1960.
It was also higher when Brown left office in 2010 than it it was in 1990. Brown left a top income tax rate of 50% for starters, 10% higher than the 40% Thatcher left.
Spending as a percentage of GDP was also about 5% less when Thatcher left office than it is now
From your link, the numbers for tax take as a percentage of gdp would seem to be as follows, so perhaps we are looking at different graphs or tables:
1974 35.57 1975 35.87 1976 38.37 1977 38.85 1978 37.64 1979 35.65 1980 37.22 1981 40.27 1982 43.47 1983 43.32 1984 42.92 1985 41.87 1986 41.68 1987 39.66 1988 38.55 1989 38.42 1990 38.12 And never again to reach 40 per cent, not even at the height of the global financial crisis.
Thatcher was a fantastic _politician_. She sold refridgerators to Eskimoes. Something May should consider, and not just as part of her post-Brexit global Britain schtick.
The DUP made a big mistake hitching their star to Brexit IMO. Brexit exposes that few in GB care about their people. Brexiteers are perfectly happy to throw the DUP under a £350 million a week for the NHS bus if it means a break with the EU. I suppose the DUP found the prospect of a hard border with Ireland just too attractive to resist.
No Deal isn't a viable end state. As we will be an EU rule taker with loads of extra bureaucracy under any realistic Brexit scenario, we might as well go full vassal state and the NI border problem goes away.
Most NI Protestants voted Leave and the likely end state of staying in the single market for goods largely resolves the Irish border issue
SM for goods + CU would be a variation on the vassal state. Not the most likely end state IMO, but more probable than permanent No Deal.
Dublin gets screwed over in 2 out of 3 scenarios..
Option 1 means a GE surely?
Dublin gets screwed over.
The Irish backstop bluff needs to be called; there are far more noises that the EU is willing to bend on that. Varadkar has gone very quiet on it too.
The EU can tolerate no border longer than the UK can tolerate no deal. The UK's bluff will be called.
As I said the EU will accept the UK staying in the single market for goods and sharing a common rule book, that will also resolve the Irish border issue
How bizarre. When was this, and what's the context?
If memory serves, there were "border checks" during (the early days of?) the Troubles: not in the sense of roadside sheds with security guards and a raised barrier, but ad-hoc arrangements with the military and improvised fences. Happy to be corrected if wrong.
Parenthetically, JRM does have a point here. It is disingenuous (right word?) to desire border control and not admit that such a concept is meaningless without physical border control. I realise that many PBers think that border observation and deportation of the illegally entered equates to the same thing, but I disagree: if you can't stop entry, you're not controlling entry.
On topic, there are several ways to leave your party:
- Join another party - Set up a new party - Become an independent / non party member
What is happening among sectors of the membership is the third option - membership has fallen in my CLP over the past year, for example. This is also the option of choice for a couple of ad-hoc MPs , but does not give them a parliamentary future.
I can't see a mass Labxit amongst our MPs. Unless they are deselected they stand a much greater chance of keeping their seats as Labour candidates, and in a future scenario of a minority Labour government they will have a lot of clout in deciding what to support and what to rebel against.
For me, whether our next leader is John McDonnell, Chuka or anyone in between, I'll still be a member.
Deselection is the intersting one. Without it, Corbyn ends up with the same raft of MPs who no-confidenced him. How does he exercise power in that instance? He is in a Momentum-Real Labour coalition.
I agree with Foxy that there’s not much interest in centrism. Not just because of how the LDs are doing, but that those who spend half their time talking about a new centrist party is needed within the media and politics would have set one up by now if there was. Instead I think the new opening in politics is for a hang em and flog em anti immigration party who are sceptical of the current economic settlement.
'Centrism' is meaningless. The electorate votes for the party with the 'best' overall offer. It's political anoraks who label governments 'left' and 'right'. Look at the tax rates during Maggie's term of office. They'd do any left of centre government proud.
What, for example, would Yvette Cooper or Chukka Ummuna do for us? How would they make our lives better?
The top income tax rate under Thatcher fell from 83% to 40% (lower than the 45% now) and the basic rate to 30%
Lawson reduced income tax to 25% in the late 1980s.
VAT rose from 8 to 17.5 per cent. Perhaps the real Thatcherite miracle was persuading us that VAT is not a tax. Under Cameron and Osborne, VAT rose again.
Taxing wealth consumption rather than work is a good thing.
Yup. Many people spend wealth earned abroad in the UK, and no doubt Robert Smithson will be along later to explain that taxing consumption is a better way of increasing the savings rate than taxing income.
I know that "middle class" is a term of abuse for many people, but It always struck me that Owen Jones is very middle class indeed.
I don't know about him being middle class. But he is very middle order. Middling.
It baffles me that newspapers think that 'opinion' sells papers. Presumably it's cheaper to have (say) a Toynbee or AEP blather on rather than do proper journalism, but I only value news and analysis (the FT is my only subscription). I can get all the opinion I can stomach elsewhere.
Dublin gets screwed over in 2 out of 3 scenarios..
Option 1 means a GE surely?
Dublin gets screwed over.
The Irish backstop bluff needs to be called; there are far more noises that the EU is willing to bend on that. Varadkar has gone very quiet on it too.
The EU can tolerate no border longer than the UK can tolerate no deal. The UK's bluff will be called.
As I said the EU will accept the UK staying in the single market for goods and sharing a common rule book, that will also resolve the Irish border issue
Firstly the common rule book is necessary but not sufficient. You also need a customs union or failing that, you need the EU to agree to some bastardised version of the facilitated customs arrangement (and the only thing that might convince them is hefty annual payments).
Secondly it's over two weeks since that report and there's still no sign of the promised climbdown.
When Thatcher came into office we were a Union dominated, high taxed economy with our utilities, national telephone and air companies all nationalised. By the time she left office we had much weaker Unions, a relatively low tax economy and most utilities, BT and BA were privatised. The fact she did not do it all in 1980 does not make her government a left-wing one, in terms of the direction it shifted the country in it was the most right wing and economically liberal since WW2
Another Thatcher tax myth? By doubling VAT (technically 8% to 15% means the Tories were not actually lying when denying they planned to double VAT) Mrs Thatcher's government increased the tax take, even after income tax reductions.
Rubbish. The top income tax rate fell 43% under Thatcher, the fact VAT rose 7% ie less than double does not change the fact tax fell overall and of course she cut corporation tax too from 52% to 35%
Tax take as a percentage of GDP rose to over 40 per cent and then fell to a level still higher than inherited from Labour, or now.
The tax take by the time Thatcher left office in 1990 as a percentage of GDP was the lowest since 1960.
It was also higher when Brown left office in 2010 than it it was in 1990. Brown left a top income tax rate of 50% for starters, 10% higher than the 40% Thatcher left.
Spending as a percentage of GDP was also about 5% less when Thatcher left office than it is now
From your link, the numbers for tax take as a percentage of gdp would seem to be as follows, so perhaps we are looking at different graphs or tables:
1974 35.57 1975 35.87 1976 38.37 1977 38.85 1978 37.64 1979 35.65 1980 37.22 1981 40.27 1982 43.47 1983 43.32 1984 42.92 1985 41.87 1986 41.68 1987 39.66 1988 38.55 1989 38.42 1990 38.12 And never again to reach 40 per cent, not even at the height of the global financial crisis.
Income tax peaked at 14.9% in 2008, it's highest level since the early 1950s and well above the level Thatcher left.
I can see none of the figures you have provided at the link but even on your figures the tax take was higher in 1976 and 1977 than it was in 1990
1) Owen Jones is not a journalist, any more than I am. 2) He, and Jeremy Corbyn, are unquestionably right about the very limited social set from which far too many journalists come, and watching them close ranks in the face of criticism is unedifying. 3) Newspapers are in a death spiral. Now is not the time for more onerous regulation. It’s missing the main target anyway, which is the online providers of news.
Parenthetically, JRM does have a point here. It is disingenuous (right word?) to desire border control and not admit that such a concept is meaningless without physical border control. I realise that many PBers think that border observation and deportation of the illegally entered equates to the same thing, but I disagree: if you can't stop entry, you're not controlling entry.
Given how many PB experts there are who can explain
- to car manufacturers how little they know about making cars - fruit growers how little they know about growing fruit - importers and exporters how little they know about International trade
it is surely high time the PB Brexit Brain Trust explain to JRM the consequences of Brexit...
The DUP made a big mistake hitching their star to Brexit IMO. Brexit exposes that few in GB care about their people. Brexiteers are perfectly happy to throw the DUP under a £350 million a week for the NHS bus if it means a break with the EU. I suppose the DUP found the prospect of a hard border with Ireland just too attractive to resist.
No Deal isn't a viable end state. As we will be an EU rule taker with loads of extra bureaucracy under any realistic Brexit scenario, we might as well go full vassal state and the NI border problem goes away.
Most NI Protestants voted Leave and the likely end state of staying in the single market for goods largely resolves the Irish border issue
SM for goods + CU would be a variation on the vassal state. Not the most likely end state IMO, but more probable than permanent No Deal.
It would still end free movement which is the key thing for the median voter, staying in the SM for goods is not an issue for most bar hardline Brexiteers and while we will stay in a variant of the CU we will still be able do do our own trade deals under the Chequers Deal
Dublin gets screwed over in 2 out of 3 scenarios..
Option 1 means a GE surely?
Dublin gets screwed over.
The Irish backstop bluff needs to be called; there are far more noises that the EU is willing to bend on that. Varadkar has gone very quiet on it too.
The EU can tolerate no border longer than the UK can tolerate no deal. The UK's bluff will be called.
As I said the EU will accept the UK staying in the single market for goods and sharing a common rule book, that will also resolve the Irish border issue
Firstly the common rule book is necessary but not sufficient. You also need a customs union or failing that, you need the EU to agree to some bastardised version of the facilitated customs arrangement (and the only thing that might convince them is hefty annual payments).
Secondly it's over two weeks since that report and there's still no sign of the promised climbdown.
It is based on what the final deal will be from the EU point of view taking into accpunt the Chequers Deal proposals from May, it will be agreed and completed by the end of next March not the end of August
I know that "middle class" is a term of abuse for many people, but It always struck me that Owen Jones is very middle class indeed.
I don't know about him being middle class. But he is very middle order. Middling.
It baffles me that newspapers think that 'opinion' sells papers. Presumably it's cheaper to have (say) a Toynbee or AEP blather on rather than do proper journalism, but I only value news and analysis (the FT is my only subscription). I can get all the opinion I can stomach elsewhere.
If I come here, I can be offered a vast range opinions, including those with whom I may vehemently disagree - but their opinions are invariably well informed, and I can at least engage with them when I have a different standing. And its free.
Newspapers offer me nothing I can't get here.
And the puns are better (or is that worse?) than the printed media.
1) Owen Jones is not a journalist, any more than I am. 2) He, and Jeremy Corbyn, are unquestionably right about the very limited social set from which far too many journalists come, and watching them close ranks in the face of criticism is unedifying. 3) Newspapers are in a death spiral. Now is not the time for more onerous regulation. It’s missing the main target anyway, which is the online providers of news.
Comments
Until he had that mega meltdown for no reason on Sky paper review I actually had no idea he was gay (or cared).
Haven't read the thread yet so apologies if others have already made the same remark: myself, I don't believe a Labour split would be successful unless/until a majority of Labour members were openly uneasy with the leadership. It would need people like @RochdalePioneers to be convinced of the need to fight for 'true' Labour values rather than wait for those values to reassert themselves.
Good afternoon, everyone.
https://twitter.com/MrMShoaib/status/1033296306322718725
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1033311168432156673
What, for example, would Yvette Cooper or Chukka Ummuna do for us? How would they make our lives better?
Also the Mirror Group now own the Express and Star.
Left wing opinion / news through that filter is freely available to purchase every day, it just isn't that popular with the paying public. Is more popular with non-payers. Its not Rupert Murdoch's fault the likes of the Guardian haven't found a way of making their product profitable.
There would be massive media interest in a new party created as a split from Labour under these circumstances. I think they could survive not having equal number of PPBs.
I think like other PB Tories the attraction of Jezza is incomprehensible to you. Nonetheless he clearly has mass appeal. I understand some of it, and even like it in parts while other bits are quite unsavory.
Anti Tory voters chose Corbyn over the other possibilities in Harborough. Maybe Centrism isn't as popular as some would have, at least at present.
Betting PostF1: backed Raikkonen for pole at 5.5, each way (third the odds, top 2). It's likely a three horse race. Red Bull off the pace and Bottas set up for overtaking as he starts from the back. Raikkonen has a strong record at Spa.
Pre-qualifying article up shortly.
Reddit I get even less than twitter, but it is mega popular, especially with the yuff.
But all of Jones' problems with be solved when we have JezBook and JezFlix.
For those wondering why I am not keen on Cannabis legalisation, have a look at what happened recently at my Trust:
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1033309950624387072?s=19
It is a double whammy of not having to adhere to all the red tape / pay taxes, with the fact that getting caught growing illegal is now only a minor criminal offensive.
But I am much the same.
Mainstream TV is no longer the force it once was.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2018/08/belgium-pre-qualifying-2018.html
The Reform Party, the SDP and the SNP succeeded in getting a quarter of the votes or more as the number of Canadians who wanted a social conservative party, the number of Britains who wanted a centrist alternative to Thatcher's Tories and Foot's Labour Party and the number of Scots who supported independence was significantly more.
If a new centrist party were to gain significant support it would likely need to be launched after Brexit and we had left the EEA and after the next general election with Corbynism still holding the leadership of the Labour Party so there was real scope for an alternative and with a new charismatic leader as Macron was with En Marche e.g. Umunna
No Deal isn't a viable end state. As we will be an EU rule taker with loads of extra bureaucracy under any realistic Brexit scenario, we might as well go full vassal state and the NI border problem goes away.
But then it is hardly a unique observation that for all the importance we ascribe to it class is more flexible than we tend to think, at the very least in how people perceive themselves. I grew up poor but was I working class? Probably not.
Or he could expand his skillset.
And one thing that has become very clear in recent weeks is that Corbyn's current press team is woeful.
He does not report news.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/3114343/alex-salmond-denial-damaging-alleged-sex-pest-snp/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
- Join another party
- Set up a new party
- Become an independent / non party member
What is happening among sectors of the membership is the third option - membership has fallen in my CLP over the past year, for example. This is also the option of choice for a couple of ad-hoc MPs , but does not give them a parliamentary future.
I can't see a mass Labxit amongst our MPs. Unless they are deselected they stand a much greater chance of keeping their seats as Labour candidates, and in a future scenario of a minority Labour government they will have a lot of clout in deciding what to support and what to rebel against.
For me, whether our next leader is John McDonnell, Chuka or anyone in between, I'll still be a member.
And yes Labour did have much more attraction to public sector workers, house renters and students in 2017 than in 2015.
For example I don't recall Labour promising to get rid of student fees in 2015.
There is though an anti-capitalism vote that Corbyn was also able to harness - which in 2015 would have voted Green or TUSC or not voted at all - based upon those people who seem to want to nationalise everything.
The tolerance show by successive governments to corporate misconduct has certainly increased the number of these voters.
Yes, it is very easy to make big promises. It is far harder to actually deliver on them when you don't have any money.
https://www.ukpublicrevenue.co.uk/past_revenue
It was also higher when Brown left office in 2010 than it it was in 1990. Brown left a top income tax rate of 50% for starters, 10% higher than the 40% Thatcher left.
Spending as a percentage of GDP was also about 5% less when Thatcher left office than it is now
https://twitter.com/Wolves/status/1027944115869306881
1974 35.57
1975 35.87
1976 38.37
1977 38.85
1978 37.64
1979 35.65
1980 37.22
1981 40.27
1982 43.47
1983 43.32
1984 42.92
1985 41.87
1986 41.68
1987 39.66
1988 38.55
1989 38.42
1990 38.12
And never again to reach 40 per cent, not even at the height of the global financial crisis.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6042765/amp/EU-offer-UK-stay-single-market-goods-without-free-movement.html
Parenthetically, JRM does have a point here. It is disingenuous (right word?) to desire border control and not admit that such a concept is meaningless without physical border control. I realise that many PBers think that border observation and deportation of the illegally entered equates to the same thing, but I disagree: if you can't stop entry, you're not controlling entry.
Secondly it's over two weeks since that report and there's still no sign of the promised climbdown.
I can see none of the figures you have provided at the link but even on your figures the tax take was higher in 1976 and 1977 than it was in 1990
2) He, and Jeremy Corbyn, are unquestionably right about the very limited social set from which far too many journalists come, and watching them close ranks in the face of criticism is unedifying.
3) Newspapers are in a death spiral. Now is not the time for more onerous regulation. It’s missing the main target anyway, which is the online providers of news.
- to car manufacturers how little they know about making cars
- fruit growers how little they know about growing fruit
- importers and exporters how little they know about International trade
it is surely high time the PB Brexit Brain Trust explain to JRM the consequences of Brexit...
Newspapers offer me nothing I can't get here.
And the puns are better (or is that worse?) than the printed media.