Nick Watt of the Guardian on the DP: 'John Prescott is either a hypocrite or out of touch' (to complain about Thatcher's funeral plans which were drawn up by the government of which he was a member).
Can't Prescott be both?
That is a feeble excuse. I think you should be honest.
It's a fact. AFAIK the only change the current government has made has been to change the name of the operation from 'Iron Bridge' (which is wittier) to the rather pedestrian 'True Blue'.
I think you should be honest.
So you are saying that this government has accepted every policy of the last Labour government ? You should go out a bit more.
No - you are inventing a 'hugely extravagant Tory Funeral' - which in fact is a 'Labour funeral'.
Not my fault the facts upset you.
I think you are very conveniently avoiding what this government could easily have done. That, in these times of austerity, we will hold a much simpler funeral than planned [ if you say the Labour government planned it. I thought Thatcher herself planned it ]. More like other Prime Minister's rather than like a Queen.
2 elections today - In Venezuala for the President to succeed Chavez, and in Canada for the next Liberal leader (with the Liberals now ahead in the polls it could produce the next PM, and Justin Trudeau leads the polling and odds by miles).
Grandiose - Hitchens also regrets the passing of much heavy industry, which at least provided wages for the local menfolk without their wives needing to work and Thatcher's failure to bring back more grammars amongst other things!
"Alan Watkins: 'Margaret Thatcher could be cautious and open to outside influence' The Independent on Sunday's political commentator and author of a book on her downfall, who died in 2010, reflects on a career which had more nuances than her Iron Lady reputation lead us to believe"
FluffyThoughts, antifrank - As Mandelson, Milburn, Blair are all no longer in parliament and Blunkett is just a backbencher their views are about as relevant to Ed as Callaghan's were to Foot or Heath and Prior's to Maggie!
Tim so most UKIP voters voted Tory in 2010 or LD, confirms my view that Cameron does not need to win over a single Labour voter in 2015, but instead win back Tory defectors to UKIP and win over some Cleggite LDs!
It's about the equivalent cost of a single day of Tony Blair's bloodbath in Iraq.
The bloodbath that the Cons supported more strongly than any other parliamentary party, and still support? Shocking, aint it.
Point of order, Mr. Divvie, the bloodbath and Britain's ignominious defeat in the the South were caused by a lack of planning for the post-war period and a refusal to commit sufficient resources to enable the army to do the job HMG, supposedly, wanted them to do. Was either matter supported by the Conservative part? I think not.
First, it's notable how poorly the public rate most of their Prime Ministers. Second, distance has not yet lent any kind of enchantment to Gordon Brown.
It's about the equivalent cost of a single day of Tony Blair's bloodbath in Iraq.
The bloodbath that the Cons supported more strongly than any other parliamentary party, and still support? Shocking, aint it.
Point of order, Mr. Divvie, the bloodbath and Britain's ignominious defeat in the the South were caused by a lack of planning for the post-war period and a refusal to commit sufficient resources to enable the army to do the job HMG, supposedly, wanted them to do. Was either matter supported by the Conservative part? I think not.
Hurst, Both parties over the years have contributed equally to the demise of the UK's military , such that we are now unable to beat anybody.
Tim - Indeed, on that the election will hang, Cameron MUST win BOTH UKIP voters who voted Tory in 2010 AND centrist voters who backed Clegg in 2010 and probably Blair in 2005, he must also hope Cable takes over the LDs to win back some left-wingers from Labour! It is a very tough ask, but not impossible!
Nick Watts on the SP on Blair's intervention 'There's an opening for awkward ex-PM' He also rates Umunna as one of Labour's most serious politicians....
"Alan Watkins: 'Margaret Thatcher could be cautious and open to outside influence' The Independent on Sunday's political commentator and author of a book on her downfall, who died in 2010, reflects on a career which had more nuances than her Iron Lady reputation lead us to believe"
Thank you for the link. Until I read it I was not aware that:"Having become MP for Finchley in 1959 – she had contested Dartford in 1950 and 1951 – she successfully sponsored a Private Members' Bill. This was to compel councils to admit the press to meetings: a liberal and much-needed measure, at a time when Labour authorities in particular were liable to exclude reporters if they could."
"... those who remember the City before the Big Bang would recall that it was a vested interest that served itself, not its customers or the country."
I trust your tongue was firmly in your cheek when you wrote that, Charles. The City has always had its philanthropic individuals and institutions, one of the great shames of the place is how few people realise just how much charity work is financed by it (especially the Livery Companies). However, it also true that the City exists to make money for its members and players. The big bang changed how business is done, not the purpose of the business.
There were always institutions that did the right thing, absolutely. On the whole, though, it was a oligopoly that conducted business to suit itself. The fact that some of it was given back is neither here nor there.
Should you believe this piece in today's Sunday Telegraph, those nice people at BetVictor will accommodate you with odds of 20/1:
However, the Sunday Telegraph says that a new clear favourite has emerged for the position and while he's not "The Special One," he is the still pretty darn impressive Malaga coach Manuel Pellegrini. The paper says that Chelsea's owner Roman Abramovich has been "unmoved" by Jose Mourinho’s attempts to get his old job back and has identified the Chilean as a more attractive alternative.
Sadly Mr Chandler closed my account some time go, so I've had to content myself with Stan James' odds of 16/1 instead.
@Financier - 'Margaret The Myth' generally ignores her libertarian instincts on both the left and the right - as both are uncomfortable with the parts which do not suit their narrative (like how the homophobe joined the then Labour government to vote to decriminalise homosexuality, for example).
It's about the equivalent cost of a single day of Tony Blair's bloodbath in Iraq.
The bloodbath that the Cons supported more strongly than any other parliamentary party, and still support? Shocking, aint it.
Point of order, Mr. Divvie, the bloodbath and Britain's ignominious defeat in the the South were caused by a lack of planning for the post-war period and a refusal to commit sufficient resources to enable the army to do the job HMG, supposedly, wanted them to do. Was either matter supported by the Conservative part? I think not.
Hurst, Both parties over the years have contributed equally to the demise of the UK's military , such that we are now unable to beat anybody.
Good afternoon Mr. G.,
I hope you and yours are well. I am sure we are capable winning a war against someone, there must be a small, coastal, third world state we could successfully beat up on. However, that isn't the point I was trying to make.
To succeed in and around Basra required a lot more troops than HMG was prepared to put on the ground. The troops were available and willing, but HMG (actually Gordon Brown) refused to allow to deploy sufficient numbers. They also refused to accept they were fighting a war and the prevention of UK casualties trumped the actual reason why the troops were there. Result an ignominious defeat and thousands of Iraqis killed and maimed when they shouldn't have been.
We saw the same in Afghanistan post 2006. Insufficient Troops, without the necessary kit and back-up, committed to do what HMG said they wanted done. Crumbs the RM who went in to relieve the Paras actually had to leave men behind because Gordon Brown would pay for the whole brigade to go. A chronic shortage of helicopters meant that in some places in 2006/7 our troops were suffering from malnutrition, but Brown was busy slashing the UK's Helicopter fleet by a third. Result, failure to get the job done, excessive casualties and, eventually, another tail-between-the-legs run away.
In 1982 Thatcher excluded the Chancellor of the Exchequer from the War Cabinet because she didn't want the Treasury to have any say on operations. Compare and contrast.
It's about the equivalent cost of a single day of Tony Blair's bloodbath in Iraq.
The bloodbath that the Cons supported more strongly than any other parliamentary party, and still support? Shocking, aint it.
Point of order, Mr. Divvie, the bloodbath and Britain's ignominious defeat in the the South were caused by a lack of planning for the post-war period and a refusal to commit sufficient resources to enable the army to do the job HMG, supposedly, wanted them to do. Was either matter supported by the Conservative part? I think not.
Hurst, Both parties over the years have contributed equally to the demise of the UK's military , such that we are now unable to beat anybody.
Good afternoon Mr. G.,
I hope you and yours are well. I am sure we are capable winning a war against someone, there must be a small, coastal, third world state we could successfully beat up on. However, that isn't the point I was trying to make.
To succeed in and around Basra required a lot more troops than HMG was prepared to put on the ground. The troops were available and willing, but HMG (actually Gordon Brown) refused to allow to deploy sufficient numbers. They also refused to accept they were fighting a war and the prevention of UK casualties trumped the actual reason why the troops were there. Result an ignominious defeat and thousands of Iraqis killed and maimed when they shouldn't have been.
We saw the same in Afghanistan post 2006. Insufficient Troops, without the necessary kit and back-up, committed to do what HMG said they wanted done. Crumbs the RM who went in to relieve the Paras actually had to leave men behind because Gordon Brown would pay for the whole brigade to go. A chronic shortage of helicopters meant that in some places in 2006/7 our troops were suffering from malnutrition, but Brown was busy slashing the UK's Helicopter fleet by a third. Result, failure to get the job done, excessive casualties and, eventually, another tail-between-the-legs run away.
In 1982 Thatcher excluded the Chancellor of the Exchequer from the War Cabinet because she didn't want the Treasury to have any say on operations. Compare and contrast.
Hurst , all very valid, personally I do not believe we should have ever had troops there in the first place and as you say to then not deploy enough was just plain stupid. A very expensive folly both in lives and money by pygmy politicians. We are led by donkeys. Unfortunately I must go and finish painting I started yesterday , my afternoon will be applying "Off White 4" emulsion and listening to the football.
"Alan Watkins: 'Margaret Thatcher could be cautious and open to outside influence' The Independent on Sunday's political commentator and author of a book on her downfall, who died in 2010, reflects on a career which had more nuances than her Iron Lady reputation lead us to believe"
From the same article: "She was not the candidate of the intellectual right but of the solid centre, fed up with Ted: with his managerial style, his rudeness, his habit of losing elections."
"Alan Watkins: 'Margaret Thatcher could be cautious and open to outside influence' The Independent on Sunday's political commentator and author of a book on her downfall, who died in 2010, reflects on a career which had more nuances than her Iron Lady reputation lead us to believe"
From the same article: "She was not the candidate of the intellectual right but of the solid centre, fed up with Ted: with his managerial style, his rudeness, his habit of losing elections."
More fuel for the Cameron = Heath train.
Nick Watt (on good form to day) commented that someone had observed of Thatcher - she worried 1% of the time about how to get to Downing St and 99% of the time of what to do once she got there - with Cameron its been 90% about how to get to Downing St and 10% of what to do once he got there...
AnotherDave- She won over the centre of the Tory Party, but she came from the right, she only stood because Keith Joseph did not. Heath also won an overall majority in 1970, something Cameron has yet to match!
Miss Vance, I caught the end of that programme. It's also worth mentioning that Watt is very optimistic about the prospects of Umunna (one of the most impressive men in Labour, or suchlike).
From the Watkins article Mrs Thatcher acquired some fame in the party following an account that circulated of a meeting between her and the leader in his room. Typically, he began by asking:
"And what do you want?"
Mrs Thatcher replied:
"First of all, Ted, I want you to ask me to sit down. Then I want you to offer me a glass of whisky."
Just catching up on some YouGov polling and it is striking how consistent the numbers are - if you disregard the day to day movements.
Comparing today's YouGov with the one published on 10 March there is no significant change at all.
In fact, looking at the polling in the months after the "groundbreaking" budget in 2012, there was an immediate small jump of 3% or so for Ukip (and a bigger drop for the blues as 2010 voters turned off) but the only other change has been a minor (maybe) 1% or 2% drop for both Conservatives and Labour in favour of Lib Dems and Ukip. Even that is pushing it a little.
Just goes to show how little things change outside our geeky bubble.
But what if anything will cause the next big change, prior to people focussing on the election in 2015?
Lord Tebbit said: "Not that long before he died, I told him we thought he might have won had he called the election in the autumn of 1978. In essence, his reply was he'd had enough of being buggered about trying to govern without a decent majority, and although, like us, he thought that he would just get back in an autumn election, he had no wish for five years of governing without one."
Daves dilemma is that he's torn between chasing UKIP old men and trying to win back centrist women. Sadly for him he's been so all over the place that he's managed to repel both groups.
Actually the vast majority of New Ukip party members are young and below 40 years of age.
I wonder if she'll expound her views that the rich should be taxed more but she shouldn't have to pay a mansion tax on her Primrose Hill property?
Does anyone know how much money Joan Bakewell has received from the license and tax payers during the last 50 years?
An odd target for you, ar.
Joan Bakewell is after all the "thinking man's crumpet" and a true Cheshire cat. "Prim" and "rose" are two words one wouldn't naturally associate with the presenter of 'Taboo'.
"Alan Watkins: 'Margaret Thatcher could be cautious and open to outside influence' The Independent on Sunday's political commentator and author of a book on her downfall, who died in 2010, reflects on a career which had more nuances than her Iron Lady reputation lead us to believe"
From the same article: "She was not the candidate of the intellectual right but of the solid centre, fed up with Ted: with his managerial style, his rudeness, his habit of losing elections."
More fuel for the Cameron = Heath train.
Nick Watt (on good form to day) commented that someone had observed of Thatcher - she worried 1% of the time about how to get to Downing St and 99% of the time of what to do once she got there - with Cameron its been 90% about how to get to Downing St and 10% of what to do once he got there...
I think 'what to do once he left' should be in the mix there. (There was a Cameron quote about not worrying too much about electoral success as he had "established his brand".)
@tim - interesting tweet on the Cooper (a polling expert) departure about No. 10 needing "not a weather vane but a compass" - Nelson or Montgomerie, iirc
Actually the vast majority of New Ukip party members are young and below 40 years of age.
All the polling shows that UKIP voters are concentrated in the older male demographic.
But you seem to have convinced yourself that the polling is wrong and that young left wing urban voters are flocking to Farage.
There's a difference between "members" and "voters". The former will turn out and knock on doors, address envelopes (does this still happen?), man phones, send emails and so on. The latter "just" turn up to the polling station.
Voters, though, need members to reassure them that it's worth while voting. Especially true of new parties. Mind, it helps a lot if the "members" vote as well!
Just catching up on some YouGov polling and it is striking how consistent the numbers are - if you disregard the day to day movements.
Comparing today's YouGov with the one published on 10 March there is no significant change at all.
In fact, looking at the polling in the months after the "groundbreaking" budget in 2012, there was an immediate small jump of 3% or so for Ukip (and a bigger drop for the blues as 2010 voters turned off) but the only other change has been a minor (maybe) 1% or 2% drop for both Conservatives and Labour in favour of Lib Dems and Ukip. Even that is pushing it a little.
Just goes to show how little things change outside our geeky bubble.
But what if anything will cause the next big change, prior to people focussing on the election in 2015?
Wikipedia have a nice graph, plotting a moving average. There seems to be a very clear trend line for the Conservatives and the LDs. UKIP are interesting as they seem to have long periods fixed at one level, consolidating support before moving up higher.
Actually the vast majority of New Ukip party members are young and below 40 years of age.
All the polling shows that UKIP voters are concentrated in the older male demographic.
But you seem to have convinced yourself that the polling is wrong and that young left wing urban voters are flocking to Farage.
No I don't! True, I take a lot of convincing that that only 'old males' will vote Ukip to the large exclusion of all other designated voting types. (LOL) As for the average polling of the last month (since Eastleigh), I have no problem with.
I'm only pointing out that NEW UKIP PARTY MEMBERS are being recruited mainly among the younger members of society
Actually the vast majority of New Ukip party members are young and below 40 years of age.
All the polling shows that UKIP voters are concentrated in the older male demographic.
But you seem to have convinced yourself that the polling is wrong and that young left wing urban voters are flocking to Farage.
There's a difference between "members" and "voters". The former will turn out and knock on doors, address envelopes (does this still happen?), man phones, send emails and so on. The latter "just" turn up to the polling station.
Voters, though, need members to reassure them that it's worth while voting. Especially true of new parties. Mind, it helps a lot if the "members" vote as well!
I've seen no evidence of the age of new UKIP members. Just PB Kipper anecdote
They are the young couples in need of accommodation who don't have the 5% deposit to qualify for George's housing boom and who waited in vain for Tony and Gordon to build them new council houses.
They voted Labour for the last time in 2010. They will vote UKIP in 2015 as the one new council house built in their constituency will have been allocated to a Romanian gypsy family.
Update on Da Vinci's Demons - its really well worth watching. First episode is a cross between Shakespeare in Love and Game of Thrones. Super filming, soft porn scenes, great costumes and humour/bit of gore.
Hopefully it won't get cancelled after episode 5 - the US has a very annoying habit of doing this.
Just seen E2 of Hannibal - hmm, trying too hard to be scary/mysterious and forensic like Criminal Minds all at the same. Something for when you're really stuck at a loose end - ditto Rogue, the characters spend all their time trying to out-tough each other by rolling their shoulders, saying Eff at the top of their voices and generally throwing their weight around. I was exhausted just watching the over-acting.
Just catching up on some YouGov polling and it is striking how consistent the numbers are - if you disregard the day to day movements.
Comparing today's YouGov with the one published on 10 March there is no significant change at all.
In fact, looking at the polling in the months after the "groundbreaking" budget in 2012, there was an immediate small jump of 3% or so for Ukip (and a bigger drop for the blues as 2010 voters turned off) but the only other change has been a minor (maybe) 1% or 2% drop for both Conservatives and Labour in favour of Lib Dems and Ukip. Even that is pushing it a little.
Just goes to show how little things change outside our geeky bubble.
But what if anything will cause the next big change, prior to people focussing on the election in 2015?
Wikipedia have a nice graph, plotting a moving average. There seems to be a very clear trend line for the Conservatives and the LDs. UKIP are interesting as they seem to have long periods fixed at one level, consolidating support before moving up higher.
Just catching up on some YouGov polling and it is striking how consistent the numbers are - if you disregard the day to day movements.
Comparing today's YouGov with the one published on 10 March there is no significant change at all.
In fact, looking at the polling in the months after the "groundbreaking" budget in 2012, there was an immediate small jump of 3% or so for Ukip (and a bigger drop for the blues as 2010 voters turned off) but the only other change has been a minor (maybe) 1% or 2% drop for both Conservatives and Labour in favour of Lib Dems and Ukip. Even that is pushing it a little.
Just goes to show how little things change outside our geeky bubble.
But what if anything will cause the next big change, prior to people focussing on the election in 2015?
Wikipedia have a nice graph, plotting a moving average. There seems to be a very clear trend line for the Conservatives and the LDs. UKIP are interesting as they seem to have long periods fixed at one level, consolidating support before moving up higher.
Speaking on BBC One's Sunday Politics, Lord Reid said Labour had to "move from being a voice of protest to being a voice of solutions, as we move from being an effective opposition to an effective party of government".
He said the party should "set out the direction of a future Labour government on questions like welfare and the economy and housing and so on".
Lord Reid said there was a "sense that that's started to happen", but added: "It's important to recognise that we need solutions and not just criticise the status quo."
Mr Miliband should adapt Labour's "values" to "modern circumstances", he argued.
However, Lord Reid admitted that much of Mr Miliband's work in setting out a clear position and direction would remain difficult until the party got back into government, saying: "The proof of the pudding is in the eating, as Blair, Thatcher and other great leaders have shown."
A marked difference I've noticed in the reaction to Maggie's death has been on Facebook, between my friends from school (in Wiltshire) and my newer friends in London (where I've lived the last 5 years). Almost every post on the subject from the West Country folk (none of whom are particularly well off, all in their 30s) has been expressing sadness at her death and/or anger at the idiots celebrating it. The Londoners (of similar social status and age) have mostly been DingDongers.
One notable London exception was a girl whose 30th I went to on Friday. She'd arranged for some of her friends to do some live music performances before the DJ started; one of these was not so musical, performing his "spoken word" (to be fair he was in the end quite good - funny and thought provoking) but started with a little anti-Thatcher rant. My friend (the birthday girl, from London but whose parents are west African) stopped him, declaring that she rather liked Maggie. Quite a few jaws dropped, as I said it's not a common feeling in these parts, and the guy on the mic said "But... But.. She was an evil bitch." To which my friend snapped back, "Well she did more for me than Arthur Scargill or Neil f*cking Kinnock!"
"Well she did more for me than Arthur Scargill or Neil f*cking Kinnock!"
Your friend is entitled to her opinion but I'm struggling to see what she thinks Neil Kinnock could or should have done for her given that he was never a government minister.
To which my friend snapped back, "Well she did more for me than Arthur Scargill or Neil f*cking Kinnock!"
Made my night!
Marvellous that your friend was so politically aware for the first seven years of her life. Presumably you think the anti-Thatcher views of those of a similarly callow experience of her primacy are just as valid.
"Well she did more for me than Arthur Scargill or Neil f*cking Kinnock!"
Your friend is entitled to her opinion but I'm struggling to see what she thinks Neil Kinnock could or should have done for her given that he was never a government minister.
I guess he could have been a more effective politician, beaten the Tories (he did have two chances), and changed things. But I think the main point was that she was aware that Scargill and Kinnock were two of Thatcher's main opponents during her time in office, which is quite rare knowledge amongst today's 30 year olds (who were only nine when Kinnock got beaten the second time)
Louise Mensch @LouiseMensch 13h One of the greatest honours of my life. God Bless you, Lady #Thatcher. Thank you for all you did for us. pic.twitter.com/kb7Ns8cFRd
The music chosen for Margaret Thatcher's funeral is quite superb.
There are the usual Anglican Cathedral giants of composition - Ralph Vaughan Williams, Hubert Parry, Charles Villiers Stanford, Herbert Howells; a few pleasant suprises - John Ireland, Frank Bridge, William Rowlands; the English giants of pomp and circumstance - Purcell, Elgar and Holst; some necessary German backbone - Brahms and Bach; and even some elegance from France - Fauré.
So even Roger will be able to enjoy the funeral as a concert.
Here is a taste of what is to come.
The Nunc Dimittis from the Evening Service in G, with music by Charles Villiers Stanford (1852-1924) appopriately sung in St Paul's Cathedral by the choir of Somerville College, Oxford.
To which my friend snapped back, "Well she did more for me than Arthur Scargill or Neil f*cking Kinnock!"
Made my night!
Marvellous that your friend was so politically aware for the first seven years of her life. Presumably you think the anti-Thatcher views of those of a similarly callow experience of her primacy are just as valid.
I don't remember claiming that either view was valid, I said it made my night. I think, though, that her parents were able to buy their council house. Would that be enough knowledge to validate her view in your ever so expert opinion?
TUD - do you recall the blog 'The Adventures o' Katherine', detailing the day that Brian Monteith's fawning American intern had tea with Mrs Thatcher in Edinburgh? One of the most (unintentionally) funny things I've ever read in my life, but alas it no longer seems to be online. It was Stuart Dickson who brought it to a wider audience.
Well spit it out! I'm certainly not going to spend £12 per month on yet another blog.
Sorry. I found it via a Google search for "colin rallings", narrowed by "past month". Google as the referrer seems to bypass the login. (also works for the FT).
The article title is "will the tory strongholds stand the strain"
"I guess he could have been a more effective politician, beaten the Tories (he did have two chances), and changed things."
For the better, you mean? I agree. Kinnock's main failing was that he didn't beat the Tories and undo at least some of the harm caused by Thatcherism.
And yet, and yet, probably the best thing he ever did ( if unwittingly!) for Labour was go "well alright" in Sheffield in 1992. If he hadn't he might've ended up leading a minority govt which would've had the ERM exit fiasco pinned on it a few months later. Unwittingly did he throw Labour into the "right" economic cycle/electoral alignment which it's been in ever since (and the Tories not). I mean would you really want to be in govt now if you've a perfectly reasonable prospect of getting back after one term out. We are broke, deeply broke, and even if the Archangel bloody Gabriel were PM he'd find it tough right now.
The slow demise of coal mining has been a tragedy for many communities, and the cause of much suffering. But more mines were closed during Harold Wilson’s two terms in office than in Thatcher’s three – and yet he remains a Left-wing hero.
Well spit it out! I'm certainly not going to spend £12 per month on yet another blog.
Sorry. I found it via a Google search for "colin rallings", narrowed by "past month". Google as the referrer seems to bypass the login. (also works for the FT).
The article title is "will the tory strongholds stand the strain"
"But more mines were closed during Harold Wilson’s two terms in office than in Thatcher’s three"
Will that be the 798th or 799th time I've heard a Tory make that claim over the last few days? I've no idea if it's true, but the subtext does appear to be "closing mines is bad". Not a typical Tory sentiment.
I don't remember claiming that either view was valid, I said it made my night. I think, though, that her parents were able to buy their council house. Would that be enough knowledge to validate her view in your ever so expert opinion?
No, but then I would never be arsed to bother validating the view of an anecdotal construct.
"I guess he could have been a more effective politician, beaten the Tories (he did have two chances), and changed things."
For the better, you mean? I agree. Kinnock's main failing was that he didn't beat the Tories and undo at least some of the harm caused by Thatcherism.
And yet, and yet, probably the best thing he ever did ( if unwittingly!) for Labour was go "well alright" in Sheffield in 1992. If he hadn't he might've ended up leading a minority govt which would've had the ERM exit fiasco pinned on it a few months later. Unwittingly did he throw Labour into the "right" economic cycle/electoral alignment which it's been in ever since (and the Tories not). I mean would you really want to be in govt now if you've a perfectly reasonable prospect of getting back after one term out. We are broke, deeply broke, and even if the Archangel bloody Gabriel were PM he'd find it tough right now.
James, we can call on another great British composer, Sir Arthur Sullivan, to celebrate the legacy of Neil Kinnock.
@JamesKelly I don't think pointing out that Labour closed more mines than Thatcher implies a belief that mine-closing was a bad thing. Just like when Labour people point out that Thatcher closed more grammar schools than Labour did, I don't assume they believe that closing grammar schools was a bad thing.
JonnyJimmy - well if Harold Wilson was carrying out "sound Thatcherite policies" as early as the 1960s, I'm not sure this "Thatcher saved Britain from disaster" meme has much legs.
Rings a very faint bell James, though I can't place it. You can never underestimate the Thatcherophillia of a Scottish Tory (or his intern). They're like the true believers left stranded on a Pacific island 50 years after the war ended.
"But more mines were closed during Harold Wilson’s two terms in office than in Thatcher’s three"
Will that be the 798th or 799th time I've heard a Tory make that claim over the last few days? I've no idea if it's true, but the subtext does appear to be "closing mines is bad". Not a typical Tory sentiment.
However, the difference surely was that earlier closures were accompanied by efforts to provide alternative jobs.
@JamesKelly I don't think closing mines itself is "sound Thatcherite policy", certainly not without taking on the malicious and destructive union bosses.
Labour should gain 300 seats and control of Derbys, Notts, Lancs, Staffs and largest party in Cumbria and Warwickshire.
A direct swing should mean 200 seats changing from blue to red.
"To move beyond about 350 gains, Labour would need consistently to win from third place. How far that happens depends in large part on the fate of the coalition partners."
It is rather crass, but isn't that just what Anne Frank craved in her two years in hiding? to live as a normal teenager with the usual petty concerns rather than the extreme ones that she had to face.
Rings a very faint bell James, though I can't place it. You can never underestimate the Thatcherophillia of a Scottish Tory (or his intern). They're like the true believers left stranded on a Pacific island 50 years after the war ended.
But MacDivvie, the SNP, with a few notable exceptions, our very own James Kelly being one, are really just Thatcherites in kilts.
The Scottish Tory party hasn't disappeared. It has merely moved with the times and started to cross-dress.
Watching the reaction of PB's lefties to the death of an 87 year old woman is akin to watching snails when salt is poured over them..lots of disgusting froth.
Coal is only worth mining if its value is greater than the cost of extraction. This ceased to be the case for most British mines in the 1980s, though the same remorseless logic has recently been applied to Daw Mill in North Warwickshire.
However, let’s look on the bright side. All the coal that Margaret Thatcher left in the ground is still there and perhaps it will again be worth extracting at some point in the future. Indeed, there could well be thousands of bright young children growing up in County Durham today who are destined to end their working lives down a mine at, say, 70 or 75.
The only problem is, given the generous diet they currently enjoy, will they be small enough?
The number of applications to be the 2015 Labour candidate in Lewsiahm Deptford (30.3% maj) is apparently 17 women (AWS).
The number of applications to be South Shields candidate was "just over 50".
We probably need full stats from HQs to a definitive view but I think that Tory safe seats usually attract more applications from all over the country compared to Labour selections. It may be, partly, due to how the selection process is structured.
Comments
Couldn't be anyone but Farage, could it?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2308783/PETER-HITCHENS-Lets-remember-Maggie-really--tragic-failure.html
Under the Vanilla procedures a poster who has had three posts deleted is by default automatically banned. The moderators have to over-ride.
The Independent on Sunday's political commentator and author of a book on her downfall, who died in 2010, reflects on a career which had more nuances than her Iron Lady reputation lead us to believe"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/alan-watkins-margaret-thatcher-could-be-cautious-and-open-to-outside-influence-8572024.html
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2013/04/14/the-pantheon-of-prime-ministers/
First, it's notable how poorly the public rate most of their Prime Ministers. Second, distance has not yet lent any kind of enchantment to Gordon Brown.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22140716
LSE (Gadaffi...cough...)
Don't let the Munchkins grind you down!
DP now showing the Thatcher 'jump' interview clip Plato posted....
Yes,they believed the lies as well.
Spoilers abound within. Here's my post-race analysis for China: http://politicalbetting.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/china-post-race-analysis.html
However, the Sunday Telegraph says that a new clear favourite has emerged for the position and while he's not "The Special One," he is the still pretty darn impressive Malaga coach Manuel Pellegrini.
The paper says that Chelsea's owner Roman Abramovich has been "unmoved" by Jose Mourinho’s attempts to get his old job back and has identified the Chilean as a more attractive alternative.
Sadly Mr Chandler closed my account some time go, so I've had to content myself with Stan James' odds of 16/1 instead.
As ever, do your own research.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2308799/Lloyd-Webbers-Ding-Dong-royalties-Composer-earning-money-Wizard-Oz-song-downloads-anti-Thatcher-activists-trying-to-No-1.html
I hope you and yours are well. I am sure we are capable winning a war against someone, there must be a small, coastal, third world state we could successfully beat up on. However, that isn't the point I was trying to make.
To succeed in and around Basra required a lot more troops than HMG was prepared to put on the ground. The troops were available and willing, but HMG (actually Gordon Brown) refused to allow to deploy sufficient numbers. They also refused to accept they were fighting a war and the prevention of UK casualties trumped the actual reason why the troops were there. Result an ignominious defeat and thousands of Iraqis killed and maimed when they shouldn't have been.
We saw the same in Afghanistan post 2006. Insufficient Troops, without the necessary kit and back-up, committed to do what HMG said they wanted done. Crumbs the RM who went in to relieve the Paras actually had to leave men behind because Gordon Brown would pay for the whole brigade to go. A chronic shortage of helicopters meant that in some places in 2006/7 our troops were suffering from malnutrition, but Brown was busy slashing the UK's Helicopter fleet by a third. Result, failure to get the job done, excessive casualties and, eventually, another tail-between-the-legs run away.
In 1982 Thatcher excluded the Chancellor of the Exchequer from the War Cabinet because she didn't want the Treasury to have any say on operations. Compare and contrast.
Unfortunately I must go and finish painting I started yesterday , my afternoon will be applying "Off White 4" emulsion and listening to the football.
I'm sure you reserve your admiration for the stance of the Libdems and Nats who neither believe or believed the lies.
"She was not the candidate of the intellectual right but of the solid centre, fed up with Ted: with his managerial style, his rudeness, his habit of losing elections."
More fuel for the Cameron = Heath train.
Mrs Thatcher acquired some fame in the party following an account that circulated of a meeting between her and the leader in his room. Typically, he began by asking:
"And what do you want?"
Mrs Thatcher replied:
"First of all, Ted, I want you to ask me to sit down. Then I want you to offer me a glass of whisky."
Comparing today's YouGov with the one published on 10 March there is no significant change at all.
In fact, looking at the polling in the months after the "groundbreaking" budget in 2012, there was an immediate small jump of 3% or so for Ukip (and a bigger drop for the blues as 2010 voters turned off) but the only other change has been a minor (maybe) 1% or 2% drop for both Conservatives and Labour in favour of Lib Dems and Ukip. Even that is pushing it a little.
Just goes to show how little things change outside our geeky bubble.
But what if anything will cause the next big change, prior to people focussing on the election in 2015?
Lord Tebbit said: "Not that long before he died, I told him we thought he might have won had he called the election in the autumn of 1978. In essence, his reply was he'd had enough of being buggered about trying to govern without a decent majority, and although, like us, he thought that he would just get back in an autumn election, he had no wish for five years of governing without one."
I wonder if she'll expound her views that the rich should be taxed more but she shouldn't have to pay a mansion tax on her Primrose Hill property?
Does anyone know how much money Joan Bakewell has received from the license and tax payers during the last 50 years?
Joan Bakewell is after all the "thinking man's crumpet" and a true Cheshire cat. "Prim" and "rose" are two words one wouldn't naturally associate with the presenter of 'Taboo'.
Voters, though, need members to reassure them that it's worth while voting. Especially true of new parties.
Mind, it helps a lot if the "members" vote as well!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graphical_summary
There was an article some time ago about habits moving through social networks. Perhaps voting intention is one such habit.
http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/magazine/17-10/ff_christakis?currentPage=all
Newcastle 0 - Sunderland 3
Bonuses all round for the board members.
I'm only pointing out that NEW UKIP PARTY MEMBERS are being recruited mainly among the younger members of society
They voted Labour for the last time in 2010. They will vote UKIP in 2015 as the one new council house built in their constituency will have been allocated to a Romanian gypsy family.
Hopefully it won't get cancelled after episode 5 - the US has a very annoying habit of doing this.
Just seen E2 of Hannibal - hmm, trying too hard to be scary/mysterious and forensic like Criminal Minds all at the same. Something for when you're really stuck at a loose end - ditto Rogue, the characters spend all their time trying to out-tough each other by rolling their shoulders, saying Eff at the top of their voices and generally throwing their weight around. I was exhausted just watching the over-acting.
Is voting Ukip a social virus among grumpy old men moaning at each other at the working mens club?
http://www.conservatives.com/News/News_stories/2010/04/Conservatives_launch_election_manifesto.aspx
She will be arriving at the pearly gates with a smile on her face.
MODERATED
He said the party should "set out the direction of a future Labour government on questions like welfare and the economy and housing and so on".
Lord Reid said there was a "sense that that's started to happen", but added: "It's important to recognise that we need solutions and not just criticise the status quo."
Mr Miliband should adapt Labour's "values" to "modern circumstances", he argued.
However, Lord Reid admitted that much of Mr Miliband's work in setting out a clear position and direction would remain difficult until the party got back into government, saying: "The proof of the pudding is in the eating, as Blair, Thatcher and other great leaders have shown."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22143354
Dave's reading from the Gospel according to St. John at the Blessed Margaret's funeral will include the following admission:
In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you.
Will St. Vince heckle the service and call for a divine mansion tax?
https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/156545_10200822092744985_439003193_n.jpg
One notable London exception was a girl whose 30th I went to on Friday. She'd arranged for some of her friends to do some live music performances before the DJ started; one of these was not so musical, performing his "spoken word" (to be fair he was in the end quite good - funny and thought provoking) but started with a little anti-Thatcher rant. My friend (the birthday girl, from London but whose parents are west African) stopped him, declaring that she rather liked Maggie. Quite a few jaws dropped, as I said it's not a common feeling in these parts, and the guy on the mic said "But... But.. She was an evil bitch." To which my friend snapped back, "Well she did more for me than Arthur Scargill or Neil f*cking Kinnock!"
Made my night!
Your friend is entitled to her opinion but I'm struggling to see what she thinks Neil Kinnock could or should have done for her given that he was never a government minister.
http://pic.twitter.com/cbjD3ifvK3
http://www.lgcplus.com/news/local-elections/will-the-tory-strongholds-stand-the-strain/5056982.article
Are you a subscriber?
For the better, you mean? I agree. Kinnock's main failing was that he didn't beat the Tories and undo at least some of the harm caused by Thatcherism.
Louise Mensch @LouiseMensch 13h
One of the greatest honours of my life. God Bless you, Lady #Thatcher. Thank you for all you did for us. pic.twitter.com/kb7Ns8cFRd
Pass the sick bag.
https://twitter.com/annaholligan/status/323392061065809920/photo/1
There are the usual Anglican Cathedral giants of composition - Ralph Vaughan Williams, Hubert Parry, Charles Villiers Stanford, Herbert Howells; a few pleasant suprises - John Ireland, Frank Bridge, William Rowlands; the English giants of pomp and circumstance - Purcell, Elgar and Holst; some necessary German backbone - Brahms and Bach; and even some elegance from France - Fauré.
So even Roger will be able to enjoy the funeral as a concert.
Here is a taste of what is to come.
The Nunc Dimittis from the Evening Service in G, with music by Charles Villiers Stanford (1852-1924) appopriately sung in St Paul's Cathedral by the choir of Somerville College, Oxford.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wvj7Nd6LCgM
The article title is "will the tory strongholds stand the strain"
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2308755/Which-PMs-sacked-miners--Clue-It-wasnt-Lady-Thatcher---The-amazing-facts-make-mockery-rabble-want-wreck-funeral.html#ixzz2QRsK9tVm
Will that be the 798th or 799th time I've heard a Tory make that claim over the last few days? I've no idea if it's true, but the subtext does appear to be "closing mines is bad". Not a typical Tory sentiment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1rJW2P2rFY
Nothing more need be said on the matter, really.
Rings a very faint bell James, though I can't place it. You can never underestimate the Thatcherophillia of a Scottish Tory (or his intern). They're like the true believers left stranded on a Pacific island 50 years after the war ended.
Anyway, MT closed more grammar schools!
Labour should gain 300 seats and control of Derbys, Notts, Lancs, Staffs and largest party in Cumbria and Warwickshire.
A direct swing should mean 200 seats changing from blue to red.
"To move beyond about 350 gains, Labour would need consistently to win from third place. How far that happens depends in large part on the fate of the coalition partners."
For clarity, do you support the 1960s closure of mines, or do you think they were a mistake?
The Scottish Tory party hasn't disappeared. It has merely moved with the times and started to cross-dress.
However, let’s look on the bright side. All the coal that Margaret Thatcher left in the ground is still there and perhaps it will again be worth extracting at some point in the future. Indeed, there could well be thousands of bright young children growing up in County Durham today who are destined to end their working lives down a mine at, say, 70 or 75.
The only problem is, given the generous diet they currently enjoy, will they be small enough?
We seem to have stumbled upon your unexpected area of expertise, Mr Dodd.
You'd have a nervous breakdown if you ever actually attended an SNP conference, Cousin of Seth. They're all like me.
The number of applications to be South Shields candidate was "just over 50".
We probably need full stats from HQs to a definitive view but I think that Tory safe seats usually attract more applications from all over the country compared to Labour selections. It may be, partly, due to how the selection process is structured.