I bow, sincerely, to your obviously superior legal knowledge, but how can three policemen lying and conspiring, so as to bring down a minister, NOT be a criminal offence?
If that is the case, the law is an ass.
If they did so while acting in their capacity as public officials, and their wilful misconduct was such to cause public trust in the office to be abused, then that is indictable at common law. If they weren't acting in their capacities as public officials, then it is a matter for internal police discipline. After all, if it were a crime for an ordinary citizen to conspire to bring down government ministers by deception, then nearly every political journalist and opposition politician in the last century would have been sent down!
The alleged behaviour at Downing Street is different, as police officers were undoubtedly acting in their capacity as Crown agents for at least part of the time.
They were there as serving police officers and representatives of the Police Federation. Does that not count as public office?
...there have been no prosecutions for treason or treason felony since 1945.
Even with all those people who were caught spying for the Russians? Interesting.
What's the sentence for treason, in theory anyway?
It was death until the bloody europeans interfered. It's now life imprisonment until that gets ruined for us too.
As it could be rather difficult to prove sometimes, an alternative and very similar crime of Treachery was introduced in 1940 with a different burden of proof. It wasn't fully repealed until 1973.
George Eaton @georgeeaton 3m Overlooked problem with Cameron's pledge to "roll back" green taxes: how's he going to pay for it? Osborne said no giveaways yesterday.
Well, they fall at the first hurdle, surely. They were interviewed *because* they were police officers (the Federation stuff is sophistry) and their lying during that interview has certainly undermined public trust in the police.
Surely the test must be, as per the CPS, is there a reasonable chance a jury would convict them? I would say Yes, a jury might easily convict them.
The Federation is a essentially a statutory form of trade union. It is doubtful whether it is a public office for the purposes of the criminal law. You are referring to the CPS' evidential test. The question of whether they were acting in a public capacity, however, is a point of law for the trial judge.
Same here ,just catching up on the threads I knew it was bad, when the ultra scottish female defender of all thing dave,was posting furiously that it was terrible for ED at lunch time instead of 2 in the morning.
Two different ways of feeling sorry for him,yours is because he got showed up,mine is because of tim's/pb labours non stop bull ;-)
True, my father is a big conservative and keeps saying regarding PM, Dave looks the part but isn`t .Ed does not look the part but he might just be another Wilson.
Well I'm all over the place politically ;-) tonight yorky,I have a soft spot for the respect party ;-) but honestly,I like Cameron and I have a view that labour should be out of office for at least another term for the damage they did.
Regardless of whether the 3 police officers can be prosecuted, they should certainly be disciplined - sacked IMO. Lying goes to the heart of their integrity and honesty; if they cannot tell the truth about such a situation how can anyone trust what they say on anything else?
That their bosses don't understand this basic point shows that their moral compass is wonky, if not non-existent.
George Eaton @georgeeaton 3m Overlooked problem with Cameron's pledge to "roll back" green taxes: how's he going to pay for it? Osborne said no giveaways yesterday.
It shouldn't cost a single penny. Environment Sec David Miliband told us in 2006 that green taxes would be revenue-neutral "They're not fundamentally there to raise revenue."
Regardless of whether the 3 police officers can be prosecuted, they should certainly be disciplined - sacked IMO. Lying goes to the heart of their integrity and honesty; if they cannot tell the truth about such a situation how can anyone trust what they say on anything else?
That their bosses don't understand this basic point shows that their moral compass is wonky, if not non-existent.
Aha, but it's not the moral compass that's wonky apparently. The officers in question 'stand by' their 'accurate' account of the meeting, and their bosses are backing them up, so it's their intelligence levels that are suspect, not their morality, as they accept their people misled the public but claim to believe the claim it was unintentional and believe that makes any difference whatsoever.
"See, we wouldn't intentionally lie about someone and get them fired, we'd just lie by accident and get someone fired, so we're all good, right? Also, I'm looking forward to passing my 11+ soon, even though I'm 55, all the guys and gals in my detective team thingy are so impressed I've managed it so early, as is my mummy"
Replace fired with more serious outcomes that arise in police cases and things would take a turn darker than I can make fun of at present.
Same here ,just catching up on the threads I knew it was bad, when the ultra scottish female defender of all thing dave,was posting furiously that it was terrible for ED at lunch time instead of 2 in the morning.
Two different ways of feeling sorry for him,yours is because he got showed up,mine is because of tim's/pb labours non stop bull ;-)
True, my father is a big conservative and keeps saying regarding PM, Dave looks the part but isn`t .Ed does not look the part but he might just be another Wilson.
Well I'm all over the place politically ;-) tonight yorky,I have a soft spot for the respect party ;-) but honestly,I like Cameron and I have a view that labour should be out of office for at least another term for the damage they did.
To get back after one term is a big ask.
However to get 258 seats in 2010 always gave Labour a chance. Amazing result really. The Conservatives were under 200 , I believe for a few years after 97.
Regardless of whether the 3 police officers can be prosecuted, they should certainly be disciplined - sacked IMO. Lying goes to the heart of their integrity and honesty; if they cannot tell the truth about such a situation how can anyone trust what they say on anything else?
That their bosses don't understand this basic point shows that their moral compass is wonky, if not non-existent.
As Lord Acton said, 'Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' The problem is that the political class have consistently given more and more power to the police over the course of the last fifteen years. It should come as no surprise that it is being abused. Mitchell is the tip of the iceberg.
BBC Scotland just reported that Unite might now try to agree the survival package that INEOS had proposed, and that they had previously rejected.
Twitter Douglas Fraser @BBCDouglasF 1h Unite has told the BBC it's meeting Ineos tomorrow for talks on #Grangemouth. Not saying what's in its "last ditch" plan
Regardless of whether the 3 police officers can be prosecuted, they should certainly be disciplined - sacked IMO. Lying goes to the heart of their integrity and honesty; if they cannot tell the truth about such a situation how can anyone trust what they say on anything else?
That their bosses don't understand this basic point shows that their moral compass is wonky, if not non-existent.
Aha, but it's not the moral compass that's wonky apparently. The officers in question 'stand by' their 'accurate' account of the meeting, and their bosses are backing them up, so it's their intelligence levels that are suspect, not their morality, as they accept their people misled the public but claim to believe the claim it was unintentional and believe that makes any difference whatsoever.
"See, we wouldn't intentionally lie about someone and get them fired, we'd just lie by accident and get someone fired, so we're all good, right?"
Replace fired with more serious outcomes that arise in police cases and things would take a turn darker than I can make fun of at present.
Well I won't argue with you. Both their moral compass and their intelligence are at fault. It's a disgrace. I have - ever since the Irish miscarriage cases in the 70"s - been sceptical of the police. The Hillsborough case is far worse than this - people died there - but the sheer arrogance of lying about their encounters with a Cabinet Minister is frightening.
Wilson 64-70 was a fairly capable PM. Apart from the devaluation of course. It was Wilson 74-76 that was the shambles.
I remember it well. The Bay City Rollers were the best thing going in that period, and they were crap. The good bits of the Seventies were either side.
I remember watching Jimmy Saville and Gary Glitter on TOTP in that Wilson 2nd govt. It was all a bit suspect.
All blown away by Sex Pistols and Maggie T; and you can see why it was inevitable. Unless you were Ralph Miliband of course.
Regardless of whether the 3 police officers can be prosecuted, they should certainly be disciplined - sacked IMO. Lying goes to the heart of their integrity and honesty; if they cannot tell the truth about such a situation how can anyone trust what they say on anything else?
That their bosses don't understand this basic point shows that their moral compass is wonky, if not non-existent.
As Lord Acton said, 'Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' The problem is that the political class have consistently given more and more power to the police over the course of the last fifteen years. It should come as no surprise that it is being abused. Mitchell is the tip of the iceberg.
Yes. But this is not new. The police have been abusing their powers for decades. What was it Commissioner Marks said about the Met all those years ago: "A good police force is one that catches more crooks than it employs."
...there have been no prosecutions for treason or treason felony since 1945.
Even with all those people who were caught spying for the Russians? Interesting.
What's the sentence for treason, in theory anyway?
It was death until the bloody europeans interfered. It's now life imprisonment until that gets ruined for us too.
As it could be rather difficult to prove sometimes, an alternative and very similar crime of Treachery was introduced in 1940 with a different burden of proof. It wasn't fully repealed until 1973.
The change was long before any "European" involvement. Just more UKIP rubbish.
...there have been no prosecutions for treason or treason felony since 1945.
Even with all those people who were caught spying for the Russians? Interesting.
What's the sentence for treason, in theory anyway?
It was death until the bloody europeans interfered. It's now life imprisonment until that gets ruined for us too.
As it could be rather difficult to prove sometimes, an alternative and very similar crime of Treachery was introduced in 1940 with a different burden of proof. It wasn't fully repealed until 1973.
The change was long before any "European" involvement. Just more UKIP rubbish.
Wilson 64-70 was a fairly capable PM. Apart from the devaluation of course. It was Wilson 74-76 that was the shambles.
I remember it well. The Bay City Rollers were the best thing going in that period, and they were crap. The good bits of the Seventies were either side.
I remember watching Jimmy Saville and Gary Glitter on TOTP in that Wilson 2nd govt. It was all a bit suspect.
All blown away by Sex Pistols and Maggie T; and you can see why it was inevitable. Unless you were Ralph Miliband of course.
Ed does not look the part but he might just be another Wilson.
Is that intended as a compliment or an insult? Thanks in advance.
Wilson 64 - 70 was a wasted opportunity which ultimately led to the shambles of the late 1970's. Wilson wasted his opportunities, just like Blair. About the only good thing that can be said for him is the OU and that he kept us out of Vietnam. He has largely been written out of Labour history.
Same here ,just catching up on the threads I knew it was bad, when the ultra scottish female defender of all thing dave,was posting furiously that it was terrible for ED at lunch time instead of 2 in the morning.
Two different ways of feeling sorry for him,yours is because he got showed up,mine is because of tim's/pb labours non stop bull ;-)
True, my father is a big conservative and keeps saying regarding PM, Dave looks the part but isn`t .Ed does not look the part but he might just be another Wilson.
Well I'm all over the place politically ;-) tonight yorky,I have a soft spot for the respect party ;-) but honestly,I like Cameron and I have a view that labour should be out of office for at least another term for the damage they did.
I've made this comparison before. Ed is very Wilsonian: smart and fairly personable, full of political guile, tactically astute, seriously ambitious - and a totally useless politician in the wider sense, who will swiftly further Britain's relative decline, if elected, just as Wilson did. For proof, see how Hollande is doing in France. Miliband would be precisely the same.
The strange thing about Cameron is that he is quite good strategically - given the chance he and Osborne might do seriously good things for the UK - and he is a decent statesman. But he is utterly rubbish at tactics, at daily politicking, at the stuff Miliband does well. It will probably prove to be a fatal flaw.
Agree sean,especially the last bit,cameron should have seen this coming on energy bills/companies instead of repeating the same old crap line every time a energy company put the prices up massively of just switching.
Re 19 my grandfather was killed at Alamain. By a British hand grenade thrown by some idiot behind him.
On the death of my uncle earlier this year I came into possession of the letter my grandmother got from the MoD. There was a blank for cause of death into which someone had written "accidently killed". And they got her name wrong.
Don't think it was mentioned at the start of PMQs either.
Our world is a long way from perfect but there have been many worse times to be alive.
Yes. But this is not new. The police have been abusing their powers for decades. What was it Commissioner Marks said about the Met all those years ago: "A good police force is one that catches more crooks than it employs."
Sir Robert Mark's aphorism is still something which the Met would do well to aspire to. The difference is, however, that the 1980s and 1990s saw major restrictions on police powers and the abilities of police to abuse their office. These included the abolition of the "sus" laws by the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (probably the greatest civil liberties measure of the twentieth century), the creation of an independent Crown Prosecution Service by the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, and major reforms to disclosure as a result of CPIA 1996. There were also serious efforts to improve the detection and rectification of miscarriages of justice. The trend since 1997, which has continued under this government, has not been encouraging.
Twitter Douglas Fraser @BBCDouglasF 46s Breaking: Unite willing to recommend to members: give in to demands from #Grangemouth owner Ineos, with no strike pledge. Meeting at 8am.
The strange thing about Cameron is that he is quite good strategically - given the chance he and Osborne might do seriously good things for the UK - and he is a decent statesman. But he is utterly rubbish at tactics, at daily politicking, at the stuff Miliband does well. It will probably prove to be a fatal flaw.
Disagree. On long term strategy Dave has presided over the uniting of the Left under Labour and split the right, breaking the mould of British politics. He also blew the boundary changes. These facts above all have made his task much more difficult. On the day to day front he projects well when he is on solid ground, when the policy is sensible, but on difficult territory Ed can exploit his lack of attention to detail. However it's the long term stuff that it's changing the polling picture, not energy freezes etc
I am not claiming that Wilson 1 was a good PM; but his was not a bad one either. The OU, legalisation of homosexuality and abortion, keeping out of Vietnam, the independence of most of Africa, etc.
Sure, more could have been done to modernise British Industry, but in which period was that also not true?
Compared with Brown, Wilson 1 was a tour de force!
Wilson 64-70 was a fairly capable PM. Apart from the devaluation of course. It was Wilson 74-76 that was the shambles.
I remember it well. The Bay City Rollers were the best thing going in that period, and they were crap. The good bits of the Seventies were either side.
I remember watching Jimmy Saville and Gary Glitter on TOTP in that Wilson 2nd govt. It was all a bit suspect.
All blown away by Sex Pistols and Maggie T; and you can see why it was inevitable. Unless you were Ralph Miliband of course.
Ed does not look the part but he might just be another Wilson.
Is that intended as a compliment or an insult? Thanks in advance.
Wilson 64 - 70 was a wasted opportunity which ultimately led to the shambles of the late 1970's. Wilson wasted his opportunities, just like Blair. About the only good thing that can be said for him is the OU and that he kept us out of Vietnam. He has largely been written out of Labour history.
Ed does not look the part but he might just be another Wilson.
Is that intended as a compliment or an insult? Thanks in advance.
Neither just an observation, both Wilson and Ed Milliband were very young cabinet ministers.
Wilson as a young man did not really look the part, but created an image that eventually resonated. Both came from the left of centre but were clever initially at keeping the party together.There are many similarities I said years ago Ed Milliband is very Wilsonesque.
The strange thing about Cameron is that he is quite good strategically - given the chance he and Osborne might do seriously good things for the UK - and he is a decent statesman. But he is utterly rubbish at tactics, at daily politicking, at the stuff Miliband does well. It will probably prove to be a fatal flaw.
Disagree. On long term strategy Dave has presided over the uniting of the Left under Labour and split the right, breaking the mould of British politics. He also blew the boundary changes. These facts above all have made his task much more difficult. On the day to day front he projects well when he is on solid ground, when the policy is sensible, but on difficult territory Ed can exploit his lack of attention to detail. However it's the long term stuff that it's changing the polling picture, not energy freezes etc
It is said of Cameron that he is good when his back is up against the wall.
Was is really bad, is how frequently he gets himself in a position where he has to rely upon that supposed skill.
Wilson 64-70 was a fairly capable PM. Apart from the devaluation of course. It was Wilson 74-76 that was the shambles.
I remember it well. The Bay City Rollers were the best thing going in that period, and they were crap. The good bits of the Seventies were either side.
I remember watching Jimmy Saville and Gary Glitter on TOTP in that Wilson 2nd govt. It was all a bit suspect.
All blown away by Sex Pistols and Maggie T; and you can see why it was inevitable. Unless you were Ralph Miliband of course.
Ed does not look the part but he might just be another Wilson.
Is that intended as a compliment or an insult? Thanks in advance.
Wilson 64 - 70 was a wasted opportunity which ultimately led to the shambles of the late 1970's. Wilson wasted his opportunities, just like Blair. About the only good thing that can be said for him is the OU and that he kept us out of Vietnam. He has largely been written out of Labour history.
Is there a Labour PM, apart from Atlee, who HASN'T been written out of Labour history?
Wilson is erased for the reasons you say Callaghan is erased for being irrelevant Blair is erased for reasons we all know Brown is another bad smell they are trying to forget
It is the fate of all Labour prime ministers to be written out of Labour history, as they always fail, thanks to Labour's essential, socialistic incompetence. Discuss.
Understandably you've forgetten Ramsay MacDonald . The first and stereotypically disastrous Labour PM. I'd also argue that Attlee was an incompetent who squandered the UK's WWII victory and inspired Orwell's depiction of IngSoc.
Major Atlee was very much the exception, but was cast out of office very quickly in 1951, largely bt losing Scottish seats, so was not universally popular. Top bloke though, my grandfather was an infantryman with him in WW1, and spoke well of his character. Not many politicians who rush towards the sound of real gunfire nowadays, just ones who send other peoples children.
Wilson 64-70 was a fairly capable PM. Apart from the devaluation of course. It was Wilson 74-76 that was the shambles.
I remember it well. The Bay City Rollers were the best thing going in that period, and they were crap. The good bits of the Seventies were either side.
I remember watching Jimmy Saville and Gary Glitter on TOTP in that Wilson 2nd govt. It was all a bit suspect.
All blown away by Sex Pistols and Maggie T; and you can see why it was inevitable. Unless you were Ralph Miliband of course.
Ed does not look the part but he might just be another Wilson.
Is that intended as a compliment or an insult? Thanks in advance.
Wilson 64 - 70 was a wasted opportunity which ultimately led to the shambles of the late 1970's. Wilson wasted his opportunities, just like Blair. About the only good thing that can be said for him is the OU and that he kept us out of Vietnam. He has largely been written out of Labour history.
Is there a Labour PM, apart from Atlee, who HASN'T been written out of Labour history?
Wilson is erased for the reasons you say Callaghan is erased for being irrelevant Blair is erased for reasons we all know Brown is another bad smell they are trying to forget
It is the fate of all Labour prime ministers to be written out of Labour history, as they always fail, thanks to Labour's essential, socialistic incompetence. Discuss.
Ed does not look the part but he might just be another Wilson.
Is that intended as a compliment or an insult? Thanks in advance.
Neither just an observation, both Wilson and Ed Milliband were very young cabinet ministers.
Wilson as a young man did not really look the part, but created an image that eventually resonated. Both came from the left of centre but were clever initially at keeping the party together.There are many similarities I said years ago Ed Milliband is very Wilsonesque.
Thanks for the reply. I'm very interested in 18th/19thC history and know about the politics of my young and adult lifetime. I don't think that anything after the death of Queen Victoria can be looked at objectively and without partisan attitudes so I don't read many 20thC biographies.
So it was a genuine question, and thanks to others who have commented too. I need to study that era in more depth.
Wilson 64-70 was a fairly capable PM. Apart from the devaluation of course. It was Wilson 74-76 that was the shambles.
I remember it well. The Bay City Rollers were the best thing going in that period, and they were crap. The good bits of the Seventies were either side.
I remember watching Jimmy Saville and Gary Glitter on TOTP in that Wilson 2nd govt. It was all a bit suspect.
All blown away by Sex Pistols and Maggie T; and you can see why it was inevitable. Unless you were Ralph Miliband of course.
Ed does not look the part but he might just be another Wilson.
Is that intended as a compliment or an insult? Thanks in advance.
Wilson 64 - 70 was a wasted opportunity which ultimately led to the shambles of the late 1970's. Wilson wasted his opportunities, just like Blair. About the only good thing that can be said for him is the OU and that he kept us out of Vietnam. He has largely been written out of Labour history.
I am not sure if it is just the patina of history but what I find remarkable looking at the first Wilson administration was the level of talent at his disposal. He had Jenkins, Callagahan, Healey, Mason, Williams, Castle, Lord Longford, Crossman, Crossland, Shore and Benn.
Many of these had daft ideas and some of them did positive harm but that is a pretty heavy intellectual bench by any standards. The tory party of the time were largely lightweights by comparison. There was no question that all serious thinking about the future of the country was being done on the left in those days.
The pendulum swung by the early 80s and in my opinion it has not swung back yet.
I haven't seen PMQs - I've no doubts Cameron was drubbed (enough neutral observers have said so) - however, the curious thing is that Cameron comes over on TV tonight, the News at Ten, quite well.
He wants to cut green taxes, he says Miliband is a con man. Miliband cackles and heckles and looks smug. The rest is Tom and Jerry.
Plus ca change.
Yes, anyone who thinks PMQs has any significance is spectacularly mistaken. A year ago Dan Hodges (yes him) declared Miliband the undisputed master of PMQs:
Then Ed suddenly became useless again. Now he's back to being great. PMQs is the political equivalent of an afternoon soap opera - the fortunes of characters fluctuate wildly, plots are forever revisited and it's all just forgettable entertainment.
@afneil: Grangemouth supplies Scotland with 80% of its fuel. If the refinery stays closed for long it will need imports from England.
Probably the only excuse Eck needs to nationalise.
FREEEEEEDOMMMMMMM!
A question for the more knowledgeable: the military built a series of pipelines to transfer petroleum products around the country, to POL (Petrol, Oil, Lubricants) bases for the MOD, airfields, etcetera. The private sector have similar pipelines. Where do they go, and how much can they shift? Can they shift enough petroleum products from England to Scotland to meet demand, or would we need to use seaborne tankers?
Just been looking at the Climate Change Levy which is imposed on supplies of energy to households.
When it was introduced by Labour in 2007, the "tax neutral" claim was as follows:
All revenue raised through the levy is recycled back to business through a 0.3 per cent cut in employers’ national insurance contributions, introduced at the same time as the levy, and through support for energy efficiency and low carbon technologies.
Miliband claimed in PMQs today that some 60% of current 'green taxes' were introduced under the coalition government.
Well this certainly doesn't seem to be borne out by HMRC statistics when applied to the CCL alone:
========================================================= CLIMATE CHANGE LEVY (CCL) - HMRC TAX STATISTICS --------------------------------------------------------- Electricity Gas Tax Index %inc Tax Index %inc --------------------------------------------------------- Under Labour 01.04.01 £0.00430 100.0 £0.00150 100.0 01.04.07 £0.00441 102.6 2.6% £0.00154 102.7 2.7% 01.04.08 £0.00456 106.0 3.4% £0.00159 106.0 3.2% 01.04.09 £0.00470 109.3 3.1% £0.00164 109.3 3.1% --------------------------------------------------------- Under Coalition 01.04.11 £0.00485 112.8 3.2% £0.00169 112.7 3.0% 01.04.12 £0.00509 118.4 4.9% £0.00177 118.0 4.7%
% of Tax imposed by Coalition 15.5% 15.3% by Labour 84.5% 84.7% =========================================================
I am beginning to wonder whether Ed trained as a policeman before becoming a politician.
I am not claiming that Wilson 1 was a good PM; but his was not a bad one either. The OU, legalisation of homosexuality and abortion, keeping out of Vietnam, the independence of most of Africa, etc.
Sure, more could have been done to modernise British Industry, but in which period was that also not true?
Compared with Brown, Wilson 1 was a tour de force!
Wilson 64-70 was a fairly capable PM. Apart from the devaluation of course. It was Wilson 74-76 that was the shambles.
I remember it well. The Bay City Rollers were the best thing going in that period, and they were crap. The good bits of the Seventies were either side.
I remember watching Jimmy Saville and Gary Glitter on TOTP in that Wilson 2nd govt. It was all a bit suspect.
All blown away by Sex Pistols and Maggie T; and you can see why it was inevitable. Unless you were Ralph Miliband of course.
Ed does not look the part but he might just be another Wilson.
Is that intended as a compliment or an insult? Thanks in advance.
Wilson 64 - 70 was a wasted opportunity which ultimately led to the shambles of the late 1970's. Wilson wasted his opportunities, just like Blair. About the only good thing that can be said for him is the OU and that he kept us out of Vietnam. He has largely been written out of Labour history.
He failed on the economy; he more or less kept Labour together but at the cost of a bitter civil war once he was gone. He appeared to succeed by not dealing with issues so that they festered and festered until they blew up and someone else had to clean up the resulting mess. Blair too failed to take the long-term measures needed e.g. on energy. Possibly that was why both of them were good at winning elections - they were both good at creating the illusion of prosperity while the corpse slowly rotted underneath the gaudy clothes.
Very true. I think that the intellectual left have not really recovered from the collapse of communism, Blairite sofa government and Brownite bullying. All that is left is careerism and oppositionism.
Is there a modern equivalent to Dan Hannans the Plan, or Laws Orange Book for the Labour party? Or is it a raft of policy initiatives without that vision thing?
Wilson 64-70 was a fairly capable PM. Apart from the devaluation of course. It was Wilson 74-76 that was the shambles.
I remember it well. The Bay City Rollers were the best thing going in that period, and they were crap. The good bits of the Seventies were either side.
I remember watching Jimmy Saville and Gary Glitter on TOTP in that Wilson 2nd govt. It was all a bit suspect.
All blown away by Sex Pistols and Maggie T; and you can see why it was inevitable. Unless you were Ralph Miliband of course.
Ed does not look the part but he might just be another Wilson.
Is that intended as a compliment or an insult? Thanks in advance.
Wilson 64 - 70 was a wasted opportunity which ultimately led to the shambles of the late 1970's. Wilson wasted his opportunities, just like Blair. About the only good thing that can be said for him is the OU and that he kept us out of Vietnam. He has largely been written out of Labour history.
I am not sure if it is just the patina of history but what I find remarkable looking at the first Wilson administration was the level of talent at his disposal. He had Jenkins, Callagahan, Healey, Mason, Williams, Castle, Lord Longford, Crossman, Crossland, Shore and Benn.
Many of these had daft ideas and some of them did positive harm but that is a pretty heavy intellectual bench by any standards. The tory party of the time were largely lightweights by comparison. There was no question that all serious thinking about the future of the country was being done on the left in those days.
The pendulum swung by the early 80s and in my opinion it has not swung back yet.
However on the plus side he has got a better deal in Europe than any PM since Thatcher, by strategically opposing, and he has made long term appointments that have come good - e.g. sticking with Osborne now looks smarter than it did.
Right now I'd give this government a B- or even a B, which isn't bad, given the appalling situation they inherited. The deficit is falling, unemployment is falling, crime is falling, growth is picking up, we face no serious military threat, there have been no horrible terrorist crimes on our soil since 2010, there is room for optimism in Europe and elsewhere.
The government has done nothing but cede more powers to Europe, agreeing inter alia to the creation of the European External Action Service, the bailout of the Portuguese Republic, the dubious ex post facto legalisation of article 122 bailouts, and has announced its intention to confer criminal jurisdiction on Luxembourg in respect of British cases for the first time ever. Meanwhile, our budget contributions continue to rise.
The deficit is falling, but very gradually, and will be roughly constant between 2011-2012 and 2013-2014. Remember that in the emergency budget of 2010, the government stated that they were to be judged on whether net debt as a percentage of GDP would be falling by 2013-2014? It is still rising rapidly. There is no evidence that anything the government does has an effect on the level of crime, or on terrorist outrages for that matter. The petty authoritarianism of the Blair years continues nonetheless.
Wilson was 48 when he became PM, had been a civil servant during the war. Banged on about white heat of technology, backed wrong horses in aviation Concorde, scrapping of TSR2, amongst other things. Poured resources into the wrong locations for cars and steel, presided over decline in shipbuilding, car manufacturing, competitiveness of many other industries. Regional policy created waste lands quite quickly. Backed comprehensive schooling. Hated by The Left of the Labour Party, thought he was a closet Liberal...How he managed to keep Labour together is a masterpiece of political management, given the constant internecine warfare.
Despite all of the above, he didn't deserve a slow lingering decline once he left office.
Twitter PoliticsHome @politicshome 7m Tomorrow's Financial Times front page: 'Edinburgh and London unite in push to save Grangemouth' http://polho.me/16w3Qlu
Wilson was 48 when he became PM, had been a civil servant during the war. Banged on about white heat of technology, backed wrong horses in aviation Concorde, scrapping of TSR2, amongst other things. Poured resources into the wrong locations for cars and steel, presided over decline in shipbuilding, car manufacturing, competitiveness of many other industries. Regional policy created waste lands quite quickly. Backed comprehensive schooling. Hated by The Left of the Labour Party, thought he was a closet Liberal...How he managed to keep Labour together is a masterpiece of political management, given the constant internecine warfare.
Despite all of the above, he didn't deserve a slow lingering decline once he left office.
When he was retired and suffering from Alzheimers I used to see him shuffling round the late night supermarket in Victoria. He cut a rather pathetic figure. He lived in one of the mansion blocks next to Westminster Cathedral; I was living there too and saw him regularly. Somewhere amongst my papers I have a portrait photo taken of him by my then boyfriend.
Twitter Douglas Fraser @BBCDouglasF 46s Breaking: Unite willing to recommend to members: give in to demands from #Grangemouth owner Ineos, with no strike pledge. Meeting at 8am.
Let's hope its not too late - the BBC has the full timeline:
Salmond on Newsnight - clearly pissed off with politicians name calling - the focus has to be on saving jobs, not apportioning blame (that's you Labour....)
Shareholder on Newsnight - blaming Unite for refusing to discuss the t&c, instead insisting on discussing the Union rep. Salary cost is £50k/ head plus £45k pension cost - the workers have been badly let down by Unite who were focussed on internal union politics.
Regardless of whether the 3 police officers can be prosecuted, they should certainly be disciplined - sacked IMO. Lying goes to the heart of their integrity and honesty; if they cannot tell the truth about such a situation how can anyone trust what they say on anything else?
That their bosses don't understand this basic point shows that their moral compass is wonky, if not non-existent.
Aha, but it's not the moral compass that's wonky apparently. The officers in question 'stand by' their 'accurate' account of the meeting, and their bosses are backing them up, so it's their intelligence levels that are suspect, not their morality, as they accept their people misled the public but claim to believe the claim it was unintentional and believe that makes any difference whatsoever.
"See, we wouldn't intentionally lie about someone and get them fired, we'd just lie by accident and get someone fired, so we're all good, right?"
Replace fired with more serious outcomes that arise in police cases and things would take a turn darker than I can make fun of at present.
Well I won't argue with you. Both their moral compass and their intelligence are at fault. It's a disgrace. I have - ever since the Irish miscarriage cases in the 70"s - been sceptical of the police. The Hillsborough case is far worse than this - people died there - but the sheer arrogance of lying about their encounters with a Cabinet Minister is frightening.
Agree with every word. As Mr Sparrow for the Guardian wrote in his evening summary on the Police Federation grilling. :
"Well, what have we learnt from that?
The first point is that Deborah Glass should probably be running a police force. She seemed far more impressive than the three chief constables giving evidence to the committee. And as for the Police Federation trio? Well, it's already clear they are going to get a bit of kicking when the committee reports next week.
There appears to have been a complete loss of power in Damascus and elsewhere in Syria this evening and it is reportedly linked to a power station near Damascus Intl airport. The area there appears to have been subject to something very heavy because theres a lot of fires burning.
Jihadists claimed to have attacked it but if they did they must have been driving more than a truck full of explosives. Whatever has been hit wasn't just a paper mill or a plant making baby food and whatever hit the area wasn't a mortar shell or two either. There has to be a doubt that the insurgents had that amount of concentrated firepower, or they just got really lucky. If it wasnt them though, who was it?
Meanwhile there are rumours of local agreements between Assad forces and mainline Free Syrian army units to take on the Islamic extremists of ISIS (who's fighters largely originated outside of Syria in the first place). It would be a remarkable development but it is, as yet, a rumour.
Ed does not look the part but he might just be another Wilson.
Is that intended as a compliment or an insult? Thanks in advance.
Wilson
I am not sure if it is just the patina of history but what I find remarkable looking at the first Wilson administration was the level of talent at his disposal. He had Jenkins, Callagahan, Healey, Mason, Williams, Castle, Lord Longford, Crossman, Crossland, Shore and Benn.
Many of these had daft ideas and some of them did positive harm but that is a pretty heavy intellectual bench by any standards. The tory party of the time were largely lightweights by comparison. There was no question that all serious thinking about the future of the country was being done on the left in those days.
The pendulum swung by the early 80s and in my opinion it has not swung back yet.
I'd agree with that. The Left is ideologically bereft, and has been since 1989 and the final death of socialism. At heart they are still Marxists, yet they know this is now ludicrous; they are also painfully aware that Blairite "third way" capitalism tinged with social democracy is ineffably uninspiring, and makes no one swoon. But they have nothing else to offer.
Hence their adulation of wankers like Chavez and their bizarre accommodation of Islamism: they are easily impressed by non-westerners who evince the anti-American, anti-capitalist zeal they used to possess themselves. So impressed they will abandon all their principles as they try to fellate their heroes.
It's tragic. A species of pathology. They are like Christians who have lost their faith who turn to astrology, or reiki healing, as an alternative.
You really are a bizarre old cove. Always raging against the left.
This is not a left or right issue.
I can't recall any UK politician coming up with any remarkable new ideas recently. There is a nostalgia in the air.
The Farage UKIP movement is politics answer to an ITV3 advert for equity release. I suspect you get a free Parker pen with membership.
I agree that the alliance of the western left with the Islamist cause is a very strange one. No one has more to fear in Islamist countries than free thinking liberals who care for individual rights.
Indeed I think that many are drawn to Islamism because of the collapse of communism. If one is unhappy with decadent western materialistic individualism, then one needs a philosophy that provides community, solidarity, answers to every problem, and sublimation of individuals to the overarching cause. Once this would have been communism; now that stage has been left to the Islamists.
The intellectual left is history, which is why the attacks on Ralph Miliband were so ineffective. His views are as archaic as views on the Corn Laws or Imperial preference.
Ed does not look the part but he might just be another Wilson.
Is that intended as a compliment or an insult? Thanks in advance.
Wilson
I'd agree with that. The Left is ideologically bereft, and has been since 1989 and the final death of socialism. At heart they are still Marxists, yet they know this is now ludicrous; they are also painfully aware that Blairite "third way" capitalism tinged with social democracy is ineffably uninspiring, and makes no one swoon. But they have nothing else to offer.
Hence their adulation of wankers like Chavez and their bizarre accommodation of Islamism: they are easily impressed by non-westerners who evince the anti-American, anti-capitalist zeal they used to possess themselves. So impressed they will abandon all their principles as they try to fellate their heroes.
It's tragic. A species of pathology. They are like Christians who have lost their faith who turn to astrology, or reiki healing, as an alternative.
Well I have one answer to a question nobody asked: if you want to draw a crowd here in Oxford it isn't enough to be President of some county or former Prime Minister of Australia. The answer is to be Billy Joel.
And your pretentious, supercilious, non-existent point is? What?
Almost all governments are a joke, just as all political careers end in failure. But compared to the squalid disaster that was New Labour this government is a much much less groanworthy joke. More of a bad and silly limerick, as compared to a foul and abusive gag gone wrong.
Remember the differing legacies the two governments inherited. And Never Forget what Labour Gave us. The Iraq war and the Great Recession. Nothing compares.
It is doubtful that after Iraq the Labour Party's foreign policy, had they won the last election, would have been any different to the coalition's. The Conservatives, of course, were even more committed to the invasion of Iraq than the Labour Party, and it was only with their votes that British military action took place. My point, supercilious and pretentious as it may be, was that this government has in nearly every area continued with the policies of the previous administration. There are no major differences of principle, whether on the economy, civil liberties or foreign affairs.
Cyclefree/Dr Spyn As well as all you mentioned, including the ending of most selective education and grammar schools and their replacement by comprehensives and the legalisation of homosexuality and abortion Wilson also introduced the first non-contributory unemployment benefits greatly expanding the welfare state we have today, today's Britain is in many ways just as much Wilson's Britain as Thatcher's Britain
However on the plus side he has got a better deal in Europe than any PM since Thatcher, by strategically opposing, and he has made long term appointments that have come good - e.g. sticking with Osborne now looks smarter than it did.
Right now I'd give this government a B- or even a B, which isn't bad, given the appalling situation they inherited. The deficit is falling, unemployment is falling, crime is falling, growth is picking up, we face no serious military threat, there have been no horrible terrorist crimes on our soil since 2010, there is room for optimism in Europe and elsewhere.
The government has done nothing but cede more powers to Europe, agreeing inter alia to the creation of the European External Action Service, the bailout of the Portuguese Republic, the dubious ex post facto legalisation of article 122 bailouts, and has announced its intention to confer criminal jurisdiction on Luxembourg in respect of British cases for the first time ever. Meanwhile, our budget contributions continue to rise.
The deficit is falling, but very gradually, and will be roughly constant between 2011-2012 and 2013-2014. Remember that in the emergency budget of 2010, the government stated that they were to be judged on whether net debt as a percentage of GDP would be falling by 2013-2014? It is still rising rapidly. There is no evidence that anything the government does has an effect on the level of crime, or on terrorist outrages for that matter. The petty authoritarianism of the Blair years continues nonetheless.
The government is a joke.
And the only other alternative is a EU loving ed miliband with alot of spending pledges.
Ed does not look the part but he might just be another Wilson.
Is that intended as a compliment or an insult? Thanks in advance.
Wilson
I'd agree with that. The Left is ideologically bereft, and has been since 1989 and the final death of socialism. At heart they are still Marxists, yet they know this is now ludicrous; they are also painfully aware that Blairite "third way" capitalism tinged with social democracy is ineffably uninspiring, and makes no one swoon. But they have nothing else to offer.
Hence their adulation of wankers like Chavez and their bizarre accommodation of Islamism: they are easily impressed by non-westerners who evince the anti-American, anti-capitalist zeal they used to possess themselves. So impressed they will abandon all their principles as they try to fellate their heroes.
It's tragic. A species of pathology. They are like Christians who have lost their faith who turn to astrology, or reiki healing, as an alternative.
So what state is the "intellectual Right" in? Michael Gove and 3 decades without winning an election?
What's all this "decline of the Left" stuff from Tories here?
The Right haven't won a majority for 22 years. It will be 28 years at the very least before they do.
Which side of British politics is in the doldrums again?
The fall of the Tory party is actually quite remarkable.
The coalition is the modern equivalent of the old Tory party. The LDs are simply just the old wet Europhile wing with a few unhappy SDPers along for the ride.
What's all this "decline of the Left" stuff from Tories here?
The Right haven't won a majority for 22 years. It will be 28 years at the very least before they do.
Which side of British politics is in the doldrums again?
You are fallaciously assuming that the centre ground of politics has not shifted. The Labour party no longer support the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, for example. The fact that the Conservatives haven't won a majority since 1992 is neither here nor there.
The problem I see for the left is that they don't have an economic model or ideal that works or sounds even vaguely credible. They are still quite good at a critique of capitalism and, let's face it with modern crony capitalism there is plenty to critique.
So they are left, as the tories were pre-Thatcher pretty much accepting what they inherited, trying to keep it going and generally making a hash of things in the same way that Heath and the PMs of the early 60s did. It just seems much more difficult to govern effectively if you don't know where you are going.
This is a challenge for a Coalition government too of course and this has been apparent in a number of areas, not least of which has been energy where they are still desperately trying to get their act together after at least a couple of years of paralysis.
But I agree with those who responded upthread. When did anyone last read a left leaning book with a serious plan for government? Does anyone even try to write such a thing anymore?
What's all this "decline of the Left" stuff from Tories here?
The Right haven't won a majority for 22 years. It will be 28 years at the very least before they do.
Which side of British politics is in the doldrums again?
How long has it been since the Left has won a majority ;-) More than 22 years I'd say
If you think the Blair / Brown Government was Rightwing, that might be a fair point.
But many Tories, including those stroking their chin about the "death of the Left" on here tonight, think it was a Leftwing Government that wrecked Britain with its spending, taxing, multiculturalism, pro-Europeanism and all the rest of it.
Our three merry policemen have achieved what I would have thought was completely impossible.
I can get used to the idea that Keith Vaz is turning out to be a very good chairman of the committee (in fact the increased sharpness of parliamentary committees is one of the great unsung achievements of the coalition, arising from the reduction in government patronage - bravo to that!).
But I now have to get my head around another, and quite extraordinary, new concept: that Julian Huppert turned out to be a sharp and incisive questioner of the trio of police officers who may have at best a rather curious relationship with telling the plain truth, but who do each have over 20 years experience and who, you would have thought, would be quite streetwise.
But many Tories, including those stroking their chin about the "death of the Left" on here tonight, think it was a Leftwing Government that wrecked Britain with its spending, taxing, multiculturalism, pro-Europeanism and all the rest of it.
No they don't. They think, and quite rightly based on the objective evidence, that it was the worst government in living memory, and certainly profligate, but not particularly left-wing. In fact it tried to be business-friendly, which is more than Ed Miliband wants to be.
What's all this "decline of the Left" stuff from Tories here?
The Right haven't won a majority for 22 years. It will be 28 years at the very least before they do.
Which side of British politics is in the doldrums again?
The "left" won under neo-liberal, filthy rich TONY BLAIR. lol. He's probably to the right of Nigel Farage, if you ignore Europe.
The Left - defined as socialism - hasn't won an election since the 1970s. And the Left will never win again. The game is done.
Ah so you you were a big fan of the Rightwing policies on spending, taxation, law and order, Europe, immigration, social policy, education etc that we had from 1997-2010 then?
Quite obviously the Tories have not won. an outright majority since 1992, but there has been serious development of ideas. Many do not like Gove, or Dan Hannan but both have clear intellectual underpinning to their plans, in a way that Cameron does not. Even he though has theclear view that the Tory party should be a socialy liberal party, with sound economics. Boris is much the same.
Indeed the right is split because it is involved in these deeper intellectual questions, while the left is united because of lack of Ideas to argue about.
DavidL is right. Whether they are in power or not, the future of the country is being debated on the right, the left is merely promising to do much the same, just in a more touchy-feely way.
Ed does not look the part but he might just be another Wilson.
Is that intended as a compliment or an insult? Thanks in advance.
Wilson
I'd agree with that. The Left is ideologically bereft, and has been since 1989 and the final death of socialism. At heart they are still Marxists, yet they know this is now ludicrous; they are also painfully aware that Blairite "third way" capitalism tinged with social democracy is ineffably uninspiring, and makes no one swoon. But they have nothing else to offer.
Hence their adulation of wankers like Chavez and their bizarre accommodation of Islamism: they are easily impressed by non-westerners who evince the anti-American, anti-capitalist zeal they used to possess themselves. So impressed they will abandon all their principles as they try to fellate their heroes.
It's tragic. A species of pathology. They are like Christians who have lost their faith who turn to astrology, or reiki healing, as an alternative.
So what state is the "intellectual Right" in? Michael Gove and 3 decades without winning an election?
But many Tories, including those stroking their chin about the "death of the Left" on here tonight, think it was a Leftwing Government that wrecked Britain with its spending, taxing, multiculturalism, pro-Europeanism and all the rest of it.
Multiculturalism and tax-n-spend formed part of New Labour's scheme to massively expand their client vote - through naive foreigners and welfare addicts. It was using the husk of old egalitarian dogma to serve a cynical and destructive end.
The deficit is falling, but very gradually, and will be roughly constant between 2011-2012 and 2013-2014. Remember that in the emergency budget of 2010, the government stated that they were to be judged on whether net debt as a percentage of GDP would be falling by 2013-2014? It is still rising rapidly.
...
The government is a joke.
Simply not true, LIAMT.
Here are the latest GDP ratios from the September 2013 Public Finances Bulletin released on Tuesday.
================================================ ONS Sep 2013 Long Run of Indicators as a percentage of GDP ------------------------------------------------ PSCB ex PSNB ex PSCB PSNB PSND 2009/10 −7.65% 11.03% −6.00% 9.04% 151.7% 2010/11 −6.72% 9.29% −4.97% 7.52% 147.2% 2011/12 −5.78% 7.65% −3.96% 5.87% 139.2% 2012/13 −5.53% 5.16% −4.55% 4.18% 137.4% ------------------------------------------------ PSCB = Public Sector Current Budget PSNB = Public Sector Net Borrowing PSND = Public Sector Net Debt ================================================
Note all figures are current outcomes not forecasts although subject to later revision.
The Tories cannot win a majority until they start to love immigration. I know a the old white men on this message board won't like that statement. But then there is a reason why they are angry old white men who can't command a coalition that can win a majority.
Wilson 64-70 was a fairly capable PM. Apart from the devaluation of course. It was Wilson 74-76 that was the shambles.
No, that is wrong. The pivotal moment in UK history 1960 to 1979 was Wilson's failure to go through with In Place of Strife in 1969. That failure to grasp the opportunity to cut out the cancer before it had grown too big was a complete catastrophe for the country, leading to a decade of massive decline and, finally, to the need for Thatcher to confront it head-on. It took nearly 20 years, and a lot of pain, to recover from Wilson's failure.
I just hope that we're not due for a Miliband-driven replay of this failure to address the key issues facing the country in the next parliament, but I have to say the omens are not good.
Paxo shouted down by Russell Brand on his vision for a new world order (Capitalism doesn't work, s'not fair etc.) .Why didn't Paxo ask the bearded one a: how much he earned last year. b: how much tax he paid on this c: how much tax he paid in the UK. Guess answers to be a: a lot b: not very much c: infinitesimal Tosser
What's all this "decline of the Left" stuff from Tories here?
The Right haven't won a majority for 22 years. It will be 28 years at the very least before they do.
Which side of British politics is in the doldrums again?
The "left" won under neo-liberal, filthy rich TONY BLAIR. lol. He's probably to the right of Nigel Farage, if you ignore Europe.
The Left - defined as socialism - hasn't won an election since the 1970s. And the Left will never win again. The game is done.
Ah so you you were a big fan of the Rightwing policies on spending, taxation, law and order, Europe, immigration, social policy, education etc that we had from 1997-2010 then?
Yes, I quite liked "British jobs for British workers", was that one of Labour's? Or was it the BNP? It is so easy to get them confused.
Ah, no, wait, your party had a policy of unrestricted free immigration from Europe and elsewhere, thus driving down low skilled wages, making it easier for big business to make a profit and impoverishing the native working classes. Yep. that policy. Nice.
Means I got a cleaner for £6 an hour. Ta!
I liked your Party's attempt to win by copying Labour's spending plans. And embracing their social agenda on things like gay marriage and the environment. And promising not to touch State structures like NHS, or the BBC, or even Sure Start centres. Or even State benefits like Winter Fuel payments.
That's the final and complete victory of the intellectual Right, right there.
The Tories cannot win a majority until they start to love immigration. I know a the old white men on this message board won't like that statement. But then there is a reason why they are angry old white men who can't command a coalition that can win a majority.
This is what I mean by winning the debate. Has not Ed Miliband apologised for the mass immigration under the last government? Has Labour not promised to be much more restrictive in the future? And to introduce workfare and keep parent led acadamies and the HSC bill?
The right maybe losing the elections, but they are triumphing in the battle of ideas. It matters not if a cat is black or white as long as it catches mice; it matters not if an internal NHS market is introduced by a Tory or a Labour Health minister, the mouse is caught.
The Tories cannot win a majority until they start to love immigration. I know a the old white men on this message board won't like that statement. But then there is a reason why they are angry old white men who can't command a coalition that can win a majority.
The deficit is falling, but very gradually, and will be roughly constant between 2011-2012 and 2013-2014. Remember that in the emergency budget of 2010, the government stated that they were to be judged on whether net debt as a percentage of GDP would be falling by 2013-2014? It is still rising rapidly.
...
The government is a joke.
Simply not true, LIAMT.
Here are the latest GDP ratios from the September 2013 Public Finances Bulletin released on Tuesday.
================================================ ONS Sep 2013 Long Run of Indicators as a percentage of GDP ------------------------------------------------ PSCB ex PSNB ex PSCB PSNB PSND 2009/10 −7.65% 11.03% −6.00% 9.04% 151.7% 2010/11 −6.72% 9.29% −4.97% 7.52% 147.2% 2011/12 −5.78% 7.65% −3.96% 5.87% 139.2% 2012/13 −5.53% 5.16% −4.55% 4.18% 137.4% ------------------------------------------------ PSCB = Public Sector Current Budget PSNB = Public Sector Net Borrowing PSND = Public Sector Net Debt ================================================
Note all figures are current outcomes not forecasts although subject to later revision.
Note: The subject Avery responds to the stimulus as predicted.
The Tories cannot win a majority until they start to love immigration. I know a the old white men on this message board won't like that statement. But then there is a reason why they are angry old white men who can't command a coalition that can win a majority.
Remind me, why are Labour refusing to oppose the government's preposterously authoritarian Immigration Bill?
"I'd agree with that. The Left is ideologically bereft, and has been since 1989 and the final death of socialism. At heart they are still Marxists, yet they know this is now ludicrous; they are also painfully aware that Blairite "third way" capitalism tinged with social democracy is ineffably uninspiring, and makes no one swoon. But they have nothing else to offer.
Hence their adulation of wankers like Chavez and their bizarre accommodation of Islamism: they are easily impressed by non-westerners who evince the anti-American, anti-capitalist zeal they used to possess themselves. So impressed they will abandon all their principles as they try to fellate their heroes.
It's tragic. A species of pathology. They are like Christians who have lost their faith who turn to astrology, or reiki healing, as an alternative."
The attraction of violent all-encompassing cults to some on the left was identified and described long ago by those on the decent left, such as Orwell and Camus. The Left were attracted to such groups not in spite of their violence and repellent views but because of them. Easy to theorise about such matters when it is others' blood that is being spilt. Plus ca change....
Incidentally, Camus said this about a free press: "A free press can, of course, be good or bad, but, most certainly without freedom, the press will never be anything but bad."
SeanT Hollande won last year on a manifesto that was essentially socialist, Obama is derided as a 'socialist' by the Tea Party. We are not going to become a Soviet satellite state, but I would also imagine the next Labour government, possibly under Chukka Umunna if not Miliband, will be more social democratic than Blairite New Labour!
The pivotal moment in UK history 1960 to 1979 was Wilson's failure to go through with In Place of Strife in 1969. That failure to grasp the opportunity to cut out the cancer before it had grown too big was a complete catastrophe for the country...
And the Wikipedia entry for 'In Place of Strife' is a mere stub:
Comments
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00292/16252768_Blair_Brow_292402c.jpg
Is it subliminal? Because Mrs Thatcher invented Mr Whippy or something?
As it could be rather difficult to prove sometimes, an alternative and very similar crime of Treachery was introduced in 1940 with a different burden of proof. It wasn't fully repealed until 1973.
George Eaton @georgeeaton 3m
Overlooked problem with Cameron's pledge to "roll back" green taxes: how's he going to pay for it? Osborne said no giveaways yesterday.
That their bosses don't understand this basic point shows that their moral compass is wonky, if not non-existent.
http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=61668
Blimey! That's damning with faint praise....
You know when you've been tangoed!
"See, we wouldn't intentionally lie about someone and get them fired, we'd just lie by accident and get someone fired, so we're all good, right? Also, I'm looking forward to passing my 11+ soon, even though I'm 55, all the guys and gals in my detective team thingy are so impressed I've managed it so early, as is my mummy"
Replace fired with more serious outcomes that arise in police cases and things would take a turn darker than I can make fun of at present.
However to get 258 seats in 2010 always gave Labour a chance.
Amazing result really.
The Conservatives were under 200 , I believe for a few years after 97.
Twitter
Douglas Fraser @BBCDouglasF 1h
Unite has told the BBC it's meeting Ineos tomorrow for talks on #Grangemouth. Not saying what's in its "last ditch" plan
I remember it well. The Bay City Rollers were the best thing going in that period, and they were crap. The good bits of the Seventies were either side.
I remember watching Jimmy Saville and Gary Glitter on TOTP in that Wilson 2nd govt. It was all a bit suspect.
All blown away by Sex Pistols and Maggie T; and you can see why it was inevitable. Unless you were Ralph Miliband of course.
On the death of my uncle earlier this year I came into possession of the letter my grandmother got from the MoD. There was a blank for cause of death into which someone had written "accidently killed". And they got her name wrong.
Don't think it was mentioned at the start of PMQs either.
Our world is a long way from perfect but there have been many worse times to be alive.
Douglas Fraser @BBCDouglasF 46s
Breaking: Unite willing to recommend to members: give in to demands from #Grangemouth owner Ineos, with no strike pledge. Meeting at 8am.
On long term strategy Dave has presided over the uniting of the Left under Labour and split the right, breaking the mould of British politics. He also blew the boundary changes. These facts above all have made his task much more difficult.
On the day to day front he projects well when he is on solid ground, when the policy is sensible, but on difficult territory Ed can exploit his lack of attention to detail. However it's the long term stuff that it's changing the polling picture, not energy freezes etc
Sure, more could have been done to modernise British Industry, but in which period was that also not true?
Compared with Brown, Wilson 1 was a tour de force!
Wilson as a young man did not really look the part, but created an image that eventually resonated. Both came from the left of centre but were clever initially at keeping the party together.There are many similarities I said years ago Ed Milliband is very Wilsonesque.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24635890
How will they bleat.
Was is really bad, is how frequently he gets himself in a position where he has to rely upon that supposed skill.
One day it will let him down.
Major Atlee was very much the exception, but was cast out of office very quickly in 1951, largely bt losing Scottish seats, so was not universally popular. Top bloke though, my grandfather was an infantryman with him in WW1, and spoke well of his character. Not many politicians who rush towards the sound of real gunfire nowadays, just ones who send other peoples children.
So it was a genuine question, and thanks to others who have commented too. I need to study that era in more depth.
Many of these had daft ideas and some of them did positive harm but that is a pretty heavy intellectual bench by any standards. The tory party of the time were largely lightweights by comparison. There was no question that all serious thinking about the future of the country was being done on the left in those days.
The pendulum swung by the early 80s and in my opinion it has not swung back yet.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100186405/ed-miliband-now-rules-the-house-of-commons-whod-have-thought-it-a-year-ago/
Then Ed suddenly became useless again. Now he's back to being great. PMQs is the political equivalent of an afternoon soap opera - the fortunes of characters fluctuate wildly, plots are forever revisited and it's all just forgettable entertainment.
Ah, just answered part of the question using this handy webpage. The MOD pipelines are under GPSS:
http://www.linewatch.co.uk/pipeline_network.php
Just been looking at the Climate Change Levy which is imposed on supplies of energy to households.
When it was introduced by Labour in 2007, the "tax neutral" claim was as follows:
All revenue raised through the levy is recycled back to business through a 0.3 per cent cut in employers’ national insurance contributions, introduced at the same time as the levy, and through support for energy efficiency and low carbon technologies.
Miliband claimed in PMQs today that some 60% of current 'green taxes' were introduced under the coalition government.
Well this certainly doesn't seem to be borne out by HMRC statistics when applied to the CCL alone: I am beginning to wonder whether Ed trained as a policeman before becoming a politician.
Is there a modern equivalent to Dan Hannans the Plan, or Laws Orange Book for the Labour party? Or is it a raft of policy initiatives without that vision thing?
http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/87077/the_financial_times_wednesday_23rd_october_2013.html
The deficit is falling, but very gradually, and will be roughly constant between 2011-2012 and 2013-2014. Remember that in the emergency budget of 2010, the government stated that they were to be judged on whether net debt as a percentage of GDP would be falling by 2013-2014? It is still rising rapidly. There is no evidence that anything the government does has an effect on the level of crime, or on terrorist outrages for that matter. The petty authoritarianism of the Blair years continues nonetheless.
The government is a joke.
Despite all of the above, he didn't deserve a slow lingering decline once he left office.
PoliticsHome @politicshome 7m
Tomorrow's Financial Times front page: 'Edinburgh and London unite in push to save Grangemouth' http://polho.me/16w3Qlu
The figures for the share of Climate Change Levies imposed by Labour and the Coalition governments in my post downthread were incorrect.
Here is the correction:
In fact, the question should be, why isn't Cameron ahead in the polls, against idiots like Miliband and Balls? Bad tactics or bad strategy?
Forthe simple reason that Cammo is a maladjusted, maladroit, malicious, malfunctioning, Malpractition.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24647843
Salmond on Newsnight - clearly pissed off with politicians name calling - the focus has to be on saving jobs, not apportioning blame (that's you Labour....)
Shareholder on Newsnight - blaming Unite for refusing to discuss the t&c, instead insisting on discussing the Union rep.
Salary cost is £50k/ head plus £45k pension cost - the workers have been badly let down by Unite who were focussed on internal union politics.
"Well, what have we learnt from that?
The first point is that Deborah Glass should probably be running a police force. She seemed far more impressive than the three chief constables giving evidence to the committee. And as for the Police Federation trio? Well, it's already clear they are going to get a bit of kicking when the committee reports next week.
It has not been a good afternoon for the police."
There appears to have been a complete loss of power in Damascus and elsewhere in Syria this evening and it is reportedly linked to a power station near Damascus Intl airport. The area there appears to have been subject to something very heavy because theres a lot of fires burning.
Jihadists claimed to have attacked it but if they did they must have been driving more than a truck full of explosives. Whatever has been hit wasn't just a paper mill or a plant making baby food and whatever hit the area wasn't a mortar shell or two either. There has to be a doubt that the insurgents had that amount of concentrated firepower, or they just got really lucky. If it wasnt them though, who was it?
Meanwhile there are rumours of local agreements between Assad forces and mainline Free Syrian army units to take on the Islamic extremists of ISIS (who's fighters largely originated outside of Syria in the first place). It would be a remarkable development but it is, as yet, a rumour.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24647843
Unite are like moths to the candle.
This is not a left or right issue.
I can't recall any UK politician coming up with any remarkable new ideas recently. There is a nostalgia in the air.
The Farage UKIP movement is politics answer to an ITV3 advert for equity release. I suspect you get a free Parker pen with membership.
The Right haven't won a majority for 22 years. It will be 28 years at the very least before they do.
Which side of British politics is in the doldrums again?
I agree that the alliance of the western left with the Islamist cause is a very strange one. No one has more to fear in Islamist countries than free thinking liberals who care for individual rights.
Indeed I think that many are drawn to Islamism because of the collapse of communism. If one is unhappy with decadent western materialistic individualism, then one needs a philosophy that provides community, solidarity, answers to every problem, and sublimation of individuals to the overarching cause. Once this would have been communism; now that stage has been left to the Islamists.
The intellectual left is history, which is why the attacks on Ralph Miliband were so ineffective. His views are as archaic as views on the Corn Laws or Imperial preference.
The coalition is the modern equivalent of the old Tory party. The LDs are simply just the old wet Europhile wing with a few unhappy SDPers along for the ride.
So they are left, as the tories were pre-Thatcher pretty much accepting what they inherited, trying to keep it going and generally making a hash of things in the same way that Heath and the PMs of the early 60s did. It just seems much more difficult to govern effectively if you don't know where you are going.
This is a challenge for a Coalition government too of course and this has been apparent in a number of areas, not least of which has been energy where they are still desperately trying to get their act together after at least a couple of years of paralysis.
But I agree with those who responded upthread. When did anyone last read a left leaning book with a serious plan for government? Does anyone even try to write such a thing anymore?
But many Tories, including those stroking their chin about the "death of the Left" on here tonight, think it was a Leftwing Government that wrecked Britain with its spending, taxing, multiculturalism, pro-Europeanism and all the rest of it.
I can get used to the idea that Keith Vaz is turning out to be a very good chairman of the committee (in fact the increased sharpness of parliamentary committees is one of the great unsung achievements of the coalition, arising from the reduction in government patronage - bravo to that!).
But I now have to get my head around another, and quite extraordinary, new concept: that Julian Huppert turned out to be a sharp and incisive questioner of the trio of police officers who may have at best a rather curious relationship with telling the plain truth, but who do each have over 20 years experience and who, you would have thought, would be quite streetwise.
Surely cant be right
Indeed the right is split because it is involved in these deeper intellectual questions, while the left is united because of lack of Ideas to argue about.
DavidL is right. Whether they are in power or not, the future of the country is being debated on the right, the left is merely promising to do much the same, just in a more touchy-feely way.
The deficit is falling, but very gradually, and will be roughly constant between 2011-2012 and 2013-2014. Remember that in the emergency budget of 2010, the government stated that they were to be judged on whether net debt as a percentage of GDP would be falling by 2013-2014? It is still rising rapidly.
...
The government is a joke.
Simply not true, LIAMT.
Here are the latest GDP ratios from the September 2013 Public Finances Bulletin released on Tuesday. Note all figures are current outcomes not forecasts although subject to later revision.
I just hope that we're not due for a Miliband-driven replay of this failure to address the key issues facing the country in the next parliament, but I have to say the omens are not good.
.Why didn't Paxo ask the bearded one
a: how much he earned last year. b: how much tax he paid on this c: how much tax he paid in the UK.
Guess answers to be a: a lot b: not very much c: infinitesimal
Tosser
That's the final and complete victory of the intellectual Right, right there.
The right maybe losing the elections, but they are triumphing in the battle of ideas. It matters not if a cat is black or white as long as it catches mice; it matters not if an internal NHS market is introduced by a Tory or a Labour Health minister, the mouse is caught.
Say that when the right wing on this country wins a majority.
"I'd agree with that. The Left is ideologically bereft, and has been since 1989 and the final death of socialism. At heart they are still Marxists, yet they know this is now ludicrous; they are also painfully aware that Blairite "third way" capitalism tinged with social democracy is ineffably uninspiring, and makes no one swoon. But they have nothing else to offer.
Hence their adulation of wankers like Chavez and their bizarre accommodation of Islamism: they are easily impressed by non-westerners who evince the anti-American, anti-capitalist zeal they used to possess themselves. So impressed they will abandon all their principles as they try to fellate their heroes.
It's tragic. A species of pathology. They are like Christians who have lost their faith who turn to astrology, or reiki healing, as an alternative."
The attraction of violent all-encompassing cults to some on the left was identified and described long ago by those on the decent left, such as Orwell and Camus. The Left were attracted to such groups not in spite of their violence and repellent views but because of them. Easy to theorise about such matters when it is others' blood that is being spilt. Plus ca change....
Incidentally, Camus said this about a free press: "A free press can, of course, be good or bad, but, most certainly without freedom, the press will never be anything but bad."
Winning what debate? We still have open boarders with Europe. In fact next year we will be adding more countries. So much for winning a debate.
Now embrace immigration like Boris and try winning an election.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Place_of_Strife
No one's bothered, or maybe even thought about, writing an entry for it. Strangely poignant that.