First declaration from the 1997 general election on BBC Parliament' s rerun today.
Swing of 11% to Labour
Brave of you, sitting through that again.
There's a certain grim satisfaction at seeing all that hope vested in Blair's Camelot - knowing how it all ends.
In a few years time, I expect one will be able to say the same about watching Boris and the Brexiteers, not that I think he will win 3 elections in a row by any stretch of the imagination.
It shouldn’t be, we were told yesterday that Valencia is going to phase two on Monday. Nobody will open their restaurant inside tonight, groups of 15 will only start from Monday. But then there are four times the number of police officers out here and a respect for, if not love for them.
If they had sprung it on people as a shock measure, Gavin Essler would be throwing his toys out of the pram about that.
No need to apologise though. It was a decent enough call. I made the same mistake for the same reason.
Agree, it was hard to imagine that Boris would burn so many bridges saving such an idiot as Cummings.
Cummings isn't an idiot, Malc, but one positive from the sorry episode is that he has dismantled the myth that he is some kind of towering intellect.
You didn't need to be particularly clever or subtle to come up with a better cover story than his. As for common sense, the journey to Barnard Castle showed a complete lack.
He might actually have got away with the whole thing but for the BC adventure but it was such a transparent lie that you had to wonder whether the whole account was a complete work of fiction, starting with Mary's 'illness' and the late nite drive to Durham.
I did a "Scoop and Run" for Fox Jr from his London digs a week or so before DC did the same (note: mine was pre lockdown). Having set him up at home, myself and Mrs Foxy returned to hospital work in what was a mounting epidemic,
It is not easy to forget the weird atmosphere there. The streets and pubs mostly empty, audible coughs from neighbours, the swirling lights of passing ambulances. The supermarket shelves emptying fast, the hospitals filling, the news of a fresh rise in deaths doubling every few days. The place seemed like a zombie apocalypse movie.
With the PM, and CMO ill, I can understand the desire to flee to the countryside with family. It was though a breach of government policy, as encouraging such moves certainly risked spread. Remember the criticism in press of those heading to second homes in West Country, Cumbria and Wales?
So he saw himself above the rules, and covered his tracks with a transparent tissue of lies. There were no witnesses or accounts of either Cummings or Wakefields illnesses, only of their sons. That was not Covid, and quite transient.
Was it all an episode of funk? With the first whiff of gunpowder, he broke for the rear.
In the absence of a credible account from the man himself we are entitled to speculate but fairly.
I think 'funk' is going a bit far. Perhaps a more balanced explanation is that he saw an opportunity to whisk himself and the family away to a safer and more congenial environment and took it.
Your comment about the unsubstantiated illnesses is one I've reflected on myself, but hasn't been publicly discussed much. Apart from Mary Wakefield's highly fictionalised piece in The Spectator there seems to be no objective or corroborated evidence that either had C19. I suspect they were both a little unwell at some point and the rest is embellishment to disguise what was essentially a wecome little break in the country.
I doubt we'll ever know for sure. What we do know is that he seriously undermined the Government's strategy and the PM's failure to deal with him appropriately has undermined his and the Government's authority. It will not be recovered easily. Let's hope that doesn't cost too many lives.
That doesn't fit in my view with the film of him running out of Downing Street.
He certainly *believed* that his wife was badly ill
With CV19? Why then did he return to work later? If there was any possibility of her being contagious that was irresponsible and foolhardy in the extreme.
I don't know.
Nor do I. I suspect she wasn't so sick, or not with anything that could possibly be mistaken for C19.
First declaration from the 1997 general election on BBC Parliament' s rerun today.
Swing of 11% to Labour
Brave of you, sitting through that again.
I have watched all the others, so I will watch this too, even though the 1997 result was the worst Tory result for almost 200 years and I might have to hide behind the sofa when Enfield Southgate declares
While I have a certain admiration for your masochistic tenacity, in terms of seats it was the worst result since 1906, which is 91 years.
In order, the Conservative/Unionist/protectionist/Torys’ worst defeats were:
1906 (157) 1997 (165) 2001 (166) 2005 (198)
Of course, you may be referring to the popular vote, but there is very little point in drawing such comparisons with elections before the advent of a mass electorate in 1918, given the number of seats that were uncontested, settled by agreement or ended with a candidate withdrawing.
It is impressive however that while since 1928 Labour have twice polled below 30% (1983 and 2010) and three times polled less than 31% (1931, 1987 and 2015) the Tories have only once got less than 31% (1997) and never dipped below 30%.
In popular vote terms the Tories got 43% in 1906, the Tories only got 30% in 1997.
You have to go back to the 29% the Duke of Wellington got in 1832 to find a lower popular voteshare for the Tories than they got in 1997
I was a callow young conservative type in 1997, and saddened to see “decent” John Major trounced by “sneaky” Tony Blair.
What was clear though was the grotesque underinvestment in public services and public space, which New Labour rightly set about addressing.
When I arrived in the U.K. from NZ, in 2000, the country still looked so *incredibly* tatty, both compared to where I had come from and to other European countries I was able to visit.
That changed, at least in London.
Spending that was duly caricatured as being the main reason for the post GFC fiscal crisis. 😡
The UK Government is on the hunt for a sprawling industrial site to accommodate a Tesla electric vehicle (EV) “Gigafactory”, according to reports this week.
An article published in Property Week said that the Department for International Trade (DIT) is seeking a four million square foot site to accommodate an electric vehicle (EV) research, development and manufacturing plant for Elon Musk’s car brand.
News of the development comes just months after Tesla was forced to halt construction of a proposed 741-acre Berlin Gigafactory after a German courts raised concerns about the impact on wildlife of clearing 227 acres of forest to create the facility.
I enjoyed reading the main article I find it very intersting and well balanced.
A comment on "This time last week, the Tories were sitting on 12-15% poll leads; that is now down by more than half, to 5-6% (although the fact that it is still a lead is an indication of the trust problem with the public that Labour has)."
I think this is mainy a sign that most people do not change their voting intentions overnight. Many are incensed with the "one rule for us and another for Cummings" situation, but those who have hanged their VI opinion this week were probably already dissatisfied with other aspects of the government's Corona approach. There are of course others who have moved "one straw away" from changing their opinion.
Usually the polls change slowly and a 6-10 point change in one week is a very large change.
No need to apologise though. It was a decent enough call. I made the same mistake for the same reason.
Agree, it was hard to imagine that Boris would burn so many bridges saving such an idiot as Cummings.
Cummings isn't an idiot, Malc, but one positive from the sorry episode is that he has dismantled the myth that he is some kind of towering intellect.
You didn't need to be particularly clever or subtle to come up with a better cover story than his. As for common sense, the journey to Barnard Castle showed a complete lack.
He might actually have got away with the whole thing but for the BC adventure but it was such a transparent lie that you had to wonder whether the whole account was a complete work of fiction, starting with Mary's 'illness' and the late nite drive to Durham.
I did a "Scoop and Run" for Fox Jr from his London digs a week or so before DC did the same (note: mine was pre lockdown). Having set him up at home, myself and Mrs Foxy returned to hospital work in what was a mounting epidemic,
It is not easy to forget the weird atmosphere there. The streets and pubs mostly empty, audible coughs from neighbours, the swirling lights of passing ambulances. The supermarket shelves emptying fast, the hospitals filling, the news of a fresh rise in deaths doubling every few days. The place seemed like a zombie apocalypse movie.
With the PM, and CMO ill, I can understand the desire to flee to the countryside with family. It was though a breach of government policy, as encouraging such moves certainly risked spread. Remember the criticism in press of those heading to second homes in West Country, Cumbria and Wales?
So he saw himself above the rules, and covered his tracks with a transparent tissue of lies. There were no witnesses or accounts of either Cummings or Wakefields illnesses, only of their sons. That was not Covid, and quite transient.
Was it all an episode of funk? With the first whiff of gunpowder, he broke for the rear.
In the absence of a credible account from the man himself we are entitled to speculate but fairly.
I think 'funk' is going a bit far. Perhaps a more balanced explanation is that he saw an opportunity to whisk himself and the family away to a safer and more congenial environment and took it.
Your comment about the unsubstantiated illnesses is one I've reflected on myself, but hasn't been publicly discussed much. Apart from Mary Wakefield's highly fictionalised piece in The Spectator there seems to be no objective or corroborated evidence that either had C19. I suspect they were both a little unwell at some point and the rest is embellishment to disguise what was essentially a wecome little break in the country.
I doubt we'll ever know for sure. What we do know is that he seriously undermined the Government's strategy and the PM's failure to deal with him appropriately has undermined his and the Government's authority. It will not be recovered easily. Let's hope that doesn't cost too many lives.
That doesn't fit in my view with the film of him running out of Downing Street.
He certainly *believed* that his wife was badly ill
With CV19? Why then did he return to work later? If there was any possibility of her being contagious that was irresponsible and foolhardy in the extreme.
I don't know.
Nor do I, which makes me suspect she wasn't so sick, or not with anything that could possibly be mistaken for C19.
I don't know her, but if all he had to go on was a phone call...
The UK Government is on the hunt for a sprawling industrial site to accommodate a Tesla electric vehicle (EV) “Gigafactory”, according to reports this week.
An article published in Property Week said that the Department for International Trade (DIT) is seeking a four million square foot site to accommodate an electric vehicle (EV) research, development and manufacturing plant for Elon Musk’s car brand.
News of the development comes just months after Tesla was forced to halt construction of a proposed 741-acre Berlin Gigafactory after a German courts raised concerns about the impact on wildlife of clearing 227 acres of forest to create the facility.
You say that you didn't see that Boris Johnson would prove so loyal when you advocated betting on Cummings's departure. But loyalty has nothing whatever to do with it. Any biography of Johnson reveals that, like all others, loyalty is a virtue Johnson lacks. Johnson's incompetence + his history with Cummings as adviser ensure that without him he would flail and flounder cluelessly. And he knows this.
I was a callow young conservative type in 1997, and saddened to see “decent” John Major trounced by “sneaky” Tony Blair.
What was clear though was the grotesque underinvestment in public services and public space, which New Labour rightly set about addressing.
When I arrived in the U.K. from NZ, in 2000, the country still looked so *incredibly* tatty, both compared to where I had come from and to other European countries I was able to visit.
That changed, at least in London.
Spending that was duly caricatured as being the main reason for the post GFC fiscal crisis. 😡
Nah. Naughty boy. Trying to get a rise out of people by stating things you know to be falsehoods.
I think in these challenging times we should restrict ourselves on PB to subjects about which there can actually be debate.
First declaration from the 1997 general election on BBC Parliament' s rerun today.
Swing of 11% to Labour
Brave of you, sitting through that again.
I have watched all the others, so I will watch this too, even though the 1997 result was the worst Tory result for almost 200 years and I might have to hide behind the sofa when Enfield Southgate declares
While I have a certain admiration for your masochistic tenacity, in terms of seats it was the worst result since 1906, which is 91 years.
In order, the Conservative/Unionist/protectionist/Torys’ worst defeats were:
1906 (157) 1997 (165) 2001 (166) 2005 (198)
Of course, you may be referring to the popular vote, but there is very little point in drawing such comparisons with elections before the advent of a mass electorate in 1918, given the number of seats that were uncontested, settled by agreement or ended with a candidate withdrawing.
It is impressive however that while since 1928 Labour have twice polled below 30% (1983 and 2010) and three times polled less than 31% (1931, 1987 and 2015) the Tories have only once got less than 31% (1997) and never dipped below 30%.
In popular vote terms the Tories got 43% in 1906, the Tories only got 30% in 1997.
You have to go back to the 29% the Duke of Wellington got in 1832 to find a lower popular voteshare for the Tories than they got in 1997
Yes, but again, so few seats were contested in the 1830s and the electorate was so small that is a meaningless statistic. 128 were uncontested in 1832, mostly in the counties where the Tory vote was strong, and not among the newly enfranchised boroughs where, not unexpectedly, they did very badly.
That continued all the through the nineteenth century. In 1900, for example, 243 were unopposed, but as around 160 were in counties (which tended to have larger electorates than the boroughs) they represented around half the electorate. As a result, anyone looking solely at the voting figures would wonder how the Liberals got such an awesome arse-kicking on 43% of the vote.
In 1906 the Unionists reversed the process by helpfully running multiple candidates against each other and splitting the vote, which goes a long way towards explaining the size of the Liberal victory.
First declaration from the 1997 general election on BBC Parliament' s rerun today.
Swing of 11% to Labour
Brave of you, sitting through that again.
There's a certain grim satisfaction at seeing all that hope vested in Blair's Camelot - knowing how it all ends.
You have a point. Still, oh what a night, early May, back in 97. Such a very special time, like heaven. What a Tony, what a night.
The best night in politics, bar none. A new day has dawned, has it not? I was up for Portillo, but as the Fast Show would have put it, I'm afraid I was very very drunk.
So, generally cosmic -- but will be surpassed for me when Trump gets his face kicked in this November.
No need to apologise though. It was a decent enough call. I made the same mistake for the same reason.
Agree, it was hard to imagine that Boris would burn so many bridges saving such an idiot as Cummings.
Cummings isn't an idiot, Malc, but one positive from the sorry episode is that he has dismantled the myth that he is some kind of towering intellect.
You didn't need to be particularly clever or subtle to come up with a better cover story than his. As for common sense, the journey to Barnard Castle showed a complete lack.
He might actually have got away with the whole thing but for the BC adventure but it was such a transparent lie that you had to wonder whether the whole account was a complete work of fiction, starting with Mary's 'illness' and the late nite drive to Durham.
I did a "Scoop and Run" for Fox Jr from his London digs a week or so before DC did the same (note: mine was pre lockdown). Having set him up at home, myself and Mrs Foxy returned to hospital work in what was a mounting epidemic,
It is not easy to forget the weird atmosphere there. The streets and pubs mostly empty, audible coughs from neighbours, the swirling lights of passing ambulances. The supermarket shelves emptying fast, the hospitals filling, the news of a fresh rise in deaths doubling every few days. The place seemed like a zombie apocalypse movie.
With the PM, and CMO ill, I can understand the desire to flee to the countryside with family. It was though a breach of government policy, as encouraging such moves certainly risked spread. Remember the criticism in press of those heading to second homes in West Country, Cumbria and Wales?
So he saw himself above the rules, and covered his tracks with a transparent tissue of lies. There were no witnesses or accounts of either Cummings or Wakefields illnesses, only of their sons. That was not Covid, and quite transient.
Was it all an episode of funk? With the first whiff of gunpowder, he broke for the rear.
In the absence of a credible account from the man himself we are entitled to speculate but fairly.
I think 'funk' is going a bit far. Perhaps a more balanced explanation is that he saw an opportunity to whisk himself and the family away to a safer and more congenial environment and took it.
Your comment about the unsubstantiated illnesses is one I've reflected on myself, but hasn't been publicly discussed much. Apart from Mary Wakefield's highly fictionalised piece in The Spectator there seems to be no objective or corroborated evidence that either had C19. I suspect they were both a little unwell at some point and the rest is embellishment to disguise what was essentially a wecome little break in the country.
I doubt we'll ever know for sure. What we do know is that he seriously undermined the Government's strategy and the PM's failure to deal with him appropriately has undermined his and the Government's authority. It will not be recovered easily. Let's hope that doesn't cost too many lives.
That doesn't fit in my view with the film of him running out of Downing Street.
He certainly *believed* that his wife was badly ill
With CV19? Why then did he return to work later? If there was any possibility of her being contagious that was irresponsible and foolhardy in the extreme.
I don't know.
Nor do I, which makes me suspect she wasn't so sick, or not with anything that could possibly be mistaken for C19.
I don't know her, but if all he had to go on was a phone call...
We're both guessing. If it were you telling me what happened, I'd accept it without question because you are not a liar, or certainly haven't lied to me as far as I know, so naturally I make the usual assumption of honesty.
Once somebody has lied to me, I regard everything they tell me with suspicion and feel free to draw my own conclusions. In fact I feel obliged to do so.
I think my conclusions about the Cummings account are reasonable, fair even,and I don't have to defer just because they imply he lied.
No surprise the government is proving inept at dealing with this but the reality is the UK doesn't have the healthcare and scientific infrastructure to deal with the situation. Lockdown was all about protecting the NHS not public health. Reality is that unless you want the economy to be dead forever lockdown has to end.
Also we have a crap, incompetent government because essentially we have a crap, incompetent population. The one leads to the other.
I enjoyed reading the main article I find it very intersting and well balanced.
A comment on "This time last week, the Tories were sitting on 12-15% poll leads; that is now down by more than half, to 5-6% (although the fact that it is still a lead is an indication of the trust problem with the public that Labour has)."
I think this is mainy a sign that most people do not change their voting intentions overnight. Many are incensed with the "one rule for us and another for Cummings" situation, but those who have hanged their VI opinion this week were probably already dissatisfied with other aspects of the government's Corona approach. There are of course others who have moved "one straw away" from changing their opinion.
Usually the polls change slowly and a 6-10 point change in one week is a very large change.
Almost entirely movement from DK to Labour. Tories retaining 96% of their GE vote. Which supports your hypothesis. Logically, and emotionally it makes no sense to vote for a government then decide less than 6 months later you made a grievous error.
I cant really see the point of a non edited rerun of GEs.
A 1 or 2 hour package would be watchable a 16 hr version is not for me.
The result in WIlliam Waldegrave's seat was announced. It was my constituency which had been terribly LD/Labour split for years. The cabinet minster had lost his seat.
A friend turned to me and said "We did that!" That was my best moment in an election ever.
No surprise the government is proving inept at dealing with this but the reality is the UK doesn't have the healthcare and scientific infrastructure to deal with the situation. Lockdown was all about protecting the NHS not public health. Reality is that unless you want the economy to be dead forever lockdown has to end.
Also we have a crap, incompetent government because essentially we have a crap, incompetent population. The one leads to the other.
Very good point. And if there is ever the chance that a set of politicians tries to be honest with the population then they get vilified or hounded out of office if already there.
So you are using your judgement, despite the fact that you "lack the basis for [an] informed decision" to determine that the government's advice doesn't apply to you. Ok then.
Yes, it's a difference between general confidence and specific policy. Willingness to suspend your own judgment and follow the Government's depends on confidence in the Government's willingness to decide based on the science. There seems quite strong evidence that they are not doing so (does anyone really think they are?). That's not a political thing - I feel confident that Merkel is doing just that, and if I lived there I'd want to follow her guidance in the crisis.
Sweden is an example of a country following policies that I think are probably wrong, but at least based on a scientific theory and applied consistently.
First declaration from the 1997 general election on BBC Parliament' s rerun today.
Swing of 11% to Labour
Brave of you, sitting through that again.
There's a certain grim satisfaction at seeing all that hope vested in Blair's Camelot - knowing how it all ends.
You have a point. Still, oh what a night, early May, back in 97. Such a very special time, like heaven. What a Tony, what a night.
The best night in politics, bar none. A new day has dawned, has it not? I was up for Portillo, but as the Fast Show would have put it, I'm afraid I was very very drunk.
So, generally cosmic -- but will be surpassed for me when Trump gets his face kicked in this November.
Race riots will help Trump IMO
I agree. In general he wants his white base as fevered up as possible - about China - about blacks - about borders and law and order - about anything that pushes their buttons in order to give himself a squeak.
I was a vague Tory supporter (as a kid) in 1997, but I remember a sneaking optimism that actually New Labour would sort some things out that needed it. Swept along in the general optimism of the time. When they didn't, and what they actually did was piss a golden economic legacy up the wall, it became a defining moment for me politically, and I was a firm right-winger, though not always a Tory, ever since.
The more people try to justify Cumming's actions the dafter they look (both Cummings and the apologists).
Thursday The PM has decided I ought to explain myself to MPs directly with a socially distant chat in the Downing Street garden. I’m under strict orders to pretend not to hate them.
“I had to leave London,” I’m telling them. “Haven’t you seen the protests? I’m a target!”
“Is that why you’re wearing that balaclava?” asks one of the MPs.
“Not explicitly,” I say.
Then the other MP says his constituents are annoyed that I keep claiming there were “exceptional circumstances” because it’s hard to see what was so exceptional about them.
“But they were happening to me,” I say, genuinely confused by this.
No surprise the government is proving inept at dealing with this but the reality is the UK doesn't have the healthcare and scientific infrastructure to deal with the situation. Lockdown was all about protecting the NHS not public health. Reality is that unless you want the economy to be dead forever lockdown has to end.
Also we have a crap, incompetent government because essentially we have a crap, incompetent population. The one leads to the other.
They do say people get the governments they deserve!
Pollard is/was editor at the Jewish Chronicle. Never met him but know someone who has worked with him. Good man by all accounts. Would be very interested to hear how this develops.
I was a callow young conservative type in 1997, and saddened to see “decent” John Major trounced by “sneaky” Tony Blair.
What was clear though was the grotesque underinvestment in public services and public space, which New Labour rightly set about addressing.
When I arrived in the U.K. from NZ, in 2000, the country still looked so *incredibly* tatty, both compared to where I had come from and to other European countries I was able to visit.
That changed, at least in London.
Spending that was duly caricatured as being the main reason for the post GFC fiscal crisis. 😡
Nah. Naughty boy. Trying to get a rise out of people by stating things you know to be falsehoods.
I think in these challenging times we should restrict ourselves on PB to subjects about which there can actually be debate.
Not today TOPPING. We must do this one and we will - it's important - but not today.
As you say there is only one story in town and that is "What are we going to do about the Boris? How do we make this geezer understand?"
First declaration from the 1997 general election on BBC Parliament' s rerun today.
Swing of 11% to Labour
Brave of you, sitting through that again.
There's a certain grim satisfaction at seeing all that hope vested in Blair's Camelot - knowing how it all ends.
You have a point. Still, oh what a night, early May, back in 97. Such a very special time, like heaven. What a Tony, what a night.
The best night in politics, bar none. A new day has dawned, has it not? I was up for Portillo, but as the Fast Show would have put it, I'm afraid I was very very drunk.
So, generally cosmic -- but will be surpassed for me when Trump gets his face kicked in this November.
Race riots will help Trump IMO
I agree. In general he wants his white base as fevered up as possible - about China - about blacks - about borders and law and order - about anything that pushes their buttons in order to give himself a squeak.
Oh he has a 'squeak' alright but wth that kind of strategy it's difficult for him to push above 45% support.
I was a callow young conservative type in 1997, and saddened to see “decent” John Major trounced by “sneaky” Tony Blair.
What was clear though was the grotesque underinvestment in public services and public space, which New Labour rightly set about addressing.
When I arrived in the U.K. from NZ, in 2000, the country still looked so *incredibly* tatty, both compared to where I had come from and to other European countries I was able to visit.
That changed, at least in London.
We have friends from New Zealand who lived in London from around 1996 until 2006 before they went home and started a family. A couple of years ago they all came over to show their kids rounds where they lived etc. When they returned to where they'd lived in London (Maida Vale area) they were shocked at how downhill the area had gone.
It's quite disturbing how shabby many parts of the country have become in the last decade.
I was a callow young conservative type in 1997, and saddened to see “decent” John Major trounced by “sneaky” Tony Blair.
What was clear though was the grotesque underinvestment in public services and public space, which New Labour rightly set about addressing.
When I arrived in the U.K. from NZ, in 2000, the country still looked so *incredibly* tatty, both compared to where I had come from and to other European countries I was able to visit.
That changed, at least in London.
Spending that was duly caricatured as being the main reason for the post GFC fiscal crisis. 😡
Nah. Naughty boy. Trying to get a rise out of people by stating things you know to be falsehoods.
I think in these challenging times we should restrict ourselves on PB to subjects about which there can actually be debate.
Not today TOPPING. We must do this one and we will - it's important - but not today.
As you say there is only one story in town and that is "What are we going to do about the Boris? How do we make this geezer understand?"
Thank you for being understanding. An actual topic.
When things have calmed down we can all shoot the breeze and have nonsense discussions.
There are distinct advantages. Straddling EU and UK, NI could be the next Hong Kong. Especially if half the population of High Kong decides to settle there!
I was a callow young conservative type in 1997, and saddened to see “decent” John Major trounced by “sneaky” Tony Blair.
What was clear though was the grotesque underinvestment in public services and public space, which New Labour rightly set about addressing.
When I arrived in the U.K. from NZ, in 2000, the country still looked so *incredibly* tatty, both compared to where I had come from and to other European countries I was able to visit.
That changed, at least in London.
Spending that was duly caricatured as being the main reason for the post GFC fiscal crisis. 😡
Nah. Naughty boy. Trying to get a rise out of people by stating things you know to be falsehoods.
I think in these challenging times we should restrict ourselves on PB to subjects about which there can actually be debate.
He's right. Plenty of people on here have blamed Labour running a 3% of GDP fiscal deficit for the GFC, indeed that has been the whole Tory mantra since 2008 ("Labour trashed the economy"). It's not true, however often it is asserted as fact by PB Tories.
I was a callow young conservative type in 1997, and saddened to see “decent” John Major trounced by “sneaky” Tony Blair.
What was clear though was the grotesque underinvestment in public services and public space, which New Labour rightly set about addressing.
When I arrived in the U.K. from NZ, in 2000, the country still looked so *incredibly* tatty, both compared to where I had come from and to other European countries I was able to visit.
That changed, at least in London.
Spending that was duly caricatured as being the main reason for the post GFC fiscal crisis. 😡
Nah. Naughty boy. Trying to get a rise out of people by stating things you know to be falsehoods.
I think in these challenging times we should restrict ourselves on PB to subjects about which there can actually be debate.
He's right. Plenty of people on here have blamed Labour running a 3% of GDP fiscal deficit for the GFC, indeed that has been the whole Tory mantra since 2008 ("Labour trashed the economy"). It's not true, however often it is asserted as fact by PB Tories.
Nice one. Are you two PMing? But we have agreed we have actual stuff to talk about now.
I was a callow young conservative type in 1997, and saddened to see “decent” John Major trounced by “sneaky” Tony Blair.
What was clear though was the grotesque underinvestment in public services and public space, which New Labour rightly set about addressing.
When I arrived in the U.K. from NZ, in 2000, the country still looked so *incredibly* tatty, both compared to where I had come from and to other European countries I was able to visit.
That changed, at least in London.
Spending that was duly caricatured as being the main reason for the post GFC fiscal crisis. 😡
Nah. Naughty boy. Trying to get a rise out of people by stating things you know to be falsehoods.
I think in these challenging times we should restrict ourselves on PB to subjects about which there can actually be debate.
He's right. Plenty of people on here have blamed Labour running a 3% of GDP fiscal deficit for the GFC, indeed that has been the whole Tory mantra since 2008 ("Labour trashed the economy"). It's not true, however often it is asserted as fact by PB Tories.
Any odds that deficits will wane in importance over the coming few years?
I was a callow young conservative type in 1997, and saddened to see “decent” John Major trounced by “sneaky” Tony Blair.
What was clear though was the grotesque underinvestment in public services and public space, which New Labour rightly set about addressing.
When I arrived in the U.K. from NZ, in 2000, the country still looked so *incredibly* tatty, both compared to where I had come from and to other European countries I was able to visit.
That changed, at least in London.
Spending that was duly caricatured as being the main reason for the post GFC fiscal crisis. 😡
Nah. Naughty boy. Trying to get a rise out of people by stating things you know to be falsehoods.
I think in these challenging times we should restrict ourselves on PB to subjects about which there can actually be debate.
He's right. Plenty of people on here have blamed Labour running a 3% of GDP fiscal deficit for the GFC, indeed that has been the whole Tory mantra since 2008 ("Labour trashed the economy"). It's not true, however often it is asserted as fact by PB Tories.
It's not true that Labour was running a deficit prior to the GFC? What planet are you on.
You say that you didn't see that Boris Johnson would prove so loyal when you advocated betting on Cummings's departure. But loyalty has nothing whatever to do with it. Any biography of Johnson reveals that, like all others, loyalty is a virtue Johnson lacks. Johnson's incompetence + his history with Cummings as adviser ensure that without him he would flail and flounder cluelessly. And he knows this.
I was a callow young conservative type in 1997, and saddened to see “decent” John Major trounced by “sneaky” Tony Blair.
What was clear though was the grotesque underinvestment in public services and public space, which New Labour rightly set about addressing.
When I arrived in the U.K. from NZ, in 2000, the country still looked so *incredibly* tatty, both compared to where I had come from and to other European countries I was able to visit.
That changed, at least in London.
Spending that was duly caricatured as being the main reason for the post GFC fiscal crisis. 😡
Nah. Naughty boy. Trying to get a rise out of people by stating things you know to be falsehoods.
I think in these challenging times we should restrict ourselves on PB to subjects about which there can actually be debate.
He's right. Plenty of people on here have blamed Labour running a 3% of GDP fiscal deficit for the GFC, indeed that has been the whole Tory mantra since 2008 ("Labour trashed the economy"). It's not true, however often it is asserted as fact by PB Tories.
It's not true that Labour was running a deficit prior to the GFC? What planet are you on.
"What was clear though was the grotesque underinvestment in public services and public space."
Spending that was duly caricatured as being the main reason for the post GFC fiscal crisis. 😡
The two issues are not as contradictory as you make out.
It is possible to believe that many areas receive less tax-payers money than they should, ideally, receive. It is also the reality that funding all of them right now is not practical.
This is another area where politicians lack honesty with the public. They have to be able to say "Yes we would love to put more money in, but there is no more money at the moment".
Gordon Brown's rule that borrowing should only be for investment was actually a good one, and a real basis for honest debate about priorities. Unfortunately he was another public figure that did not follow his own rules...
First declaration from the 1997 general election on BBC Parliament' s rerun today.
Swing of 11% to Labour
Brave of you, sitting through that again.
There's a certain grim satisfaction at seeing all that hope vested in Blair's Camelot - knowing how it all ends.
You have a point. Still, oh what a night, early May, back in 97. Such a very special time, like heaven. What a Tony, what a night.
The best night in politics, bar none. A new day has dawned, has it not? I was up for Portillo, but as the Fast Show would have put it, I'm afraid I was very very drunk.
So, generally cosmic -- but will be surpassed for me when Trump gets his face kicked in this November.
Race riots will help Trump IMO
I agree. In general he wants his white base as fevered up as possible - about China - about blacks - about borders and law and order - about anything that pushes their buttons in order to give himself a squeak.
Oh he has a 'squeak' alright but wth that kind of strategy it's difficult for him to push above 45% support.
I think he'll lose but it will be close.
I don't think it will be close. It's my USP on this one.
But if it is I'll still be happy enough. Main thing is he goes.
I was a callow young conservative type in 1997, and saddened to see “decent” John Major trounced by “sneaky” Tony Blair.
What was clear though was the grotesque underinvestment in public services and public space, which New Labour rightly set about addressing.
When I arrived in the U.K. from NZ, in 2000, the country still looked so *incredibly* tatty, both compared to where I had come from and to other European countries I was able to visit.
That changed, at least in London.
Spending that was duly caricatured as being the main reason for the post GFC fiscal crisis. 😡
Nah. Naughty boy. Trying to get a rise out of people by stating things you know to be falsehoods.
I think in these challenging times we should restrict ourselves on PB to subjects about which there can actually be debate.
He's right. Plenty of people on here have blamed Labour running a 3% of GDP fiscal deficit for the GFC, indeed that has been the whole Tory mantra since 2008 ("Labour trashed the economy"). It's not true, however often it is asserted as fact by PB Tories.
It's not true that Labour was running a deficit prior to the GFC? What planet are you on.
Christ do people not even read what other people say before they fire off angry replies? I explicitly said that Labour ran a 3% of GDP deficit prior to the GFC, very much like the one the Tories were running going into the Covid crisis. But that didn't cause the GFC any more than the Tory 3% of GDP deficit caused the current crisis. There's nothing wrong with government borrowing as long as it is controlled - in fact the financial system has a shortage of safe assets and sovereign paper fulfills this role. That's why interest rates are so low even though governments are going to borrow an additional $10trn+ this year.
I was a callow young conservative type in 1997, and saddened to see “decent” John Major trounced by “sneaky” Tony Blair.
What was clear though was the grotesque underinvestment in public services and public space, which New Labour rightly set about addressing.
When I arrived in the U.K. from NZ, in 2000, the country still looked so *incredibly* tatty, both compared to where I had come from and to other European countries I was able to visit.
That changed, at least in London.
Spending that was duly caricatured as being the main reason for the post GFC fiscal crisis. 😡
Nah. Naughty boy. Trying to get a rise out of people by stating things you know to be falsehoods.
I think in these challenging times we should restrict ourselves on PB to subjects about which there can actually be debate.
He's right. Plenty of people on here have blamed Labour running a 3% of GDP fiscal deficit for the GFC, indeed that has been the whole Tory mantra since 2008 ("Labour trashed the economy"). It's not true, however often it is asserted as fact by PB Tories.
It's not true that Labour was running a deficit prior to the GFC? What planet are you on.
I was a callow young conservative type in 1997, and saddened to see “decent” John Major trounced by “sneaky” Tony Blair.
What was clear though was the grotesque underinvestment in public services and public space, which New Labour rightly set about addressing.
When I arrived in the U.K. from NZ, in 2000, the country still looked so *incredibly* tatty, both compared to where I had come from and to other European countries I was able to visit.
That changed, at least in London.
Spending that was duly caricatured as being the main reason for the post GFC fiscal crisis. 😡
Nah. Naughty boy. Trying to get a rise out of people by stating things you know to be falsehoods.
I think in these challenging times we should restrict ourselves on PB to subjects about which there can actually be debate.
He's right. Plenty of people on here have blamed Labour running a 3% of GDP fiscal deficit for the GFC, indeed that has been the whole Tory mantra since 2008 ("Labour trashed the economy"). It's not true, however often it is asserted as fact by PB Tories.
It's not true that Labour was running a deficit prior to the GFC? What planet are you on.
Christ do people not even read what other people say before they fire off angry replies? I explicitly said that Labour ran a 3% of GDP deficit prior to the GFC, very much like the one the Tories were running going into the Covid crisis. But that didn't cause the GFC any more than the Tory 3% of GDP deficit caused the current crisis. There's nothing wrong with government borrowing as long as it is controlled - in fact the financial system has a shortage of safe assets and sovereign paper fulfills this role. That's why interest rates are so low even though governments are going to borrow an additional $10trn+ this year.
Don't worry about all this. @kinabalu has agreed that Labour indeed did spend too much and we have agreed that I will explain the details to him when this horrible Coronavirus thing is over
I was a callow young conservative type in 1997, and saddened to see “decent” John Major trounced by “sneaky” Tony Blair.
What was clear though was the grotesque underinvestment in public services and public space, which New Labour rightly set about addressing.
When I arrived in the U.K. from NZ, in 2000, the country still looked so *incredibly* tatty, both compared to where I had come from and to other European countries I was able to visit.
That changed, at least in London.
Spending that was duly caricatured as being the main reason for the post GFC fiscal crisis. 😡
Nah. Naughty boy. Trying to get a rise out of people by stating things you know to be falsehoods.
I think in these challenging times we should restrict ourselves on PB to subjects about which there can actually be debate.
He's right. Plenty of people on here have blamed Labour running a 3% of GDP fiscal deficit for the GFC, indeed that has been the whole Tory mantra since 2008 ("Labour trashed the economy"). It's not true, however often it is asserted as fact by PB Tories.
It's not true that Labour was running a deficit prior to the GFC? What planet are you on.
I was a vague Tory supporter (as a kid) in 1997, but I remember a sneaking optimism that actually New Labour would sort some things out that needed it. Swept along in the general optimism of the time. When they didn't, and what they actually did was piss a golden economic legacy up the wall, it became a defining moment for me politically, and I was a firm right-winger, though not always a Tory, ever since.
Golden economic legacy is a creative way to describe the denuded public realm. Hats off to you.
I was a vague Tory supporter (as a kid) in 1997, but I remember a sneaking optimism that actually New Labour would sort some things out that needed it. Swept along in the general optimism of the time. When they didn't, and what they actually did was piss a golden economic legacy up the wall, it became a defining moment for me politically, and I was a firm right-winger, though not always a Tory, ever since.
Sounds like your ideal would be a Major/Clarke/Heseltine government. Why are you a Brexiteer?
I was a vague Tory supporter (as a kid) in 1997, but I remember a sneaking optimism that actually New Labour would sort some things out that needed it. Swept along in the general optimism of the time. When they didn't, and what they actually did was piss a golden economic legacy up the wall, it became a defining moment for me politically, and I was a firm right-winger, though not always a Tory, ever since.
Golden economic legacy is a creative way to describe the denuded public realm. Hats off to you.
Denuded public realm is a creative way to describe less taxpayer's money being wasted. Hats off to you.
Boris is the only Tory leader ever to have seen his party win Sedgefield.
It voted for Boris more than the Tories
But Boris was opposing Corbyn so no big deal and at that stage he'd yet to see the collapse of confidence that his handling of the biggest crisis in generations have led to.
I was a callow young conservative type in 1997, and saddened to see “decent” John Major trounced by “sneaky” Tony Blair.
What was clear though was the grotesque underinvestment in public services and public space, which New Labour rightly set about addressing.
When I arrived in the U.K. from NZ, in 2000, the country still looked so *incredibly* tatty, both compared to where I had come from and to other European countries I was able to visit.
That changed, at least in London.
Spending that was duly caricatured as being the main reason for the post GFC fiscal crisis. 😡
Nah. Naughty boy. Trying to get a rise out of people by stating things you know to be falsehoods.
I think in these challenging times we should restrict ourselves on PB to subjects about which there can actually be debate.
He's right. Plenty of people on here have blamed Labour running a 3% of GDP fiscal deficit for the GFC, indeed that has been the whole Tory mantra since 2008 ("Labour trashed the economy"). It's not true, however often it is asserted as fact by PB Tories.
It's not true that Labour was running a deficit prior to the GFC? What planet are you on.
Christ do people not even read what other people say before they fire off angry replies? I explicitly said that Labour ran a 3% of GDP deficit prior to the GFC, very much like the one the Tories were running going into the Covid crisis. But that didn't cause the GFC any more than the Tory 3% of GDP deficit caused the current crisis. There's nothing wrong with government borrowing as long as it is controlled - in fact the financial system has a shortage of safe assets and sovereign paper fulfills this role. That's why interest rates are so low even though governments are going to borrow an additional $10trn+ this year.
Apologies for that then, but people were really claiming a 3% deficit in the UK caused the GFC?
"What was clear though was the grotesque underinvestment in public services and public space."
Spending that was duly caricatured as being the main reason for the post GFC fiscal crisis. 😡
The two issues are not as contradictory as you make out.
It is possible to believe that many areas receive less tax-payers money than they should, ideally, receive. It is also the reality that funding all of them right now is not practical.
This is another area where politicians lack honesty with the public. They have to be able to say "Yes we would love to put more money in, but there is no more money at the moment".
Gordon Brown's rule that borrowing should only be for investment was actually a good one, and a real basis for honest debate about priorities. Unfortunately he was another public figure that did not follow his own rules...
PFI - aka cooking the books - plus drinking the City kool aid are my biggest debits against Gordon.
Boris is the only Tory leader ever to have seen his party win Sedgefield.
It voted for Boris more than the Tories
But Boris was opposing Corbyn so no big deal and at that stage he'd yet to see the collapse of confidence that his handling of the biggest crisis in generations have led to.
May was also opposing Corbyn but Sedgefield had a 6000 Labour majority in 2017.
So yes it was a big deal and the latest poll still gives a 6% Tory lead
1. Making joint citizenship illegal for people in HK forcing them to choose. 2. Saying that Chinese students should not go to British universities. 3. Closing down or seizing British owned businesses in China and/or HK. 4. Preventing British banks from operating in China or selling to Chinese customers.
And so on.
What reaction there would be to this from other countries I don’t know. But China is a nasty bully and the time has come to stop appeasing her. I am in favour of helping out Hong Kongers. We should offer them citizenship and a home here. I think we would benefit and it is the right thing to do IMO.
If this policy has come from Priti I find myself, once again, in the unexpected position of praising her. She has also been cunning enough not to tie herself to Cummings publicly.
I am still of the view we should have offered citizenship to Hong Kong residents back in 1999. China wants and needs Hong Kong to remain a major financial centre and offering people a clear way out if China overstepped the mark might, at the time and since, have been a good way of keeping China at bay.
Now it is too late. I think that unless we see a massive change of heart the One Country Two Systems policy is dead and as a result trade will bleed away from Hong Kong quite rapidly. But this may well turn out to be a minor issue with the increasing militarism of China towards its neighbours.
So what could once have been used as a tool to keep China in check should now be done because it is still the right and honourable thing to do.
It was the 1962 Nationality Act that stripped HK citizens from having residence here. Made more strict in the 1981 Nationality act and agreed in the 1986 Sino British Agreement, which also returned Kowloon and HK Island along with the New Territories. Handing these citizens over to the PRC has always been policy, and notably the principal decisions made by Conservative governments. We sold them out years ago.
I don't think the Chinese will interfere with the HK economy, indeed I expect them to protect it. The anti China riots last year hit the economy, they don't want a repeat. I suspect they will play softly softly and establish a new norm.
This isn't 1840, the power balance has shifted, and not in our favour. Belligerent bellicosity is not going to work. That is Realpolitik.
Economic warfare is going to help no one.
Given that the British took Hong Kong through violent aggression in the first place it's a bit rich to get salty about China taking it back.
1. Making joint citizenship illegal for people in HK forcing them to choose. 2. Saying that Chinese students should not go to British universities. 3. Closing down or seizing British owned businesses in China and/or HK. 4. Preventing British banks from operating in China or selling to Chinese customers.
And so on.
What reaction there would be to this from other countries I don’t know. But China is a nasty bully and the time has come to stop appeasing her. I am in favour of helping out Hong Kongers. We should offer them citizenship and a home here. I think we would benefit and it is the right thing to do IMO.
If this policy has come from Priti I find myself, once again, in the unexpected position of praising her. She has also been cunning enough not to tie herself to Cummings publicly.
I am still of the view we should have offered citizenship to Hong Kong residents back in 1999. China wants and needs Hong Kong to remain a major financial centre and offering people a clear way out if China overstepped the mark might, at the time and since, have been a good way of keeping China at bay.
Now it is too late. I think that unless we see a massive change of heart the One Country Two Systems policy is dead and as a result trade will bleed away from Hong Kong quite rapidly. But this may well turn out to be a minor issue with the increasing militarism of China towards its neighbours.
So what could once have been used as a tool to keep China in check should now be done because it is still the right and honourable thing to do.
It was the 1962 Nationality Act that stripped HK citizens from having residence here. Made more strict in the 1981 Nationality act and agreed in the 1986 Sino British Agreement, which also returned Kowloon and HK Island along with the New Territories. Handing these citizens over to the PRC has always been policy, and notably the principal decisions made by Conservative governments. We sold them out years ago.
I don't think the Chinese will interfere with the HK economy, indeed I expect them to protect it. The anti China riots last year hit the economy, they don't want a repeat. I suspect they will play softly softly and establish a new norm.
This isn't 1840, the power balance has shifted, and not in our favour. Belligerent bellicosity is not going to work. That is Realpolitik.
Economic warfare is going to help no one.
Given that the British took Hong Kong through violent aggression in the first place it's a bit rich to get salty about China taking it back.
No one is getting salty about China taking it back. But agreed to the Two system idea because they wanted the benefits of Hong Kong remaining a leading financial centre. If they decide to renege on their side of the deal then I see no reason why we should continue to support them getting the benefits of Hong Kong as a major trading centre.
The problem about "let everyone decide for themselves", as advocated by some here, is that everyone lacks the basis for informed decisions, and everyone's actions affect everyone else. I'd rather we collectively (i.e. via our elected government, really basing itself on the current scienitific evidence) adopted an approach which might be different to my own judgment but was nonetheless pretty consistently enforced, instead of having everyone's health depending on the lottery of what individuals who we run into happen to have decided. So I'd be perfectly prepared to follow Boris's advice, if only I didn't feel it was driven by the political needs of the moment with only a cursory glance at the science. As it is, I'll broadly self-isolate and work from home for the duration.
Moreover, the "let everybody decide for themselves" overlooks that they're not just deciding for themselves. They're deciding for everyone else, as well, and using the assessment that their own personal risk is low, therefore, so what?
Passing by the mis-assessment of personal risk, the limit of freedom is the freedom to impair others freedoms. I would have more respect for the stance if they agreed to the following additional elements:
1 - Should they infect anyone else, they are held responsible for the outcome to them (and to anyone they, in turn, infect). Illness taking them out for a while: charged with Actual Bodily Harm. Hospitalisation or especially intensive care: Grievous Bodily Harm. Death: Manslaughter by carelessness. (As long as they don't affect anyone else, this won't be a concern. Only if they cause harm to others by their actions, would it be a concern. And if they conclude that there is no way to avoid an unacceptable risk of harming others, why, they shouldn't do it in the first place)
2 - Should the NHS be overwhelmed by a second spike caused by people mis-assessing personal risk, they would agree not to be hospitalised and instead try to push on through at home. (As long as their assessment that they're all but certain to be unaffected by this is accurate, not a problem for them. If wrong - well, freedom always includes the freedom to take the consequences. Otherwise it's not a freedom at all)
Let’s adopt that for people who smoke or those who go out with other infectious diseases without a care for others. I’d love to get compensation from the bastards who gave me pneumonia 6 times and have now put me in one of the high risk categories.
1. Making joint citizenship illegal for people in HK forcing them to choose. 2. Saying that Chinese students should not go to British universities. 3. Closing down or seizing British owned businesses in China and/or HK. 4. Preventing British banks from operating in China or selling to Chinese customers.
And so on.
What reaction there would be to this from other countries I don’t know. But China is a nasty bully and the time has come to stop appeasing her. I am in favour of helping out Hong Kongers. We should offer them citizenship and a home here. I think we would benefit and it is the right thing to do IMO.
If this policy has come from Priti I find myself, once again, in the unexpected position of praising her. She has also been cunning enough not to tie herself to Cummings publicly.
I am still of the view we should have offered citizenship to Hong Kong residents back in 1999. China wants and needs Hong Kong to remain a major financial centre and offering people a clear way out if China overstepped the mark might, at the time and since, have been a good way of keeping China at bay.
Now it is too late. I think that unless we see a massive change of heart the One Country Two Systems policy is dead and as a result trade will bleed away from Hong Kong quite rapidly. But this may well turn out to be a minor issue with the increasing militarism of China towards its neighbours.
So what could once have been used as a tool to keep China in check should now be done because it is still the right and honourable thing to do.
It was the 1962 Nationality Act that stripped HK citizens from having residence here. Made more strict in the 1981 Nationality act and agreed in the 1986 Sino British Agreement, which also returned Kowloon and HK Island along with the New Territories. Handing these citizens over to the PRC has always been policy, and notably the principal decisions made by Conservative governments. We sold them out years ago.
I don't think the Chinese will interfere with the HK economy, indeed I expect them to protect it. The anti China riots last year hit the economy, they don't want a repeat. I suspect they will play softly softly and establish a new norm.
This isn't 1840, the power balance has shifted, and not in our favour. Belligerent bellicosity is not going to work. That is Realpolitik.
Economic warfare is going to help no one.
China are not playing softly, softly either in Hong Kong or anywhere else. They are flouting international law in a host of areas and, given that economic warfare is one of the few ways in which we can challenge them as an international community I think it is the right thing to do. Unfortunately it strikes me that you are one of those people who will still be asking for them to be given the benefit of the doubt long after they removed the last vestiges of democracy in Hong Kong.
Very rowdy Putney declaration as David Mellor loses his seat
"OUT! OUT! OUT!"
As I recall, it included the phrases, ‘Putney said up your hacienda, Jimmy,’ and ‘he can go back to Mexico knowing his attempt to buy the British people has failed.’
And same applies to Wales but not a word about that
The Ornkey Island rules or Guernseys have got even less publicity than Wales.
I really dont mind devolution but the idea that devolved nations smaller than Yorkshire should get similar coverage to England is completely unrealistic.
This is the definition of focusing on the superficial, but I have become fairly convinced it's a wig. That of course is by no means an issue - very sensible I'd say. I don't see that it can indicate a health issue because Nicola has been incredibly, exhaustingly active over this time. Unless it's alopecia, which if it is, must have been incredibly alarming for her when it happened.
I like Nicola Sturgeon because she is passionate about her cause and strong minded but I was disappointed to see her throw 'obsessed'' and 'weird' into this exchange. There's something annoyingly passive aggressive and victim like in it.
I was a callow young conservative type in 1997, and saddened to see “decent” John Major trounced by “sneaky” Tony Blair.
What was clear though was the grotesque underinvestment in public services and public space, which New Labour rightly set about addressing.
When I arrived in the U.K. from NZ, in 2000, the country still looked so *incredibly* tatty, both compared to where I had come from and to other European countries I was able to visit.
That changed, at least in London.
Spending that was duly caricatured as being the main reason for the post GFC fiscal crisis. 😡
Nah. Naughty boy. Trying to get a rise out of people by stating things you know to be falsehoods.
I think in these challenging times we should restrict ourselves on PB to subjects about which there can actually be debate.
He's right. Plenty of people on here have blamed Labour running a 3% of GDP fiscal deficit for the GFC, indeed that has been the whole Tory mantra since 2008 ("Labour trashed the economy"). It's not true, however often it is asserted as fact by PB Tories.
It's not true that Labour was running a deficit prior to the GFC? What planet are you on.
Christ do people not even read what other people say before they fire off angry replies? I explicitly said that Labour ran a 3% of GDP deficit prior to the GFC, very much like the one the Tories were running going into the Covid crisis. But that didn't cause the GFC any more than the Tory 3% of GDP deficit caused the current crisis. There's nothing wrong with government borrowing as long as it is controlled - in fact the financial system has a shortage of safe assets and sovereign paper fulfills this role. That's why interest rates are so low even though governments are going to borrow an additional $10trn+ this year.
Don't worry about all this. @kinabalu has agreed that Labour indeed did spend too much and we have agreed that I will explain the details to him when this horrible Coronavirus thing is over
The question for the House will be -
"Was excessive public spending by Gordon Brown the biggest single cause of the post GFC fiscal crisis?"
And you have volunteered for the lead speaker role to argue "yes".
Quite a challenge so kudos for agreeing.
Date and venue tba. Lounge suit or chinos. No short sleeves.
Boris is the only Tory leader ever to have seen his party win Sedgefield.
It voted for Boris more than the Tories
But Boris was opposing Corbyn so no big deal and at that stage he'd yet to see the collapse of confidence that his handling of the biggest crisis in generations have led to.
May was also opposing Corbyn but Sedgefield had a 6000 Labour majority in 2017.
So yes it was a big deal and the latest poll still gives a 6% Tory lead
Comments
It is of course a university seat.
You have to go back to the 29% the Duke of Wellington got in 1832 to find a lower popular voteshare for the Tories than they got in 1997
The UK Government is on the hunt for a sprawling industrial site to accommodate a Tesla electric vehicle (EV) “Gigafactory”, according to reports this week.
An article published in Property Week said that the Department for International Trade (DIT) is seeking a four million square foot site to accommodate an electric vehicle (EV) research, development and manufacturing plant for Elon Musk’s car brand.
News of the development comes just months after Tesla was forced to halt construction of a proposed 741-acre Berlin Gigafactory after a German courts raised concerns about the impact on wildlife of clearing 227 acres of forest to create the facility.
https://www.am-online.com/news/manufacturer/2020/05/29/uk-government-seeking-site-for-sprawling-tesla-ev-gigafactory
A comment on
"This time last week, the Tories were sitting on 12-15% poll leads; that is now down by more than half, to 5-6% (although the fact that it is still a lead is an indication of the trust problem with the public that Labour has)."
I think this is mainy a sign that most people do not change their voting intentions overnight. Many are incensed with the "one rule for us and another for Cummings" situation, but those who have hanged their VI opinion this week were probably already dissatisfied with other aspects of the government's Corona approach. There are of course others who have moved "one straw away" from changing their opinion.
Usually the polls change slowly and a 6-10 point change in one week is a very large change.
Johnson's incompetence + his history with Cummings as adviser ensure that without him he would flail and flounder cluelessly. And he knows this.
I think in these challenging times we should restrict ourselves on PB to subjects about which there can actually be debate.
The more people try to justify Cumming's actions the dafter they look (both Cummings and the apologists).
That continued all the through the nineteenth century. In 1900, for example, 243 were unopposed, but as around 160 were in counties (which tended to have larger electorates than the boroughs) they represented around half the electorate. As a result, anyone looking solely at the voting figures would wonder how the Liberals got such an awesome arse-kicking on 43% of the vote.
In 1906 the Unionists reversed the process by helpfully running multiple candidates against each other and splitting the vote, which goes a long way towards explaining the size of the Liberal victory.
Priti Patel started as a Referendum Party press officer
Once somebody has lied to me, I regard everything they tell me with suspicion and feel free to draw my own conclusions. In fact I feel obliged to do so.
I think my conclusions about the Cummings account are reasonable, fair even,and I don't have to defer just because they imply he lied.
Also we have a crap, incompetent government because essentially we have a crap, incompetent population. The one leads to the other.
Logically, and emotionally it makes no sense to vote for a government then decide less than 6 months later you made a grievous error.
which had been terribly LD/Labour split for years. The cabinet minster had lost his seat.
A friend turned to me and said "We did that!"
That was my best moment in an election ever.
Excellent news.
Sweden is an example of a country following policies that I think are probably wrong, but at least based on a scientific theory and applied consistently.
Raab’s plan was echoed by Patel, who was understood to have been more supportive in the past of BN(O)-holding Hongkongers than Raab.
https://www.scmp.com/news/world/europe/article/3086582/hongkongers-bno-passports-can-get-british-citizenship-after
The PM has decided I ought to explain myself to MPs directly with a socially distant chat in the Downing Street garden. I’m under strict orders to pretend not to hate them.
“I had to leave London,” I’m telling them. “Haven’t you seen the protests? I’m a target!”
“Is that why you’re wearing that balaclava?” asks one of the MPs.
“Not explicitly,” I say.
Then the other MP says his constituents are annoyed that I keep claiming there were “exceptional circumstances” because it’s hard to see what was so exceptional about them.
“But they were happening to me,” I say, genuinely confused by this.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/my-week-dominic-cummings-67h27wsxs?shareToken=f811589c4832cd0fb69831f92f7475d8
Basildon of course the most notable Tory hold in 1992 and now back in Tory hands
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/506-new-covid-19-cases-in-singapore-including-2-singaporeans-and-prs
As you say there is only one story in town and that is "What are we going to do about the Boris? How do we make this geezer understand?"
I think he'll lose but it will be close.
https://youtu.be/tDnGQemzf2s
When things have calmed down we can all shoot the breeze and have nonsense discussions.
Labour majority of 24,000.
Sedgefield won by Boris last December
https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1266679784064667648?s=20
Heady days.
https://fullfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/the_deficit_as_a_proportion_of_gdp.png
Blair gives yet another masterclass at his count.
Johnson is hopeless in comparison, just a blur of erms and ahs and gaps.
It is possible to believe that many areas receive less tax-payers money than they should, ideally, receive. It is also the reality that funding all of them right now is not practical.
This is another area where politicians lack honesty with the public. They have to be able to say "Yes we would love to put more money in, but there is no more money at the moment".
Gordon Brown's rule that borrowing should only be for investment was actually a good one, and a real basis for honest debate about priorities. Unfortunately he was another public figure that did not follow his own rules...
But if it is I'll still be happy enough. Main thing is he goes.
Household borrowing was running at over £100bn per year in the 2000s.
That pumps money into the economy as much as government borrowing does.
If there's one thing which has been confirmed this year is that journalists do not know better.
https://twitter.com/labour_history/status/1266661946625011712
It voted for Boris more than the Tories
Oh dear, how sad, never mind.
What a great night it was.
Going for a pint the following lunchtime in Labour gained Loughborough was wonderful.
So yes it was a big deal and the latest poll still gives a 6% Tory lead
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1266693594112339970
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1266694120686395400
I really dont mind devolution but the idea that devolved nations smaller than Yorkshire should get similar coverage to England is completely unrealistic.
"Was excessive public spending by Gordon Brown the biggest single cause of the post GFC fiscal crisis?"
And you have volunteered for the lead speaker role to argue "yes".
Quite a challenge so kudos for agreeing.
Date and venue tba. Lounge suit or chinos. No short sleeves.