SeanF, Already seeing some of that with the rise of the populist right, UKIP and FN etc and the left has also moved away from the New Labour/New Democrat centrism with the rise of Hollande, Obama, Ed Miliband etc. I would not be surprised if Marine Le Pen tops the poll in France in 2017 in the first round, in Greece the populist left is also performing strongly.
Even Abbott's victory yesterday is a sign of the resurgence of the populist right. Populism is increasing whether it is blaming the world's ills on bankers and financiers and the super rich like 'Occupy Wall Street' and the populist left, or migrants, the decline in marriage and traditional social values and elite obsession with climate change pushing up gas prices, cutting blue collar jobs on the right
"Perchance the ICM Wisdom poll immediately post Tory conference will have a Tory lead."
Having had it explained to me last night it's just Gypsy Rose Lee nonsense. The party likely to do well of course are the Lib Dems because people don't follow politics between elections so the last time they remembered looking the Lib Dems were somewhere in the late teens and UKIP somewhere round ten.
At this stage of the cycle nothing can be proved but I'd say it was about as accurate as asking Paul the octopus who would win the world cup. (Guessing the weight of a cow is quite a different matter. People have something factual to relate it to). They once found that a monkey could do better on the stock market than most financial advisors......It makes you wonder whether we need pollsters
I have no doubt, though, that Ed now thinks it's the right thing to do. The simple fact is that it is.
If Labour ditches the union link, what will be the difference between them and the lib dems? Not that much, it seems to me.
Labour will still have deep union roots, it's just that they will manifest themselves through individual members rather than block votes. But you're right: the end of formal union links is bound to make Labour more interesting to more on the centre-left.
This posting troubles me a bit. fitalass may have been a bit grouchy (but who is immune to that?) but on pb there is a trend by some posters to disparage any comment by the women posters here as passive aggressive. It seems that being overtly aggressive is ok, but not defensive behavior. There is more than a whiff of mysogyny to it. Ironically much comes from the party of AWS and critical of tory attitudes to women.
I find ftalasses nocturnal ramblings (not the only pb insommniac) a useful counterpoint to some of our other scottish posters, and much less aggressive.
The next time fitalass plays the victim,someone repost this brilliant example of troubled passive aggressive hypocrisy.
Addressed to My Burning Ears.
"fitalass said: Well I don't regard you as a honorary gentleman on PB, and certainly not a particularly clever PB honorary right wing troller. So as a result, I simple skim over your posts as I regard them and your opinion a parody of the current position that Ed Miliband finds himself in. But I await your latest cowardly attempt at ungraciously extricating yourself from any praise from another poster here, but whereby you manage to really insult the person who was being trolled as a result. "
Magnificent.
fitalass was having a grouchy evening, both with this remarkable assault on the cerebral centre-right MBE and an odd pot-shot at EiT.
On Tuesday in Bournemouth, will EdM be the man who broke the bank at Monte Carlo or will the bank break him?
David Blunkett, writing in the Mail, says, "I fear Ed is putting Labour in jeopardy."
He continues,"This is Ed’s chance to present himself as a relevant moderniser – and as a statesman willing to confront even the most difficult issues.
I support Ed and I admire the efforts he is making to drive the party into Downing Street.
But, and I say this reluctantly, I fear those efforts will be in vain if he does not recharge our economic and foreign policies.
There are just 20 months to go until the Election – now is the time for him to display that courage and dynamism. If not, the entire Labour project could be jeopardised."
He does not touch on Falkirk, but the truth must be revealed or else it will dog Ed and rumour will continue and he will not shake off his growing reputation of being weak and indecisive.
Josiag, EiT (funny as always): thanks, one less thing to worry about.
Should I worry about the polls instead, as Fox (I think) suggested? Well, there is a pretty well-established pattern showing that people think little of any leader but recently rather better of Cameron, so the Tory showing has been edging up to GE2010 levels. Labour's share seems steady at 6-9% above 2010. I need an 0.4% swing from when we were 7% behind nationally, so not too worried yet, despite possible incumbency issues.
An interesting PB research project would be to look specifically at the 20 most marginal Tory, Labour and LibDem seats. The election will be decided there, and each one has different factors - incumbency, size of third party vote to squeeze, etc. If anyone has the time it'd make a brilliant thread lead.
Absolutely agree. The increasing poverty of much of the population has been papered over by cheap credit, including latterly the disgrace of interest base rates that are totally detached from the real value of money. But these balls can only stay in the air for so long. Inequality of wealth is a huge threat to the stability of this country.
Regarding inequality of wealth, why is it that many youngsters spend their money on pay day, and end up skint in the week before. It would be OK if they were spending on essentials, but I see them buying clothes, eating out, etc?
It is only a small point, but the real way to solve inequality of wealth at this level is to take money off the people who can see more than two weeks into the future and hand it to those who can't.
Why no Sarah Teather comment? More politically important than any of the other guff today. It should certainly galvanize opposition to Clegg and co.
At last an MP saying what most of her party are thinking and with the courage of her convictions to resign her seat. (At least it's big news on the BBC)
Why no Sarah Teather comment? More politically important than any of the other guff today. It should certainly galvanize opposition to Clegg and co.
At last an MP saying what most of her party are thinking and with the courage of her convictions to resign her seat. (At least it's big news on the BBC)
The courage of her convictions to keep picking up a pay cheque for 2 years without any fear of her electorate, whip to worry about or accountability of any kind.
Why no Sarah Teather comment? More politically important than any of the other guff today. It should certainly galvanize opposition to Clegg and co.
At last an MP saying what most of her party are thinking and with the courage of her convictions to resign her seat. (At least it's big news on the BBC)
If most of her party were thinking the same, why doesn't she stand as an independent?
Why no Sarah Teather comment? More politically important than any of the other guff today. It should certainly galvanize opposition to Clegg and co.
At last an MP saying what most of her party are thinking and with the courage of her convictions to resign her seat. (At least it's big news on the BBC)
Ah, but where will she go, Roger. Teather says she hates Labour, now hates Clegg and probably a few others, but will stay an MP until the next GE. I can see her crossing to the Greens- maybe even become it's head.
Why no Sarah Teather comment? More politically important than any of the other guff today. It should certainly galvanize opposition to Clegg and co.
At last an MP saying what most of her party are thinking and with the courage of her convictions to resign her seat. (At least it's big news on the BBC)
If most of her party were thinking the same, why doesn't she stand as an independent?
If most of her party are thinking the same she could stand as a LibDem...
Why no Sarah Teather comment? More politically important than any of the other guff today. It should certainly galvanize opposition to Clegg and co.
At last an MP saying what most of her party are thinking and with the courage of her convictions to resign her seat. (At least it's big news on the BBC)
The courage of her convictions to keep picking up a pay cheque for 2 years without any fear of her electorate, whip to worry about or accountability of any kind.
A true hero.
She's accountable to her own belief in what is wrong and right for her constituents and her view of the world, rather than a right wing coalition with values she doesn't share. Nothing wrong with that.
Why no Sarah Teather comment? More politically important than any of the other guff today. It should certainly galvanize opposition to Clegg and co.
At last an MP saying what most of her party are thinking and with the courage of her convictions to resign her seat. (At least it's big news on the BBC)
Ah, but where will she go, Roger. Teather says she hates Labour, now hates Clegg and probably a few others, but will stay an MP until the next GE. I can see her crossing to the Greens- maybe even become it's head.
At the current rate of LD MP demise , my MP Dr Julian Muppert could b in the cabinet post 2015..
"But, and I say this reluctantly, I fear those efforts will be in vain if he does not recharge our economic and foreign policies."
I think he unintentionally touches on what will become Ed's biggest problem. The dinosaurs in his own party like himself and Blair both of who for different reasons would have been more comfortable in the Tory Party.
An interesting PB research project would be to look specifically at the 20 most marginal Tory, Labour and LibDem seats. The election will be decided there, and each one has different factors - incumbency, size of third party vote to squeeze, etc. If anyone has the time it'd make a brilliant thread lead.
A very good idea Nick, maybe for OGH Mr Smithson to also invite Lord Ashcroft to share his latest marginal seats polling which often covers most if not all of these top 60 seats. But do devote one article to each constituency and then some 10 or so amalgamation ones? Lord A may welcome sharing this on a debating platform that has a mix of political leanings. Upside for Mike is he gets 70 articles @ 1 per day gives 70 days coverage and would drive up the websites viewings.
She's accountable to her own belief in what is wrong and right for her constituents and her view of the world, rather than a right wing coalition with values she doesn't share. Nothing wrong with that.
Lets see how engaged she remains in the 2 years of her sole campaign then, now there won't be whips to force her to turn up.
It would be easier to respect an actual resignation rather than this sort of empty posturing.
Absolutely agree. The increasing poverty of much of the population has been papered over by cheap credit, including latterly the disgrace of interest base rates that are totally detached from the real value of money. But these balls can only stay in the air for so long. Inequality of wealth is a huge threat to the stability of this country.
Regarding inequality of wealth, why is it that many youngsters spend their money on pay day, and end up skint in the week before. It would be OK if they were spending on essentials, but I see them buying clothes, eating out, etc?
It is only a small point, but the real way to solve inequality of wealth at this level is to take money off the people who can see more than two weeks into the future and hand it to those who can't.
The question is, is this fair?
Of course not, but this is what Govt has been doing. Penalising savers and encouraging consumption. To the point where it is now guaranteeing mortgage deposits, as otherwise they're unaffordable to many. This is the politics of the asylum.
Why no Sarah Teather comment? More politically important than any of the other guff today. It should certainly galvanize opposition to Clegg and co. At last an MP saying what most of her party are thinking and with the courage of her convictions to resign her seat. (At least it's big news on the BBC)
A fair point Roger but the BBC have a bias for picking up pro-immigration statements.
This is the 5th GE 2010 LD MP to announce their "reirement". I now expect 4+ more.
Why no Sarah Teather comment? More politically important than any of the other guff today. It should certainly galvanize opposition to Clegg and co. At last an MP saying what most of her party are thinking and with the courage of her convictions to resign her seat. (At least it's big news on the BBC)
A fair point Roger but the BBC have a bias for picking up pro-immigration statements.
This is the 5th GE 2010 LD MP to announce their "reirement". I now expect 4+ more.
It's the lead story in The Observer. And Teather is on the record as saying the primary reason for standing down are her disagreements with the party leadership:
I first joined the party almost exactly twenty years ago, during fresher's week at university. It was then -- and still is now - absolutely inconceivable that I could ever join any other political party. As with most party members, there have always been a few issues where I have disagreed with party policy. But over the last three years, what has been difficult is that policy has moved in some of the issues that ground my own personal sense of political vocation - that of working with and serving the most vulnerable members of society. I have disagreed with both Government and official party lines on a whole range of welfare and immigration policies, and those differences have been getting larger rather than smaller. Disagreements with the party on other areas of policy I have always felt could be managed, but these things are just core to my own sense of calling to politics. I have tried hard to balance my own desire to truthfully fight for what I believe on these issues with the very real loyalty and friendship I feel to party colleagues, but that has created intense pressure, and at times left me very tired. I don't think it is sustainable for me personally to continue to try and do that in the long term.
This posting troubles me a bit. fitalass may have been a bit grouchy (but who is immune to that?) but on pb there is a trend by some posters to disparage any comment by the women posters here as passive aggressive. It seems that being overtly aggressive is ok, but not defensive behavior. There is more than a whiff of mysogyny to it. Ironically much comes from the party of AWS and critical of tory attitudes to women.
The next time fitalass plays the victim,someone repost this brilliant example of troubled passive aggressive hypocrisy.
Addressed to My Burning Ears.
"fitalass said: Well I don't regard you as a honorary gentleman on PB, and certainly not a particularly clever PB honorary right wing troller. So as a result, I simple skim over your posts as I regard them and your opinion a parody of the current position that Ed Miliband finds himself in. But I await your latest cowardly attempt at ungraciously extricating yourself from any praise from another poster here, but whereby you manage to really insult the person who was being trolled as a result. "
Magnificent.
fitalass was having a grouchy evening, both with this remarkable assault on the cerebral centre-right MBE and an odd pot-shot at EiT.
Sadly there is more than a whiff of mysogyny in the left. NickP, I am sure will quietly reflect on it, the others have it in their dna.
I am sure that you are not complacent and know that it would not be an easy victory, particularly if national campaigning by Labour is incoherent. There may be some incumbency type vote for yourself as former incumbent. I would be a little sorry to see Soubry out as she is unusaully pro european for the increasingly europhobic Tory party, though not so keen on some of her other views.
After conference season (Syria and defenestrations permitting) there will be a relatively quiet political landscape until the euros, so a series on marginals would be excellent, particularly pointing towards constituency bets at the next election. Polls will shift about but the demographics and local issues will move much less.
Josiag, EiT (funny as always): thanks, one less thing to worry about.
Should I worry about the polls instead, as Fox (I think) suggested? Well, there is a pretty well-established pattern showing that people think little of any leader but recently rather better of Cameron, so the Tory showing has been edging up to GE2010 levels. Labour's share seems steady at 6-9% above 2010. I need an 0.4% swing from when we were 7% behind nationally, so not too worried yet, despite possible incumbency issues.
An interesting PB research project would be to look specifically at the 20 most marginal Tory, Labour and LibDem seats. The election will be decided there, and each one has different factors - incumbency, size of third party vote to squeeze, etc. If anyone has the time it'd make a brilliant thread lead.
IMO, the biggest long-term economic problem has been the fact that growth in output hasn't fed through into growth in median incomes since about 2000. I don't know if that's permanent, or just a blip.
That's because there hasn't been any growth in ouput since 2000 instead we've had a steep fall in industrial production and perhaps an increase in business and financial services (though how much these are wealth creating is another issue).
What we've had since 2000 was an increase in the wealth consuming side of economic activities, funded by £100bn+ borrowing per year. Initially it was predominantly household borrowing, now government borrowing and perhaps a restart of household borrowing is now occurring.
If it's permanent we're all buggered. Relentlessly stagnating or falling standards of living will eventually lead to significant unrest, especially when the wealth of the minority at the top has never been more visible and, in many cases, more ostentatiously displayed. It's something that none of our political parties have begun to think about yet. But they need to.
That ties in with discussions about the next election. We could easily see GDP rise by 6% between Q3 2013, and Q2 2015, which would be well ahead of population growth over that period. But, will it result in wage rises for the average voter?
Absolutely. Focusing on abstract numbers and proclaiming their upwards or downwards movement politically significant is a bit silly. What matters is voters' own experiences, perceptions and expectations. GDP rises or falls are neither here nor there: having more or less money in your pocket after bills have been paid is what counts.
Getting more money in people's pockets can only be achieved now through extra borrowing. Whether its Brown, Darling, Osoborne or Balls as Chancellor that's the only strategy governments have for survival.
None of them have a solution to our long term problem which is that we're a high cost, high tax, high regulation country now challenged by people who are as intelligent and educated as we are but willing to work harder for less money and with fewer restrictions.
Having read Sarah Teather's statement I noted. ".... the campaign I remain most proud of is the campaign to get my constituent released from Guantanamo Bay. " In 10 years.
Liam Fox, promoting (in the Mail) his new book, Rising Tides: Facing The Challenges Of A New Era by Liam Fox is published by Heron Books, priced £20, lists 10 of these rising tides (or global nightmares):
Pakistan, the most dangerous country on earth. The Water Wars The Dirty Bomb The Tragic Pantomime of the Euro Quicksand of Debt Our Ageing Population and Unfettered Immigration International Terrorism Nuclear-Armed Iran The Collapse of our Political Will
On Ed Miliband's union issues, Hopi Sen on Twitter pointing out that if the hostile unions like the GMB go through with their threat to reduce their number of affiliated members, that just reduces their voting power at the special conference and makes it easier for Ed to win the vote...
I did not mean to imply NPXMP was misogynistic. He always is polite to all on here despite extreme provocation at times. His was the last comment though so shows in the blockquote.
If we want politics to be more inclusive, of women and other under represented groups, then we do need to accept different styles of posting and politicking than the pointscoring and blokish banter characteristic of pub or JCR.
This posting troubles me a bit. fitalass may have been a bit grouchy (but who is immune to that?) but on pb there is a trend by some posters to disparage any comment by the women posters here as passive aggressive. It seems that being overtly aggressive is ok, but not defensive behavior. There is more than a whiff of mysogyny to it. Ironically much comes from the party of AWS and critical of tory attitudes to women.
The next time fitalass plays the victim,someone repost this brilliant example of troubled passive aggressive hypocrisy.
Addressed to My Burning Ears.
"fitalass said: Well I don't regard you as a honorary gentleman on PB, and certainly not a particularly clever PB honorary right wing troller. So as a result, I simple skim over your posts as I regard them and your opinion a parody of the current position that Ed Miliband finds himself in. But I await your latest cowardly attempt at ungraciously extricating yourself from any praise from another poster here, but whereby you manage to really insult the person who was being trolled as a result. "
Magnificent.
fitalass was having a grouchy evening, both with this remarkable assault on the cerebral centre-right MBE and an odd pot-shot at EiT.
Sadly there is more than a whiff of mysogyny in the left. NickP, I am sure will quietly reflect on it, the others have it in their dna.
Getting more money in people's pockets can only be achieved now through extra borrowing. Whether its Brown, Darling, Osoborne or Balls as Chancellor that's the only strategy governments have for survival.
None of them have a solution to our long term problem which is that we're a high cost, high tax, high regulation country now challenged by people who are as intelligent and educated as we are but willing to work harder for less money and with fewer restrictions.
Who can, at the moment, afford to work for less money. As their own cost of living is lower. Unfortunately the UK right's solution is a race to the bottom.
If it's permanent we're all buggered. Relentlessly stagnating or falling standards of living will eventually lead to significant unrest, especially when the wealth of the minority at the top has never been more visible and, in many cases, more ostentatiously displayed. It's something that none of our political parties have begun to think about yet. But they need to.
That ties in with discussions about the next election. We could easily see GDP rise by 6% between Q3 2013, and Q2 2015, which would be well ahead of population growth over that period. But, will it result in wage rises for the average voter?
Absolutely. Focusing on abstract numbers and proclaiming their upwards or downwards movement politically significant is a bit silly. What matters is voters' own experiences, perceptions and expectations. GDP rises or falls are neither here nor there: having more or less money in your pocket after bills have been paid is what counts.
Getting more money in people's pockets can only be achieved now through extra borrowing. Whether its Brown, Darling, Osoborne or Balls as Chancellor that's the only strategy governments have for survival.
None of them have a solution to our long term problem which is that we're a high cost, high tax, high regulation country now challenged by people who are as intelligent and educated as we are but willing to work harder for less money and with fewer restrictions.
Leaving politics as little more than musical chairs among upper middle class PPEs.
While their cheerleaders here contiune to play their puerile games.
"Sadly there is more than a whiff of mysogyny in the left. NickP, I am sure will quietly reflect on it, the others have it in their dna."
If a poster is unpleasant or crap no ogyny or ism should be used as an excuse. It just doesn't wash and usually shows a very particular and old fashioned mindset from those who try.
"One unnoticed casualty of the Syrian crisis is that Miliband Minor will never be able to use the Holocaust link again. As things stand, he is willing to speak out against the gassing of Jews with Zyklon B 70 years ago. But when he is called on to speak against the gassing of Syrians with vaporised sarin in the here and now, when what we say and do could make a difference, the anger vanishes, and with Miliband – as with Hamlet – "the native hue of resolution is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought".
@TCP "Sadly there is more than a whiff of mysogyny in the left. NickP, I am sure will quietly reflect on it, the others have it in their dna." If a poster is unpleasant or crap no ogyny or ism should be used as an excuse. It just doesn't wash and usually shows a very particular and old fashioned mindset from those who try.
Roger, female posters on here have had to suffer from an above average level of abuse and attacks. My recollection is that the left leaning posters are responsible for an above average rate of them. Roger that is how I perceive it. I am old fashioned in the sense that I dislike this level of bullying. I guess it is down to how "one" is brought up?
Guys if I may draw on your collective wisdom? I've almost always live in safe Labour seats, so my opinion is somewhat clouded. Say the Conservative were on course to win the next GE (I take no position, only hypothecating), bar an earthquake, how could it happen? Take my neighbouring seat Bury South, typical bell weather seat, high percentage of workers moving between public and private sector, relatively low immigration, yet the Conservatives couldn't win it in 2010, with a great team and candidate. How could they conceivably win there or in similar seats, when they have lost most of their Cllr's and activist base and Labour have massively rebuilt, alibi from a small pool? Thanks in advance for your considered responses, SZ
"Sadly there is more than a whiff of mysogyny in the left. NickP, I am sure will quietly reflect on it, the others have it in their dna."
If a poster is unpleasant or crap no ogyny or ism should be used as an excuse. It just doesn't wash and usually shows a very particular and old fashioned mindset from those who try.
Why the lack of left-wing female posters on this site?
That's because there hasn't been any growth in ouput since 2000 instead we've had a steep fall in industrial production and perhaps an increase in business and financial services (though how much these are wealth creating is another issue).
Perhaps the measurement might be wrong. If making cars is manufacturing (good, creates jobs) and servicing them is not (McJob), then we should be better off building crap cars that fall apart after two years, like we did in the 70s.
IMO, the biggest long-term economic problem has been the fact that growth in output hasn't fed through into growth in median incomes since about 2000. I don't know if that's permanent, or just a blip.
That's because there hasn't been any growth in ouput since 2000 instead we've had a steep borrowing, now government borrowing and perhaps a restart of household borrowing is now occurring.
If it's permanent we're all buggered. Relentlessly stagnating or falling standards of living will that none of our political parties have begun to think about yet. But they need to.
That ties in with discussions about the next election. We could easily see GDP rise by 6% between Q3 2013, and Q2 2015, which would be well ahead of population growth over that period. But, will it result in wage rises for the average voter?
Absolutely. Focusing on abstract numbers and proclaiming their upwards or downwards ore or less money in your pocket after bills have been paid is what counts.
Getting more money in people's pockets can only be achieved now through extra borrowing. Whether its Brown, Darling, Osoborne or Balls as Chancellor that's the only strategy governments have for survival.
None of them have a solution to our long term problem which is that we're a high cost, high tax, high regulation country now challenged by people who are as intelligent and educated as we are but willing to work harder for less money and with fewer restrictions.
Spot on the noughties saw the growth of the "distributive" sectors in law, government and finance. White collar jobs which don't actually produce much but take a cut from the sectors that do and push their profits down. It's the secular version of the tithe.
"One unnoticed casualty of the Syrian crisis is that Miliband Minor will never be able to use the Holocaust link again. As things stand, he is willing to speak out against the gassing of Jews with Zyklon B 70 years ago. But when he is called on to speak against the gassing of Syrians with vaporised sarin in the here and now, when what we say and do could make a difference, the anger vanishes, and with Miliband – as with Hamlet – "the native hue of resolution is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought".
What guff. Miliband's moral courage was that he wanted to find out the facts before sending in the Tomahawks. Shouldn't we all, after Iraq? His mistake has been to allow Cameron to blame him, when it was Cameron's own strategic errors that led to the vote fiasco.
Guys if I may draw on your collective wisdom? I've almost always live in safe Labour seats, so my opinion is somewhat clouded. Say the Conservative were on course to win the next GE (I take no position, only hypothecating), bar an earthquake, how could it happen? Take my neighbouring seat Bury South, typical bell weather seat, high percentage of workers moving between public and private sector, relatively low immigration, yet the Conservatives couldn't win it in 2010, with a great team and candidate. How could they conceivably win there or in similar seats, when they have lost most of their Cllr's and activist base and Labour have massively rebuilt, alibi from a small pool? Thanks in advance for your considered responses, SZ
Your points are true, but few say that the Conservatives are on course to win a majority at the next GE. What is also clear is that EdM's Labour are also not on course to win a majority. There is a wider question about how many seats the LDs will lose and still force a coalition? 20?, 30? or more? Plus how many will the SNP take from Labour in Scotland?
For me the biggest example of a groupthink is the narrowness of issues. So, for example, the 45p tax rate - rather than who pays, at what threshold, when they lose their PA, what deductions are available, what NI they pay, and so forth.
"One unnoticed casualty of the Syrian crisis is that Miliband Minor will never be able to use the Holocaust link again. As things stand, he is willing to speak out against the gassing of Jews with Zyklon B 70 years ago. But when he is called on to speak against the gassing of Syrians with vaporised sarin in the here and now, when what we say and do could make a difference, the anger vanishes, and with Miliband – as with Hamlet – "the native hue of resolution is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought".
@TCP "Sadly there is more than a whiff of mysogyny in the left. NickP, I am sure will quietly reflect on it, the others have it in their dna." If a poster is unpleasant or crap no ogyny or ism should be used as an excuse. It just doesn't wash and usually shows a very particular and old fashioned mindset from those who try.
Roger, female posters on here have had to suffer from an above average level of abuse and attacks. My recollection is that the left leaning posters are responsible for an above average rate of them. Roger that is how I perceive it. I am old fashioned in the sense that I dislike this level of bullying. I guess it is down to how "one" is brought up?
Perhaps you perceive it that way because you do not consider posts and posters you agree with to be abusive.
@TCP "Sadly there is more than a whiff of mysogyny in the left. NickP, I am sure will quietly reflect on it, the others have it in their dna." If a poster is unpleasant or crap no ogyny or ism should be used as an excuse. It just doesn't wash and usually shows a very particular and old fashioned mindset from those who try.
Roger, female posters on here have had to suffer from an above average level of abuse and attacks. My recollection is that the left leaning posters are responsible for an above average rate of them. Roger that is how I perceive it. I am old fashioned in the sense that I dislike this level of bullying. I guess it is down to how "one" is brought up?
Or maybe whether you are a pompous twat, suppose your insults are intelligent banter rather than bullying. You were certainly not "brought up" very well other than to look down your nose on your imagined inferiors.
Guys if I may draw on your collective wisdom? I've almost always live in safe Labour seats, so my opinion is somewhat clouded. Say the Conservative were on course to win the next GE (I take no position, only hypothecating), bar an earthquake, how could it happen? Take my neighbouring seat Bury South, typical bell weather seat, high percentage of workers moving between public and private sector, relatively low immigration, yet the Conservatives couldn't win it in 2010, with a great team and candidate. How could they conceivably win there or in similar seats, when they have lost most of their Cllr's and activist base and Labour have massively rebuilt, alibi from a small pool? Thanks in advance for your considered responses, SZ
Your points are true, but few say that the Conservatives are on course to win a majority at the next GE. What is also clear is that EdM's Labour are also not on course to win a majority. There is a wider question about how many seats the LDs will lose and still force a coalition? 20?, 30? or more? Plus how many will the SNP take from Labour in Scotland?
I don't doubt your probably right, though either way it's still early days yet. I'm curious how the Con can logistically win if thing begin to turn, or will Labour win by dint of having a far bigger ground force/organisation?
Guys if I may draw on your collective wisdom? I've almost always live in safe Labour seats, so my opinion is somewhat clouded. Say the Conservative were on course to win the next GE (I take no position, only hypothecating), bar an earthquake, how could it happen? Take my neighbouring seat Bury South, typical bell weather seat, high percentage of workers moving between public and private sector, relatively low immigration, yet the Conservatives couldn't win it in 2010, with a great team and candidate. How could they conceivably win there or in similar seats, when they have lost most of their Cllr's and activist base and Labour have massively rebuilt, alibi from a small pool? Thanks in advance for your considered responses, SZ
That's the right question. The extra hurdle that you don't mention is that the LibDem left seem to have defected to Labour, while the LibDem right hasn't defected to the Tories, which gives Labour another big block of voters they didn't have in 2010 before you even start trying to swing people who voted for Gordon Brown in 2010 over to David Cameron's side.
A lot of the people who think Con are likely to get a majority tend skip over this and talk in terms of big decisions on the part of The Voters who rather mysteriously make a collective based on the alleged crapness of Ed Miliband, but we don't get much in the way of detail about which voters are actually supposed to swing to make it happen.
The least bad response I've seen is from Richard Nabavi, who points out (hopefully he'll correct me if I'm paraphrasing wrong) that there's always quite a lot of churn between the parties, so you shouldn't need too many people to be unimpressed by Ed, as long as they're not matched by people moving in the opposite direction. And I think the rubbishness of Gordon Brown tends to be a bit over-stated here, so I suppose it's possible that Ed Miliband will out-crap him.
Also if they can hold on to their current seats with the benefit of incumbency, the Tories can get a lot of the way just by winning seats off the LibDems, which they will do if LibDem voters move to Labour. This theory's been a bit less popular since Eastleigh because it looks like the Lab->Lib tactical votes held up reasonably well, but it's hard to draw too many conclusions from a single by-election, especially with a lot of movement to UKIP that makes it quite hard to read.
Why the lack of left-wing female posters on this site?
Hmmm,
Carola cornered the market?
There are only so many English Queens that the 'person' ran out of personas?
Mumsnet
OK, lets be serious: This place can be very ugly - *innocent_face* - and most of the posters posit thoughts for distinction. Call it wally-wiveing [sp?].
Things have been changing: We appear to be getting leftists and "visably" ethnic posters. A diversity of thoughts should be the goal but, sadly, some of those who have the power choose to abuse and not guide. [Morning TSE!]
The ethos of this site is all-well-and-good but the fixed-term Parlaiment has killed most of the anticipation: Betting opportunities are becoming fewer or of longer consequences. Add to which the daily [-ish] polls from YouGov resulting in pathetic Gabbleisms, not least from "The Good Life countryside don't assist....
So a degree of honesty: This site is popular because it is sometimes informative and often entertaining. [Paddy Staines' gaff struggles to match us sad losers.] What with the clowns/sewer-rats of Soho huffing-and-a-puffing - morning Wodger - what better a way to pass your life is there...?
"One unnoticed casualty of the Syrian crisis is that Miliband Minor will never be able to use the Holocaust link again. As things stand, he is willing to speak out against the gassing of Jews with Zyklon B 70 years ago. But when he is called on to speak against the gassing of Syrians with vaporised sarin in the here and now, when what we say and do could make a difference, the anger vanishes, and with Miliband – as with Hamlet – "the native hue of resolution is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought".
What guff. Miliband's moral courage was that he wanted to find out the facts before sending in the Tomahawks. Shouldn't we all, after Iraq? His mistake has been to allow Cameron to blame him, when it was Cameron's own strategic errors that led to the vote fiasco.
But the vote wouldn't have "sent in the Tomahawks" - that would have required another vote - something the Miliband apologists are keen to overlook.
Between them, Cameron & Miliband contrived to have the UK Parliament fail to support the principle of military intervention - and Miliband is getting the blame.
Guys if I may draw on your collective wisdom? I've almost always live in safe Labour seats, so my opinion is somewhat clouded. Say the Conservative were on course to win the next GE (I take no position, only hypothecating), bar an earthquake, how could it happen? Take my neighbouring seat Bury South, typical bell weather seat, high percentage of workers moving between public and private sector, relatively low immigration, yet the Conservatives couldn't win it in 2010, with a great team and candidate. How could they conceivably win there or in similar seats, when they have lost most of their Cllr's and activist base and Labour have massively rebuilt, alibi from a small pool? Thanks in advance for your considered responses, SZ
Your points are true, but few say that the Conservatives are on course to win a majority at the next GE. What is also clear is that EdM's Labour are also not on course to win a majority. There is a wider question about how many seats the LDs will lose and still force a coalition? 20?, 30? or more? Plus how many will the SNP take from Labour in Scotland?
I don't doubt your probably right, though either way it's still early days yet. I'm curious how the Con can logistically win if thing begin to turn, or will Labour win by dint of having a far bigger ground force/organisation?
Another thing that could go wrong is that Labour just fails to match the effectiveness of Gordon Brown's ground operation. Apparently it was actually very effective, so it's not necessarily going to be a no-brainer to beat it. And who knows, maybe the Tories can do something effective based on social media and phone canvassing. The received wisdom is that you need boots on the ground, but maybe that ceases to be true once everybody's on Facebook.
A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 60 per cent.
The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.
Instead, days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores.
The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year. More than 20 yachts that had planned to sail it have been left ice-bound and a cruise ship attempting the route was forced to turn back.
Some eminent scientists now believe the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century – a process that would expose computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming as dangerously misleading.
The disclosure comes 11 months after The Mail on Sunday triggered intense political and scientific debate by revealing that global warming has ‘paused’ since the beginning of 1997 – an event that the computer models used by climate experts failed to predict.
In March, this newspaper further revealed that temperatures are about to drop below the level that the models forecast with ‘90 per cent certainty’.
The pause – which has now been accepted as real by every major climate research centre – is important, because the models’ predictions of ever-increasing global temperatures have made many of the world’s economies divert billions of pounds into ‘green’ measures to counter climate change.
"One unnoticed casualty of the Syrian crisis is that Miliband Minor will never be able to use the Holocaust link again. As things stand, he is willing to speak out against the gassing of Jews with Zyklon B 70 years ago. But when he is called on to speak against the gassing of Syrians with vaporised sarin in the here and now, when what we say and do could make a difference, the anger vanishes, and with Miliband – as with Hamlet – "the native hue of resolution is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought".
"One unnoticed casualty of the Syrian crisis is that Miliband Minor will never be able to use the Holocaust link again. As things stand, he is willing to speak out against the gassing of Jews with Zyklon B 70 years ago. But when he is called on to speak against the gassing of Syrians with vaporised sarin in the here and now, when what we say and do could make a difference, the anger vanishes, and with Miliband – as with Hamlet – "the native hue of resolution is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought".
What guff. Miliband's moral courage was that he wanted to find out the facts before sending in the Tomahawks. Shouldn't we all, after Iraq? His mistake has been to allow Cameron to blame him, when it was Cameron's own strategic errors that led to the vote fiasco.
The problem is the 'facts' are loose, and will remain so for a long time, possibly until well after the war is over. We saw on here the way no amount of evidence would convince some that Assad's forces committed the atrocity, that gas was used, and even that the use of gas is in any way special.
Even if the UNSC all agreed to take action, it does not make the 'facts' any more right. We could discover in a few years that the evidence - and the entire UNSC - was wrong.
Therefore it has to be a balance of probabilities. I come firmly down on the side of Assad's forces having used gas, as do many nations. Others differ. But we all have to ask ourselves what level of evidence (or lack thereof) we would require for us to change our minds about the Assad regimes guilt. (*)
Waiting for indisputable facts that may never come, or even be believed by some conspiracy theorists when they do come, is a mug's game that just lets war criminals use doubt and obfuscation to get away with more crimes.
(*) Whether we do anything about it once guilt is ascertained beyond reasonable doubt is another matter.
A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 60 per cent.
IIRC was there not an article in "T'Economist" and/or Al-Beeb a few years ago that showed that there was in increase in glacial formations to the west of Greenland that more than compensated any shrinkage from the east? Man-made, anthropic or "global-warming" is a con that benefits quacks and snake liver-oil salesmen: Human intelligence is barely 8, 000 years old and yet we think we know all that happened before we could record facts....
@EdmundInTokyo "The extra hurdle that you don't mention is that the LibDem left seem to have defected to Labour, while the LibDem right hasn't defected to the Tories, which gives Labour another big block of voters they didn't have in 2010 before you even start trying to swing people who voted for Gordon Brown in 2010 over to David Cameron's side."
We often see the assumption on here that every single one of the Labour "rump" who voted for Gordon Brown will vote Labour in 2015. This may not be quite right. There are 2 significant factors (closely linked) that will be different in Labour's campaign next time - Peter Mandelson - presumably he won;t be so involved. - Fear - I think this played a big part in preventing a Tory majority. Can Labour use it again?
@EdmundInTokyo "The extra hurdle that you don't mention is that the LibDem left seem to have defected to Labour, while the LibDem right hasn't defected to the Tories, which gives Labour another big block of voters they didn't have in 2010 before you even start trying to swing people who voted for Gordon Brown in 2010 over to David Cameron's side."
We often see the assumption on here that every single one of the Labour "rump" who voted for Gordon Brown will vote Labour in 2015. This may not be quite right. There are 2 significant factors (closely linked) that will be different in Labour's campaign next time - Peter Mandelson - presumably he won;t be so involved. - Fear - I think this played a big part in preventing a Tory majority. Can Labour use it again?
The Tories seem determined to do much of Labour's work for it. Their shift to the right - at least in terms of rhetoric - over recent months may well lure back a few UKIPers, but it will also animate that part of the electorate whose principle aim is to prevent a Tory government. And that part has shown itself to be very effective since 1992, as the 2010 GE demonstrated: even as the Labour vote collapsed, the Tories could not take full advantage.
That's because there hasn't been any growth in ouput since 2000 instead we've had a steep fall in industrial production and perhaps an increase in business and financial services (though how much these are wealth creating is another issue).
Perhaps the measurement might be wrong. If making cars is manufacturing (good, creates jobs) and servicing them is not (McJob), then we should be better off building crap cars that fall apart after two years, like we did in the 70s.
The manufacturing figures would shoot up.
If you make crap cars then eventually the buying public will get to know that and sales will decrease and therefore production will fall. One reason why British car manufacturing is now largely foreign owned.
@EdmundInTokyo "The extra hurdle that you don't mention is that the LibDem left seem to have defected to Labour, while the LibDem right hasn't defected to the Tories, which gives Labour another big block of voters they didn't have in 2010 before you even start trying to swing people who voted for Gordon Brown in 2010 over to David Cameron's side."
We often see the assumption on here that every single one of the Labour "rump" who voted for Gordon Brown will vote Labour in 2015. This may not be quite right. There are 2 significant factors (closely linked) that will be different in Labour's campaign next time - Peter Mandelson - presumably he won;t be so involved. - Fear - I think this played a big part in preventing a Tory majority. Can Labour use it again?
Also the right assumption to be poking at. I don't think I'm really convinced by either of those, though.
Peter Mandelson - presumably he won;t be so involved.
I'm a bit skeptical about the impact of particular individuals on campaigns. Presumably if Mandelson was _that_ important they could get him back, but I think the techniques are reasonably well known.
- Fear - I think this played a big part in preventing a Tory majority. Can Labour use it again?
I think so. Cameron's had to undo a lot of the good branding work he did to slow the bleeding to UKIP - I think this shows up in the polling - and the Tories and LibDems will both be working hard to to differentiate themselves from each other, by pretending the government would have been completely different if it hadn't been for the coalition.
I think a more promising angle would be to see whether there were a chunk of voters, probably not strongly politically aligned, who voted Labour because they had some grudging respect for Gordon Brown as a serious politician, and won't see Ed Miliband the same way. In other words, is the Labour core vote actually a fair bit lower than 29%?
Matthew Goodwin (@GoodwinMJ) 08/09/2013 11:53 #ukip founder Prof Alan Sked launches new Eurosceptic centre left party --> thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Polit…
Contrary to what OGH says the economy will be the decisive factor. Mike desperately clings to one example from about 20 years ago which he dubiously repeats proves to the contrary. But it's the economy stupid. This is particularly the case when a party has screwed up. The moment people begin to 'feel' better off the Conservatives will turn the screw on Labour. The meme has changed. Whereas Black Wednesday led to a generation distrusting the Tories, now a generation will know Labour screwed the economy. The Conservatives will be able to point to the terrible legacy, the painful but necessary medicine and the recovery that they instigated.
I hasten to add I'm a left-leaner: cue 'troll' retorts from those who don't like the unpalatable truth.
The Conservatives will win a comfortable outright majority.
@EdmundInTokyo "I'm a bit skeptical about the impact of particular individuals on campaigns. Presumably if Mandelson was _that_ important they could get him back, but I think the techniques are reasonably well known"
Fair point. But I've been reading Andrew Rawnsley's "The End of the Party" - Most interesting - And it does suggest that the (somewhat unlikely) Brown-Mandelson alliance was a key - and effective - part of Labour's 2010 campaign. Ed Milliband will largely have to be in his own Peter Mandelson - I don't think there's a comparable figure.
Fear - Can work in 2 ways - The Tories are baby-eaters, but the babies will have already been eaten by 2015. - And fear of what Ed Balls might do to the economy, and to your tax bill.
The Conservatives will win a comfortable outright majority.
Can you engage with the discussion about who the actual swinging voters are? Are you expecting a bunch of Gordon Brown voters to switch to Cameron? Or 2010 LibDems? Or are Gordon Brown voters not going to turn out? How do you see this actually working?
That's because there hasn't been any growth in ouput since 2000 instead we've had a steep fall in industrial production and perhaps an increase in business and financial services (though how much these are wealth creating is another issue).
Perhaps the measurement might be wrong. If making cars is manufacturing (good, creates jobs) and servicing them is not (McJob), then we should be better off building crap cars that fall apart after two years, like we did in the 70s.
The manufacturing figures would shoot up.
If you make crap cars then eventually the buying public will get to know that and sales will decrease and therefore production will fall. One reason why British car manufacturing is now largely foreign owned.
I agree. What I am trying to suggest is that the recording process might be wrong. IMO, a car mechanic provides a local service (difficult to outsource), is useful when a car is, say 10 years old and still has a fair bit of life (i.e. repair one bit because the rest of the car has a few years left), yet it is counted as a service and therefore not good.
The relevance is to the issue of the unions in the 70s and 80s who tried to 'defend jobs'.
People will stagnant incomes can still *feel* richer if salient durable goods - TVs, smartphones - get cheaper, thanks to technology. Illogical but true.
Incomprehensable and what...?
P.S. The word "salient" should be banned. Sounds bad and over-used by too many wannabes....
Michael Guerin @GuerinSports 1h The Australian cricket team have now been touring England so long they have had three Prime Ministers since they left home.
I recently read an article about some research that suggested the recent reduced global warming could be accounted for by a Pacific heat cycle with a 40 or so year cycle. If so, if would be due to reverse in a couple of years time.
Does this mean that global warming is like economics, trying to find a theory that fits the data?
" Ministers are planning to hand regulation of the BBC to Ofcom, which oversees the rest of broadcasting, in a sign of the government’s exasperation with the scandal-prone corporation. A senior source at the culture, media and sport department said: “It is clear that the trust, which is both a cheerleader for the BBC and its regulator, does not work. There are contradictions.”
News of the intervention comes ahead of a showdown tomorrow between Patten and Thompson in front of the powerful Commons public accounts committee about who approved overpayments of £2.9m to BBC managers over six years. John Whittingdale, chairman of the culture, media and sport select committee, described the spat between the men as “incredibly unseemly”, and said: “Nobody could be left with any confidence in this governance structure. It is just jaw-dropping.
“Each time when you think nothing more could happen it gets worse and worse.“Every time there is a crisis, and they roll around around every six months to a year, you face the dilemma whether the trust is there to investigate or should [its] chairman appear on the [Radio 4] Today programme to defend the BBC.” Under the government’s plan the BBC would be run on similar lines to Channel 4, which is publicly owned but regulated by Ofcom. >> http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/National/article1310987.ece
ShneurOdze - welcome to the site - an auspicious start as you've prompted a series of serious replies.
I think an outright Tory win depends primarily on a slump in the 2010 Labour voters. I'm very confident of the post-2010 LibDem switchers in marginals - they have switched for a specific reason (that they don't want to ally with the Tories), and recent Tory moves to fend off UKIP have reinforced it. They're motivated, angry and can't wait to vote the Government out.
That certainty is IMO less for the 2010 Labour vote taken as a whole, or indeed the 2010 Tory vote. There are people in there who voted out of habit, out of sympathy or dislike for Gordon, because their MP helped rehouse their budgie, all kinds of little things that we can't pick up in polls. (Someone once told me seriously that she voted for me because I was taller than my opponent.) I'd think that the large majority will still vote the same way, but there has to be some potential for either a 5% Lab-Con swing or a 5% Con-Lab swing - it's remarkable that the polls show virtually no evidence of either (churn is well under 10%, the lowest I can remember, ever). I think that could change either way, which I why I believe the odds on another hung Parliament are too short.
Fox - thanks, it's OK, had understood your post as you meant it. Some posters are aggressive, as we all know, and I don't think it's especially directed at women, but some women may be even more put off by it than others. On the whole PB's moderators do a good job at stamping on personal aggression - the main problem of the site IMO is the volume of "your party/leader sucks" posts, which are just tedious, convince nobody and sometimes clog up entire threads.
'"One unnoticed casualty of the Syrian crisis is that Miliband Minor will never be able to use the Holocaust link again. As things stand, he is willing to speak out against the gassing of Jews with Zyklon B 70 years ago. But when he is called on to speak against the gassing of Syrians with vaporised sarin in the here and now, when what we say and do could make a difference, the anger vanishes, and with Miliband – as with Hamlet – "the native hue of resolution is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought".
That's because there hasn't been any growth in ouput since 2000 instead we've had a steep fall in industrial production and perhaps an increase in business and financial services (though how much these are wealth creating is another issue).
Perhaps the measurement might be wrong. If making cars is manufacturing (good, creates jobs) and servicing them is not (McJob), then we should be better off building crap cars that fall apart after two years, like we did in the 70s.
The manufacturing figures would shoot up.
You've given this theory several times in the past Gerry but if you were right then we wouldn't have had a continuous trade deficit for about 185 continuous months.
A trip down to the local shopping centre will show that we are buying no shortage of low quality goods. But instead of being made in Birmingham they are now being made in Beijing.
Nor would we have had debt, either household and/or government, increase by £100bn+ each year for the last decade.
Guys if I may draw on your collective wisdom? I've almost always live in safe Labour seats, so my opinion is somewhat clouded. Say the Conservative were on course to win the next GE (I take no position, only hypothecating), bar an earthquake, how could it happen? Take my neighbouring seat Bury South, typical bell weather seat, high percentage of workers moving between public and private sector, relatively low immigration, yet the Conservatives couldn't win it in 2010, with a great team and candidate. How could they conceivably win there or in similar seats, when they have lost most of their Cllr's and activist base and Labour have massively rebuilt, alibi from a small pool? Thanks in advance for your considered responses, SZ
Hold on a second. Just thought I would check Bury South. In 2005 it had a Labour majority of 22%! In 2010, the Tories secured a sizeable 8% swing - 3% more than nationally - though of course that wasn't sufficient. In short Bury South on its current boundaries is most emphatically not a bell-weather seat.
If the Tories repeat the same performance in 2015, they will get a ruddy landslide!
Quite surprised to see the polling numbers looking so good for Cameron I must admit.
Despite all the posts Tim subjects us to on here day after day, month after month and year after year - Calling Cameron this and that - It appears he remains very popular (given the circumstances) with a lot of people (Cameron that is, not Tim )
Constant new government regulations means businesses have to spend ever more money on QA consultants, HR consultants, H&S consultants, environmental consultants etc etc.
These people add fck all value but significant extra overhead costs leading to output becoming more expensive. While extra employee time is taken up with performing all the new procedures the consultants have deemed necessary.
Customers then buy cheaper alternatives from countries which don't bother with QA, HR, H&S or environmental concerns.
Meanwhile these 'consultants' become ever more influential in creating more regulations for them to consult about.
I remember 'Have I Got News For You' saying in an episode during the 1990s that there were now more personal managers in the UK than miners.
God knows how many the white collar managers/consultants overheads amount to now.
" Allegations have emerged that some of those who had made claims may have withdrawn their statements only after they were visited at home by Unite representatives who “prevailed upon them” to back down. Among those who withdrew their complaints were Michael and Lorraine Kane, who are related to Deans.
Eric Joyce, the MP for Falkirk, claimed the Kanes were told that Deans risked losing his job at the nearby Grangemouth oil refinery if they did not withdraw their statements. He said: “Essentially that’s why they withdrew and without that the Labour party felt it couldn’t finger them [Deans and Murphy]. In reality the Labour party could have said, ‘We’re not going to believe these withdrawals’, but obviously the party has chosen to avoid a face-off with Unite.” The Kanes declined to comment. " http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1311001.ece
The Conservatives will win a comfortable outright majority.
Would you be so kind as to say which individual constituencies the Conservatives will gain in order to achieve this ?
Yawn. You come out with this guff question every time I mention the likelihood of a Cons win. It's because you're so busy focusing on the trees you're missing the ruddy forest. Reminds me of that shite line 'we're doing better in the key constituencies' bollocks.
When the national mood swings for a Cons lead of 8-10% you can go do the math yourself on your little individual constituencies.
The Conservatives will win a comfortable outright majority.
Can you engage with the discussion about who the actual swinging voters are? Are you expecting a bunch of Gordon Brown voters to switch to Cameron? Or 2010 LibDems? Or are Gordon Brown voters not going to turn out? How do you see this actually working?
Another thing that could go wrong is that Labour just fails to match the effectiveness of Gordon Brown's ground operation. Apparently it was actually very effective,
Only if you believe those Labour groundworkers who - surprise, surprise - have a vested interest in blowing their own horn.
There were far more Conservative gains above the national swing than Labour holds below it.
If every constituency had followed UNS in 2010 we could well have had a Lab-Lib coalition.
Additionally the change in incumbancy in so many marginal constituencies means that it will be much harder in reality than it suggests on paper for Labour to make a significant number of gains.
What we're likely to see in 2015 is some repeat of 1974.
Constant new government regulations means businesses have to spend ever more money on QA consultants, HR consultants, H&S consultants, environmental consultants etc etc.
These people add fck all value but significant extra overhead costs leading to output becoming more expensive. While extra employee time is taken up with performing all the new procedures the consultants have deemed necessary.
Customers then buy cheaper alternatives from countries which don't bother with QA, HR, H&S or environmental concerns.
Meanwhile these 'consultants' become ever more influential in creating more regulations for them to consult about.
I remember 'Have I Got News For You' saying in an episode during the 1990s that there were now more personal managers in the UK than miners.
God knows how many the white collar managers/consultants overheads amount to now.
Why no Sarah Teather comment? More politically important than any of the other guff today. It should certainly galvanize opposition to Clegg and co. At last an MP saying what most of her party are thinking and with the courage of her convictions to resign her seat. (At least it's big news on the BBC)
A fair point Roger but the BBC have a bias for picking up pro-immigration statements.
This is the 5th GE 2010 LD MP to announce their "reirement". I now expect 4+ more.
It's the lead story in The Observer. And Teather is on the record as saying the primary reason for standing down are her disagreements with the party leadership:
I first joined the party almost exactly twenty years ago, during fresher's week at university. It was then -- and still is now - absolutely inconceivable that I could ever join any other political party. As with most party members, there have always been a few issues where I have disagreed with party policy. But over the last three years, what has been difficult is that policy has moved in some of the issues that ground my own personal sense of political vocation - that of working with and serving the most vulnerable members of society. I have disagreed with both Government and official party lines on a whole range of welfare and immigration policies, and those differences have been getting larger rather than smaller. Disagreements with the party on other areas of policy I have always felt could be managed, but these things are just core to my own sense of calling to politics. I have tried hard to balance my own desire to truthfully fight for what I believe on these issues with the very real loyalty and friendship I feel to party colleagues, but that has created intense pressure, and at times left me very tired. I don't think it is sustainable for me personally to continue to try and do that in the long term.
"These are difficult days for Ed Miliband. Our YouGov poll shows the Labour lead at just four points, even though most voters are not yet fully aware of the improved economic data. The Labour leader’s Commons victory on Syria has turned into defeat, his rating on it worse than David Cameron’s — who lost the vote. Mr Miliband’s overall rating is grim even among Labour voters. More of them think he is doing badly than say he is doing well as party leader. >> http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/leaders/article1310796.ece
Why no Sarah Teather comment? More politically important than any of the other guff today. It should certainly galvanize opposition to Clegg and co. At last an MP saying what most of her party are thinking and with the courage of her convictions to resign her seat. (At least it's big news on the BBC)
A fair point Roger but the BBC have a bias for picking up pro-immigration statements.
This is the 5th GE 2010 LD MP to announce their "reirement". I now expect 4+ more.
It's the lead story in The Observer. And Teather is on the record as saying the primary reason for standing down are her disagreements with the party leadership:
I first joined the party almost exactly twenty years ago, during fresher's week at university. It and at times left me very tired. I don't think it is sustainable for me personally to continue to try and do that in the long term.
"On Tuesday, the flag of Gibraltar will fly across Whitehall to mark Gibraltar Day. As these flags flutter in the breeze, they are meant to send a message to Spain that Britain’s commitment to Gibraltar is solid.
The display is the brainchild of Eric Pickles, the Communities and Local Government Secretary, who came up with the idea as the Spanish were harassing the British territory this summer. Even the Foreign Office, normally wary of offending the sensibilities of other EU members, will join in.
Tuesday will not be a good day for the Spanish Ambassador to come calling."
Why no Sarah Teather comment? More politically important than any of the other guff today. It should certainly galvanize opposition to Clegg and co. At last an MP saying what most of her party are thinking and with the courage of her convictions to resign her seat. (At least it's big news on the BBC)
A fair point Roger but the BBC have a bias for picking up pro-immigration statements.
This is the 5th GE 2010 LD MP to announce their "reirement". I now expect 4+ more.
It's the lead story in The Observer. And Teather is on the record as saying the primary reason for standing down are her disagreements with the party leadership:
I first joined the party almost exactly twenty years ago, during fresher's week at university. It and at times left me very tired. I don't think it is sustainable for me personally to continue to try and do that in the long term.
IMO, the biggest long-term economic problem has been the fact that growth in output hasn't fed through into growth in median incomes since about 2000. I don't know if that's permanent, or just a blip.
That's because there hasn't been any growth in ouput since 2000 instead we've had a steep borrowing, now government borrowing and perhaps a restart of household borrowing is now occurring.
If it's permanent we're all buggered. Relentlessly stagnating or falling standards of living will that none of our political parties have begun to think about yet. But they need to.
That ties in with discussions about the next election. We could easily see GDP rise by 6% between Q3 2013, and Q2 2015, which would be well ahead of population growth over that period. But, will it result in wage rises for the average voter?
Absolutely. Focusing on abstract numbers and proclaiming their upwards or downwards ore or less money in your pocket after bills have been paid is what counts.
Getting more money in people's pockets can only be achieved now through extra borrowing. Whether its Brown, Darling, Osoborne or Balls as Chancellor that's the only strategy governments have for survival.
None of them have a solution to our long term problem which is that we're a high cost, high tax, high regulation country now challenged by people who are as intelligent and educated as we are but willing to work harder for less money and with fewer restrictions.
Spot on the noughties saw the growth of the "distributive" sectors in law, government and finance. White collar jobs which don't actually produce much but take a cut from the sectors that do and push their profits down. It's the secular version of the tithe.
The vast bulk of the City's earnings come from abroad. I'm quite comfortbale with extracting a tithe from other countries...
The Conservatives will win a comfortable outright majority.
Would you be so kind as to say which individual constituencies the Conservatives will gain in order to achieve this ?
Yawn. You come out with this guff question every time I mention the likelihood of a Cons win. It's because you're so busy focusing on the trees you're missing the ruddy forest. Reminds me of that shite line 'we're doing better in the key constituencies' bollocks.
When the national mood swings for a Cons lead of 8-10% you can go do the math yourself on your little individual constituencies.
Well we'll just have to wait until this national mood swing occurs.
Any suggestions as to when it will happen and why?
Constant new government regulations means businesses have to spend ever more money on QA consultants, HR consultants, H&S consultants, environmental consultants etc etc.
These people add fck all value but significant extra overhead costs leading to output becoming more expensive. While extra employee time is taken up with performing all the new procedures the consultants have deemed necessary.
Customers then buy cheaper alternatives from countries which don't bother with QA, HR, H&S or environmental concerns.
Meanwhile these 'consultants' become ever more influential in creating more regulations for them to consult about.
I remember 'Have I Got News For You' saying in an episode during the 1990s that there were now more personal managers in the UK than miners.
God knows how many the white collar managers/consultants overheads amount to now.
Don't start me on consultants ! :-)
Go on you know you want to ;-)
But do I detect a lack of appreciation for a group of people with whom we apparantly lead the world ?
Surely you did know Alan that the UK's 'business services' are world leaders and without doubt a source for our future prosperity ?
Another thing that could go wrong is that Labour just fails to match the effectiveness of Gordon Brown's ground operation. Apparently it was actually very effective,
Only if you believe those Labour groundworkers who - surprise, surprise - have a vested interest in blowing their own horn.
There were far more Conservative gains above the national swing than Labour holds below it.
If every constituency had followed UNS in 2010 we could well have had a Lab-Lib coalition.
Additionally the change in incumbancy in so many marginal constituencies means that it will be much harder in reality than it suggests on paper for Labour to make a significant number of gains.
What we're likely to see in 2015 is some repeat of 1974.
Nice catch.
Conservatives: 305 seats*. UNS prediction: 291 (-14) Labour: 258 seats. UNS: 266 (+8) Liberal Democrats: 57 seats. UNS: 62 (+5)
That said, before the election a few people here - and I think Nate Silver as well - seemed to think that UNS would tend to underestimate the losses of the party that was on its way down, so it might a UNS issue rather than a Labour ground game issue.
BTW I agree with the general point. It's a heavy lift for either side to get to a majority from here, and there's not much evidence of the voters changing their allegiance on last time, apart from the defecting LibDems.
Comments
Are you advocating cuts in VAT and fuel duty?
Even Abbott's victory yesterday is a sign of the resurgence of the populist right. Populism is increasing whether it is blaming the world's ills on bankers and financiers and the super rich like 'Occupy Wall Street' and the populist left, or migrants, the decline in marriage and traditional social values and elite obsession with climate change pushing up gas prices, cutting blue collar jobs on the right
"Perchance the ICM Wisdom poll immediately post Tory conference will have a Tory lead."
Having had it explained to me last night it's just Gypsy Rose Lee nonsense. The party likely to do well of course are the Lib Dems because people don't follow politics between elections so the last time they remembered looking the Lib Dems were somewhere in the late teens and UKIP somewhere round ten.
At this stage of the cycle nothing can be proved but I'd say it was about as accurate as asking Paul the octopus who would win the world cup. (Guessing the weight of a cow is quite a different matter. People have something factual to relate it to). They once found that a monkey could do better on the stock market than most financial advisors......It makes you wonder whether we need pollsters
I find ftalasses nocturnal ramblings (not the only pb insommniac) a useful counterpoint to some of our other scottish posters, and much less aggressive.
Just wanted to get it off my chest!
David Blunkett, writing in the Mail, says, "I fear Ed is putting Labour in jeopardy."
He continues,"This is Ed’s chance to present himself as a relevant moderniser – and as a statesman willing to confront even the most difficult issues.
I support Ed and I admire the efforts he is making to drive the party into Downing Street.
But, and I say this reluctantly, I fear those efforts will be in vain if he does not recharge our economic and foreign policies.
There are just 20 months to go until the Election – now is the time for him to display that courage and dynamism. If not, the entire Labour project could be jeopardised."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2415272/I-fear-Ed-putting-Labour-jeopardy-On-eve-Milibands-crucial-TUC-speech-hugely-significant-intervention-party-heavyweight.html#ixzz2eI1xDFNA
He does not touch on Falkirk, but the truth must be revealed or else it will dog Ed and rumour will continue and he will not shake off his growing reputation of being weak and indecisive.
Should I worry about the polls instead, as Fox (I think) suggested? Well, there is a pretty well-established pattern showing that people think little of any leader but recently rather better of Cameron, so the Tory showing has been edging up to GE2010 levels. Labour's share seems steady at 6-9% above 2010. I need an 0.4% swing from when we were 7% behind nationally, so not too worried yet, despite possible incumbency issues.
An interesting PB research project would be to look specifically at the 20 most marginal Tory, Labour and LibDem seats. The election will be decided there, and each one has different factors - incumbency, size of third party vote to squeeze, etc. If anyone has the time it'd make a brilliant thread lead.
It is only a small point, but the real way to solve inequality of wealth at this level is to take money off the people who can see more than two weeks into the future and hand it to those who can't.
The question is, is this fair?
At last an MP saying what most of her party are thinking and with the courage of her convictions to resign her seat. (At least it's big news on the BBC)
Tried to imagine him during a crisis standing up for Britain
Not easy is it.
1/2 Only 17% said Ed Miliband's leadership was a reason why they would vote Labour, while 55% said it was a reason not to do so.
9:08 PM - 7 Sep 2013
17% of whom?
A true hero.
Ministers to axe failing BBC Trust | The Sunday Times fb.me/2kan58D1P
"But, and I say this reluctantly, I fear those efforts will be in vain if he does not recharge our economic and foreign policies."
I think he unintentionally touches on what will become Ed's biggest problem. The dinosaurs in his own party like himself and Blair both of who for different reasons would have been more comfortable in the Tory Party.
It would be easier to respect an actual resignation rather than this sort of empty posturing.
He might hint about whether he is going to do something for the 'squeezed middle' before 2015.
I'm still believing he does.
This is the 5th GE 2010 LD MP to announce their "reirement". I now expect 4+ more.
I first joined the party almost exactly twenty years ago, during fresher's week at university. It was then -- and still is now - absolutely inconceivable that I could ever join any other political party. As with most party members, there have always been a few issues where I have disagreed with party policy. But over the last three years, what has been difficult is that policy has moved in some of the issues that ground my own personal sense of political vocation - that of working with and serving the most vulnerable members of society. I have disagreed with both Government and official party lines on a whole range of welfare and immigration policies, and those differences have been getting larger rather than smaller. Disagreements with the party on other areas of policy I have always felt could be managed, but these things are just core to my own sense of calling to politics. I have tried hard to balance my own desire to truthfully fight for what I believe on these issues with the very real loyalty and friendship I feel to party colleagues, but that has created intense pressure, and at times left me very tired. I don't think it is sustainable for me personally to continue to try and do that in the long term.
http://brentlibdems.org.uk/en/article/2013/719362/sarah-teather-statement-on-decision-not-to-stand-for-parliament-in-the-next-general-election
Would you be able to help me find the data that compares average wages (and increases) in London, with London house prices?
Because, as far as I can tell, even with public sector pay freezes, the house prices outside London are pretty static.
I am sure that you are not complacent and know that it would not be an easy victory, particularly if national campaigning by Labour is incoherent. There may be some incumbency type vote for yourself as former incumbent. I would be a little sorry to see Soubry out as she is unusaully pro european for the increasingly europhobic Tory party, though not so keen on some of her other views.
After conference season (Syria and defenestrations permitting) there will be a relatively quiet political landscape until the euros, so a series on marginals would be excellent, particularly pointing towards constituency bets at the next election. Polls will shift about but the demographics and local issues will move much less.
What we've had since 2000 was an increase in the wealth consuming side of economic activities, funded by £100bn+ borrowing per year. Initially it was predominantly household borrowing, now government borrowing and perhaps a restart of household borrowing is now occurring. Getting more money in people's pockets can only be achieved now through extra borrowing. Whether its Brown, Darling, Osoborne or Balls as Chancellor that's the only strategy governments have for survival.
None of them have a solution to our long term problem which is that we're a high cost, high tax, high regulation country now challenged by people who are as intelligent and educated as we are but willing to work harder for less money and with fewer restrictions.
In 10 years.
Pakistan, the most dangerous country on earth.
The Water Wars
The Dirty Bomb
The Tragic Pantomime of the Euro
Quicksand of Debt
Our Ageing Population
and Unfettered Immigration
International Terrorism
Nuclear-Armed Iran
The Collapse of our Political Will
If we want politics to be more inclusive, of women and other under represented groups, then we do need to accept different styles of posting and politicking than the pointscoring and blokish banter characteristic of pub or JCR.
Apoligies to Nick for not being very clear.
None of them have a solution to our long term problem which is that we're a high cost, high tax, high regulation country now challenged by people who are as intelligent and educated as we are but willing to work harder for less money and with fewer restrictions.
Leaving politics as little more than musical chairs among upper middle class PPEs.
While their cheerleaders here contiune to play their puerile games.
"Sadly there is more than a whiff of mysogyny in the left. NickP, I am sure will quietly reflect on it, the others have it in their dna."
If a poster is unpleasant or crap no ogyny or ism should be used as an excuse. It just doesn't wash and usually shows a very particular and old fashioned mindset from those who try.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/07/syria-ed-miliband-no-moral-courage
Say the Conservative were on course to win the next GE (I take no position, only hypothecating), bar an earthquake, how could it happen?
Take my neighbouring seat Bury South, typical bell weather seat, high percentage of workers moving between public and private sector, relatively low immigration, yet the Conservatives couldn't win it in 2010, with a great team and candidate. How could they conceivably win there or in similar seats, when they have lost most of their Cllr's and activist base and Labour have massively rebuilt, alibi from a small pool?
Thanks in advance for your considered responses,
SZ
The manufacturing figures would shoot up.
For me the biggest example of a groupthink is the narrowness of issues. So, for example, the 45p tax rate - rather than who pays, at what threshold, when they lose their PA, what deductions are available, what NI they pay, and so forth.
I'm sure Comment is Free would appreciate your input.
A lot of the people who think Con are likely to get a majority tend skip over this and talk in terms of big decisions on the part of The Voters who rather mysteriously make a collective based on the alleged crapness of Ed Miliband, but we don't get much in the way of detail about which voters are actually supposed to swing to make it happen.
The least bad response I've seen is from Richard Nabavi, who points out (hopefully he'll correct me if I'm paraphrasing wrong) that there's always quite a lot of churn between the parties, so you shouldn't need too many people to be unimpressed by Ed, as long as they're not matched by people moving in the opposite direction. And I think the rubbishness of Gordon Brown tends to be a bit over-stated here, so I suppose it's possible that Ed Miliband will out-crap him.
Also if they can hold on to their current seats with the benefit of incumbency, the Tories can get a lot of the way just by winning seats off the LibDems, which they will do if LibDem voters move to Labour. This theory's been a bit less popular since Eastleigh because it looks like the Lab->Lib tactical votes held up reasonably well, but it's hard to draw too many conclusions from a single by-election, especially with a lot of movement to UKIP that makes it quite hard to read.
- Carola cornered the market?
- There are only so many English Queens that the 'person' ran out of personas?
- Mumsnet
OK, lets be serious: This place can be very ugly - *innocent_face* - and most of the posters posit thoughts for distinction. Call it wally-wiveing [sp?].Things have been changing: We appear to be getting leftists and "visably" ethnic posters. A diversity of thoughts should be the goal but, sadly, some of those who have the power choose to abuse and not guide. [Morning TSE!]
The ethos of this site is all-well-and-good but the fixed-term Parlaiment has killed most of the anticipation: Betting opportunities are becoming fewer or of longer consequences. Add to which the daily [-ish] polls from YouGov resulting in pathetic Gabbleisms, not least from "The Good Life countryside don't assist....
So a degree of honesty: This site is popular because it is sometimes informative and often entertaining. [Paddy Staines' gaff struggles to match us sad losers.] What with the clowns/sewer-rats of Soho huffing-and-a-puffing - morning Wodger - what better a way to pass your life is there...?
Between them, Cameron & Miliband contrived to have the UK Parliament fail to support the principle of military intervention - and Miliband is getting the blame.
Rough old game, politics.
The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.
Instead, days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores.
The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year. More than 20 yachts that had planned to sail it have been left ice-bound and a cruise ship attempting the route was forced to turn back.
Some eminent scientists now believe the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century – a process that would expose computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming as dangerously misleading.
The disclosure comes 11 months after The Mail on Sunday triggered intense political and scientific debate by revealing that global warming has ‘paused’ since the beginning of 1997 – an event that the computer models used by climate experts failed to predict.
In March, this newspaper further revealed that temperatures are about to drop below the level that the models forecast with ‘90 per cent certainty’.
The pause – which has now been accepted as real by every major climate research centre – is important, because the models’ predictions of ever-increasing global temperatures have made many of the world’s economies divert billions of pounds into ‘green’ measures to counter climate change.
Those predictions now appear gravely flawed.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html#ixzz2eIRaKL11
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Even if the UNSC all agreed to take action, it does not make the 'facts' any more right. We could discover in a few years that the evidence - and the entire UNSC - was wrong.
Therefore it has to be a balance of probabilities. I come firmly down on the side of Assad's forces having used gas, as do many nations. Others differ. But we all have to ask ourselves what level of evidence (or lack thereof) we would require for us to change our minds about the Assad regimes guilt. (*)
Waiting for indisputable facts that may never come, or even be believed by some conspiracy theorists when they do come, is a mug's game that just lets war criminals use doubt and obfuscation to get away with more crimes.
(*) Whether we do anything about it once guilt is ascertained beyond reasonable doubt is another matter.
"The extra hurdle that you don't mention is that the LibDem left seem to have defected to Labour, while the LibDem right hasn't defected to the Tories, which gives Labour another big block of voters they didn't have in 2010 before you even start trying to swing people who voted for Gordon Brown in 2010 over to David Cameron's side."
We often see the assumption on here that every single one of the Labour "rump" who voted for Gordon Brown will vote Labour in 2015.
This may not be quite right. There are 2 significant factors (closely linked) that will be different in Labour's campaign next time
- Peter Mandelson - presumably he won;t be so involved.
- Fear - I think this played a big part in preventing a Tory majority. Can Labour use it again?
I think a more promising angle would be to see whether there were a chunk of voters, probably not strongly politically aligned, who voted Labour because they had some grudging respect for Gordon Brown as a serious politician, and won't see Ed Miliband the same way. In other words, is the Labour core vote actually a fair bit lower than 29%?
08/09/2013 11:53
#ukip founder Prof Alan Sked launches new Eurosceptic centre left party --> thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Polit…
I hasten to add I'm a left-leaner: cue 'troll' retorts from those who don't like the unpalatable truth.
The Conservatives will win a comfortable outright majority.
"I'm a bit skeptical about the impact of particular individuals on campaigns. Presumably if Mandelson was _that_ important they could get him back, but I think the techniques are reasonably well known"
Fair point. But I've been reading Andrew Rawnsley's "The End of the Party" - Most interesting - And it does suggest that the (somewhat unlikely) Brown-Mandelson alliance was a key - and effective - part of Labour's 2010 campaign. Ed Milliband will largely have to be in his own Peter Mandelson - I don't think there's a comparable figure.
Fear - Can work in 2 ways - The Tories are baby-eaters, but the babies will have already been eaten by 2015. - And fear of what Ed Balls might do to the economy, and to your tax bill.
The relevance is to the issue of the unions in the 70s and 80s who tried to 'defend jobs'.
P.S. The word "salient" should be banned. Sounds bad and over-used by too many wannabes....
Michael Guerin @GuerinSports 1h
The Australian cricket team have now been touring England so long they have had three Prime Ministers since they left home.
Does this mean that global warming is like economics, trying to find a theory that fits the data?
" Ministers are planning to hand regulation of the BBC to Ofcom, which oversees the rest of broadcasting, in a sign of the government’s exasperation with the scandal-prone corporation. A senior source at the culture, media and sport department said: “It is clear that the trust, which is both a cheerleader for the BBC and its regulator, does not work. There are contradictions.”
News of the intervention comes ahead of a showdown tomorrow between Patten and Thompson in front of the powerful Commons public accounts committee about who approved overpayments of £2.9m to BBC managers over six years. John Whittingdale, chairman of the culture, media and sport select committee, described the spat between the men as “incredibly unseemly”, and said: “Nobody could be left with any confidence in this governance structure. It is just jaw-dropping.
“Each time when you think nothing more could happen it gets worse and worse.“Every time there is a crisis, and they roll around around every six months to a year, you face the dilemma whether the trust is there to investigate or should [its] chairman appear on the [Radio 4] Today programme to defend the BBC.” Under the government’s plan the BBC would be run on similar lines to Channel 4, which is publicly owned but regulated by Ofcom. >> http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/National/article1310987.ece
As a writer I respect your skills. As a writer you would - if you were in my industry - work for Microsoft....
I think an outright Tory win depends primarily on a slump in the 2010 Labour voters. I'm very confident of the post-2010 LibDem switchers in marginals - they have switched for a specific reason (that they don't want to ally with the Tories), and recent Tory moves to fend off UKIP have reinforced it. They're motivated, angry and can't wait to vote the Government out.
That certainty is IMO less for the 2010 Labour vote taken as a whole, or indeed the 2010 Tory vote. There are people in there who voted out of habit, out of sympathy or dislike for Gordon, because their MP helped rehouse their budgie, all kinds of little things that we can't pick up in polls. (Someone once told me seriously that she voted for me because I was taller than my opponent.) I'd think that the large majority will still vote the same way, but there has to be some potential for either a 5% Lab-Con swing or a 5% Con-Lab swing - it's remarkable that the polls show virtually no evidence of either (churn is well under 10%, the lowest I can remember, ever). I think that could change either way, which I why I believe the odds on another hung Parliament are too short.
Fox - thanks, it's OK, had understood your post as you meant it. Some posters are aggressive, as we all know, and I don't think it's especially directed at women, but some women may be even more put off by it than others. On the whole PB's moderators do a good job at stamping on personal aggression - the main problem of the site IMO is the volume of "your party/leader sucks" posts, which are just tedious, convince nobody and sometimes clog up entire threads.
'"One unnoticed casualty of the Syrian crisis is that Miliband Minor will never be able to use the Holocaust link again. As things stand, he is willing to speak out against the gassing of Jews with Zyklon B 70 years ago. But when he is called on to speak against the gassing of Syrians with vaporised sarin in the here and now, when what we say and do could make a difference, the anger vanishes, and with Miliband – as with Hamlet – "the native hue of resolution is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought".
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/07/syria-ed-miliband-no-moral-
Just exposing a fake.
A trip down to the local shopping centre will show that we are buying no shortage of low quality goods. But instead of being made in Birmingham they are now being made in Beijing.
Nor would we have had debt, either household and/or government, increase by £100bn+ each year for the last decade.
If the Tories repeat the same performance in 2015, they will get a ruddy landslide!
Despite all the posts Tim subjects us to on here day after day, month after month and year after year - Calling Cameron this and that - It appears he remains very popular (given the circumstances) with a lot of people (Cameron that is, not Tim
Humanity appears to be just clever enough to work out how stupid it is.
Anyone paying any attention to pb.com would have reached this conclusion already, but it's nice to have a more concise exposition.
Constant new government regulations means businesses have to spend ever more money on QA consultants, HR consultants, H&S consultants, environmental consultants etc etc.
These people add fck all value but significant extra overhead costs leading to output becoming more expensive. While extra employee time is taken up with performing all the new procedures the consultants have deemed necessary.
Customers then buy cheaper alternatives from countries which don't bother with QA, HR, H&S or environmental concerns.
Meanwhile these 'consultants' become ever more influential in creating more regulations for them to consult about.
I remember 'Have I Got News For You' saying in an episode during the 1990s that there were now more personal managers in the UK than miners.
God knows how many the white collar managers/consultants overheads amount to now.
" Allegations have emerged that some of those who had made claims may have withdrawn their statements only after they were visited at home by Unite representatives who “prevailed upon them” to back down. Among those who withdrew their complaints were Michael and Lorraine Kane, who are related to Deans.
Eric Joyce, the MP for Falkirk, claimed the Kanes were told that Deans risked losing his job at the nearby Grangemouth oil refinery if they did not withdraw their statements. He said: “Essentially that’s why they withdrew and without that the Labour party felt it couldn’t finger them [Deans and Murphy]. In reality the Labour party could have said, ‘We’re not going to believe these withdrawals’, but obviously the party has chosen to avoid a face-off with Unite.” The Kanes declined to comment. " http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1311001.ece
How they got it in the Observer may remain a mystery.....
When the national mood swings for a Cons lead of 8-10% you can go do the math yourself on your little individual constituencies.
There were far more Conservative gains above the national swing than Labour holds below it.
If every constituency had followed UNS in 2010 we could well have had a Lab-Lib coalition.
Additionally the change in incumbancy in so many marginal constituencies means that it will be much harder in reality than it suggests on paper for Labour to make a significant number of gains.
What we're likely to see in 2015 is some repeat of 1974.
Increasing competition for unskilled/low-skilled jobs won't make it easier for the current resident.
"These are difficult days for Ed Miliband. Our YouGov poll shows the Labour lead at just four points, even though most voters are not yet fully aware of the improved economic data. The Labour leader’s Commons victory on Syria has turned into defeat, his rating on it worse than David Cameron’s — who lost the vote. Mr Miliband’s overall rating is grim even among Labour voters. More of them think he is doing badly than say he is doing well as party leader. >> http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/leaders/article1310796.ece
And just after Madrid lost out to Tokyo too.....
"On Tuesday, the flag of Gibraltar will fly across Whitehall to mark Gibraltar Day. As these flags flutter in the breeze, they are meant to send a message to Spain that Britain’s commitment to Gibraltar is solid.
The display is the brainchild of Eric Pickles, the Communities and Local Government Secretary, who came up with the idea as the Spanish were harassing the British territory this summer. Even the Foreign Office, normally wary of offending the sensibilities of other EU members, will join in.
Tuesday will not be a good day for the Spanish Ambassador to come calling."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2415335/JAMES-FORSYTH-Forget-Tories--Miliband-knows-real-threats-backbiters-bitter-union-brothers-blood.html#ixzz2eIn7g4Q1
Any suggestions as to when it will happen and why?
But do I detect a lack of appreciation for a group of people with whom we apparantly lead the world ?
Surely you did know Alan that the UK's 'business services' are world leaders and without doubt a source for our future prosperity ?
BTW I agree with the general point. It's a heavy lift for either side to get to a majority from here, and there's not much evidence of the voters changing their allegiance on last time, apart from the defecting LibDems.