politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Move over right v left: John Curtice says the new political di

Charles said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Re defining socially liberal and socially conservative: https://whatukthinks.org/eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/EU-Briefing-Paper-12-Brexit-and-the-election_V2.pdf see page 6 for the report within the link provided in the tweet.

Here’s this from the FT which also provides some clarity to the socially liberal versus socially conservative divide - which includes views on traditional British values, pace of cultural change, and crime and punishment.

https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/940636171943759873

Labour is much more authoritarian - in a less overt but more insidious way - than the Tories

Sandpit said:

FPT, but on topic for this one:

Charles said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Re defining socially liberal and socially conservative: https://whatukthinks.org/eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/EU-Briefing-Paper-12-Brexit-and-the-election_V2.pdf see page 6 for the report within the link provided in the tweet.

Here’s this from the FT which also provides some clarity to the socially liberal versus socially conservative divide - which includes views on traditional British values, pace of cultural change, and crime and punishment.

https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/940636171943759873

Labour is much more authoritarian - in a less overt but more insidious way - than the Tories

What would be really interesting is to see the evolution of the groups over time. I suspect that under Blair the Labour group moved further into the right and authoritarian sectors than is the case under Corbyn.

I agree that parts of Labour’s Corbynite support are very authoritarian, but they themselves don’t see it that way - the shutting down of dissenting opinion, for example.

RochdalePioneers said:

Sandpit said:

FPT, but on topic for this one:

Charles said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Re defining socially liberal and socially conservative: https://whatukthinks.org/eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/EU-Briefing-Paper-12-Brexit-and-the-election_V2.pdf see page 6 for the report within the link provided in the tweet.

Here’s this from the FT which also provides some clarity to the socially liberal versus socially conservative divide - which includes views on traditional British values, pace of cultural change, and crime and punishment.

https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/940636171943759873

Labour is much more authoritarian - in a less overt but more insidious way - than the Tories

What would be really interesting is to see the evolution of the groups over time. I suspect that under Blair the Labour group moved further into the right and authoritarian sectors than is the case under Corbyn.

I agree that parts of Labour’s Corbynite support are very authoritarian, but they themselves don’t see it that way - the shutting down of dissenting opinion, for example.

Yes some of the more right on elements are prone to argue against dissent against their view. Which is exactly the same as the nutter wing of the Tory party and press with their "Crush the Saboteurs" tendency.

On differences between the parties I am also going to raise morality. Not a I am moral and you are immoral argument, but who uses it. Labour have a very clear sense of injustice, that it is immoral on a basic level of human decency to have a policy that leaves cancer patients to die in abject poverty having been declared fit for work. Tories never defend these outrages, or even respond to them. We get some platitudes about a principle which their policies always seem diametrically opposed to in practice, and a lot of shrugging of shoulders.

Yet when it comes down to gay marriage there is OUTRAGE. On biblical grounds often. Yet the same Bible has an awful lot to say about the treatment of the poor sick and needy and gets ignored by the same people...

RochdalePioneers said:

This selective morality seems to be a thing of conservatives in America as well. I'm sure some of their supposedly "Christian" politicians have a Bible consisting entirely of Leviticus and Revelations

foxinsoxuk said:

RochdalePioneers said:

This selective morality seems to be a thing of conservatives in America as well. I'm sure some of their supposedly "Christian" politicians have a Bible consisting entirely of Leviticus and Revelations

I agree. I dislike the word "Christian Fundamentalist" for this reason. As a Socially Liberal Christian, I would see myself as a Fundamentalist, with my anti-war, love thy neighbour views. We simply disagree what the fundamentals are. "Christian Fundamentalists" are too often like the Pharisees that Jesus taught against.

Peter_the_Punter said:

Btw, it's an interesting reversal of roles that Curtiss is touching on here. The Tories have always been identified as the Party of business but Leave doesn't really have the support of the business community.

tlg86 said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Btw, it's an interesting reversal of roles that Curtiss is touching on here. The Tories have always been identified as the Party of big business but Leave doesn't really have the support of the big business community.

Fixed that for you.

ToryJim said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Btw, it's an interesting reversal of roles that Curtiss is touching on here. The Tories have always been identified as the Party of business but Leave doesn't really have the support of the business community.

I think like most things Brexit, Business attitudes are more complicated than at first glance. Big business certainly doesn't like Brexit, but smaller enterprises are far keener. It's a mistake to view business as only the megacorps, a mistake government often makes.

foxinsoxuk said:

RochdalePioneers said:

This selective morality seems to be a thing of conservatives in America as well. I'm sure some of their supposedly "Christian" politicians have a Bible consisting entirely of Leviticus and Revelations

I agree. I dislike the word "Christian Fundamentalist" for this reason. As a Socially Liberal Christian, I would see myself as a Fundamentalist, with my anti-war, love thy neighbour views. We simply disagree what the fundamentals are. "Christian Fundamentalists" are too often like the Pharisees that Jesus taught against.

Alanbrooke said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Alanbrooke said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Sandpit said:

FPT, but on topic for this one:

Charles said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Re defining socially liberal and socially conservative: https://whatukthinks.org/eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/EU-Briefing-Paper-12-Brexit-and-the-election_V2.pdf see page 6 for the report within the link provided in the tweet.

Here’s this from the FT which also provides some clarity to the socially liberal versus socially conservative divide - which includes views on traditional British values, pace of cultural change, and crime and punishment.

https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/940636171943759873

Labour is much more authoritarian - in a less overt but more insidious way - than the Tories

What would be really interesting is to see the evolution of the groups over time. I suspect that under Blair the Labour group moved further into the right and authoritarian sectors than is the case under Corbyn.

I agree that parts of Labour’s Corbynite support are very authoritarian, but they themselves don’t see it thate people...

bizrarre

religion rarely enters UK politics, our last geat "religious leader" was Blair

You mean "morality" rarely enters politics. We've been conditioned to be indifferent, that Beveridge's five giants are these days the fault of those suffering them rather than the fault of the government imposing them as policy backed by a society that doesn't care. Does giving a shit about other people have to be a religious issue? Or is this another shrug of the shoulders to the issue?

And religion gets raised a lot. Only yesterday we discussed Mogg and Catholic doctrine regarding his suitability to be in change of the nuclear deterrent.

No you said Bible, hence my response to you. From my view that seems a fairly intolerant perspective.

As for he morality perspective, well that's always been there, but people have differing views of whats moral. The problem on your 5 giants is once they become the governments duty, you have outsourced society's moral concern, it's no longer personal. The early pioneers of the welfare state themselves recognised this as a possible consequence.

So you ARE blaming the terminal cancer patient for his impoverished death at the hands of the government...

RochdalePioneers said:

Alanbrooke said:

RochdalePioneers said:

On differences between the parties I am also going to raise morality. Not a I am moral and you are immoral argument, but who uses it. Labour have a very clear sense of injustice, that it is immoral on a basic level of human decency to have a policy that leaves cancer patients to die in abject poverty having been declared fit for work. Tories never defend these outrages, or even respond to them. We get some platitudes about a principle which their policies always seem diametrically opposed to in practice, and a lot of shrugging of shoulders.

Yet when it comes down to gay marriage there is OUTRAGE. On biblical grounds often. Yet the same Bible has an awful lot to say about the treatment of the poor sick and needy and gets ignored by the same people...

bizrarre

religion rarely enters UK politics, our last geat "religious leader" was Blair

You mean "morality" rarely enters politics. We've been conditioned to be indifferent, that Beveridge's five giants are these days the fault of those suffering them rather than the fault of the government imposing them as policy backed by a society that doesn't care. Does giving a shit about other people have to be a religious issue? Or is this another shrug of the shoulders to the issue?

And religion gets raised a lot. Only yesterday we discussed Mogg and Catholic doctrine regarding his suitability to be in change of the nuclear deterrent.

RochdalePioneers said:

Alanbrooke said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Alanbrooke said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Sandpit said:

FPT, but on topic for this one:

Charles said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Re defining socially liberal and socially conservative: https://whatukthinks.org/eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/EU-Briefing-Paper-12-Brexit-and-the-election_V2.pdf see page 6 for the report within the link provided in the tweet.

Here’s this from the FT which also provides some clarity to the socially liberal versus socially conservative divide - which includes views on traditional British values, pace of cultural change, and crime and punishment.

https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/940636171943759873

Labour is much more authoritarian - in a less overt but more insidious way - than the Tories

What would be really interesting is to see the evolution of the groups over time. I suspect that under Blair the Labour group moved further into the right and authoritarian sectors than is the case under Corbyn.

I agree that parts of Labour’s Corbynite support are very authoritarian, but they themselves don’t see it thate people...

bizrarre

religion rarely enters UK politics, our last geat "religious leader" was Blair

You mean "morality" rarely be in change of the nuclear deterrent.

No you said Bible, hence my response to you. From my view that seems a fairly intolerant perspective.

As for he morality perspective, well that's always been there, but people have differing views of whats moral. The problem on your 5 giants is once they become the governments duty, you have outsourced society's moral concern, it's no longer personal. The early pioneers of the welfare state themselves recognised this as a possible consequence.

So you ARE blaming the terminal cancer patient for his impoverished death at the hands of the government...

no I'm blaiming you for supporting tax avoiding multinationals who deprive the cancer patient of the money for treatment you immoral bastard

or we could just try having a discussion

Peter_the_Punter said:

ToryJim said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Btw, it's an interesting reversal of roles that Curtiss is touching on here. The Tories have always been identified as the Party of business but Leave doesn't really have the support of the business community.

I think like most things Brexit, Business attitudes are more complicated than at first glance. Big business certainly doesn't like Brexit, but smaller enterprises are far keener. It's a mistake to view business as only the megacorps, a mistake government often makes.

Thanks Tory Jim.

That qualifies and balances my argument nicely. (And makes it unnecessary for me to reply to Charles above!)

Charles said:

foxinsoxuk said:

ToryJim said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Btw, it's an interesting reversal of roles that Curtiss is touching on here. The Tories have always been identified as the Party of business but Leave doesn't really have the support of the business community.

I think like most things Brexit, Business attitudes are more complicated than at first glance. Big business certainly doesn't like Brexit, but smaller enterprises are far keener. It's a mistake to view business as only the megacorps, a mistake government often makes.

It depends even more on sector. Small business in construction is very different to one in design. The businesses that support Leave tend to protectionism, and to a UK market rather than a worldwide one.

Like Dyson, JCB and Hiscox?

Sandpit said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Sandpit said:

FPT, but on topic for this one:

Charles said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Labour is much more authoritarian - in a less overt but more insidious way - than the Tories

What would be really interesting is to see the evolution of the groups over time. I suspect that under Blair the Labour group moved further into the right and authoritarian sectors than is the case under Corbyn.

I agree that parts of Labour’s Corbynite support are very authoritarian, but they themselves don’t see it that way - the shutting down of dissenting opinion, for example.

Yes some of the more right on elements are prone to argue against dissent against their view. Which is exactly the same as the nutter wing of the Tory party and press with their "Crush the Saboteurs" tendency.

On differences between the parties I am also going to raise morality. Not a I am moral and you are immoral argument, but who uses it. Labour have a very clear sense of injustice, that it is immoral on a basic level of human decency to have a policy that leaves cancer patients to die in abject poverty having been declared fit for work. Tories never defend these outrages, or even respond to them. We get some platitudes about a principle which their policies always seem diametrically opposed to in practice, and a lot of shrugging of shoulders.

Yet when it comes down to gay marriage there is OUTRAGE. On biblical grounds often. Yet the same Bible has an awful lot to say about the treatment of the poor sick and needy and gets ignored by the same people...

I did write a long reply but Vanilla are it!

Basically, the issue is one of unnecessarily hyperbolic language used on both sides. For example the ATOS assessments started in 2009 under Labour, here are the Guardian criticising it at the time https://www.theguardian.com/society/2009/oct/28/work-capability-assessment-incapacity-benefits It’s difficult to accept screaming critisicm of the policy from those who voted for it and implemented it in the first place. Similar issues with food banks, I’ve never understood the critics of basic community charity helping those in need - especially so at this time of year.

In general, politics works better if people work together to look at problems and find solutions, rather than screaming at or past each other. Sadly today’s crop of politicians and issues such as Brexit are making the problems worse rather than better.

Charles said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

This works for me.

I'm a fairly traditional Labour voter but my local constituency MP (John Cryer) is a Leaver, so I voted LD. I would however have voted Conservative without a moment's hesitation if their candidate had been a Remainer.

Btw, it's an interesting reversal of roles that Curtiss is touching on here. The Tories have always been identified as the Party of business but Leave doesn't really have the support of the business community.

It's a bit less clear-cut on the Labour/Trade Union side. I guess the TUs like the protectionism of Leave, but are less keen on other aspects, so maybe more ambivalence there.

Leave has very strong support from the business community - look at the IOD or the FSB. What it doesn't have is the support of the multinationals who can exploit globalisation for their own enrichment.

But the BBC thinks that the CBI speaks for British industry

ToryJim said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Btw, it's an interesting reversal of roles that Curtiss is touching on here. The Tories have always been identified as the Party of business but Leave doesn't really have the support of the business community.

I think like most things Brexit, Business attitudes are more complicated than at first glance. Big business certainly doesn't like Brexit, but smaller enterprises are far keener. It's a mistake to view business as only the megacorps, a mistake government often makes.

RochdalePioneers said:

@Alanbrooke as formatting is broken I'll not directly quote...

Surely here is the challenge. Doing the right thing is difficult. Plenty of moral crusade politicians of both sides have tried and failed (or in the case of IDS claimed a moral crusade and done their best to make things as worse as possible for the people allegedly being 'helped')

I just don't understand this current government and current ministers. Their policy is simple - make work pay. Be fair to the taxpayer. Yet in practice the policy is neither, and when swathes of proof are presented to them about the needless suffering AND the cost to the taxpayer, their response is a shrug of the shoulders. I'd expect outrage of some kind - Tories are principled people and certainly dislike state largesse. Yet seem nonplussed by a system which wrongly takes money off the poorest and they pays for an appeal system that it loses in the vast majority of cases then having to pay back the withheld money AND costs.

This indifference to people can't be a long term benefit to the party. Seeming to not care about examples of ex squaddies left to die of hunger or disabled people left to crawl around their flat or terminal cancer patients pronounced fit for work and dying destitute winning a posthumous appeal - these are all the direct result of government policy. That policy could be at least tweaked to prevent similar outrages, yet it is not.

Why? Is that not proof of a basic immorality - a government that choses not to give a shit to pointless suffering imposed by it's own incompetent indifference? You want a policy of work capability assessments that's fair. But crap ones that make idiot decisions and create this hell and cost more money? Come on...

RochdalePioneers said:

@Sandpit we're all aware of where WCA started. If you want to look at the history you'll see that the purpose and method had changed dramatically since 2009.

Just so we're clear. Is the answer to a system today that acts in the most gratuitous way and costs the taxpayer money in the process to be ignored because Labour started it...?

Some of you indifferent shoulder shruggers can accuse me of hysteria, but I don't get how you can look at the current system and say "it's working fine". But I agree that we need to look beyond the worst examples (by fixing them) and get onto the far bigger issues such as why work doesn't pay when you have kids etc etc

RochdalePioneers said:

I don't get how you can look at the current system and say "it's working fine". But I agree that we need to look beyond the worst examples (by fixing them) and get onto the far bigger issues such as why work doesn't pay when you have kids etc etc

RochdalePioneers said:

Sandpit said:

FPT, but on topic for this one:

Charles said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Re defining socially liberal and socially conservative: https://whatukthinks.org/eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/EU-Briefing-Paper-12-Brexit-and-the-election_V2.pdf see page 6 for the report within the link provided in the tweet.

Here’s this from the FT which also provides some clarity to the socially liberal versus socially conservative divide - which includes views on traditional British values, pace of cultural change, and crime and punishment.

https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/940636171943759873

Labour is much more authoritarian - in a less overt but more insidious way - than the Tories

What would be really interesting is to see the evolution of the groups over time. I suspect that under Blair the Labour group moved further into the right and authoritarian sectors than is the case under Corbyn.

I agree that parts of Labour’s Corbynite support are very authoritarian, but they themselves don’t see it that way - the shutting down of dissenting opinion, for example.

Yes some of the more right on elements are prone to argue against dissent against their view. Which is exactly the same as the nutter wing of the Tory party and press with their "Crush the Saboteurs" tendency.

On differences between the parties I am also going to raise morality. Not a I am moral and you are immoral argument, but who uses it. Labour have a very clear sense of injustice, that it is immoral on a basic level of human decency to have a policy that leaves cancer patients to die in abject poverty having been declared fit for work. Tories never defend these outrages, or even respond to them. We get some platitudes about a principle which their policies always seem diametrically opposed to in practice, and a lot of shrugging of shoulders.

Yet when it comes down to gay marriage there is OUTRAGE. On biblical grounds often. Yet the same Bible has an awful lot to say about the treatment of the poor sick and needy and gets ignored by the same people...

foxinsoxuk said:

RochdalePioneers said:

@Alanbrooke as formatting is broken I'll not directly quote...

Surely here is the challenge. Doing the right thing is difficult. Plenty of moral crusade politicians of both sides have tried and failed (or in the case of IDS claimed a moral crusade and done their best to make things as worse as possible for the people allegedly being 'helped')

I just don't understand this current government and current ministers. Their policy is simple - make work pay. Be fair to the taxpayer. Yet in practice the policy is neither, and when swathes of proof are presented to them about the needless suffering AND the cost to the taxpayer, their response is a shrug of the shoulders. I'd expect outrage of some kind - Tories are principled people and certainly dislike state largesse. Yet seem nonplussed by a system which wrongly takes money off the poorest and they pays for an appeal system that it loses in the vast majority of cases then having to pay back the withheld money AND costs.

This indifference to people can't be a long term benefit to the party. Seeming to not care about examples of ex squaddies left to die of hunger or disabled people left to crawl around their flat or terminal cancer patients pronounced fit for work and dying destitute winning a posthumous appeal - these are all the direct result of government policy. That policy could be at least tweaked to prevent similar outrages, yet it is not.

Why? Is that not proof of a basic immorality - a government that choses not to give a shit to pointless suffering imposed by it's own incompetent indifference? You want a policy of work capability assessments that's fair. But crap ones that make idiot decisions and create this hell and cost more money? Come on...

I saw a particularly egregious stopping of a PIP last week, in a patient with a severe but invisible disability. On the other hand, I do see plenty of evidence of others exploiting the welfare state.

We seem to have a system that wreaks punishments on meek inarticulate people while leaving open doors to manipulative scroungers. The problem is that it is easier to target the former as they tend to compliance. The system has targets set to get people off benefits, rather than evaluate real need.

Charles said:

foxinsoxuk said:

RochdalePioneers said:

@Alanbrooke as formatting is broken I'll not directly quote...

Surely here is the challenge. Doing the right thing is difficult. Plenty of moral crusade politicians of both sides have tried and failed (or in the case of IDS claimed a moral crusade and done their best to make things as worse as possible for the people allegedly being 'helped')

I just don't understand this current government and current ministers. Their policy is simple - make work pay. Be fair to the taxpayer. Yet in practice the policy is neither, and when swathes of proof are presented to them about the needless suffering AND the cost to the taxpayer, their response is a shrug of the shoulders. I'd expect outrage of some kind - Tories are principled people and certainly dislike state largesse. Yet seem nonplussed by a system which wrongly takes money off the poorest and they pays for an appeal system that it loses in the vast majority of cases then having to pay back the withheld money AND costs.



Why? Is that not proof of a basic immorality - a government that choses not to give a shit to pointless suffering imposed by it's own incompetent indifference? You want a policy of work capability assessments that's fair. But crap ones that make idiot decisions and create this hell and cost more money? Come on...

I saw a particularly egregious stopping of a PIP last week, in a patient with a severe but invisible disability. On the other hand, I do see plenty of evidence of others exploiting the welfare state.

We seem to have a system that wreaks punishments on meek inarticulate people while leaving open doors to manipulative scroungers. The problem is that it is easier to target the former as they tend to compliance. The system has targets set to get people off benefits, rather than evaluate real need.

True, although some of your colleagues are happy to support claims almost willy nilly leading to a lack of trust in the GP system as a means of judging. If they could be relied on it would be the most effective way.

Political rhetoric doesn't help either - the Daily Pokitics contributor video posted yesterday claiming 21% of the population is disabled is non credible and frankly unhelpful to a rational discussion of needs and objectives and how to best satisfy them

CarlottaVance said:

So not by Xmas then:

Jeremy Corbyn says he expects another general election next year, which he will “probably win”.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-says-expects-another-11717491

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/943025419716059136

OldKingCole said:

Charles said:

foxinsoxuk said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Yet in practice the policy is neither, and when swathes of proof are presented to them about the needless suffering AND the cost to the taxpayer, their response is a shrug of the shoulders. I'd expect outrage of some kind - Tories are principled people and certainly dislike state largesse. Yet seem nonplussed by a system which wrongly takes money off the poorest and they pays for an appeal system that it loses in the vast majority of cases then having to pay back the withheld money AND costs.



Why? Is that not proof of a basic immorality - a government that choses not to give a shit to pointless suffering imposed by it's own incompetent indifference? You want a policy of work capability assessments that's fair. But crap ones that make idiot decisions and create this hell and cost more money? Come on...

I saw a particularly egregious stopping of a PIP last week, in a patient with a severe but invisible disability. On the other hand, I do see plenty of evidence of others exploiting the welfare state.

We seem to have a system that wreaks punishments on meek inarticulate people while leaving open doors to manipulative scroungers. The problem is that it is easier to target the former as they tend to compliance. The system has targets set to get people off benefits, rather than evaluate real need.

True, although some of your colleagues are happy to support claims almost willy nilly leading to a lack of trust in the GP system as a means of judging. If they could be relied on it would be the most effective way.

Political rhetoric doesn't help either - the Daily Pokitics contributor video posted yesterday claiming 21% of the population is disabled is non credible and frankly unhelpful to a rational discussion of needs and objectives and how to best satisfy them

To be fair to GP’s, Charles, they normally live, or close to, the communities they serve and there’s a lot of ‘unseen’ pressure. That’s not saying I haven’t seen the odd ‘bent’ GP.
I have a lot of sympathy with Dr F’s last posting, and particular the first sentence of the last paragraph: 'We seem to have a system that wreaks punishments on meek inarticulate people while leaving open doors to manipulative scroungers.'

Sean_F said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Sandpit said:

FPT, but on topic for this one:

Charles said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Re defining socially ment.

https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/940636171943759873

Labour is much more authoritarian - in a less overt but more insidious way - than the Tories

What would be really interesting is to see the evolution of the groups over time. I suspect that under Blair the Labour group moved further into the right and authoritarian sectors than is the case under Corbyn.

I agree that parts of Labour’s Corbynite support are very authoritarian, but they themselves don’t see it that way - the shutting down of dissenting opinion, for example.

Yes some of the more right on elements are prone to argue against dissent against their view. Which is exactly the same as the nutter wing of the Tory party and press with their "Crush the Saboteurs" tendency.

On differences between the parties I am also going to raise morality. Not a I am moral and you are immoral argument, but who uses it. Labour have a very clear sense of injustice, that it is immoral on a basic level of human decency to have a policy that leaves cancer patients to die in abject poverty having been declared fit for work. Tories never defend these outrages, or even respond to them. We get some platitudes about a principle which their policies always seem diametrically opposed to in practice, and a lot of shrugging of shoulders.

Yet when it comes down to gay marriage there is OUTRAGE. On biblical grounds often. Yet the same Bible has an awful lot to say about the treatment of the poor sick and needy and gets ignored by the same people...

The problem about using arguments based on morality and justice comes when one does things or tolerates attitudes in one's party, that are immoral and unjust.

kle4 said:

CarlottaVance said:

So not by Xmas then:

Jeremy Corbyn says he expects another general election next year, which he will “probably win”.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-says-expects-another-11717491

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/943025419716059136

He probably would win a GE now, at least in being the largest party sense.

CarlottaVance said:

kle4 said:

CarlottaVance said:

So not by Xmas then:

Jeremy Corbyn says he expects another general election next year, which he will “probably win”.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-says-expects-another-11717491

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/943025419716059136

He probably would win a GE now, at least in being the largest party sense.

Which is why is not going to happen......

Sandpit said:

CarlottaVance said:

kle4 said:

CarlottaVance said:

So not by Xmas then:

Jeremy Corbyn says he expects another general election next year, which he will “probably win”.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-says-expects-another-11717491

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/943025419716059136

He probably would win a GE now, at least in being the largest party sense.

Which is why is not going to happen......

Quite. We’ve already seen what happens when the government calls an early election, even if they have a 20-point lead in the polls. The chances of them doing it again by choice are very slim indeed.

Bet on this Parliament going the full term. 3.35 for 2022 election on Betfair.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/28265958/market?marketId=1.132099836

Mortimer said:

Sandpit said:

CarlottaVance said:

kle4 said:

CarlottaVance said:

So not by Xmas then:

Jeremy Corbyn says he expects another general election next year, which he will “probably win”.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-says-expects-another-11717491

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/943025419716059136

He probably would win a GE now, at least in being the largest party sense.

Which is why is not going to happen......

Quite. We’ve already seen what happens when the government calls an early election, even if they have a 20-point lead in the polls. The chances of them doing it again by choice are very slim indeed.

Bet on this Parliament going the full term. 3.35 for 2022 election on Betfair.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/28265958/market?marketId=1.132099836

Would this be in the sense of his 2017 'win'?

Charles said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

ToryJim said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Btw, it's an interesting reversal of roles that Curtiss is touching on here. The Tories have always been identified as the Party of business but Leave doesn't really have the support of the business community.

I think like most things Brexit, Business attitudes are more complicated than at first glance. Big business certainly doesn't like Brexit, but smaller enterprises are far keener. It's a mistake to view business as only the megacorps, a mistake government often makes.

Thanks Tory Jim.

That qualifies and balances my argument nicely. (And makes it unnecessary for me to reply to Charles above!)

Hmpf!

(But seriously, big business likes regulation because it's a barrier to entry. And if they can reduce their costs by making it transnational then so much the better)

Peter_the_Punter said:

Recidivist said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

tlg86 said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Btw, it's an interesting reversal of roles that Curtiss is touching on here. The Tories have always been identified as the Party of big business but Leave doesn't really have the support of the big business community.

Fixed that for you.

Yes, I did actually think about the big/small business issue, Tlg, before posting.

Certainly the Tories have always identified strongly with small business owners. There's probably more ambivalence on the Leave/Remain divide there though. I would think a lot of small business owners would be Leavers, although it might depend on the type of business.

There's certainly a good deal of ambivalence amongst farmers - or those that farm on a modest scale at least.

I run a small business and most of my customers are small businesses. I don't talk politics with them and I don't remember any time when one of them has raised the subject. I have no idea whether they are leavers or remainers. What makes you think small business owners might be mainly leavers?

Pretty much a guess, Recidivist, and you would know better than I.

DavidL said:

The divide between our major parties is in practice much less than either of them would want to admit. Both are fundamentally big state, big spending, interventionists. During the years of supposedly vicious austerity government spending rose inexorably upwards, NHS spending increased in real terms every year and taxes on the rich increased whilst the poor were taken out of Income Tax.

If there is a difference it tends to be on the anterior question of where all this money comes from. Tories believe that a successful welfare state needs a thriving private sector to support it and is more interested in what is needed for it to thrive. Labour supporters tend to believe that successful economies are “fair” economies, where everyone has a stake and where social cohesion is emphasised. This mass participation will encourage growth and become self funding.

The degree of difference on either side even here can be exaggerated with plenty in each of the main parties that have some sympathy with the approach of the other. Where they are both having difficulties is with some of their core supporters who have come to realise that their team does not really represent their opinions. So small state economic liberals find little to appeal to them in the modern Tory Party and genuinely socialists have, pre Corbyn, wondered about the priorities of Labour. Now it is those who recognise the importance of the private sector who feel uncomfortable.

Mortimer said:

@RochdalePioneers - you seem to have forgotten that it was a Tory PM who introduced gay marriage.

HYUFD said:

DavidL said:

The divide between our major parties is in practice much less than either of them would want to admit. Both are fundamentally big state, big spending, interventionists. During the years of supposedly vicious austerity government spending rose inexorably upwards, NHS spending increased in real terms every year and taxes on the rich increased whilst the poor were taken out of Income Tax.

If there is a difference it tends to be on the anterior question of where all this money comes from. Tories believe that a successful welfare state needs a thriving private sector to support it and is more interested in what is needed for it to thrive. Labour supporters tend to believe that successful economies are “fair” economies, where everyone has a stake and where social cohesion is emphasised. This mass participation will encourage growth and become self funding.

The degree of difference on either side even here can be exaggerated with plenty in each of the main parties that have some sympathy with the approach of the other. Where they are both having difficulties is with some of their core supporters who have come to realise that their team does not really represent their opinions. So small state economic liberals find little to appeal to them in the modern Tory Party and genuinely socialists have, pre Corbyn, wondered about the priorities of Labour. Now it is those who recognise the importance of the private sector who feel uncomfortable.

Under Osborne government spending as a percentage of GDP fell by over 5% and the top rate of income tax was also cut from 50% to 45%

rkrkrk said:

DavidL said:

The use of the Sanctions regime to try to keep a cap on the cost of benefits was immoral. The delays built into the provision of UC was obscene and is even now only partially addressed, the operation of fitness to work criteria through ATOS was disgusting.

What all of these failures have in common is a lack of empathy with the feckless, incompetent and needy in our society. I don’t think this is a party issue so much as a government one. When policy is produced and implemented by producer interests with their convenience in mind vulnerable people get hurt. One party trying to claim the moral high ground in this area really doesn’t help address the issue although I would accept that some on the left have done more to highlight the consequences than many on the right.

It’s worth pointing out also that the estimates of benefit fraud are that it is very low.
A risk based approach would have the govt doing much less on it compared to other kinds of fraud. But benefit fraud really really angers the public and is obviously hyped up by certain newspapers.

I don’t think we will see the Conservatives address the issues you talk about. Benefit fraud is just too good an issue for them - a real vote winner.

RochdalePioneers said:

The business point is key. Hard Brexiteers are going against the collected experience and factual reality of all of their traditional donors - the "hard Brexit will be fine" mob are getting they know more about car manufacturing than Honda.

You have to wonder how the Tories have managed to get themselves on the opposite side of the argument from business. Interesting comments from Barnier this morning (once again) restating the obvious - the EU won't give us a deal for the city.

stodge said:

Morning all

It's an interesting argument. Theresa May has, from the moment she became Prime Minister, emphasised the role of the State as an empowering part of her conservative philosophy. Indeed, her role model looks to be Heath or Heseltine rather than Thatcher or Cameron.

It's a strand of conservatism that was in eclipse in the Thatcher and to an extent the Major years where the emphasis was on laissez faire and "enrichessez vous" to borrow two French expressions including one from Guizot. The market ruled, the State was to be reduced to the margins and people were going to be allowed to take personal responsibility (remember that?) for their lives.

I'm not sure terms like "social liberal" and "social conservative" are correct - it's more about the role of the State and the role of the individual which is the classic division across all parties and across Anglo-Saxon politics. Neither May nor Corbyn are "small State" thinkers - both see the State as having significant roles in public policy setting and implementation.

The Thatcherites turned against the EU when it appeared their triumph over one overpowering State would be under mined by another unelected bureaucracy. We are already seeing a number in the Cabinet who see "taking back control" in terms of "the removal of constraints" on working hours, paid holidays for part-time workers etc.

The war for the soul of post-EU Britain is now beginning and the shape of that society for the 2020s and beyond is far from clear.

Roger said:

It's fairly obvious why multi nationals would be in favour of `Remain' less so why nail bars would have a view one way or the other

stodge said:

Morning all

It's an interesting argument. Theresa May has, from the moment she became Prime Minister, emphasised the role of the State as an empowering part of her conservative philosophy. Indeed, her role model looks to be Heath or Heseltine rather than Thatcher or Cameron.

It's a strand of conservatism that was in eclipse in the Thatcher and to an extent the Major years where the emphasis was on laissez faire and "enrichessez vous" to borrow two French expressions including one from Guizot. The market ruled, the State was to be reduced to the margins and people were going to be allowed to take personal responsibility (remember that?) for their lives.

I'm not sure terms like "social liberal" and "social conservative" are correct - it's more about the role of the State and the role of the individual which is the classic division across all parties and across Anglo-Saxon politics. Neither May nor Corbyn are "small State" thinkers - both see the State as having significant roles in public policy setting and implementation.

The Thatcherites turned against the EU when it appeared their triumph over one overpowering State would be under mined by another unelected bureaucracy. We are already seeing a number in the Cabinet who see "taking back control" in terms of "the removal of constraints" on working hours, paid holidays for part-time workers etc.

The war for the soul of post-EU Britain is now beginning and the shape of that society for the 2020s and beyond is far from clear.

Philip_Thompson said:

rkrkrk said:

DavidL said:

The use of the Sanctions regime to try to keep a cap on the cost of benefits was immoral. The delays built into the provision of UC was obscene and is even now only partially addressed, the operation of fitness to work criteria through ATOS was disgusting.

What all of these failures have in common is a lack of empathy with the feckless, incompetent and needy in our society. I don’t think this is a party issue so much as a government one. When policy is produced and implemented by producer interests with their convenience in mind vulnerable people get hurt. One party trying to claim the moral high ground in this area really doesn’t help address the issue although I would accept that some on the left have done more to highlight the consequences than many on the right.

It’s worth pointing out also that the estimates of benefit fraud are that it is very low.
A risk based approach would have the govt doing much less on it compared to other kinds of fraud. But benefit fraud really really angers the public and is obviously hyped up by certain newspapers.

I don’t think we will see the Conservatives address the issues you talk about. Benefit fraud is just too good an issue for them - a real vote winner.

It is worth bearing in mind how legitimate estimates of benefit fraud are.

I've personally known of lots of people who claim benefits while working cash in hand jobs etc but they get away with it and I doubt they're included in these estimates of yours. I used to work in an industry where cash in hand payments were rife and I was struggling to recruit people as I would only pay by BACS and I was repeatedly told "... but I'd lose my benefits" by job applicants without them even blinking. One guy even spat on me before storming out of the building when I told him I wouldn't pay him cash. It was entirely accepted second nature that they could work cash in hand and keep benefits.

The truth is like all types of fraud it is hard to ever put your finger on how serious a problem is because if they're getting away with it, its not getting counted.