politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Westminster Big Three: zen-like serenity or zombies in
Comments
-
Salmond surely wants to be at Westminster to give the SNP far greater visibility there. So he'll take the least risky option to ensure he makes it.antifrank said:
If he's not going to do so at this stage in his career, what is he standing for?SouthamObserver said:
Would he stand in a seat where he might run the risk of losing, however slight?antifrank said:I know Alex Salmond is rumoured to be thinking of standing in Gordon, but wouldn't he be better standing in a Glasgow seat, with the aim of putting boosters under the SNP's hopes of harnessing those Yes voters there?
But I take JPJ2's points.0 -
That's exactly what you and UKIP are doing.isam said:
No one is scapegoating immigrants... It is your accusations that are the smokescreenHugh said:
Immigration is not the problem. The real problem is the kind of economic policies espoused by UKIP - pro big business, anti-public service, anti-state, pro-rich.isam said:I see talk of bosses getting richer while the workers get poorer. The left wing measuring stick of inequality is the gap between richest and poorest, and it's getting bigger thanks to a Labour Party policy
Obviously the result of the policy is the reason why the Labour Party was formed in the first place. That the Labour Party are it's staunchest defenders is why a lot of people feel betrayed and are voting for someone else.
Falsely scapegoating immigrants in a deliberate attempt to create a smokescreen over the failures of the Rightwing Establishment (of which UKIP is a part) will only get you so far.
My problem is that the policy you defend makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. The immigrants are pawns in the game. They are just units of labour to the left wing establishment and usefully they can be used as a moral shield when people rumble what's really going on
It really is absurd that we have come to the point where labour inflict policies on the people they were set up to protect that ruin their lives, then stigmatise them for mentioning it.
The real problems faced by working people are caused by low wages, lack of job security, lack of decent housing, poor social mobility, lack of good childcare, education, family support etc etc.
UKIP offer no solutions to any of this, and they know it, that's why they focus on immigration alone.
Good governance needs to be evidence based, not based on the anecdotes of ranting anti-immigration warriors. And the evidence shows that immigration - while significantly benefitting the country as a whole - may have a minor (if any) negative impact on poorer people. Compared to the big issues I mention above it's almost insignificant.
Put another way, stopping immigration tomorrow would not even make a noticeable dent in the problems faced by poorer people, so the relentless focus on it from certain quarters is nasty, diversionary, and disingenuous.
0 -
I have to ask, is the Tory and Labour polling really that bad or abnormal, or is it just being viewed in the context of them storming to Blair/Thatcher majorities?
Labour hasn't hit 35% in a GE under left wing leadership since the 1970s. Miliband is easily cast as just a continuation of Foot, Kinnock, Brown. Blair was the outlier.
As for the Tories. They polled 36 % in 2010. Yougov had them on 36% just three weeks ago. They just keep playing swapsies with UKIP with a few percent of the vote, depending on the news cycle.
If the UKIP bandwagon can be derailed, or at least diminished, the front two will probably end up on a combined vote share that isn't dissimilar to 2010.
A scenario of two thirds of the vote being split between the big two remains feasible, with the real splintering being among those seeking a third way.
0 -
Morality has nothing to say about electorate systems.logical_song said:
Do you really believe "Under our system there's no real moral reason why a party cannot govern the country on 35%"?audreyanne said:The three main parties think UKIP will poll <15% in a General Election, and I think they're right. If true then apart from them taking a slice of the vote share pie they won't win many MPs. It's nothing to do with being zen or zombie like. It's because they assume UKIP will fade when people come to the real thing. Again, I'm sure they're right.
So, really, the main parties aren't doing 'badly.' Under our system there's no real moral reason why a party cannot govern the country on 35%, and there certainly isn't an electoral one.</p>
So it's OK to ignore 65% of the electorate. At what percentage does it become immoral to govern, 25%, 20%? I'm assuming that you would be against a dictatorship so there must be a low percentage value and which it becomes immoral. You usually make reasoned arguments, so I'm looking forward to your answer to this.0 -
Well, I was brought up in a small county town and later my parents moved to the Lake District so I go along with what you say. Nonetheless, many people never accept outsiders ("born and bred only here") and this approach implies racism. We just have different definitions of the word, that's all.Charles said:
Do you have any evidence for this claim that you can share?Innocent_Abroad said:
The typical white voter in the shires is a (more or less) vicious racist - and, for the avoidance of doubt, I would no more live in shire England than I would poke out my eyes with a sharp stick.
I grew up in the shires, and my experience is entirely contrary.
They are wary of all outsiders - regardless of race or colour of their skin - but once accepted they are a full member of the community
0 -
Its not so much the CEOs we should be worried about, its people like Jonathan Ive, the Cheif Designer at Apple.SouthamObserver said:Out of interest, how many British citizens are running big public companies in countries other than the UK? I can't think of many (any actually), so perhaps our senior executives are not as coveted as they may be telling us.
0 -
I will be a surprise to no-one that I share your views.Paul_Mid_Beds said:
David you are spot on.david_herdson said:
.Innocent_Abroad said:I think the sea-change is even greater than David Herdson (thanks for yet another excellent op-ed piece, David) thinks it is. David is still happy to talk of the "spectrum" which, if it means anything, means Parties divided by their identification with economic interests (traditionally, Tories backed by Big Business and Labour by Trade Unions).
...
The social liberalism of all three main parties has left a huge hole in the political field which UKIP are filling.
I maintain that it was gay marriage that has been the trigger for UKIPs recent surge, because it unequivocally demonstrated that the Conservatives are now as socially liberal as Labour have been since the sixties.
Thus a huge slew of voters, who, sometimes with gritted teeth, voted Conservative to keep Labour out because they felt that Labours social values would undermine the fabric of society, have departed from the Conservative party to UKIP.
One shock to the main parties will be the number of immigrants who vote UKIP as they share those socially conservative values.
The standard explanation for the collapse in Tory support in March 2012 was the Omnishambles budget. But, despite its worst provisions being reversed, the economic recovery and the effuxion of time, Tory ratings have not recovered.
But I think there is a deeper, more crucial, reason.
David Cameron based his 2012 GE campaign on the Big Society. People had misgivings on this at the time, as the only voluntary organisation he'd ever run was the Conservative Party - run into the ground that is. But the churches are absolutely crucial in delivering this; they've been doing so for centuries.
And what does Dopey Dave do? Sneer and attack their beliefs and rights. But these organisations were supposed to shoulder some of the burden of the now bankrupt State.
So there's Cameron's abject failure: cuts in services and nothing to replace them. Brilliant political thinking!0 -
With your definition being ludicrously wide so you can basically include anyone you don't agree with.Innocent_Abroad said:
Well, I was brought up in a small county town and later my parents moved to the Lake District so I go along with what you say. Nonetheless, many people never accept outsiders ("born and bred only here") and this approach implies racism. We just have different definitions of the word, that's all.Charles said:
Do you have any evidence for this claim that you can share?Innocent_Abroad said:
The typical white voter in the shires is a (more or less) vicious racist - and, for the avoidance of doubt, I would no more live in shire England than I would poke out my eyes with a sharp stick.
I grew up in the shires, and my experience is entirely contrary.
They are wary of all outsiders - regardless of race or colour of their skin - but once accepted they are a full member of the community
0 -
"Social conservatism" is a term I honestly don't understand. Sometimes it seems to be a cloak for racism; sometimes for homophobia; sometimes for a belief that criminals deserve vengeance rather than justice, or even that the distinction between an alleged and a convicted criminal is just a bit of leftie nonsense. I have yet to meet a "social conservative" who didn't feel sorry for themselves.david_herdson said:
I deliberately used the word spectrum loosely, not least because the divisions between them are themselves fluid.Innocent_Abroad said:I think the sea-change is even greater than David Herdson (thanks for yet another excellent op-ed piece, David) thinks it is. David is still happy to talk of the "spectrum" which, if it means anything, means Parties divided by their identification with economic interests (traditionally, Tories backed by Big Business and Labour by Trade Unions).
...
Arguably the biggest division at the moment, and the one driving UKIP's rise is on social factors, with Con, Lab and LD all being socially liberal to a greater or lesser extent, and UKIP being socially conservative.
As both the Tories and Labour have socially conservative wings, what this means is that UKIP can tailor their economic policies to target whichever major party looks the weaker without affecting their core messages, which remain Europe and social conservatism, both of which cut across economic divisions. At the moment, they're playing it both ways, which is a dangerous game as it inevitably produces contradictions, but as with the Lib Dems in the past, that doesn't matter unless you're the one left holding the parcel when the music stops - and they won't be this time.
0 -
What a brilliant post.stodge said:Morning all
Not for the first time recently, I find myself in almost complete disagreement with David.
Far from proclaiming the fall of the three-party monopoly on power, the central argument is that we haven't yet broken the Conservative-Labour duopoly. Last time, the two parties won over 560 of the 650 seats on offer. Even at their respective recent nadirs (1997 for the Conservatives and 1983 for Labour in terms of seats) both won over 150 seats and Labour hasn't won fewer than 200 at any election since 1945.
The illusion of collapse in voting shares is just that - the country is made up of defined areas of Conservative strength, defined areas of Labour strength and a few pockets of LD strength. Even if both main parties are at 30%, vast numbers of seats will still be Labour or Conservative. UKIP's hope next year is to create its own pockets of strength because if all they do is pile up 15-20% in seat after seat Farage will be able to do the "we have won no seats but a great victory" speech before sliding into obscurity.
The duopoly won't be broken by UKIP or by the LDs in isolation - it could be broken by PR or by the schism of one of the two main parties which is how we got the SDP which couldn't get the critical mass to make it happen. IF UKIP persuaded 100 Conservative MP and 100 Labour MPs to defect and then held the seats, that would do it too but I can't see that happening.
As for all the "angry" people who used to vote LD and now vote UKIP - there don't seem to be enough of them to make a difference so they shout and rant on forums like this and elsewhere because, basically, that's all they have. We're forced to listen but that's all - ultimately the tribal loyalists who will turn out for Bob Neill in Bromley & Chislehurst and Stephen Timms in East Ham run the show.
Having studied politics and lived a good few years I think this is the most astute post, and probably thread leader, on pb.com for quite some time.
There's a tendency for political fans to get excited and excitable about every latest trend, tantrum and twist. The reality is that GE2015 will change very little. As you rightly suggest, the Con-Lab duopoly will still be in place. In fact in terms of MPs it will be much stronger than GE2010.0 -
Anyway. I'm done for to-day. Enjoy your shopping trips or whatever...0
-
The argument I have put forward is evidence basedHugh said:
That's exactly what you and UKIP are doing.isam said:Hugh said:
Immigration is not the problem. The real problem is the kind of economic policies espoused by UKIP - pro big business, anti-public service, anti-state, pro-rich.isam said:I see talk of bosses getting richer while the workers get poorer. The left wing measuring stick of inequality is the gap between richest and poorest, and it's getting bigger thanks to a Labour Party policy
Obviously the result of the policy is the reason why the Labour Party was formed in the first place. That the Labour Party are it's staunchest defenders is why a lot of people feel betrayed and are voting for someone else.
Falsely scapegoating immigrants in a deliberate attempt to create a smokescreen over the failures of the Rightwing Establishment (of which UKIP is a part) will only get you so far.
The real problems faced by working people are caused by low wages, lack of job security, lack of decent housing, poor social mobility, lack of good childcare, education, family support etc etc.
UKIP offer no solutions to any of this, and they know it, that's why they focus on immigration alone.
Good governance needs to be evidence based, not based on the anecdotes of ranting anti-immigration warriors. And the evidence shows that immigration - while significantly benefitting the country as a whole - may have a minor (if any) negative impact on poorer people. Compared to the big issues I mention above it's almost insignificant.
Put another way, stopping immigration tomorrow would not even make a noticeable dent in the problems faced by poorer people, so the relentless focus on it from certain quarters is nasty, diversionary, and disingenuous.
Doesn't it occur to you that while the wages of the poor are hit by mass immigration the other services you mention are hit as hard if not harder? You are making my case for me
Stopping immigration tomorrow isn't being suggested, that's a lazy strawman.
If someone's out of shape because they've been bingeing on cheap junk food., you don't sort it out by starving them, you introduce a healthy controlled diet. Ukip are the only party that will do this. You just keep suggesting KFC
Read the guardian article I linked to. If you're to the left of them you know you're out of touch0 -
More likely Jim Murphy. Is the betting up yet?malcolmg said:
Ha Ha Ha , chances of him doing a days work are ZERO.Paul_Mid_Beds said:
(re)Enter Gordon Brown methinksSouthamObserver said:
I agree. It looks like a very big development to me.antifrank said:Johann's Lamont resignation is potentially big. This is dynamite under Labour in Scotland and the union itself, confirming the SNP's whole narrative. It is dynamite under Ed Miliband, adding to concerns about his leadership.
If Labour did coups, this would be Betsygate. Of course, they don't.0 -
p.s. I didn't want to deflect from Stodge's brilliant post so this is separate. Labour in Scotland, or rather Miliband's Labour in Scotland, are in deep doggy-do.
We should keep an eye on Scottish GE2015 polling. It could be 'interesting,' with trouble for Labour if they lose seats there. It's another example of the regional and local issues mattering this time round more than ever.0 -
I hope you keep up this approach - perfect for pushing ever more W/C votes to UKIP in the north/Wales, etcHugh said:
That's exactly what you and UKIP are doing.isam said:
No one is scapegoating immigrants... It is your accusations that are the smokescreenHugh said:
Immigration is not the problem. The real problem is the kind of economic policies espoused by UKIP - pro big business, anti-public service, anti-state, pro-rich.isam said:I see talk of bosses getting richer while the workers get poorer. The left wing measuring stick of inequality is the gap between richest and poorest, and it's getting bigger thanks to a Labour Party policy
Obviously the result of the policy is the reason why the Labour Party was formed in the first place. That the Labour Party are it's staunchest defenders is why a lot of people feel betrayed and are voting for someone else.
Falsely scapegoating immigrants in a deliberate attempt to create a smokescreen over the failures of the Rightwing Establishment (of which UKIP is a part) will only get you so far.
My problem is that the policy you defend makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. The immigrants are pawns in the game. They are just units of labour to the left wing establishment and usefully they can be used as a moral shield when people rumble what's really going on
It really is absurd that we have come to the point where labour inflict policies on the people they were set up to protect that ruin their lives, then stigmatise them for mentioning it.
The real problems faced by working people are caused by low wages, lack of job security, lack of decent housing, poor social mobility, lack of good childcare, education, family support etc etc.
UKIP offer no solutions to any of this, and they know it, that's why they focus on immigration alone.
Good governance needs to be evidence based, not based on the anecdotes of ranting anti-immigration warriors. And the evidence shows that immigration - while significantly benefitting the country as a whole - may have a minor (if any) negative impact on poorer people. Compared to the big issues I mention above it's almost insignificant.
Put another way, stopping immigration tomorrow would not even make a noticeable dent in the problems faced by poorer people, so the relentless focus on it from certain quarters is nasty, diversionary, and disingenuous.0 -
UKIP focuses on immigration, because the population focuses on it. People perceive little benefit from immigration on its current scale (rightly) and don't like the social changes it brings in its wake. It's not for you to tell the people that their suffering from some kind of false consciousness.Hugh said:
That's exactly what you and UKIP are doing.isam said:
No one is scapegoating immigrants... It is your accusations that are the smokescreenHugh said:
Immigration is not the problem. The real problem is the kind of economic policies espoused by UKIP - pro big business, anti-public service, anti-state, pro-rich.isam said:I see talk of bosses getting richer while the workers get poorer. The left wing measuring stick of inequality is the gap between richest and poorest, and it's getting bigger thanks to a Labour Party polic
Obviously the result of the policy is the reason why the Labour Party was formed in the first place. That the Labour Party are it's staunchest defenders is why a lot of people feel betrayed and are voting for someone else.
Falsely scapegoating immigrants in a deliberate attempt to create a smokescreen over the failures of the Rightwing Establishment (of which UKIP is a part) will only get you so far.
My problem is that the policy you defend makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. The immigrants are pawns in the game. They are just units of labour to the left wing establishment and usefully they can be used as a moral shield when people rumble what's really going on
It really is absurd that we have come to the point where labour inflict policies on the people they were set up to protect that ruin their lives, then stigmatise them for mentioning it.
The real problems faced by working people are caused by low wages, lack of job security, lack of decent housing, poor social mobility, lack of good childcare, education, family support etc etc.
UKIP offer no solutions to any of this, and they know it, that's why they focus on immigration alone.
Good governance needs to be evidence based, not based on the anecdotes of ranting anti-immigration warriors. And the evidence shows that immigration - while significantly benefitting the country as a whole - may have a minor (if any) negative impact on poorer people. Compared to the big issues I mention above it's almost insignificant.
Put another way, stopping immigration tomorrow would not even make a noticeable dent in the problems faced by poorer people, so the relentless focus on it from certain quarters is nasty, diversionary, and disingenuous.
0 -
@LadPolitics: Next Scottish Labour Leader Betting:rottenborough said:More likely Jim Murphy. Is the betting up yet?
2 Anas Sarwar
4 Kezia Dugdale
5 Gordon Brown
6 Jim Murphy
10 Neil Findlay
12 Drew Smith
12 D Alexander
Politically it has to be an MSP. They have to be able to shout at Nicola once a week until the election0 -
In what sense are UKIP pro-Big Business?Hugh said:
Immigration is not the problem. The real problem is the kind of economic policies espoused by UKIP - pro big business, anti-public service, anti-state, pro-rich.isam said:I see talk of bosses getting richer while the workers get poorer. The left wing measuring stick of inequality is the gap between richest and poorest, and it's getting bigger thanks to a Labour Party policy
Mass immigration of economic migrants makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. Until a politician wakes up, admits this and does what is necessary To tackle the problem, they are just putting a plaster on a broken leg
Eastern European plumbers and electricians work for less money, but that just means their employers profit margin increases.. The customer doesn't get a discount.
So things cost more, but people are paid less, or the same if they're lucky... Meanwhile the profits for the bosses are so much bigger than the fall in wages of the workers they help increase GDP and the pro mass immigration politicians use this to justify the policy
Obviously the result of the policy is the reason why the Labour Party was formed in the first place. That the Labour Party are it's staunchest defenders is why a lot of people feel betrayed and are voting for someone else.
Falsely scapegoating immigrants in a deliberate attempt to create a smokescreen over the failures of the Rightwing Establishment (of which UKIP is a part) will only get you so far.0 -
So, is there a timetable that would allow Gordon or wee Dougie to resign and become a MSP and stand for leadership?Scott_P said:
@LadPolitics: Next Scottish Labour Leader Betting:rottenborough said:More likely Jim Murphy. Is the betting up yet?
2 Anas Sarwar
4 Kezia Dugdale
5 Gordon Brown
6 Jim Murphy
10 Neil Findlay
12 Drew Smith
12 D Alexander
Politically it has to be an MSP. They have to be able to shout at Nicola once a week until the election
0 -
The exit tax structure is what they have in France. The result: people plan to exit over a number of years (the key determinant for a man in determining residence is where the children live/go to school).Indigo said:
I assume you are joking.Paul_Mid_Beds said:
Ok, fine, let them leave, but confiscate 80% of any assets or cash worth more than £200,000 they take with them with an exit tax.
Under that regime no one with any world class ability would come to these shores to conduct business, and anyone born here with any sense of ambition would leave, it would be like the brain drain in the 70s only an order of magnitude worse. We would be a third world country inside a generation. Not to mention it would be against European law so you would have to leave the EU first!
The biggest fer that the non-French in France have is that MLP wins and revokes their work permits forcing them into exit in an unplanned fashion0 -
You define favouring one's own children above strangers as "racism." if that is so, then there is nothing reprehensible about racism.Innocent_Abroad said:
Well, I was brought up in a small county town and later my parents moved to the Lake District so I go along with what you say. Nonetheless, many people never accept outsiders ("born and bred only here") and this approach implies racism. We just have different definitions of the word, that's all.Charles said:
Do you have any evidence for this claim that you can share?Innocent_Abroad said:
The typical white voter in the shires is a (more or less) vicious racist - and, for the avoidance of doubt, I would no more live in shire England than I would poke out my eyes with a sharp stick.
I grew up in the shires, and my experience is entirely contrary.
They are wary of all outsiders - regardless of race or colour of their skin - but once accepted they are a full member of the community0 -
Politicians are hard-headed people, and none of the parties think that a change of leader would address the reasons for their weakness, so they see no reason to rock the boats for no benefit. The Conservatives note that Cameron is more popular than the party, and the only more popular potential leader is not an MP. Labour notes that all of the available alternatives produce a "less likely to vote Labour" result in the polls. The LibDems note that they've lost votes by allying with the Conservatives, not because Clegg in particular is detested.
The only real movement up or down before the election is likely to be after the by-election. If that produces a clear shift to UKIP, it may prompt further defections and that could put Cameron at risk, if only because the trigger to unleash a leadership election is so easy to achieve (40 people sign a paper and it's done). Otherwise, Zen-like calm is appropriate.0 -
@LabourList: Update: Lamont says "some wanted me to become the issue" - and what are the rules about who can become leader? http://ow.ly/DjSXL0
-
The views of big business are more closely aligned to Orange Bookers than they are to UKIP.anotherDave said:
In what sense are UKIP pro-Big Business?Hugh said:
Immigration is not the problem. The real problem is the kind of economic policies espoused by UKIP - pro big business, anti-public service, anti-state, pro-rich.isam said:I see talk of bosses getting richer while the workers get poorer. The left wing measuring stick of inequality is the gap between richest and poorest, and it's getting bigger thanks to a Labour Party policy
Mass immigration of economic migrants makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. Until a politician wakes up, admits this and does what is necessary To tackle the problem, they are just putting a plaster on a broken leg
Eastern European plumbers and electricians work for less money, but that just means their employers profit margin increases.. The customer doesn't get a discount.
So things cost more, but people are paid less, or the same if they're lucky... Meanwhile the profits for the bosses are so much bigger than the fall in wages of the workers they help increase GDP and the pro mass immigration politicians use this to justify the policy
Obviously the result of the policy is the reason why the Labour Party was formed in the first place. That the Labour Party are it's staunchest defenders is why a lot of people feel betrayed and are voting for someone else.
Falsely scapegoating immigrants in a deliberate attempt to create a smokescreen over the failures of the Rightwing Establishment (of which UKIP is a part) will only get you so far.0 -
Very interesting posting, especially the third point. The first point is, of course, strengthened by the relatively important role of the (non-SNP) Radical Independence Consortium in delivering the Yes vote in hard Labour areas. I'd also add Mr Salmond's presumed loyalties to the Northeast (and vice versa), which admittedly subsume into your second point.JPJ2 said:antifrank says of Salmond:
"wouldn't he be better standing in a Glasgow seat, with the aim of putting boosters under the SNP's hopes of harnessing those Yes voters there?"
Salmond is probably the only senior politician in Scotland who might seriously consider doing such a thing. I cite as evidence that he returned to Holyrood by contesting a seat where his party had come third in the previous election. On balance, however, I think that he will not for at least the reasons below:
* Although Glasgow voted "Yes", many appear to have done so on the basis that a vote for independence was expressly not a vote for Alex Salmond.
* A lot more effort might be required to win in Glasgow than in Gordon which might prove a distraction from the main campaign
* It might be viewed negatively in much of the rest of Scotland, where Salmond garners some support for his party by it not being dominated by Glasgow. It would certainly be easily portrayed as such with Sturgeon also being Glasgow based.
I still don't feel able to rule it out completely, though it is the third point that is the most important to me.
0 -
It doesnt matter if they were. Truth is perception. If the voters think immigration is a problem, its a problem, and they will vote accordingly, and no amount of hand wringing and writing letters to The Guardian is going to change it, in fact finger-wagging from metropolitan liberals is just going to get up the nose of the WWC vote and make they dig in even more.Sean_F said:UKIP focuses on immigration, because the population focuses on it. People perceive little benefit from immigration on its current scale (rightly) and don't like the social changes it brings in its wake. It's not for you to tell the people that their suffering from some kind of false consciousness.
0 -
Pfizer (Ian Bell)SouthamObserver said:Out of interest, how many British citizens are running big public companies in countries other than the UK? I can't think of many (any actually), so perhaps our senior executives are not as coveted as they may be telling us.
Apple (Tim ?)
Allergan (David Pyot)
L'Oreal (until recently) (Lindsey Jones)
immediately come to mind. Am sure there are more0 -
Exactly. And all the great scientists and engineers that leave because we do not have business leaders in this country capable of creating an environment in which they can thrive. When the fist instinct of business and government is to cut R&D and training, why stay?.Indigo said:
Its not so much the CEOs we should be worried about, its people like Jonathan Ive, the Cheif Designer at Apple.SouthamObserver said:Out of interest, how many British citizens are running big public companies in countries other than the UK? I can't think of many (any actually), so perhaps our senior executives are not as coveted as they may be telling us.
0 -
Apple is run by Tim Cook, not British as far as I know. One of his key deputies is Jony Ive, the designer of iphone, ipad etc. He is British.Charles said:
Pfizer (Ian Bell)SouthamObserver said:Out of interest, how many British citizens are running big public companies in countries other than the UK? I can't think of many (any actually), so perhaps our senior executives are not as coveted as they may be telling us.
Apple (Tim ?)
Allergan (David Pyot)
L'Oreal (until recently) (Lindsey Jones)
immediately come to mind. Am sure there are more
0 -
Of course you think that. You agree with what Stodge has written because of bias confirmation and so think his post is 'brilliant'. The fact that it is also completely wrong does not even begin to cross your mind.audreyanne said:
What a brilliant post.
Having studied politics and lived a good few years I think this is the most astute post, and probably thread leader, on pb.com for quite some time.
There's a tendency for political fans to get excited and excitable about every latest trend, tantrum and twist. The reality is that GE2015 will change very little. As you rightly suggest, the Con-Lab duopoly will still be in place. In fact in terms of MPs it will be much stronger than GE2010.
It is wrong because the one thing it fails to address are real issues - the real reasons people vote for candidates. The current slide in the popularity of the main parties has come about because they have failed to address those issues - whether they are immigration and Europe, the environment or aspiring nationalism. This is why the 'also rans' are now starting to make real headway and it is also why they will not simply fade away as Stodge predicts and you so fervently hope.0 -
And for a MP to run SLAB from London would be additionally disastrous, especially after Ms Lamont's complaints (thinks: why didn't she join the SNP years ago with comments like that?):Scott_P said:
@LadPolitics: Next Scottish Labour Leader Betting:rottenborough said:More likely Jim Murphy. Is the betting up yet?
2 Anas Sarwar
4 Kezia Dugdale
5 Gordon Brown
6 Jim Murphy
10 Neil Findlay
12 Drew Smith
12 D Alexander
Politically it has to be an MSP. They have to be able to shout at Nicola once a week until the election
"Ms Lamont also criticised party bosses in London for not allowing Scottish Labour more autonomy.
She accused some of her colleagues of trying to run the party in Scotland "like a branch office of London".
Ms Lamont believes some Labour MPs at Westminster are too concerned about their own interests and need to realise that the focus of Scottish politics is now Holyrood, not Westminster."
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/labour-in-turmoil-as-lamont-resigns.25688772
Note, BTW, that the speculation therein is Messrs Murphy and Brown MPs and Sarwar MSP in that order, the rest nowhere.
However, the betting schedule suggestion of Ms Dugdale is an interesting one and may have some traction given that women are I/c the SNP and Tories.
0 -
Express is almost certain to endorse UKIP.david_herdson said:
I couldn't help but notice that the front pages of today's Mail and Express both have prominent purple and yellow sections. Now, this may be a coincidence - both areas in those colours are to do with promotions - but it may not. Both front pages also lead on the EU contribution story too.Plato said:The Mail is clearly very irked by Labour in Wales...
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2807297/Your-horror-stories-Labour-s-NHS-shambles-Mail-s-devastating-expose-Welsh-NHS-asked-readers-experiences-shocking-feared.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
I have speculated in the past about whether any paper(s) will endorse UKIP and if so, which and when. While such endorsements usually carry little weight of their own, they do matter in terms of editorial policy about which stories are covered and how, and in UKIP's case, it would also matter because a first endorsement would be another step on the road to major party status; it would provide credibility with the rest of the media (more so were that endorsement to come from the Mail than the Express, it has to be said). The converse is also true, if they can't pick up an endorsement, it'll act as a drag on how the rest of the media see them.
Daily Mail nailed on Tory I'd say.0 -
isam said:
You won't get far blaming Ukip for problems that started in the 80sSouthamObserver said:
No, I am merely pointing out that it was Tory policy that saw us sign up to the free movement of workers in the EU and which accelerated the accession of eastern European countries into the EU. The reasons Labour may be losing some support to UKIP are much more complicated than the fact that a lot of eastern Europeans arrived in the UK during the time Labour was in power. It is to do with immigration from other parts of the world too, the decline of the trade unions (eagerly supported by UKIP's Thatcherite leadership) and the break-up of communities based around heavy industry, general disconnect with mainstream politics and so on.isam said:
You are absolving Tony Blair of any blame? Fair enough as you wishSouthamObserver said:
It was actually a Conservative government that signed up to the free movement of workers inside the European Union and which pressed for the early inclusion of eastern European countries into the European Union.isam said:I see talk of bosses getting richer while the workers get poorer. The left wing measuring stick of inequality is the gap between richest and poorest, and it's getting bigger thanks to a Labour Party policy
Mass immigration of economic migrants makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. Until a politician wakes up, admits this and does what is necessary To tackle the problem, they are just putting a plaster on a broken leg
Eastern European plumbers and electricians work for less money, but that just means their employers profit margin increases.. The customer doesn't get a discount.
So things cost more, but people are paid less, or the same if they're lucky... Meanwhile the profits for the bosses are so much bigger than the fall in wages of the workers they help increase GDP and the pro mass immigration politicians use this to justify the policy
Obviously the result of the policy is the reason why the Labour Party was formed in the first place. That the Labour Party are it's staunchest defenders is why a lot of people feel betrayed and are voting for someone else.
The reasons I have outlined are why labour are losing votes to Ukip
Labour were meant to be the party that put the working class first. Allowing cheap labour to undercut wages and reduce living standards while simultaneously making the employers richer is the equivalent of Ukip rejoining the EU in 2120
And they are quite happy to prioritise them for social housing as their "needs" as higher (cif NPXMP).
Irrespective if they have property in their own countries.0 -
Lamont's resignation leaves Ed with a VERY obvious choice for the leader of Scottish Labour - Jim Murphy.0
-
But I think your definition is unhelpful - too may people conflate it with the more traditional/obvious definition.Innocent_Abroad said:
Well, I was brought up in a small county town and later my parents moved to the Lake District so I go along with what you say. Nonetheless, many people never accept outsiders ("born and bred only here") and this approach implies racism. We just have different definitions of the word, that's all.Charles said:
Do you have any evidence for this claim that you can share?Innocent_Abroad said:
The typical white voter in the shires is a (more or less) vicious racist - and, for the avoidance of doubt, I would no more live in shire England than I would poke out my eyes with a sharp stick.
I grew up in the shires, and my experience is entirely contrary.
They are wary of all outsiders - regardless of race or colour of their skin - but once accepted they are a full member of the community
You'd do better to use a different word (clannism or something) to describe the phenomenon.0 -
If it wasn't UKIP (and SNP) disrupting the system, it would be someone else. The Conservative and Labour parties are shells of what they were 30 years ago in terms of membership and public support.Richard_Tyndall said:
Of course you think that. You agree with what Stodge has written because of bias confirmation and so think his post is 'brilliant'. The fact that it is also completely wrong does not even begin to cross your mind.audreyanne said:
What a brilliant post.
Having studied politics and lived a good few years I think this is the most astute post, and probably thread leader, on pb.com for quite some time.
There's a tendency for political fans to get excited and excitable about every latest trend, tantrum and twist. The reality is that GE2015 will change very little. As you rightly suggest, the Con-Lab duopoly will still be in place. In fact in terms of MPs it will be much stronger than GE2010.
It is wrong because the one thing it fails to address are real issues - the real reasons people vote for candidates. The current slide in the popularity of the main parties has come about because they have failed to address those issues - whether they are immigration and Europe, the environment or aspiring nationalism. This is why the 'also rans' are now starting to make real headway and it is also why they will not simply fade away as Stodge predicts and you so fervently hope.
0 -
Indeed.SouthamObserver said:
Their performance indicates they are not top people. They are people who are good (or not) at managing big organisations. They do not start things, they do not build things, they do not create things; they manage things. It's a skill, but not one that is irreplaceable. What they are, though, is a set that has been able to play the game and get on the gravy train - just like any senior public servant.Indigo said:
What's the solution, its one of the joys of globalisation. If you start to limit the earnings of top people they will just relocate somewhere else, they are the most mobile people in the world. They also can usually pay for more and better lawyers than the government can. If you limited executive pay to say 20x the average pay, most of your large corporations would be unable to recruit world class leaders, they struggle now because most of them would rather live in the US than here for various reasons. Those companies would be less competitive than their overseas alternatives, and would wither, then the self same people would complain about redundancies and lack of revenues here.SouthamObserver said:
Meanwhile CEOs at big public companies now earn hundreds times more than their staff. For what? Believe me, that makes people furious too. It used to be 20 or 30 times more. What's changed? Well, productivity is down, we are exporting less and investing less in R&D and training. Best reward the men, for it is largely men, who have overseen this "triumph".
The real wealth creators - the entrepreneurs, the inventors, the innovators - are the people we should be focusing on relentlessly, incentivising and rewarding. They deserve everything they get.
Can it change? Yes. Will it? Probably not for a long time. But make no mistake, the anger at what people see and experience is growing. My main point being it's not just overpaid civil servants that get people's goat. It's an overpaid, over-protected elite full stop. And that includes private sector leaders on multi-million pound packages just as much as it does the CEOs of county councils earning £200,000 a year.
0 -
Hugh said:isam said:
No one is scapegoating immigrants... It is your accusations that are the smokescreenHugh said:
Immigration is not the problem. The real problem is the kind of economic policies espoused by UKIP - pro big business, anti-public service, anti-state, pro-rich.isam said:I see talk of bosses getting richer while the workers get poorer. The left wing measuring stick of inequality is the gap between richest and poorest, and it's getting bigger thanks to a Labour Party policy
Obviously the result of the policy is the reason why the Labour Party was formed in the first place. That the Labour Party are it's staunchest defenders is why a lot of people feel betrayed and are voting for someone else.
Falsely scapegoating immigrants in a deliberate attempt to create a smokescreen over the failures of the Rightwing Establishment (of which UKIP is a part) will only get you so far.
My problem is that the policy you defend makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. The immigrants are pawns in the game. They are just units of labour to the left wing establishment and usefully they can be used as a moral shield when people rumble what's really going on
It really is absurd that we have come to the point where labour inflict policies on the people they were set up to protect that ruin their lives, then stigmatise them for mentioning it.
Good governance needs to be evidence based, not based on the anecdotes of ranting anti-immigration warriors. And the evidence shows that immigration - while significantly benefitting the country as a whole - may have a minor (if any) negative impact on poorer people. Compared to the big issues I mention above it's almost insignificant.
How exactly has Somali immigration benefited Britain. Or Pakistani? Or Afghan?0 -
They believe in free trade, free movement of capital and a small state. All great for big business: fewer workers rights, less job security, less environmental and planning regulation, increased opportunity to move to cheaper locations abroad and so on.anotherDave said:
In what sense are UKIP pro-Big Business?Hugh said:
Immigration is not the problem. The real problem is the kind of economic policies espoused by UKIP - pro big business, anti-public service, anti-state, pro-rich.isam said:I see talk of bosses getting richer while the workers get poorer. The left wing measuring stick of inequality is the gap between richest and poorest, and it's getting bigger thanks to a Labour Party policy
Mass immigration of economic migrants makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. Until a politician wakes up, admits this and does what is necessary To tackle the problem, they are just putting a plaster on a broken leg
Eastern European plumbers and electricians work for less money, but that just means their employers profit margin increases.. The customer doesn't get a discount.
So things cost more, but people are paid less, or the same if they're lucky... Meanwhile the profits for the bosses are so much bigger than the fall in wages of the workers they help increase GDP and the pro mass immigration politicians use this to justify the policy
Obviously the result of the policy is the reason why the Labour Party was formed in the first place. That the Labour Party are it's staunchest defenders is why a lot of people feel betrayed and are voting for someone else.
Falsely scapegoating immigrants in a deliberate attempt to create a smokescreen over the failures of the Rightwing Establishment (of which UKIP is a part) will only get you so far.0 -
I'd rather vote for his wife in a forced choice. He gives me the creeps with his smiling oiliness.anotherDave said:
Neil Hamilton has apparently applied to be UKIP candidate for Boston. The candidate could yet mess that one up.Pulpstar said:anotherDave said:While more than two thirds believe Farage’s party will pick up just two or fewer.
Bookie seat odds are currently at +/-5.5, and Boston and Clacton are absolute shoo-ins.anotherDave said:Just 5% of MPs think Ukip will pick up more than five seats
0 -
Yet again the arrogance of the metropolitan elite.Innocent_Abroad said:
It is only in metropolitan areas that this fear is overcome and to that extent all large cities are morally superior to suburbs and rural areas (just as they are more stressful).Indigo said:
I am not sure I have ever read such a disgraceful post on PB, I suggest you reconsider it.Innocent_Abroad said:The typical white voter in the shires is a (more or less) vicious racist - and, for the avoidance of doubt, I would no more live in shire England than I would poke out my eyes with a sharp stick. It is racism which will provide the motor of political division in England henceforward.
Smugly superior? That is more like it.0 -
On topic, times are crap, people are pissed off, the Government hasn't improved living standards and the Opposition are blamed for spunking the money away in the first place. Is it any wonder that many voters are casting around for other options, no matter how incoherent, unpleasant and fantasist?0
-
He does have a pantomime villain vibe. Please don't select him UKIP!Plato said:I'd rather vote for his wife in a forced choice. He gives me the creeps with his smiling oiliness.
anotherDave said:
Neil Hamilton has apparently applied to be UKIP candidate for Boston. The candidate could yet mess that one up.Pulpstar said:anotherDave said:While more than two thirds believe Farage’s party will pick up just two or fewer.
Bookie seat odds are currently at +/-5.5, and Boston and Clacton are absolute shoo-ins.anotherDave said:Just 5% of MPs think Ukip will pick up more than five seats
0 -
Big Business like regulation. They can afford compliance, small businesses cannot.SouthamObserver said:
They believe in free trade, free movement of capital and a small state. All great for big business: fewer workers rights, less job security, less environmental and planning regulation, increased opportunity to move to cheaper locations abroad and so on.anotherDave said:
In what sense are UKIP pro-Big Business?Hugh said:
Immigration is not the problem. The real problem is the kind of economic policies espoused by UKIP - pro big business, anti-public service, anti-state, pro-rich.isam said:I see talk of bosses getting richer while the workers get poorer. The left wing measuring stick of inequality is the gap between richest and poorest, and it's getting bigger thanks to a Labour Party policy
Mass immigration of economic migrants makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. Until a politician wakes up, admits this and does what is necessary To tackle the problem, they are just putting a plaster on a broken leg
Eastern European plumbers and electricians work for less money, but that just means their employers profit margin increases.. The customer doesn't get a discount.
So things cost more, but people are paid less, or the same if they're lucky... Meanwhile the profits for the bosses are so much bigger than the fall in wages of the workers they help increase GDP and the pro mass immigration politicians use this to justify the policy
Obviously the result of the policy is the reason why the Labour Party was formed in the first place. That the Labour Party are it's staunchest defenders is why a lot of people feel betrayed and are voting for someone else.
Falsely scapegoating immigrants in a deliberate attempt to create a smokescreen over the failures of the Rightwing Establishment (of which UKIP is a part) will only get you so far.0 -
Purple and yellow aren't happy bedfellows unless you're trying to send a subliminal message in my book.
I didn't notice the Express - does anyone know who's taken over from Mr O'Flynn? I assume they'll remain solidly pro-Kipperite tendency - an endorsement from a mass circulation paper would be quite something. Even in the Express, I assume their readers turn out in big numbers.david_herdson said:
I couldn't help but notice that the front pages of today's Mail and Express both have prominent purple and yellow sections. Now, this may be a coincidence - both areas in those colours are to do with promotions - but it may not. Both front pages also lead on the EU contribution story too.Plato said:The Mail is clearly very irked by Labour in Wales...
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2807297/Your-horror-stories-Labour-s-NHS-shambles-Mail-s-devastating-expose-Welsh-NHS-asked-readers-experiences-shocking-feared.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
I have speculated in the past about whether any paper(s) will endorse UKIP and if so, which and when. While such endorsements usually carry little weight of their own, they do matter in terms of editorial policy about which stories are covered and how, and in UKIP's case, it would also matter because a first endorsement would be another step on the road to major party status; it would provide credibility with the rest of the media (more so were that endorsement to come from the Mail than the Express, it has to be said). The converse is also true, if they can't pick up an endorsement, it'll act as a drag on how the rest of the media see them.0 -
Now I've bet on UKIP in Boston & Skegness, I have to echo this sentiment.anotherDave said:
He does have a pantomime villain vibe. Please don't select him UKIP!Plato said:I'd rather vote for his wife in a forced choice. He gives me the creeps with his smiling oiliness.
anotherDave said:
Neil Hamilton has apparently applied to be UKIP candidate for Boston. The candidate could yet mess that one up.Pulpstar said:anotherDave said:While more than two thirds believe Farage’s party will pick up just two or fewer.
Bookie seat odds are currently at +/-5.5, and Boston and Clacton are absolute shoo-ins.anotherDave said:Just 5% of MPs think Ukip will pick up more than five seats
0 -
Just for the record, as you've misquoted me on this before and I've corrected you before: I think that any application for social housing should take account of overall wealth, including property abroad. Obviously there's an issue about truthful statements but not only for immigrants.Itajai said:
And they are quite happy to prioritise them for social housing as their "needs" as higher (cif NPXMP).
Irrespective if they have property in their own countries.
0 -
@NickPalmer
Whilst you meet more politicians at all levels than most of us, I have noticed that in recent years that politicians have become more arrogant as they have become more professional. They believe that they have the right answers and are very keen to fob me off with platitudes as they believe that I am not able to understand the problems, but this is just a cover as the whole matter is just outside their experience and competency.
If I want some commonsense and deep thinking, I get that more from members of the House of Lords.
0 -
No, big business dislikes anything that gets in its way. The fewer barriers the better.anotherDave said:
Big Business like regulation. They can afford compliance, small businesses cannot.SouthamObserver said:
They believe in free trade, free movement of capital and a small state. All great for big business: fewer workers rights, less job security, less environmental and planning regulation, increased opportunity to move to cheaper locations abroad and so on.anotherDave said:
In what sense are UKIP pro-Big Business?Hugh said:
Immigration is not the problem. The real problem is the kind of economic policies espoused by UKIP - pro big business, anti-public service, anti-state, pro-rich.isam said:I see talk of bosses getting richer while the workers get poorer. The left wing measuring stick of inequality is the gap between richest and poorest, and it's getting bigger thanks to a Labour Party policy
Mass immigration of economic migrants makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. Until a politician wakes up, admits this and does what is necessary To tackle the problem, they are just putting a plaster on a broken leg
Eastern European plumbers and electricians work for less money, but that just means their employers profit margin increases.. The customer doesn't get a discount.
So things cost more, but people are paid less, or the same if they're lucky... Meanwhile the profits for the bosses are so much bigger than the fall in wages of the workers they help increase GDP and the pro mass immigration politicians use this to justify the policy
Obviously the result of the policy is the reason why the Labour Party was formed in the first place. That the Labour Party are it's staunchest defenders is why a lot of people feel betrayed and are voting for someone else.
Falsely scapegoating immigrants in a deliberate attempt to create a smokescreen over the failures of the Rightwing Establishment (of which UKIP is a part) will only get you so far.
0 -
Sarwar too is at Westminster rather than Holyrood.Carnyx said:
Note, BTW, that the speculation therein is Messrs Murphy and Brown MPs and Sarwar MSP in that order, the rest nowhere.
0 -
I think this is the main reason the attempts to kill UKIP with media campaigns have failed. Voters find UKIP a useful instrument, and they can shape it to their liking.Sean_F said:
If it wasn't UKIP (and SNP) disrupting the system, it would be someone else. The Conservative and Labour parties are shells of what they were 30 years ago in terms of membership and public support.Richard_Tyndall said:
Of course you think that. You agree with what Stodge has written because of bias confirmation and so think his post is 'brilliant'. The fact that it is also completely wrong does not even begin to cross your mind.audreyanne said:
What a brilliant post.
Having studied politics and lived a good few years I think this is the most astute post, and probably thread leader, on pb.com for quite some time.
There's a tendency for political fans to get excited and excitable about every latest trend, tantrum and twist. The reality is that GE2015 will change very little. As you rightly suggest, the Con-Lab duopoly will still be in place. In fact in terms of MPs it will be much stronger than GE2010.
It is wrong because the one thing it fails to address are real issues - the real reasons people vote for candidates. The current slide in the popularity of the main parties has come about because they have failed to address those issues - whether they are immigration and Europe, the environment or aspiring nationalism. This is why the 'also rans' are now starting to make real headway and it is also why they will not simply fade away as Stodge predicts and you so fervently hope.0 -
Not long ago I did post links to research done in the States and here that showed there was no correlation between CEOs pay and the performance of their corporations. The idea of needing world class leaders is a myth and a con. These corporate super heroes are just as likely to bankrupt a company as to make it grow and become more successful.another_richard said:
Indeed.SouthamObserver said:
Their performance indicates they are not top people. They are people who are good (or not) at managing big organisations. They do not start things, they do not build things, they do not create things; they manage things. It's a skill, but not one that is irreplaceable. What they are, though, is a set that has been able to play the game and get on the gravy train - just like any senior public servant.Indigo said:
What's the solution, its one of the joys of globalisation. If you start to limit the earnings of top people they will just relocate somewhere else, they are the most mobile people in the world. They also can usually pay for more and better lawyers than the government can. If you limited executive pay to say 20x the average pay, most of your large corporations would be unable to recruit world class leaders, they struggle now because most of them would rather live in the US than here for various reasons. Those companies would be less competitive than their overseas alternatives, and would wither, then the self same people would complain about redundancies and lack of revenues here.SouthamObserver said:
Meanwhile CEOs at big public companies now earn hundreds times more than their staff. For what? Believe me, that makes people furious too. It used to be 20 or 30 times more. What's changed? Well, productivity is down, we are exporting less and investing less in R&D and training. Best reward the men, for it is largely men, who have overseen this "triumph".
The real wealth creators - the entrepreneurs, the inventors, the innovators - are the people we should be focusing on relentlessly, incentivising and rewarding. They deserve everything they get.
Can it change? Yes. Will it? Probably not for a long time. But make no mistake, the anger at what people see and experience is growing. My main point being it's not just overpaid civil servants that get people's goat. It's an overpaid, over-protected elite full stop. And that includes private sector leaders on multi-million pound packages just as much as it does the CEOs of county councils earning £200,000 a year.
How we as a country can break free from this, I don't know. For the good of society I think we have to but then we also have to maintain the rule of law and the freedom for someone to pay what they think a person is worth.0 -
Roger Helmer @RogerHelmerMEP 2h2 hours ago
Cameron won't pay Brussels that €2 billion. Not till after the Rochester by-election, anyway.
ChrisWynThom @ChrisWynThom 48m48 minutes ago
@RogerHelmerMEP How many times has he threatened to leave the EU if..... We're still in it. All words and nothing but!
---------
Exactly my thoughts. Cammo will grudgingly pay the EU ransom, but only after the Rochester & Strood by election.0 -
If you've not read it, you might like Ferdinand Mount's 'the new few'.HurstLlama said:Not long ago I did post links to research done in the States and here that showed there was no correlation between CEOs pay and the performance of their corporations. The idea of needing world class leaders is a myth and a con. These corporate super heroes are just as likely to bankrupt a company as to make it grow and become more successful.
How we as a country can break free from this, I don't know. For the good of society I think we have to but then we also have to maintain the rule of law and the freedom for someone to pay what they think a person is worth.
http://books.simonandschuster.co.uk/The-New-Few/Ferdinand-Mount/97818473993590 -
Johann Lamont has resigned with "immediate effect", so an election for a new leader must take place soon. Certainly before the 2015GE and definitely before Holyrood 2016.Pulpstar said:Lamont's resignation leaves Ed with a VERY obvious choice for the leader of Scottish Labour - Jim Murphy.
But how can Jim Murphy be leader of Scottish Labour without being a MSP?
This is interesting:
"Bear in mind Johann Lamont is not just the leader at Holyrood, she is meant to be the elected leader of the entire Scottish Labour Party that includes the MPs elected from Scotland to Westminster.
But did Douglas Alexander, Jim Murphy, Gordon Brown and the rest regard Ms Lamont as their leader? No, in effect, they did not.
And the Westminster party never saw her as being the full leader of the party in Scotland."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29765415
It seems there is a real tension here: You can't be elected leader of Scottish Labour unless you're an MSP, but, although in theory you then command the Scottish Labour *MPs* as well, in practice they ignore you.
But it doesn't really work the other way round either: if you are a senior Scottish Labour MP, how can you lead the Labour party in Scotland if you can't hold the first minster to account in the Scottish Parliament?
It's a really difficult conundrum. And it seems Douglas Alexander, Jim Murphy and Gordon Brown are all right in the thick of it, and heavily implicated by it. The best scenario I can see for Murphy is that he's made Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland (but he won't be made Scottish Labour leader for the reasons outlined above)
I agree with antifrank. Potentially huge implications for next year.
0 -
When I first started out - we called these Hunters & Farmers - two quite different skills sets, that don't overlap very often [and are very successful when they do].
I've only worked for one guy who was a great *committee* chairman - a crap leader, didn't inspire anyone - but most talented at smoothing down feathers/gaining consensus. There's a place for good people everywhere - some of them can be very dull, but very effective in a quiet way.
If I had one complaint about the public sector, it's that there are far too many *manager-personalities* that like rules/no change/risk averse. And they recruit others like them too often. It's stifling.SouthamObserver said:
Their performance indicates they are not top people. They are people who are good (or not) at managing big organisations. They do not start things, they do not build things, they do not create things; they manage things. It's a skill, but not one that is irreplaceable. What they are, though, is a set that has been able to play the game and get on the gravy train - just like any senior public servant.Indigo said:
What's the solution, its one of the joys of globalisation. If you start to limit the earnings of top people they will just relocate somewhere else, they are the most mobile people in the world. They also can usually pay for more and better lawyers than the government can. If you limited executive pay to say 20x the average pay, most of your large corporations would be unable to recruit world class leaders, they struggle now because most of them would rather live in the US than here for various reasons. Those companies would be less competitive than their overseas alternatives, and would wither, then the self same people would complain about redundancies and lack of revenues here.SouthamObserver said:
Meanwhile CEOs at big public companies now earn hundreds times more than their staff. For what? Believe me, that makes people furious too. It used to be 20 or 30 times more. What's changed? Well, productivity is down, we are exporting less and investing less in R&D and training. Best reward the men, for it is largely men, who have overseen this "triumph".
The real wealth creators - the entrepreneurs, the inventors, the innovators - are the people we should be focusing on relentlessly, incentivising and rewarding. They deserve everything they get.
Can it change? Yes. Will it? Probably not for a long time. But make no mistake, the anger at what people see and experience is growing. My main point being it's not just overpaid civil servants that get people's goat. It's an overpaid, over-protected elite full stop. And that includes private sector leaders on multi-million pound packages just as much as it does the CEOs of county councils earning £200,000 a year.0 -
Well a significant number of the Somali immigrants who settled in Britain in the 50s did so after having served with great distinction in the British Navy in WW2. To simply write off immigrants from certain countries making no distinction between the reasons for them coming here or their attitudes to Britain is just daft and undermines any reasonable argument about immigration.Itajai said:
How exactly has Somali immigration benefited Britain. Or Pakistani? Or Afghan?0 -
He's lose what is left of the Daily Mail vote if he does. I think its more likely it will get fudged into several other numbers and it will all disappear between the cracks, it will still be paid of course, probably with interest, but people won't notice it.MikeK said:Exactly my thoughts. Cammo will grudgingly pay the EU ransom, but only after the Rochester & Strood by election.
0 -
Ah truthful statements.NickPalmer said:
Just for the record, as you've misquoted me on this before and I've corrected you before: I think that any application for social housing should take account of overall wealth, including property abroad. Obviously there's an issue about truthful statements but not only for immigrants.Itajai said:
And they are quite happy to prioritise them for social housing as their "needs" as higher (cif NPXMP).
Irrespective if they have property in their own countries.
Like believing in a Euro-constitution referendum in your election address in 2005. Only to bin it a few years later.
But anyhow, to put the matter to rest. A newly arrived economic migrant family with 5 children (and no property in their home country) should take precedence over a young couple whose families have been in the area for several generations. Despite the fact no one asked them to move into the area.0 -
Regulation raises the barriers to entry. It doesn't stop the established players, because they lobby the regulators, and shape the regulation.SouthamObserver said:
No, big business dislikes anything that gets in its way. The fewer barriers the better.anotherDave said:
Big Business like regulation. They can afford compliance, small businesses cannot.SouthamObserver said:
They believe in free trade, free movement of capital and a small state. All great for big business: fewer workers rights, less job security, less environmental and planning regulation, increased opportunity to move to cheaper locations abroad and so on.anotherDave said:
In what sense are UKIP pro-Big Business?Hugh said:
Immigration is not the problem. The real problem is the kind of economic policies espoused by UKIP - pro big business, anti-public service, anti-state, pro-rich.isam said:I see talk of bosses getting richer while the workers get poorer. The left wing measuring stick of inequality is the gap between richest and poorest, and it's getting bigger thanks to a Labour Party policy
Mass immigration of economic migrants makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. Until a politician wakes up, admits this and does what is necessary To tackle the problem, they are just putting a plaster on a broken leg
Eastern European plumbers and electricians work for less money, but that just means their employers profit margin increases.. The customer doesn't get a discount.
So things cost more, but people are paid less, or the same if they're lucky... Meanwhile the profits for the bosses are so much bigger than the fall in wages of the workers they help increase GDP and the pro mass immigration politicians use this to justify the policy
Obviously the result of the policy is the reason why the Labour Party was formed in the first place. That the Labour Party are it's staunchest defenders is why a lot of people feel betrayed and are voting for someone else.
Falsely scapegoating immigrants in a deliberate attempt to create a smokescreen over the failures of the Rightwing Establishment (of which UKIP is a part) will only get you so far.0 -
The fact that UKIP is still in the process of being formed and shaped, gives it the agility to outmaneuver the more rigid party apparatus. You can look on it as a form of evolution.anotherDave said:
I think this is the main reason the attempts to kill UKIP with media campaigns have failed. Voters find UKIP a useful instrument, and they can shape it to their liking.Sean_F said:
If it wasn't UKIP (and SNP) disrupting the system, it would be someone else. The Conservative and Labour parties are shells of what they were 30 years ago in terms of membership and public support.Richard_Tyndall said:
Of course you think that. You agree with what Stodge has written because of bias confirmation and so think his post is 'brilliant'. The fact that it is also completely wrong does not even begin to cross your mind.audreyanne said:
What a brilliant post.
Having studied politics and lived a good few years I think this is the most astute post, and probably thread leader, on pb.com for quite some time.
There's a tendency for political fans to get excited and excitable about every latest trend, tantrum and twist. The reality is that GE2015 will change very little. As you rightly suggest, the Con-Lab duopoly will still be in place. In fact in terms of MPs it will be much stronger than GE2010.
It is wrong because the one thing it fails to address are real issues - the real reasons people vote for candidates. The current slide in the popularity of the main parties has come about because they have failed to address those issues - whether they are immigration and Europe, the environment or aspiring nationalism. This is why the 'also rans' are now starting to make real headway and it is also why they will not simply fade away as Stodge predicts and you so fervently hope.0 -
Not long ago I did post links to research done in the States and here that showed there was no correlation between CEOs pay and the performance of their corporations. The idea of needing world class leaders is a myth and a con. These corporate super heroes are just as likely to bankrupt a company as to make it grow and become more successful.
How we as a country can break free from this, I don't know. For the good of society I think we have to but then we also have to maintain the rule of law and the freedom for someone to pay what they think a person is worth.
In the end something will give. In the age of the internet, 24 hour TV, the social media and all the rest of it the elite cannot escape the consequences of its rapacious greed forever. There is nowhere to hide. People can see what they are doing and people have votes. Either big business and capital begin to understand that it is not in their own long-term interests to continue to manipulate taxation regimes and generate astronomical incomes while so many people's living standards are stagnating or falling, or solutions will be imposed on them. What we have now is not sustainable.
0 -
I find that pansies look good when purple and yellow and seem not to be pecked by the (angry) birds.Plato said:
Purple and yellow aren't happy bedfellows unless you're trying to send a subliminal message in my book.
I didn't notice the Express - does anyone know who's taken over from Mr O'Flynn? I assume they'll remain solidly pro-Kipperite tendency - an endorsement from a mass circulation paper would be quite something. Even in the Express, I assume their readers turn out in big numbers.david_herdson said:
I couldn't help but notice that the front pages of today's Mail and Express both have prominent purple and yellow sections. Now, this may be a coincidence - both areas in those colours are to do with promotions - but it may not. Both front pages also lead on the EU contribution story too.Plato said:The Mail is clearly very irked by Labour in Wales...
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2807297/Your-horror-stories-Labour-s-NHS-shambles-Mail-s-devastating-expose-Welsh-NHS-asked-readers-experiences-shocking-feared.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
I have speculated in the past about whether any paper(s) will endorse UKIP and if so, which and when. While such endorsements usually carry little weight of their own, they do matter in terms of editorial policy about which stories are covered and how, and in UKIP's case, it would also matter because a first endorsement would be another step on the road to major party status; it would provide credibility with the rest of the media (more so were that endorsement to come from the Mail than the Express, it has to be said). The converse is also true, if they can't pick up an endorsement, it'll act as a drag on how the rest of the media see them.0 -
Looks interesting. I have placed my order for the kindle version. ThanksanotherDave said:
If you've not read it, you might like Ferdinand Mount's 'the new few'.HurstLlama said:Not long ago I did post links to research done in the States and here that showed there was no correlation between CEOs pay and the performance of their corporations. The idea of needing world class leaders is a myth and a con. These corporate super heroes are just as likely to bankrupt a company as to make it grow and become more successful.
How we as a country can break free from this, I don't know. For the good of society I think we have to but then we also have to maintain the rule of law and the freedom for someone to pay what they think a person is worth.
http://books.simonandschuster.co.uk/The-New-Few/Ferdinand-Mount/97818473993590 -
Then it will be up to UKIP to point out how the money is being paid and where it's disappearing down the plug hole.Indigo said:
He's lose what is left of the Daily Mail vote if he does. I think its more likely it will get fudged into several other numbers and it will all disappear between the cracks, it will still be paid of course, probably with interest, but people won't notice it.MikeK said:Exactly my thoughts. Cammo will grudgingly pay the EU ransom, but only after the Rochester & Strood by election.
0 -
Hamilton was also one of the four new members elected to the UKIP National Executive yesterday. In fact he topped the poll.anotherDave said:
Neil Hamilton has apparently applied to be UKIP candidate for Boston. The candidate could yet mess that one up.Pulpstar said:anotherDave said:While more than two thirds believe Farage’s party will pick up just two or fewer.
Bookie seat odds are currently at +/-5.5, and Boston and Clacton are absolute shoo-ins.anotherDave said:Just 5% of MPs think Ukip will pick up more than five seats
0 -
Who were the electorate?Richard_Tyndall said:
Hamilton was also one of the four new members elected to the UKIP National Executive yesterday. In fact he topped the poll.anotherDave said:
Neil Hamilton has apparently applied to be UKIP candidate for Boston. The candidate could yet mess that one up.Pulpstar said:anotherDave said:While more than two thirds believe Farage’s party will pick up just two or fewer.
Bookie seat odds are currently at +/-5.5, and Boston and Clacton are absolute shoo-ins.anotherDave said:Just 5% of MPs think Ukip will pick up more than five seats
0 -
@Richard_Tyndal
" ... a significant number of the Somali immigrants who settled in Britain in the 50s did so after having served with great distinction in the British Navy in WW2."
I didn't know that. I'd like to read up on it. Do you have a source, please?0 -
I saw this earlier and was gobsmacked. Only 6 months to go and she's thrown in the towel with a flourish.
I gather her right-hand chappy was sacked without her knowledge by LHQ - what's the story behind that one? Appears very high-handed at least.
Would've thought a united front in Scotland was absolutely essential for Labour right now. Ms Lamont knew what a grenade her resignation is right now to EdM.antifrank said:Johann's Lamont resignation is potentially big. This is dynamite under Labour in Scotland and the union itself, confirming the SNP's whole narrative. It is dynamite under Ed Miliband, adding to concerns about his leadership.
If Labour did coups, this would be Betsygate. Of course, they don't.0 -
I met up with a few friends last night. Generally city types, all have jobs in the city or live in the city.Sean_F said:
If it wasn't UKIP (and SNP) disrupting the system, it would be someone else. The Conservative and Labour parties are shells of what they were 30 years ago in terms of membership and public support.Richard_Tyndall said:
Of course you think that. You agree with what Stodge has written because of bias confirmation and so think his post is 'brilliant'. The fact that it is also completely wrong does not even begin to cross your mind.audreyanne said:
What a brilliant post.
Having studied politics and lived a good few years I think this is the most astute post, and probably thread leader, on pb.com for quite some time.
There's a tendency for political fans to get excited and excitable about every latest trend, tantrum and twist. The reality is that GE2015 will change very little. As you rightly suggest, the Con-Lab duopoly will still be in place. In fact in terms of MPs it will be much stronger than GE2010.
It is wrong because the one thing it fails to address are real issues - the real reasons people vote for candidates. The current slide in the popularity of the main parties has come about because they have failed to address those issues - whether they are immigration and Europe, the environment or aspiring nationalism. This is why the 'also rans' are now starting to make real headway and it is also why they will not simply fade away as Stodge predicts and you so fervently hope.
I experienced one full-blown anti-UKIP rant when I told one old friend I thought UKIP would win R&S. He even said, "too many bloody stupid English people". I had to point out to him he was English himself. He voted Tory in 2010, very well-off and successful banker.
A 2nd friend (an elected Conservative councillor in London) gave me a more polite and succinct rant. She basically said, 'good riddance' and 'better off out [the party] than in'.
They weren't really interested in my arguments. Just angry, annoyed and/or dismissive.
0 -
In the end something will give. In the age of the internet, 24 hour TV, the social media and all the rest of it the elite cannot escape the consequences of its rapacious greed forever. There is nowhere to hide. People can see what they are doing and people have votes. Either big business and capital begin to understand that it is not in their own long-term interests to continue to manipulate taxation regimes and generate astronomical incomes while so many people's living standards are stagnating or falling, or solutions will be imposed on them. What we have now is not sustainable.SouthamObserver said:Not long ago I did post links to research done in the States and here that showed there was no correlation between CEOs pay and the performance of their corporations. The idea of needing world class leaders is a myth and a con. These corporate super heroes are just as likely to bankrupt a company as to make it grow and become more successful.
How we as a country can break free from this, I don't know. For the good of society I think we have to but then we also have to maintain the rule of law and the freedom for someone to pay what they think a person is worth.
The almost inevitable end to your thought process is a form of world government - and I doubt if the world is grown up enough for that.0 -
Not enough expenses etc in it for Murphy, he will stay where the trough is biggest. Add that it is a pig in a poke as they are going to get thrashed and there is no hope Murphy will take it unless he can do as a Westminster MP and keep his snout in the trough.SouthamObserver said:
Brown would want total control in Scotland. That is not going to happen. Jim Murphy more like. Whatever happens, though, the Labour party in Scotland only has a future if it becomes separate to the party in London.Paul_Mid_Beds said:
(re)Enter Gordon Brown methinksSouthamObserver said:
I agree. It looks like a very big development to me.antifrank said:Johann's Lamont resignation is potentially big. This is dynamite under Labour in Scotland and the union itself, confirming the SNP's whole narrative. It is dynamite under Ed Miliband, adding to concerns about his leadership.
If Labour did coups, this would be Betsygate. Of course, they don't.0 -
It depends on what the regulation is and how it is targeted. The patent system, for example, is a great equaliser, which is why so many big tech companies hate it. In the same way, planning and environmental legislation has a far greater impact on bigger, more established concerns than start-ups, as does anti-trust and competition legislation.anotherDave said:
Regulation raises the barriers to entry. It doesn't stop the established players, because they lobby the regulators, and shape the regulation.SouthamObserver said:
No, big business dislikes anything that gets in its way. The fewer barriers the better.anotherDave said:
Big Business like regulation. They can afford compliance, small businesses cannot.SouthamObserver said:
They believe in free trade, free movement of capital and a small state. All great for big business: fewer workers rights, less job security, less environmental and planning regulation, increased opportunity to move to cheaper locations abroad and so on.anotherDave said:
In what sense are UKIP pro-Big Business?Hugh said:
Immigration is not the problem. The real problem is the kind of economic policies espoused by UKIP - pro big business, anti-public service, anti-state, pro-rich.isam said:I see talk of bosses getting richer while the workers get poorer. The left wing measuring stick of inequality is the gap between richest and poorest, and it's getting bigger thanks to a Labour Party policy
Mass immigration of economic migrants makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. Until a politician wakes up, admits this and does what is necessary To tackle the problem, they are just putting a plaster on a broken leg
Eastern European plumbers and electricians work for less money, but that just means their employers profit margin increases.. The customer doesn't get a discount.
So things cost more, but people are paid less, or the same if they're lucky... Meanwhile the profits for the bosses are so much bigger than the fall in wages of the workers they help increase GDP and the pro mass immigration politicians use this to justify the policy
Obviously the result of the policy is the reason why the Labour Party was formed in the first place. That the Labour Party are it's staunchest defenders is why a lot of people feel betrayed and are voting for someone else.
Falsely scapegoating immigrants in a deliberate attempt to create a smokescreen over the failures of the Rightwing Establishment (of which UKIP is a part) will only get you so far.
0 -
We'll see. The only disappointing thing is that come May 8th you will be like the Scottish Indyref Yes tub-thumpers and vanish faster than Macavity cat.Richard_Tyndall said:
The current slide in the popularity of the main parties has come about because they have failed to address those issues - whether they are immigration and Europe, the environment or aspiring nationalism. This is why the 'also rans' are now starting to make real headway and it is also why they will not simply fade away as Stodge predicts and you so fervently hope.audreyanne said:
What a brilliant post.
Having studied politics and lived a good few years I think this is the most astute post, and probably thread leader, on pb.com for quite some time.
There's a tendency for political fans to get excited and excitable about every latest trend, tantrum and twist. The reality is that GE2015 will change very little. As you rightly suggest, the Con-Lab duopoly will still be in place. In fact in terms of MPs it will be much stronger than GE2010.
I've met people this past week who have been UKIP this year but won't be 'for the real thing' (their words).
p.s. The environment? Lol. Really that just says everything: you're just mid-term protesters casting around for anything or any cause to pin your colours to. Come the General Election, when politics gets serious, UKIP will slide and normal British politics will continue: Conservative vs Labour with the one who wins the centre winning power. End of.
0 -
Not enough money for him as per my other post, he will stick with the golden troughrottenborough said:
More likely Jim Murphy. Is the betting up yet?malcolmg said:
Ha Ha Ha , chances of him doing a days work are ZERO.Paul_Mid_Beds said:
(re)Enter Gordon Brown methinksSouthamObserver said:
I agree. It looks like a very big development to me.antifrank said:Johann's Lamont resignation is potentially big. This is dynamite under Labour in Scotland and the union itself, confirming the SNP's whole narrative. It is dynamite under Ed Miliband, adding to concerns about his leadership.
If Labour did coups, this would be Betsygate. Of course, they don't.0 -
The almost inevitable end to your thought process is a form of world government - and I doubt if the world is grown up enough for that.Financier said:
In the end something will give. In the age of the internet, 24 hour TV, the social media and all the rest of it the elite cannot escape the consequences of its rapacious greed forever. There is nowhere to hide. People can see what they are doing and people have votes. Either big business and capital begin to understand that it is not in their own long-term interests to continue to manipulate taxation regimes and generate astronomical incomes while so many people's living standards are stagnating or falling, or solutions will be imposed on them. What we have now is not sustainable.SouthamObserver said:Not long ago I did post links to research done in the States and here that showed there was no correlation between CEOs pay and the performance of their corporations. The idea of needing world class leaders is a myth and a con. These corporate super heroes are just as likely to bankrupt a company as to make it grow and become more successful.
How we as a country can break free from this, I don't know. For the good of society I think we have to but then we also have to maintain the rule of law and the freedom for someone to pay what they think a person is worth.
National governments can, and at some stage will, get together on dealing with tax loopholes. They can and will do the same with regards to individual wealth. The pressure from general populations will be just too great to ignore. Big business and capital can recognise this and do something about it now, or they can wait and have sub-optimal solutions imposed on them.
0 -
I agree, Mr Observer, but I think it is going to take a change in corporate governance that forces a new mindset on corporations and their senior leadership. Something more towards stewardship than management for short term share price. Ownership and rewards for capital will probably have to come into too.SouthamObserver said:
In the end something will give. In the age of the internet, 24 hour TV, the social media and all the rest of it the elite cannot escape the consequences of its rapacious greed forever. There is nowhere to hide. People can see what they are doing and people have votes. Either big business and capital begin to understand that it is not in their own long-term interests to continue to manipulate taxation regimes and generate astronomical incomes while so many people's living standards are stagnating or falling, or solutions will be imposed on them. What we have now is not sustainable.
I suspect that Mr. Charles, gent of this parish, and those like him will have some good ideas on how this can be fashioned if not accomplished.0 -
Devoid of any talent , how dire is it when anus is favourite, dear dear. Labour to have millionaire leader in Scottish sub region as well as Westminster. Those RED Tories are really pulling out the stops.Scott_P said:
@LadPolitics: Next Scottish Labour Leader Betting:rottenborough said:More likely Jim Murphy. Is the betting up yet?
2 Anas Sarwar
4 Kezia Dugdale
5 Gordon Brown
6 Jim Murphy
10 Neil Findlay
12 Drew Smith
12 D Alexander
Politically it has to be an MSP. They have to be able to shout at Nicola once a week until the election0 -
I included the environment and nationalism because my reply was encompassing the Greens and nationalist parties as well as UKIP. The point being that as Sean Fear points out the main parties are dying and politics is changing in Britain. You of course hate that but get used to it. Even if UKIP fails there will be someone else to replace them because Labour and the Tories are no longer trusted by large numbers of voters.audreyanne said:
We'll see. The only disappointing thing is that come May 8th you will be like the Scottish Indyref Yes tub-thumpers and vanish faster than Macavity cat.Richard_Tyndall said:
The current slide in the popularity of the main parties has come about because they have failed to address those issues - whether they are immigration and Europe, the environment or aspiring nationalism. This is why the 'also rans' are now starting to make real headway and it is also why they will not simply fade away as Stodge predicts and you so fervently hope.audreyanne said:
What a brilliant post.
Having studied politics and lived a good few years I think this is the most astute post, and probably thread leader, on pb.com for quite some time.
There's a tendency for political fans to get excited and excitable about every latest trend, tantrum and twist. The reality is that GE2015 will change very little. As you rightly suggest, the Con-Lab duopoly will still be in place. In fact in terms of MPs it will be much stronger than GE2010.
I've met people this past week who have been UKIP this year but won't be 'for the real thing' (their words).
p.s. The environment? Lol. Really that just says everything: you're just mid-term protesters casting around for anything or any cause to pin your colours to. Come the General Election, when politics gets serious, UKIP will slide and normal British politics will continue: Conservative vs Labour with the one who wins the centre winning power. End of.
I am really looking forward to people like you being horrified by the next GE. It will be one of the highlights of the election.0 -
LOL, they are bigger troughers and have bigger ego's than even Murphy, not a hope in hell of that.rottenborough said:
So, is there a timetable that would allow Gordon or wee Dougie to resign and become a MSP and stand for leadership?Scott_P said:
@LadPolitics: Next Scottish Labour Leader Betting:rottenborough said:More likely Jim Murphy. Is the betting up yet?
2 Anas Sarwar
4 Kezia Dugdale
5 Gordon Brown
6 Jim Murphy
10 Neil Findlay
12 Drew Smith
12 D Alexander
Politically it has to be an MSP. They have to be able to shout at Nicola once a week until the election0 -
The UKIP membership.anotherDave said:
Who were the electorate?Richard_Tyndall said:
Hamilton was also one of the four new members elected to the UKIP National Executive yesterday. In fact he topped the poll.anotherDave said:
Neil Hamilton has apparently applied to be UKIP candidate for Boston. The candidate could yet mess that one up.Pulpstar said:anotherDave said:While more than two thirds believe Farage’s party will pick up just two or fewer.
Bookie seat odds are currently at +/-5.5, and Boston and Clacton are absolute shoo-ins.anotherDave said:Just 5% of MPs think Ukip will pick up more than five seats
0 -
And it was interesting, thanks. But I would sound one note of caution: sometimes a brilliant CEO needs time to turn a ship around. Steve Jobs rejoined Apple in mid-1997. However consistent revenue growth only started around 2003, and the stellar growth in 2008.SouthamObserver said:Not long ago I did post links to research done in the States and here that showed there was no correlation between CEOs pay and the performance of their corporations. The idea of needing world class leaders is a myth and a con. These corporate super heroes are just as likely to bankrupt a company as to make it grow and become more successful.
How we as a country can break free from this, I don't know. For the good of society I think we have to but then we also have to maintain the rule of law and the freedom for someone to pay what they think a person is worth.
ISTR an article from around 2001 (when Apple had poor figures) saying that Jobs should go, and that only the cult of Steve was keeping him in position. The article was overwrought, but showed the alternative mistake of treating CEOs as if they are premier-league football managers and changing them regularly.
So that's the question: how long do you give a CEO to turn a ship around (or readjust it onto a new course as technology and society changes) before you decide he's a dud?
And if they need time, how can you tell beforehand whether they'll be successful or not over the required period of several years? I've never reached such lofty heights (and am quite content in that), but even from my position at the bottom of the dunghill, I can see that the role of a CEO of a large organisation is a multifaceted and fairly unique one that is hard to prepare for.
So how do we get the right CEOs? Promote from within?0 -
audreyanne,
"I've met people this past week who have been UKIP this year but won't be 'for the real thing' (their words)."
We'll see. But the actual casting of a vote for another party makes it easier and more natural to do it the next time. I used to vote Labour without a thought until at one council election I thought I'd give the LDs a chance. I then carried on voting for them at GEs.
At the Euros, I voted Ukip for the first time, and now the LDs look to be a busted flush (sorry, Mr Smithson). I may vote for them again at the GE, but having lost my electoral virginity again ... who knows?
0 -
Carnyx, how dire if Dugdale won, she is absolutely rubbish, far better Jackie Baillie who is super dire but at least can string a few lies together convincingly.Carnyx said:
And for a MP to run SLAB from London would be additionally disastrous, especially after Ms Lamont's complaints (thinks: why didn't she join the SNP years ago with comments like that?):Scott_P said:
@LadPolitics: Next Scottish Labour Leader Betting:rottenborough said:More likely Jim Murphy. Is the betting up yet?
2 Anas Sarwar
4 Kezia Dugdale
5 Gordon Brown
6 Jim Murphy
10 Neil Findlay
12 Drew Smith
12 D Alexander
Politically it has to be an MSP. They have to be able to shout at Nicola once a week until the election
"Ms Lamont also criticised party bosses in London for not allowing Scottish Labour more autonomy.
She accused some of her colleagues of trying to run the party in Scotland "like a branch office of London".
Ms Lamont believes some Labour MPs at Westminster are too concerned about their own interests and need to realise that the focus of Scottish politics is now Holyrood, not Westminster."
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/labour-in-turmoil-as-lamont-resigns.25688772
Note, BTW, that the speculation therein is Messrs Murphy and Brown MPs and Sarwar MSP in that order, the rest nowhere.
However, the betting schedule suggestion of Ms Dugdale is an interesting one and may have some traction given that women are I/c the SNP and Tories.0 -
Nah. I've heard this from people like you every mid-term all my life for decades. It's bollocks. Always has been, always will be. When it comes to proper grown-up politics at the General Election it will be Labour vs Conservative plus LibDem strongholds in England, SNP in Scotland and Unionists in NI. UKIP are a mid-term flash in the pan protest not a sea-change. This country is not, and never will be, extremist.Richard_Tyndall said:
I included the environment and nationalism because my reply was encompassing ... as Sean Fear points out the main parties are dying and politics is changing in Britain. You of course hate that but get used to it. Even if UKIP fails there will be someone else to replace them because Labour and the Tories are no longer trusted by large numbers of voters.audreyanne said:
We'll see. The only disappointing thing is that come May 8th you will be like the Scottish Indyref Yes tub-thumpers and vanish faster than Macavity cat.Richard_Tyndall said:
The current slide in the popularity of the main parties has come about because they have failed to address those issues - whether they are immigration and Europe, the environment or aspiring nationalism. This is why the 'also rans' are now starting to make real headway and it is also why they will not simply fade away as Stodge predicts and you so fervently hope.audreyanne said:
What a brilliant post.
Having studied politics and lived a good few years I think this is the most astute post, and probably thread leader, on pb.com for quite some time.
There's a tendency for political fans to get excited and excitable about every latest trend, tantrum and twist. The reality is that GE2015 will change very little. As you rightly suggest, the Con-Lab duopoly will still be in place. In fact in terms of MPs it will be much stronger than GE2010.
I've met people this past week who have been UKIP this year but won't be 'for the real thing' (their words).
p.s. The environment? Lol. Really that just says everything: you're just mid-term protesters casting around for anything or any cause to pin your colours to. Come the General Election, when politics gets serious, UKIP will slide and normal British politics will continue: Conservative vs Labour with the one who wins the centre winning power. End of.
I'm not saying that on May 8th it will be 'bye-bye UKIP' but they will be the right-wing equivalent of the Greens: a bunch of extremist losers whilst the rest of us get on with the grown-up job of running this rather wonderful country of ours.0 -
Great post Richard, agree 100%.Richard_Tyndall said:
I included the environment and nationalism because my reply was encompassing the Greens and nationalist parties as well as UKIP. The point being that as Sean Fear points out the main parties are dying and politics is changing in Britain. You of course hate that but get used to it. Even if UKIP fails there will be someone else to replace them because Labour and the Tories are no longer trusted by large numbers of voters.audreyanne said:
We'll see. The only disappointing thing is that come May 8th you will be like the Scottish Indyref Yes tub-thumpers and vanish faster than Macavity cat.Richard_Tyndall said:
The current slide in the popularity of the main parties has come about because they have failed to address those issues - whether they are immigration and Europe, the environment or aspiring nationalism. This is why the 'also rans' are now starting to make real headway and it is also why they will not simply fade away as Stodge predicts and you so fervently hope.audreyanne said:
What a brilliant post.
Having studied politics and lived a good few years I think this is the most astute post, and probably thread leader, on pb.com for quite some time.
There's a tendency for political fans to get excited and excitable about every latest trend, tantrum and twist. The reality is that GE2015 will change very little. As you rightly suggest, the Con-Lab duopoly will still be in place. In fact in terms of MPs it will be much stronger than GE2010.
I've met people this past week who have been UKIP this year but won't be 'for the real thing' (their words).
p.s. The environment? Lol. Really that just says everything: you're just mid-term protesters casting around for anything or any cause to pin your colours to. Come the General Election, when politics gets serious, UKIP will slide and normal British politics will continue: Conservative vs Labour with the one who wins the centre winning power. End of.
I am really looking forward to people like you being horrified by the next GE. It will be one of the highlights of the election.
The sheer arrogance of people like audreyanne is breathtaking, even six months out from the GE they fail to understand what is happening.0 -
Re Lamont,
Has Davidson voiced similar complaints? The Tories must have the same centralising tendency, although less to lose.0 -
HurstLlama said:
@Richard_Tyndal
" ... a significant number of the Somali immigrants who settled in Britain in the 50s did so after having served with great distinction in the British Navy in WW2."
I didn't know that. I'd like to read up on it. Do you have a source, please?
So that covers the third generation Somalis. Nothing on the rest.
Although I guess "Mo´s" gold medal or something will be trotted out at some point.0 -
The Guardian's report on Cameron's flounce said Cameron hinted later on a visit to R&S that he might be willing to pay a smaller sum.
The anger is, as Anitfrank put it, WWE anger.
Cameron is a europhile.0 -
Whenever this subject comes up - I'm reminded of the day when Robert Brace resigned as FD of BT back in the 90s. Our share value went up by £5bn and we were delighted to send him on his way!Charles said:
You'd enjoy reading Graef Crystal on this. He basically single-handedly created the "remuneration consultant" industry but about 5 years ago took a step back in horror when he realised what he had done.SouthamObserver said:
Meanwhile CEOs at big public companies now earn hundreds times more than their staff. For what? Believe me, that makes people furious too. It used to be 20 or 30 times more. What's changed? Well, productivity is down, we are exporting less and investing less in R&D and training. Best reward the men, for it is largely men, who have overseen this "triumph".TGOHF said:
When religions start losing touch with their followers they are in trouble.Financier said:
(n fact things are worse, for there have been instances when a hospital reduced services the very well paid chair and leaders of the relevant health board refused to attend a public meeting saying in effect it was nothing to do with the public.Plato said:The Mail is clearly very irked by Labour in Wales...
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2807297/Your-horror-stories-Labour-s-NHS-shambles-Mail-s-devastating-expose-Welsh-NHS-asked-readers-experiences-shocking-feared.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
Last days of the Raj at the top of the public sector.0 -
Audreyanne
Breathtaking arrogance and complacency. Simply breathtaking.0 -
It will take change - the issue is whether this is imposed or it is done voluntarily. I would certainly be interested in hearing what Charles has to say on this issue. I am the director of a company that is now eleven years old and my package is just over ten times greater than our lowest paid full-time employee. Our CEO - who I believe could run any big public company - probably gets about fifteen times more. Why proportions in this ball park would not work at bigger companies is beyond me.HurstLlama said:
I agree, Mr Observer, but I think it is going to take a change in corporate governance that forces a new mindset on corporations and their senior leadership. Something more towards stewardship than management for short term share price. Ownership and rewards for capital will probably have to come into too.SouthamObserver said:
In the end something will give. In the age of the internet, 24 hour TV, the social media and all the rest of it the elite cannot escape the consequences of its rapacious greed forever. There is nowhere to hide. People can see what they are doing and people have votes. Either big business and capital begin to understand that it is not in their own long-term interests to continue to manipulate taxation regimes and generate astronomical incomes while so many people's living standards are stagnating or falling, or solutions will be imposed on them. What we have now is not sustainable.
I suspect that Mr. Charles, gent of this parish, and those like him will have some good ideas on how this can be fashioned if not accomplished.0 -
Nah it's just pragmatism. Been here, done that, soooooooo many times. From Clegasms to the SDP I've heard it all before.taffys said:Audreyanne
Breathtaking arrogance and complacency. Simply breathtaking.
The only sad thing is that on May 8th the kipper-bangers on here will be gone so the amusement will have to be vicarious.
Right, I have some work to do.0 -
Can someone help please? Shadsy?
Is there any betting market (anywhere) that offers vote share "bands" to bet on for GE2015 next year?
What I'm after is bands like, say;
Labour: <25%, 25-27.5%, 27.5-30%, 30-32.5%, 32.5-35%, 35-37.5%, 37.5%+
UKIP: <10%, 10-12.5%, 12.5-15%, 15-17.5%, 17.5-20%, 20%+
Tories: <25%, 25-27.5%, 27.5-30%, 30-32.5%, 32.5-35%, 35-37.5%, 37.5%+
Etc. etc. At the moment it seems to be mainly UKIP/Lib Dem and Lib Dem/Green vote matchshare bets.0 -
Just seen a UKIP poster for the police commissioner election in South Yorkshire.
It's pretty strong stuff. 1400 reasons why you shouldn't trust labour and photo of young woman...0 -
Mo Farah's father was born in the UK. I am all for British citizens being able to bring their kids here from war torn, shit holes. What is your problem with it?Itajai said:HurstLlama said:@Richard_Tyndal
" ... a significant number of the Somali immigrants who settled in Britain in the 50s did so after having served with great distinction in the British Navy in WW2."
I didn't know that. I'd like to read up on it. Do you have a source, please?
So that covers the third generation Somalis. Nothing on the rest.
Although I guess "Mo´s" gold medal or something will be trotted out at some point.
0 -
audreyanne said:
Nah. I've heard this from people like you every mid-term all my life for decades. It's bollocks. Always has been, always will be. When it comes to proper grown-up politics at the General Election it will be Labour vs Conservative plus LibDem strongholds in England, SNP in Scotland and Unionists in NI. UKIP are a mid-term flash in the pan protest not a sea-change. This country is not, and never will be, extremist.Richard_Tyndall said:
I included the environment and nationalism because my reply was encompassing ... as Sean Fear points out the main parties are dying and politics is changing in Britain. You of course hate that but get used to it. Even if UKIP fails there will be someone else to replace them because Labour and the Tories are no longer trusted by large numbers of voters.audreyanne said:
We'll see. The only disappointing thing is that come May 8th you will be like the Scottish Indyref Yes tub-thumpers and vanish faster than Macavity cat.Richard_Tyndall said:
The current slide in the popularity of the main parties has come about because they have failed to address those issues - whether they are immigration and Europe, the environment or aspiring nationalism. This is why the 'also rans' are now starting to make real headway and it is also why they will not simply fade away as Stodge predicts and you so fervently hope.audreyanne said:
What a brilliant post.
Having studied politics and lived a good few years I think this is the most astute post, and probably thread leader, on pb.com for quite some time.
There's a tendency for political fans to get excited and excitable about every latest trend, tantrum and twist. The reality is that GE2015 will change very little. As you rightly suggest, the Con-Lab duopoly will still be in place. In fact in terms of MPs it will be much stronger than GE2010.
I've met people this past week who have been UKIP this year but won't be 'for the real thing' (their words).
p.s. The environment? Lol. Really that just says everything: you're just mid-term protesters casting around for anything or any cause to pin your colours to. Come the General Election, when politics gets serious, UKIP will slide and normal British politics will continue: Conservative vs Labour with the one who wins the centre winning power. End of.
I'm not saying that on May 8th it will be 'bye-bye UKIP' but they will be the right-wing equivalent of the Greens: a bunch of extremist losers whilst the rest of us get on with the grown-up job of running this rather wonderful country of ours.
Getting a bit worried about this. Must be the second time today I have agreed with AudreyAnne!
0 -
Troll Alert.audreyanne said:
Nah. I've heard this from people like you every mid-term all my life for decades. It's bollocks. Always has been, always will be. When it comes to proper grown-up politics at the General Election it will be Labour vs Conservative plus LibDem strongholds in England, SNP in Scotland and Unionists in NI. UKIP are a mid-term flash in the pan protest not a sea-change. This country is not, and never will be, extremist.Richard_Tyndall said:
I included the environment and nationalism because my reply was encompassing ... as Sean Fear points out the main parties are dying and politics is changing in Britain. You of course hate that but get used to it. Even if UKIP fails there will be someone else to replace them because Labour and the Tories are no longer trusted by large numbers of voters.audreyanne said:
We'll see. The only disappointing thing is that come May 8th you will be like the Scottish Indyref Yes tub-thumpers and vanish faster than Macavity cat.Richard_Tyndall said:
The current slide in the popularity of the main parties has come about because they have failed to address those issues - whether they are immigration and Europe, the environment or aspiring nationalism. This is why the 'also rans' are now starting to make real headway and it is also why they will not simply fade away as Stodge predicts and you so fervently hope.audreyanne said:
What a brilliant post.
Having studied politics and lived a good few years I think this is the most astute post, and probably thread leader, on pb.com for quite some time.
There's a tendency for political fans to get excited and excitable about every latest trend, tantrum and twist. The reality is that GE2015 will change very little. As you rightly suggest, the Con-Lab duopoly will still be in place. In fact in terms of MPs it will be much stronger than GE2010.
I've met people this past week who have been UKIP this year but won't be 'for the real thing' (their words).
p.s. The environment? Lol. Really that just says everything: you're just mid-term protesters casting around for anything or any cause to pin your colours to. Come the General Election, when politics gets serious, UKIP will slide and normal British politics will continue: Conservative vs Labour with the one who wins the centre winning power. End of.
I'm not saying that on May 8th it will be 'bye-bye UKIP' but they will be the right-wing equivalent of the Greens: a bunch of extremist losers whilst the rest of us get on with the grown-up job of running this rather wonderful country of ours.0 -
Given the Somali IQ level and related social dysfunction I would say it is safe to do so.Richard_Tyndall said:
Well a significant number of the Somali immigrants who settled in Britain in the 50s did so after having served with great distinction in the British Navy in WW2. To simply write off immigrants from certain countries making no distinction between the reasons for them coming here or their attitudes to Britain is just daft and undermines any reasonable argument about immigration.Itajai said:
How exactly has Somali immigration benefited Britain. Or Pakistani? Or Afghan?
Significant? I would consider 600 negligible. I also query with great distinction.0
