Skip to content

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Liz Kendall: The 2015 LAB version of what Ken Clarke was fo

SystemSystem Posts: 12,681
edited July 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Liz Kendall: The 2015 LAB version of what Ken Clarke was for the Tories 1997-2005?

As I was returning from holiday a couple of days ago the News Statesman’s, Stephen Bush posted the above Tweet which I’ve been pondering over ever since – for there might be a grain of truth in it.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 32,597
    The extremism of David Cameron:

    There is no way that Britain was unaware of Al Qaeda’s leading role in the insurgency they were supporting and arming. Last month, US courts ordered the declassification of documents issued by the Defence Intelligence Agency – widely distributed within the US at the time and almost certainly shared with the British government - which highlighted the leading role of Al Qaeda in the Syrian insurgency back in August 2012.

    The documents even predicted the rise of a “Salafist principality” stretching from Syria into Mosul and Ramadi in Iraq – predicting, in other words, not only the formation of Islamic State, but also the precise extent of its territorial conquests. It also noted that such a principality was “precisely what the supporting powers to the opposition want.” Yet, following this report, the British state greatly increased its support to the rebels. Since then, the British government has been implicated in the supply of 75 planeloads of heavy weaponry to the insurgents via Croatia, much of which has ended up in the hands of Al Qaeda. Britain later successfully lobbied the EU to end its arms embargo on Syrian rebels, and directly provided millions of pounds worth of military equipment as well as contributing to a joint British-US $30 million program to train the rebels in public relations. If anyone ever wondered where ISIS learnt their slick video production techniques, this program may provide part of the answer.

    It should be no surprise, then, that another terrorism trial collapsed last month when Bherlin Gildo’s lawyers pointed out that the groups he was fighting for in Syria were being armed and trained by British intelligence.http://rt.com/op-edge/271663-david-cameron-terrorism-islam/
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 9,339
    "She’s been dismissed by her opponents as the “Blairite” candidate – the one who wants to bring in Tory policies. Yet as a recent survey of CON councillors showed she is the one who is most highly rated by the party’s main opponents."

    Presumably they rate her most highly because she wants to bring in Tory policies. Funny use of the word "Yet".
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Kendall does not look the part at all - lacks gravitas and authority. Seems to be playing to the Blairite 'I am as nasty as the Tories' gallery. Those who support her might as well join the Tories.
  • Chris123Chris123 Posts: 174
    edited July 2015
    Luckyguy1983 said:

    The extremism of David Cameron:

    There is no way that Britain was unaware of Al Qaeda’s leading role in the insurgency they were supporting and arming. Last month, US courts ordered the declassification of documents issued by the Defence Intelligence Agency – widely distributed within the US at the time and almost certainly shared with the British government - which highlighted the leading role of Al Qaeda in the Syrian insurgency back in August 2012.

    The documents even predicted the rise of a “Salafist principality” stretching from Syria into Mosul and Ramadi in Iraq – predicting, in other words, not only the formation of Islamic State, but also the precise extent of its territorial conquests. It also noted that such a principality was “precisely what the supporting powers to the opposition want.” Yet, following this report, the British state greatly increased its support to the rebels. Since then, the British government has been implicated in the supply of 75 planeloads of heavy weaponry to the insurgents via Croatia, much of which has ended up in the hands of Al Qaeda. Britain later successfully lobbied the EU to end its arms embargo on Syrian rebels, and directly provided millions of pounds worth of military equipment as well as contributing to a joint British-US $30 million program to train the rebels in public relations. If anyone ever wondered where ISIS learnt their slick video production techniques, this program may provide part of the answer.

    It should be no surprise, then, that another terrorism trial collapsed last month when Bherlin Gildo’s lawyers pointed out that the groups he was fighting for in Syria were being armed and trained by British intelligence.http://rt.com/op-edge/271663-david-cameron-terrorism-islam/

    Absolutely. And he also contributed to the fiasco in Libya which has converted the country into a training ground and logistical base for terrorists. Cameron (together with Erdogan and others) has been a key sponsor and enabler of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. That's a fact.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Barnesian said:

    "She’s been dismissed by her opponents as the “Blairite” candidate – the one who wants to bring in Tory policies. Yet as a recent survey of CON councillors showed she is the one who is most highly rated by the party’s main opponents."

    Presumably they rate her most highly because she wants to bring in Tory policies. Funny use of the word "Yet".

    Absolutely correct.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,180
    justin124 said:

    Kendall does not look the part at all - lacks gravitas and authority. Seems to be playing to the Blairite 'I am as nasty as the Tories' gallery. Those who support her might as well join the Tories.

    I love the way the party which got 31% of the votes last time is happy to encourage even more of their supporters to go with the Tories for reasons of ideological purity. To quote Kinnock, 'you'll get your party back' all right - not sure about the voters though. It's really very funny.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,742
    Mike is good at highlighting the people who cut through the guff. That's exactly what is going on here. Kendall is extremely popular among (some) people who would never vote Labour anyway, which depending on the qualities of the candidate is either a blessing or a curse in these situations.
  • Chris123Chris123 Posts: 174
    Kendall is a political lightweight with the demeanor of a headmistress. She has Blair's ambition but lacks his charisma or communication skills. Electing her leader would fudge the boundaries between the Conservatives and Labour but would leave Labour severely exposed on the left to the SNP and on the right to UKIP's more folksy and relatable Nigel Farage. Labour would drain more votes with her at the helm than they would gain.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    edited July 2015
    Chris123 said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    The extremism of David Cameron:

    There is no way that Britain was unaware of Al Qaeda’s leading role in the insurgency they were supporting and arming. Last month, US courts ordered the declassification of documents issued by the Defence Intelligence Agency – widely distributed within the US at the time and almost certainly shared with the British government - which highlighted the leading role of Al Qaeda in the Syrian insurgency back in August 2012.

    The documents even predicted the rise of a “Salafist principality” stretching from Syria into Mosul and Ramadi in Iraq – predicting, in other words, not only the formation of Islamic State, but also the precise extent of its territorial conquests. It also noted that such a principality was “precisely what the supporting powers to the opposition want.” Yet, following this report, the British state greatly increased its support to the rebels. Since then, the British government has been implicated in the supply of 75 planeloads of heavy weaponry to the insurgents via Croatia, much of which has ended up in the hands of Al Qaeda. Britain later successfully lobbied the EU to end its arms embargo on Syrian rebels, and directly provided millions of pounds worth of military equipment as well as contributing to a joint British-US $30 million program to train the rebels in public relations. If anyone ever wondered where ISIS learnt their slick video production techniques, this program may provide part of the answer.

    It should be no surprise, then, that another terrorism trial collapsed last month when Bherlin Gildo’s lawyers pointed out that the groups he was fighting for in Syria were being armed and trained by British intelligence.http://rt.com/op-edge/271663-david-cameron-terrorism-islam/

    Absolutely. And he also contributed to the fiasco in Libya which has converted the country into a training ground and logistical base for terrorists. Cameron (together with Erdogan and others) has been a key sponsor and enabler of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. That's a fact.
    It's a fact only in your own mind.

    Meanwhile you very carefully ignore entirely the root cause of it all and the people ultimately responsible.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,258
    edited July 2015
    Very interesting post and one I agree with. Clarke was pro EU and pro Euro, pro Human Rights Act and socially liberal and on some issues like public service reform and Iraq even left of New Labour and closer to Kennedy's LDs. Liz Kendall is pro austerity, pro tax cuts for the rich and pro market involvement in public services and on some issues like increased defence spending even right of Cameron and Osborne and closer to UKIP.

    I agree that both would have had won floating voters but at risk of losing some of their core. Clarke would have lost Tory voters to UKIP for example, Kendall risks losing them to the Greens and turning off Scotland.

    It must also not be forgotten in 2001 Tory members voted for IDS over Clarke 60-40, even if Clarke had topped the first-round in 2005 rather than come last it is likely he would have lost the run-off to either Cameron or Davis. Indeed the link you give shows Davis still beating Clarke in a run-off, albeit by a narrow margin.

    At the end of the day the best leaders are those who win over floating voters while largely holding their core, Kendall and Clarke do the former but not the latter, the likes of Corbyn and Fox (or Ed Miliband and IDS) the latter but not the former. Cameron and Blair (at least until 2005) have been so successful because they did both
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,769
    Barnesian said:

    "She’s been dismissed by her opponents as the “Blairite” candidate – the one who wants to bring in Tory policies. Yet as a recent survey of CON councillors showed she is the one who is most highly rated by the party’s main opponents."

    Presumably they rate her most highly because she wants to bring in Tory policies. Funny use of the word "Yet".

    What are the specific policy differences? The ones I can dimly recall are fiscal prudence, not closing free schools and more contracting out etc in the NHS, but those are all things that the other main candidates would also do. It's not really clear what the value is in pretending they'd do something else: Admittedly more left-wing positions on these issues may poll well individually, but they do this at the cost of making Labour's overall branding problems worse.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,908
    edited July 2015
    Liz Looks Lovely :)


    (PB Alliteration of the Day?)
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    felix said:

    justin124 said:

    Kendall does not look the part at all - lacks gravitas and authority. Seems to be playing to the Blairite 'I am as nasty as the Tories' gallery. Those who support her might as well join the Tories.

    I love the way the party which got 31% of the votes last time is happy to encourage even more of their supporters to go with the Tories for reasons of ideological purity. To quote Kinnock, 'you'll get your party back' all right - not sure about the voters though. It's really very funny.
    Ideological purity hardly comes into it at all - Corbyn is the closest to offering that. I would suggest that had Burnham or Cooper been leader in May Labour would have managed 33% and we would not now have a majority Tory Government. Kendall offers very little that distinguishes her from the Tories - obviously well to the right of Macmillan- RA Butler - Macleod - Maudling - Heath.
  • Chris123Chris123 Posts: 174
    edited July 2015
    It's a fact only in your own mind.

    Meanwhile you very carefully ignore entirely the root cause of it all and the people ultimately responsible.
    I am not ignoring the root causes. He certainly didn't invent Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. But his actions (and those of others) contributed to exacerbating the problem. It is no coincidence that today the biggest sanctuaries and bases of militant Islamic fundamentalists are in Libya, Syria and Iraq.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    'Justin124 It was the removal of Clause 4 and the introduction of OMOV by John Smith and Tony Blair that helped make the party acceptable to middle class voters in a way it had not been before '

    Really? Lots of middle class voters supported Harold Wilson in 1964, 1966 and both 1974 elections. Getting rid of Clause 4 was largely symbolic and unlikely to have had much effect in 1997. John Smith would still have won very handsomely without that change.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    One major difference: Clarke had been in the Cabinet, responsible for Employment (?), Education, Health, and the Treasury. He was undoubtedly one of the leading politicians of his generation, if flawed in many ways.

    Liz Kendall hasn't and isn't. But she is flawed, I'll give you that ;)
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,891
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    FPT: Mr. Rabbit, cheers. First time in quite a while a hedged bet proved profitable where the original tip was red. Mildly surprised it was matched, but also irked Rosberg, who I think had the potential, didn't manage the pole.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited July 2015
    The comparison is a little unfair, Ken Clarke had proven himself to be a very competent man who has a likable persona, Liz Kendall has not proven to be competent (her rubbish campaign proves rather the opposite) and her character puts people off.
    They might support the same policies but they are very different people.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    I would rather have Kenneth Clarke as Labour leader than Liz Kendall.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,258
    EdinTokyo On issues like ending charitable status for private schools, lack of enthusiasm for free schools, more public ownership of railways etc all 3 of the other contendors have a different approach to Kendall. On issues like tax and spend Corbyn also has a completely different approach to her too
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    edited July 2015
    Purely looking at the photo, but the Labour candidates really are an uninspiring bunch aren't they? Grant that it's difficult in the circumstances, but none of them has the presence to own the stage.

    (And is it just me, but Andy Burnham looks remarkably like Tsipras in that photo!)

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11717428/Unite-and-GMB-join-forces-to-back-Jeremy-Corbyn-to-teach-party-a-lesson.html
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,258
    edited July 2015
    Justin124 A majority of the electorate was working class in the 60s, many union members and working in manufacturing or down the mines, by the 90s a majority were middle class and working in the service sector and non-union members
  • Chris123Chris123 Posts: 174
    edited July 2015
    Returning to Greece - I just read this on the Guardian live blog concerning Greece:

    "Greece faces more instability and could see a rise in political extremism, no matter what the outcome of Sunday’s referendum.

    That is the verdict of the Economist Intelligence Unit, which forecasts a victory for the no side."

    http://www.theguardian.com/business/blog/live/2015/jul/04/greek-debt-crisis-countdown-to-polling-day-live

    I'd love to know what the reasoning behind this forecast (victory for the no side) is. Does anyone have more information?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,258
    Charles said:

    Purely looking at the photo, but the Labour candidates really are an uninspiring bunch aren't they? Grant that it's difficult in the circumstances, but none of them has the presence to own the stage.

    (And is it just me, but Andy Burnham looks remarkably like Tsipras in that photo!)

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11717428/Unite-and-GMB-join-forces-to-back-Jeremy-Corbyn-to-teach-party-a-lesson.html

    Of course Tsipras won the Greek general election in January
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    edited July 2015
    Chris123 said:

    It's a fact only in your own mind.

    Meanwhile you very carefully ignore entirely the root cause of it all and the people ultimately responsible.
    I am not ignoring the root causes. He certainly didn't invent Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. But his actions (and those of others) contributed to exacerbating the problem. It is no coincidence that today the biggest sanctuaries and bases of militant Islamic fundamentalists are in Libya, Syria and Iraq.

    If only Messrs Hussein and Gadaffi were still in power eh? Such lovely people.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,891
    Mr. 123, could be a reference to the Golden Dawn, or whatever it's called [now I think of it, weren't they mentioned by Hans Gruber when he was dicking about the FBI in Die Hard?].
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited July 2015
    The IN campaign for the Euro-referendum is starting to suffer leaks from it's left:


    Ed Miliband ‏@Ed_Miliband 17m17 minutes ago
    Very troubling to see Eurozone actions over last week. Tsipras tactics very odd but bullying and denial of need for debt restructuring (1/2)

    Ed Miliband ‏@Ed_Miliband 11m11 minutes ago
    by eurozone flies in face of views of IMF, US administration, economics and democracy. (2/2)


    The IN coalition are lefties+LD+Cameron with lefties making about half of it, if the left turns hostile to the EU after it's treatment of Greece the IN coalition will lose it's biggest group of supporters.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,258
    justin124 said:

    I would rather have Kenneth Clarke as Labour leader than Liz Kendall.

    I would expect many Tories would rather have Kendall as their leader than Ken Clarke!
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Liz Looks Lovely :)


    (PB Alliteration of the Day?)

    No, although a contender for Alliteration of the Afternoon.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,538
    HYUFD said:

    Justin124 A majority of the electorate was working class in the 60s, many union members and working in manufacturing or down the mines, by the 90s a majority were middle class and working in the service sector and non-union members

    My view is that most voters are still working class, albeit manual jobs have fallen as a proportion of the whole. But, plenty of service sector jobs aren't really middle class jobs. IMO, the middle classes are no more than 30% of the population.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,891
    F1: putting together the pre-race piece now. Need to check the weather forecast, though.
  • frpenkridgefrpenkridge Posts: 670
    "Barbecue is an American tradition – of enslaved Africans and Native Americans".
    Guess which newspaper!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,258
    edited July 2015
    SeanF If you define the middle class as upper middle class ie university educated owner occupiers with professional or managerial roles then I agree, only 25-30% is middle class. If you include the lower middle class, ie those with a few GCSEs and A Levels, with a mortgage or renting privately if younger, working in admin, nurses and the police, small business owners etc, then the middle class comes to around 50-55% (that is how the US would define it)
  • Chris123Chris123 Posts: 174
    edited July 2015
    watford30 said:

    Chris123 said:

    It's a fact only in your own mind.

    Meanwhile you very carefully ignore entirely the root cause of it all and the people ultimately responsible.
    I am not ignoring the root causes. He certainly didn't invent Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. But his actions (and those of others) contributed to exacerbating the problem. It is no coincidence that today the biggest sanctuaries and bases of militant Islamic fundamentalists are in Libya, Syria and Iraq.
    If only Messrs Hussein and Gadaffi were still in power eh? Such lovely people.

    Of course not. But in solving one problem, we may be creating a host of new problems. As it says in Epidemics, Book I, of the Hippocratic school: "Practise two things in your dealings with disease: Either help or do not harm the patient." These ill-conceived interventions did more harm. Rather stay away and do no harm. But "if you break it, you buy it." Cameron (and others) contributed to the problem.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited July 2015
    Chris123 said:

    Returning to Greece - I just read this on the Guardian live blog concerning Greece:

    "Greece faces more instability and could see a rise in political extremism, no matter what the outcome of Sunday’s referendum.

    That is the verdict of the Economist Intelligence Unit, which forecasts a victory for the no side."

    http://www.theguardian.com/business/blog/live/2015/jul/04/greek-debt-crisis-countdown-to-polling-day-live

    I'd love to know what the reasoning behind this forecast (victory for the no side) is. Does anyone have more information?


    All the polls are close to within a +-1% margin for YES or NO, it could go either way.
    Looking at the scene of the battle YES has total command of all the media not a single journalist, TV, Radio station or popular newspaper supports NO, on the other hand NO has total domination of the ground war, I estimate 10000 NO activists in Athens alone while YES has none.

    NO has also the smell of revolt against a corrupt incompetent establishment, something that the YES camp with it's total dominance of the establishment actually aids the NO camp narrative.

    In fact the YES camp has cancelled the broadcast of the final of Copa America in Greece and replaced it with 24 hour news broadcasts supporting YES today on all TV and Radio stations.
    Football fans were not amused.

    So I think they base their forecast for a NO victory simply because the YES campaign has totally overdone it and is alienating and annoying people.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    BBQ'd natives!
    frpenkridge said:

    "Barbecue is an American tradition – of enslaved Africans and Native Americans".
    Guess which newspaper!

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,538
    edited July 2015
    HYUFD said:

    SeanF If you define the middle class as upper middle class ie university educated owner occupiers with professional or managerial roles then I agree, only 25-30% is middle class. If you include the lower middle class, ie those with a few GCSEs and A Levels, with a mortgage or renting privately if younger, working in admin, nurses and the police, small business owners etc, then the middle class comes to around 50-55% (that is how the US would define it)

    The US defines Middle Class as middle income. In the UK, middle class means moderately wealthy. In the UK, a household income of £60,000 pa puts you in the top 20%.

    Upper Middle class I'd put at no more than 5% or so of the population (household income of £100,000 +).
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,538
    frpenkridge said:

    "Barbecue is an American tradition – of enslaved Africans and Native Americans".
    Guess which newspaper!

    Barbecues originated with pirates.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,949
    edited July 2015
    I could never see what the supposed popularity of Kenneth Clarke MP was all about.

    As a minister I found him "fair to middling" at best. As Chancellor he did preside over a return to grown in the mid 90's but that had more to do with leaving the ERM than anything he did.

    Personality wise, I've always found him bumptious, arrogant and patronising.

    His EU obsession went a long way to help make the Tories unelectable from 97-05.

    He is disloyal, having undermined every Conservative leader from Hague to Cameron (he helped knife Maggie and would have undermined Major if he hadn't done what he was told by Clarke and the equally useless Heseltine)

    And on the Euro he has been, utterly, totally and embarrassingly wrong at every turn.

    Can't believe this idiot hasn't been pensioned off to The Lords to be honest...
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,908
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. 123, could be a reference to the Golden Dawn, or whatever it's called [now I think of it, weren't they mentioned by Hans Gruber when he was dicking about the FBI in Die Hard?].

    Mr Dancer, that was "Asian Dawn" from Sri Lanka.

    http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0001757/quotes

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,258
    edited July 2015
    SeanF Agree on US definition, Upper middle class really means moderately wealthy in the UK. Most pollsters and statisticians would include lawyers, MPs, financiers and accountants, doctors, teachers and academics, army officer and managers in the AB upper middle class, educated at private school or good comprehensive or grammar schools and university, so on that definition it comes to about 25%. Within that class of course is the wealthiest elite 1% or so, who comfortably earn 6 figure salaries, went to the likes of Eton and Harrow and Oxbridge and are barristers, work in the City, are ceos and company chairmen, government ministers etc and they comprise the upper class
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,880
    GIN1138 said:

    I could never see what the supposed popularity of Kenneth Clarke MP was all about.

    As a minister I found him "fair to middling" at best. As Chancellor he did preside over a return to grown in the mid 90's but that had more to do with leaving the ERM than anything he did.

    Personality wise, I've always found him bumptious, arrogant and patronising.

    His EU obsession went a long way to help make the Tories unelectable from 97-05.

    He is disloyal, having undermined every Conservative leader than Hague to Cameron.

    And on the Euro he has been, utterly, totally and embarrassingly wrong at every turn.

    Can't believe this idiot has been pensioned off to The Lords to be honest...

    Agree with all of that. I also wouldn't have put it past him as LotO from 1997 to have come to a stitch-up with Blair for us to have joined the Euro.
  • Chris123Chris123 Posts: 174
    edited July 2015
    Speedy said:

    Chris123 said:

    Returning to Greece - I just read this on the Guardian live blog concerning Greece:

    "Greece faces more instability and could see a rise in political extremism, no matter what the outcome of Sunday’s referendum.

    That is the verdict of the Economist Intelligence Unit, which forecasts a victory for the no side."

    http://www.theguardian.com/business/blog/live/2015/jul/04/greek-debt-crisis-countdown-to-polling-day-live

    I'd love to know what the reasoning behind this forecast (victory for the no side) is. Does anyone have more information?


    All the polls are close to within a +-1% margin for YES or NO, it could go either way.
    Looking at the scene of the battle YES has total command of all the media not a single journalist, TV, Radio station or popular newspaper supports NO, on the other hand NO has total domination of the ground war, I estimate 10000 NO activists in Athens alone while YES has none.

    NO has also the smell of revolt against a corrupt incompetent establishment, something that the YES camp with it's total dominance of the establishment actually aids the NO camp narrative.

    In fact the YES camp has cancelled the broadcast of the final of Copa America in Greece and replaced it with 24 hour news broadcasts supporting YES today on all TV and Radio stations.
    Football fans were not amused.

    So I think they base their forecast for a NO victory simply because the YES campaign has totally overdone it and is alienating and annoying people.
    I think you're on to something there. The New York Times ran a story in which they asserted: "The ads come close to suggesting that the apocalypse could be just around the corner if Greeks make the wrong choice in a referendum on Sunday." Interestingly, the article goes on to state: "Just who is financing the frightening yes ads is unclear, according to Christos Xanthakis, the media editor for Newpost.gr, a right-leaning news site, who said the major opposition parties, who all favor a yes vote, have no money."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/04/world/europe/alexis-tsipras-greece-debt-crisis-referendum.html

    Undecided Greek voters may indeed see through this ferocious, fear-mongering, propaganda and question whether they really want to be on the side of the old, incompetent, establishment that caused the crisis in the first place. This might be blowback by ordinary people who are revolted by this style of politics.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,258
    edited July 2015
    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    SeanF If you define the middle class as upper middle class ie university educated owner occupiers with professional or managerial roles then I agree, only 25-30% is middle class. If you include the lower middle class, ie those with a few GCSEs and A Levels, with a mortgage or renting privately if younger, working in admin, nurses and the police, small business owners etc, then the middle class comes to around 50-55% (that is how the US would define it)

    The US defines Middle Class as middle income. In the UK, middle class means moderately wealthy. In the UK, a household income of £60,000 pa puts you in the top 20%.

    Upper Middle class I'd put at no more than 5% or so of the population (household income of £100,000 +).
    Two married teachers would have a household income of £60,000, a headteacher of a large comprehensive married to a head of department would have a household income of £100,000+, you cannot really say the former is middle class the latter upper middle class
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,891
    Betting post

    Hard to think of anything, so more than ever do at your own risk, but I backed Maldonado and Grosjean (separately) not to be classified at 3.5 and 4.5 respectively.

    http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/united-kingdom-pre-race.html

    Hard to bet on because the top 6 seem clear, barring mishap, and the top two likewise. Lower points, though, seem wide open. Incidentally, it's unlikely to rain.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,891
    Dr. Prasannan, ah, my mistake. Close, though.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,180
    justin124 said:

    felix said:

    justin124 said:

    Kendall does not look the part at all - lacks gravitas and authority. Seems to be playing to the Blairite 'I am as nasty as the Tories' gallery. Those who support her might as well join the Tories.

    I love the way the party which got 31% of the votes last time is happy to encourage even more of their supporters to go with the Tories for reasons of ideological purity. To quote Kinnock, 'you'll get your party back' all right - not sure about the voters though. It's really very funny.
    Ideological purity hardly comes into it at all - Corbyn is the closest to offering that. I would suggest that had Burnham or Cooper been leader in May Labour would have managed 33% and we would not now have a majority Tory Government. Kendall offers very little that distinguishes her from the Tories - obviously well to the right of Macmillan- RA Butler - Macleod - Maudling - Heath.
    Ah - the we'd have won if only...analysis. comforting no doubt and completely useless.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,180
    Speedy said:

    The IN campaign for the Euro-referendum is starting to suffer leaks from it's left:


    Ed Miliband ‏@Ed_Miliband 17m17 minutes ago
    Very troubling to see Eurozone actions over last week. Tsipras tactics very odd but bullying and denial of need for debt restructuring (1/2)

    Ed Miliband ‏@Ed_Miliband 11m11 minutes ago
    by eurozone flies in face of views of IMF, US administration, economics and democracy. (2/2)


    The IN coalition are lefties+LD+Cameron with lefties making about half of it, if the left turns hostile to the EU after it's treatment of Greece the IN coalition will lose it's biggest group of supporters.

    Lol. Just what Tsipras and the no campaign needs -tweets of support from Ed M. That'll make all the difference. I presume Miliband wants the EU to give the Greeks a sideload of cash from the magic money tree.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,880
    edited July 2015
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Betting post

    Hard to think of anything, so more than ever do at your own risk, but I backed Maldonado and Grosjean (separately) not to be classified at 3.5 and 4.5 respectively.

    http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/united-kingdom-pre-race.html

    Hard to bet on because the top 6 seem clear, barring mishap, and the top two likewise. Lower points, though, seem wide open. Incidentally, it's unlikely to rain.

    Good afternoon Mr Dancer. Agree with you about the race order looking predictable, was thinking that maybe Vettel for the third place on the podium might be worth a small bet at long odds - but alas no-one was offering the long odds!
    Maldonado to crash is as good a bet as any - given the lack of rain forecast I'm in with you on that, although not on Grosjean.
    Wish I was there though, atmosphere looked great when Hamilton got the pole.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,258
    edited July 2015
    Sandpit said:

    GIN1138 said:

    I could never see what the supposed popularity of Kenneth Clarke MP was all about.

    As a minister I found him "fair to middling" at best. As Chancellor he did preside over a return to grown in the mid 90's but that had more to do with leaving the ERM than anything he did.

    Personality wise, I've always found him bumptious, arrogant and patronising.

    His EU obsession went a long way to help make the Tories unelectable from 97-05.

    He is disloyal, having undermined every Conservative leader than Hague to Cameron.

    And on the Euro he has been, utterly, totally and embarrassingly wrong at every turn.

    Can't believe this idiot has been pensioned off to The Lords to be honest...

    Agree with all of that. I also wouldn't have put it past him as LotO from 1997 to have come to a stitch-up with Blair for us to have joined the Euro.
    Interesting that on this thread so far most of the PBTories hate Clarke and most of the Labour supporters hate Kendall, perhaps they should transfer parties?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,891
    Mr. Felix, not sure I'd want a lesson in economics from a chap who proposed the backwards nonsense of a price freeze, shortly before prices declined.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,891
    Mr. Sandpit, indeed, 3 was on offer for all four Williams/Ferrari drivers to end up on the podium. Bit of a cop out.

    Most of Maldonado's retirements have been due to reliability rather than crashing.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,538
    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    SeanF If you define the middle class as upper middle class ie university educated owner occupiers with professional or managerial roles then I agree, only 25-30% is middle class. If you include the lower middle class, ie those with a few GCSEs and A Levels, with a mortgage or renting privately if younger, working in admin, nurses and the police, small business owners etc, then the middle class comes to around 50-55% (that is how the US would define it)

    The US defines Middle Class as middle income. In the UK, middle class means moderately wealthy. In the UK, a household income of £60,000 pa puts you in the top 20%.

    Upper Middle class I'd put at no more than 5% or so of the population (household income of £100,000 +).
    Two married teachers would have a household income of £60,000, a headteacher of a large comprehensive married to a head of department would have a household income of £100,000+, you cannot really say the former is middle class the latter upper middle class
    As it happens, I would define it that way. I'd say most teachers and university workers are lower middle class. I 'd say an army lieutenant, in terms of income, is lower middle class, a colonel is upper middle class, but many lieutenants come from rich or aristocratic families, and expect to become colonels, so it's pretty fluid.

    Class is a mix of income, status, education, power, and expectation. You recognise it when you see it, but it's hard to define.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,891
    Mr. F, I agree, it's not all about cash.
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Felix, not sure I'd want a lesson in economics from a chap who proposed the backwards nonsense of a price freeze, shortly before prices declined.

    Miilband should just Foxtrot Oscar to a US University, and spare us any more of his nonsense.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,258
    edited July 2015
    SeanF The way I would describe it most graduates from traditional universities are upper middle class as are those from comfortably above average incomes. You then have the upper class which includes the likes of those from rich or aristocratic families, top barristers, partners in city firms, celebrities, those on the boards of FTSE 100 and FTSE 250 companies, government ministers and those earning well into 6 figures and those educated at the poshest boarding schools and Oxbridge who comprise the real elite
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,891
    Mr. 30, he wants to do an IDS so Labour and, one day, the country can benefit from his unique and challenging perception of reality.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Golly, how very multicultural
    In March last year, Lloyds Bank put up instructions telling foreign staff how to use the loo, with details such as 'sit on the toilet - do not stand on it', and 'please flush it with your hand and not your foot'.

    With the help of diagrams, workers were shown how to open the door using their hand, and were requested not to leave toilet roll on the door handle.

    The instructions, put up in Lloyds Bank's Old Broad Street office in central London, gave full instructions of British etiquette in the lavatory, including 'The sinks are for washing your hands only - no using hand towels or toilet paper as a plug'.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3148808/How-use-toilet-signs-erected-Swiss-railway-Asian-tourists-don-t-use-properly.html#ixzz3ew8ZmnNf
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,538
    HYUFD said:

    SeanF The way I would describe it most graduates from traditional universities are upper middle class as are those from comfortably above average incomes. You then have the upper class which includes the likes of those from rich or aristocratic families, top barristers, partners in city firms, celebrities, those on the boards of FTSE 100 and FTSE 250 companies, government ministers and those earning well into 6 figures and those educated at the poshest boarding schools and Oxbridge who comprise the real elite

    The upper class aren't "the one percent". They're perhaps "5% of the 1%" ie c. 30,000 people. People whose ethical values, and outlook on life are so far removed from our own that they could come from Mars.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,538
    Plato said:

    Golly, how very multicultural

    In March last year, Lloyds Bank put up instructions telling foreign staff how to use the loo, with details such as 'sit on the toilet - do not stand on it', and 'please flush it with your hand and not your foot'.

    With the help of diagrams, workers were shown how to open the door using their hand, and were requested not to leave toilet roll on the door handle.

    The instructions, put up in Lloyds Bank's Old Broad Street office in central London, gave full instructions of British etiquette in the lavatory, including 'The sinks are for washing your hands only - no using hand towels or toilet paper as a plug'.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3148808/How-use-toilet-signs-erected-Swiss-railway-Asian-tourists-don-t-use-properly.html#ixzz3ew8ZmnNf
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
    Some people find it very hard to use a toilet correctly.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,258
    SeanF On that definition Russell Brand or Alan Sugar would be upper class but a mid ranking Earl with a few money problems would not
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,538
    HYUFD said:

    SeanF On that definition Russell Brand or Alan Sugar would be upper class but a mid ranking Earl with a few money problems would not

    In terms of income, yes. In other ways, definitely not.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,258
    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    SeanF On that definition Russell Brand or Alan Sugar would be upper class but a mid ranking Earl with a few money problems would not

    In terms of income, yes. In other ways, definitely not.
    Indeed, which is why I made the definition a bit broader
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    GIN1138 said:


    His EU obsession went a long way to help make the Tories unelectable from 97-05.

    The Cameron project still has some way to go if statements like that can still be made. Clarke may have been unapologetically pro-EU but given that the Tory campaign in 2001 was based on 'saving the Pound' you can hardly blame Clarke for their lack of electoral success.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,258
    williamglenn said:

    GIN1138 said:


    His EU obsession went a long way to help make the Tories unelectable from 97-05.

    The Cameron project still has some way to go if statements like that can still be made. Clarke may have been unapologetically pro-EU but given that the Tory campaign in 2001 was based on 'saving the Pound' you can hardly blame Clarke for their lack of electoral success.
    Indeed, Clarke could only look on as haplessly at Hague's 2001 campaign as Healey looked on haplessly at Foot's effort in 1983
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,538
    williamglenn said:

    GIN1138 said:


    His EU obsession went a long way to help make the Tories unelectable from 97-05.

    The Cameron project still has some way to go if statements like that can still be made. Clarke may have been unapologetically pro-EU but given that the Tory campaign in 2001 was based on 'saving the Pound' you can hardly blame Clarke for their lack of electoral success.
    Clarke is a fanatic about ending British self-government. It's for the Conservatives (which I no longer am) to decide if that's compatible with their philosophy.
  • ChrisGardinerChrisGardiner Posts: 1
    Ken Clarke was not chosen because he was getting old and perceived as a bit of a boozer. The Tories were smarting from the Tony Blair effect and David Cameron looked more like the younger smarter politician.
    David Cameron however was and is a salesman who is driven by his cabinet. He is highly skilled at making empty promises. "We are hear to help. We are on your side. I am pumped up and passionate... bla bla bla."
    Ken Clarke was much more sincere, though especially over the NHS wrong. Yes his stance on Europe made too many enemies in the Tory party. The deferred referendum was the smart way out.
  • Chris123Chris123 Posts: 174
    On a lighter note - here is Monthy Python on the Greek crisis:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur5fGSBsfq8

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,258
    ChrisGardiner said:

    Ken Clarke was not chosen because he was getting old and perceived as a bit of a boozer. The Tories were smarting from the Tony Blair effect and David Cameron looked more like the younger smarter politician.
    David Cameron however was and is a salesman who is driven by his cabinet. He is highly skilled at making empty promises. "We are hear to help. We are on your side. I am pumped up and passionate... bla bla bla."
    Ken Clarke was much more sincere, though especially over the NHS wrong. Yes his stance on Europe made too many enemies in the Tory party. The deferred referendum was the smart way out.

    Ken Clarke getting beaten by Cameron was not surprising, Ken Clarke getting beaten by Hague and especially IDS was a surprise on any objective measure
  • saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,245
    ChrisGardiner said:

    Ken Clarke was not chosen because he was getting old and perceived as a bit of a boozer. The Tories were smarting from the Tony Blair effect and David Cameron looked more like the younger smarter politician.
    David Cameron however was and is a salesman who is driven by his cabinet. He is highly skilled at making empty promises. "We are hear to help. We are on your side. I am pumped up and passionate... bla bla bla."
    Ken Clarke was much more sincere, though especially over the NHS wrong. Yes his stance on Europe made too many enemies in the Tory party. The deferred referendum was the smart way out.

    Yet Cameron is in his second term a PM, wierd eh?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,258
    edited July 2015
    Key Democratic fundraiser says it is likely Vice President Biden will throw his hat into the ring next month and challenge Hillary for the Democratic nomination next year. If he did this would make this the most packed and exciting presidential race since 1968
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/1/joe-biden-likely-to-join-2016-white-house-race-nex/
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    "Liz Kendall: The 2015 LAB version of what Ken Clarke was for the Tories 1997-2005?"

    I wonder if she smokes cigars and wears Hush Puppies?
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    I can imagine Ms Eagle doing so ...
    peter_from_putney said:

    "Liz Kendall: The 2015 LAB version of what Ken Clarke was for the Tories 1997-2005?"

    I wonder if she smokes cigars and wears Hush Puppies?

  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    If anyone is in a similar position to Kenneth Clarke it is Jeremy Corbyn,an experienced safe pair of hands on the tiller.Corbyn ,too,goes into the centre-ground of British politics on inequality,devolution and,most importantly public ownership.Corbyn offers far more of Ken Clarke than Liz Kendall will ever do.
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046
    WOS have commissioned a Panelbase poll, the first question is on the use of the web for getting information on politics:

    http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-third-voice/#more-72634

    Hopefully they will have asked a Holyrood 2016 voting intention question.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,258
    edited July 2015
    volcanopete said:

    If anyone is in a similar position to Kenneth Clarke it is Jeremy Corbyn,an experienced safe pair of hands on the tiller.Corbyn ,too,goes into the centre-ground of British politics on inequality,devolution and,most importantly public ownership.Corbyn offers far more of Ken Clarke than Liz Kendall will ever do.

    No, Corbyn is Michael Foot the sequel, unlike Clarke he has never even been a Minister let alone Chancellor. I would agree Dennis Healey is probably a closer match to Kenneth Clarke than Kendall though he has similarities with both

    Corbyn wants to increase spending even despite the deficit, something the electorate have just delivered their verdict on in the negative
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    Speedy said:

    The IN campaign for the Euro-referendum is starting to suffer leaks from it's left:

    Ed Miliband ‏@Ed_Miliband 17m17 minutes ago
    Very troubling to see Eurozone actions over last week.

    The ego has spotted another vehicle for political opportunism.

    Miliband at the head of the Out campaign? I wouldn't put it past him.
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    I've just watched a recording of this week's Question Time, a comedian, two journalists, Hunt and Corbyn. It really has lost any credibility as a serious political programme. That aside, labour can expect years in the wilderness if they somehow choose Corbyn, he reminds me of a leftie English teacher at my grammar school in the 70s. He even dresses like him.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Most Oxbridge graduates do not form part of the real elite. Many end up as schoolmasters and others as quite junior managers. I know of a 35 year old Cambridge English graduate who has spent the last 12 years as a Clerical Officer at the DWP.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,258
    edited July 2015
    justin124 said:

    Most Oxbridge graduates do not form part of the real elite. Many end up as schoolmasters and others as quite junior managers. I know of a 35 year old Cambridge English graduate who has spent the last 12 years as a Clerical Officer at the DWP.

    Of course not all Oxbridge graduates form the elite, but most of the traditional elite are Oxbridge graduates eg the judiciary, top barristers and partners in city firms, the PM and Cabinet, senior Civil Servants and many CEOs and Chairmen in the FTSE 100 (although now some of those are foreigners). Even several wealthy celebrities are Oxbridge graduates like Hugh Grant, Rachel Weisz, Hugh Lawrie (the most highly paid TV star in the world) or Oscar Winner Eddie Redmayne
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,908
    "Nai" means Yes in Greek
    "Ohi" (OK?) means No :)
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    Most Oxbridge graduates do not form part of the real elite. Many end up as schoolmasters and others as quite junior managers. I know of a 35 year old Cambridge English graduate who has spent the last 12 years as a Clerical Officer at the DWP.

    Of course not all Oxbridge graduates form the elite, but most of the traditional elite are Oxbridge graduates eg the judiciary, top barristers and partners in city firms, the PM and Cabinet, senior Civil Servants and many CEOs and Chairmen in the FTSE 100 (although now some of those are foreigners). Even several wealthy celebrities are Oxbridge graduates like Hugh Grant, Rachel Weisz, Hugh Lawrie (the most highly paid TV star in the world) or Oscar Winner Eddie Redmayne
    I'm not sure what your point is. Entry to Oxbridge necessitates intelligence that only a tiny % of the population possesses, it's natural that these bright people will go on to perform important roles.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,258
    blackburn63 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    Most Oxbridge graduates do not form part of the real elite. Many end up as schoolmasters and others as quite junior managers. I know of a 35 year old Cambridge English graduate who has spent the last 12 years as a Clerical Officer at the DWP.

    Of course not all Oxbridge graduates form the elite, but most of the traditional elite are Oxbridge graduates eg the judiciary, top barristers and partners in city firms, the PM and Cabinet, senior Civil Servants and many CEOs and Chairmen in the FTSE 100 (although now some of those are foreigners). Even several wealthy celebrities are Oxbridge graduates like Hugh Grant, Rachel Weisz, Hugh Lawrie (the most highly paid TV star in the world) or Oscar Winner Eddie Redmayne
    I'm not sure what your point is. Entry to Oxbridge necessitates intelligence that only a tiny % of the population possesses, it's natural that these bright people will go on to perform important roles.
    Indeed, but Justin124 was referring to an earlier discussion I was having with SeanF about what constitutes the upper class and upper middle class and in educational terms a top private school and Oxbridge background is often a key component alongside a salary well into 6 figures
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    justin124 said:

    Most Oxbridge graduates do not form part of the real elite. Many end up as schoolmasters and others as quite junior managers. I know of a 35 year old Cambridge English graduate who has spent the last 12 years as a Clerical Officer at the DWP.

    Thanks for that. A sample size of one is very helpful.
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    HYUFD said:

    blackburn63 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    Most Oxbridge graduates do not form part of the real elite. Many end up as schoolmasters and others as quite junior managers. I know of a 35 year old Cambridge English graduate who has spent the last 12 years as a Clerical Officer at the DWP.

    Of course not all Oxbridge graduates form the elite, but most of the traditional elite are Oxbridge graduates eg the judiciary, top barristers and partners in city firms, the PM and Cabinet, senior Civil Servants and many CEOs and Chairmen in the FTSE 100 (although now some of those are foreigners). Even several wealthy celebrities are Oxbridge graduates like Hugh Grant, Rachel Weisz, Hugh Lawrie (the most highly paid TV star in the world) or Oscar Winner Eddie Redmayne
    I'm not sure what your point is. Entry to Oxbridge necessitates intelligence that only a tiny % of the population possesses, it's natural that these bright people will go on to perform important roles.
    Indeed, but Justin124 was referring to an earlier discussion I was having with SeanF about what constitutes the upper class and upper middle class and in educational terms a top private school and Oxbridge background is often a key component alongside a salary well into 6 figures
    Class warrior nonsense. Two of the wealthiest blokes I know left secondary school with no qualifications, both are scaffolders.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,258
    edited July 2015
    blackburn63 said:

    HYUFD said:

    blackburn63 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    Most Oxbridge graduates do not form part of the real elite. Many end up as schoolmasters and others as quite junior managers. I know of a 35 year old Cambridge English graduate who has spent the last 12 years as a Clerical Officer at the DWP.

    Of course not all Oxbridge graduates form the elite, but most of the traditional elite are Oxbridge graduates eg the judiciary, top barristers and partners in city firms, the PM and Cabinet, senior Civil Servants and many CEOs and Chairmen in the FTSE 100 (although now some of those are foreigners). Even several wealthy celebrities are Oxbridge graduates like Hugh Grant, Rachel Weisz, Hugh Lawrie (the most highly paid TV star in the world) or Oscar Winner Eddie Redmayne
    I'm not sure what your point is. Entry to Oxbridge necessitates intelligence that only a tiny % of the population possesses, it's natural that these bright people will go on to perform important roles.
    Indeed, but Justin124 was referring to an earlier discussion I was having with SeanF about what constitutes the upper class and upper middle class and in educational terms a top private school and Oxbridge background is often a key component alongside a salary well into 6 figures
    Class warrior nonsense. Two of the wealthiest blokes I know left secondary school with no qualifications, both are scaffolders.

    What is class warrior nonsense about it? Of course the elite tends to be made up of the most educated who went to the best schools and universities, indeed more came from ordinary backgrounds when we had more grammar schools. You can pick exceptions to any rule but most people who left school without qualifications are not millionaires while 2/3 of billionaires are graduates compared to little more than a third of the population as a whole

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29786836
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,908
    BRITISH tennis maestro Andy Murray takes first set against Italy's Seppi 6-2.
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    HYUFD said:

    blackburn63 said:

    HYUFD said:

    blackburn63 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    Most Oxbridge graduates do not form part of the real elite. Many end up as schoolmasters and others as quite junior managers. I know of a 35 year old Cambridge English graduate who has spent the last 12 years as a Clerical Officer at the DWP.

    Of course not all Oxbridge graduates form the elite, but most of the traditional elite are Oxbridge graduates eg the judiciary, top barristers and partners in city firms, the PM and Cabinet, senior Civil Servants and many CEOs and Chairmen in the FTSE 100 (although now some of those are foreigners). Even several wealthy celebrities are Oxbridge graduates like Hugh Grant, Rachel Weisz, Hugh Lawrie (the most highly paid TV star in the world) or Oscar Winner Eddie Redmayne
    I'm not sure what your point is. Entry to Oxbridge necessitates intelligence that only a tiny % of the population possesses, it's natural that these bright people will go on to perform important roles.
    Indeed, but Justin124 was referring to an earlier discussion I was having with SeanF about what constitutes the upper class and upper middle class and in educational terms a top private school and Oxbridge background is often a key component alongside a salary well into 6 figures
    Class warrior nonsense. Two of the wealthiest blokes I know left secondary school with no qualifications, both are scaffolders.

    What is class warrior nonsense about it? Of course the elite tends to be made up of the most educated who went to the best schools and universities, indeed more came from ordinary backgrounds when we had more grammar schools. You can pick exceptions to any rule but most people who left school without qualifications are not millionaires while 2/3 of billionaires are graduates compared to little more than a third of the population as a whole

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29786836
    Yep, if you're clever you have an advantage over those who aren't. However if you're prepared to apply yourself rather than bleat about the elite you can still become wealthy, as two of my pals have. Plenty of people lead fulfilling lives without even being aware of what "the elite" is.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,376
    edited July 2015
    Seriously? Ken Clarke has held almost every post in government in a distinguished career including being one of our most successful Chancellors. What exactly has Liz Kendall done?

    She challenges her party by making references to the real world, the one in which the Tories got a majority. Stretching a point Clarke was the founding member of TSE's fiscally dry, socially liberal, lets not spend all our time banging on about the EU party which challenged the sad creatures in the Tories who thought being right about the EU was somehow more important than being in power and able to do anything about it (while Tony handed away half our rebate for no good reason).

    But to describe her as a Labour Clarke just shows how bare the cupboard is for Labour.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,908
    edited July 2015
    blackburn63 said:

    HYUFD said:

    blackburn63 said:

    HYUFD said:

    blackburn63 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    Most Oxbridge graduates do not form part of the real elite. Many end up as schoolmasters and others as quite junior managers. I know of a 35 year old Cambridge English graduate who has spent the last 12 years as a Clerical Officer at the DWP.

    Of course not all Oxbridge graduates form the elite, but most of the traditional elite are Oxbridge graduates eg the judiciary, top barristers and partners in city firms, the PM and Cabinet, senior Civil Servants and many CEOs and Chairmen in the FTSE 100 (although now some of those are foreigners). Even several wealthy celebrities are Oxbridge graduates like Hugh Grant, Rachel Weisz, Hugh Lawrie (the most highly paid TV star in the world) or Oscar Winner Eddie Redmayne
    I'm not sure what your point is. Entry to Oxbridge necessitates intelligence that only a tiny % of the population possesses, it's natural that these bright people will go on to perform important roles.
    Indeed, but Justin124 was referring to an earlier discussion I was having with SeanF about what constitutes the upper class and upper middle class and in educational terms a top private school and Oxbridge background is often a key component alongside a salary well into 6 figures
    Class warrior nonsense. Two of the wealthiest blokes I know left secondary school with no qualifications, both are scaffolders.

    What is class warrior nonsense about it? Of course the elite tends to be made up of the most educated who went to the best schools and universities, indeed more came from ordinary backgrounds when we had more grammar schools. You can pick exceptions to any rule but most people who left school without qualifications are not millionaires while 2/3 of billionaires are graduates compared to little more than a third of the population as a whole

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29786836
    Yep, if you're clever you have an advantage over those who aren't. However if you're prepared to apply yourself rather than bleat about the elite you can still become wealthy, as two of my pals have. Plenty of people lead fulfilling lives without even being aware of what "the elite" is.

    "People from my sort of background needed Grammar schools to compete with children from privileged homes like Shirley Williams and Anthony Wedgwood Benn."
    - M. H. Thatcher, speech to the Conservative Party Conference,1977
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,258
    edited July 2015


    Yep, if you're clever you have an advantage over those who aren't. However if you're prepared to apply yourself rather than bleat about the elite you can still become wealthy, as two of my pals have. Plenty of people lead fulfilling lives without even being aware of what "the elite" is.



    Well good for them. The discussion actually centred on whether we were now a middle class country or not, to which I contended we were with an elite class, as discussed, an upper middle class, comprising professionals and managers and a lower middle class comprising police officers, nurses, small businessmen and administrators now constituting 50-55% of the population. It had nothing whatsoever to do with 'bleating about the elite' other than as a tangent to the direction in which the discussion travelled discussing what constituted the 'elite' (please see earlier posts)
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    peter_from_putney said:

    "Liz Kendall: The 2015 LAB version of what Ken Clarke was for the Tories 1997-2005?"

    I wonder if she smokes cigars and wears Hush Puppies?

    Ms Kendall gave up smoking some years ago. While she does share Clarke's lack of interest in clothes (she often dresses as if going to a wedding minus a hat!), her preferred footwear is running shoes (she is a fairly keen runner) and prefers the Music of Black Origin of the noughties to the Thirties.

  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    blackburn63 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    Most Oxbridge graduates do not form part of the real elite. Many end up as schoolmasters and others as quite junior managers. I know of a 35 year old Cambridge English graduate who has spent the last 12 years as a Clerical Officer at the DWP.

    Of course not all Oxbridge graduates form the elite, but most of the traditional elite are Oxbridge graduates eg the judiciary, top barristers and partners in city firms, the PM and Cabinet, senior Civil Servants and many CEOs and Chairmen in the FTSE 100 (although now some of those are foreigners). Even several wealthy celebrities are Oxbridge graduates like Hugh Grant, Rachel Weisz, Hugh Lawrie (the most highly paid TV star in the world) or Oscar Winner Eddie Redmayne
    I'm not sure what your point is. Entry to Oxbridge necessitates intelligence that only a tiny % of the population possesses, it's natural that these bright people will go on to perform important roles.
    I don't think that necessarily follows. The people admitted to Oxbridge clearly show an aptitude for a particular subject . Somebody who gains entry to study Jurisprudence, History or PPE might well have fallen well short had they applied there to read English, Geography or Modern Languages. Strength in depth in relation to a specific discipline is surely the main factor.
    Pre-World War2 when only a small minority received a secondary education at all, to gain a'place' at Oxbridge - rather than a Scholarship or Exhibition - was far less of an academic accomplishment than it would be today in that 'places' - which greatly exceeded Scolarships & Exhibitions - were pretty well confined to the applicants from public schools simply because grammar school applicants lacked the means to finance themselves.There were far fewer people in the market effectively.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,258
    MyBurningEars said:

    volcanopete said:

    If anyone is in a similar position to Kenneth Clarke it is Jeremy Corbyn,an experienced safe pair of hands on the tiller.Corbyn ,too,goes into the centre-ground of British politics on inequality,devolution and,most importantly public ownership.Corbyn offers far more of Ken Clarke than Liz Kendall will ever do.

    My irony meter is shaky today, not sure if you are being serious.

    Ken Clarke was a political big-hitter with strong name recognition and who had held a series of positions with serious responsibility in government. He would have been, had the Tories been able to stomach them, their safest bet - particularly as he had more personal popularity than the party as a whole did.

    I'd contend that none of the Labour leadership candidates have the same qualities so the comparison in the thread header is obviously not exact: Cooper and Burnham have had a substantial amount of ministerial experience but they were not the "big hitters" in the Clarke mould, and I don't think any of them are significantly more popular with the public than the party as a whole is. The Kendall=Clarke comparison is premised on them being the candidates who supposedly would improve the electoral fate of the party, but that is only counterfactual hypotheticals rather than something there is hard evidence for. The Corby=Clarke comparison I can't see at all - both are a blast from the past? Both have a slightly "cuddly"/woolly image?
    Kendall has a favourable rating of +6% in the latest poll, Burnham +14%, Cooper -6%, Corbyn -15% so it is really a comparison of their ideological differences within that party than Kendall being so much more popular than other leadership candidates, though like Clarke she is more popular with the public than her party it seems
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,258
    DavidL said:

    Seriously? Ken Clarke has held almost every post in government in a distinguished career including being one of our most successful Chancellors. What exactly has Liz Kendall done?

    She challenges her party by making references to the real world, the one in which the Tories got a majority. Stretching a point Clarke was the founding member of TSE's fiscally dry, socially liberal, lets not spend all our time banging on about the EU party which challenged the sad creatures in the Tories who thought being right about the EU was somehow more important than being in power and able to do anything about it (while Tony handed away half our rebate for no good reason).

    But to describe her as a Labour Clarke just shows how bare the cupboard is for Labour.

    OGH was actually making the point that in ideological terms Kendall, like Clarke, are/were both seen as having policies to close to the governing party's for many of their party members to take. Personality and experience wise Clarke would be closer to Healey, who again had similar problems being seen as too 'moderate'
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited July 2015
    DavidL said:

    Seriously? Ken Clarke has held almost every post in government in a distinguished career including being one of our most successful Chancellors. What exactly has Liz Kendall done?

    Ans: not much – which is of course where the comparison falls down.

    Labour’s leadership challengers are, at best, a weak field, competing to distinguish themselves from each other. Jeremy Corbin is probably the only one who is what is actually written on the tin, imho.


  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,376
    HYUFD said:


    DavidL said:

    Seriously? Ken Clarke has held almost every post in government in a distinguished career including being one of our most successful Chancellors. What exactly has Liz Kendall done?

    She challenges her party by making references to the real world, the one in which the Tories got a majority. Stretching a point Clarke was the founding member of TSE's fiscally dry, socially liberal, lets not spend all our time banging on about the EU party which challenged the sad creatures in the Tories who thought being right about the EU was somehow more important than being in power and able to do anything about it (while Tony handed away half our rebate for no good reason).

    But to describe her as a Labour Clarke just shows how bare the cupboard is for Labour.

    OGH was actually making the point that in ideological terms Kendall, like Clarke, are/were both seen as having policies to close to the governing party's for many of their party members to take. Personality and experience wise Clarke would be closer to Healey, who again had similar problems being seen as too 'moderate'
    Healey is someone who I would fully accept is in the same bracket as Clarke. But there is more to being a "big beast" than a few vaguely provocative sound bites that make some of the narrow minded in the party wince. If Kendall holds a dozen serious positions over the next 20 years we can reconsider Mike's point.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,258
    justin124 said:

    blackburn63 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    Most Oxbridge graduates do not form part of the real elite. Many end up as schoolmasters and others as quite junior managers. I know of a 35 year old Cambridge English graduate who has spent the last 12 years as a Clerical Officer at the DWP.

    Of course not all Oxbridge graduates form the elite, but most of the traditional elite are Oxbridge graduates eg the judiciary, top barristers and partners in city firms, the PM and Cabinet, senior Civil Servants and many CEOs and Chairmen in the FTSE 100 (although now some of those are foreigners). Even several wealthy celebrities are Oxbridge graduates like Hugh Grant, Rachel Weisz, Hugh Lawrie (the most highly paid TV star in the world) or Oscar Winner Eddie Redmayne
    I'm not sure what your point is. Entry to Oxbridge necessitates intelligence that only a tiny % of the population possesses, it's natural that these bright people will go on to perform important roles.
    I don't think that necessarily follows. The people admitted to Oxbridge clearly show an aptitude for a particular subject . Somebody who gains entry to study Jurisprudence, History or PPE might well have fallen well short had they applied there to read English, Geography or Modern Languages. Strength in depth in relation to a specific discipline is surely the main factor.
    Pre-World War2 when only a small minority received a secondary education at all, to gain a'place' at Oxbridge - rather than a Scholarship or Exhibition - was far less of an academic accomplishment than it would be today in that 'places' - which greatly exceeded Scolarships & Exhibitions - were pretty well confined to the applicants from public schools simply because grammar school applicants lacked the means to finance themselves.There were far fewer people in the market effectively.
    True, but that applies to anybody applying for any subject at any UK university. Oxbridge has the highest A Level requirements of any UK university plus an interview so inevitably it tends to get the best students of each subject. Pre World WW2 apart from Oxbridge, Durham, London, a handful of redbricks in big cities like Bristol, Manchester and Liverpool, the Ancient Scottish Universities and Aberystwyth there were no other universities to choose from
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,968
    blackburn63 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    Most Oxbridge graduates do not form part of the real elite. Many end up as schoolmasters and others as quite junior managers. I know of a 35 year old Cambridge English graduate who has spent the last 12 years as a Clerical Officer at the DWP.

    Of course not all Oxbridge graduates form the elite, but most of the traditional elite are Oxbridge graduates eg the judiciary, top barristers and partners in city firms, the PM and Cabinet, senior Civil Servants and many CEOs and Chairmen in the FTSE 100 (although now some of those are foreigners). Even several wealthy celebrities are Oxbridge graduates like Hugh Grant, Rachel Weisz, Hugh Lawrie (the most highly paid TV star in the world) or Oscar Winner Eddie Redmayne
    I'm not sure what your point is. Entry to Oxbridge necessitates intelligence that only a tiny % of the population possesses, it's natural that these bright people will go on to perform important roles.
    LOL. cuckoo
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,258
    SimonStClare said:

    DavidL said:

    Seriously? Ken Clarke has held almost every post in government in a distinguished career including being one of our most successful Chancellors. What exactly has Liz Kendall done?

    Ans: not much – which is of course where the comparison falls down.

    Labour’s leadership challengers are, at best, a weak field, competing to distinguish themselves from each other. Jeremy Corbin is probably the only one who is what is actually written on the tin, imho.


    2/4 have been in the Cabinet, in 2005 only Clarke of the Tory leadership contendors had been a Cabinet Minister
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025