politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Harriet: I’m a fan but you got it wrong
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Harriet: I’m a fan but you got it wrong
I was proud to have been a member of Team Harman that won the deputy leadership of the Labour Party for Harriet in 2007. I admire her as a consistent campaigner for radical causes, championing feminism, equality and diversity in and out of government.
Comments
-
Still in the Egyptian river
"It would be a mistake, however, to see the 36.9% of the vote that gave the David Cameron his overall majority as a triumph for Tory values."0 -
One more push to the left, we just need clear red water ...
Its great to see Labour going ever backwards into turmoil in the same way as we did with IDS.0 -
@SkyNewsBreak: German parliament has voted to give Chancellor Angela Merkel's government a mandate to resume talks for a third IMF bailout for #Greece0
-
The Tories might be toxic, but they still received more votes than anybody else.Don Brind said:In fact, the programme set out in Osborne’s Budget is probably best seen as an attempt to do it fix the rather toxic Tory “brand”, revealed by a plethora of pre-election polling by Lord Ashcroft and YouGov.
Competence is key, toxicity isn't.0 -
Oh and as a voter if I'm a "selfish prick" for thinking that those on welfare should think about whether they can afford more children - in the same way as I ave to think about it with nobody picking up my bills if I don't ... then fine, I'm a "selfish prick".
Calling voters selfish pricks won't win many elections though.0 -
Oh for pity’s sake, get over it.0
-
Odd article, - quite a few bits poorly written. ironically and purely coincidentally by a Labour ex-employee of the BBC? Again not clear from the wording. Once again, Labour want the mantra of 'we don't oppose cuts' but we have yet to see an example of any measure they have ever voted for.0
-
“we need to accept this is largely what the electorate want … that makes a lot of the electorate a bunch of selfish pricks but that’s where we are.”
Jesus. Thinly veiled contempt for the electorate combined with bregrudging insincerity about the need to pretend to understand.
You can't pretend to have respect; it gets smelt out a mile away.
If that's where the supposedly insightful Labour members are at then the party will be in opposition for a very long time.0 -
Vox populi, vox dei. But first we need to work out what the populi was voxing.
I agree with Don Brind that Harriet Harman did not have the authority to make this concession as deputy leader and she would have been better opposing while explicitly acknowledging that the approach on such matters would be set by her successor. I suspect she took this step because she was alarmed at the trajectory of debate. As it is, her actions have backfired, restricting the freedom of manoeuvre for the next Labour leader to make concessions on welfare reform.0 -
orTheScreamingEagles said:
The Tories might be toxic, but they still received more votes than anybody else.Don Brind said:In fact, the programme set out in Osborne’s Budget is probably best seen as an attempt to do it fix the rather toxic Tory “brand”, revealed by a plethora of pre-election polling by Lord Ashcroft and YouGov.
Competence is key, toxicity isn't.
If the Tories are 'toxic', then what the hell are Labour?0 -
o/t Police in Northumbria are looking for a beach towel.
http://www.northumbria.police.uk/news_and_events/news/details.asp?id=1084270 -
I reckon the Tories got a fair few votes from would be Kippers scared off by the thought of a Miliband-SNP coalition.. Kippers chance of something big was scuppered by Labours disintegration in ScotlandTGOHF said:Still in the Egyptian river
"It would be a mistake, however, to see the 36.9% of the vote that gave the David Cameron his overall majority as a triumph for Tory values."
But really so what? The Conservatives got the votes, they got a majority, they won!
As they say in Cricket, look in the book!!0 -
A majority in Westminster is a triumph for Tory values. End of.
If Labour don't like that - they had 13 years to change it, so that Tory values could never prevail again. Of course, the price was Labour values never prevailing either - clearly not a price you thought worth paying...0 -
Otherwise this is a rinse and repeat article. Well done to Don for writing it. And sharing his thoughts.
But, oh boy, do Labour still not get it. It's in the Tory zone of 1997-2003, and hasn't even got to the Michael Howard stage yet.0 -
Frankly HH is better than any of the current candidates for Labour leadership.antifrank said:Vox populi, vox dei. But first we need to work out what the populi was voxing.
I agree with Don Brind that Harriet Harman did not have the authority to make this concession as deputy leader and she would have been better opposing while explicitly acknowledging that the approach on such matters would be set by her successor. I suspect she took this step because she was alarmed at the trajectory of debate. As it is, her actions have backfired, restricting the freedom of manoeuvre for the next Labour leader to make concessions on welfare reform.
0 -
"selfish pricks"
Well that's one way to alienate voters. And citing this quote just reinforces that Lefties have a moral superiority self-image issue.
I wish more on the Left took note of Peter Watt. He's a very sensible chap who doesn't presume all Tories have malign motives. http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/05/10/6080/"But there is an arrogance at the heart of our politics that is going to make it difficult to really understand why we lost. It is an arrogance that says that we alone own morality and that we alone want the best for people. It says that our instincts and our motives alone are pure. It’s an arrogance that belittles others’ fears and concerns as “isms” whilst raising ours as righteous. We then mistakenly define ourselves as being distinctive from our opponents because we are morally superior rather than because we have different diagnoses and solutions. It is lazy, wrong and politically dangerous..."
0 -
Harman one of the most useless Labour cabinet ministers from a long list of failures. She can at least carry the label sacked by Tony Blair.0
-
That polling suggested that the Labour “brand” was stronger – although, of course, the sales team proved to be much weaker.
What delusional cr*p, on several levels.0 -
"how to tackle the tricks and traps of the Chancellor George Osborne"
aka
"how to deal with reality"
PS your "forecasts" link goes to Google mail.
0 -
She must wondering herself why she didn't run to be honest.Cyclefree said:
Frankly HH is better than any of the current candidates for Labour leadership.antifrank said:Vox populi, vox dei. But first we need to work out what the populi was voxing.
I agree with Don Brind that Harriet Harman did not have the authority to make this concession as deputy leader and she would have been better opposing while explicitly acknowledging that the approach on such matters would be set by her successor. I suspect she took this step because she was alarmed at the trajectory of debate. As it is, her actions have backfired, restricting the freedom of manoeuvre for the next Labour leader to make concessions on welfare reform.0 -
What is selfish is expecting other people to pay for you, without making any effort either to cut your cloth according to your means or to earn more.Philip_Thompson said:Oh and as a voter if I'm a "selfish prick" for thinking that those on welfare should think about whether they can afford more children - in the same way as I ave to think about it with nobody picking up my bills if I don't ... then fine, I'm a "selfish prick".
Calling voters selfish pricks won't win many elections though.
So long as Labour think like Mark Thompson then they will deserve to lose. People are generous to those in need; they are less patient - and rightly so - with those who confuse "need" with "want" and who take the p*ss.
To her credit Harman showed some signs of understanding that and, as a result, came across as more grown up than the other candidates.0 -
I'd agree with that. She took a gamble they would follow, and they didn't, which looks pretty bad all round as they look divided (rather than merely having a debate about potential options) and have been restricted.antifrank said:Vox populi, vox dei. But first we need to work out what the populi was voxing.
I agree with Don Brind that Harriet Harman did not have the authority to make this concession as deputy leader and she would have been better opposing while explicitly acknowledging that the approach on such matters would be set by her successor. I suspect she took this step because she was alarmed at the trajectory of debate. As it is, her actions have backfired, restricting the freedom of manoeuvre for the next Labour leader to make concessions on welfare reform.
I do feel that the position of 'cannot oppose all the time' is a sensible one in theory, but Harman's problem, and that for a new leader, as this piece shows, is that everyone will have a different view on where it is ok to support the government position (or principle of their decision even if implemented wrong) where it is actually popular, and so in practice you get a lot more kneejerk opposition than you started out promising not to do.
Being without a spouse or children, I have plenty of spare time to spend with my loneliness, I mean TV. But I find plenty with both spouses and children seem to manage it - I think by binge watching entire series' in the few spare times they do have.Cyclefree said:OK - one question for you all. Where the hell do you find the time to watch all this TV?
By the time I've done my job, tried to be a mother, wife, done some gardening, walked the dog, tried to ensure house not a complete tip, seen friends, etc etc there is no more than about - at best - a few minutes to watch any TV at all. So how do you all do it?0 -
Just like EdM pretending to respect White Vans and England flags?
Yup.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vF3EnYb6HOQCasino_Royale said:“we need to accept this is largely what the electorate want … that makes a lot of the electorate a bunch of selfish pricks but that’s where we are.”
Jesus. Thinly veiled contempt for the electorate combined with bregrudging insincerity about the need to pretend to understand.
You can't pretend to have respect; it gets smelt out a mile away.
If that's where the supposedly insightful Labour members are at then the party will be in opposition for a very long time.0 -
I think she's getting credit and benefit of the doubt that only an acting leader can get, in the same way Vince Cable got credit in his capacity of acting leader of the Lib Dems that faded quickly afterwards and would not have lasted had he been permanent leader.rottenborough said:
She must wondering herself why she didn't run to be honest.Cyclefree said:
Frankly HH is better than any of the current candidates for Labour leadership.antifrank said:Vox populi, vox dei. But first we need to work out what the populi was voxing.
I agree with Don Brind that Harriet Harman did not have the authority to make this concession as deputy leader and she would have been better opposing while explicitly acknowledging that the approach on such matters would be set by her successor. I suspect she took this step because she was alarmed at the trajectory of debate. As it is, her actions have backfired, restricting the freedom of manoeuvre for the next Labour leader to make concessions on welfare reform.0 -
Harriet's position did look like a rather unsubtle attempt to move the battlefield onto Liz Kendall's favoured turf. I suspect it has done neither of them any good.antifrank said:Vox populi, vox dei. But first we need to work out what the populi was voxing.
I agree with Don Brind that Harriet Harman did not have the authority to make this concession as deputy leader and she would have been better opposing while explicitly acknowledging that the approach on such matters would be set by her successor. I suspect she took this step because she was alarmed at the trajectory of debate. As it is, her actions have backfired, restricting the freedom of manoeuvre for the next Labour leader to make concessions on welfare reform.
0 -
Well Mr Brind. Always useful to see that Labour's advisors want "one more push" and to "oppose welfare cuts" so that its the same old Labour and we get the same old Conservative win. Is this the new 29% strategy?
I am very happy for Labour to carry on as the party of welfare. Incidentally the hidden change that Mr Brind etc have not taken into account are the incentives to work more hours which the 16 hour minimums barely had. With the prospect of £9 an hour, jobs with more hours than the welfare minimum, will bring in enough cash to easily replace the headline cuts for those who want to work.
PS FWIW I am a long standing anti-Osborne chap.0 -
Interesting Don.
Far from being "radical", I would regard Harman's campaigns of say the last 20 years as reactionary throwbacks from a new generation of self-appointed moral Puritans who have tried to assume the right to take decisions that are properly our own, given her efforts to prevent people doing things that she doesn't approve of and censor things she doesn't like.
She and her fellow travellers have been engaged in a long-term strategy to infantilise us all.
I find that contemptible, and Harman poisonous.
Happy to argue the detail some day but perhaps you don't want this thread derailing :-).0 -
I completely agree - Hattie has many views I dislike and for a brief period in the 80s was my MP.
But she's a trooper and great media performer in the main.Cyclefree said:
Frankly HH is better than any of the current candidates for Labour leadership.antifrank said:Vox populi, vox dei. But first we need to work out what the populi was voxing.
I agree with Don Brind that Harriet Harman did not have the authority to make this concession as deputy leader and she would have been better opposing while explicitly acknowledging that the approach on such matters would be set by her successor. I suspect she took this step because she was alarmed at the trajectory of debate. As it is, her actions have backfired, restricting the freedom of manoeuvre for the next Labour leader to make concessions on welfare reform.0 -
Harriet read the analysis from Labour's analysts and decided that they needed to become percieved as a credible competent govt that required people on welfare to behave responsibly. Thankfully the gang of 4 have got sucked into an "I am Dave Spart" Leadership bidding war.MarqueeMark said:
Harriet's position did look like a rather unsubtle attempt to move the battlefield onto Liz Kendall's favoured turf. I suspect it has done neither of them any good.antifrank said:Vox populi, vox dei. But first we need to work out what the populi was voxing.
I agree with Don Brind that Harriet Harman did not have the authority to make this concession as deputy leader and she would have been better opposing while explicitly acknowledging that the approach on such matters would be set by her successor. I suspect she took this step because she was alarmed at the trajectory of debate. As it is, her actions have backfired, restricting the freedom of manoeuvre for the next Labour leader to make concessions on welfare reform.
0 -
Absolutely that was the disgrace of the old system, that 16 hours went for many people from "minimum" to perceived "maximum" hours that should be worked. There is a chicken and egg situation to having so many part time jobs, its not simply because employers won't offer more than 16 hours to people.TCPoliticalBetting said:Well Mr Brind. Always useful to see that Labour's advisors want "one more push" and to "oppose welfare cuts" so that its the same old Labour and we get the same old Conservative win. Is this the new 29% strategy?
I am very happy for Labour to carry on as the party of welfare. Incidentally the hidden change that Mr Brind etc have not taken into account are the incentives to work more hours which the 16 hour minimums barely had. With the prospect of £9 an hour, jobs with more hours than the welfare minimum, will bring in enough cash to easily replace the headline cuts for those who want to work.
PS FWIW I am a long standing anti-Osborne chap.0 -
BTW: fpt - you are very naughty! And will have to hide behind that sofa a bit longer.....MarqueeMark said:
Harriet's position did look like a rather unsubtle attempt to move the battlefield onto Liz Kendall's favoured turf. I suspect it has done neither of them any good.antifrank said:Vox populi, vox dei. But first we need to work out what the populi was voxing.
I agree with Don Brind that Harriet Harman did not have the authority to make this concession as deputy leader and she would have been better opposing while explicitly acknowledging that the approach on such matters would be set by her successor. I suspect she took this step because she was alarmed at the trajectory of debate. As it is, her actions have backfired, restricting the freedom of manoeuvre for the next Labour leader to make concessions on welfare reform.
0 -
The Nats were reckless about the effects of their Scottish strategy on public opinion in the rest of the UK, and when it became clear that it was damaging Mr Miliband’s chances in England, Ms Sturgeon did not change tack. The result is the House of Commons we have today.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4500555.ece
Late in April, a Survation opinion poll showed the cumulative effect of all this upon the mindset of the UK’s electorate. Asked about the prospect of a Labour minority government formed with the support of the SNP, the response was unequivocal. A whopping 45 per cent said they were “worried” and a further 12 per cent said they were “angry”. Only 16 per cent said they were “relaxed” and just 9 per cent were “excited”.
So much for Ms Sturgeon’s “progressive alliance”.0 -
This:
"Yes, Miliband failed to win the election. But he gave the Tories the fright of their life during the election campaign … credit where it’s due. Politics is about ideas as well as power."
is I think something the Tories will be happy to have them believe, as a narrative that will disarm Labour - rather like the narratives in the election that turned out to be useful smoke puffed by non-Tories into their own eyes.0 -
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4500555.eceScott_P said:The Nats were reckless about the effects of their Scottish strategy on public opinion in the rest of the UK, and when it became clear that it was damaging Mr Miliband’s chances in England, Ms Sturgeon did not change tack. The result is the House of Commons we have today.
Late in April, a Survation opinion poll showed the cumulative effect of all this upon the mindset of the UK’s electorate. Asked about the prospect of a Labour minority government formed with the support of the SNP, the response was unequivocal. A whopping 45 per cent said they were “worried” and a further 12 per cent said they were “angry”. Only 16 per cent said they were “relaxed” and just 9 per cent were “excited”.
So much for Ms Sturgeon’s “progressive alliance”.
Why should Sturgeon care. We all know - though the Nats won't admit - that Sturgeon would prefer a Tory government in the UK and SNP in Scotland. She got her perfect result.
The most the SNP could ever be in a "progressive alliance" is the Scottish Lib Dems-equivalent junior partner to Labour.0 -
I honestly think Hattie saw the electoral abyss opening up again and as Acting Leader tried to say Say-The-UnSayable and give the Party a shake.
But the tsunami of outrage was just too much for even her. And that's an awful lot. She's no shrinking violet.
I give her props for that.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Harriet read the analysis from Labour's analysts and decided that they needed to become percieved as a credible competent govt that required people on welfare to behave responsibly. Thankfully the gang of 4 have got sucked into an "I am Dave Spart" Leadership bidding war.MarqueeMark said:
Harriet's position did look like a rather unsubtle attempt to move the battlefield onto Liz Kendall's favoured turf. I suspect it has done neither of them any good.antifrank said:Vox populi, vox dei. But first we need to work out what the populi was voxing.
I agree with Don Brind that Harriet Harman did not have the authority to make this concession as deputy leader and she would have been better opposing while explicitly acknowledging that the approach on such matters would be set by her successor. I suspect she took this step because she was alarmed at the trajectory of debate. As it is, her actions have backfired, restricting the freedom of manoeuvre for the next Labour leader to make concessions on welfare reform.0 -
MattW said:
Interesting Don.
Far from being "radical", I would regard Harman's campaigns of say the last 20 years as reactionary throwbacks from a new generation of self-appointed moral Puritans who have tried to assume the right to take decisions that are properly our own, given her efforts to prevent people doing things that she doesn't approve of and censor things she doesn't like.
She and her fellow travellers have been engaged in a long-term strategy to infantilise us all.
I find that contemptible, and Harman poisonous.
Happy to argue the detail some day but perhaps you don't want this thread derailing :-).
Agreed. That she was able to manage it does, however, pay testament to what @Plato says - a true and proven media performer. Labour will be lesser for losing her in the short term, but if it leads to realisation that people do not like statist interference combined with attempts to buy off the needy with taxpayer's money, rather than actually solving issues, then her moving on will be a good thing.
0 -
Stopping the SNP running a Labour HMG was the ONLY issue I heard spontaneously mentioned as a reason for voting on May 7th.
It really took me by surprise, some voters seemed really rather alarmed and none of them looked like blue-rinse Tories down here in Eastbourne.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4500555.eceScott_P said:The Nats were reckless about the effects of their Scottish strategy on public opinion in the rest of the UK, and when it became clear that it was damaging Mr Miliband’s chances in England, Ms Sturgeon did not change tack. The result is the House of Commons we have today.
Late in April, a Survation opinion poll showed the cumulative effect of all this upon the mindset of the UK’s electorate. Asked about the prospect of a Labour minority government formed with the support of the SNP, the response was unequivocal. A whopping 45 per cent said they were “worried” and a further 12 per cent said they were “angry”. Only 16 per cent said they were “relaxed” and just 9 per cent were “excited”.
So much for Ms Sturgeon’s “progressive alliance”.
0 -
What I find totally bemusing about the Labour leadership is how Liz Kendall is probably still considerably to the left of electorate but is seen as an "evil right winger".
Being right of the Labour Party is still on the left of the country. Until Labour get a new Mandelson and Blair combo good luck in realising that!0 -
I'm not so sure that it was clear what would happen to welfare. Yes, the £12b cut was clear, but did working people understand that the cut would be their tax credit?0
-
The advent of the internet was a bad thing for the left-learning chattering classes - blogs in particular have provided ample opportunity to publish the sort of hand-wringing tripe, under the aegis of trusted news sources, that sub editors and editors would previously have laughed at....Plato said:I honestly think Hattie saw the electoral abyss opening up again and as Acting Leader tried to say Say-The-UnSayable and give the Party a shake.
But the tsunami of outrage was just too much for even her. And that's an awful lot. She's no shrinking violet.
I give her props for that.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Harriet read the analysis from Labour's analysts and decided that they needed to become percieved as a credible competent govt that required people on welfare to behave responsibly. Thankfully the gang of 4 have got sucked into an "I am Dave Spart" Leadership bidding war.MarqueeMark said:
Harriet's position did look like a rather unsubtle attempt to move the battlefield onto Liz Kendall's favoured turf. I suspect it has done neither of them any good.antifrank said:Vox populi, vox dei. But first we need to work out what the populi was voxing.
I agree with Don Brind that Harriet Harman did not have the authority to make this concession as deputy leader and she would have been better opposing while explicitly acknowledging that the approach on such matters would be set by her successor. I suspect she took this step because she was alarmed at the trajectory of debate. As it is, her actions have backfired, restricting the freedom of manoeuvre for the next Labour leader to make concessions on welfare reform.
0 -
There's an irony in that because it was Harriet Harman's feuding with Frank Field when he thought the unthinkable on welfare in the first year of Tony Blair's government that led to him resigning.Plato said:I honestly think Hattie saw the electoral abyss opening up again and as Acting Leader tried to say Say-The-UnSayable and give the Party a shake.
But the tsunami of outrage was just too much for even her. And that's an awful lot. She's no shrinking violet.
I give her props for that.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Harriet read the analysis from Labour's analysts and decided that they needed to become percieved as a credible competent govt that required people on welfare to behave responsibly. Thankfully the gang of 4 have got sucked into an "I am Dave Spart" Leadership bidding war.MarqueeMark said:
Harriet's position did look like a rather unsubtle attempt to move the battlefield onto Liz Kendall's favoured turf. I suspect it has done neither of them any good.antifrank said:Vox populi, vox dei. But first we need to work out what the populi was voxing.
I agree with Don Brind that Harriet Harman did not have the authority to make this concession as deputy leader and she would have been better opposing while explicitly acknowledging that the approach on such matters would be set by her successor. I suspect she took this step because she was alarmed at the trajectory of debate. As it is, her actions have backfired, restricting the freedom of manoeuvre for the next Labour leader to make concessions on welfare reform.0 -
Maybe, maybe not. But given that other large benefits were "protected" it was somewhat inevitable. What will make a difference is that come 2020 far fewer working people will be claiming tax credits than were in 2010 or 2015. Gordon Brown created a Byzantine mess of "earn some wages, we'll tax it, then give tax credits to you". Osborne is moving to a system of "earn and keep your wages".rottenborough said:I'm not so sure that it was clear what would happen to welfare. Yes, the £12b cut was clear, but did working people understand that the cut would be their tax credit?
People who used to earn tax credits but no longer do and fund themselves instead may not be as inclined to vote for increased welfare.0 -
It may be churlish to point out that at the BBC was Don Brind a Labour supporter and John Cole a chap who was on the left as evidenced by his deputy editorship of The Guardian and The Observer . Cole always identified with the Labour Party. (wikipedia).
Now where are all those deniers of BBC being stuffed full of lefties?0 -
This sounds like a Kafka-esque nightmare - being forced to pay for renovations to a house just before it is knocked down. Does anyone have any additional information to help make a little sense of the situation
http://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2015/jul/17/london-residents-pay-thousands-homes-town-down-cressingham-gardens0 -
Yes, a good point. Almost just deserts.antifrank said:
There's an irony in that because it was Harriet Harman's feuding with Frank Field when he thought the unthinkable on welfare in the first year of Tony Blair's government that led to him resigning.Plato said:I honestly think Hattie saw the electoral abyss opening up again and as Acting Leader tried to say Say-The-UnSayable and give the Party a shake.
But the tsunami of outrage was just too much for even her. And that's an awful lot. She's no shrinking violet.
I give her props for that.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Harriet read the analysis from Labour's analysts and decided that they needed to become percieved as a credible competent govt that required people on welfare to behave responsibly. Thankfully the gang of 4 have got sucked into an "I am Dave Spart" Leadership bidding war.MarqueeMark said:
Harriet's position did look like a rather unsubtle attempt to move the battlefield onto Liz Kendall's favoured turf. I suspect it has done neither of them any good.antifrank said:Vox populi, vox dei. But first we need to work out what the populi was voxing.
I agree with Don Brind that Harriet Harman did not have the authority to make this concession as deputy leader and she would have been better opposing while explicitly acknowledging that the approach on such matters would be set by her successor. I suspect she took this step because she was alarmed at the trajectory of debate. As it is, her actions have backfired, restricting the freedom of manoeuvre for the next Labour leader to make concessions on welfare reform.
0 -
You touch on a key point. The dearth of talent in the Labour party. Blair had a lot of politically able people around him. What did EdM have? What will the new Leader have?Philip_Thompson said:What I find totally bemusing about the Labour leadership is how Liz Kendall is probably still considerably to the left of electorate but is seen as an "evil right winger".
Being right of the Labour Party is still on the left of the country. Until Labour get a new Mandelson and Blair combo good luck in realising that!
Plato makes the point below that Hattie is ahead of many of the alternatives and IMHO she would be a 2nd or 3rd division person in Blair's time.
0 -
O/T
Twitter reporting that Jeremy Corbyn received two further nominations last night from Norwich North and Great Yarmouth CLP, taking Corbyn’s lead over leadership rival and favourite Andy Burnham by 57 votes to 52.
Not sure how this will play out in the election, but with the Unions also backing Corbyn, he must be in contention to win outright?
0 -
So just one more heave.
The electorate will finally come round to accepting that the unemployed should receive more money than the employed.
0 -
There is a risk that Corbyn may stand down before the election.SimonStClare said:O/T
Twitter reporting that Jeremy Corbyn received two further nominations last night from Norwich North and Great Yarmouth CLP, taking Corbyn’s lead over leadership rival and favourite Andy Burnham by 57 votes to 52.
Not sure how this will play out in the election, but with the Unions also backing Corbyn, he must be in contention to win outright?
0 -
"So it was with some surprise and sadness that I watched last weekend as she took up a position that seemed to me at odds with her own values by backing George Osborne’s plan to limit child tax credit to the first two children and a lower cap on total household benefit.It’s hard to see how the losers can be anyone other than working families."
I support CTC. The only question for me is "at what level?". CTC will continue, and all those in receipt of it are "winners", because they are receiving a subsidy. Since the subsidy will lower they are still "winners", just not as bigger "winners" as before.
The real "losers" are the people who have to pay the taxes to fund the subsidy.
The two child limit comes in in April 2017. Anyone with more than two children by that date will NOT be affected by the limit. This is so that the new limit will not hit families retrospectively.
The limit means that parents who want more than two children will have to take into consideration that they must pay for them themselves.
The limit is fair in my view because it still enables the poorest people to get a state-subsidy to enjoy a family life. If you do not support a limit then you are effectively saying that the state MUST subsidize the lifestyle choice of parents to have as many children as they like.0 -
You overlook all of the leftie "what ifs", what if the woman is raped after the 2nd child ......Disraeli said:"So it was with some surprise and sadness that I watched last weekend as she took up a position that seemed to me at odds with her own values by backing George Osborne’s plan to limit child tax credit to the first two children and a lower cap on total household benefit.It’s hard to see how the losers can be anyone other than working families."
I support CTC. The only question for me is "at what level?". CTC will continue, and all those in receipt of it are "winners", because they are receiving a subsidy. Since the subsidy will lower they are still "winners", just not as bigger "winners" as before.
The real "losers" are the people who have to pay the taxes to fund the subsidy.
The two child limit comes in in April 2017. Anyone with more than two children by that date will NOT be affected by the limit. This is so that the new limit will not hit families retrospectively.
The limit means that parents who want more than two children will have to take into consideration that they must pay for them themselves.
The limit is fair in my view because it still enables the poorest people to get a state-subsidy to enjoy a family life. If you do not support a limit then you are effectively saying that the state MUST subsidize the lifestyle choice of parents to have as many children as they like.
0 -
I wonder how much of this is Brown nobbling anyone who might want his job, and how much it is just a changing of the guard issue. Both parties are very light on talent, although Labour rather more so, there just isn't the weight of serious, thoughtful people in politics these days. That is what you get when your Prime Minister is the age that most people would have been thinking about entering politics after a useful life spent outside politics a generation ago. If you look at the cabinets of Thatcher or Callaghan they were positively dripping in talent compared to what we have today.TCPoliticalBetting said:
You touch on a key point. The dearth of talent in the Labour party. Blair had a lot of politically able people around him. What did EdM have? What will the new Leader have?Philip_Thompson said:What I find totally bemusing about the Labour leadership is how Liz Kendall is probably still considerably to the left of electorate but is seen as an "evil right winger".
Being right of the Labour Party is still on the left of the country. Until Labour get a new Mandelson and Blair combo good luck in realising that!
Plato makes the point below that Hattie is ahead of many of the alternatives and IMHO she would be a 2nd or 3rd division person in Blair's time.
0 -
I read that the psychology of Not Being On Welfare was pretty strong amongst those who currently receive tax credits - and that even if their pay packets largely stayed the same, no longer being on a form of handout was significant to their self-esteem.
I get that. it's the whole Means Test Reluctance thing coming into play.Philip_Thompson said:
Maybe, maybe not. But given that other large benefits were "protected" it was somewhat inevitable. What will make a difference is that come 2020 far fewer working people will be claiming tax credits than were in 2010 or 2015. Gordon Brown created a Byzantine mess of "earn some wages, we'll tax it, then give tax credits to you". Osborne is moving to a system of "earn and keep your wages".rottenborough said:I'm not so sure that it was clear what would happen to welfare. Yes, the £12b cut was clear, but did working people understand that the cut would be their tax credit?
People who used to earn tax credits but no longer do and fund themselves instead may not be as inclined to vote for increased welfare.0 -
I agree with "Brown nobbling anyone who might want his job". It killed off talent in SLAB and now in the English party.Indigo said:
I wonder how much of this is Brown nobbling anyone who might want his job, and how much it is just a changing of the guard issue. Both parties are very light on talent, although Labour rather more so, there just isn't the weight of serious, thoughtful people in politics these days. That is what you get when your Prime Minister is the age that most people would have been thinking about entering politics after a useful life spent outside politics a generation ago. If you look at the cabinets of Thatcher or Callaghan they were positively dripping in talent compared to what we have today.TCPoliticalBetting said:
You touch on a key point. The dearth of talent in the Labour party. Blair had a lot of politically able people around him. What did EdM have? What will the new Leader have?Philip_Thompson said:What I find totally bemusing about the Labour leadership is how Liz Kendall is probably still considerably to the left of electorate but is seen as an "evil right winger".
Being right of the Labour Party is still on the left of the country. Until Labour get a new Mandelson and Blair combo good luck in realising that!
Plato makes the point below that Hattie is ahead of many of the alternatives and IMHO she would be a 2nd or 3rd division person in Blair's time.
0 -
How many CLPs are still up for grabs? I'm assuming there's 650 of them!SimonStClare said:
O/T
Twitter reporting that Jeremy Corbyn received two further nominations last night from Norwich North and Great Yarmouth CLP, taking Corbyn’s lead over leadership rival and favourite Andy Burnham by 57 votes to 52.
Not sure how this will play out in the election, but with the Unions also backing Corbyn, he must be in contention to win outright?0 -
In its leader today, The Times describes Tim Farron as an "Illiberal Democrat" adding:
" Political parties have a responsibility to provide credible leaders. The Liberal Democrats have abandoned that responsibility. "
Ouch!0 -
Congratulations to the LibDems on electing someone even more Sixth-Formery than Ed Miliband!Plato said:Just like EdM pretending to respect White Vans and England flags?
Yup.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=vF3EnYb6HOQCasino_Royale said:“we need to accept this is largely what the electorate want … that makes a lot of the electorate a bunch of selfish pricks but that’s where we are.”
Jesus. Thinly veiled contempt for the electorate combined with bregrudging insincerity about the need to pretend to understand.
You can't pretend to have respect; it gets smelt out a mile away.
If that's where the supposedly insightful Labour members are at then the party will be in opposition for a very long time.0 -
Plato said:
How many CLPs are still up for grabs? I'm assuming there's 650 of them!
SimonStClare said:O/T
Twitter reporting that Jeremy Corbyn received two further nominations last night from Norwich North and Great Yarmouth CLP, taking Corbyn’s lead over leadership rival and favourite Andy Burnham by 57 votes to 52.
Not sure how this will play out in the election, but with the Unions also backing Corbyn, he must be in contention to win outright?
632? Unless there's a single CLP for NI, making 633?0 -
http://www.buzzfeed.com/emilyashton/mp-demands-jail-time-for-animal-poisoners-after-22-cats-kill#.lwvVWMq3P
Anyone seen tim with a bottle of antifreeze around?0 -
Bear in mind the hugely low number which must vote in these. I expect many in the South of England would get votes in only double figures.Plato said:How many CLPs are still up for grabs? I'm assuming there's 650 of them!
SimonStClare said:O/T
Twitter reporting that Jeremy Corbyn received two further nominations last night from Norwich North and Great Yarmouth CLP, taking Corbyn’s lead over leadership rival and favourite Andy Burnham by 57 votes to 52.
Not sure how this will play out in the election, but with the Unions also backing Corbyn, he must be in contention to win outright?
0 -
This is going to get messy
British pilots have carried out military air strikes on Syria for the first time, the Ministry of Defence has revealed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11745689/British-pilots-in-air-strikes-against-Isil-in-Syria-live.html
The UK personnel were embedded with the forces of Allied nations, including the USA and Canada, which have been conducting strikes against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) terror group - also known as Isis or Islamic State.
The House of Commons voted against military action in Syria in 2013 and parliamentary authorisation has so far been given only to UK air strikes against Isil in neighbouring Iraq.0 -
Sssht! We've been told by posters like SO that left-wing bias at the BBC doesn't exist.TCPoliticalBetting said:It may be churlish to point out that at the BBC was Don Brind a Labour supporter and John Cole a chap who was on the left as evidenced by his deputy editorship of The Guardian and The Observer . Cole always identified with the Labour Party. (wikipedia).
Now where are all those deniers of BBC being stuffed full of lefties?0 -
What also won't work for Labour is doing what they feel comfortable with until the final 9 months before the election, and then dumping it for a pragmatic platform. People won't hear or believe it.
They need to work and build confidence across the full five year lifecycle of this parliament.0 -
Slackbladder said:
Bear in mind the hugely low number which must vote in these. I expect many in the South of England would get votes in only double figures.Plato said:How many CLPs are still up for grabs? I'm assuming there's 650 of them!
SimonStClare said:O/T
Twitter reporting that Jeremy Corbyn received two further nominations last night from Norwich North and Great Yarmouth CLP, taking Corbyn’s lead over leadership rival and favourite Andy Burnham by 57 votes to 52.
Not sure how this will play out in the election, but with the Unions also backing Corbyn, he must be in contention to win outright?
The winners of the CLPs will be misleading because (a) there will be more activist members in CLPs rather than general membership, and (b) it is a constituency FPTP scheme - inaccurate when the real results will be from individual votes, biased toward the larger London base.
0 -
Osborne being brutal with the head of the FCA, I see.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/11746504/Coup-in-the-City-as-George-Osborne-ousts-UKs-top-financial-regulator-Martin-Wheatley.html
Schadenfreude now on the lips of a number of bankers and insurers........0 -
I see the old "Frenchgate" nonsense is being taken out for another stagger by the usual suspects.
Silly people :-).
Sturgeon and the SNP's attitude is entirely rational and entirely what they say it is/was.
They would have preferred to have had maximum influence at Westminster which a hung parliament would have conferred. That did not happen, so they will exploit the genuinely ridiculous situation of one Tory in effect outvoting 56 SNP members on matters affecting Scotland.
Do try and understand, usual suspects, it really isn't hard :-)0 -
Not to mention Andrew Neil that famous lefty.Casino_Royale said:
Sssht! We've been told by posters like SO that left-wing bias at the BBC doesn't exist.TCPoliticalBetting said:It may be churlish to point out that at the BBC was Don Brind a Labour supporter and John Cole a chap who was on the left as evidenced by his deputy editorship of The Guardian and The Observer . Cole always identified with the Labour Party. (wikipedia).
Now where are all those deniers of BBC being stuffed full of lefties?0 -
I'm talking my own book, but I think Yvette Cooper is too long in the Labour leadership market at present. She is very well-placed to pick up preferences.0
-
England need to keep Australia in.
The faster they're out, the more likely we are to lose the match ;p0 -
Sigh, lefties can always be relied on to wheel out Brillo to excuse the hundreds of Liberal elite lefties the BBC employs. Can you name 5 other right wingers ? 3 maybe ?Jonathan said:
Not to mention Andrew Neil that famous lefty.Casino_Royale said:
Sssht! We've been told by posters like SO that left-wing bias at the BBC doesn't exist.TCPoliticalBetting said:It may be churlish to point out that at the BBC was Don Brind a Labour supporter and John Cole a chap who was on the left as evidenced by his deputy editorship of The Guardian and The Observer . Cole always identified with the Labour Party. (wikipedia).
Now where are all those deniers of BBC being stuffed full of lefties?0 -
Craig Oliver
Michael Gove
Boris Johnson
All worked for the BBC0 -
Err, no. Its perfectly constitutional and not ridiculous at all.JPJ2 said:
They would have preferred to have had maximum influence at Westminster which a hung parliament would have conferred. That did not happen, so they will exploit the genuinely ridiculous situation of one Tory in effect outvoting 56 SNP members on matters affecting Scotland.
It's 331(*) Tory members in a UK parliament being able to outvote 56 SNP members on UK matters in Scotland. Devolved matters of course are under the jurisdiction of the Scottish Assembly.
(*) according to BBC figures, so it must be OK with lefties0 -
Except that polls consistently showed the public thought David Cameron was further from the centre than Ed Miliband.Philip_Thompson said:What I find totally bemusing about the Labour leadership is how Liz Kendall is probably still considerably to the left of electorate but is seen as an "evil right winger".
Being right of the Labour Party is still on the left of the country. Until Labour get a new Mandelson and Blair combo good luck in realising that!
The Tories fooled a quarter of the electorate, mostly the simple-minded, narrow-minded and easily frightened. They are still hated by the majority of the population, but got in by the vagaries of a completely undemocratic electoral system. Dont get ahead of yourself, as this hilarious hubris is going to result in a very unpleasant fall, probably sooner rather than later.
0 -
@Mr_Eugenides: Oh, to be a fly on the wall at the first Camp David summit between British Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn and President Trump.0
-
(Yes I'm aware UKIP and the Tories together got half the vote but 80% of UKIP voters want left wing economic policies, just less immigration)0
-
UKIP are a right-wing populist party.JWisemann said:(Yes I'm aware UKIP and the Tories together got half the vote but 80% of UKIP voters want left wing economic policies, just less immigration)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Independence_Party0 -
Tut tut.. everyone getting very exited over the BBC.. can't undertand it
Anyone know when we get the next splurge of data from New Horizons..0 -
Silly BBC count the Speaker as a Tory, even though Bercow stood as.... The Speaker!Disraeli said:
Err, no. Its perfectly constitutional and not ridiculous at all.JPJ2 said:
They would have preferred to have had maximum influence at Westminster which a hung parliament would have conferred. That did not happen, so they will exploit the genuinely ridiculous situation of one Tory in effect outvoting 56 SNP members on matters affecting Scotland.
It's 331(*) Tory members in a UK parliament being able to outvote 56 SNP members on UK matters in Scotland. Devolved matters of course are under the jurisdiction of the Scottish Assembly.
(*) according to BBC figures, so it must be OK with lefties0 -
The Tories aren't hated by a majority of the population outside Scotland. Disliked, distrusted, seen as too close to rich people, but at the same time, a long way ahead of the Opposition in terms of competence and leadership.JWisemann said:
Except that polls consistently showed the public thought David Cameron was further from the centre than Ed Miliband.Philip_Thompson said:What I find totally bemusing about the Labour leadership is how Liz Kendall is probably still considerably to the left of electorate but is seen as an "evil right winger".
Being right of the Labour Party is still on the left of the country. Until Labour get a new Mandelson and Blair combo good luck in realising that!
The Tories fooled a quarter of the electorate, mostly the simple-minded, narrow-minded and easily frightened. They are still hated by the majority of the population, but got in by the vagaries of a completely undemocratic electoral system. Dont get ahead of yourself, as this hilarious hubris is going to result in a very unpleasant fall, probably sooner rather than later.0 -
2019, Kuiper Belt object PT1SquareRoot said:Tut tut.. everyone getting very exited over the BBC.. can't undertand it
Anyone know when we get the next splurge of data from New Horizons..0 -
God.. that's a fairly poisonous comment.. .. and why your party wont get elected.. You should talk to your mates in the SNP, especially Alex who said he was writing the Labour budget. They did more to damage Labour , apart from the self inflicted stuff north of the border.JWisemann said:
Except that polls consistently showed the public thought David Cameron was further from the centre than Ed Miliband.Philip_Thompson said:What I find totally bemusing about the Labour leadership is how Liz Kendall is probably still considerably to the left of electorate but is seen as an "evil right winger".
Being right of the Labour Party is still on the left of the country. Until Labour get a new Mandelson and Blair combo good luck in realising that!
The Tories fooled a quarter of the electorate, mostly the simple-minded, narrow-minded and easily frightened. They are still hated by the majority of the population, but got in by the vagaries of a completely undemocratic electoral system. Dont get ahead of yourself, as this hilarious hubris is going to result in a very unpleasant fall, probably sooner rather than later.0 -
That's all true, but a lot of Tories seem to be forgetting that their win was only secured because some very reluctant people switched at the very last minute. That doesn't make their win any less "deserved", but nonetheless it is hardly a rock-solid support base which guarantees them wins for years to come.Sean_F said:
The Tories aren't hated by a majority of the population outside Scotland. Disliked, distrusted, seen as too close to rich people, but at the same time, a long way ahead of the Opposition in terms of competence and leadership.JWisemann said:
Except that polls consistently showed the public thought David Cameron was further from the centre than Ed Miliband.Philip_Thompson said:What I find totally bemusing about the Labour leadership is how Liz Kendall is probably still considerably to the left of electorate but is seen as an "evil right winger".
Being right of the Labour Party is still on the left of the country. Until Labour get a new Mandelson and Blair combo good luck in realising that!
The Tories fooled a quarter of the electorate, mostly the simple-minded, narrow-minded and easily frightened. They are still hated by the majority of the population, but got in by the vagaries of a completely undemocratic electoral system. Dont get ahead of yourself, as this hilarious hubris is going to result in a very unpleasant fall, probably sooner rather than later.
I honestly don't think many Tories (and to be fair quite a few Labourites) realise how relatively little it will take for some of those head-over-heart Tory voters to desert them.0 -
nooooo !!! the stuff its not sent down from Pluto and Sharon (yet)Sunil_Prasannan said:
2019, Kuiper Belt object PT1SquareRoot said:Tut tut.. everyone getting very exited over the BBC.. can't undertand it
Anyone know when we get the next splurge of data from New Horizons..0 -
Is 30% of the vote a rock-solid support base for Labour?Danny565 said:
That's all true, but a lot of Tories seem to be forgetting that their win was only secured because some very reluctant people switched at the very last minute. That doesn't make their win any less "deserved", but nonetheless it is hardly a rock-solid support base which guarantees them wins for years to come.Sean_F said:
The Tories aren't hated by a majority of the population outside Scotland. Disliked, distrusted, seen as too close to rich people, but at the same time, a long way ahead of the Opposition in terms of competence and leadership.JWisemann said:
Except that polls consistently showed the public thought David Cameron was further from the centre than Ed Miliband.Philip_Thompson said:What I find totally bemusing about the Labour leadership is how Liz Kendall is probably still considerably to the left of electorate but is seen as an "evil right winger".
Being right of the Labour Party is still on the left of the country. Until Labour get a new Mandelson and Blair combo good luck in realising that!
The Tories fooled a quarter of the electorate, mostly the simple-minded, narrow-minded and easily frightened. They are still hated by the majority of the population, but got in by the vagaries of a completely undemocratic electoral system. Dont get ahead of yourself, as this hilarious hubris is going to result in a very unpleasant fall, probably sooner rather than later.0 -
Sorry read your question as "next encounter"SquareRoot said:
nooooo !!! the stuff its not sent down from Pluto and Charon (yet)Sunil_Prasannan said:
2019, Kuiper Belt object PT1SquareRoot said:Tut tut.. everyone getting very exited over the BBC.. can't undertand it
Anyone know when we get the next splurge of data from New Horizons..
0 -
I think the post-election debate, after EdM went, has really brought home to Labour politicians the extent to which the argument was lost on the 'mess Labour got you into' immediately after 2010. They don't want to do the same again, but with half the shadow cabinet on the election trail there is no coherence or coordination to these efforts or even to agreeing what the Tory attack line actually is. Thus many of Labour's attacks are just the soundings of individuals. Fairly natural, really.Philip_Thompson said:
Gordon Brown created a Byzantine mess of "earn some wages, we'll tax it, then give tax credits to you". Osborne is moving to a system of "earn and keep your wages".
People who used to earn tax credits but no longer do and fund themselves instead may not be as inclined to vote for increased welfare.
Imho, the attack on the idea of circularity is where the Tories are most manouvering a position. It has a nice pub Faragian ring to it, and as if cutting welfare isn't populist enough making any circularity a bad thing very much limits how you can restructure welfare in a progressive way. It's obvious, isn't it, that administering a system to take tax off people then administering another system to give a hand out back to them is a bad thing, right?
Well, not necessarily, not always. The simple universal welfare benefits, child benefit, pensions &c are all circular - give to all, take the tax. What it can give you at it's best are two much simpler systems to administer than the alternative single system could ever be. What is more, circularity used well could be a strong mechanism by which you can 'make work pay'.
The Tories by switching focus to circularity itself being bad could end up taking their eye off the ball of that much, much more important 'making work pay' principle. The early Labour attacks on this were good, before the focus was lost, but the line of attack remains open.
As I've mentioned recently, I'm no fan of the complex tax credits structure that Brown set up, but it did make work pay for a good many people and Universal Credit took on a lot of that thought capital. But given the progress of UC, I can understand why IDS is under pressure within his own party from this alternative narrative. The fact that 'making work pay' does require generous enough tapering and therefore does cost money plus the fact that the UC structure is mired in implementation may make it seem all to difficult to the Treasury, who are wishing to cut their losses.
If enough of the PLP can just stay focussed enough on holding the government to account on 'making work pay', it will be enough - Labour can hold the line and hope a new leader who is not EdM can actually develop a proper line of attack against any narrative that has taken hold. Because the 'mess Labour got you into' was truly lost after the election of EdM, not before.0 -
No, but nobody is saying Labour are a shoo-in for the next election like many hubristic Tories are saying.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Is 30% of the vote a rock-solid support base for Labour?Danny565 said:
That's all true, but a lot of Tories seem to be forgetting that their win was only secured because some very reluctant people switched at the very last minute. That doesn't make their win any less "deserved", but nonetheless it is hardly a rock-solid support base which guarantees them wins for years to come.Sean_F said:
The Tories aren't hated by a majority of the population outside Scotland. Disliked, distrusted, seen as too close to rich people, but at the same time, a long way ahead of the Opposition in terms of competence and leadership.JWisemann said:
Except that polls consistently showed the public thought David Cameron was further from the centre than Ed Miliband.Philip_Thompson said:What I find totally bemusing about the Labour leadership is how Liz Kendall is probably still considerably to the left of electorate but is seen as an "evil right winger".
Being right of the Labour Party is still on the left of the country. Until Labour get a new Mandelson and Blair combo good luck in realising that!
The Tories fooled a quarter of the electorate, mostly the simple-minded, narrow-minded and easily frightened. They are still hated by the majority of the population, but got in by the vagaries of a completely undemocratic electoral system. Dont get ahead of yourself, as this hilarious hubris is going to result in a very unpleasant fall, probably sooner rather than later.0 -
Is it fair to say as long as the SNP dominate Scotland, there will be a Tory govt? Cant see anything else myselfSean_F said:
The Tories aren't hated by a majority of the population outside Scotland. Disliked, distrusted, seen as too close to rich people, but at the same time, a long way ahead of the Opposition in terms of competence and leadership.JWisemann said:
Except that polls consistently showed the public thought David Cameron was further from the centre than Ed Miliband.Philip_Thompson said:What I find totally bemusing about the Labour leadership is how Liz Kendall is probably still considerably to the left of electorate but is seen as an "evil right winger".
Being right of the Labour Party is still on the left of the country. Until Labour get a new Mandelson and Blair combo good luck in realising that!
The Tories fooled a quarter of the electorate, mostly the simple-minded, narrow-minded and easily frightened. They are still hated by the majority of the population, but got in by the vagaries of a completely undemocratic electoral system. Dont get ahead of yourself, as this hilarious hubris is going to result in a very unpleasant fall, probably sooner rather than later.0 -
I want to argue with some of these comments, but then I remember it is far better to let them continue to think these things.0
-
Can't see anyone saying that. What a lot of people are saying is that labour is in a mess right now, and that the 4 candidates are not very strong PM material.Danny565 said:
No, but nobody is saying Labour are a shoo-in for the next election like many hubristic Tories are saying.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Is 30% of the vote a rock-solid support base for Labour?Danny565 said:
That's all true, but a lot of Tories seem to be forgetting that their win was only secured because some very reluctant people switched at the very last minute. That doesn't make their win any less "deserved", but nonetheless it is hardly a rock-solid support base which guarantees them wins for years to come.Sean_F said:
The Tories aren't hated by a majority of the population outside Scotland. Disliked, distrusted, seen as too close to rich people, but at the same time, a long way ahead of the Opposition in terms of competence and leadership.JWisemann said:
Except that polls consistently showed the public thought David Cameron was further from the centre than Ed Miliband.Philip_Thompson said:What I find totally bemusing about the Labour leadership is how Liz Kendall is probably still considerably to the left of electorate but is seen as an "evil right winger".
Being right of the Labour Party is still on the left of the country. Until Labour get a new Mandelson and Blair combo good luck in realising that!
The Tories fooled a quarter of the electorate, mostly the simple-minded, narrow-minded and easily frightened. They are still hated by the majority of the population, but got in by the vagaries of a completely undemocratic electoral system. Dont get ahead of yourself, as this hilarious hubris is going to result in a very unpleasant fall, probably sooner rather than later.0 -
confirmation bias?Danny565 said:
That's all true, but a lot of Tories seem to be forgetting that their win was only secured because some very reluctant people switched at the very last minute. That doesn't make their win any less "deserved", but nonetheless it is hardly a rock-solid support base which guarantees them wins for years to come.Sean_F said:
The Tories aren't hated by a majority of the population outside Scotland. Disliked, distrusted, seen as too close to rich people, but at the same time, a long way ahead of the Opposition in terms of competence and leadership.JWisemann said:
Except that polls consistently showed the public thought David Cameron was further from the centre than Ed Miliband.Philip_Thompson said:What I find totally bemusing about the Labour leadership is how Liz Kendall is probably still considerably to the left of electorate but is seen as an "evil right winger".
Being right of the Labour Party is still on the left of the country. Until Labour get a new Mandelson and Blair combo good luck in realising that!
The Tories fooled a quarter of the electorate, mostly the simple-minded, narrow-minded and easily frightened. They are still hated by the majority of the population, but got in by the vagaries of a completely undemocratic electoral system. Dont get ahead of yourself, as this hilarious hubris is going to result in a very unpleasant fall, probably sooner rather than later.
I honestly don't think many Tories (and to be fair quite a few Labourites) realise how relatively little it will take for some of those head-over-heart Tory voters to desert them.0 -
Who says the Guardian doesn’t have a sense of humour?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/17/prince-philip-who-you-sponge-off#comments0 -
If Labour can get to 270 or so, they could form a government.isam said:
Is it fair to say as long as the SNP dominate Scotland, there will be a Tory govt? Cant see anything else myselfSean_F said:
The Tories aren't hated by a majority of the population outside Scotland. Disliked, distrusted, seen as too close to rich people, but at the same time, a long way ahead of the Opposition in terms of competence and leadership.JWisemann said:
Except that polls consistently showed the public thought David Cameron was further from the centre than Ed Miliband.Philip_Thompson said:What I find totally bemusing about the Labour leadership is how Liz Kendall is probably still considerably to the left of electorate but is seen as an "evil right winger".
Being right of the Labour Party is still on the left of the country. Until Labour get a new Mandelson and Blair combo good luck in realising that!
The Tories fooled a quarter of the electorate, mostly the simple-minded, narrow-minded and easily frightened. They are still hated by the majority of the population, but got in by the vagaries of a completely undemocratic electoral system. Dont get ahead of yourself, as this hilarious hubris is going to result in a very unpleasant fall, probably sooner rather than later.0 -
What's the point in posting something like that? Who do you think you're kidding?Jonathan said:
Not to mention Andrew Neil that famous lefty.Casino_Royale said:
Sssht! We've been told by posters like SO that left-wing bias at the BBC doesn't exist.TCPoliticalBetting said:It may be churlish to point out that at the BBC was Don Brind a Labour supporter and John Cole a chap who was on the left as evidenced by his deputy editorship of The Guardian and The Observer . Cole always identified with the Labour Party. (wikipedia).
Now where are all those deniers of BBC being stuffed full of lefties?
You think naming 2-3 Tory sympathisers ends the debate, and disproves any accusation of bias? Why should anyone be convinced by that?
There are hundreds, thousands, of BBC employees. The vast majority are urbane, metropolitan and left-wing in their views. Diversity and multiculturalism is their religion. The vast majority read the Guardian, and think like they do. It's endemic in their culture.
Yes, there are one or two breaths of fresh air like Andrew Neil, and John Humpfries. There are even those like Sissons, Buerk and Paxman who were consumate professionals but simply oozed impartiality.
That doesn't prove that the BBC doesn't have an institutional problem in understanding and accurately representing the nation. The problem is in governance, management, recruitment and operating culture - much of which is back scene.0 -
I think 25% is the upper limit if Corbyn is Leader...Sunil_Prasannan said:
Is 30% of the vote a rock-solid support base for Labour?Danny565 said:
That's all true, but a lot of Tories seem to be forgetting that their win was only secured because some very reluctant people switched at the very last minute. That doesn't make their win any less "deserved", but nonetheless it is hardly a rock-solid support base which guarantees them wins for years to come.Sean_F said:
The Tories aren't hated by a majority of the population outside Scotland. Disliked, distrusted, seen as too close to rich people, but at the same time, a long way ahead of the Opposition in terms of competence and leadership.JWisemann said:
Except that polls consistently showed the public thought David Cameron was further from the centre than Ed Miliband.Philip_Thompson said:What I find totally bemusing about the Labour leadership is how Liz Kendall is probably still considerably to the left of electorate but is seen as an "evil right winger".
Being right of the Labour Party is still on the left of the country. Until Labour get a new Mandelson and Blair combo good luck in realising that!
The Tories fooled a quarter of the electorate, mostly the simple-minded, narrow-minded and easily frightened. They are still hated by the majority of the population, but got in by the vagaries of a completely undemocratic electoral system. Dont get ahead of yourself, as this hilarious hubris is going to result in a very unpleasant fall, probably sooner rather than later.0 -
She has 3 choices: abortion, putting the child up for adoption or keeping it. Same as anyone else who finds themself pregnant unexpectedly.TCPoliticalBetting said:
You overlook all of the leftie "what ifs", what if the woman is raped after the 2nd child ......Disraeli said:"So it was with some surprise and sadness that I watched last weekend as she took up a position that seemed to me at odds with her own values by backing George Osborne’s plan to limit child tax credit to the first two children and a lower cap on total household benefit.It’s hard to see how the losers can be anyone other than working families."
I support CTC. The only question for me is "at what level?". CTC will continue, and all those in receipt of it are "winners", because they are receiving a subsidy. Since the subsidy will lower they are still "winners", just not as bigger "winners" as before.
The real "losers" are the people who have to pay the taxes to fund the subsidy.
The two child limit comes in in April 2017. Anyone with more than two children by that date will NOT be affected by the limit. This is so that the new limit will not hit families retrospectively.
The limit means that parents who want more than two children will have to take into consideration that they must pay for them themselves.
The limit is fair in my view because it still enables the poorest people to get a state-subsidy to enjoy a family life. If you do not support a limit then you are effectively saying that the state MUST subsidize the lifestyle choice of parents to have as many children as they like.
0 -
Wans't it mentioned on budget day that there would be exceptions for rape and multiple births?Cyclefree said:
She has 3 choices: abortion, putting the child up for adoption or keeping it. Same as anyone else who finds themself pregnant unexpectedly.TCPoliticalBetting said:
You overlook all of the leftie "what ifs", what if the woman is raped after the 2nd child ......Disraeli said:"So it was with some surprise and sadness that I watched last weekend as she took up a position that seemed to me at odds with her own values by backing George Osborne’s plan to limit child tax credit to the first two children and a lower cap on total household benefit.It’s hard to see how the losers can be anyone other than working families."
I support CTC. The only question for me is "at what level?". CTC will continue, and all those in receipt of it are "winners", because they are receiving a subsidy. Since the subsidy will lower they are still "winners", just not as bigger "winners" as before.
The real "losers" are the people who have to pay the taxes to fund the subsidy.
The two child limit comes in in April 2017. Anyone with more than two children by that date will NOT be affected by the limit. This is so that the new limit will not hit families retrospectively.
The limit means that parents who want more than two children will have to take into consideration that they must pay for them themselves.
The limit is fair in my view because it still enables the poorest people to get a state-subsidy to enjoy a family life. If you do not support a limit then you are effectively saying that the state MUST subsidize the lifestyle choice of parents to have as many children as they like.
0 -
Yes but I don't think enough English will vote for them if it means SNP coalition. So while the UK exists in its current form I reckon we will have a Tory PMSean_F said:
If Labour can get to 270 or so, they could form a government.isam said:
Is it fair to say as long as the SNP dominate Scotland, there will be a Tory govt? Cant see anything else myselfSean_F said:
The Tories aren't hated by a majority of the population outside Scotland. Disliked, distrusted, seen as too close to rich people, but at the same time, a long way ahead of the Opposition in terms of competence and leadership.JWisemann said:
Except that polls consistently showed the public thought David Cameron was further from the centre than Ed Miliband.Philip_Thompson said:What I find totally bemusing about the Labour leadership is how Liz Kendall is probably still considerably to the left of electorate but is seen as an "evil right winger".
Being right of the Labour Party is still on the left of the country. Until Labour get a new Mandelson and Blair combo good luck in realising that!
The Tories fooled a quarter of the electorate, mostly the simple-minded, narrow-minded and easily frightened. They are still hated by the majority of the population, but got in by the vagaries of a completely undemocratic electoral system. Dont get ahead of yourself, as this hilarious hubris is going to result in a very unpleasant fall, probably sooner rather than later.0 -
If she's a Tory voter - she can also BBQ it.Cyclefree said:
She has 3 choices: abortion, putting the child up for adoption or keeping it. Same as anyone else who finds themself pregnant unexpectedly.TCPoliticalBetting said:
You overlook all of the leftie "what ifs", what if the woman is raped after the 2nd child ......Disraeli said:"So it was with some surprise and sadness that I watched last weekend as she took up a position that seemed to me at odds with her own values by backing George Osborne’s plan to limit child tax credit to the first two children and a lower cap on total household benefit.It’s hard to see how the losers can be anyone other than working families."
I support CTC. The only question for me is "at what level?". CTC will continue, and all those in receipt of it are "winners", because they are receiving a subsidy. Since the subsidy will lower they are still "winners", just not as bigger "winners" as before.
The real "losers" are the people who have to pay the taxes to fund the subsidy.
The two child limit comes in in April 2017. Anyone with more than two children by that date will NOT be affected by the limit. This is so that the new limit will not hit families retrospectively.
The limit means that parents who want more than two children will have to take into consideration that they must pay for them themselves.
The limit is fair in my view because it still enables the poorest people to get a state-subsidy to enjoy a family life. If you do not support a limit then you are effectively saying that the state MUST subsidize the lifestyle choice of parents to have as many children as they like.0
