politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Cameron’s big speech – the first reactions
Comments
-
Yes - it was very good, if rather harrowing at times. Harvey Proctor having to read out the appalling allegations made against him was awful. Awful if true and even more awful if spurious.antifrank said:Wildly off topic, but last night's Panorama was television at its very finest. The BBC should be very proud of having made such an important documentary on such a difficult subject with such sensitivity and without ducking conclusions.
0 -
Not up yet.Cyclefree said:
Do you have a link to where I can see it, please? Thank you.TheScreamingEagles said:Cameron's best speech, even better than his 2007 speech.
He's not the heir to Blair, he's the heir to MacMillan and Disraeli.
Should be on the iplayer sometime today0 -
I'd see the right as wanting to halt progress, to hark back to former (imagined) glories; the left as seeing the role of the state and spending as being paramount; and the sensible centre as trusting the people.Casino_Royale said:
Sorry, that's exactly what right-wing means to me: trusting people (individuals, families, communities and nations) and facilitating them to help build strong responsible societies organically from the bottom up, rather than trying to refashion it according to ideological theory by dictat, regulation, tax and central control by the State from the top down.Charles said:
I'd disagree.Casino_Royale said:
But whether by accident or design, this speech by Cameron is politically very clever: he sets the mood music, and a lot of the centre-left are convinced it's a centre-left speech, but meanwhile his government/ministers get on with quite a bit of right-wing stuff. Only yesterday he was applauding May's tougher stance on immigration (and I'm sure it wasn't by accident that she said that rather than he) and this government's approach to free schools, welfare reform, defence, top-rate tax cuts, inheritance tax cuts, human rights reform, trade union reform and EVEL are certainly not left-wing.brokenwheel said:I'm confused. Now the tories are the new Labour, just as Cameron always wanted, why would a small c conservative vote for them any more? This is the same game Blair tried, and that worked out well for Labour in the end didn't it...
I agree with antifrank. This continues to be a right-wing government that sounds centrist. The very fact that Cameron can convince so many to the contrary is a testament to the success of his strategy.
It's a very Liberal government, not a right-wing one.
It's a government that believes in the people to do the right thing, in unleashing them from the dead hand of the state and permitting them to fulfill their potential.
That doesn't sound very right wing to me.
"Right-wing" is not code for arsehole.0 -
Ditto if people feel they have not had a pay rise, but actually seen their incomes go down.taffys said:There was a rather large hostage to fortune given in Cameron's speech on housing.
IF generation rent are STILL generation rent in four years time, things could get a bit awkward for the conservatives.
But with Corbyn leading Labour, it does not really matter. He has changed the equation in British politics as the government no longer has to worry about losing the next election.0 -
No need to wonder. What passes for labour these days are communally stupid.Pulpstar said:
?? He's continuity Blair/Cameron. Whats so massively right wing about him ? He's not instantly popular like say Boris is, but I can't get him being a 'right wing ideologue'.Danny565 said:Osborne comes across as the right-wing ideologue
0 -
From a good government point of view there has to be said for the main opposition taking some time out to entertain itself every now and again rather than forcing the government to worry about what the voters will think all the time.taffys said:''the government is going to have to build build build if it is going to have any credibility left in this area in 2020. ''
Even if they do, that may trample on very tory toes in the home counties and shires.0 -
True - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try and mitigate the effects on the poorest during the transition.Pulpstar said:
Tax credits are a £34 billion item per year that contributes massively to the deficit. The Gov'ts approach of replacing it with proper employer paid wages is entirely the right one.TOPPING said:gah, curse of the new thread. FPT:
It was a good speech, right for the moment, right for the current state of the opposition, and of course right for Cons supporters.
There is one hole which will probably not go away and I wish they would plug it - namely that there will be losers with tax credit reform.
Everyone including Cam himself and Gove just now on WatO skirts round the issue. I suppose it is not allowed in today's soundbite economy to tell it like it is - that the Cons want to rebalance the economy away from tax credits (for reasons well-rehearsed on here), and as a result, as things stand, and during the transition...some people will be worse off.
But it leaves the wound open and me as a Cons supporter uneasy. If there was a halfway decent opposition (rather than much more bat awayable media questioning), it would be a problem.0 -
Good government is hard work and hard choices. I still think this article from the NS linked to last week is the best political article this year: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2015/09/jeremy-corbyn-and-nirvana-fallacyFrankBooth said:
I'd agree with most of that. However I think it's many of Cameron's media admirers who are in dreamland also and could do with reading your post for a dose of reality.DavidL said:What I have found a bit startling about this Conference is the number of new ideas and initiatives, frankly a lot more than we saw in the election campaign itself. The overall image is of a party fizzing with ideas and keen to address many underlying and neglected issues in this country.
Of course many of these problems have been neglected by politicians of all stripes because they are very difficult. Where are these 200K homes going to be built? What do we do about racism in employment? Will Gove's ideas actually work? How do we stop large scale immigration without taking away the right of UK citizens to marry who they choose? Are we really going to send thousands of failed asylum seekers back to very dodgy regimes like Iran on the basis that they are nicer now? Will the northern powerhouse deliver any more than Heseltine's failed attempts to revive Liverpool? How do we balance the campaign against extremism and freedom of speech? Is there not a risk that the reforms of LG spending will doom poorer areas to a cycle of despair and abandonment? Who will provide the specialist services for children with additional needs such as speech therapy when LEAs no longer exist?
So many questions and inevitably some disappointments and failures down the line. But, ultimately, a party engaging with the world how it is unlike the dreamland that Labour have gone to.
The contrast between those who want to make things better by making hard choices and those who simply deal in ideals without means or specifics could not have been clearer than it has been over these last 2 weeks. Labour are in a very dark place.0 -
Except on Twitter, which will remain a predominately lefty cesspit.Plato_Says said:I think he's moved the Overton window to the Tories myself. Now it's fine to be a Tory.
0 -
Slight amendmentCasino_Royale said:
I do find it interesting that the centre-left now define themselves by whether or not you care about racism and sexism in precisely the same way that they do, and that the opposite of that is right-wing who they believe by definition do not.Plato_Says said:@Freedland
Cameron striking liberal tone on prisons and now on racism and sexism. Tories don't just want to own centre ground, but the centre left too0 -
Anybody who is capable of providing a good education should be entitled to provide it, be they religious or irreligious.Beverley_C said:
Good. A small step in the right direction.Plato_Says said:Press Association.
Downing Street said that the new inspection regime would apply to an estimated 5,000 religious institutions offering eight or more hours of study a week to children in England, including Christian Sunday schools and Jewish yeshivas as well as up to 2,000 madrassas.
Many of these offer teaching within places of worship, but others are conducted in homes.
At present, these institutions are not required to register with the authorities and are not subject to inspection.
They will now have to register with the Department for Education, and faith groups will be consulted on the precise details of how inspections should be conducted and whether they should be carried out by schools watchdog Ofsted or another body.
Speaking as someone who grew up in 1970s/80s Belfast, IMO organised religion has NO place in running educational establishments. All it does is embed the "them / us" attitude into young minds that then get hobbled with it.
And yes - for the avoidance of doubt - I include CoE and RC schools in that too.0 -
Then I'm afraid we remain in strong disagreement.Charles said:
I'd see the right as wanting to halt progress, to hark back to former (imagined) glories; the left as seeing the role of the state and spending as being paramount; and the sensible centre as trusting the people.Casino_Royale said:
Sorry, that's exactly what right-wing means to me: trusting people (individuals, families, communities and nations) and facilitating them to help build strong responsible societies organically from the bottom up, rather than trying to refashion it according to ideological theory by dictat, regulation, tax and central control by the State from the top down.Charles said:
I'd disagree.Casino_Royale said:
But whether by accident or design, this speech by Cameron is politically very clever: he sets the mood music, and a lot of the centre-left are convinced it's a centre-left speech, but meanwhile his government/ministers get on with quite a bit of right-wing stuff. Only yesterday he was applauding May's tougher stance on immigration (and I'm sure it wasn't by accident that she said that rather than he) and this government's approach to free schools, welfare reform, defence, top-rate tax cuts, inheritance tax cuts, human rights reform, trade union reform and EVEL are certainly not left-wing.brokenwheel said:I'm confused. Now the tories are the new Labour, just as Cameron always wanted, why would a small c conservative vote for them any more? This is the same game Blair tried, and that worked out well for Labour in the end didn't it...
I agree with antifrank. This continues to be a right-wing government that sounds centrist. The very fact that Cameron can convince so many to the contrary is a testament to the success of his strategy.
It's a very Liberal government, not a right-wing one.
It's a government that believes in the people to do the right thing, in unleashing them from the dead hand of the state and permitting them to fulfill their potential.
That doesn't sound very right wing to me.
"Right-wing" is not code for arsehole.
Unless your point is that there's nothing extreme about trusting people and we are routinely mislabelled for having a point of view that's just basic common sense, in which case I agree.
But I refer to myself proudly as a right-winger and don't believe any of the things you might ascribe to me.0 -
That seems fair - many have made the point that Cameron is more right wing than many think, that his great ability has been to simply not 'frighten' people with more extreme policies because even if they perceive him as right wing, they don't regard him as one to be frightened of. For whatever reason, others cannot pull off the same trick (or have it not be a trick) as well, so far.Danny565 said:
It's a bit hard to say he's continuity New Labour when he's made his main mission undoing much of what the last Labour government did (not least, tax credits).Pulpstar said:
?? He's continuity Blair/Cameron. Whats so massively right wing about him ? He's not instantly popular like say Boris is, but I can't get him being a 'right wing ideologue'.Danny565 said:Osborne comes across as the right-wing ideologue
Plus, although he can't help this, his manner and personality just comes across as a "typical Tory" in a way that May and (to some extent) Cameron do not.
In that Ganesh podcast a few days ago large portions were given over to Osborne as well, and it keeps getting pushed that he is the one with a lot of the ideas, and though those ideas may be no more right wing ideologue than Cameron is perceived to be, that people may see him as the masterful strategist behind the scene, coldly calculating, may make people more inclined to think he is that kind of ideologue.0 -
Is there a link to the full speech? Lot's of highlights around, but my google-foo seems inadequate in finding a video of the whole thing.0
-
Fair enough. Single parents on a part time income of NMW@ 16 hr week were to be hardest hit weren't they ? But won't the childcare of 30 hours mean they won't lose out if they increase their work hours...Cyclefree said:
True - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try and mitigate the effects on the poorest during the transition.Pulpstar said:
Tax credits are a £34 billion item per year that contributes massively to the deficit. The Gov'ts approach of replacing it with proper employer paid wages is entirely the right one.TOPPING said:gah, curse of the new thread. FPT:
It was a good speech, right for the moment, right for the current state of the opposition, and of course right for Cons supporters.
There is one hole which will probably not go away and I wish they would plug it - namely that there will be losers with tax credit reform.
Everyone including Cam himself and Gove just now on WatO skirts round the issue. I suppose it is not allowed in today's soundbite economy to tell it like it is - that the Cons want to rebalance the economy away from tax credits (for reasons well-rehearsed on here), and as a result, as things stand, and during the transition...some people will be worse off.
But it leaves the wound open and me as a Cons supporter uneasy. If there was a halfway decent opposition (rather than much more bat awayable media questioning), it would be a problem.0 -
In theory yes, but it does not work out that way in too many casesSean_F said:
Anybody who is capable of providing a good education should be entitled to provide it, be they religious or irreligious.
0 -
No-one is advocating laissez-faire capitalism. Benefits will still exist, they will just be more tightly controlled.Jonathan said:
No-one thinks it's a good thing, but laissez-faire capitalism is even worse.AndyJS said:Amazing how many Labour supporters still think benefit culture is a good thing for poor people when it obviously isn´t.
0 -
Dan Hodges tweets...Corbyn says Cameron is rattled....yep, he certainly looked and sounded rattled...0
-
That isn't true.JEO said:
No-one is advocating laissez-faire capitalism. Benefits will still exist, they will just be more tightly controlled.Jonathan said:
No-one thinks it's a good thing, but laissez-faire capitalism is even worse.AndyJS said:Amazing how many Labour supporters still think benefit culture is a good thing for poor people when it obviously isn´t.
0 -
The thing I can't prove is whether the Tory manifesto would have been quite so right-wing for GE2015 had the UKIP threat not been so serious. I suspect not, but can't prove it.Plato_Says said:Exactly - talk Left, act Right.
Casino_Royale said:
But whether by accident or design, this speech by Cameron is politically very clever: he sets the mood music, and a lot of the centre-left are convinced it's a centre-left speech, but meanwhile his government/ministers get on with quite a bit of right-wing stuff. Only yesterday he was applauding May's tougher stance on immigration (and I'm sure it wasn't by accident that she said that rather than he) and this government's approach to free schools, welfare reform, defence, top-rate tax cuts, marriage relief, countryside/rural policy, inheritance tax cuts, human rights reform, trade union reform and EVEL are certainly not left-wing.brokenwheel said:I'm confused. Now the tories are the new Labour, just as Cameron always wanted, why would a small c conservative vote for them any more? This is the same game Blair tried, and that worked out well for Labour in the end didn't it...
I agree with antifrank. This continues to be a right-wing government that sounds centrist. The very fact that Cameron can convince so many to the contrary is a testament to the success of his strategy.
I think HRA reform and immigration measures might otherwise have been toned down - not sure about defence
0 -
But they have Twitter engraved on their hearts.flightpath01 said:
No need to wonder. What passes for labour these days are communally stupid.Pulpstar said:
?? He's continuity Blair/Cameron. Whats so massively right wing about him ? He's not instantly popular like say Boris is, but I can't get him being a 'right wing ideologue'.Danny565 said:Osborne comes across as the right-wing ideologue
0 -
Corbyn's even more deluded than normal.richardDodd said:Dan Hodges tweets...Corbyn says Cameron is rattled....yep, he certainly looked and sounded rattled...
0 -
@antifrank
'Wildly off topic, but last night's Panorama was television at its very finest. The BBC should be very proud of having made such an important documentary on such a difficult subject with such sensitivity and without ducking conclusions.'
Spot on,now waiting for a public apology from the Met & Watson for their appalling behavior.
So much for the theory of being innocent until proven guilty.
0 -
One thing I know about politics is that someone is rattled if they look rattled, but they are also rattled if they seem very confident and assured, because they are covering up and overcompensating for being rattled. Simple.richardDodd said:Dan Hodges tweets...Corbyn says Cameron is rattled....yep, he certainly looked and sounded rattled...
0 -
Did Cameron say how he's paying for Trident renewal?0
-
Afternoon all
I've not listened to the Prime Minister's speech in detail - the eulogising of the usual suspects both inside and outside the Party is to be expected.
My initial thought becomes how big is the Conservative tent going to get and at what point will it collapse under the wight of its own contradictions ? David Cameron has, since 2005, ridden both the Conservative Party horses successfully - he has on the one hand been the "liberal Conservative", the "heir to Blair" and on the other he has been the radical neo-Thatcherite and there will come a point when the two sides of the circle can't be squared (so to speak).
On the one hand, there is this perceived rolling back of the State yet Osborne and May have been happy to enforce value changes through legislation which in some ways has extended State power into the market place and weakened civil liberties.
As someone who will never be inside the Conservative tent, I do resent the implication Jeremy Corbyn "hates Britain". He may not share Conservative values (it's not yet compulsory) and he may even associate with those who do hate Britain but to say he, Jeremy Corbyn, hates Britain is absurd piffle.
It is possible to love Britain and not be a supporter of the Conservative Party and someone needs to remind Cameron why many people had "reservations" about voting Tory in May.
For now, for the immediate future, it's Conservatism Ascendant but nothing lasts forever and things have a habit of changing more quickly and dramatically than is often realised. 2020 is an eternity away and to assume present conditions will remain the same is foolish in the extreme.0 -
Seems as though Steve Bell is exactly as I imagined him. That is not a compliment.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2012/oct/11/steve-bell-david-cameron-conservative-video0 -
Well people on the Minimum Wage will get a pay rise (Living Wage) so that's one issue gone.SouthamObserver said:
Ditto if people feel they have not had a pay rise, but actually seen their incomes go down.taffys said:There was a rather large hostage to fortune given in Cameron's speech on housing.
IF generation rent are STILL generation rent in four years time, things could get a bit awkward for the conservatives.
But with Corbyn leading Labour, it does not really matter. He has changed the equation in British politics as the government no longer has to worry about losing the next election.
Housing? I suspect we'll see results starting o come in 2017-8 and no earlier due to investment lead times and planning.. But I suspect he'll have to confront the mainly Tory NIMBYs.. (just like with gay marriage...).
And there are lots of other things that can go wrong.. a big ME war is likely - big wars rise from little ones and we have a small war growing bigger every year..
We'll vote to stay IN - probably - so the Union will be safe - probably. And some time or other the SNP will overreach..
0 -
No they just ignore abuse, murder , fraud, etc , pales into comparison. You really are as dim as you post , it is not a front.watford30 said:
But, unlike the Scottish police, they're unlikely to leave someone dying in the wreckage of a car accident for 3 days.malcolmg said:
They should be used to that with all the practice they have had.antifrank said:
Of course the Met are going to be unhappy with it. They were made to look like complete muppets.Pulpstar said:
The Met sounded quite unhappy with it on the radio this morning ! I agree it was very good though.antifrank said:Wildly off topic, but last night's Panorama was television at its very finest. The BBC should be very proud of having made such an important documentary on such a difficult subject with such sensitivity and without ducking conclusions.
0 -
What I've found so interesting is that Cameron's speech bracketed being anti sexist, job discrimination/stop and search with anti-extremism, learning British history in school/more national pride, prison for FGM and forced marriage.
It's a meld of firm left and firm right.Casino_Royale said:
Then I'm afraid we remain in strong disagreement.Charles said:
I'd see the right as wanting to halt progress, to hark back to former (imagined) glories; the left as seeing the role of the state and spending as being paramount; and the sensible centre as trusting the people.Casino_Royale said:
Sorry, that's exactly what right-wing means to me: trusting people (individuals, families, communities and nations) and facilitating them to help build strong responsible societies organically from the bottom up, rather than trying to refashion it according to ideological theory by dictat, regulation, tax and central control by the State from the top down.Charles said:
I'd disagree.Casino_Royale said:
But whether by accident or design, this speech by Cameron is politically very clever: he sets the mood music, and a lot of the centre-left are convinced it's a centre-left speech, but meanwhile his government/ministers get on with quite a bit of right-wing stuff. Only yesterday he was applauding May's tougher stance on immigration (and I'm sure it wasn't by accident that she said that rather than he) and this government's approach to free schools, welfare reform, defence, top-rate tax cuts, inheritance tax cuts, human rights reform, trade union reform and EVEL are certainly not left-wing.brokenwheel said:I'm confused. Now the tories are the new Labour, just as Cameron always wanted, why would a small c conservative vote for them any more? This is the same game Blair tried, and that worked out well for Labour in the end didn't it...
I agree with antifrank. This continues to be a right-wing government that sounds centrist. The very fact that Cameron can convince so many to the contrary is a testament to the success of his strategy.
It's a very Liberal government, not a right-wing one.
It's a government that believes in the people to do the right thing, in unleashing them from the dead hand of the state and permitting them to fulfill their potential.
That doesn't sound very right wing to me.
"Right-wing" is not code for arsehole.
Unless your point is that there's nothing extreme about trusting people and we are routinely mislabelled for having a point of view that's just basic common sense, in which case I agree.
But I refer to myself proudly as a right-winger and don't believe any of the things you might ascribe to me.0 -
Which is exactly why the Conservatives need to stop thinking about the next election and start thinking about their electability a decade or two down the line. The two major threats to our long term electoral prospects are (a) the current scale of immigration and (b) the collapsing share of owner-occupiers. We need to turn both around, even if it comes with short term costs.SouthamObserver said:
Ditto if people feel they have not had a pay rise, but actually seen their incomes go down.taffys said:There was a rather large hostage to fortune given in Cameron's speech on housing.
IF generation rent are STILL generation rent in four years time, things could get a bit awkward for the conservatives.
But with Corbyn leading Labour, it does not really matter. He has changed the equation in British politics as the government no longer has to worry about losing the next election.0 -
You mean there is something a bit 1984 about Cameron?Casino_Royale said:
But whether by accident or design, this speech by Cameron is politically very clever: he sets the mood music, and a lot of the centre-left are convinced it's a centre-left speech, but meanwhile his government/ministers get on with quite a bit of right-wing stuff. Only yesterday he was applauding May's tougher stance on immigration (and I'm sure it wasn't by accident that she said that rather than he) and this government's approach to free schools, welfare reform, defence, top-rate tax cuts, marriage relief, countryside/rural policy, inheritance tax cuts, human rights reform, trade union reform and EVEL are certainly not left-wing.brokenwheel said:I'm confused. Now the tories are the new Labour, just as Cameron always wanted, why would a small c conservative vote for them any more? This is the same game Blair tried, and that worked out well for Labour in the end didn't it...
I agree with antifrank. This continues to be a right-wing government that sounds centrist. The very fact that Cameron can convince so many to the contrary is a testament to the success of his strategy.
You could be right.0 -
As the State shrinks, due to budgetary constraints, so charitable institutions, including religious charitable institutions are going to have to do more.Beverley_C said:
In theory yes, but it does not work out that way in too many casesSean_F said:
Anybody who is capable of providing a good education should be entitled to provide it, be they religious or irreligious.
To give one example, Elstree and Borehamwood Jews subscribed millions of pounds to build a new school in Borehamwood. That's money that would otherwise have had to be found by the County Council.0 -
Kle4 So by your logic..everyone in Politics must be rattled......hmmm0
-
I think we're just arguing about the location of the Overton window.Casino_Royale said:
Then I'm afraid we remain in strong disagreement.
Unless your point is that there's nothing extreme about trusting people and we are routinely mislabelled for having a point of view that's just basic common sense, in which case I agree.
But I refer to myself proudly as a right-winger and don't believe any of the things you might ascribe to me.
For me what you think of as "right wing" I believe is closer to the "centre"
It doesn't really matter much - although there are political advantage about avoiding being labeled as either right or left wing.
p.s. I still hail from the Liberal Unionist tradition in the Conservative party, which may help explain things.0 -
What , that no-one is advocating laissez-faire capitalism, or that benefits will not cease to exist? Both statements are palpably and obviously true. Well, rcs1000 sometimes advocates laissez-faire capitalism on here, but no-one in the political arena does.Jonathan said:
That isn't true.JEO said:
No-one is advocating laissez-faire capitalism. Benefits will still exist, they will just be more tightly controlled.Jonathan said:
No-one thinks it's a good thing, but laissez-faire capitalism is even worse.AndyJS said:Amazing how many Labour supporters still think benefit culture is a good thing for poor people when it obviously isn´t.
0 -
I think Kippers have been good for the Tories in retrospect - they've allowed the unsayable to be said, and innoculated the Tories against the loony tunes.
Labour unfortunately has invited them all in and they've taken over.Casino_Royale said:
The thing I can't prove is whether the Tory manifesto would have been quite so right-wing for GE2015 had the UKIP threat not been so serious. I suspect not, but can't prove it.Plato_Says said:Exactly - talk Left, act Right.
Casino_Royale said:
But whether by accident or design, this speech by Cameron is politically very clever: he sets the mood music, and a lot of the centre-left are convinced it's a centre-left speech, but meanwhile his government/ministers get on with quite a bit of right-wing stuff. Only yesterday he was applauding May's tougher stance on immigration (and I'm sure it wasn't by accident that she said that rather than he) and this government's approach to free schools, welfare reform, defence, top-rate tax cuts, marriage relief, countryside/rural policy, inheritance tax cuts, human rights reform, trade union reform and EVEL are certainly not left-wing.brokenwheel said:I'm confused. Now the tories are the new Labour, just as Cameron always wanted, why would a small c conservative vote for them any more? This is the same game Blair tried, and that worked out well for Labour in the end didn't it...
I agree with antifrank. This continues to be a right-wing government that sounds centrist. The very fact that Cameron can convince so many to the contrary is a testament to the success of his strategy.
I think HRA reform and immigration measures might otherwise have been toned down - not sure about defence0 -
That's the key contrast in perception with Thatcher: who is one of my idols but basically, let's face it, whether rightly or wrongly, was perceived as doing virtually no dressing up. She said exactly what her targets and objectives were, who were the heroes and villains in achieving them, that it was for their own darn good, and looked like she enjoyed both saying and doing it too.kle4 said:
That seems fair - many have made the point that Cameron is more right wing than many think, that his great ability has been to simply not 'frighten' people with more extreme policies because even if they perceive him as right wing, they don't regard him as one to be frightened of. For whatever reason, others cannot pull off the same trick (or have it not be a trick) as well, so far.Danny565 said:
It's a bit hard to say he's continuity New Labour when he's made his main mission undoing much of what the last Labour government did (not least, tax credits).Pulpstar said:
?? He's continuity Blair/Cameron. Whats so massively right wing about him ? He's not instantly popular like say Boris is, but I can't get him being a 'right wing ideologue'.Danny565 said:Osborne comes across as the right-wing ideologue
Plus, although he can't help this, his manner and personality just comes across as a "typical Tory" in a way that May and (to some extent) Cameron do not.
In that Ganesh podcast a few days ago large portions were given over to Osborne as well, and it keeps getting pushed that he is the one with a lot of the ideas, and though those ideas may be no more right wing ideologue than Cameron is perceived to be, that people may see him as the masterful strategist behind the scene, coldly calculating, may make people more inclined to think he is that kind of ideologue.0 -
The 10p tax was a shabby tax rise that had no quid pro quo for those who lost out.Danny565 said:
Perhaps, although the 10p tax was apparently being mentioned to Labour canvassers for years afterwards.Pulpstar said:
Now's the time to put forward such stuff given the populace generally has the memory of a goldfish. It'll be forgotten by election time, when said blue collar worker is deciding between the Tories and Corbyn.Danny565 said:The discussion in every blue-collar household in the new year:
"That bloody government has taken £1000 out of my wage"
"Never mind, David Cameron once said in a speech that he's concerned about poverty, that's all that matters."
Tax credit reforms are part of a big package of reforms that include raising income tax thresholds and introducing the Living Wage.0 -
Your final point is important to keep in mind I think. Even the Tories seem to know the ascendency won't last forever, it's presumably why Osborne talked about the 'problem' of millions still voting Labour and the apparent trying to go after wavering Labour voters, to not take 2020 for granted but take early steps to build toward it. But there remain plenty of situations - Cameron's successor and when that happens being the most obvious example - which could change things dramatically. Things are looking good for them now, allowing some confident predicting is surely not unjustified, but the top people need to remain focused. They appear to be for now, but we shall see.stodge said:Afternoon all
I've not listened to the Prime Minister's speech in detail - the eulogising of the usual suspects both inside and outside the Party is to be expected.
My initial thought becomes how big is the Conservative tent going to get and at what point will it collapse under the wight of its own contradictions ? David Cameron has, since 2005, ridden both the Conservative Party horses successfully - he has on the one hand been the "liberal Conservative", the "heir to Blair" and on the other he has been the radical neo-Thatcherite and there will come a point when the two sides of the circle can't be squared (so to speak).
On the one hand, there is this perceived rolling back of the State yet Osborne and May have been happy to enforce value changes through legislation which in some ways has extended State power into the market place and weakened civil liberties.
As someone who will never be inside the Conservative tent, I do resent the implication Jeremy Corbyn "hates Britain". He may not share Conservative values (it's not yet compulsory) and he may even associate with those who do hate Britain but to say he, Jeremy Corbyn, hates Britain is absurd piffle.
It is possible to love Britain and not be a supporter of the Conservative Party and someone needs to remind Cameron why many people had "reservations" about voting Tory in May.
For now, for the immediate future, it's Conservatism Ascendant but nothing lasts forever and things have a habit of changing more quickly and dramatically than is often realised. 2020 is an eternity away and to assume present conditions will remain the same is foolish in the extreme.0 -
Only two cartoonists make me wince with disgust or plain urgh as ugly people on the inside - Gerald Scarfe and Steve Bell.
A very good friend of mine seemed very pleasant on the outside - but when stoned drew like Scarfe - if he'd shot 12 people in a college, I wouldn't be surprised at all.Anorak said:Seems as though Steve Bell is exactly as I imagined him. That is not a compliment.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2012/oct/11/steve-bell-david-cameron-conservative-video0 -
Steve Bell has always come across in his cartoons as being a rather rude, nasty comic. The comparison with Matt of the Telegraph is clear. The latter is far funnier, without ever being nasty.Anorak said:Seems as though Steve Bell is exactly as I imagined him. That is not a compliment.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2012/oct/11/steve-bell-david-cameron-conservative-video0 -
Yes, I think that's it: right-wing has been toxified. But I think it's a false economy for us to surrender on that - we should redefine what it really means.Charles said:
I think we're just arguing about the location of the Overton window.Casino_Royale said:
Then I'm afraid we remain in strong disagreement.Charles said:
I'd see the right as wanting to halt progress, to hark back to former (imagined) glories; the left as seeing the role of the state and spending as being paramount; and the sensible centre as trusting the people.Casino_Royale said:
Sorry, that's exactly what right-wing means to me: trusting people (individuals, families, communities and nations) and facilitating them to help build strongCharles said:
I'd disagree.Casino_Royale said:
But whether by accident or design, this speech by Cameron is politically very clever: he sets the mood music, and a lot of the centre-left are convinced it's a centre-left speech, but meanwhile his government/ministers get on with quite a bit of right-wing stuff. Only yesterday he was applauding May's tougher stance on immigration (and I'm sure it wasn't by accident that she said that rather than he) and this government's approach to free schools, welfare reform, defence, top-rate tax cuts, inheritance tax cuts, human rights reform, trade union reform and EVEL are certainly not left-wing.brokenwheel said:I'm confused. Now the tories are the new Labour, just as Cameron always wanted, why would a small c conservative vote for them any more? This is the same game Blair tried, and that worked out well for Labour in the end didn't it...
I agree with antifrank. This continues to be a right-wing government that sounds centrist. The very fact that Cameron can convince so many to the contrary is a testament to the success of his strategy.
It's a very Liberal government, not a right-wing one.
It's a government that believes in the people to do the right thing, in unleashing them from the dead hand of the state and permitting them to fulfill their potential.
That doesn't sound very right wing to me.
"Right-wing" is not code for arsehole.
Unless your point is that there's nothing extreme about trusting people and we are routinely mislabelled for having a point of view that's just basic common sense, in which case I agree.
But I refer to myself proudly as a right-winger and don't believe any of the things you might ascribe to me.
For me what you think of as "right wing" I believe is closer to the "centre"
It doesn't really matter much - although there are political advantage about avoiding being labeled as either right or left wing.0 -
When Steve Bell makes a joke, it's no laughing matter.JEO said:
Steve Bell has always come across in his cartoons as being a rather rude, nasty comic. The comparison with Matt of the Telegraph is clear. The latter is far funnier, without ever being nasty.Anorak said:Seems as though Steve Bell is exactly as I imagined him. That is not a compliment.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2012/oct/11/steve-bell-david-cameron-conservative-video0 -
The whole point it is not as much as aJonathan said:
It looks like a tactical ploy rather than a strategic move. Maybe he wants to replace his own extreme right with centrists. That would be good for everyone, but that will require some tougher choices. For now it looks like games.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Whether such a strategic shift could work remains to be seen. Labour voters tend to vote against the Tories, so it's a very hard sell even with Corbyn.0 -
Delicatessen sliced baby.Jonathan said:
Did Cameron say how he's paying for Trident renewal?
0 -
Closer to 19th century liberalism.Plato_Says said:What I've found so interesting is that Cameron's speech bracketed being anti sexist, job discrimination/stop and search with anti-extremism, learning British history in school/more national pride, prison for FGM and forced marriage.
It's a meld of firm left and firm right.Casino_Royale said:
Then I'm afraid we remain in strong disagreement.Charles said:
I'd see the right as wanting to halt progress, to hark back to former (imagined) glories; the left as seeing the role of the state and spending as being paramount; and the sensible centre as trusting the people.Casino_Royale said:
Sorry, that's exactly what right-wing means to me: trusting people (individuals, families, communities and nations) and facilitating them to help build strong responsible societies organically from the bottom up, rather than trying to refashion it according to ideological theory by dictat, regulation, tax and central control by the State from the top down.Charles said:
I'd disagree.Casino_Royale said:
But whether by accident or design, this speech by Cameron is politically very clever: he sets the mood music, and a lot of the centre-left are convinced it's a centre-left speech, but meanwhile his quite a bit of right-wing stuff. Only yesterday he was applauding May's tougher stance on immigration (and I'm sure it wasn't by accident that she said that rather than he) and this government's approach to free schools, welfare reform, defence, top-rate tax cuts, inheritance tax cuts, human rights reform, trade union reform and EVEL are certainly not left-wing.brokenwheel said:I'm confused. Now the tories are the new Labour, just as Cameron always wanted, why would a small c conservative vote for them any more? This is the same game Blair tried, and that worked out well for Labour in the end didn't it...
I agree with antifrank. This continues to be a right-wing government that sounds centrist. The very fact that Cameron can convince so many to the contrary is a testament to the success of his strategy.
It's a very Liberal government, not a right-wing one.
It's a government that believes in the people to do the right thing, in unleashing them from the dead hand of the state and permitting them to fulfill their potential.
That doesn't sound very right wing to me.
"Right-wing" is not code for arsehole.
Unless your point is that there's nothing extreme about trusting people and we are routinely mislabelled for having a point of view that's just basic common sense, in which case I agree.
But I refer to myself proudly as a right-winger and don't believe any of the things you might ascribe to me.0 -
It all depends on what the faith in question teaches. My school taught the faith of the Good Samaritan, who demonstrated that you should provide help and support to members of hated ethnic groups. That is the direct opposite to a "them/us" attitude.Beverley_C said:
Good. A small step in the right direction.Plato_Says said:Press Association.
Downing Street said that the new inspection regime would apply to an estimated 5,000 religious institutions offering eight or more hours of study a week to children in England, including Christian Sunday schools and Jewish yeshivas as well as up to 2,000 madrassas.
Many of these offer teaching within places of worship, but others are conducted in homes.
At present, these institutions are not required to register with the authorities and are not subject to inspection.
They will now have to register with the Department for Education, and faith groups will be consulted on the precise details of how inspections should be conducted and whether they should be carried out by schools watchdog Ofsted or another body.
Speaking as someone who grew up in 1970s/80s Belfast, IMO organised religion has NO place in running educational establishments. All it does is embed the "them / us" attitude into young minds that then get hobbled with it.
And yes - for the avoidance of doubt - I include CoE and RC schools in that too.
0 -
Seriously, the biggest bill for a generation and that's all you have?Plato_Says said:Delicatessen sliced baby.
Jonathan said:Did Cameron say how he's paying for Trident renewal?
0 -
If we can get the right developments, I don't think people would have an issue. There are around 4,000 villages in England. 25 houses per village. There's 100k right there. Its when we get these large, soulless developments that NIMBYism kicks in.taffys said:''the government is going to have to build build build if it is going to have any credibility left in this area in 2020. ''
Even if they do, that may trample on very tory toes in the home counties and shires.0 -
But, I would assume, it’s selective, that it’s primarily or wholly for Jewish children. Personally I’m against all selection, tacit or overt, on grrounds of race, income or religion or examination results. I can, though, be persuaded on gender,Sean_F said:
As the State shrinks, due to budgetary constraints, so charitable institutions, including religious charitable institutions are going to have to do more.Beverley_C said:
In theory yes, but it does not work out that way in too many casesSean_F said:
Anybody who is capable of providing a good education should be entitled to provide it, be they religious or irreligious.
To give one example, Elstree and Borehamwood Jews subscribed millions of pounds to build a new school in Borehamwood. That's money that would otherwise have had to be found by the County Council.
I would infinitely rather spend money on education than on Trident.0 -
Fully agreed. A segregated education that incubated them vs us and social segregation is not a good education though.Sean_F said:
Anybody who is capable of providing a good education should be entitled to provide it, be they religious or irreligious.Beverley_C said:
Good. A small step in the right direction.Plato_Says said:Press Association.
Downing Street said that the new inspection regime would apply to an estimated 5,000 religious institutions offering eight or more hours of study a week to children in England, including Christian Sunday schools and Jewish yeshivas as well as up to 2,000 madrassas.
Many of these offer teaching within places of worship, but others are conducted in homes.
At present, these institutions are not required to register with the authorities and are not subject to inspection.
They will now have to register with the Department for Education, and faith groups will be consulted on the precise details of how inspections should be conducted and whether they should be carried out by schools watchdog Ofsted or another body.
Speaking as someone who grew up in 1970s/80s Belfast, IMO organised religion has NO place in running educational establishments. All it does is embed the "them / us" attitude into young minds that then get hobbled with it.
And yes - for the avoidance of doubt - I include CoE and RC schools in that too.
I went to an Anglican (CoE) school in Australia as an atheist and one of my best friends was Jewish. The school was a great school and I was lucky to go to it, but it neither encouraged nor accepted segregation. For too long some schools and others in society have tolerated segregation in the name of tolerance or multiculturalism.0 -
Bell's work has always been ugly and humourless. His professional longevity is a mystery.JEO said:
Steve Bell has always come across in his cartoons as being a rather rude, nasty comic. The comparison with Matt of the Telegraph is clear. The latter is far funnier, without ever being nasty.Anorak said:Seems as though Steve Bell is exactly as I imagined him. That is not a compliment.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2012/oct/11/steve-bell-david-cameron-conservative-video0 -
Dramatic development in the world of political polling - Gallup decides not to poll the US nomination races at all, no confidence in its methods:
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/gallup-poll-2016-pollsters-2144930 -
I am going to use this. Thank you.Sean_F said:
When Steve Bell makes a joke, it's no laughing matter.JEO said:
Steve Bell has always come across in his cartoons as being a rather rude, nasty comic. The comparison with Matt of the Telegraph is clear. The latter is far funnier, without ever being nasty.Anorak said:Seems as though Steve Bell is exactly as I imagined him. That is not a compliment.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2012/oct/11/steve-bell-david-cameron-conservative-video0 -
How does a Government always pay for new naval vessels..0
-
Hmm: we should beware of complacency and hubris.SouthamObserver said:
Ditto if people feel they have not had a pay rise, but actually seen their incomes go down.taffys said:There was a rather large hostage to fortune given in Cameron's speech on housing.
IF generation rent are STILL generation rent in four years time, things could get a bit awkward for the conservatives.
But with Corbyn leading Labour, it does not really matter. He has changed the equation in British politics as the government no longer has to worry about losing the next election.0 -
Tax credits, housing benefit, DLA, PIP, the Work Related Activity Group component... you name it.Jonathan said:
Seriously, the biggest bill for a generation and that's all you have?Plato_Says said:Delicatessen sliced baby.
Jonathan said:Did Cameron say how he's paying for Trident renewal?
0 -
In some Inner City areas, religious organisations offer a lot of out of hours schooling and homework supervision to children from deprived backgrounds. That seems to be very obviously a good thing, to me.JEO said:
It all depends on what the faith in question teaches. My school taught the faith of the Good Samaritan, who demonstrated that you should provide help and support to members of hated ethnic groups. That is the direct opposite to a "them/us" attitude.Beverley_C said:
Good. A small step in the right direction.Plato_Says said:Press Association.
Downing Street said that the new inspection regime would apply to an estimated 5,000 religious institutions offering eight or more hours of study a week to children in England, including Christian Sunday schools and Jewish yeshivas as well as up to 2,000 madrassas.
Many of these offer teaching within places of worship, but others are conducted in homes.
At present, these institutions are not required to register with the authorities and are not subject to inspection.
They will now have to register with the Department for Education, and faith groups will be consulted on the precise details of how inspections should be conducted and whether they should be carried out by schools watchdog Ofsted or another body.
Speaking as someone who grew up in 1970s/80s Belfast, IMO organised religion has NO place in running educational establishments. All it does is embed the "them / us" attitude into young minds that then get hobbled with it.
And yes - for the avoidance of doubt - I include CoE and RC schools in that too.0 -
Meanwhile, the considered view of one Corbynite on another forum:
"He's talking to his own audience here - as we were incessantly told about Corbyn the other week, if he wasn't "cruising", given the company, you'd be surprised.
But the fact is, since Corbyn's election, the Tories haven't had a response to either the ideas or the political energy behind his election, and have resorted time and again to playing the man rather than the ball. One could argue that it's self-defeating for Corbyn's team to actually point this out in plain English - to an extent, it ought to be beneath the dignity of the Labour party to even acknowledge these attacks - but it's certainly good for the public's attention to be drawn to the Emperor's nudity once in a while."
I honestly didn't know where to start.0 -
£15bn isn't that muchJonathan said:
Seriously, the biggest bill for a generation and that's all you have?Plato_Says said:Delicatessen sliced baby.
Jonathan said:Did Cameron say how he's paying for Trident renewal?
0 -
I don't actually see anything wrong with political cartoons being cutting, or even a little nasty. The British press has been publishing scathing cartoons for (literally) centuries, and I think it's a good way of bringing politicians back down to earth.JEO said:
Steve Bell has always come across in his cartoons as being a rather rude, nasty comic. The comparison with Matt of the Telegraph is clear. The latter is far funnier, without ever being nasty.Anorak said:Seems as though Steve Bell is exactly as I imagined him. That is not a compliment.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2012/oct/11/steve-bell-david-cameron-conservative-video
However, Steve Bell's cartoons seem to lack the wit and occasional moments of levity which almost all other cartoonists seem to produce. He's not half as clever as he thinks he is. I will give him credit for the sequence he produced after Charlie Hebdo, though, which skewered the fundamentalist reaction to a pictures (FFS) rather well.0 -
Two brilliant posts in one day.stodge said:Afternoon all
I've not listened to the Prime Minister's speech in detail - the eulogising of the usual suspects both inside and outside the Party is to be expected.
My initial thought becomes how big is the Conservative tent going to get and at what point will it collapse under the wight of its own contradictions ? David Cameron has, since 2005, ridden both the Conservative Party horses successfully - he has on the one hand been the "liberal Conservative", the "heir to Blair" and on the other he has been the radical neo-Thatcherite and there will come a point when the two sides of the circle can't be squared (so to speak).
On the one hand, there is this perceived rolling back of the State yet Osborne and May have been happy to enforce value changes through legislation which in some ways has extended State power into the market place and weakened civil liberties.
As someone who will never be inside the Conservative tent, I do resent the implication Jeremy Corbyn "hates Britain". He may not share Conservative values (it's not yet compulsory) and he may even associate with those who do hate Britain but to say he, Jeremy Corbyn, hates Britain is absurd piffle.
It is possible to love Britain and not be a supporter of the Conservative Party and someone needs to remind Cameron why many people had "reservations" about voting Tory in May.
For now, for the immediate future, it's Conservatism Ascendant but nothing lasts forever and things have a habit of changing more quickly and dramatically than is often realised. 2020 is an eternity away and to assume present conditions will remain the same is foolish in the extreme.
Corbyn does not hate Britain, he just genuinely does not get patriotism or affection for a country or even the projection of a country as some kind entity. He does not see the world in that way. He sees it in terms of class - exploiters and the exploited. Once you understand that about Corbyn everything else about him becomes much easier to understand.
As long as he is leader Labour is unelectable. The major problem with that for all of us of whatever political hue we are is that it gives the Tories a completely free ride. Cameron can promise to make everyone better off and to deliver hundreds of thousands of new, affordable homes, and he has no-one to hold him to account. Should Labour come to understand this and then do something about it things could change quickly. But, sadly, it seems that Labour is happily ensconced in its comfort zone and will be for a fair while yet.
0 -
You've lost all your sense of humour. Okay then, tax credits that are giveaways to businesses.Jonathan said:
Seriously, the biggest bill for a generation and that's all you have?Plato_Says said:Delicatessen sliced baby.
Jonathan said:Did Cameron say how he's paying for Trident renewal?
0 -
I went to an Anglican primary school which had lots of Jewish pupils.Philip_Thompson said:
Fully agreed. A segregated education that incubated them vs us and social segregation is not a good education though.Sean_F said:
Anybody who is capable of providing a good education should be entitled to provide it, be they religious or irreligious.Beverley_C said:
Good. A small step in the right direction.Plato_Says said:Press Association.
Downing Street said that the new inspection regime would apply to an estimated 5,000 religious institutions offering eight or more hours of study a week to children in England, including Christian Sunday schools and Jewish yeshivas as well as up to 2,000 madrassas.
Many of these offer teaching within places of worship, but others are conducted in homes.
At present, these institutions are not required to register with the authorities and are not subject to inspection.
They will now have to register with the Department for Education, and faith groups will be consulted on the precise details of how inspections should be conducted and whether they should be carried out by schools watchdog Ofsted or another body.
Speaking as someone who grew up in 1970s/80s Belfast, IMO organised religion has NO place in running educational establishments. All it does is embed the "them / us" attitude into young minds that then get hobbled with it.
And yes - for the avoidance of doubt - I include CoE and RC schools in that too.
I went to an Anglican (CoE) school in Australia as an atheist and one of my best friends was Jewish. The school was a great school and I was lucky to go to it, but it neither encouraged nor accepted segregation. For too long some schools and others in society have tolerated segregation in the name of tolerance or multiculturalism.-1 -
The biggest bill for a generation? Hardly. It doesn't even come close to the costs of PFI and the other eye watering sums racked up by the previous Labour government.Jonathan said:
Seriously, the biggest bill for a generation and that's all you have?Plato_Says said:Delicatessen sliced baby.
Jonathan said:Did Cameron say how he's paying for Trident renewal?
0 -
It's not particularly expensive on an annual basis - £20-odd bn over a decade. It won't require an increase in the defence budget. In any case it's Labour policy too, so it's costed in to both main parties' plans.Jonathan said:Seriously, the biggest bill for a generation and that's all you have?
0 -
I cite Maidenbower here. Population 8k. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MaidenbowerJohn_M said:
If we can get the right developments, I don't think people would have an issue. There are around 4,000 villages in England. 25 houses per village. There's 100k right there. Its when we get these large, soulless developments that NIMBYism kicks in.taffys said:''the government is going to have to build build build if it is going to have any credibility left in this area in 2020. ''
Even if they do, that may trample on very tory toes in the home counties and shires.0 -
As a Guardian reader, I agree. The cartoonist’s role is rather like that of court jester; to puncture his own side’s balloon when necessary.MonikerDiCanio said:
Bell's work has always been ugly and humourless. His professional longevity is a mystery.JEO said:
Steve Bell has always come across in his cartoons as being a rather rude, nasty comic. The comparison with Matt of the Telegraph is clear. The latter is far funnier, without ever being nasty.Anorak said:Seems as though Steve Bell is exactly as I imagined him. That is not a compliment.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2012/oct/11/steve-bell-david-cameron-conservative-video0 -
Well then, it is better for the County Council to find the money.Sean_F said:
As the State shrinks, due to budgetary constraints, so charitable institutions, including religious charitable institutions are going to have to do more.Beverley_C said:
In theory yes, but it does not work out that way in too many casesSean_F said:
Anybody who is capable of providing a good education should be entitled to provide it, be they religious or irreligious.
To give one example, Elstree and Borehamwood Jews subscribed millions of pounds to build a new school in Borehamwood. That's money that would otherwise have had to be found by the County Council.
Too many religious schools do not even attempt to follow national standards.0 -
Islington guardianistas think he's a demigod, for reasons which escape me. Maybe I'm just too thick to appreciate all the subtleties.MonikerDiCanio said:
Bell's work has always been ugly and humourless. His professional longevity is a mystery.JEO said:
Steve Bell has always come across in his cartoons as being a rather rude, nasty comic. The comparison with Matt of the Telegraph is clear. The latter is far funnier, without ever being nasty.Anorak said:Seems as though Steve Bell is exactly as I imagined him. That is not a compliment.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2012/oct/11/steve-bell-david-cameron-conservative-video0 -
A very cold bucket of water and a slap round the face, I'd say.antifrank said:Meanwhile, the considered view of one Corbynite on another forum:
"He's talking to his own audience here - as we were incessantly told about Corbyn the other week, if he wasn't "cruising", given the company, you'd be surprised.
But the fact is, since Corbyn's election, the Tories haven't had a response to either the ideas or the political energy behind his election, and have resorted time and again to playing the man rather than the ball. One could argue that it's self-defeating for Corbyn's team to actually point this out in plain English - to an extent, it ought to be beneath the dignity of the Labour party to even acknowledge these attacks - but it's certainly good for the public's attention to be drawn to the Emperor's nudity once in a while."
I honestly didn't know where to start.
0 -
I think religous schools are ok so long as they don't go teaching mince like creationism that happens in the USA occasionally.0
-
The latter is one of the biggest themes of the conference.JEO said:
Which is exactly why the Conservatives need to stop thinking about the next election and start thinking about their electability a decade or two down the line. The two major threats to our long term electoral prospects are (a) the current scale of immigration and (b) the collapsing share of owner-occupiers. We need to turn both around, even if it comes with short term costs.SouthamObserver said:
Ditto if people feel they have not had a pay rise, but actually seen their incomes go down.taffys said:There was a rather large hostage to fortune given in Cameron's speech on housing.
IF generation rent are STILL generation rent in four years time, things could get a bit awkward for the conservatives.
But with Corbyn leading Labour, it does not really matter. He has changed the equation in British politics as the government no longer has to worry about losing the next election.
Conservatives want people to own their own homes and action is being taken on this.0 -
-
I have to disagree. Perhaps 'hate' is a tad strong but I think it is very fair to say that Corbyn does not love this country. The fact that he has gone out of his way throughout the years to associate with our enemies backs this up.SouthamObserver said:
Two brilliant posts in one day.stodge said:Afternoon all
I've not listened to the Prime Minister's speech in detail - the eulogising of the usual suspects both inside and outside the Party is to be expected.
My initial thought becomes how big is the Conservative tent going to get and at what point will it collapse under the wight of its own contradictions ? David Cameron has, since 2005, ridden both the Conservative Party horses successfully - he has on the one hand been the "liberal Conservative", the "heir to Blair" and on the other he has been the radical neo-Thatcherite and there will come a point when the two sides of the circle can't be squared (so to speak).
On the one hand, there is this perceived rolling back of the State yet Osborne and May have been happy to enforce value changes through legislation which in some ways has extended State power into the market place and weakened civil liberties.
As someone who will never be inside the Conservative tent, I do resent the implication Jeremy Corbyn "hates Britain". He may not share Conservative values (it's not yet compulsory) and he may even associate with those who do hate Britain but to say he, Jeremy Corbyn, hates Britain is absurd piffle.
It is possible to love Britain and not be a supporter of the Conservative Party and someone needs to remind Cameron why many people had "reservations" about voting Tory in May.
For now, for the immediate future, it's Conservatism Ascendant but nothing lasts forever and things have a habit of changing more quickly and dramatically than is often realised. 2020 is an eternity away and to assume present conditions will remain the same is foolish in the extreme.
Corbyn does not hate Britain, he just genuinely does not get patriotism or affection for a country or even the projection of a country as some kind entity. He does not see the world in that way. He sees it in terms of class - exploiters and the exploited. Once you understand that about Corbyn everything else about him becomes much easier to understand.
As long as he is leader Labour is unelectable. The major problem with that for all of us of whatever political hue we are is that it gives the Tories a completely free ride. Cameron can promise to make everyone better off and to deliver hundreds of thousands of new, affordable homes, and he has no-one to hold him to account. Should Labour come to understand this and then do something about it things could change quickly. But, sadly, it seems that Labour is happily ensconced in its comfort zone and will be for a fair while yet.0 -
My village is a similiar size, w weren't very impressed with the plans for ~ 300 homes on our doorstep.Plato_Says said:I cite Maidenbower here. Population 8k. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maidenbower
John_M said:
If we can get the right developments, I don't think people would have an issue. There are around 4,000 villages in England. 25 houses per village. There's 100k right there. Its when we get these large, soulless developments that NIMBYism kicks in.taffys said:''the government is going to have to build build build if it is going to have any credibility left in this area in 2020. ''
Even if they do, that may trample on very tory toes in the home counties and shires.
You can probably stick 35 or so in without too much issue though.0 -
In contrast, the completely abandoned NHS patient records system has cost the taxpayer £10 billion so far.Charles said:
£15bn isn't that muchJonathan said:
Seriously, the biggest bill for a generation and that's all you have?Plato_Says said:Delicatessen sliced baby.
Jonathan said:Did Cameron say how he's paying for Trident renewal?
0 -
Only if you subscribe to the notion that C(c)onservative values can't be a source of humour to those on the left.MonikerDiCanio said:
Bell's work has always been ugly and humourless. His professional longevity is a mystery.JEO said:
Steve Bell has always come across in his cartoons as being a rather rude, nasty comic. The comparison with Matt of the Telegraph is clear. The latter is far funnier, without ever being nasty.Anorak said:Seems as though Steve Bell is exactly as I imagined him. That is not a compliment.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2012/oct/11/steve-bell-david-cameron-conservative-video
0 -
@ stodge and SO, my thoughts too pretty much. If you assume your reign will last forever, you are probably contributing to foreshortening it.SouthamObserver said:
Two brilliant posts in one day.stodge said:Afternoon all
I've not listened to the Prime Minister's speech in detail - the eulogising of the usual suspects both inside and outside the Party is to be expected.
My initial thought becomes how big is the Conservative tent going to get and at what point will it collapse under the wight of its own contradictions ? David Cameron has, since 2005, ridden both the Conservative Party horses successfully - he has on the one hand been the "liberal Conservative", the "heir to Blair" and on the other he has been the radical neo-Thatcherite and there will come a point when the two sides of the circle can't be squared (so to speak).
On the one hand, there is this perceived rolling back of the State yet Osborne and May have been happy to enforce value changes through legislation which in some ways has extended State power into the market place and weakened civil liberties.
As someone who will never be inside the Conservative tent, I do resent the implication Jeremy Corbyn "hates Britain". He may not share Conservative values (it's not yet compulsory) and he may even associate with those who do hate Britain but to say he, Jeremy Corbyn, hates Britain is absurd piffle.
It is possible to love Britain and not be a supporter of the Conservative Party and someone needs to remind Cameron why many people had "reservations" about voting Tory in May.
For now, for the immediate future, it's Conservatism Ascendant but nothing lasts forever and things have a habit of changing more quickly and dramatically than is often realised. 2020 is an eternity away and to assume present conditions will remain the same is foolish in the extreme.
Corbyn does not hate Britain, he just genuinely does not get patriotism or affection for a country or even the projection of a country as some kind entity. He does not see the world in that way. He sees it in terms of class - exploiters and the exploited. Once you understand that about Corbyn everything else about him becomes much easier to understand.
As long as he is leader Labour is unelectable. The major problem with that for all of us of whatever political hue we are is that it gives the Tories a completely free ride. Cameron can promise to make everyone better off and to deliver hundreds of thousands of new, affordable homes, and he has no-one to hold him to account. Should Labour come to understand this and then do something about it things could change quickly. But, sadly, it seems that Labour is happily ensconced in its comfort zone and will be for a fair while yet.0 -
What evidence do you have that Jeremy Corbyn likes Britain? Meanwhile he refused to sing the national anthem, sympathises with the IRA, wants to give away Northern Ireland and the Falklands, overwhelm us with immigration and reduce the army. At least Miliband used to say he was proud to be British. I don't think Corbyn's ever done the same. Corbyn is more Ralph Miliband than Ed.SouthamObserver said:
Two brilliant posts in one day.
Corbyn does not hate Britain, he just genuinely does not get patriotism or affection for a country or even the projection of a country as some kind entity. He does not see the world in that way. He sees it in terms of class - exploiters and the exploited. Once you understand that about Corbyn everything else about him becomes much easier to understand.
As long as he is leader Labour is unelectable. The major problem with that for all of us of whatever political hue we are is that it gives the Tories a completely free ride. Cameron can promise to make everyone better off and to deliver hundreds of thousands of new, affordable homes, and he has no-one to hold him to account. Should Labour come to understand this and then do something about it things could change quickly. But, sadly, it seems that Labour is happily ensconced in its comfort zone and will be for a fair while yet.0 -
So Steve Bell contends that Cameron is naked - because all he has is a majority, a booming economy and falling unemployment ?
By that logic, Corbyn should be a skeleton.0 -
I am against so called serious governments saying they are going to do things without explaining how. It seems Tories are no stranger to magical money trees when it comes to certain projects.JohnO said:
WRT Trident itself, I want a serious debate because of the cost and because we shouldn't muck around lightly with the post-war settlement (which goes for the EU Brexit too).0 -
Well quite.
I said just after the GSTQ debacle that I'd never doubted the patriotism of any Party leader until Corbyn. My view hasn't changed.GarethoftheVale2 said:
I have to disagree. Perhaps 'hate' is a tad strong but I think it is very fair to say that Corbyn does not love this country. The fact that he has gone out of his way throughout the years to associate with our enemies backs this up.SouthamObserver said:
Two brilliant posts in one day.stodge said:Afternoon all
I've not listened to the Prime Minister's speech in detail - the eulogising of the usual suspects both inside and outside the Party is to be expected.
snip
On the one hand, there is this perceived rolling back of the State yet Osborne and May have been happy to enforce value changes through legislation which in some ways has extended State power into the market place and weakened civil liberties.
As someone who will never be inside the Conservative tent, I do resent the implication Jeremy Corbyn "hates Britain". He may not share Conservative values (it's not yet compulsory) and he may even associate with those who do hate Britain but to say he, Jeremy Corbyn, hates Britain is absurd piffle.
It is possible to love Britain and not be a supporter of the Conservative Party and someone needs to remind Cameron why many people had "reservations" about voting Tory in May.
For now, for the immediate future, it's Conservatism Ascendant but nothing lasts forever and things have a habit of changing more quickly and dramatically than is often realised. 2020 is an eternity away and to assume present conditions will remain the same is foolish in the extreme.
Corbyn does not hate Britain, he just genuinely does not get patriotism or affection for a country or even the projection of a country as some kind entity. He does not see the world in that way. He sees it in terms of class - exploiters and the exploited. Once you understand that about Corbyn everything else about him becomes much easier to understand.
As long as he is leader Labour is unelectable. The major problem with that for all of us of whatever political hue we are is that it gives the Tories a completely free ride. Cameron can promise to make everyone better off and to deliver hundreds of thousands of new, affordable homes, and he has no-one to hold him to account. Should Labour come to understand this and then do something about it things could change quickly. But, sadly, it seems that Labour is happily ensconced in its comfort zone and will be for a fair while yet.0 -
I take that as a positive sign.Sean_F said:
I went to an Anglican primary school which had lots of Jewish pupils.Philip_Thompson said:
Fully agreed. A segregated education that incubated them vs us and social segregation is not a good education though.Sean_F said:
Anybody who is capable of providing a good education should be entitled to provide it, be they religious or irreligious.Beverley_C said:
Good. A small step in the right direction.Plato_Says said:Press Association.
Downing Street said that the new inspection regime would apply to an estimated 5,000 religious institutions offering eight or more hours of study a week to children in England, including Christian Sunday schools and Jewish yeshivas as well as up to 2,000 madrassas.
Many of these offer teaching within places of worship, but others are conducted in homes.
At present, these institutions are not required to register with the authorities and are not subject to inspection.
They will now have to register with the Department for Education, and faith groups will be consulted on the precise details of how inspections should be conducted and whether they should be carried out by schools watchdog Ofsted or another body.
Speaking as someone who grew up in 1970s/80s Belfast, IMO organised religion has NO place in running educational establishments. All it does is embed the "them / us" attitude into young minds that then get hobbled with it.
And yes - for the avoidance of doubt - I include CoE and RC schools in that too.
I went to an Anglican (CoE) school in Australia as an atheist and one of my best friends was Jewish. The school was a great school and I was lucky to go to it, but it neither encouraged nor accepted segregation. For too long some schools and others in society have tolerated segregation in the name of tolerance or multiculturalism.
The suggestion that any organisation including religious ones that educate children should have inspections etc is a smart one. If the organisation accepts people of other faiths and none then that is welcome. If someone wants to segregate our society that is wrong.0 -
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/10/04/the-buzzword-bingo-on-camerons-conference-speech/
Twitter would have copped at 6-1.
I'm guessing Trident/security too. No idea what else though.0 -
-
What do you mean explain how? Trident is already costed into the government plans. There is thus no additional cost to account for: it's already factored into the budget from general taxation. Are you wanting every element of existing spending hypothecated from a specific tax?Jonathan said:
I am against so called serious governments saying they are going to do things without explaining how. It seems Tories are no stranger to magical money trees when it comes to certain projects.JohnO said:
WRT Trident itself, I want a serious debate because of the cost and because we shouldn't muck around lightly with the post-war settlement (which goes for the EU Brexit too).0 -
LadPolitics: Buzzword Bingo winners:Pulpstar said:http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/10/04/the-buzzword-bingo-on-camerons-conference-speech/
Twitter would have copped at 6-1.
I'm guessing Trident/security too. No idea what else though.
Security 1/10
Trident 1/5
Long Term Economic Plan 1/5
Northern Powerhouse 1/4
Refugees 1/3
Twitter 6/1
Ashcroft 12/10 -
It was in Mill Hill, North London, which then and now, has a big Jewish population.Philip_Thompson said:
I take that as a positive sign.Sean_F said:
I went to an Anglican primary school which had lots of Jewish pupils.Philip_Thompson said:
Fully agreed. A segregated education that incubated them vs us and social segregation is not a good education though.Sean_F said:
Anybody who is capable of providing a good education should be entitled to provide it, be they religious or irreligious.Beverley_C said:
Good. A small step in the right direction.Plato_Says said:Press Association.
Downing Street said that the new inspection regime would apply to an estimated 5,000 religious institutions offering eight or more hours of study a week to children in England, including Christian Sunday schools and Jewish yeshivas as well as up to 2,000 madrassas.
Many of these offer teaching within places of worship, but others are conducted in homes.
At present, these institutions are not required to register with the authorities and are not subject to inspection.
They will now have to register with the Department for Education, and faith groups will be consulted on the precise details of how inspections should be conducted and whether they should be carried out by schools watchdog Ofsted or another body.
Speaking as someone who grew up in 1970s/80s Belfast, IMO organised religion has NO place in running educational establishments. All it does is embed the "them / us" attitude into young minds that then get hobbled with it.
And yes - for the avoidance of doubt - I include CoE and RC schools in that too.
I went to an Anglican (CoE) school in Australia as an atheist and one of my best friends was Jewish. The school was a great school and I was lucky to go to it, but it neither encouraged nor accepted segregation. For too long some schools and others in society have tolerated segregation in the name of tolerance or multiculturalism.
The suggestion that any organisation including religious ones that educate children should have inspections etc is a smart one. If the organisation accepts people of other faiths and none then that is welcome. If someone wants to segregate our society that is wrong.
I think I'd first want to see what inspection regime is proposed. As I've made clear, I have great scepticism about the government's proposals to ban "extremism."0
