Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A Labour man in a Labour job. What’s not to like about Andr
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A Labour man in a Labour job. What’s not to like about Andrew Adonis?
The Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell likes to get away from politics by sailing his little Skipper 17 trailer sailer on the Norfolk Broads, he told the Eastern Daily Press. McDonnell was brought up in Great Yarmouth where the three Broads rivers enter the sea. Like all lovers of Broads sailing he will know that the worst part of the experience has been getting there.
0
Comments
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/education/2015/10/michael-gove-polite-assassin
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3265531/Lord-Brittan-treated-outrageously-police-gossiped-journalists-unfounded-rape-claims-against-brother-says.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3265772/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-not-say-sorry-Mr-Watson.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3265730/Why-Nonce-Finder-General-Tom-Watson-won-t-say-sorry-unfit-high-political-office-bearded-Trot-Corbyn-RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN.html
I think this has been discussed at length on here, but it's worth pointing out that those bargain interest rates are only a bargain because the market supports the Government's (wait for it!) long term economic plan.
Yes there are opportunities for Labour - there alway are for oppositions - but the Labour front bench is inept, disorganised, split and incapable.
They will be too busy focussing on tweets, niche issues and deselections.
The traffic then joins the A12 for a while, which there is OK, then back onto the 120, but by then there; are fewer “local” vehicles.
FWIW, I disagree. I think this government has a fantastic record on infrastructure. Better roads, trains and communications is a fundamental part of the Long-Term Economic Plan - public investment in infrastructure, as a % GDP, will be higher this decade under this government than the whole period of the last Labour government:
https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto
My industry sector is booming and there will be too much work to do until 2030.. at least. The problem in even achieving what we do have already committed to do 'on time' isn't the money, it's the talent, resource and skills in the construction and project management industry.
Therefore, I don't expect Corbyn's Labour to do much electoral campaigning.
Still, it's important that such as Carlotta and Plato keep posting links to the Daily Wail - not much else is going to keep the likes of Brind out of the Tory Party...
Then there is Farage and UKIPs one party LEAVE.EU. Farage justified the reason for LEAVE.EU because no other group advocated leaving and the group Carswell supported was not BOO. Now that reason has been removed, will Farage end his backing of LEAVE.EU to unite in one group? Sadly no.
Infrastructure investment outside of schools and hospitals was dire, and when they did try new ideas they came up with hideous ideas such as the Pathfinder scheme for housing.
As an example: it is generally acknowledged that the best way of upgrading a basic railway line is to electrify it. Both Thatcher and Major's governments electrified hundreds of miles of line: the ECML, the GEML, Bedford, King's Lynn, Heathrow and others. During Blair and Brown's thirteen years, they electrified (from memory) eight miles of line through Stoke.
Thirteen wasted years.
Oh, and It'd be good if Mr Brind had the name of the head of Miliband's secretive commission correct: it is "Sir John Armitt", not "Sir John Amrit" His report can be found here:
http://www.armittreview.org/
It's also about ambition. Take the 'Northern Powerhouse', which is an utterly positive message. The north can rise again. The north can compete. We will give you the powers and build the infrastructure you need.
What was Labour's message to the north?
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/
Typical Labour thinking. How much did all those railways in the 19th century cost the government?
"Why don't you just [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] you stupid little [REDACTED] [REDACTED] "
Balls to Northern Mayor......
On the other hand, as very few railways ever paid dividends, it could be argued that it lost money via taxes that would have been paid had more financially attractive options been taken. (This is of course one reason why outside Britain the vast majority of railways were built with government aid.)
That being said, as they fuelled rapid economic growth, it could be argued such things were paid for in other ways and by other industries, especially coal.
Cameron could skip meetings of the Privy Council when he was first LotO because there was no question about where his position was on the monarchy or indeed, on Britain and Britishness in general. Corbyn has not earned that luxury. He might want to brush off attacks on him as 'personal' when they address his record and policy stance but that again misunderstands the game he's now in. Trivialities build a picture of a person (and not all the matters in question are trivialities), and that picture is very powerful in moulding public opinion.
Corbyn knows this. He was happy enough doing it when he engaged in PR stunts he knew would outrage and scandalise. I suspect he enjoyed the fact that it did. But he's no longer at liberty to follow his own campaigns on the fringes and cannot continue as a free spirit.
Labour can try and take credit for the appointment and the plan. That's fair enough. I don't think it will work particularly because the public are more prone to credit those who deliver rather than those who plan but they're welcome to try, and they're welcome to attack gaps in the plan - that's what oppositions should do. But whether or not they do, it won't change public perceptions of Corbyn and by extension, today's Labour, which are being built on a different level.
So here, the government shot itself in the foot somewhat. A looser regulatory framework might have made it a lot more money and, ironically, by keeping the huge network of lightly-used lines open, saved many thousands of lives.
It may all turn out to be irrelevant. I can foresee a situation where Cameron postpones an EU vote next year because of escalating war in Syria into which we have been dragged by Russian intervention.
ISTR reading somewhere that the Great Central from London to Sheffield - Britain's last main line - never made any money. Which was one reason it was closed.
F1: P1 starts in about 7 minutes. Keep an eye on Mercedes' mood music.
Edited extra bit: delayed due to diesel on the track. Session will be full-length, not curtailed.
With that I am off to work. Have a good day.
Indeed, I am beginning to think that not only the Labour Party but parliamentary democracy itself is an idea whose time has gone.
The moment of choice comes for Biden. He is running out of time to get on the ballots according to Democrat party organizers:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/a-new-clue-suggests-biden-may-run
I'm on at 12/1
Anyway, the circuit's quite like Australia, so that may help McLaren, but they're probably so far off the pace it won't matter.
I see no reason to criticise Adonis for taking the job, but pointing out the apparent lack of serious backing for it is legitimate. If we're proved right and Adonis resigns in frustration three years from now, that'll be politically relevant. If the Government proves us wrong by stumping up for the investment after all, that's fine too, in the national interest.
Where the game has changed is that the donkey actually this time might be a super-left wing party so even a tired, intellectually bankrupt Cons party may push the timing out one more electoral cycle to 2030. Imagine that.
However, if they do deliver, then imagine that also - power without limit. And that scenario is one I'm sure occupying everyone at CCHQ. It's not that they won't win in 2020, it's that they might govern for the foreseeable future if they get these promises right and that, if nothing else, might galvanise them into delivery.
I've been pondering why French children are so different from English ones. Visiting art galleries in France you see large parties of young and very young schoolchildren being genuinely fascinated by the art. Not only are they there and interested but very well behaved
(They also dress in their own clothes more often than not with considerable flair).
It's so noticable that I googled 'behaviour of French schoolchildren' and apparently it's a well known fact that French children are better behaved than their English counterparts though the reasons seem vague.
One of the least attractive features of the UK (apart from the weather the chauvinism the obeasity and the philistinism) is the prurience which is much less obvious in France. I wonder whether it's the general desire to repress which was so evident during the Tory Party Conference which is at the heart of it?
Total bollocks Nick, you were so bad you make Osborne look good.
English parents indulge their children hugely and have this nonsense belief that every activity from mealtime to trips out should be child-centred. The middle class ones are the worst. There's nothing more soul-destroying than getting on a plane to find that a small child called Oliver or Harriet is behind you. You know it will be alternately screeching and kicking the back of your chair for the entire flight as its parent ineffectually says "oh don't do that darling".
French parents, while very loving, cut their children absolutely no slack from a very early age on such things like table manners. They involve their children in adult activities rather than making all activities about the children. As a result, French children are commonly charming and very well-behaved.
I'm not quite sure what goes wrong in adulthood.
The temptation to stick my leg out was significant. [I didn't].
That's not being grouchy. it's trying to prevent the same mistakes happening again. I can understand why you want to gloss over those mistakes, but ignoring them will undoubtedly damage the country.
Doing things, as opposed to saying things, is hard. The infrastructure body will probably not cost that much and should just be a few people: the main bodies, helpers, secretaries and lawyers. The real cost will be in what they propose, and that will depend on their terms of reference. If it's anything like Sir John Armitt's proposal AIUI, then all schemes should have a high BCR (*).
But more importantly, the commission might come up with a joined-up, consistent plan for the country's infrastructure. If it does, then it will be its most vital contribution: replacing the myriad of disjointed and inconsistent schemes that have dominated for the last few decades with a unified one.
(*) Leaving aside the myriad of problems with BCR's.
Collateral damage has always been acceptable to the Kremlin, even on home territory.
Juncker says EU Russian relations must improve and Washington can't dictate. The peice quotes the speech directly for those who automatically disbelieve anything sullied by being reported by RT. The views expressed will be of no surprise to those who follow these issues closely. That such a senior figure has had the cojones to say this publicly will.
So most moderates, like Don, are giving it a fair try and putting forward constructive suggestions. Your standard reaction (3 times on this thread alone) has become "Aaargh, no, we're all doomed". Give it a rest!
I was just relaying an anecdote relevant to the conversation. Even when I was a (very well-behaved) child I found obnoxious behaviour and indulgent parents irksome in the extreme.
"Asylbewerber suchen sich zunehmend selbst ihren Wohnsitz aus, ziehen in den Zügen die Notbremsen, um einfach auszusteigen, weigern sich, in Busse einzusteigen, es gibt Unruhen bis hin zu Hungerstreiks in den Flüchtlingsheimen, weil das Essen angeblich nicht schmeckt oder nicht so entschieden wird, wie der Asylsuchende es will"
Asylum seekers are increasingly demanding a home fot themselves, they pull the emergency brakes on trains simply to get off, refuse to get on buses and cause disturbances in the refugee homes right up to hunger strikes because ostensibly they don't like the taste of the food or it's not served they way the the asylumseeker wants.
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/fluechtlingskrise/horst-seehofer-es-gibt-hungerstreiks-in-den-fluechtlingsheimen-13847121.html
Merkel has a bit of a problem atm
Firstly, one of the reasons the government can still borrow cheaply despite still having the worst deficit in Europe is that the markets accept that they are serious about addressing it. Borrowing lots of additional "cheap" money would dangerously undermine that.
Secondly, one of the many major problems left by the Brown disaster is that far too much of our government expenditure goes on current spending. It is just incoherent and irrational to expect the government to spend a lot more on, say, WTC, and on infrastructure. These are choices and the government has chosen correctly.
Thirdly, after the latest revisals to the GDP figures the argument that austerity somehow reduced growth gets ever more untenable. Growth in the UK has matched that of the US since 2010 and is by far the best in the EU. The idea that it would have been sustainable to borrow even more, drive demand even more and somehow generate additional growth that was somehow going to magically produce the extra tax revenues to pay for it all is just stupid. It is no longer even an arguable position, it is stupid.
The fact is that the easy tax revenues of the bubble in the City and plentiful north sea oil are gone and they are not coming back. Our deficit was much more structural than was appreciated at the time and is much harder to eliminate as a result. This means real cuts along with tax increases are going to be needed to rebalance our economy onto some sustainable footing. This will not be easy or politically popular but it is absolutely necessary.
So where does that leave the ambitions of Osborne? If this new body is to have a new budget rather than simply making better use of the old one he will have to bear down even harder on current expenditure to release resources for capital spending. I think there is no doubt that he wants to do that. Whether he finds that politically doable will be an interesting question.
I find walking past a school at 8.30 in the morning thoroughly depressing.
Some children are badly behaved, the majority are not. The latter are the ones who never get noticed in restaurants and planes.
One of my uncles is a doctor, who lectured in a particular science at two universities (as a child I used to see him on OU programs, bedecked in flares). He had two children who are about ten years younger than me.
When I was in my mid-teens we went to visit them, and the son and daughter ran riot the whole time. For instance the son jumped on the window sill and knocked ornaments off, they'd constantly interrupt, throw toys, etc. During the drive home, my mother said something like: "Both those kids'll end up in prison."
And it was not a one-off.
Wind forwards a couple of decades, and the son is now heavily involved with, and doing well for himself in, computers, and the daughter is a marine research scientist.
Their 'misbehaviour' as kids seems to have made no difference to their prospects. The love their parents gave them did make a difference.
All kids are individuals, and perhaps the correct parental strategy for each kid might be different as well.
Merkel's decision is going to haunt Germany for years. We've had around 1 million net migration this decade. They're doing more than that in a year. The idea that solving a demographic problem via mass immigration is going to be tested to destruction. My view has always been that proponents of that idea are just indulging in a ponzi scheme.
We have to stop foisting our issues onto our children and grandchildren, whether that's managing finances, dealing with the elderly or infrastructure investment (fuelled by borrowing). As David H. says, less current spending, more capital spending. Not both. If that means higher taxes, then so be it.
My memory for such things is zero.
They grew up as warped individuals with a grudge against society and became lawyers ?
This is about Merkel's grande geste.
And it is going to be a problem.
"... and for all I know is still an awful person."
That shows a deficiency in your character, not his. Why assume that someone who was 'awful' as a child would be such as an adult? did you not change from childhood to adulthood?
(*) This probably only applies up to his teens.
Well that's a novel definition, I'll give you that.
Frustrating and irritating as it can be for the parent (let alone anyone else in the vicinity) it is necessary to engage and reason with the person from a surprisingly young age. Simply telling children what to do or imposing what they see as unreasonable punishments usually aggravates the situation.
The most important thing any child or indeed adult can learn in life is that actions have consequences. They need to be made to think about the consequences and then moderate their own behaviour accordingly. Easier said than done of course, not least because it requires a degree of consistency on the part of the parents themselves, an area where I have failed many times.