On topic: As always antifrank makes a good argument, but as others have pointed out it's not the whole story; there are countervailing reasons for thinking that the Conservative position is pretty good overall. On balance, as things stand at the moment, a Conservative-led or Conservative majority government in 2020 looks very likely.
On the other side of the coin, I think antifrank has forgotten one very nasty minefield which the government has to get through in the next few months: the likely approval of the third runway at Heathrow.
I agree with David Herdson that Corbyn's toxicity (to the majority of voters) probably ensures a win for the Conservatives in 2020, regardless.
The Conservatives will obviously suffer from mid-term unpopularity, as almost all governments do. They could be polling in the low 30s or high 20s. But, I imagine that most of those disillusioned voters will go over to UKIP, not Labour, as they did in the period 2013-15.
Here's the thing: both parties are dominated by the urban middle-classes at the moment, and I sense the Tories tacking (slowly) in that direction too. That leads them to think that they need to be much more progressive on pet peeves of those groups - like feminism, diversity, inoffensive speech and gender equality.
But the Tories real problem is being seen as a friend of vested interests, and the wealthy. The closure of the steelworks at Redcar is a good example: rather than just saying "pah, it's the free market", why not strontly emphathise with the tragedy of it and set a minister on as task to do everything possible to bring new private investment and good jobs to the area?
It's not just policy - and I'm not for a second suggesting subsidy - but this was the problem in the 80s. There's a motives and values argument the Tories need to win if they are to ever break out of the sub-40% box, and that starts with empathy, mood music and being seen to care and take action.
Crikey - has any other (Neccessary) public service been hit that hard ?
That does look like an overdone level of cut. I'd have thought other stuff should take a hit before this.
How much of that is based on fact and how much is based on worst-case scenario posturing in order to make a point?
I have very little faith in the integrity of senior police figures these days. It saddens me to say to but they engage too much in political activity and not on doing their jobs.
Unless and until ACPO is gone, I will have no trust in what they and their members have to say.
....Now, I hope David Cameron's conference speech focus on social reform is real, but it looks like their only actual plan is to devolve the mess above to higher profile scapegoat mayors in the (often Labour) cities. Effectively their plan for cuts is simply that which is already starting to bear fruit in the Tory advance in Wales. That the effects of cuts could actually be used to strengthen the Tory position is one referenced by Don Brind quoting Jim McMahon in his most recent thread and, even in my advocating that the Labour centre take up the devolution challenge with relish, I noted that it could not be more a trap if it had Acme written on it.
There seem to be several strands to GO's general strategy. I particularly like the one which seeks, where possible, to place the burden of raising money on those who spend the money. I think this has legs in many places and is already causing some twitching in the SNP and some local councils.
I didn't think English councils were asking for FFA? Is the plan then to re-cast or dump funding formulae totally? I note in slight contradiction to my previous line on this thread that plenty of Tory areas are lining up for devolution (e.g. Cheshire, non-metro Surrey/Sussex), but such a fundamental re-org is a chance to look again at funding.
The basic problem with apothecation is that it is [total rubbish]. All that 'we will raise xxx from mansion tax to fund yyy ridiculously specific thing' leaves me totally cold. Getting the sources of tax to exactly match the destinations of tax is so brain dead, either as a straw man for additional spending or for cuts, that I can't fathom the popularity it has.
At the risk of showing my ignorance, what does "apothecation" mean. I cannot find a definition. Whatever it means, your post is apropos FA. My point is it's a political strategy attempting to instil some fiscal responsibility on those unlikely otherwise to show any.
On topic: As always antifrank makes a good argument, but as others have pointed out it's not the whole story; there are countervailing reasons for thinking that the Conservative position is pretty good overall. On balance, as things stand at the moment, a Conservative-led or Conservative majority government in 2020 looks very likely.
On the other side of the coin, I think antifrank has forgotten one very nasty minefield which the government has to get through in the next few months: the likely approval of the third runway at Heathrow.
What price do you make NOM?
Off the top of my head, I'd go something like:
Con Maj 5/6 NOM 6/4 Lab Maj 20/1 (or longer)
As you pointed out earlier, Con Maj vs NOM is essentially about whether the Conservatives will lose seats (ignoring the boundary changes effect). On balance, given Corbyn and the Labour civil war, I think it's more likely that the Tories will gain seats, but of course there are substantial countervailing arguments such as those antifrank puts forward, and the question of who Cameron's successor is going to be. Lots of uncertainties obviously.
You sometimes think the SNP needs to be saved from itself. It certainly needs to be saved from the vociferous Nationalist partisans on social media who regard any criticism of the Scottish Government as biblical heresy. The problem is that many members seem to believe that the independence movement belongs to the SNP, and that Yes supporters should automatically support the party leadership.
There's been a lively debate recently in the wider independence movement about the SNP's privatisation policies. The independence supporting video blogger, Stephen Paton, has pointed out that the SNP hasn’t exactly been bending over backwards to keep water services out of private hands. But even to mention his his name is to invite a storm of criticism from the guardians of Nationalist rectitude
Ha Ha Ha , SNP have made themselves popular with the public by implementing good policies, deliberately and keep getting voted back in , Tories say it is a crime and SNP=BAD.
It all comes back to George Foulkes : -
Foulkes: The SNP are on a dangerous tack at the moment. What they are doing is trying to build up a situation in Scotland where the services are manifestly better than south of the border in a number of areas.
Colin MacKay : Is this such a bad thing?
Lord Foulkes: No, but they are doing it deliberately.
When even Foulkes can do nothing other than praise the SNP, then it is no wonder frothing zoomers like Tomkins can do no better than playground insults.
....Now, I hope David Cameron's conference speech focus on social reform is real, but it looks like their only actual plan is to devolve the mess above to higher profile scapegoat mayors in the (often Labour) cities. Effectively their plan for cuts is simply that which is already starting to bear fruit in the Tory advance in Wales. That the effects of cuts could actually be used to strengthen the Tory position is one referenced by Don Brind quoting Jim McMahon in his most recent thread and, even in my advocating that the Labour centre take up the devolution challenge with relish, I noted that it could not be more a trap if it had Acme written on it.
There seem to be several strands to GO's general strategy. I particularly like the one which seeks, where possible, to place the burden of raising money on those who spend the money. I think this has legs in many places and is already causing some twitching in the SNP and some local councils.
I didn't think English councils were asking for FFA? Is the plan then to re-cast or dump funding formulae totally? I note in slight contradiction to my previous line on this thread that plenty of Tory areas are lining up for devolution (e.g. Cheshire, non-metro Surrey/Sussex), but such a fundamental re-org is a chance to look again at funding.
The basic problem with hypothecation is that it is [total rubbish]. All that 'we will raise xxx from mansion tax to fund yyy ridiculously specific thing' leaves me totally cold. Getting the sources of tax to exactly match the destinations of tax is so brain dead, either as a straw man for additional spending or for cuts, that I can't fathom the popularity it has.
At the risk of showing my ignorance, what does "apothecation" mean. I cannot find a definition. Whatever it means, your post is apropos FA. My point is it's a political strategy attempting to instil some fiscal responsibility on those unlikely otherwise to show any.
Corrected - was obviously thinking of something else.
On topic: As always antifrank makes a good argument, but as others have pointed out it's not the whole story; there are countervailing reasons for thinking that the Conservative position is pretty good overall. On balance, as things stand at the moment, a Conservative-led or Conservative majority government in 2020 looks very likely.
On the other side of the coin, I think antifrank has forgotten one very nasty minefield which the government has to get through in the next few months: the likely approval of the third runway at Heathrow.
What price do you make NOM?
To jump in here, I think you're right to be looking at this. The next few years look likely to be unusually volatile, with inherent instability in Labour and with the EU faultline in the Conservatives undergoing the ultimate stress-test. The line-up of serious political parties contesting the next election is less certain than normal at the outset of a Parliament, never mind predicting what the outcome is going to be. I'm not yet betting on NOM, but I am keeping a watching brief.
My concern is whether it is worth it yet once you factor the time delay in collecting into the calculation. Unscientifically, I make it an evens shot, which means that it would still be worth it (if you can back it at 7/4 and it's really an even money shot, in my way of thinking that means you're converting £100 now into a value of £137.50 in May 2020, just under an 8% return tax free), but building in a margin for prudence allowing for my ability to fall in love with a bet, I'm leaving alone for now. I'd be very interested in other views.
If I ws a 14 yr old kid in Hackney or wherever Kids Company operated from, I'd be down Kids Company every week. So far as I can tell they were just giving away free cash ! Who wouldn't take it.
which is exactly what their own financial controller accused them of a month or so ago. I think she was based in west country and couldn't believe they just handed out £20 notes to anyone who turned up.
NDAs, in a charity. What law firm drafted them?
Not binding in a legal or parliamentary inquiry I'd have thought, though? (Advice from lawyers appreciated here).
Stop the Widow Batman-Twanky talking nonsense, and ask her where all the money was spunked away.
If there was any justice, the Met Police would be waiting outside to arrest these people.
I agree. Why she's not been charged with fraud escapes me. I don't know what Yentob is for, other than embodying all that's repulsive about the so-called metropolitan elite.
Is Yentob as responsible as Batmanwhatsit for what seems to have been the fraudulent goings on? Without him and his ilk lending her their ear bending influence, she would have struggled for the influence she had to perpetrate her "idiosyncrasies". Shouty charities are to be abhorred.
Turns out we mistook her loud clothes, and even louder voice, as charisma and competence.
Shame, because back in the day I was convinced Kids Company was A Good Thing.
Just goes to show that none of us ever knows what's really going on, until everyone knows.
Tories are always easily fooled by big gobbed egoistic self seeking individuals like this. They assume the bovine manure is competence, just look at their MP's.
On topic: As always antifrank makes a good argument, but as others have pointed out it's not the whole story; there are countervailing reasons for thinking that the Conservative position is pretty good overall. On balance, as things stand at the moment, a Conservative-led or Conservative majority government in 2020 looks very likely.
On the other side of the coin, I think antifrank has forgotten one very nasty minefield which the government has to get through in the next few months: the likely approval of the third runway at Heathrow.
What price do you make NOM?
Off the top of my head, I'd go something like:
Con Maj 5/6 NOM 6/4 Lab Maj 20/1 (or longer)
As you pointed out earlier, Con Maj vs NOM is essentially about whether the Conservatives will lose seats (ignoring the boundary changes effect). On balance, given Corbyn and the Labour civil war, I think it's more likely that the Tories will gain seats, but of course there are substantial countervailing arguments such as those antifrank puts forward, and the question of who Cameron's successor is going to be. Lots of uncertainties obviously.
Cheers
I started getting all excited about backing a CON-LD coalition if I could find a nice price until I remembered Clegg is no longer in charge there
Stop the Widow Batman-Twanky talking nonsense, and ask her where all the money was spunked away.
If there was any justice, the Met Police would be waiting outside to arrest these people.
I agree. Why she's not been charged with fraud escapes me. I don't know what Yentob is for, other than embodying all that's repulsive about the so-called metropolitan elite.
Is Yentob as responsible as Batmanwhatsit for what seems to have been the fraudulent goings on? Without him and his ilk lending her their ear bending influence, she would have struggled for the influence she had to perpetrate her "idiosyncrasies". Shouty charities are to be abhorred.
Turns out we mistook her loud clothes, and even louder voice, as charisma and competence.
Shame, because back in the day I was convinced Kids Company was A Good Thing.
Just goes to show that none of us ever knows what's really going on, until everyone knows.
Tories are always easily fooled by big gobbed egoistic self seeking individuals like this. They assume the bovine manure is competence, just look at their MP's.
Is that why the SNP lead Scottish Government handed cash to it's 'cronies' at T in the Park?
It paid £150k to a private company to persuade the company to assist Government policy instead of basing their decision on a purely commercial basis. This is normal, it happens in all governments in all countries.
The thing is, people generally understand this. It was also a policy started by SLAB when they paid DF to move the festival from Strathclyde Park to Balado in the first place.
If I ws a 14 yr old kid in Hackney or wherever Kids Company operated from, I'd be down Kids Company every week. So far as I can tell they were just giving away free cash ! Who wouldn't take it.
which is exactly what their own financial controller accused them of a month or so ago. I think she was based in west country and couldn't believe they just handed out £20 notes to anyone who turned up.
NDAs, in a charity. What law firm drafted them?
Not binding in a legal or parliamentary inquiry I'd have thought, though? (Advice from lawyers appreciated here).
You can't contract to break the law, but you could contract to decline any voluntary information (or at least, I know of no reason you couldn't).
Batman now alleging conspiracy from civil servants in Cabinet Office to smear charity - she's sounding like a fantasist.
Dan Thompson @artistsmakers Camila now makes allegations against Civil Servants - than says 'I don't like to make accusations without evidence'. #kidscompany
Richard Blandford @rblandford Yentob desperately trying to stop CB from saying something very libellous. #kidscompany
....Now, I hope David Cameron's conference speech focus on social reform is real, but it looks like their only actual plan is to devolve the mess above to higher profile scapegoat mayors in the (often Labour) cities. Effectively their plan for cuts is simply that which is already starting to bear fruit in the Tory advance in Wales. That the effects of cuts could actually be used to strengthen the Tory position is one referenced by Don Brind quoting Jim McMahon in his most recent thread and, even in my advocating that the Labour centre take up the devolution challenge with relish, I noted that it could not be more a trap if it had Acme written on it.
There seem to be several strands to GO's general strategy. I particularly like the one which seeks, where possible, to place the burden of raising money on those who spend the money. I think this has legs in many places and is already causing some twitching in the SNP and some local councils.
I didn't think English councils were asking for FFA? Is the plan then to re-cast or dump funding formulae totally? I note in slight contradiction to my previous line on this thread that plenty of Tory areas are lining up for devolution (e.g. Cheshire, non-metro Surrey/Sussex), but such a fundamental re-org is a chance to look again at funding.
The basic problem with apothecation is that it is [total rubbish]. All that 'we will raise xxx from mansion tax to fund yyy ridiculously specific thing' leaves me totally cold. Getting the sources of tax to exactly match the destinations of tax is so brain dead, either as a straw man for additional spending or for cuts, that I can't fathom the popularity it has.
At the risk of showing my ignorance, what does "apothecation" mean. I cannot find a definition. Whatever it means, your post is apropos FA. My point is it's a political strategy attempting to instil some fiscal responsibility on those unlikely otherwise to show any.
Stop the Widow Batman-Twanky talking nonsense, and ask her where all the money was spunked away.
If there was any justice, the Met Police would be waiting outside to arrest these people.
I agree. Why she's not been charged with fraud escapes me. I don't know what Yentob is for, other than embodying all that's repulsive about the so-called metropolitan elite.
Is Yentob as responsible as Batmanwhatsit for what seems to have been the fraudulent goings on? Without him and his ilk lending her their ear bending influence, she would have struggled for the influence she had to perpetrate her "idiosyncrasies". Shouty charities are to be abhorred.
Turns out we mistook her loud clothes, and even louder voice, as charisma and competence.
Shame, because back in the day I was convinced Kids Company was A Good Thing.
Just goes to show that none of us ever knows what's really going on, until everyone knows.
Tories are always easily fooled by big gobbed egoistic self seeking individuals like this. They assume the bovine manure is competence, just look at their MP's.
Doesn't that make you a Tory?
Insecticide, you would love to be able top articulate your thoughts even partially as good as I do. Clue is to get educated and think before thumping your sausages off the keyboard.
Stop the Widow Batman-Twanky talking nonsense, and ask her where all the money was spunked away.
If there was any justice, the Met Police would be waiting outside to arrest these people.
I agree. Why she's not been charged with fraud escapes me. I don't know what Yentob is for, other than embodying all that's repulsive about the so-called metropolitan elite.
Is Yentob as responsible as Batmanwhatsit for what seems to have been the fraudulent goings on? Without him and his ilk lending her their ear bending influence, she would have struggled for the influence she had to perpetrate her "idiosyncrasies". Shouty charities are to be abhorred.
Turns out we mistook her loud clothes, and even louder voice, as charisma and competence.
Shame, because back in the day I was convinced Kids Company was A Good Thing.
Just goes to show that none of us ever knows what's really going on, until everyone knows.
Tories are always easily fooled by big gobbed egoistic self seeking individuals like this. They assume the bovine manure is competence, just look at their MP's.
Is that why the SNP lead Scottish Government handed cash to it's 'cronies' at T in the Park?
You pathetic excuse for a human being , they gave money to a company that was holding a major music event. Dribble somewhere else please.
It gets even more comical as the straws are grasped. The Ryder Cup event had nothing to do with the Referendum or the SNP. It was an event organised by VisitScotland a Quango which has successfully grown the Scottish Tourism Industry beyond all expectations.
It is run by a man with no party affiliation who joined from a management role at Diageo.
What the lunatic frothers on here are willing to swallow makes Sasha Grey movies look tame.
I agree with David Herdson that Corbyn's toxicity (to the majority of voters) probably ensures a win for the Conservatives in 2020, regardless.
The Conservatives will obviously suffer from mid-term unpopularity, as almost all governments do. They could be polling in the low 30s or high 20s. But, I imagine that most of those disillusioned voters will go over to UKIP, not Labour, as they did in the period 2013-15.
Here's the thing: both parties are dominated by the urban middle-classes at the moment, and I sense the Tories tacking (slowly) in that direction too. That leads them to think that they need to be much more progressive on pet peeves of those groups - like feminism, diversity, inoffensive speech and gender equality.
But the Tories real problem is being seen as a friend of vested interests, and the wealthy. The closure of the steelworks at Redcar is a good example: rather than just saying "pah, it's the free market", why not strontly emphathise with the tragedy of it and set a minister on as task to do everything possible to bring new private investment and good jobs to the area?
It's not just policy - and I'm not for a second suggesting subsidy - but this was the problem in the 80s. There's a motives and values argument the Tories need to win if they are to ever break out of the sub-40% box, and that starts with empathy, mood music and being seen to care and take action.
Adopting such pet peeves can even reinforce the view that one is the friend of vested interests.
On topic: As always antifrank makes a good argument, but as others have pointed out it's not the whole story; there are countervailing reasons for thinking that the Conservative position is pretty good overall. On balance, as things stand at the moment, a Conservative-led or Conservative majority government in 2020 looks very likely.
On the other side of the coin, I think antifrank has forgotten one very nasty minefield which the government has to get through in the next few months: the likely approval of the third runway at Heathrow.
What price do you make NOM?
To jump in here, I think you're right to be looking at this. The next few years look likely to be unusually volatile, with inherent instability in Labour and with the EU faultline in the Conservatives undergoing the ultimate stress-test. The line-up of serious political parties contesting the next election is less certain than normal at the outset of a Parliament, never mind predicting what the outcome is going to be. I'm not yet betting on NOM, but I am keeping a watching brief.
My concern is whether it is worth it yet once you factor the time delay in collecting into the calculation. Unscientifically, I make it an evens shot, which means that it would still be worth it (if you can back it at 7/4 and it's really an even money shot, in my way of thinking that means you're converting £100 now into a value of £137.50 in May 2020, just under an 8% return tax free), but building in a margin for prudence allowing for my ability to fall in love with a bet, I'm leaving alone for now. I'd be very interested in other views.
Cheers, yeah it looks like a bet to me but I can't really be arsed to tie money up for that long for that return either.
Stop the Widow Batman-Twanky talking nonsense, and ask her where all the money was spunked away.
If there was any justice, the Met Police would be waiting outside to arrest these people.
I agree. Why she's not been charged with fraud escapes me. I don't know what Yentob is for, other than embodying all that's repulsive about the so-called metropolitan elite.
Is Yentob as responsible as Batmanwhatsit for what seems to have been the fraudulent goings on? Without him and his ilk lending her their ear bending influence, she would have struggled for the influence she had to perpetrate her "idiosyncrasies". Shouty charities are to be abhorred.
Turns out we mistook her loud clothes, and even louder voice, as charisma and competence.
Shame, because back in the day I was convinced Kids Company was A Good Thing.
Just goes to show that none of us ever knows what's really going on, until everyone knows.
Tories are always easily fooled by big gobbed egoistic self seeking individuals like this. They assume the bovine manure is competence, just look at their MP's.
Doesn't that make you a Tory?
Insecticide, you would love to be able top articulate your thoughts even partially as good as I do. Clue is to get educated and think before thumping your sausages off the keyboard.
Insecticide, you would love to be able top articulate your thoughts even partially as good as I do. Clue is to get educated and think before thumping your sausages off the keyboard.
"Articulate even partially as good as I do", eh? You're right, there's nothing like a good education...
Batman now alleging conspiracy from civil servants in Cabinet Office to smear charity - she's sounding like a fantasist.
Her claim also contradicts the Guardian article in August that stated the allegations came from two ex-employees of Kid.Co. – Ms Batman has deployed flack counter measures and is now reduced to chucking everything at the fan hoping to divert attention imho.
Particularly funny that the original graffiti in the refugee camp were pro-Assad and that Hezbollah (Shia) and Al Qaida (Sunni) are shown as buddies. Still a good show, though!
Yentob is reason enough to scrap the TV licence, he is the epitome of smug, liberal, venal, taxpayer's waste of money. This man has made a fortune out of us all, he's a disgrace.
On topic: As always antifrank makes a good argument, but as others have pointed out it's not the whole story; there are countervailing reasons for thinking that the Conservative position is pretty good overall. On balance, as things stand at the moment, a Conservative-led or Conservative majority government in 2020 looks very likely.
On the other side of the coin, I think antifrank has forgotten one very nasty minefield which the government has to get through in the next few months: the likely approval of the third runway at Heathrow.
What price do you make NOM?
To jump in here, I think you're right to be looking at this. The next few years look likely to be unusually volatile, with inherent instability in Labour and with the EU faultline in the Conservatives undergoing the ultimate stress-test. The line-up of serious political parties contesting the next election is less certain than normal at the outset of a Parliament, never mind predicting what the outcome is going to be. I'm not yet betting on NOM, but I am keeping a watching brief.
My concern is whether it is worth it yet once you factor the time delay in collecting into the calculation. Unscientifically, I make it an evens shot, which means that it would still be worth it (if you can back it at 7/4 and it's really an even money shot, in my way of thinking that means you're converting £100 now into a value of £137.50 in May 2020, just under an 8% return tax free), but building in a margin for prudence allowing for my ability to fall in love with a bet, I'm leaving alone for now. I'd be very interested in other views.
....Now, I hope David Cameron's conference speech focus on social reform is real, but it looks like their only actual plan is to devolve the mess above to higher profile scapegoat mayors in the (often Labour) cities. Effectively their plan for cuts is simply that which is already starting to bear fruit in the Tory advance in Wales. That the effects of cuts could actually be used to strengthen the Tory position is one referenced by Don Brind quoting Jim McMahon in his most recent thread and, even in my advocating that the Labour centre take up the devolution challenge with relish, I noted that it could not be more a trap if it had Acme written on it.
There seem to be several strands to GO's general strategy. I particularly like the one which seeks, where possible, to place the burden of raising money on those who spend the money. I think this has legs in many places and is already causing some twitching in the SNP and some local councils.
I didn't think English councils were asking for FFA? Is the plan then to re-cast or dump funding formulae totally? I note in slight contradiction to my previous line on this thread that plenty of Tory areas are lining up for devolution (e.g. Cheshire, non-metro Surrey/Sussex), but such a fundamental re-org is a chance to look again at funding.
The basic problem with apothecation is that it is [total rubbish]. All that 'we will raise xxx from mansion tax to fund yyy ridiculously specific thing' leaves me totally cold. Getting the sources of tax to exactly match the destinations of tax is so brain dead, either as a straw man for additional spending or for cuts, that I can't fathom the popularity it has.
At the risk of showing my ignorance, what does "apothecation" mean. I cannot find a definition. Whatever it means, your post is apropos FA. My point is it's a political strategy attempting to instil some fiscal responsibility on those unlikely otherwise to show any.
I think "hypothecation" is the word intended.
I agree. I wouldn't have bothered other than to make the point in my last sentence.
Stop the Widow Batman-Twanky talking nonsense, and ask her where all the money was spunked away.
If there was any justice, the Met Police would be waiting outside to arrest these people.
I agree. Why she's not been charged with fraud escapes me. I don't know what Yentob is for, other than embodying all that's repulsive about the so-called metropolitan elite.
Is Yentob as responsible as Batmanwhatsit for what seems to have been the fraudulent goings on? Without him and his ilk lending her their ear bending influence, she would have struggled for the influence she had to perpetrate her "idiosyncrasies". Shouty charities are to be abhorred.
Turns out we mistook her loud clothes, and even louder voice, as charisma and competence.
Shame, because back in the day I was convinced Kids Company was A Good Thing.
Just goes to show that none of us ever knows what's really going on, until everyone knows.
Tories are always easily fooled by big gobbed egoistic self seeking individuals like this. They assume the bovine manure is competence, just look at their MP's.
Doesn't that make you a Tory?
Insecticide, you would love to be able top articulate your thoughts even partially as good as I do. Clue is to get educated and think before thumping your sausages off the keyboard.
Here's the thing: both parties are dominated by the urban middle-classes at the moment, and I sense the Tories tacking (slowly) in that direction too. That leads them to think that they need to be much more progressive on pet peeves of those groups - like feminism, diversity, inoffensive speech and gender equality.
But the Tories real problem is being seen as a friend of vested interests, and the wealthy. The closure of the steelworks at Redcar is a good example: rather than just saying "pah, it's the free market", why not strontly emphathise with the tragedy of it and set a minister on as task to do everything possible to bring new private investment and good jobs to the area?
It's not just policy - and I'm not for a second suggesting subsidy - but this was the problem in the 80s. There's a motives and values argument the Tories need to win if they are to ever break out of the sub-40% box, and that starts with empathy, mood music and being seen to care and take action.
Thoughtful post, and a reason why Osborne may not be their best bet - fairly or not, his demeanor encourages the view that things are pretty great and hence if you have a problem it's probably not the Government's concern. May is, curiously, better, not because she's more liberal (she isn't) but because she looks more serious and less smug.
I agree with David Herdson that Corbyn's toxicity (to the majority of voters) probably ensures a win for the Conservatives in 2020, regardless.
The Conservatives will obviously suffer from mid-term unpopularity, as almost all governments do. They could be polling in the low 30s or high 20s. But, I imagine that most of those disillusioned voters will go over to UKIP, not Labour, as they did in the period 2013-15.
Here's the thing: both parties are dominated by the urban middle-classes at the moment, and I sense the Tories tacking (slowly) in that direction too. That leads them to think that they need to be much more progressive on pet peeves of those groups - like feminism, diversity, inoffensive speech and gender equality.
But the Tories real problem is being seen as a friend of vested interests, and the wealthy. The closure of the steelworks at Redcar is a good example: rather than just saying "pah, it's the free market", why not strontly emphathise with the tragedy of it and set a minister on as task to do everything possible to bring new private investment and good jobs to the area?
It's not just policy - and I'm not for a second suggesting subsidy - but this was the problem in the 80s. There's a motives and values argument the Tories need to win if they are to ever break out of the sub-40% box, and that starts with empathy, mood music and being seen to care and take action.
Adopting such pet peeves can even reinforce the view that one is the friend of vested interests.
Yes, these are the sorts of things successful and/or ambitious professional people will be constantly whispering into the ears of Cameron and Osborne at their donor parties, and more casually at social events, in London.
She is very similar in manner to Abbott. I notice that since Camilla launched into her libelling - Yentob has all of sudden become respectful to the panel and a lot more contrite.
Stop the Widow Batman-Twanky talking nonsense, and ask her where all the money was spunked away.
If there was any justice, the Met Police would be waiting outside to arrest these people.
I agree. Why she's not been charged with fraud escapes me. I don't know what Yentob is for, other than embodying all that's repulsive about the so-called metropolitan elite.
Is Yentob as responsible as Batmanwhatsit for what seems to have been the fraudulent goings on? Without him and his ilk lending her their ear bending influence, she would have struggled for the influence she had to perpetrate her "idiosyncrasies". Shouty charities are to be abhorred.
Turns out we mistook her loud clothes, and even louder voice, as charisma and competence.
Shame, because back in the day I was convinced Kids Company was A Good Thing.
Just goes to show that none of us ever knows what's really going on, until everyone knows.
Tories are always easily fooled by big gobbed egoistic self seeking individuals like this. They assume the bovine manure is competence, just look at their MP's.
Doesn't that make you a Tory?
Insecticide, you would love to be able top articulate your thoughts even partially as good as I do. Clue is to get educated and think before thumping your sausages off the keyboard.
Malcolm must be younger than I am. I was educated in Scotland and was taught grammar. It all went downhill after I left:-)
If I ws a 14 yr old kid in Hackney or wherever Kids Company operated from, I'd be down Kids Company every week. So far as I can tell they were just giving away free cash ! Who wouldn't take it.
which is exactly what their own financial controller accused them of a month or so ago. I think she was based in west country and couldn't believe they just handed out £20 notes to anyone who turned up.
NDAs, in a charity. What law firm drafted them?
Not binding in a legal or parliamentary inquiry I'd have thought, though? (Advice from lawyers appreciated here).
A court order or other legally binding requirement would override an NDA, even if the NDA does not contain an explicit provision to this effect.
I am somewhat surprised at the negatvity towards the economy, with people thinking that a recession will occur next year. Infaltion is zero, record employment, very low oil price, very high confidence, restaurants booming, government spending falling. You could see the last recession 4 years before it happened. I just dont see one happening next year.
I'm not sure that people are positive there will be a recession. But there are some very large systemic issues out there (emerging market debt, China's various inflexion points in re workforce, deleveraging and so on) that potentially dwarf our local good news.
For reference, the UK economy is c. $3 trillion out of a global $78 trillion (so around 4%).
....Now, I hope David Cameron's conference speech focus on social reform is real, but it looks like their only actual plan is to devolve the mess above to higher profile scapegoat mayors in the (often Labour) cities. Effectively their plan for cuts is simply that which is already starting to bear fruit in the Tory advance in Wales. That the effects of cuts could actually be used to strengthen the Tory position is one referenced by Don Brind quoting Jim McMahon in his most recent thread and, even in my advocating that the Labour centre take up the devolution challenge with relish, I noted that it could not be more a trap if it had Acme written on it.
There seem to be several strands to GO's general strategy. I particularly like the one which seeks, where possible, to place the burden of raising money on those who spend the money. I think this has legs in many places and is already causing some twitching in the SNP and some local councils.
I didn't think English councils were asking for FFA? Is the plan then to re-cast or dump funding formulae totally? I note in slight contradiction to my previous line on this thread that plenty of Tory areas are lining up for devolution (e.g. Cheshire, non-metro Surrey/Sussex), but such a fundamental re-org is a chance to look again at funding.
The basic problem with hypothecation is that it is [total rubbish]. All that 'we will raise xxx from mansion tax to fund yyy ridiculously specific thing' leaves me totally cold. Getting the sources of tax to exactly match the destinations of tax is so brain dead, either as a straw man for additional spending or for cuts, that I can't fathom the popularity it has.
At the risk of showing my ignorance, what does "apothecation" mean. I cannot find a definition. Whatever it means, your post is apropos FA. My point is it's a political strategy attempting to instil some fiscal responsibility on those unlikely otherwise to show any.
Corrected - was obviously thinking of something else.
It would probably not generally be called hypothecation in this context, but you do seem to be advocating or pointing out a much more total hypothecation of local tax to local spending than has previously been the case. But by re-casting your point as new governance structures driving new funding formulas (or even abolition of funding formulas), I am pointing out the inevitable that this will create winners and losers and that will as always make things deeply party political, and that could be real nature of Osborne's 'devolution of cuts' trap that I mentioned upstream. Time will tell.
Batman now alleging conspiracy from civil servants in Cabinet Office to smear charity - she's sounding like a fantasist.
Dan Thompson @artistsmakers Camila now makes allegations against Civil Servants - than says 'I don't like to make accusations without evidence'. #kidscompany
Richard Blandford @rblandford Yentob desperately trying to stop CB from saying something very libellous. #kidscompany
Insecticide, you would love to be able top articulate your thoughts even partially as good as I do. Clue is to get educated and think before thumping your sausages off the keyboard.
Malcolm must be younger than I am. I was educated in Scotland and was taught grammar. It all went downhill after I left:-)
(I was also taught to be polite: )
Unless you are over 55 or under 30, then it is pretty much impossible that you were taught grammar at a school in Scotland (or England or Wales for that matter).
Devastatingly for Labour, it appears that 21% of their rump vote from May does not plan to remain loyal to the party next May. Intriguingly, the lost support appears to be moving disproportionately towards the Tories - 11% of Labour voters say they will vote Tory next year, and only 4% say they will vote SNP. This lends weight to the theory that if Labour are slipping further, Corbyn could be to blame - "moderate" unionist voters may be deserting Labour for a more natural home, and left-wing voters are failing to offset that effect by "coming home" from the SNP. In absolute terms, the number of SNP voters that have switched to Labour since the general election looks almost identical to the number of Labour voters who have moved in the opposite direction.
Any charity law experts here care to ponder the hypothetical question of whether a millionaire charity trustee could be held personally financially responsible for the abuse of charitable donations?
I'm not a charity law expert but the short answer is yes
For US bets. Interesting article on Biden and the various deadlines he now faces. Even possible he could place his name on ballots but not actually be official declaring as a candidate.
How the SNP, National Socialists in all but name and demeanour, are clamping tight a one party state.
Centralising, illiberal, catastrophic: the SNP’s one-party state For years, the Scottish government has used the independence argument to avoid proper scrutiny. That has to stop
I'll do you the respect of presuming you post that ironically, but this may be of interest - as might the fact that the SNP's lead over every other party has grown over the last few years.
Back to topic: many thanks again to Antifrank for another interesting piece. One difference re indyref 2 - the other elements he adduces will also play a part (not least because much of this was promised to the Scots if they left).
Devastatingly for Labour, it appears that 21% of their rump vote from May does not plan to remain loyal to the party next May. Intriguingly, the lost support appears to be moving disproportionately towards the Tories - 11% of Labour voters say they will vote Tory next year, and only 4% say they will vote SNP. This lends weight to the theory that if Labour are slipping further, Corbyn could be to blame - "moderate" unionist voters may be deserting Labour for a more natural home, and left-wing voters are failing to offset that effect by "coming home" from the SNP. In absolute terms, the number of SNP voters that have switched to Labour since the general election looks almost identical to the number of Labour voters who have moved in the opposite direction.
It truly is a rare occasion when many people will find themselves rooting for a Select Committee against a 'charity' representative. I can scarcely believe such odiousness was allowed to go unchecked for far too long.
Stop the Widow Batman-Twanky talking nonsense, and ask her where all the money was spunked away.
If there was any justice, the Met Police would be waiting outside to arrest these people.
I agree. Why she's not been charged with fraud escapes me. I don't know what Yentob is for, other than embodying all that's repulsive about the so-called metropolitan elite.
Is Yentob as responsible as Batmanwhatsit for what seems to have been the fraudulent goings on? Without him and his ilk lending her their ear bending influence, she would have struggled for the influence she had to perpetrate her "idiosyncrasies". Shouty charities are to be abhorred.
Turns out we mistook her loud clothes, and even louder voice, as charisma and competence.
Shame, because back in the day I was convinced Kids Company was A Good Thing.
Just goes to show that none of us ever knows what's really going on, until everyone knows.
Devastatingly for Labour, it appears that 21% of their rump vote from May does not plan to remain loyal to the party next May. Intriguingly, the lost support appears to be moving disproportionately towards the Tories - 11% of Labour voters say they will vote Tory next year, and only 4% say they will vote SNP. This lends weight to the theory that if Labour are slipping further, Corbyn could be to blame - "moderate" unionist voters may be deserting Labour for a more natural home, and left-wing voters are failing to offset that effect by "coming home" from the SNP. In absolute terms, the number of SNP voters that have switched to Labour since the general election looks almost identical to the number of Labour voters who have moved in the opposite direction.
Devastatingly for Labour, it appears that 21% of their rump vote from May does not plan to remain loyal to the party next May. Intriguingly, the lost support appears to be moving disproportionately towards the Tories - 11% of Labour voters say they will vote Tory next year, and only 4% say they will vote SNP. This lends weight to the theory that if Labour are slipping further, Corbyn could be to blame - "moderate" unionist voters may be deserting Labour for a more natural home, and left-wing voters are failing to offset that effect by "coming home" from the SNP. In absolute terms, the number of SNP voters that have switched to Labour since the general election looks almost identical to the number of Labour voters who have moved in the opposite direction.
There might come a point at which Unionist voters in places like Eastwood, or Edinburgh would find that Labour had moved so far to the Left, that the Conservatives would be a better Unionist alternative.
Here's the thing: both parties are dominated by the urban middle-classes at the moment, and I sense the Tories tacking (slowly) in that direction too. That leads them to think that they need to be much more progressive on pet peeves of those groups - like feminism, diversity, inoffensive speech and gender equality.
But the Tories real problem is being seen as a friend of vested interests, and the wealthy. The closure of the steelworks at Redcar is a good example: rather than just saying "pah, it's the free market", why not strontly emphathise with the tragedy of it and set a minister on as task to do everything possible to bring new private investment and good jobs to the area?
It's not just policy - and I'm not for a second suggesting subsidy - but this was the problem in the 80s. There's a motives and values argument the Tories need to win if they are to ever break out of the sub-40% box, and that starts with empathy, mood music and being seen to care and take action.
Thoughtful post, and a reason why Osborne may not be their best bet - fairly or not, his demeanor encourages the view that things are pretty great and hence if you have a problem it's probably not the Government's concern. May is, curiously, better, not because she's more liberal (she isn't) but because she looks more serious and less smug.
Thanks Nick. Yes, I agree - I'm starting to back May, and going off Osborne.
Insecticide, you would love to be able top articulate your thoughts even partially as good as I do. Clue is to get educated and think before thumping your sausages off the keyboard.
Malcolm must be younger than I am. I was educated in Scotland and was taught grammar. It all went downhill after I left:-)
(I was also taught to be polite: )
Unless you are over 55 or under 30, then it is pretty much impossible that you were taught grammar at a school in Scotland (or England or Wales for that matter).
I'm 51 and there was little grammar taught at school other than a few absolute basics like apostrophe.
This situation drove the French department mad, as they had to spend time educating us about the mechanics of grammar before trying to do the french bits e.g. past participles.
Devastatingly for Labour, it appears that 21% of their rump vote from May does not plan to remain loyal to the party next May. Intriguingly, the lost support appears to be moving disproportionately towards the Tories - 11% of Labour voters say they will vote Tory next year, and only 4% say they will vote SNP. This lends weight to the theory that if Labour are slipping further, Corbyn could be to blame - "moderate" unionist voters may be deserting Labour for a more natural home, and left-wing voters are failing to offset that effect by "coming home" from the SNP. In absolute terms, the number of SNP voters that have switched to Labour since the general election looks almost identical to the number of Labour voters who have moved in the opposite direction.
There might come a point at which Unionist voters in places like Eastwood, or Edinburgh would find that Labour had moved so far to the Left, that the Conservatives would be a better Unionist alternative.
Corbyn has placed great store by his ability to turn Labour round in Scotland. If he actually takes Labour backwards there and London votes for Goldsmith in normal times the pressure on him would be impossible to resist. But these are not normal times. Corbyn has his mandate. And he is going to wave it. That it guarantees Tory governments is neither here nor there. 250,000 Labour members get to feel very good about themselves. That's all that matters.
Labour in Scotland do risk finding themselves in a sour spot: too unionist for those Scots for whom national identity is a core component of their voting choice and too leftwing for many unionist Scots who have previously stayed loyal to the red team.
The solution, I would have thought, would be to become more pluralist on whether Scotland should become independent to the point of fostering a Labour independence movement. It is probably too late for this approach in this round of elections.
It truly is a rare occasion when many people will find themselves rooting for a Select Committee against a 'charity' representative. I can scarcely believe such odiousness was allowed to go unchecked for far too long.
It truly is a rare occasion when many people will find themselves rooting for a Select Committee against a 'charity' representative. I can scarcely believe such odiousness was allowed to go unchecked for far too long.
Why are you surprised? We are £1.5trillion in debt because for decades idiots have been chucking money around like confetti.
I would say no on leaving EU as a smart bet , and scots will probably say no to another ref, I dont get these whole referendums leave it to the politicians who have studied the effects there whole lives and are professionals in the matter not the random population who really have no idea about politics in comparison.
Yes, these are the sorts of things successful and/or ambitious professional people will be constantly whispering into the ears of Cameron and Osborne at their donor parties, and more casually at social events, in London.
It truly is a rare occasion when many people will find themselves rooting for a Select Committee against a 'charity' representative. I can scarcely believe such odiousness was allowed to go unchecked for far too long.
Why are you surprised? We are £1.5trillion in debt because for decades idiots have been chucking money around like confetti.
Granted - I suppose I am surprised by the shamelessness of the KC reps, both of them, despite what seems irrefutable evidence of at the least incompetence.
I would say no on leaving EU as a smart bet , and scots will probably say no to another ref, I dont get these whole referendums leave it to the politicians who have studied the effects there whole lives and are professionals in the matter not the random population who really have no idea about politics in comparison.
Yes why trust idiots like the electorate when you have a handful of people who know what's best for the rest of us.
Crikey - has any other (Neccessary) public service been hit that hard ?
That does look like an overdone level of cut. I'd have thought other stuff should take a hit before this.
It's a curious intervention because my understanding is that the police budgets haven't yet been set for the coming years. The Chief Constable may be laying down a marker to make sure he gets what he wants.
If there's a 52% reduction in workforce, that sounds like being hit a lot harder than other services.
....Now, I hope David Cameron's conference speech focus on social reform is real, but it looks like their only actual plan is to devolve the mess above to higher profile scapegoat mayors in the (often Labour) cities. Effectively their plan for cuts is simply that which is already starting to bear fruit in the Tory advance in Wales. That the effects of cuts could actually be used to strengthen the Tory position is one referenced by Don Brind quoting Jim McMahon in his most recent thread and, even in my advocating that the Labour centre take up the devolution challenge with relish, I noted that it could not be more a trap if it had Acme written on it.
There seem to be several strands to GO's general strategy. I particularly like the one which seeks, where possible, to place the burden of raising money on those who spend the money. I think this has legs in many places and is already causing some twitching in the SNP and some local councils.
I didn't think English councils were asking for FFA? Is the plan then to re-cast or dump funding formulae totally? I note in slight contradiction to my previous line on this thread that plenty of Tory areas are lining up for devolution (e.g. Cheshire, non-metro Surrey/Sussex), but such a fundamental re-org is a chance to look again at funding.
The basic problem with apothecation is that it is [total rubbish]. All that 'we will raise xxx from mansion tax to fund yyy ridiculously specific thing' leaves me totally cold. Getting the sources of tax to exactly match the destinations of tax is so brain dead, either as a straw man for additional spending or for cuts, that I can't fathom the popularity it has.
At the risk of showing my ignorance, what does "apothecation" mean. I cannot find a definition. Whatever it means, your post is apropos FA. My point is it's a political strategy attempting to instil some fiscal responsibility on those unlikely otherwise to show any.
I assume he means hypothecation: allocating funding from a specific tax to a specific programme rather than mixing it all up in one big pot
Stop the Widow Batman-Twanky talking nonsense, and ask her where all the money was spunked away.
If there was any justice, the Met Police would be waiting outside to arrest these people.
I agree. Why she's not been charged with fraud escapes me. I don't know what Yentob is for, other than embodying all that's repulsive about the so-called metropolitan elite.
Is Yentob as responsible as Batmanwhatsit for what seems to have been the fraudulent goings on? Without him and his ilk lending her their ear bending influence, she would have struggled for the influence she had to perpetrate her "idiosyncrasies". Shouty charities are to be abhorred.
Turns out we mistook her loud clothes, and even louder voice, as charisma and competence.
Shame, because back in the day I was convinced Kids Company was A Good Thing.
Just goes to show that none of us ever knows what's really going on, until everyone knows.
Tories are always easily fooled by big gobbed egoistic self seeking individuals like this. They assume the bovine manure is competence, just look at their MP's.
Is that why the SNP lead Scottish Government handed cash to it's 'cronies' at T in the Park?
You pathetic excuse for a human being , they gave money to a company that was holding a major music event. Dribble somewhere else please.
It gets even more comical as the straws are grasped. The Ryder Cup event had nothing to do with the Referendum or the SNP. It was an event organised by VisitScotland a Quango which has successfully grown the Scottish Tourism Industry beyond all expectations.
It is run by a man with no party affiliation who joined from a management role at Diageo.
What the lunatic frothers on here are willing to swallow makes Sasha Grey movies look tame.
I wonder though if something else is going on under the bonnet. I was a big fan of folk music in the early eighties, but I got on board at a time when folk music was declining considerably in popularity. A lot of the clubs were closing down and there was a big debate about how to make the music more appealing. There were lots of good ideas, and some of them did get a few more bodies through the door. But the basic fact was the music was out of fashion and nobody wanted to listen to it anymore.
At about the same time the Labour Party had similar problems. To the participants and the commentators it seemed that the internal bickering and poor presentation were the big turn off. Sort those out and things could only get better. But away from politics the plain fact was that the electorate was moving to the right. No amount of fancy suits and impressive videos could overcome that. In the end, the only way Labour could win an election was to ditch just about everything from their left wing past and even contrive to be seen to be fighting against it.
But I get the distinct feeling that the pendulum is beginning to swing the other way. It could be that in 5 years time there will be nothing that the Tories can do. Public opinion might simply be moving away from their core beliefs and will latch onto Labour, now newly reconnected with its left wing history.
Comments
Why on earth is Batman-Twanky still involved with KC 'clients'?
'Whole session has been littered with name-dropping of ministers names.'
Batman 'I haven't name-dropped anyone'
Seriously? #kidscompany
But the Tories real problem is being seen as a friend of vested interests, and the wealthy. The closure of the steelworks at Redcar is a good example: rather than just saying "pah, it's the free market", why not strontly emphathise with the tragedy of it and set a minister on as task to do everything possible to bring new private investment and good jobs to the area?
It's not just policy - and I'm not for a second suggesting subsidy - but this was the problem in the 80s. There's a motives and values argument the Tories need to win if they are to ever break out of the sub-40% box, and that starts with empathy, mood music and being seen to care and take action.
Katherine Rushton Verified account
@kerushton
Chairman shouts 'Order' to stop Camila's constant interruptions.
CB: 'I don't know that shouting is going to get me to behave any better.'
I have very little faith in the integrity of senior police figures these days. It saddens me to say to but they engage too much in political activity and not on doing their jobs.
Unless and until ACPO is gone, I will have no trust in what they and their members have to say.
Con Maj 5/6
NOM 6/4
Lab Maj 20/1 (or longer)
As you pointed out earlier, Con Maj vs NOM is essentially about whether the Conservatives will lose seats (ignoring the boundary changes effect). On balance, given Corbyn and the Labour civil war, I think it's more likely that the Tories will gain seats, but of course there are substantial countervailing arguments such as those antifrank puts forward, and the question of who Cameron's successor is going to be. Lots of uncertainties obviously.
It all comes back to George Foulkes : -
Foulkes: The SNP are on a dangerous tack at the moment. What they are doing is trying to build up a situation in Scotland where the services are manifestly better than south of the border in a number of areas.
Colin MacKay : Is this such a bad thing?
Lord Foulkes: No, but they are doing it deliberately.
When even Foulkes can do nothing other than praise the SNP, then it is no wonder frothing zoomers like Tomkins can do no better than playground insults.
It's clear he's taking over from Batman-Twanky to ensure that her rank amateurism doesn't drop him further into the doo doo.
My concern is whether it is worth it yet once you factor the time delay in collecting into the calculation. Unscientifically, I make it an evens shot, which means that it would still be worth it (if you can back it at 7/4 and it's really an even money shot, in my way of thinking that means you're converting £100 now into a value of £137.50 in May 2020, just under an 8% return tax free), but building in a margin for prudence allowing for my ability to fall in love with a bet, I'm leaving alone for now. I'd be very interested in other views.
I started getting all excited about backing a CON-LD coalition if I could find a nice price until I remembered Clegg is no longer in charge there
The thing is, people generally understand this. It was also a policy started by SLAB when they paid DF to move the festival from Strathclyde Park to Balado in the first place.
Dan Thompson @artistsmakers
Camila now makes allegations against Civil Servants - than says 'I don't like to make accusations without evidence'. #kidscompany
Richard Blandford @rblandford
Yentob desperately trying to stop CB from saying something very libellous. #kidscompany
It gets even more comical as the straws are grasped. The Ryder Cup event had nothing to do with the Referendum or the SNP. It was an event organised by VisitScotland a Quango which has successfully grown the Scottish Tourism Industry beyond all expectations.
It is run by a man with no party affiliation who joined from a management role at Diageo.
What the lunatic frothers on here are willing to swallow makes Sasha Grey movies look tame.
PRWeek UK @prweekuknews
Ms Batmanghelidjh appears to have shunned PR advice based on her performance #kidscompany http://www.prweek.com/article/1368179/britains-most-colourful-charity-boss-tone-down-westminster-hearing-prs-advise …
Lvmol.
Lhatucuioi.
"Articulate even partially as good as I do", eh? You're right, there's nothing like a good education...
http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2015/oct/15/homeland-is-racist-artists-subversive-graffiti-tv-show
Particularly funny that the original graffiti in the refugee camp were pro-Assad and that Hezbollah (Shia) and Al Qaida (Sunni) are shown as buddies. Still a good show, though!
Does the Govt have any bad news they want to release unnoticed? Today would be a good day #kidscompany #PAC
It all went downhill after I left:-)
(I was also taught to be polite: )
Sun journalists Chris Pharo and Jamie Pyatt cleared in 'cash-for-stories' probe http://bit.ly/1G7l5RE
Another great day for Tom Watson...
For reference, the UK economy is c. $3 trillion out of a global $78 trillion (so around 4%).
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/5e1ce27a-7279-4ba3-9f3f-ed9998fbae7e
Devastatingly for Labour, it appears that 21% of their rump vote from May does not plan to remain loyal to the party next May. Intriguingly, the lost support appears to be moving disproportionately towards the Tories - 11% of Labour voters say they will vote Tory next year, and only 4% say they will vote SNP. This lends weight to the theory that if Labour are slipping further, Corbyn could be to blame - "moderate" unionist voters may be deserting Labour for a more natural home, and left-wing voters are failing to offset that effect by "coming home" from the SNP. In absolute terms, the number of SNP voters that have switched to Labour since the general election looks almost identical to the number of Labour voters who have moved in the opposite direction.
http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/crucial-yougov-poll-suggests-corbyn-and.html
It's not a huge surprise, is it?
"Abusive limericks." #kidscompany gets more and more surreal. Like an episode of the Thick of It.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/10/how-late-can-joe-biden-enter-the-race.html
http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/our-one-party-state.html
Back to topic: many thanks again to Antifrank for another interesting piece. One difference re indyref 2 - the other elements he adduces will also play a part (not least because much of this was promised to the Scots if they left).
This situation drove the French department mad, as they had to spend time educating us about the mechanics of grammar before trying to do the french bits e.g. past participles.
Kids Company select committee session is off the charts.
Something has finally got him off Corbyn and the Labour meltdown!
New Thread New Thread
The solution, I would have thought, would be to become more pluralist on whether Scotland should become independent to the point of fostering a Labour independence movement. It is probably too late for this approach in this round of elections.
, and scots will probably say no to another ref, I dont get these whole referendums leave it to the politicians who have studied the effects there whole lives and are professionals in the matter not the random population who really have no idea about politics in comparison.
Tories to finish second in Scotland looking like a reasonable punt?
Ahead of Labour on ABC1 and among 60+
Nearly first with what's left of 2015 Lib Dem vote as well.
I wonder though if something else is going on under the bonnet. I was a big fan of folk music in the early eighties, but I got on board at a time when folk music was declining considerably in popularity. A lot of the clubs were closing down and there was a big debate about how to make the music more appealing. There were lots of good ideas, and some of them did get a few more bodies through the door. But the basic fact was the music was out of fashion and nobody wanted to listen to it anymore.
At about the same time the Labour Party had similar problems. To the participants and the commentators it seemed that the internal bickering and poor presentation were the big turn off. Sort those out and things could only get better. But away from politics the plain fact was that the electorate was moving to the right. No amount of fancy suits and impressive videos could overcome that. In the end, the only way Labour could win an election was to ditch just about everything from their left wing past and even contrive to be seen to be fighting against it.
But I get the distinct feeling that the pendulum is beginning to swing the other way. It could be that in 5 years time there will be nothing that the Tories can do. Public opinion might simply be moving away from their core beliefs and will latch onto Labour, now newly reconnected with its left wing history.