politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Assessing Marco Rubio: A surge or just a bubble

The two main advantages that Marco Rubio has are (1) that he is not Ted Cruz, (2) that he is not Donald Trump. At this stage, little else matters.

Third Past the Post!

JohnLoony said:

Yet the "Leave" leaflet which I have received so far assumes that I am a xenophobe, frothing at the mouth and seething with resentment about immigrants.

You sure you didn't get it muddled with (some of the posts on) pb.com.......

Interesting analysis of Rubio from nearly a year ago:

Rubio has plenty of room to improve, however, and he has the kind of support among Washington pundits that could translate into a viable candidacy. A recent Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register poll of definite or probable Iowa caucusgoers found Rubio with views that were “about right” – not too conservative or too moderate – and positive favorability ratings.

And as Rubio points out, he was once a long shot in Florida to win his Senate seat.

Added Bozell: “If you look at the short list of conservative candidates out there, he’s on it. If you look at the short list of moderate candidates, he’s on it. That makes him formidable.”

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article24780745.html

JohnLoony said:

The two main advantages that Marco Rubio has are (1) that he is not Ted Cruz, (2) that he is not Donald Trump. At this stage, little else matters.

Third Past the Post!

Sorry, did not see this before posting my longer, less eloquent version of the same.

This will be the second time in succession a candidate "wins" Iowa, despite not getting the most votes. The system is set up so that the establishment candidate always wins even if they're a bit meh, and Rubio ticks both those boxes.

Only 81 sleeps until Ed Balls day. We'll be seeing decorations in the streets soon enough!

OldKingCole said:

CarlottaVance said:

About time....

Organisations that are given government grants will be banned from using the money to try to persuade ministers to change the law or increase spending.

A new clause will be added into all new and renewed grant agreements to ensure funds are spent on good causes, rather than on political campaigns.

Cabinet Office minister Matthew Hancock said "the farce of government lobbying government" had to stop.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35509117

How does that apply to such charities as Citizens Advice? CitA often sees unintended consequences of government action, and urges changes. This decision seems to limit charities freedom to take necessary action in support of those they are trying to help.

OldKingCole said:

CarlottaVance said:

About time....

Organisations that are given government grants will be banned from using the money to try to persuade ministers to change the law or increase spending.

A new clause will be added into all new and renewed grant agreements to ensure funds are spent on good causes, rather than on political campaigns.

Cabinet Office minister Matthew Hancock said "the farce of government lobbying government" had to stop.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35509117

How does that apply to such charities as Citizens Advice? CitA often sees unintended consequences of government action, and urges changes. This decision seems to limit charities freedom to take necessary action in support of those they are trying to help.

The government is not saying Charities can't lobby - just not with government money.

JohnLoony said:

The two main advantages that Marco Rubio has are (1) that he is not Ted Cruz, (2) that he is not Donald Trump. At this stage, little else matters.

Third Past the Post!

The thing is, he's been not Trump or Cruz since the start of the campaign. Is consolidating the rest enough - if he can consolidate the rest? Trump and Cruz both rose in the polls by taking votes from candidates still in the race.

But I disagree that nothing else matters. Rubio needs to keep his momentum up too. I'd modify what I wrote last night: a close second will still keep the narrative of his surge going but it does need to be a close second - and a close second will still give Trump a win which is critical for his campaign. If he loses NH after also losing Iowa it will be a disaster for the self-proclaimed 'winner'. By contrast, a win, even a shabby one, confirms his place on the top table. A good win confirms his place as leader in the race and will reinforce his position in SC. That would give Rubio a long lean streak assuming Cruz does well on Super Tuesday.

MTimT said:

"He still trails Trump in the NH polls and if the Donald does win on Tuesday then Rubio’s record of a third and a second won’t look too hot against Cruz and Trump with a state a piece"

Pretty piss poor analysis. The true gauge is not Rubio's absolute performance in IA and NH, or even his performance there relative to Trump and Cruz. Rather it his performance relative to what he would need to do to be on track to win the nomination given the particular characteristics of each state race. Whether he wins or loses NH is almost irrelevant so long as he is still viewed as viable and as the most credible non-Trump, non-Cruz candidate going forward. A strong third after Trump and Cruz, with him well ahead of Bush, Kasich and Christie would accomplish that.

I'm not convinced it would. I remember Giuliani in 2008 skipping campaigning heavily in IA and NH on the grounds that they weren't favourable to him in order to concentrate on Florida. By the time the race got there, he was already in also-ran territory.

True, Rubio isn't in also-ran territory at the moment but there's only so long you can go without a win on the night before you cease to be viable. That was what did for Romney in 2008 who also piled up a string of seconds plus a low-profile win.

alex. said:

Corbyn reminding everyone he's bonkers...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35508740

In theory, it's a great idea. After all, most local authorities did run local utilities until they were nationalised in the 1940s - some as late as the 1980s.

The problem is it leads to fragmentation and postcode lotteries. Moreover, although diseconomies of scale are a problem in some public companies - BT being the classic example - the majority of such local authorities would suffer from a lack of economies of scale, putting further financial pressure on bodies that are already struggling.

Another problem of course is that ironically public companies are far more accountable to the public than local authorities. We vote on them every 3-4 years on a wide range of issues. I can buy shares in BT, turn up at their AGM and criticise the Chairman and CEO for their terrible performance to their faces, before voting against them on the precise issue.

Most of Corbyn's ideas are very Marxist in that way though, and who could forget McCauley's laconic observation: 'Marxism in theory has been one of the twentieth century's great ideas...Marxism in practice has failed everywhere it has been tried.'

ydoethur said:

foxinsoxuk said:

alex. said:

Corbyn reminding everyone he's bonkers...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35508740

Actually it is one of his better ideas. One of our greatest local politicians did just that in the heyday of Victorian Britain:

http://www.elanvalley.org.uk/discover/reservoirs-dams/birminghams-water

I remember my mothers objection to water privatisation being similar. She had paid as a ratepayer for the reservoirs for Manchester. They were not Mrs Thatchers to sell.

Tristram Hunt cites Chamberlain as a great radical politician whose example he wishes to follow.

I can't help but wonder whether that makes Hunt very stupid or very subtle. He may be ignorant of Chamberlain's career. Or he may genuinely wish to become a raving right-wing demagogue, shatter the major force of the left and defect with a small number of followers to the Conservatives, before committing war crimes and launching regressive taxation prior to finishing his career as acting leader of the Conservative Party.

I must admit, when he was SSoS for Education I wasn't impressed with his subtlety, but I was appalled by his ignorance. So maybe I'm jumping at shadows when I see him as the latter day Roy Jenkins!

Joe Chamberlain was a great local politician, a man who knew how to build a northern powerhouse (well ok, a midland one!). His role in national politics was perhaps not so good.

alex. said:

Corbyn reminding everyone he's bonkers...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35508740

Mr Corbyn will tell the Association of Labour Councillors conference he wants councils to become "public entrepreneurs" with greater freedom to spend taxpayers' money and to borrow to fund investment and public services.

What could possibly go wrong....90% of private company start-ups fail...obviously the difference is it would be OUR money that has to bail them out (again).

On topic David, do you really consider Rubio to be more mainstream than Cruz? Their positions look pretty similar to me.

My personal view is that the GOP are making a great mistake in passing up Christie, but I don't know much about American politics.

They may also have calculated that with both Democratic candidates so very weak, they can go for a 'true Republican' candidate and still win. That strikes me as reckless, but at the moment it's not insanity given what's happening to the donkey party who seem to be determined to live up to their old emblem of the jackass.

foxinsoxuk said:

alex. said:

Corbyn reminding everyone he's bonkers...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35508740

Actually it is one of his better ideas. One of our greatest local politicians did just that in the heyday of Victorian Britain:

http://www.elanvalley.org.uk/discover/reservoirs-dams/birminghams-water

I remember my mothers objection to water privatisation being similar. She had paid as a ratepayer for the reservoirs for Manchester. They were not Mrs Thatchers to sell.

That's always been a fallacy of the anti-privatisation lobby. Thatcher (or the government) had as much right to sell as any other owner. To the extent that the taxpayer was the owner and the original investor, they received their receipt on sale as the ultimate return on their investment, which was then used to reduce net taxes (i.e. reduce actual taxes, increase spending not otherwise affordable or reduce future borrowing).

ydoethur said:

On topic David, do you really consider Rubio to be more mainstream than Cruz? Their positions look pretty similar to me.

My personal view is that the GOP are making a great mistake in passing up Christie, but I don't know much about American politics.

They may also have calculated that with both Democratic candidates so very weak, they can go for a 'true Republican' candidate and still win. That strikes me as reckless, but at the moment it's not insanity given what's happening to the donkey party who seem to be determined to live up to their old emblem of the jackass.

Yes, he is more mainstream than Cruz but it's all relative. He is, as I keep pointing out, clearly of the conservative wing of the party and there's no doubt that were Bush running more strongly then he wouldn't be talked of as mainstream at all. A pretty face and two even more non-mainstream rivals are doing him no end of good.

There are websites that rank American legislators for their conservativeness and Rubio is consistently top 10 on that score but Cruz is on the podium.

Good morning, everyone.

When is the New Hampshire contest?

Six Nations starts today. I wonder if Scotland will be able to maintain their excellent world cup for [still a disgrace they were refereed out of a semi-final].

foxinsoxuk said:

alex. said:

Corbyn reminding everyone he's bonkers...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35508740

Actually it is one of his better ideas. One of our greatest local politicians did just that in the heyday of Victorian Britain:

http://www.elanvalley.org.uk/discover/reservoirs-dams/birminghams-water

I remember my mothers objection to water privatisation being similar. She had paid as a ratepayer for the reservoirs for Manchester. They were not Mrs Thatchers to sell.

I would dispute his claims that privatised utilities have led to poorer service, poorer conditions for the workforce and higher prices.

@Innocent_Abroad I fully agree there is a need for reform of the oversight of public companies, indeed the situation you describe is one reason the banking crash happened and remains the root of too many undeserved bonuses for under-performing senior staff.

However, local authorities don't even allow criticism or votes against them in the first place. Mark James in Carmarthen is perhaps an extreme example but in my experience he's far from untypical.

Therefore those LAs that are dominated by one party, e.g. In the Valleys, would be accountable to literally no one.

Wanderer said:

foxinsoxuk said:

alex. said:

Corbyn reminding everyone he's bonkers...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35508740

Actually it is one of his better ideas. One of our greatest local politicians did just that in the heyday of Victorian Britain:

http://www.elanvalley.org.uk/discover/reservoirs-dams/birminghams-water

I remember my mothers objection to water privatisation being similar. She had paid as a ratepayer for the reservoirs for Manchester. They were not Mrs Thatchers to sell.

I would dispute his claims that privatised utilities have led to poorer service, poorer conditions for the workforce and higher prices.

I wouldn't be totally surprised if there is a strand of socialist thought that believes that a lack of industrial strife in a workforce is in itself evidence of "poorer conditions". Because they believe, as a matter of faith, that employers will always exploit a weakly unionised or non-unionised workforce.

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

When is the New Hampshire contest?

Both GOP and Dem contests are on Tuesday.

david_herdson said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

ydoethur said:

alex. said:

Corbyn reminding everyone he's bonkers...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35508740

In theory, it's a great idea. After all, most local authorities did run local utilities until they were nationalised in the 1940s - some as late as the 1980s.

The problem is it leads to fragmentation and postcode lotteries. Moreover, although diseconomies of scale are a problem in some public companies - BT being the classic example - the majority of such local authorities would suffer from a lack of economies of scale, putting further financial pressure on bodies that are already struggling.

Another problem of course is that ironically public companies are far more accountable to the public than local authorities. We vote on them every 3-4 years on a wide range of issues. I can buy shares in BT, turn up at their AGM and criticise the Chairman and CEO for their terrible performance to their faces, before voting against them on the precise issue.

Most of Corbyn's ideas are very Marxist in that way though, and who could forget McCauley's laconic observation: 'Marxism in theory has been one of the twentieth century's great ideas...Marxism in practice has failed everywhere it has been tried.'

That's a description of the theoretical accountability of PLCs. Most corporate chairs and CEOs can deflect that level of criticism in their sleep. It's called proxy votes.

I agree with that on an individual scale. However, two recent developments have made accountability greater (though still insufficient). Firstly, pension funds, who do control serious numbers of shares, have begun to be more active in criticising underperformance; and secondly, social media makes it easier to co-ordinate large numbers of small shareholders before AGMs and then gain media coverage about the critical comment from inside. The negative PR (and personal PR to the CEO and board) has an effect. But it's still insufficient.

Shareholder oversight is laughably weak, it's one of the flaws in the modern system.

ydoethur said:

@Innocent_Abroad I fully agree there is a need for reform of the oversight of public companies, indeed the situation you describe is one reason the banking crash happened and remains the root of too many undeserved bonuses for under-performing senior staff.

However, local authorities don't even allow criticism or votes against them in the first place. Mark James in Carmarthen is perhaps an extreme example but in my experience he's far from untypical.

Therefore those LAs that are dominated by one party, e.g. In the Valleys, would be accountable to literally no one.

I once worked for a Council which changed hands at an election. The Chief Executive told all the staff that "nothing would change" because he ran the Council, not the elected members

blackburn63 said:

foxinsoxuk said:

blackburn63 said:

@foxinsoxuk

Yesterday evening you mentioned social conservatism (I'm not entirely sure what that is) and that "even kippers" seemed relaxed about gay marriage. I find this sort of generalisation irksome, the vast majority of kippers are live and let live types who don't give a toss about gay marriage either way, its about consenting adults. Where I object is govt telling the Church what it must do, it is not the state's place.

I'll ask you a straight question, and perhaps you can consider the social conservative issue here:

Do you ever envisage gay marriage taking place in a mosque or synagogue?

Yes, and I would be quite happy with it in my own Church too. Indeed the Reform Jews support gay marriage:

http://www.liberaljudaism.org/news/501-reform-judaism-backs-gay-marriage.html

You are partially right in that there is a libertarian streak in kipperdom that is relaxed about these issues. There is also a socially authoritarian streak that vigorously opposed it too in both kipperdom and the right of the Conservative party too. I remember the conversations here about it.

My objection to Islam in Britain is a left wing one. Organised Islam is systematically mysogynistic, homophobic, patriarchal, and anti-diversity.

Incidentally, most Jews I know are ambivalent about gays but that doesn't answer my question about mosques and synagogues. I'd suggest your authoritarian guns need a different target.

Could you rephrase your question then? I am not sure what you are asking.

UKIP is the only major party in Great Britain that is even ambivalent on gay marriage. It is fairly easy to find supporting evidence for this:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/exclusive-nigel-farage-change-ukip-5247000

ydoethur said:

Interesting article on the email scandal:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/clinton-email-scandal-why-it-might-be-time-for-democrats-to-draft-joe-biden/2016/02/05/cd69dfea-cc18-11e5-a7b2-5a2f824b02c9_story.html

Even if no charges result, could this leave Clinton fatally damaged?

Not that I know much about US politics at all, but to an uneducated observer it remains quite astonishing (and concerning if one is pretty scared about the potential Republican nominees) quite how uncompetitive the Democrat field is. Hillary just seems an obviously flawed candidate (even without the email stuff) and isn't exactly a spring chicken either. And their plan B is Joe Biden! Are there any Democrats out there who would be decent candidates but for some strange reason decided not to get involved in the race this time (strange because any Democrat wanting to be President would surely not have a better opportunity? Are they all concluding that they want the Congress to become more favourable first?).

Who are the potential Vice President nominees?

Innocent_Abroad said:

ydoethur said:

@Innocent_Abroad I fully agree there is a need for reform of the oversight of public companies, indeed the situation you describe is one reason the banking crash happened and remains the root of too many undeserved bonuses for under-performing senior staff.

However, local authorities don't even allow criticism or votes against them in the first place. Mark James in Carmarthen is perhaps an extreme example but in my experience he's far from untypical.

Therefore those LAs that are dominated by one party, e.g. In the Valleys, would be accountable to literally no one.

I once worked for a Council which changed hands at an election. The Chief Executive told all the staff that "nothing would change" because he ran the Council, not the elected members

Alarming but not surprising IA. Google 'Carmarthen Planning' for another classic example of that.

blackburn63 said:

foxinsoxuk said:

blackburn63 said:

@foxinsoxuk

Yesterday evening you mentioned social conservatism (I'm not entirely sure what that is) and that "even kippers" seemed relaxed about gay marriage. I find this sort of generalisation irksome, the vast majority of kippers are live and let live types who don't give a toss about gay marriage either way, its about consenting adults. Where I object is govt telling the Church what it must do, it is not the state's place.

I'll ask you a straight question, and perhaps you can consider the social conservative issue here:

Do you ever envisage gay marriage taking place in a mosque or synagogue?

Yes, and I would be quite happy with it in my own Church too. Indeed the Reform Jews support gay marriage:

http://www.liberaljudaism.org/news/501-reform-judaism-backs-gay-marriage.html

You are partially right in that there is a libertarian streak in kipperdom that is relaxed about these issues. There is also a socially authoritarian streak that vigorously opposed it too in both kipperdom and the right of the Conservative party too. I remember the conversations here about it.

My objection to Islam in Britain is a left wing one. Organised Islam is systematically mysogynistic, homophobic, patriarchal, and anti-diversity.

What is this socially authoritarian nonsense you speak of? A fruitcake ex tory spoke of gays and floods and was sacked forthwith, of course that doesn't fit your agenda.

Kippers are ambivalent about gay marriage, in fact they're ambivalent about most things, leave people alone and stop interfering in their lives.

Two things motivate people to join UKIP. Opposition to EU membership, and opposition to mass immigration. Other than those issues, UKIP members views diverge on all sorts of issues. They range from right wing Conservatives to Socialists. One friend of mine chairs a UKIP branch in the South West, and he's the only ex-Conservative. The rest are ex-Liberal.

FluffyThoughts said:

FPT:

JSON automation: A colleague of mine has a Java library:

https://github.com/alexheretic

HALModels, Dynamics and such-like. JSON mapping should be handled via an API.

Oops,

Almost forgot: LowDash support browser UI integration via JavaScript (ecma5).

Innocent_Abroad said:

ydoethur said:

@Innocent_Abroad I fully agree there is a need for reform of the oversight of public companies, indeed the situation you describe is one reason the banking crash happened and remains the root of too many undeserved bonuses for under-performing senior staff.

However, local authorities don't even allow criticism or votes against them in the first place. Mark James in Carmarthen is perhaps an extreme example but in my experience he's far from untypical.

Therefore those LAs that are dominated by one party, e.g. In the Valleys, would be accountable to literally no one.

I once worked for a Council which changed hands at an election. The Chief Executive told all the staff that "nothing would change" because he ran the Council, not the elected members

I think that Councillors really have very little idea about what really goes on within Local Authorities. They are totally reliant on what officers tell them. They can have some effect on overall policy framework, but even in that they are largely restricted by national policy. All most really care about is that the bins get emptied on time. As regards the basic delivery of services they have little to no input. They would hardly be allowed to have any genuine input into how a local authority ran public utilities were such an arrangement to come to pass.

Sean_F said:

blackburn63 said:

foxinsoxuk said:

blackburn63 said:

@foxinsoxuk

Yesterday evening you mentioned social conservatism (I'm not entirely sure what that is) and that "even kippers" seemed relaxed about gay marriage. I find this sort of generalisation irksome, the vast majority of kippers are live and let live types who don't give a toss about gay marriage either way, its about consenting adults. Where I object is govt telling the Church what it must do, it is not the state's place.

I'll ask you a straight question, and perhaps you can consider the social conservative issue here:

Do you ever envisage gay marriage taking place in a mosque or synagogue?

Yes, and I would be quite happy with it in my own Church too. Indeed the Reform Jews support gay marriage:

http://www.liberaljudaism.org/news/501-reform-judaism-backs-gay-marriage.html

You are partially right in that there is a libertarian streak in kipperdom that is relaxed about these issues. There is also a socially authoritarian streak that vigorously opposed it too in both kipperdom and the right of the Conservative party too. I remember the conversations here about it.

My objection to Islam in Britain is a left wing one. Organised Islam is systematically mysogynistic, homophobic, patriarchal, and anti-diversity.

What is this socially authoritarian nonsense you speak of? A fruitcake ex tory spoke of gays and floods and was sacked forthwith, of course that doesn't fit your agenda.

Kippers are ambivalent about gay marriage, in fact they're ambivalent about most things, leave people alone and stop interfering in their lives.

Two things motivate people to join UKIP. Opposition to EU membership, and opposition to mass immigration. Other than those issues, UKIP members views diverge on all sorts of issues. They range from right wing Conservatives to Socialists. One friend of mine chairs a UKIP branch in the South West, and he's the only ex-Conservative. The rest are ex-Liberal.

I think this is the problem of UKIP, it is defined by what it is against rather than what it is for, as indeed is the Leave campaign.

I cannot see it becoming a major force at any level of government for that reason. Its failure to hold on to council seats for example.

ydoethur said:

who could forget McCauley's laconic observation: 'Marxism in theory has been one of the twentieth century's great ideas...Marxism in practice has failed everywhere it has been tried.'

Doesn't that allow us, from a twenty-first century position (and from 1950 onwards, in reality), to argue that Marxism in theory was not actually one of the twentieth century's great ideas, but an epic fuck-up? Did any other idea of the twentieth century end up with more blood on its hands?

Mr. Rog, perhaps, but Italy have historically done badly away from home.

ydoethur said:

ydoethur said:

alex. said:

Who are the potential Vice President nominees?

Whoever is the official deputy, Bill is the only candidate to be president of vice

More seriously, what little I do know of US politics suggests the Obama coalition has fractured over gun control and Medicare disappointments. So a few may have decided to sit it out calculating that four years of Cruz, Trump or Rubio and the next election will be a cakewalk.

I'm hoping that, anyway. The alternative, that the only possible Democratic candidates are a bunch of sleazy, incompetent geriatric has-beens, is too awful to contemplate.

That being said, I think an awful lot didn't fancy their chances against HRC either because they thought (a) it was her turn (b) it was time for a female candidate. But if that was so, they must be absolutely kicking themselves now.

Maybe be bit of young cardinals and old popes I suppose. Normally i guess incumbent parties will be more competitive at the enforced end of a Presidential term because it potentially represents the only chance for a minimum of eight years. But when the candidates are all 70...

CornishBlue said:

david_herdson said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

ydoethur said:

@Innocent_Abroad I fully agree there is a need for reform of the oversight of public companies, indeed the situation you describe is one reason the banking crash happened and remains the root of too many undeserved bonuses for under-performing senior staff.

However, local authorities don't even allow criticism or votes against them in the first place. Mark James in Carmarthen is perhaps an extreme example but in my experience he's far from untypical.

Therefore those LAs that are dominated by one party, e.g. In the Valleys, would be accountable to literally no one.

I once worked for a Council which changed hands at an election. The Chief Executive told all the staff that "nothing would change" because he ran the Council, not the elected members

If I'd been the incoming leader of council, he'd have found himself suspended on the first day for that.

Even though he's correct? The Chief Executive does "run" (ie have day-to-day control) the Council and will have delegated powers from the Council itself to do so. Perhaps he shouldn't have used the word "ran". (Perhaps he was misquoted.)

If councillors ran the Council, well, it just wouldn't work. Unless one of their number is a former senior local government manager... but even then, again he/she would be effectively running the Council on behalf of the councillors as a whole.

Read up on delegated powers. This is how councils work. It's perfectly normal and reasonable.

The similar analogy is how the Chiefs of Staff of the Navy, Air Force and Army run their services, but they do so because power has been delegated to them by the Defence Council. Read up on that too.

As you say, the term "run" is open to more than one interpretation. A lot comes down to force of personality aka willingness to bully

CornishBlue said:

david_herdson said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

ydoethur said:

@Innocent_Abroad I fully agree there is a need for reform of the oversight of public companies, indeed the situation you describe is one reason the banking crash happened and remains the root of too many undeserved bonuses for under-performing senior staff.

However, local authorities don't even allow criticism or votes against them in the first place. Mark James in Carmarthen is perhaps an extreme example but in my experience he's far from untypical.

Therefore those LAs that are dominated by one party, e.g. In the Valleys, would be accountable to literally no one.

I once worked for a Council which changed hands at an election. The Chief Executive told all the staff that "nothing would change" because he ran the Council, not the elected members

If I'd been the incoming leader of council, he'd have found himself suspended on the first day for that.

Even though he's correct? The Chief Executive does "run" (ie have day-to-day control) the Council and will have delegated powers from the Council itself to do so. Perhaps he shouldn't have used the word "ran". (Perhaps he was misquoted.)

If councillors ran the Council, well, it just wouldn't work. Unless one of their number is a former senior local government manager... but even then, again he/she would be effectively running the Council on behalf of the councillors as a whole.

Read up on delegated powers. This is how councils work. It's perfectly normal and reasonable.

The similar analogy is how the Chiefs of Staff of the Navy, Air Force and Army run their services, but they do so because power has been delegated to them by the Defence Council. Read up on that too.

I assume the problem is not that he said he ran the council, but that nothing would change.

alex. said:

Wanderer said:

foxinsoxuk said:

alex. said:

Corbyn reminding everyone he's bonkers...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35508740

Actually it is one of his better ideas. One of our greatest local politicians did just that in the heyday of Victorian Britain:

http://www.elanvalley.org.uk/discover/reservoirs-dams/birminghams-water

I remember my mothers objection to water privatisation being similar. She had paid as a ratepayer for the reservoirs for Manchester. They were not Mrs Thatchers to sell.

I would dispute his claims that privatised utilities have led to poorer service, poorer conditions for the workforce and higher prices.

I wouldn't be totally surprised if there is a strand of socialist thought that believes that a lack of industrial strife in a workforce is in itself evidence of "poorer conditions". Because they believe, as a matter of faith, that employers will always exploit a weakly unionised or non-unionised workforce.

In some circumstances employers probably would do that but it's not inevitable. I think it depends on how easily workers can be replaced, how important their motivation level is, norms in a given industry, many things.

Also, employment law applies to everyone. (The unions played a role in the development of that law, of course.)

Morris_Dancer said:

Incidentally, it seems Windows 10 is now a recommended update (ie, with settings left as standard, it'll automatically be downloaded and installed).

Settings can be changed in the control panel to avoid this (for now, at least).

Luddite

Jonathan said:

Sean_F said:

blackburn63 said:

foxinsoxuk said:

blackburn63 said:

@foxinsoxuk

Yesterday evening you mentioned social conservatism (I'm not entirely sure what that is) and that "even kippers" seemed relaxed about gay marriage. I find this sort of generalisation irksome, the vast majority of kippers are live and let live types who don't give a toss about gay marriage either way, its about consenting adults. Where I object is govt telling the Church what it must do, it is not the state's place.

I'll ask you a straight question, and perhaps you can consider the social conservative issue here:

Do you ever envisage gay marriage taking place in a mosque or synagogue?

Yes, and I would be quite happy with it in my own Church too. Indeed the Reform Jews support gay marriage:

http://www.liberaljudaism.org/news/501-reform-judaism-backs-gay-marriage.html

You are partially right in that there is a libertarian streak in kipperdom that is relaxed about these issues. There is also a socially authoritarian streak that vigorously opposed it too in both kipperdom and the right of the Conservative party too. I remember the conversations here about it.

My objection to Islam in Britain is a left wing one. Organised Islam is systematically mysogynistic, homophobic, patriarchal, and anti-diversity.

What is this socially authoritarian nonsense you speak of? A fruitcake ex tory spoke of gays and floods and was sacked forthwith, of course that doesn't fit your agenda.

Kippers are ambivalent about gay marriage, in fact they're ambivalent about most things, leave people alone and stop interfering in their lives.

Two things motivate people to join UKIP. Opposition to EU membership, and opposition to mass immigration.

A third? Opposition to the twenty-first century?

Tying in with the other two, I'd say that an instinctive hostility towards international bureaucracies, big business, and globalisation is a big driver of UKIP support (and of insurgent parties generally).

Fysics_Teacher said:

CornishBlue said:

david_herdson said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

ydoethur said:

@Innocent_Abroad I fully agree there is a need for reform of the oversight of public companies, indeed the situation you describe is one reason the banking crash happened and remains the root of too many undeserved bonuses for under-performing senior staff.

However, local authorities don't even allow criticism or votes against them in the first place. Mark James in Carmarthen is perhaps an extreme example but in my experience he's far from untypical.

Therefore those LAs that are dominated by one party, e.g. In the Valleys, would be accountable to literally no one.

I once worked for a Council which changed hands at an election. The Chief Executive told all the staff that "nothing would change" because he ran the Council, not the elected members

If I'd been the incoming leader of council, he'd have found himself suspended on the first day for that.

Even though he's correct? The Chief Executive does "run" (ie have day-to-day control) the Council and will have delegated powers from the Council itself to do so. Perhaps he shouldn't have used the word "ran". (Perhaps he was misquoted.)

If councillors ran the Council, well, it just wouldn't work. Unless one of their number is a former senior local government manager... but even then, again he/she would be effectively running the Council on behalf of the councillors as a whole.

Read up on delegated powers. This is how councils work. It's perfectly normal and reasonable.

The similar analogy is how the Chiefs of Staff of the Navy, Air Force and Army run their services, but they do so because power has been delegated to them by the Defence Council. Read up on that too.

I assume the problem is not that he said he ran the council, but that nothing would change.

Well for the vast majority of staff it wouldn't. And certainly not for several months if so. It would seem reasonable to take steps to reassure a concerned workforce in time of change, if such reassurance is justified.

MarqueeMark said:

Did any other idea of the twentieth century end up with more blood on its hands?

Depends on how you define 'ideology'. If you take Marxism in all its forms, e.g. Maoism, Leninism, Stalinism etc, then it probably just shades Fascism as an overall ideology, although as neither side were obliging enough to keep exact records of the numbers they killed it's hard to be sure.

If we break it down into components Maoism would have the edge overall, although not far ahead of Nazism.

However, if we measure it by average deaths by year Nazism absolutely dwarfs any other system - roughly four times as bad as Maoism. However, that was stopped after a few years (it is horrendous to think what Hitler might have done had he lasted for 27 years like Mao). He 'achieved' this, incidentally, in about half the population Mao had at his disposal.

On your substantive point, the traditional cop-out for Marxists is that nobody has ever tried Marxism. Marx believed socialism, never mind Communism, was possible only in advanced capitalist societies, not backward agrarian ones like Russia, China or to a lesser extent Venezuela. However, the problem is that advanced capitalist economies don't need or want Marxism, so don't overthrow their rulers often - and when they do, go for fascists not communists.

Therefore, like all religious fundamentalists, they say the problem is not the message but the messengers, and they wreck it for the rest of us. The reason I like McCauley's point is it doesn't allow them that cop-out, because he further points out that theoretical Marxism spurred capitalism in to greater heights anyway, by its very nature benefitting from the competition!

How many more?

"The family members of the three Somali men found guilty of raping a 16-year-old girl in Rusholme, Manchester, in 2013, showed their support for the trio Bilal Ahmed, Mowled Yussaf and Muhyadeen Osman) by attending court.

Their victim, an A-grade student from a middle class family, was subjected to the most degrading and terrifying ordeal imaginable. The three men raped her six times over 30 minutes in a squalid hotel room in Rusholme. As he was led away from the dock to begin his ten year prison term, ringleader Yussaf stuck his middle finger up at the victim's parents not once but twice. Ahmed sarcastically blew a kiss at the couple shortly before sentence was delivered.

These were just two examples of the gauntlet of intimidation and abuse the couple have faced from the families and friends of the convicted men during the two-week trial"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3434382/A-private-school-girl-mothers-excuse-gang-rape-terrifying-culture-clash-no-one-dares-talk-Somalian-men-living-laws-native-country-causing-devastating-repercussions-Britain.html

Sean_F said:

Jonathan said:

Sean_F said:

blackburn63 said:

foxinsoxuk said:

blackburn63 said:

@foxinsoxuk

Yesterday evening you mentioned social conservatism (I'm not entirely sure what that is) and that "even kippers" seemed relaxed about gay marriage. I find this sort of generalisation irksome, the vast majority of kippers are live and let live types who don't give a toss about gay marriage either way, its about consenting adults. Where I object is govt telling the Church what it must do, it is not the state's place.

I'll ask you a straight question, and perhaps you can consider the social conservative issue here:

Do you ever envisage gay marriage taking place in a mosque or synagogue?

Yes, and I would be quite happy with it in my own Church too. Indeed the Reform Jews support gay marriage:

http://www.liberaljudaism.org/news/501-reform-judaism-backs-gay-marriage.html

You are partially right in that there is a libertarian streak in kipperdom that is relaxed about these issues. There is also a socially authoritarian streak that vigorously opposed it too in both kipperdom and the right of the Conservative party too. I remember the conversations here about it.

My objection to Islam in Britain is a left wing one. Organised Islam is systematically mysogynistic, homophobic, patriarchal, and anti-diversity.

What is this socially authoritarian nonsense you speak of? A fruitcake ex tory spoke of gays and floods and was sacked forthwith, of course that doesn't fit your agenda.

Kippers are ambivalent about gay marriage, in fact they're ambivalent about most things, leave people alone and stop interfering in their lives.

Two things motivate people to join UKIP. Opposition to EU membership, and opposition to mass immigration.

A third? Opposition to the twenty-first century?

Tying in with the other two, I'd say that an instinctive hostility towards international bureaucracies, big business, and globalisation is a big driver of UKIP support (and of insurgent parties generally).

It might sound like pithy remark, but I do think nostalgia plays a huge part in underpinning UKIP. Whether it is the EU, immigration, social attitudes or gloabisaliation - there is a huge desire to turn the clock back to a supposed better time.

Despite being fundamentally wrong, this form of nostalgia accounts for the potency of UKIP with the raging baby boomers. In the 60s they wanted change and progress. In the 80s they wanted to consolidate their position, now - finally - they want to go back.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. D, I wouldn't even try to use a stylus or suchlike, it'd have to be a proper keyboard. I don't want to exaggerate my productivity but I do type an awful lot and slowing down is not an option.

Anyway, it's a musing for the future, at this stage. I just don't trust Microsoft not to enforce downloading of their apparently service-based Windows 10 monstrosity.

Ah, I thought you meant with a stylus! You can get ones with small keyboards which are okay, but at that point I'd recommend getting a laptop.

My colleague has a new Microsoft laptop which has a detachable screen which can be used as a tablet. Not sure of the particular model, but shouldn't be too difficult to find.

Edit: despite being Microsoft, you could install Linux on it if you wanted to avoid Windows

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. D, yeah, had a quick browse. There are detachable keyboards (proper ones) available, so that plus a tablet, or a laptop, seem the best route, if Microsoft forces me to go that way.

Or perhaps replacing my old desktop with something comparable, but non-Microsoft.

Edited extra bit: Mr. Indigo, that's rather good.

God forbid they install the currency decimilisation service pack on your machine...

Indigo said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Anyway, it's a musing for the future, at this stage. I just don't trust Microsoft not to enforce downloading of their apparently service-based Windows 10 monstrosity.

https://twitter.com/50NerdsofGrey/status/695659529225314308

So he was merciful and did not install Windows 8 then? Or was he holding that back for later when she wanted to try true masochism?

ydoethur said:

Indigo said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Anyway, it's a musing for the future, at this stage. I just don't trust Microsoft not to enforce downloading of their apparently service-based Windows 10 monstrosity.

https://twitter.com/50NerdsofGrey/status/695659529225314308

So he was merciful and did not install Windows 8 then?

Just as well she did not receive an e mail from BT saying the service had been upgraded.. from 2 to3mb downspeed and 0.3 up, trouble is everything stutters before the page loads.. its much worse.

alex. said:

Wanderer said:

alex. said:

Wanderer said:

foxinsoxuk said:

alex. said:

Corbyn reminding everyone he's bonkers...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35508740

Actually it is one of his better ideas. One of our greatest local politicians did just that in the heyday of Victorian Britain:

http://www.elanvalley.org.uk/discover/reservoirs-dams/birminghams-water

I remember my mothers objection to water privatisation being similar. She had paid as a ratepayer for the reservoirs for Manchester. They were not Mrs Thatchers to sell.

I would dispute his claims that privatised utilities have led to poorer service, poorer conditions for the workforce and higher prices.

I wouldn't be totally surprised if there is a strand of socialist thought that believes that a lack of industrial strife in a workforce is in itself evidence of "poorer conditions". Because they believe, as a matter of faith, that employers will always exploit a weakly unionised or non-unionised workforce.

In some circumstances employers probably would do that but it's not inevitable. I think it depends on how easily workers can be replaced, how important their motivation level is, norms in a given industry, many things.

Also, employment law applies to everyone. (The unions played a role in the development of that law, of course.)

It also, frankly, depends on the extent to which employers value their workforce. Of course it becomes harder for enlightened employers in an ultra competitive industry because valuing the workforce and rewarding accordingly can cost. But my point was to address the possible reasons for Corbyn claiming that workers in privatised utilities are subject to "poorer conditions" (than they would otherwise be). It may be a justified claim backed by evidence. Or it may just be assumed dogma. Ironically, it may well be that common complaints about how the privatised utilities are often not really subject to proper market condition (in practice if not in theory) and are thus (the complaints go) exploiting the consumer with high prices, may also provide substantial protection to workers conditions.

Very good points.

Fwiw I am currently working for a privatised utility and have found that it treats its employees well. I also think your last sentence is very perceptive. I will leave it at that, I think

Mr. D, pounds, shillings, pence, florins, marks, crowns, farthings, guineas were used for the best part of a thousand years.

Then we changed to a system of soulless simplicity. Bah!

If I ever write more sci-fi, I'm going to have them use miles, not kilometres.