Open thread
Posted on July 8th, 2009 by Anthony Wells
Since it went rather well last time, and I haven’t had a poll to ramble on about for a day or two, this is an open thread for discussion – normal rules on non-partisanship do not apply.
Filed under: Uncategorized
When i was growing up the Conservatives were not popular athough they always won Elections,Labour were tarnished for a generation by the 1970,s fiasco.
My point is are we going to see a repeat,i am to young to remember the 1970;s Labour Gov,however their reputation came before them.I was warned about them by my parents as were others.
Are we going to see a new generation that will under no circumstances trust Labour in Government again?
Secondly i believe the Tories can live off 2 terms just putting the fiscal position correct & almost any pain that we take during that time Labour will still get most of the blame.
Thats one balanced and sensible question,now for the dig at the socialists as its no-partisan time.
As you all can’t stand Brown,as the rest of us & now you pin your hopes on AJ.
2 questions.
1)What are AJ’s economic qualifications for the job,isn’t it ‘NO TIME FOR A NOVICE?’
2who are the public going to trust with the economy?
Ken Clarke.George Osborne
Mandy.Alan Johnson.
AJ/mandy may win a game of Mr & Mrs,economic games however are done by experts
The trouble with spin its like chocolate you can have to much spin then it comes round and bites you on the back-side.
Will the Tories overcome their divide on Europe and the Environment. They won on June 4th with the most Europhile Manifesto I have ever read – commiting the Tories to work in the EU, to expand it to include Turkey & Georgia etc etc. They babble on about The Lisbon Treaty but that is irrelevant – the EU without the Lisbon Treaty is what we have now. Yet their core vote is wants to leave the EU. These contradictions will be their first undoing.
The other is the environment, Cameron says great things about the environment. However in practice they make things worse. Tory run Councils oppose ECO-Towns, Wind Farms, Public transport and measures to combat climate change.
I did live through the 70s and they were a shambles. Large parts of the country were permanently on strike and the country felt like it was on a long downward slide. Yes, this recession is worse than the recessions of the 70s and 80s but the country just doesn’t feel like it’s failing in the same way.
In my view, the problem that the Tories face is that this recession just doesn’t feel that bad – hence why economic confidence is rising. Brown has pulled off a scorched earth fiscal policy by bringing forward future government spending to this year to cushion the 5% collapse in the economy and deferred the pain of paying for it to the next 1-2 governments. The Tories are going to find that a huge problem which is precisely what Brown planned! And I’m not sure the public at large is financially sophisticated enough to understand what he’s doing, so they will probably blame the evil Tories. If rumours are true, we can thank Alistair Darling and the Treasury for stopping Brown from going completely mad with the government’s finances but the deficits facing us over the next few years are really quite daunting.
Since the Second World War, we have repeatedly seen a party out of power for a generation once it has lost office. Anthony has pointed out that only once (in 1974) has a Party regained power after a single term of opposition. Even then, it was because Heath messed things up over the Three Day Week, rather than because Labour got its act together.
Whoever wins the next election will have a difficult time maintaining popularity given the “Cuts” they will have to inflict, and possibly escalating environmental problems. But it is difficult seeing people forgetting what Labour has done within five years. This leads to various scenarios, some of them quite alarming, as to the rise of new political forces.
if the Conservatives become unpopular, it is very possible that Scotland, and then Wales, will break away from the UK. And in times of economic difficulty, it is difficult to see Tory supporters in England accepting the gravytrain for Scotland and Wales that Labour has perpetuated.
People involved in politics from a centre-left perspective will realise that repeated generations of effort to revive the Labour Party, from 1931 – 1945, (to some extent), from 1951 – 1964, and from 1979 – 1997, have each time been ended by Governments that have bitterly disappointed the left. I suspect that many people with this viewpoint will want to repeat yet another repeat exercise in the wilderness. The probable result is that the left will fragment , which is of course why people like Alan Johnson are toying with alternative voting systems.
My guess is that there will never be another Labour government in the United Kingdom or England.
So much damage has been done to UK power and wealth, that one is tempted to wonder how much people will care in a generation’s time about Westminster politics anyway. In the recent Euroelections we began to see the development of Europe-wide powers. Maybe we will see the rise of movements (which may have to be extraparliamentary because of the democratic deficiit) to reclaim Europe for democracy, or of course to seccede from Europe – UKIP. We may also see the rise of more organised movements to seek to influence capitalist institutions, e.g. by democratising insurance and pesnions funds and by organising votes at company Annual General Meetings.
But we live in interesting times and a lot of unexpected things may happen to affect politics in the medium term.
Interesting generational point raised by Rich.
On 1 May 1997, most first-time electors had been only toddlers, or even babies, when Mrs Thatcher was first elected in 1979. There was a marked contrast between the horror stories told by their parents and the Blair they saw – not to mention the tired and disunited government led by Major.
By the next election, there will be many who hadn’t even been born when Maggie was bundled from office. Many people now in their 30s or younger will have little recollection of what a Conservative government is really like – especially as the last few years under Major were hardly representative.
That creates both a challenge and an opportunity for Cameron.
The opportunity is to show that things don’t have to be the way that they have been in recent years: that strong government and effective public services are not incompatible with low taxes and limited state intrusion in our daily lives. He will have the chance to reshape government on sound conservative principles in a way that can endure.
The challenge is to persuade them that voting really can make a difference – that by changing their vote away from Labour they can deliver a change in the way the country is run.
As to the election after – that will be for Cameron to win or lose on the back of his performance in government. As Simon Heffer noted in today’s DT, the trick will be confronting the state of the public finances early and openly. That way he can avoid becoming tarred with the brush of “heartless Tory cuts” the way Maggie was, even though she never once actually cut total government spending in real terms, let alone nominal expenditure – something which Cameron may have to do in order to bring the deficit under control.
ERIC-I think you will find that the Tories have criticised the basis on which Eco Towns are proposed- building large new towns , with no infrastructure, on greenfield sites in areas of low demand.. Even Labour MP’s are calling for some of the proposed sites to be scrapped.
On Wind Farms-the rush to on-shore wind turbines on a small island is now shown to be a shambolic mistake.They generate electricity at huge cost ,in unpredictably variable & intermittent amounts , and have to be placed on the most windy sites, which in UK generally equates to the wild & natural upland landscapes of our west coast.
The environmental cost of the massive subsidies which are driving this industry far outweighs the supposed benefits , when the effect on baseload generation , the Grid and our natural landscape & wildlife is taken into account.
I think ultimately the success of the new Tory government will not be decided by the swingeing cuts they will have to introduce. They will blame them squarely on Labour, and the electorate will accept that (because its true). As always, it’s “events” that matter. Unexpected issues, conflicts, problems, scandals and disagreements will rear their heads, and the response of Cameron, Hague and Osborne will determine whether they really do have the competence, character and political nous to win reelection.
The truth is, we can’t know what those “events” will be and we can only get a general sense (Cameron seems to have a firm grip, Hague sounds professional, Osborne hasn’t really inspired confidence) of how they will respond. For all we know, the new government will get embroiled in a sex scandal, or the Bahamas will get invaded by Venezuela or something.
One thing I would never do is write off a political party. There is absolutely no reason to think that Labour is finished, and every chance that in 5/10/20 years time they will be competitive again.
Some interesting points raised thus far.
As a first-time voter at the next general election (awfully excited for it), my political memory stretches only as far back as the dying years of the last Tory government. I have watched, therefore, as the Tories fought to regain credibility and Labour fight to hold them off and cling to the swing voters.
I’m increasingly convinced Labour, in trying to appease everyone, have managed to please no-one. The working-class Tories they wanted to bring onside with better state support have turned to the BNP as a consequence of what they feel is an excessively liberal attitude to immigration and ‘politically correct oppression’, for want of a better phrase.
The middle-class voters feel slowly squeezed by the changes to the tax system – aiming at their cars, their pensions and savings – and yet feel they aren’t getting returns. Their children have to take out loans to go through University, they feel (though they might not be) under greater threat of crime, they don’t get tax credits, their dentists have gone private and their jobs are going out the window.
What the Tories have to do is to try and get a hold of one of these groups. I’d say that they have more need of the middle class – both in terms of votes and in terms of other forms of support. The middle class are likely to grumble about spending cuts as much as the next man, but they will appreciate better public finances as a mark of a strong government, and may feel that their lifestyles and savings are more secure.
Where are the Whigs, Neil?!
There is absolutely no reason to write Labour off…..unfortunately.
I do remember the 70s. I lived it and I paid tax in it and the country was broke. Twelve years of Labour and hey presto, we’re broke again.
The public will forget in time but they are acutely aware of the damage Labour have done. They see mitigating factors in a world downturn which lets Labour ofv the hook very slightly. In the 70s everyone knew who was at fault….The Unions and the Labour Party and Maggie was there offering to give them both a good kicking.
The public went for it.
Labour will be out for at least two terms I think
I think there’s a strong chance the Conservatives will win the next election with less than 40% and Labour will win less than 30%. If you think about it, the sort of tribalism that allowed a single party to win 45% or more doesn’t really exist in Britain these days. Single issue pressure groups are much more influential now which has an effect on politics generally.
The question of Labour’s future is an interesting one. The industrial working class that it was created to represent no longer exists in sufficient size or coherence to form its grassroots base. The New Labour project aimed to reinvent Labour for this changed world but it’s failed. What will come next, if anything?
I think Guardian type liberalism is also on its way out and nationalism and a sort of national survivalism will become increasingly significant in the coming decades if some of the predicted consequences of climate change occur.
Interesting times anyway.
For my 2 pennies worth,i believe the labour party we see today will never be again.
The Tories in my opinion wiil win between 50-80 MAJ,this will result in 10 years of labour splits between the right & left of the Labour Party.
I also believe the 2nd term of a Tory government will be a 100+ Maj.
I find it amazing that the Labour left think the reason they are behind in the polls is because they are not left wing enough,over at Labourhome they talik about 60% tax rate on the rich,nationlizing everything in sight,who is going to pay for all this?
I do think Cameron has it in his own hands,the Conservative Party can be in power for a generation if they play their cards right.
The Labour Party will not be credible for over a decade in my opinion.
The Conservatives by 2020 would have won the argument,Labour ditched clause 4,they will after multiple leaders in the coming years after the GE ditch borrow-spend policies.
The argument in the future will be even closer,Tories spend what you can when you can,Labour only spend money through higher taxes not borrowing.
It isThe Labour Party that has changed, clause 4 & will have to change further to be trusted again in the future.
Also don’t underestimate people such as myself,we trusted Labour 1997,(i voted for them) never again is what people i know say.
In 1980, when nationalised industries were seen to be failing, Thatcherite economic policies were seen as a radical alternative to the existing consensus – and very different to Labour’s policies at that time.
30 years later, with a massive global recession challenging the orthodoxies of the Washington Consensus, the differences between the Tories and Labour are tiny – they don’t even disagree on having a minimum wage or the independence of the Bank of England.
Wouldn’t we be better to have a directly elected Prime Minister, so we can concentrate on picking one with the best CEO qualities and forget about all the synthetic party political ‘differences’?
@Frederic
The demise of the Whigs is complicated, but the short version is that they basically became the Liberal Party and enjoyed considerable success thereas. Some might say they are still a successful party as the LibDems (mostly members of the LibDems…)
I’m not saying that parties never disappear, but I think to predict the disappearance of a party in advance is pretty silly. Only decades after they crash and burn can you honestly say they are gone. Look at the Conservatives in Canada. Reduced from being in government to holding just 2 seats, in the course of a single election. Dead forever? Nope, back in government again.
The only long term change I could see to our political parties would be on the back of the introduction of PR. That could lead to the fragmentation of the large parties as people will be less inclined to tolerate being a member of a party that has a substantial slate of policies they don’t agree with. Under FPTP I think we will always have One Big Left, One Big Middle, One Big Right and several smaller outliers.
What fascinates me with the prospect of Scottish independence is who would be the Big Right in an independent Scotland (albeit it would probably have PR and therefore possibly an alliance of Small Rights).
I think people are bonkers writing Labour off for ever, in the same way that people where bonkers writing the Tories off post 97. These things all work in swings and roundabouts.
Also I think some Tory-leaning posters are too focused on economics in politics. What we have seen in the past 12 years of Labour government is massive social change that would have never have been seen under the Tories, and many of the beneficiaries of this change are grateful for that!
@Rich – “The trouble with spin its like chocolate you can have to much spin then it comes round and bites you on the back-side.”
This is going to be precisely the problem that devastates the next Tory government. Epoch changing elections come because of a change of philosophy. Atlee in ‘45 produced probably one of our finest governments in terms of lasting social benefit and established a framework of government that, in many ways still survives, albeit somewhat altered in places. In ‘79 Thatcher came in again with a distinctive philosophical agenda and again delivered significant shifts in government that have become established norms. To a lesser degree Blair in ‘97 had an philisophical agenda. Today, Cameron has no philosophy to speak off. He has no deep, resonating message, nor an intellectual backbone to form future policy development. His speech earlier this week on quangos was typical – all hype but incredibly muddled – he even seemed to be suggesting a establishing a quango to decide which quango’s to abolish, and this is why the Politicshome polls showed 80% of its panel from across the spectrum thought the speech went down badly. This was typical Cameron. This takes us back to original quote from Rich. Even the Tories here will have to admit soon that currently it is the Tories that are the guiltiest of overuse of spin.
Like Neil A, I would be loathe to write off any party. Historically the Tories have always been seen as the party that ‘can look after things’, but, as their name suggests, can get left behind by social change. Labour, by contrast, has a much more mixed record on the general economy but has delivered some pretty staggering reforms during its existence. Perhaps that’s a good balance for a country to have? One thing I would argue here given some people’s comments regarding Labour and the ’70’s. Those times were bad, although things like three day weeks occured under Heath. It’s also critical to factor in the oil price shock. It was largely bad luck to be in government in the second half of that decade, and the fact that Healy paid off the IMF loan before the ‘79 election is often forgotten. The picture is never as black and white as many on all sides wish to make out. The Thatcher/Major years produced some notable advances for the UK economy, but lets be honest – public services were absolutely desperate by ‘97. Labour has spent a lot of money – possibly too much at too little value – but we likewise have to admit we have got services that are much better able to meet a period of reduced spending.
There is an opportunity for someone to articulate a clear philosophical programme revolving around the relationship between individual and state. In the C21st technology has given individuals far greater power, while globalisation has conversely left us with less influence. Environment, civil liberties and constitutional reform, complete revision of the tax and benefits system, individual responsibilities, Europe – there’s a huge battleground out there. Cameron just doesn’t have the mettle to do this. There’s a saying ‘never waste a good crisis’ – it’s very apt in 2009, and it’s just what our political classes are about to do.
Sitting at home so a question arises. What I don’t understand is that every expert, and most Labour commentators such as Peter Mandelson, all insist that as the governing party Labour has lost most from the expenses scandal. But my simple mind looks at the statistics of polling, and it just appears to me that since the Telegraph started its campaign, the Labour rate in the polls has fallen by about 2% and the Tories by about 6%. As soon as it started I predicted that the scandal would be a disaster for the Tories, and the figures bear me out. But noone else agrees with me. I don’t get it. Any ideas?
“Tories spend what you can when you can”
A recipe for inflation and irresponsibility if ever there was one.
Why do i get the impression there are refugees from gamblers anonymous in the room?
JOHN TT
spend what you can when you can means,when you can afford to do so.
No economic expert agree’s with Browns policies:
Borrow all through good times.
Raise tax,not to pay back the borrowing but to go on another spending spree.
Surprised we’ve not seen much in the way of polling from Norwich North yet. PB has called the “The Forgotten by election and there does seem to be some truth in this.
Sorry, I thought you meant something diffeerent from the bleeding obvious.
It’s a bit like saying “individuals make decisions not institutions, so empower individuals” It’s either the bleeding obvious, or a recipe for complete catastrophe.
Interesting apostrophe, but it’s in a sentence that is untrue. The IMF cautioned against too rapid contraction of spending, and agreed with Brown rather than “we opposed the fiscal stimulus” position of Cameron.
People forget it was a bunch of rabid short term profit seekers (probably not left of centre either) who brought down the system.
@ John T T
Yes, we’d have all thought it was “bleeding obvious”.
But Brown didn’t get it, did he?
“The New Labour project aimed to reinvent Labour for this changed world but it’s failed. ”
So far it’s won 3 General elections and never lost one, a bit early to write them off.
“don’t underestimate people such as myself,we trusted Labour 1997,(i voted for them) never again is what people i know say.”
Me too RICH-boy we all paid a price for believing in the “straight sort of guy”!-and we didn’t realise then that the “moral compass” which was to follow did not respond to magnetic lines of principle, but was capable of altering it’s polarity at will.
ALEC:-
“There is an opportunity for someone to articulate a clear philosophical programme revolving around the relationship between individual and state.”
Absolutely spot on Alec-this is the agenda that matters ( if you include also “the purpose of the state” )
For me Cameron constantly articulates his philosophy in these matters-he has not yet translated it into comprehensive policy & tactics yet & he still has too much caution about the fading potency of the old “nasty party” attacks from Brown -but as you say it is the political philosophy which matters & it is there all right.
Brown is all over the place-one minute the command economy lever puller, trying ( & failing) to correct social imbalances with the minutae of Taxation & Social Security policy-next espousing the “rights” of parents & patients to choose what they want , rather than receive what the state prescribes.
@ John TT
I don’t for a second believe it was “rabid short term profit seekers” who brought down the system.
There were two elements to the explosion of debt, credit and asset prices which led us into this mess:
On the one hand, there was a huge amount of outright fraud. People were claiming incomes much higher than they actually had, and these claims weren’t checked.
On the other hand, even where people’s applications were truthful, the financial institutions loaned money to people who were, put brutally, too poor to afford it.
Now crime is crime, and is hardly a left/right issue. You could argue that the banks should have been more careful about checking for fraud, but everyone was scared that if they tightened up their procedures, the business would go elsewhere.
And a rallying cry of “Don’t lend money to poor people, there might be a downturn and they’ll default on their debts!” isn’t much of a left-wing rallying cry. I certainly don’t remember hearing it from any left wing figure at any time in the last 12 years.
Alec,
Are you an economist by any chance ?
I only ask because you appear to understand the economics of politics well, but seem to dismiss, or worse, not recognise, any philosophical proposal that is not based on economics.
Cameron has from the outset promoted two key philosophical threads which put social / value principles ahead of economics – albeit both have significant economic consequences.
I will leave you to deduce what these are, but as a hint, both are based on deep-rooted conservative values, and you will usuallly find one or other, if not both, mentioned in most key speeches.
BTW – I agree that the next GE will be one of those epoch making changes, much like 1945 and 1979.
I beg to differ about 1997. Blair’s key selling point was that he was a merger of Conservative economic competence and Labour social conscience. Sadly Brown has now proven that New Labour is actually a merger of Labour’s 1970’s economic incompetence coupled with a level of political self-interest which makes the most hardened “Thatcherite” individualist look compassionate. The best example of which is his stubborn refusal to back down on the 10p tax fiasco.
@ Rich
“No economic expert agree’s with Browns policies:
Borrow all through good times.
Raise tax,not to pay back the borrowing but to go on another spending spree”
This is not the case whatsoever!
Borrowing fell to lower levels than under the Tories from 1997-2001. From 2001-2007, borrowing increased slightly (mainly due to Iraq and Afghanistan) but was far lower here in the UK than most other G8 nations who had Conservative governments during these times. Also, the avergae tax burden has fallen for the majority from business rates to the basic rate of income tax.
Brown has borrowed to bring forward spending to stimulate the economy – something praised by the Nobel Prize Winning Eocnomist Paul Krugman, and the rest of the national debt was caused by stabilising the banks, something the Tories didn’t oppose.
A good many interesting comments.
FWIW, I think that Labour will lose very badly next time, polling well below 30% . Whether they can recover depends in part on whether they just suffer a bad defeat (c.200 seats) or whether it;s catastrophic (c.150 seats).
Labour was set up to protect the interests of the urban working classes and attracted a bit of up-market left liberal support too. Blair and his colleagues realised that this coalition was no longer large enough to win, and set out to woo the middle classes, through centrist economic policies, and minority groups, through radical identity politics.
That strategy has now run into the ground, as Labour no longer have any reputation for economic competence, and identity politics is alienating the white working classes among Labour’s core voters. It will be interesting to see if Labour can work out how to put together another winning coalition in the future.
In response to Neil A, the impact on public opinion of the Conservatives’ cutting public spending is a known unknown. We know they’ll have to cut; we don’t know for sure if the public are ready to accept cuts. But it will be the unknown unknowns that will really make or break a Conservative government.
Ashley Wise, we don’t know precisely when Labour will be leaving office, but we do know that they will leave a far bigger structural budget deficit (c.10% of GDP) and a far bigger public debt (c.60% of GDP) then they inherited from the Conservatives.
ASHLEY WISE,wise not by nature obviously!
Brown hid most borrowing off the books,PFI being the largest part(building of schools & hospitals)something if a UK Company did they would be in court.
As for 1997-2001,Labour followed 2 years of Conservative spending plans.
In fact the reason the 2001 9/11 caused recession did not hit us hard,was the state of the Economy left by the Tories was fantastic.
Now there are a lot of internet economic experts,if they were experts they would realise the USA goes into recession every 7 years on average.
In 2001 history told us,the USA would be in recession by 2008.
More to the point history tells us they will be in recession by 2015.
We have been warned if our finances are in a state then we are finished,we will have no more money to borrow & like Ireland our AAA rating will be gone.
Ireland lost its AAA rating a few months ago.
The Irish have cut ‘ALL’ public service wages 20%,and cut spending 15%.
This was deemed totally unexceptable by the rating’s agencies,they have since been downgraded 2 further times & are officially in a ‘depression’ -10% GDP.
Last week they were downgraded again.
Think hard the next time you vote.
@ Ashley Wise
“Borrowing fell to lower levels than under the Tories from 1997-2001.”
Well, yes, Brown stuck to Tory spending plans for 2 years, and took another 2 before they returned to pre-1997 levels.
“Also, the avergae tax burden has fallen for the majority from business rates to the basic rate of income tax.”
Good statistics, that. Chop off the people whose taxes have risen a lot, then say that the rest have, on average, had a decrease.
“stabilising the banks, something the Tories didn’t oppose”
No, they didn’t, but the Tories did oppose changing the regulatory scheme that led to this spectacular boom-and-bust. This is like breaking your leg doing something reckless, then laying the blame on your friend for agreeing that you should go to hospital.
The Tories were against the VAT cut and the throwing of buckets of water of money at the problem creating in the process ten of thousands meaningless administrative jobs in the public sector. But they were in favour of targeted help to maintain the manufacturing sector and investing in the financial system to provide loans.
It is Labour who raised taxes for the poorest by abolishing the 10p starting rate. And who now cannot find 40 million a year to compensate those still affect.
Labour, what the hec do they stand for now!?
New Labour was supposed to be about helping the most disadvantaged but without hurting the aspirations of those already doing well. In other words New Labour was suppose to be about serving the whole of Britain. But instead of serving everyone they serve no one except their own egotistical whims and delusions and self-interest.
Despite their best efforts to hid the truth the expenses scandal has revealed their main preoccupation was squeezing as much financial profit from low income families taxes who work hard for their money and actually contribute something to socieity!!!!!
How’s that for a parisan comment!
Actually I don’t think I’m being partisan. In my view being partisan is supporting and defending a party regardless of how it behaves or performs.
I voted for New Labour the first two times, and have never Conservative. But new Labour’s values have grown old and died.
haha..very fun pun (not)
Clearly Rich by name and rich in wealth, with your totally sour attitude to Labour and your typical Tory scaremongering.
Like Cameron you wish to put fear into the public about the state of the economy, using Ireland as an example – an economy far too bloated to cope with a downturn and definitely not comparable to the UK economy.
I would trust a nobel prize winning economist – who incidently predicted the problems in the GLOBAL economy we are now facing – over flip-flopping Osborne and cut now, more pain later Cameron.
I am not saying Labour have been satisfactory with their handling of the recession, but we haven’t had the crisis the Tories and others predicted, with the IMF and others now re-drafting their predictions for Britain.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/05/what-ever-happened-to-bankrupt-britain/
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/08/opinion/08krugman.html
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/a-british-bounce/
I’ve just scanned through 34 very interesting comments and I think there is only one that mentions the ‘expenses’ scandal. Has this been completely overblown? In the recent Local and Euro elections, we were told that the voters would go to the polls in their droves to vote for ‘independents’ and throw out the main party candidates – what happened? Both elections recorded the smallest voter participation ever!
Will the same happen next May at the General Election?
@Paul HJ – I am an economist, I won’t disagree with you about Blair’s philosophy, but I can’t pick out the two key themes Cameron keeps talking about. He’s been all over the place for the last three years, as has Brown.
@Colin – I don’t agree. For example, on the NHS, Cameron regularly says ‘let the doctors decide’ – this utterance is designed to garner support from professsional classes, and it directly counter to ideas about promoting individual freedom and responsibility. Again, he’s all over the place and his line depends on which interest group he is appealing to.
I think Neil A mentioned future events and scandals as more important in shaping the next government. The Guardian has turned up some uncomfortable news about the Murdoch press and illegal bugging activities that might leave Andy Coulson looking exposed. Square this with Mr. Transparency.
@ David E. Jones
Good point!
In the Euro elections, many voted for parties outside the “usual lot” (Lab/Con/Lib, Nationists and NI parties), although that’s rather diluted if you feel (like I do) that UKIP’s leader acts more like a Tory pressure group than a party.
Perhaps it was more of a “plague upon all your houses”? All the big 3 were implicated, but also Sinn Fein and the SNP if not other parties, so would voting for a smaller party make a difference?
ALEC :-
“For example, on the NHS, Cameron regularly says ‘let the doctors decide’ – this utterance is designed to garner support from professsional classes, and it directly counter to ideas about promoting individual freedom and responsibility. ”
I don’t understand what you mean.
Of course they want to “garner support from professional (NHS) classes”-how can you run the NHS effectively without doing so ?
This is their policy:-
“We want to deliver an NHS that provides the best health standards in the world, and ensure every patient is able to choose a good healthcare provider for their needs.
Our draft NHS Autonomy and Accountability Bill, published in 2007, set out plans to release NHS staff from top-down interference and allow them to concentrate on doing what they do best: providing top-quality care to patients. ”
How does that “directly counter ideas about promoting individual freedom and responsibility. ” ?
I beg your pardon. I should have written 400 million, approximately! About the cost of the pension of a single leading banker!
Regarding the Euro Election we saw a 40% drop in Labour’s support compared to the previous one.
Last time Labour got 26% and this time 16%. The percentage of the vote for all the three main parties clearly came from what may be described as their core vote, their most loyal and ardent supporters.
This 40% drop shows that a huge proportion of even Labour’s core voters seriously question the values of the Labour government.
Polls since the Euro Election suggest strongly that 10% of them still have at the very least grave doubts. 30% of them must still have at least some doubt about whether they will vote Labour at the General Election.
And now we have the situation of the Tories, Lib Dems and just a small minority of Labour MPs fighting for the those who lost out due to the 10p abolishen.
The failure to boot out Brown and the large number of Labour MPs stepping down at the next election suggests there is little drive to renew Labour.
A few months after Brown took over I asserted that the very best Labour were likely to achieve at the next election would be 32%. Now I will be surprised if Labour do better than 25% at the GE.
Alec
Cameron’s key positions: Strengthening family life: Smaller government: Living within our means: Abolishing inheritance tax: Slashing quangos. Not a bad start, surely?
Philip JW
Spot on! Labour had to reinvent themselves as a ‘new’ party in order to be re-elected at all – the country having comprehensively rejected the ‘old’ version. Where do they go from here? Every Labour government has left the country bankrupt and with higher unemployment. May, 2010…enter the Liberals as the next official opposition?!!
Liberals are pussy’s!!!!
With Labour , New or old very unlikely to even get 2nd place in the General election,The Conservatives winning by a landslide the Liberal Democrats with about 100 seats, will the Labour Party disintergrate and the majority of its its MPs join the fast growing SOCIAL DEMOCRAT PARTY?or the Liberal Democrats?
David E Jones
The thing is, there are lots of people in the country who want a high spending, big government. The problem is that Labour know that being high spend means they have to be high tax, and eventually people get fed up of the high taxes and will vote Tory. They got around that problem by borrowing. Sadly, that’s going to lumber us with even higher taxes over the next 20 years or so and all because people didn’t see the dangers of Labour’s deficit spending in a boom.
I have no doubt that the country will, eventually, turn back to high spend big government. I just hope that whenever that day happens, that party will be honest enough to raise taxes so that we don’t end up with another debt crisis. Britain should not be running 12% deficits, whether we have a high spend or low spend government in.
What the current crop of Labour have actually done is open my eyes to the principles that Labour should have. I would never vote for them (I’m a small government man) but I can see the appeal. Gordon Brown’s Labour though, I cannot see how anyone would vote for them. They aren’t Labour, they are reckless.
I have been reflecting recently on where I stand politically, and the recent Reith Lectures on the BBC were very good at focusing my thoughts.
While Gordon is surely bound for defeat, anyone who states that Labour will be finished have not read their political history books, in my humble opinion.
Traditional Labour values have been to reject the imposition of values from the Elite (World Corporations etc) on those without power or influence. While the post-war class system as was is not relevant anymore, people feel probably even more vulnerable and powerless than at any other time, in the face of global business and other international forces.
While New Labour may not have won this battle, the battle still needs to be won. Market forces can determine the price of everything, but understands the value of nothing.
This is the void that will always remain, so a left of centre party will always find some support
GARRY K-
i would not say thje class system is dead its just dorment, i live in a village and the parish council i sit on is very class driven and in a social way as well. im one of those that will tell you as it is not in a softey woftey PC manor that is just woffel most of he time and yes, so called working class do not realiy talk that much to middle class people and or upper class people. it just the way things are in this area and we need a little less political correctness in our system and all political parites and representitives need to learn this.
I believe the next GE will shock the pundits and pollsters with a large BNP and/or UKIP vote – although it won’t be enough to return more than just a few MPs. However, the no-immigration agenda will become so telling that whoever is in power will have to do something about it.
Stuart Gregory,
I would not disagree, I was saying the old, post-war model is. I meant that in those days, there was a large block of people employed in nationalised industries, and society was neatly structured and stable, in a way. I understand what you have described, and I live on a council-estate, where the traditional, organised working class people have disappeared. There are many poorly educated people, who struggle by on bit and pieces of casual labour and benefits. I am very concerned that they are so adrift of the political process, the BNP thrive.
@Colin – try getting a GPs appointment at weekends or after 7pm. Most surgeries don’t open at the most appropriate times for patients. The BMA is a trade union, and allowing a vested interest to run a public service is not a good idea. They need to be challenged by the governments for the benefit of service users. You can quote Tory policy all you like, but you also need to listen to the speeches and sound bites, which often convey different and conflicting messages.
@ David E Jones – Absolutely. My point is that if you had written this list say, 2 years ago, it would have been markedly different. You’ve then got to move on to the desperate muddle of the actual policies. So for example, the research is absolutely clear that providing tax incentives for married couples will do virtually nothing to prevent mariage breakdowns, and if it does, and it keeps parents together who would rather be apart, it will actually damage children. The idea of making divorce harder will not protect children, but harm them. Likewise inheritance tax abolishion – the help is needed much, much farther down the wealth scale, and this is a philosophically illogical position when set against other stated Tory aims. We all know it was done as a Middle England headline grabber to stave off an election, not as part of a coherent review of tax and social policy.
@Andy – Don’t understand your comment, but it looks to be puerile and makes you look somewhat lame against the pretty good quality posters here. If it’s all you’ve got to say, I’m sure AW won’t mind me asking you to go and say it somewhere else.
Finally – I know I’m banging on about Cameron’s weaknesses at present. I would agree with anyone who points out the same criticisms against Brown and Labour. It’s just that as we appear to be approaching a change of government I think people here should be much more critical of what’s coming and not assume their disdain for the present lot will automatically mean a new bunch will be any better.
@Garry K
Interesting that you mention the Reith Lectures. I caught the last one (something about “New Politics”) and I have to say that although Prof Sandell sounded very intelligent and pleasant, I wasn’t remotely convinced by his argument. Everything he said rested on the premise that “The market system has failed” when in fact I don’t think its failed at all.
If you want a car, you buy the best one available based on price, features, looks and reliability. The manufacturers of that car buy their steel, paint, rubber, components and labour from the best suppliers available based on price, quality and reliability. Those suppliers buy their raw materials from the best suppliers etc…. This is the market system in action and it works just as well today as it ever did. Having a government department tell you you will be allocated a Guevara 2000 saloon in red, and specifying the price, and how, where and by whom it was assembled would be stupid (well, Soviet).
What has failed is the system for supplying credit to consumers (see my post above about “loans to poor people”). To blame the entire system of markets is just dumb. The lesson is that certain markets do require regulation, and not just FSA style regulation-lite but actual enforcement.
If you still believe, as I do, that free markets are the least worst way to allocate resources in a democratic world then Prof Sandell frankly has nothing to say.
Being very non partisan may I suggest that if the Tories win the GE they may well introduce a twin tax increase to tackle the Great British Debt or GB Dept in short. This could be a 2.5 increase in VAT and a 2.5 increase in the 20% and 40% bands of Income tax. Ofsetting this might be a reduction in NI and a cut in Corportaion Tax plus of course cuts in public expenditure.
Major reduction in debt and all w ith GB’s finger marks firmly in place plus help for employment and business.
Together with getting rid of the pro Labour bias in elections could be a first term to build on
Does that sound at all politically realistic?
@Alec,
I understand where you are coming from, in that if DC is almost certainly going to be the next PM then its only right that we talk at length about what that means. I think we have to be careful in overstating the imperfections of the Tories, however, as it risks letting Labour off the hook. There’s nothing that GB would love more than six months of constant tattle about Conservative policy, nary a mention of the complete farce that his government has become, and an unexpectedly good GE result that leaves him heading a minority Government of All the Talentless.
You have to accept that Oppositions have tried the Lay Everything Out for Scrutiny approach and been punished for it. It is the prerogative of the opposition not to be exact, especially when Gord.. oh sorry, I mean the Civil Service, won’t give them access to government statistics.
Interesting point about marriage and tax benefits you make too. I agree that tax advantages may not really help in keeping marriages together, but that isn’t really the point. Marriage helps keep relationships together (this is so well established its really not subject of debate). If you can incentivise an unmarried couple, particularly one living together and with (or planning) children, to get married you will increase the chances of their relationship surviving until their children are grown up. When you have a row with your “boyfriend” you can swear at him, pack your bags and its all over. Ditching your husband takes a bit more effort and you’re unlikely to do it unless you really mean it.
‘RICH
Thats one balanced and sensible question,now for the dig at the socialists as its no-partisan time.
As you all can’t stand Brown’
That’s because Brown isn’t a socialist; he’s ‘new Labour’. Not the same thing.
And no, I don’t vote Labour- I enjoy pedantry…
@ Neil K
I was rather convinced of Prof Sandell’s arguments generally, but I guess it is a matter of our individual subjective opinions.
I do not support a command system, and I am happy to let market forces deal with tins of beans and the car I drive.
Where I would draw the line is the Health Service etc being run in a way to ape free markets. When I need an Operation, I am not just purchasing a commodity from a service provider. I am getting a whole range of unmeasurable, human aspects that do not fit on a supply and demand curve.
Sometimes something has to be done because it is right (in human terms), and the framework and principles involved really matter.
I do feel that too much of current political debate is about managerial difference, not fundamental guiding principles.
” They need to be challenged by the governments for the benefit of service users”
Remind me ALEC-who gave GP’s more money for doing less?
@ Alec
I agree with you about the BMA, but given that many doctors are ending their membership of the BMA due to their political stance (read the student BMJ, it’s like the Guardian only more conceited), I can’t say that they represent the broad views of the profession any longer. I do think that more Saturday appointments and evening ones are due (my father does them).
However, disagree with you on family breakdown. Your views seem to imply that the current situation is ideal for children; Tories claim that, in fact, the current situation (benefit laws, etc) nudge families, that might otherwise give it an extra shot together, straight towards divorce. Tories are trying to adjust the balance slightly. Maybe they’ll be right. Maybe not. But I think that the current situation, with young men joining gangs that provide them with the family structure that they never saw at home, is wildly far from ideal.
@David D,
Your draft plan sounds about right, although the real Devil will be in the detail of those cuts in public expenditure.
As for your comment about the pro-Labour bias in the election system, that’s a fascinating question that’s probably worth a whole thread of discussion on its own (whilst we wait for the next Opinion Poll – you wouldn’t have thought we had a By-election this month would you??).
My understanding is that although there is a small amount of outright bias (urban constituences with fewer voters than rural ones, some gerrymandering of boundaries) this was more due to the inadequacies of the Boundary Commission rather than any political fix. It seems the two main factors that benefit Labour aren’t really anyone’s fault.
1) Population movement in recent decades has been away from city centres (Labour) towards suburbs and semi-rural areas (Conservative). The inevitable delay in redrawing the boundaries results in always being behind (so Labour’s urban constituencies aren’t pruned as soon as they should be).
2) There is correlation between the demographics of Labour supporters and those who don’t vote. By this I mean that the voters of poor, inner-city constituencies are less likely to vote than those in smart towns and villages in the Shires. So if both constituencies have an electorate of 100,000. The turnout is 70% in the rural constituency and 40% in the urban one. A Tory gets half the vote in the rural constituency, a Labour MP gets half the vote in the urban one. Net effect is that the Tory MP is elected on 35,000 votes and the Labour MP on 20,000. Noone’s fault. Nothing we can do about it (apart from PR, or sizing the constituencies based on average turnout, rather than electorate – both of which I don’t like).
On the debt issue Brown reduced debt from 43% of GDP when Labour came to power to 37% on the eve of the benaking crisis. Do not swallow the Tory nonsense look at the treasury figures. Current debt levels now are still lower than those reached by John Major’s Government to get out of the last recession – again look at treasury figures. The economy is now on the mend, and Government held shares in the nationalised banks will make a nice profit for the treasury – just as happened in Sweden when they bailed out their banks. The only thing that could prevent a 4th Labour term is that unemployment will remain high until mid 2010
@David E Jones
“Cameron’s key positions: Strengthening family life: Smaller government: Living within our means: Abolishing inheritance tax: Slashing quangos. Not a bad start, surely?”
Mmm. Neatly sums up the Tory position at the moment. You appear to have listed three objectives (which Labour or the LibDems could equally adopt) and two possible tactics; none of these things are actually policies, except possibly the fourth one (which of course is not the Tory policy). When he starts actually saying what they would do to achieve any of these things, then people might be able to judge if it’s realistic. And that is why the Tories are nowhere near home and dry yet despite this shambles of a government.
I just wonder with events in Pakistan and China how soon we will try to exterminate all Muslims.
@Colin – I’m totally in agreement with you on Labour’s incompentance on the GPs pay negotiations. In other areas in the NHS they have been alot better (eg NICE in taking on the drug companies for example).
@Richard Manns – I’m not claiming that the current situation is great. My concern is that policy is devised based more on media coverage than empirical evidence of what works. The entire tax and benefit system is a shambles and no one has the honesty to challenge this or the courage to tear it down and rebuilt a suitable system.
Politicians should be honest about what they can and can’t do. Likewise, voters need to recognise that the choice element within democracy means compromise. Going back to the NHS and NICE, one man’s local accountability is another woman’s ‘postcode lottery’. What do we want from government? I feel that we are currently served by two main parties who lack courage, honesty or imagination.
@ CHRISC
“none of these things are actually policies”
Tory policy on families :-
“Our efforts to reduce educational inequality, end child poverty and tackle crime will be undermined if we do not support families.
So a Conservative Government will give families the support, flexibility and financial help they need.
….. we will end the couple penalty in the benefits system and recognise marriage in the tax and benefits system
…..We will introduce a new system of flexible parental leave which gives mothers and fathers 12 months’ leave to split between them
,,,,,,,We will extend the right to request flexible working to all parents with children under the age of 18, and ensure the public sector becomes a world leader in providing flexible working opportunities
……We are committed to introducing a universal home health visiting service to help families through the challenges that come with a new child. The number of health visitors will be raised by 4,200 – and new mothers will be provided with a guaranteed level of support for the first five years
…….We will support a diverse childcare system, with parents’ needs met by a variety of providers, including childminders and private, voluntary and independent nurseries “
Does anyone have the number of seats in each region at the next general election? I can’t seem to find the exact numbers apart from Northern Ireland having 18 and Wales keeping the 40 it has now.
Alec
There you go again with your personal attacks on the characters of politicans you don’t like. I don’t like Brown but I do not doubt his core beliefs, character , intellectual backbone,or that he is essentially seeking a way of bettering the lot of his fellow citizens even if I disagree with the way he goes about it.
By the way have you yet turned up that OCED report which 6 weeks ago you claimed forecast that the UK would achieve growth in 2009 -or did you just make that up?
I’ve read through all your comments and have listened to all side of debate about Labour’s future and Cameron but if i can distract your attention to that other party the Liberal Democrats. Shouldn’t by now Nick Clegg of capitalised on the Expenses, Gurkhas, The Economy, The Environment… etc
Although Labour’s leadership is questionable and Cameron’s a marmite opposition leader; Nick Clegg is truly awful! the Lib Dem’s always manage to make gains out of the mistakes of the big parties, Iraq is an example, Charles Kennedy got 22% on that issue alone really in 2005 but since then its been on a steady decline, first Campbell now Clegg all low poll ratings.
Will this election not only see Conservatives return to power, Labour gain a dramatic blow but near total wipe out of Lib Dem MP’s; 18% is going to lose them seats somewhere around 11. In my opinion I can’t see Clegg getting 22% to hold all the seats, no By-election victories which are normally LD speciality (Norwich-North seems to be a Conserv Gain its more a question of whether Greens will overtake Lab or Lib(unlikely)). Also local council & european elections proved to be pretty appalling considering the events around at the time.
The party (LD) which although I’m not a member, I know alot of and they either have blind faith or deep reservations about him.They won’t chuck him before the election as we’ve just about learnt who he is but still he’s an unknown unlike Ming or Kennedy who although comical were widely known by the electorate.
But I guess what I’m getting at is what can the Lib Dem’s do to prevent Nick Clegg leading them into the worst loss of seats since the SDP-Lib alliance was founded?
Well said Colin.
Wolf, that’s an odd way to raise an interesting topic: how would Cameron deal with the religious and cultural tensions that exist in modern Britain? I call them “tensions” because otherwise we would not have the recent events in Luton, nor would BNP candidates be elected in various places. Would he be better or worse than Brown/Blair at dealing with these problems? It’s possibly a matter of pulling the country together I think, which Brown has failed to do.
After seeing the memorial for the 7/7 bombings, it becomes obvious that running a country is much more than economic policy.
I find Brown and his crew absolutely revolting in so many ways; but the likes of Cameron & Clegg, I find absolutely uninteresting.
What I do find genuinely interesting is the rise of the BNP and Green Party, as well as all the loony lefty fringe outfits that have popped up over the last few years – all seem utterly Laboursome to me.
I’m going to try and avoid a “rant-athon”!…
It was always the mantra I heard growing up – elect Labour, and they end up grabbing what they can to line their own pockets; centralising every aspect of the country and attempting to dictate every opinion you are allowed to express (and think… if you look at how they’re trying to brainwash our kids in schools from what I’ve seen as a governor).
The other mantra about the Tories I grew up with was of the privileged elite trying to make sure they looked after their own; and in the north where I grew up, the images of minors fighting police are unshakable. and then Tories turned traitor with their support for the Maastricht treaty without a referendum; for which I would never forgive them.
So I started off looking to the Liberals (under the illusion they were some kind of libertarian-republican outfit)… but then found them to be (as far as I was concerned) traitors in terms of wanting to sell us out to Europe; as well as a uselessly noncomittal farty little outfit who seem to lack any purpose IMO.
I looked to the Greens… found them to be depressingly worse… they seemed to be pretty much along the same lines of the Lib Dems, except with a load of preposterous and inconsistent ideas that suggested they didn’t seem to understand what the point of a country was.
What else was there to vote for? I thought about voting National Front, and instead voted Referendum Party… and then lost interest once Blair got elected… my first instinct when I saw him on telly was that he had a nonce’s smile.
Spent the last few years wincing through my fingers at the slow-motion crash they’ve inflicted on the nation not just economically, but in practically every other way… they learnt nothing from the demise of the Tory clowns they purported to rescue the nation from a decade or so ago.
The overwhelming majority of people I grew up with or know simply don’t vote; or if they do it’s… well, I heard one of them say he voted Labour in ‘97… and I was surprised (and dismayed).
The only people i’ve met since who were voters, who weren’t my parents and older relatives were at university, and they seemed to inhabit the same moral relativist bubble of babble that pervades the BBC and the public services and establishment (or regime) in general… real debate seems to have been asphyxiated… there seems to be a gaping chasm in the country… not just of social mobility; or of economics… but of values (or morals), and of basic “reason”!
Only one set of values is treated as the mainstream one… probably because we don’t live in a republic, where no mainstream centralised moral authority could inflict itself on every aspect of our lives and enforce the whims of countless minority client groups… the more (they create) the merrier…
I think many changes have to happen to repair the damage done over the last few decades… many of them involve going back to the drawing board in terms of philosophy: what the point of a country is; what objective definitions of “good” and “bad” can be used to inform and design policies… more reason and less fallacy…
Frankly, I’d rather see Cromwell back than any of the craptofascist management consultants we’re being asked (by the Beeb) to choose between.
!viva la revolucion!
“images minors fighting police”
whoops! Freudian slip… I meant miners, but come to think of it… I do remember frequent incidents of me and my under-10-year old chums assailing the pigs with catapults of a summers evening!
I think predictins of Labour being out for a decade may be a bit premature and wide of the mark. Think about it- the Conservatives had no ammunition whatsover to fight back with for at least 6 years after 1997 because their opponents managed to win when the economny was in such a good shape and popular in sharp contrast to their opponents. They also had only 165 seats.
When the Tories come in they will have to make huge cuts and will be faced with ecornomy’s challenges. It won’t take 6 years to the Labour opposition to get given plenty of ammunition- they’ll have it in abundance straight away, and will have a much better chance of makimg an ealier comback than teh Tories did from 1997 even if they get thrashed in the populat vote in the general election. The automatic safety net of about 210 seats that the electoral system gives Labout even if almost nobody votes for them is also allows them to always at least stay in the game.
Honestly I see Labour being decimated at the next GE. Putting aside feelings about their handling of the economy both pre-recession and during the last year or so; they have lost the values they were elected for. Yes public services are better and the’re has been great social change over the last decade, but the party has become bloated. Bloated in the sense that it is over-populated by MPs who are totally out of touch with the electorate. Bloated in the sense that it’s MPs are mired in deep sleaze surrounding the expenses scandal.
The alternative, that is the Cameron Tories will undoubtedly win the next GE with a thumping majority and possibly a landslide despite polling significantly below 40% due mainly to the dismal figures Labour will achieve and the failure of the LIbs to capitalise on the current situation. His government will resemble that of Labour 2001-2005 – lacklustre, dissappointing and full of spin.
This is where I see the emergence of a new ‘big-tent’ social democratic party and the virtual dissintegration of the Labour Party. It will most certainly be more successful than the SDP, Lib alliance of the 70s. It will attract sensible modarates from all three large parties. Blairites from Labour, social liberals from the Libs and possibly a number of ‘One Nation’ Tories dissappointed by Cameron.
Thus in-turn we will see the re-emergence of a more hardened Tory party resembling the one of the early 80s British people are generally speaking sensible and modarate and thus the emergence of a large centrist party can only be healthy for the UK as a whole.
@ LukW – you’re right to some extent. We’ll have a clearer idea about Labour’s medium term future when they get rid of Brown and we see who they choose to replace him. I suspect a Toryesque period with at least two lacklustre leaders before the party finds someone of sufficient calibre.
On a different topic, I’ve just been reading about something called “the English Defence League” which has been behind some apparently well attended anti-Islam demos lately. Together with various other England-this and England-that groups, I wonder if the growth of English nationalism of one sort of another is going to exert a significant influence in British politics in years to come. As I said above, I think variations on a nationalist theme are a political area to keep an eye on.
The political scene is intriguing but also slightly worrying and unpredictable at the moment.
These are very interesting times in which we live. The next election will produce a tory goverment but the question is how big will the majority be. I think it may not be above 45.
The Labour party will lose seats to everybody but the Lib Dems will lose seats to the Tories in the South and gain from Labour in the cities and the north.
The Tories main gains will be in the South and the Midlands. They will also gain some seats in Wales probably becoming the second largest party.
The nationalists will increase the number of seats they have the SNP gaining at least ten maybe more and in Wales Plaid will gain a couple as well.
The big question is what happens in the election after that if the situation is as bad as it is made out to be. We could see a slight labour revival in the midlands and a Liberal revival in the South it could end up producing a hung parliament.
This is all of course based on the first past the post system if it is alternative vote then thats a totally different ball game.
I do think there will not be a Labour majority goverment for at least ten years but it depends what happens within the Labour party after the next election. if it has huge infighting then you can forget it, if it comes out fighting then it could be interesting.
As for the other parties well the only change i can see is possibly a green MP in Brighton.
@Lukw – “at least 6 years after 1997 because their opponents managed to win when the economny was in such a good shape” – that’s a myth I’m afraid, borne out partisan atitudes. The economy was improving, but very fragile, huge public debts with a chronic lack of both public and private investment. The reason for the beginnings of a recovery were also accidental as you well know – being farcically forced out of the ERM against the governments wishes, leading to a floating pound and devaluation. The decision to go into the ERM was probably the worst single economic decision for the UK since we went back on the gold standard in the 1930s, so I won’t share you rosy view of that period, but I fully agree with the general observation you make re Labour in opposition – you make some very astute points.
@Nick Keene – firstly, check out the last paragraph in my post on the 8th at 7.38pm. Second, I dispute I am making personal attacks on Cameron’c character. I don’t believe I have once mention this in fact. All I’ve talked about has been the Tories intellectual basis and the confused messages they have been putting out since he took the leadership role. My crisitcisms are purely about policy, strategy and tactics, and this is not personal.
As I said at the time, the OECD comment was reported in the papers as I said, but I tried to locate it in the archives and could not. I may well have misnamed it as a ‘report’ and it may have been more a comment, but it was reported. Along with a stack of other data and economists comments, including other major city analysts who said they believed the UK to already be out of recession (in April). At the time I said that particular view I felt was premature, and I think I’ve been backed up on that comment be events. No – I don’t make things up – thats more of a personal attack than my comments on Cameron, surely?
There are no end of polls showing all sorts of swing. However, in my opinion, the most pertinent poll following the expenses debacle is missing.
Is anyone planning to do a poll which shows the swing away from, or towards the incumbent? Of course, this may need to be subdivided into Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem. incumbents.
If such a poll were conducted what do people think it might show and what implications would it have for the next general election?
@Alec
Could you substantiate “fragile”? Growth from 1994 to 1999 (the end of Tory spending policy) was higher, on average, than Brown’s “boom” years 1999 to 2007. http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/07/business_blair_and_the_uk_economy/img/1.jpg
There were public debts, following the recession, but you’ll note that they were being repaid, and were as nothing to even the fairy-tale predictions of the next few years from the Treasury these days. http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2009/1/29/saupload_bbc_debt_burden.jpg
The reasons for the recovery were not accidental, as the ERM quickly became a burden on the economy, forcing us to place currency parity above absorbing the shock of the recession. When we did drop out, losing £3.7 billion in the process (slightly less than we’ve lost through Brown’s gold selling), the economy made a V-shaped recovery, as the pound could revalue according to the markets.
I think it’s perfectly in order to examine and criticise Cameron’s character. There’ll be a few more on his own side to-day wondering what he’s going to be doing to his shadow solicitor-general.
If it’s not consistent with his treatment of other transgressors, it’s fair to say dishonesty attaches to his reputation.
i note the IMF have again agreed that Brown’s fiscal policies are correct (and that Cameron’s are wrong()
And now his “communicator” is safe in his job despite new revelations about the extent of illegal phone tapping within his former team.
Apparently Cameron said he believes people “deserve a second chance”.
Pity he didn’t apply that to those who (legally) over-egged their expense claims.
Of course people deserve a second chance – didn’t cameron once enjoy a whopping great second chance after a drugs scandal broke – but surely his inconsistency points to a weakness in his character.
To quote the Independent:
“Much of the improvement in Britain’s prospects derives from a general brightening of the world picture, and a more up-beat assessment for the US, which accounts for roughly a fifth of global GDP. The US is expected to see 0.8 per cent growth over 2010, a remarkable bounce-back. That, in turn, is driven by the huge stimulus packages from governments and central banks.”
Yes, folks, that means that the UK economy forecast is being buoyed by stimulus from the US, stimulus which gives short-term boosts over long-term pain (so, a tricky decision), but which the UK can’t afford anyway because the bonds markets won’t take it, Mervyn King won’t take it, and S&P is already looking at downgrading the UK from AAA.
In short, the outlook is improving because the US has done something that we cannot afford to do, and we ride on its coat-tails.
“S&P is already looking at downgrading the UK from AAA.”
Nope, but hey why let the truth get in the way of the blinkers?
The fiscal stimulus applieds by Brown has saved jobs. Face it, if you can’t see that, you just show yourself up.
io suppose you were arguing that our low inflation 1998 onwards was all down to China. And that any improvement here is down to outside influence, and any deterioration (anywhere in the world) is the fault of our Govt.
Ridiculous, but you enjoy yourself!
Richard, you can’t claim that Tory spending policy existed in 1997-09, because Ken Clarke (its author) spent the whole tiome telling everyone the policies applied by Brown were too stringent and that he himself would have changed policy if he’d got in again.
Furthermore, you ignore the freeing of the Bank to set interest rates, which had an enormous effect on t.he City.
Silly blinkers again on your part.
Labour appear now to lack a reason to exist, the Old Labour core has withered and literally died and the New Labour coalition lacks direction,commitment and purpose.Surely the question is what will replace New Labour and will it come from the remains of the Labour party.I see at least initially different answers in different parts of the country and different types of seats.In some areas particularly university seats its likely to be the Greens,in low tech urban areas its more likely to be the liberals and I wouldnt rule out the BNP in more industrial urban areas.I think Labour will lose significant numbers of seats also to Plaid,SNP and Independents.In other words not one replacement party but many.I dont think the continuing Labour party will muster more than 150 seats,probably less.
‘On a different topic, I’ve just been reading about something called “the English Defence League” which has been behind some apparently well attended anti-Islam demos lately. Together with various other England-this and England-that groups, I wonder if the growth of English nationalism of one sort of another is going to exert a significant influence in British politics in years to come. As I said above, I think variations on a nationalist theme are a political area to keep an eye on.’ Ludlow
AS I have said at various times here; we have always had a xenophobic right wing nutters group in the UK/ England. Consider the support for Mosley’s Blackshirts in the later 20s early 30s. And in times of depression they come to the fore (why? It’s easier to blame others for being poor / unemployed than oneself).
Absolutely right Jack – if some-one who looks and sounds reasonable tells you the reason you are failing is that others have an unfair advantage, then extremist responses are likely.
Fortunately, Nick Griffin looks like a complete Tw**, so he’s unlikely to win too many over.
however it’s not only nationalism – the same can be said for class division (I’m failing because I don’t have wealthy parents), or religious extremism (I can’t get a woman because the dirty (insert preferred detested religion) have corrupted the arrangement system)
I’d be more worried if we had a really great speaker delivering such poison.
@John TT
You seem to be of the view that the Conservatives are opposed in principle to a stimulus package. That’s not entirely true. There are parts of the package that they’re not behind (the VAT cut for example) but in general they support the idea that the economy needs government aid during the recession. That isn’t the same as saying that the economy needs a massive expansion of the public sector – there are plenty of ways to boost the economy without hiring tens of thousands of people into government McJobs.
The real point is that the Tories are being semi-honest about the fact that although a stimulus package is a good idea, the country really can’t afford one. The fact that we can’t afford one is entirely due to Gordon Brown in his jobs as Chancellor and PM. I say semi-honest because even the Tories aren’t letting on how bad the public finances will be, out of fear of the “Tory Cuts” publicity it would create.
As I said before it all comes down to GB pretending that the Boom wasn’t really a Boom at all, but a permanent seachange for the better in the British economy caused by his impeccable stewardship. In his view he could afford to splash out on public spending because his government was so fantastic that “things could only get better” and there would never be another Bust to spoil the party.
@Alec,
There is no doubt that the comparitively healthy state of Britain’s economy in 1997 owed much to the exit of the pound from the ERM. Major and Lamont handled that situation very badly, but in fairness to the Tories both the main opposition parties were united in supporting Sterling’s membership of the ERM. I personally have no doubt that if there had been a Labour government rather than a Tory one in 1992 it wouldn’t have made the slightest difference to the need for Sterling to leave the ERM.
As to whether the recession is over, that slightly misses the point. “Recession” is just the shrinking of the economy, its not the whole problem. The country still has to cope with the effects of the shrinkage that has already occurred (which was huge) even if that shrinkage has now stopped (which is by no means clear). The problem is not solved until the economy has grown sufficiently to replace what it lost – which will take years. And that’s just to get us to where we were before, but with a much higher national debt. And then, as the economy is cyclical and another recession will be due in 2014-2015, we will have to face another hit having barely recovered from (and nowhere near paid for) the last one.
The truth is that the public finances need to be so strong that we can actually build up a warchest during the Booms in order that we can put together stimulus packages in the Busts that follow without massive borrowing. That is where Brown has gone wrong. That “extra money” that flowed into government spending should have been used to build up our financial position in preparation for the bad times. Sadly, Brown had promised us he had done away with bad times and therefore this wasn’t necessary…
Neil, strangely enough the VAT increaase was the one measure supported by Ken Clarke before he had his socks stuffed into his mouth.
What the IMF and other independent bodies point out ius that we cannot afford not to have a significant fiscal stimulus.
it isn’t simply being poured into public expenditure either – the VATY cut and car scrappage schemes are both private sector, and QE can hardly be described as extra public tractor manufacture.
To quote Cameron, “We opposed the fiscal stimulus”
@ Jack – I agree but I think something more than that is starting to happen. We’ve got extreme right-wing Islamists on one side and an increasingly retaliatory and organised conventional extreme right on the other, It’s an incendiary combination.
I also think this situation is going to be hugely exacerbated by climate change, food insecurity, the predicted mass migrations as people try to flee from the Third World into Europe on an unprecedented scale. Add to the an English response to Scottish and Welsh versions of nationalism and I think the coming years and decades are going to be defined to some extent by competing versions of nationalism – a situation that may have substantial repercussions for the Tory-vs-Labour politics we’ve been used to.
New topic.
SHOULD THE UK BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY?
I used to have strong views against this idea,however i have now changed my mind & for certain crimes i would not resist the bringing back of the death penalty.
I would be interested to hear others views,as to if you agree & if you do by what parameters should it be used.
Rich – it leads to higher murder rates, strangely enough around the time of actual executions.
Waste of money in my view, irrespective of morals
I should point out,i am not coming at the argument from a detterrant point of view,the USA experience proves it isn’t.
I am just saying i now agree that from a punishment point of view,i would not kick up a fuss if it was re-introduced.
Of course we couldn’t be part of the EU if we re-introduced it,silver linings & all that.
I agree with John TT. Before you get to the moral question of whether the state has the right to decide that a person should be killed, you have to examine that actual effects of the death penalty. I don’t see any evidence that it is a better deterrent, or even cheaper (given the necessary appeal process) than very long prison sentences. And the existence of the death penalty can make for desperados. A man who has murdered in cold blood and knows he will die if caught has every reason to kill as many people as he has to to stay on the run.
Besides which the people (after maybe child sex killers) who “deserve” it the most are terrorists, and it’s a well established principle that executing extremists is very bad politics.
@ JAMES-yes I agree with your interesting comments.
You are right in my view to identify a dangerous , uncompromising & authoratarian strand of Islam as a trigger for nationalism in “the west”.
There are huge tensions within the Islamic world too between modern secular leaderships like Turkey, and fundamentalist theocracies like Iran. Those tensions will spill over & enhance the waves of migration taking place as a result of changing climatic conditions.
@RICH
No I don’t agree-the State should not legalise judicial killing-but it should impose lifetime incarceration for the worst offenders .
Another issue(apologies if its been mentioned,only had a quick gander through comments)
The Irish have set a date for Lisbon treaty vote 2nd Oct.
Just after the labour conference & just before the Conservative one,the effect of the vote are not hard to work out,if the Irish vote NO the Tories are home & dry in my opinion.
A NO vote would then give DC chance before he gives his final Conference Speech before potentially becoming PM,to nail brown & to annouce once & for all the UK will get a vote on Lisbon if he becomes PM.
A YES vote gives Cameron time to come up with a answer to the post-ratification refferendum question.
Oct could be the most important time of the whole 5 yr parliamentary term.
I’d have to say no to the death penalty. What we do need though is less incarceration of non-violent criminals. That would reduce overcrowding and would mean that we wouldn’t have to release lifers early (life means 9-16 years these days, depending on your crime).
Take, for instance, Bernard Madoff. What would be the danger to society if he were released? He isn’t going to hurt anyone ‘on the outside’ and a more fitting punishment is massive financial restrictions on him for the rest of his life. With tagging we have a way of applying restrictions to non-violent offenders. Most of them do not need to be placed in prison.
Mark – Pour encourager les autres.
The threat of prison for corporate misbehaviour is a real deterrent whereever it exists.
Money laundering crimes are particularly heavily punished (7 years for tipping off, 14 years for failing to report etc), and I’m sure it helps restrict the flow of funds to terrorists.
I disagree – we need more prisons and lots of them, then we need to fill them.
We need to do away with the early release scheme and start sentencing anyone violent (especially yob gangs) to some serious terms.
We also need a “three strikes and you’re out” policy similar to the one introduced by Labour in 1997 but then, for some unfathomable reason, quietly dropped.
How would we pay for it? Get rid of the rafts of Guardian-adverstised non-jobs , armies of snoopers (employed for the sole reason to make our lives difficult) and many usless quangos. Not rocket science is it?
“three strikes and you’re out” policy similar to the one introduced by Labour in 1997 but then, for some unfathomable reason, quietly dropped.”
It was dropped because it was expensive and unfair. Why should someone face life imprisonment for nicking an apple after two previous misdemeanours while others get away with two far more serious offences?
The expense was the main thing, but the fact that criminals are not necessarily rational and able to foresee consequences played a part as well.
“Where are the Whigs, Neil?!”
The Whigs are in the Conservative party. They moved from the Liberals in four waves starting with the Liberal Unionist and ending in the aftermath of the 1945 elections. They became ‘One Nation Tories’ .
Labour are clearly in deep trouble but to right them off is foolish. In whatever form it is, history suggests they are more likely to make a come back than not.
As Tories prattle on about the useless, wasteful Death Penalty; and the settled issue of the Lisbon Treaty, I’m sitting here wondering just how much damage the Andy Coulson affair is going to do to the prospects of the Conservarive Party.
It is going to do quite a bit of damage, that’s for sure.
It wasn’t life, it was 10 years and what is unfair about it? You wouldn’t go to jail for nicking an apple, but even if you did, if you know that the third time you get sent to jail you would get an extra 10 years it would focus the mind on staying out of trouble.
Their is way too much “fair” when it comes to criminals. We need a bit more “unfair” to rebalance the scales.
BENM
I don’t see what this has to do with the Tories,if this man did something wrong before he joined Camerons team then he should be sacked.
However the police investigeated hime over the original allegations and no evidence was found.
All DC has to do if anything does come to light is sack him.
Sorry for the prattle.
Reintroducing the death penalty is absolutely the wrong move.. just think of all those miscarriages of justice who might have been executed (guildford bombers etc). Not only would this be absolutely wrong, it would create martyrs.
If the death penalty irreversible, it is also ineffective. Violent drug dealers for example live with the threat of death all the time. So too terrorists training in camps in Afghanistan or Pakistan… and I can’t imagine it will deter suicide bombers…
Andrew that’s my point. You and I would be deterred, but a lot of these youngsters don’t have the capacity to rationalise. You end up with lots of aggrieved apple nickers who don’t really understand anything apart from that they are in the bin for a very long time while your two-time rapist is out.
Rich – keeping on a chap who has apparently been in charge of a team that hacked into your political opponents’ phones would probably go down as one of the most spectacular own goals in history.
I wonder what Coulson would do to Cameron’s reputation if her were treated with the same ruthlessness as some of the expenses “fiddlers”.
If Coulson was aware of more than he let on, he should be dropped. But cameron doesn’t want an enemy like him, so he plays it down, and remains loyal.
This could do enormous damage to Cameron’s reputation, if more evidence of illegal phone-tapping is uncovered.
@Neil A – re your post of 11.10am this morning – good points, and I broadly agree with them. Whether Labour would have entered the ERM at DM4.20 is debatable, but by no means unthinkable. Most of economic management is about luck, and how you handle it.
Re the Coulson affair – Cameron and Osborne have jumped to his defence. It’s tricky, but I think they have made a mistake based on the desire to protect friends. A more open assurance that they would keep an open mind if evidence came to light etc might have not left a hostage to fortune for the future. This could be a lovely slow burner for them, as I’m sure the Met Police will be asked to investigate further and we all know how long they can take. Once the media manipulators become the story it gets very tough for parties.
Although I hesitate to write this, as I have absolutely no proof whatsoever, I do find it interesting that the NOTW with Coulson in charge, knowingly or otherwise, used hundreds of illegal tapping and theft operations. The Tory party, with Coulson in a central role, knowingly or otherwise, has benefitted from a string of leaks of emails and papers whose origins may well be illegal. It will be very interesting, and well worth watching to see what develops. Cameron’s support is nowhere near solid enough to sustain a major scandal hit, especially if it involves serious impropriety after his positioning over expenses etc.
JOHN TT
funny, don’t the left go on about human rights?the man was found innocent,what would he be sacked for?
Now the new news that has come to light may change things,until then he is innocent until proven guilty yes?
I think this shows just how desperate the left are getting,
Or are we doing trial by media now?
In terms of the “left” there is no real representation for us in politics so its hard to criticise us. I’m a Lib Dem but there is still little socialist presence within the party which worries me. However, I still hold more trust in them than a dying Labour or a point avoiding Conservative party who have yet to offer any policy other than that they are simply accepting the consequences.
The Nu Labour theme was no income tax rises instead they just increased ni for companies and employees time and time again great spin run out of steam
@Rich – have a look at Greenslades blog in todays Guardian online. Here’s a man who knows how newspapers work, and it shows the questions still hanging in the air over this one.
As I say, I believe Cameron has made a potentially major tactical error in backing Coulson so unequivocally. There are ways to back someone while leaving the door open for a quick exit if events sour the situation. If this story does explode, it will now blow Cameron’s face off, so to speak.
ALEC
He may or not have done something wrong,but it was 2 1/2 yrs ago,trying to blame it on Cameron is a joke.
Smear email’s from #10 Dowining street,we now this as fact,
Glass houses & stones come to mind.
It is just a desperate attemp by the left wing to try to make Cameron look bad,when at most his judgment may be called into question if the man in question is found guilty.
That is it ,DC may have made a error of judgemnt,nothing compared with the like of RED RAG inspired Ed Balls is it?
And to point me to a Guardian blog,is that a joke?
Thats like trying to convince me that FOX NEWS in fair & balanced.
Sorry for some of the typo’s in previous 2 comments.
Rich….just stop being a looney, right-wing, Tory pussy. It’s people like you that make the new liberal, free society thinking people which make up the majority of this country if you remember, its people like you that make them people look at the Tories and think hmmmmm they still have a lot of right-wing skeletons in there cupboards i wont vote for them. Even i am a Labour supporter but even I want the Tories to win just out of curiousity because i think Cameron might just want to put the country stright for the better and to help fix a broken society. Cameron is trying to change the Tories to make itself more progressive and fair but then you have people like you Rich that spoil his chances. Just shut up.
Yates of the Yard says the Guardian has nothing new-all provable hacking was dealt with-Prescott was unproven.
Not sure where this goes now-the Labour pack are after Coulson, but without the Police opening up the case again where does it go?
The police are no longer pursuing the investigation on the grounds that there is no new evidence.
An attempted Labour/Guardian stitch-up that’s backfired. Again.
@Rich – don’t be silly – at no time did I blame Cameron for what the NOTW did two years ago. I merely raised a question as to whether he will live to regret some of his statements today. Neither you or I know the answer to that yet. Try reading the Guardian blog – it does raise some very important questions, like if you are an editor of a paper whose journalists come up with big scoops, why don’t you assure yourself you are fully aware of the source of the information, unless you would rather not ask? Or why is your paper paying a private investigator £2K a week when journalists are meant to sniff out strories. Lay aside predudice for a while and try to seek some answers.
@ Colin and James Ludlow – listen very carefully to what Yates of the Yard said. He was very careful, and very restricted in what he said, and only referred to cases involving the journalist and PI involved, and only then referring to bugged telephones. The Guardian’s case is still very much live, as they are claiming 100% certain knowledge that many more NOTW journalists were involved in receiving information gained from illegal activity, 100% knowledge that a mid ranking NOTW executive was aware of what happened, and that the telephone bugging was a relatively small part of a pattern of illegal information gathering. Yates has simply answered the wrong question, as these many other areas of potentially illegal activity were never investigated. All Yates did was say that the small bit the Met investigated was investigated properly. He didn’t issue any comment whatsoever on the bulk of the Guardian accusations.
Frankly, I couldn’t care less about who, politically, may be implicated in this stuff – somewhere along the line it just smells, and the standard of the British printed press is rapidly declining in part because of this kind of behaviour. But I would suggest for a moment you wiped clean your political perceptions and ask a simple question – if this was a story about a Labour communications director, would your posts be the same? Mine would be exactly the same, but I don’t think yours would be.
ANDY
looney, right-wing, Tory pussy,WOUNDED!!
liberal, free society thinking people which make up the majority of this country,hahhahah,COMEDY I LOVE IT!
ALEC
Don’t be silly,the Guardian is not interested in the NEWS OF THE SCREWS,as you know as well as i do,they have tried to stich up Cameron and have failed.
The reason is to even up the score from the damage done over RED_RAG.
These are the facts, AC took responisbility for his employees committing a illegal act,he himself was never charged with anything.
Taking responsibility for the actions of the organisation you run & resigning is honerable.
Brown,Darling take note.
“Mine would be exactly the same, but I don’t think yours would be.”
Well thanks Alec !
@ Alec – it’s a blatant attempt by the Grauniad and its Labour pals to magic up a scandal. Yates says unequivocally that there is no evidence whatsoever that Prescott’s phone was hacked and Coulson – the only connection to the Tories – had already resigned as the NOW editor before the alleged settlement payment was made.
A desperate ploy by a desperate and frighteningly unprincipled left.
Let me say from the onset,i do not agree with the power of the Murdoch Empire in the UK.
I do find it very convenient that Brown is out of the Country when this broke,so he comes across as above it all,doing business at the G8 while Cameron looks incompetent,or worse.
A word of warning though,allegedely Murdoch is a very vindictive man,he hates being crossed.
It will not take long for us to know if he blames Labour for this ,it will be portrayed with vicious intent to get Labour out through his Media Empire,you do not cross Murdoch unless you can win,it looks like Labour have gambled and lost.
Rich you are just being a child now throwing his toys out the pram.
The right have simply lost the debate because why would Cameron be changing his policies than a lepord on speed after taking shots from an energy drink to position himself on the centre ground. Cameron has seen that the right wing politics is dead and berried and you should move on like the rest of us progressives around here who are both Labour, Liberal and Tory who I find more interesting to debate with than you rambeling on about a political ideological that is simply dead.
And i have you know most people are liberal, they are not all looney, elitest, right-wing fruit cakes like yourself.
Rich you are just being a child now throwing his toys out the pram.
The right have simply lost the debate because why would Cameron be changing his policies faster than a lepord on speed after taking shots from an energy drink to position himself on the centre ground. Cameron has seen that the right wing politics is dead and berried and you should move on like the rest of us progressives around here who are both Labour, Liberal and Tory who I find more interesting to debate with than you rambeling on about a political ideological that is simply dead.
And i have you know most people are liberal, they are not all looney, elitest, right-wing fruit cakes like yourself.
This is so boring, long live the next poll!
If I want tabloid logic I can go to the pub not be here.
This is so boring, long live the next poll!
If I want tabloid ‘logic’ I can go to the pub not be here.
‘JOHN T T
“three strikes and you’re out” policy similar to the one introduced by Labour in 1997 but then, for some unfathomable reason, quietly dropped.”
It was dropped because it was expensive and unfair. Why should someone face life imprisonment for nicking an apple after two previous misdemeanours while others get away with two far more serious offences?
The expense was the main thing, but the fact that criminals are not necessarily rational and able to foresee consequences played a part as well.’
And I’m being sucked in. Read ‘Freakonomics’; 3 strikes and you are out had no effect in America. The drop in crime occurred throughout the USA including those NOT using the 3 strikes idea. Why? Basically the pill occurred in the 80s so the ‘crime likely’ families dropped in size by the late 90s so there were fewer crimes . It had nothing to do with harsh penalties. It was just there were fewer in the loser group. No, don’t take my word; go and read the statistical analysis…
New York made a bigger noise using its idea but statitsically it had NO impact.
@ James Ludlow – I don’t think you read my last post. Yates said explicitly today he was asked to review the Goodman/Mulcaire case. Goodman was a royal reporter – there was no suggestion he was involved in targetting Prescott. It’s the other 29 NOTW journalists the Guardian are making allegations about. Yates reviewed a very limited investigation, not the bulk of the allegations made today. This is why the CPS has announced an urgent investigation.
I think you are being very unfair to the Guardian and extremely perverse. This isn’t an attempt to ‘magic up a scandal’ – the illegal bugging/attempted bugging of hundreds of people’s phones, and gaining information by deception and theft on a collosal scale by a major UK news organisation is a straightforward scandal. The political involvement is a sideshow. There is also no suggestion that Coulson was involved in the pay offs. The clear implication is that his denial of knowledge of the Goodman affair might hold if it was a single journalist working off the page, but with a whole host of staffers doing exactly the same it makes it much harder for Coulson’s denial of knowledge to stand up to scrutiny.
I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever, that if the paper in question was the Mirror, and Andy Coulson was working for Gordon Brown, you would be screaming blue murder.
Apologies for a double post, but I also wanted to point out that I was also highly critical on this forum about the McBride/Draper affair, and how it reflected on Brown and his way of governing. I don’t hold this as a party political issue – its about morality and probity and what is right and wrong.
What would be interesting though is to find out just how Guido got hold of those emails from Draper. Very helpful for the Tories, whose Communications Director used to run an organisation we now know to have been heavily involved in electronic eavesdropping…..
Given that the media have widely reported how the News of the World hacked into people’s voicemails and it was using quite stunningly low-tech methods (most people never change their voicemail PIN numbers from their default, so they just rang them when they were busy and tried their luck with the default PIN) – I don’t think it’s evidence of News of the World staff being masters of electronic survelliance
@AW – Agreed, but why pay a PI two grand a week if it’s all that easy?
I am intrigued by the situation that exists between the Guardian (who are exhibiting such total confidence in their story) and the police (who seem to think there is no fresh evidence whatsoever). This suggests to me that the Guardian are sitting on a whole load of evidence of criminal offences which they have not (yet?) passed on to the police. If that’s true then its pretty dodgy behaviour I think. It suggests that the Guardian are trying to “do a Telegraph” and eke their scoop out over several weeks/months.
If Andy Coulson, or anyone else, has been illegally intercepting communications that would be a very, very serious criminal offence. The only reasonable course would be to dump the whole Guardian evidence file on the counter at Scotland Yard and let the authorities do what they need to do. If the file includes evidence that Coulson committed offences, then he would be arrested. Cameron would suspend/sack him and the limited damage would be over. In the absence of that evidence being given to the police, then Coulson is innocent until proven guilty (or doesn’t that apply to Tories?) and Cameron’s continued employment of him is perfectly reasonable. To sack him would be like firing John Leslie on the strength of Ulrika’s non-allegation.
Is it just me that thinks that the Guardian are deliberately witholding evidence with an eye to a quick buck and a chance to knock the Tories?
Even techno-anoraks have trouble keeping tabs on all their different pin numbers, usernames and passwords. It’s no surprise that ordinary people can’t cope and so simply leave many passwords on the default setting.
My previous comment failed to mention the obvious point that techno-anoraks will have a built-in tendency to have a great deal more passwords, usernames and pins to remember than the average person, but I think the point I was trying to make is still a valid one.
Don’t get too bogged down with pin numbers. It’s about a lot more than that, which is as I said previously why PI’s earned so much from NOTW. I am more certain today than yesterday that Cameron has made an error in backing Coulson so publically and fulsomely without a back out clause. In the current mood, (what Stephen Pound has aptly called the ‘arms race of prurience’) this looks bad, and Cameron needs to be very careful. In earlier posts I also highlighted what I saw as Cameron’s strategic gaffes in alienating Tory MPs he didn’t see as central to Poject Cameron, sometimes for short term political tactical gain. Some of these people are now back in play, and they do not like Coulson for how he hung them out to dry. The difficulty for Cameron over expenses was always going to be double standards, and this will help reopen a number of difficult questions for him. If Coulson does eventually have to go, the impact will be severe, as Cameron’s operation is so tightly knit. It’s just as I have previously said previously with Osborne – when you pin your colours so firmly to a signle mast, you’ve got to be damn sure that mast will stand.
“when you pin your colours so firmly to a signle mast, you’ve got to be damn sure that mast will stand.”
Wll I’m not sure what you mean by “single”, but I agree with your analogy-if the mast falls then you lie flat on your face……and by the same token if the mast does stand firm, then your judgement & principle will receive the appropriate acknowledgement.
@ Alec – this is nothing like the McBride affair. McBride was one of Brown’s advisers and his actions were part of his behind-the-scenes work for Brown, not things he was alleged to have done in some previous employment.
Cameron’s culpability with regards Coulson’s alleged involvement (and let’s not forget that the new allegations concern a settlement made by the NoW some considerable time after Coulson had resigned) is zero. Even if Coulson was proven to have been party to this, none of this stuff occurred while he was working for Cameron or with Cameron’s complicity or on behalf of the Tories.
Very different to the McBride case.
I wonder what the result would have been if the opposite policy to the economic crash had been applie. The major problem was that there was too much borrowing abd not enough saving. How does cutting the interest rate to almost zero encourage saving and discourage borrowing. Oh it discourages lending but that just adds to the problem. The interest rates should have been doubled, to at least 10%, then more people would have been saving, fewer would have been borrowing and there wouldn’t have been the need for all the inter-bank shuffling of credit, which eventually ended up in the sub-prime market which most probably was bank borrowing in the first place. After all if there wasn’t enough money in the banks to satisfy the borrowing, where would they get the money from? Any banks that couldn’t survive shouldn’t have survived. That’s why banks were set up in the first place, as a gamble on whether shipping would get there and back again. If they didn’t the investors lost their money.
@James Ludlow – I have never once raised any issue with Cameron’s culpability, nor Coulson’s for the payments. The minor part of the Guardian story is the payments – the main part is the exposure of a culture of illegal activity that occured while Coulson was in charge, the fact that it was not one rogue journalist as Coulson claimed at the time, and the implication that the Editor in Chief must have known what was going on. If that is found to be true, Coulson would be a proven liar, repeating such lies while under the employment of the Tory party and it then returns to Cameron and whether he sticks by his man. You are defending entirely the wrong targets. All I questioned was Cameron’s judgement in giving Coulson such a forthright defence with no back out clause.
As for MrBride, if you apply the same standards as you are to Coulson you would of course admit that Brown knew nothing of his actions, as he told us so, and that Brown therefore has no blame in the affair. I don’t beieve that for one minute, which is why I said that affair stank as much as Coulson and the NOTW. I do try to view these things impartially.
James – it’s also worth remembering that McBride actually resigned for discussing smears that were never used, but somehow entered the public domain after someone’s private emails were hacked into. Wouldn’t it be interesting to know how that happened and who was behind it?…..
Cameron’s defence of Coulson is symptomatic of his front bench’s complacent and arrogant attitudes. They assume they have already won the GE and are unasailable. The reality is that they a wholly vacuous and without substance or policy direction. To date their only solid economic policy is to give 3000 millionaires a tax handout by indreasing Inheritance Tax thresholds. If Cameron wins it will be for one term only, as economic ruin will inevitably follow. The man who should have been Tory Leader is Ken Clarke
@ERIC :-
“his front bench’s complacent and arrogant attitudes”
William Hague -yesterday at a speech to the Westminster Conservatives Two Cities Luncheon said :-.
……..”.We need to gain 116 constituencies in one go in order to win,- that will be a Herculean effort. It is not something we take for granted.”
Good to see people repeating the Labour party line that the Tories have no policies. How about you head over to conservatives.com and read the ‘policy’ section, then tell me if they have no policies.
Also, the idea that the IHT cut is some kind of great reward for millionaires, remember that they only see the tax cut when they die. It’s NOT the same as an income tax cut for the wealthy. Just follow the process. Currently it’s rich person dies->government taxes them. It will change to rich person dies->government will tax them slightly less.
Oh yeah, and if they came to power tomorrow we’d have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Hardly a ‘no policy’ party.
@ Alec – my understanding is that the emails were circulated from Dolly Draper’s account. Given Dolly’s history, general weirdness, and the technical ineptitude he exhibited on Labour List, any police investigation would have to open with about 2 million possible suspects …
@ eric – I’m not sure what you think is so “arrogant” about Cameron continuing to employ a man against whom there are some vague allegations that the police have stated they won’t be investigating because there is no evidence to support them. No doubt if Cameron had sacked Coulson on the spot, you’d be here accusing him of being a scaredy-cat.
There seems to be a number of bizarre attempts to spin this story away:
1. The police aren’t investigating therefore its a dead story. Well, not yet they’re not. So far we have the DPP, the Press Complaints Commission and the Commons Select Committee all opening/reopening investigations. Its very much a live story as we will witness as the weeks go on. Yates stood up yesterday and said “no evidence, case closed”. On the case he was referring to yes. On the new allegations no, hence the Director of Public Prosecutions flat contradiction of the Met’s position.
2. Its a political hatchet job therefore can be ignored. Why? McBride was a political hatchet job and he rightly got sacked. The Telegraph set out (successfully) to end the careers of numerous politicians. All political stores are smears and hatchet jobs if you don’t like the subject matter.
3. Whatever Coulson did in the past doesn’t matter to his current job. Well perhaps – IF that past misdemeanor has nothing whatsoever to do with the current role. But it does with Coulson. One of two things is true – One, he knew about the bugging of Price Charles and allegedly others and did nothing. In which case he is complicit, and do you really want someone like that running Downing Street communications? Or two, he knew nothing and was therefore utterly incompetent. In which case why does Cameron pay him £400k a year?
When did I realise this was a serious story? When Tory posters here and elsewhere started loudly complaining about hatchet jobs on insisting nothing to see here….
Rich – “innocent until proved guilty”???
Where do you get these strange ideas?
“Not Guilty” until proved guilty . Nothing to do with innocence.
A not guilty verdict does not mean the accused is innocent.
John TT
I had been trying to keep out of this discussion but that last post displays an attitude which is at odds with the entire principle of “innocent until proven guilty”.
It is for the accuser to prove wrong-doing, and not for the accused to prove their innocence.
That is what a presumption of innocence means.
Not that, someone said so, so he must guilty, only I can’t prove it.
Your last statement can be categorised as: “if I throw enough buckets of mud at a wall, some is bound to stick. ”
I can understand where you are coming from. After all, this inverted logic has been behind the majority of recent intrusive surveillance and the ridiculous arguments put forward for CCTV, databases, and ID cards.
But you (and the govrenment) are WRONG !
@ Ian – “When did I realise this was a serious story? When Tory posters here and elsewhere started loudly complaining about hatchet jobs on insisting nothing to see here….”
Not really. I think it was a significant story back in 2007. It may still be a significant story if The Guardian has hard evidence to back up its allegations. But the scandal is a press standards scandal, not a political one.
And it’s a bit rich, this snooping government complaining about being snooped on …
Nonsense. Innocence is a general presumption, but not written down anywhere, simply because the guilty sometimes get away with it.
Not guilty is just what it says. Coulson is not guilty of theft, murder rape or whatever, because he has not been found guilty of those things. I’m not saying he’s done any of those things. It simply does not follow that he therefore should be regarded as innocent .
Am I “innocent” because I’ve never had a point on my driving licence?
He has questions to answer. No doubt he will be as evasive as he can within the boundaries of reasonableness.
Innocence has nothing to do with it.
JOHN TT
Are you winding us up,please tell me you are not writing this with a straight face.
I point you to an old document,it is called ‘HABEAS CORPUS’
So on your reckoning John was Brown guilty for the SMEAR EMAILS,AS THEY COME FORM NUMBER 10?
Rich – I think the doocument to which you refer is The Magna Carta, which contains no reference to innocence.
You clearly don’t know what you are talking about. Wikipedia is a very good thing – I suggest you have a look before exposing your ignorance.
So on your reckoning John was Brown guilty for the SMEAR EMAILS,AS THEY COME FORM NUMBER 10
No , Rich, get an adult to explain it to you.
By my reckoning, Brown was NOT GUILTY. Not the same thing as innocent.
The people that are most vocal on this outside this forum are saying it has been widespread from the written entire media for years.
So why are the Guardian picking on the NEWS OF THE SCREWS? because none of the other media outlests have links to the Tories?
JAMES LUDLOW- is correct this is a media watchdog issue or some other such body,it is not a political one.
JOHN TT-part of the ‘MAGNA CARTA’ is Habeas Corpus,and yes the right of ‘INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY’ is written within its pages.
YOU ARE WRONG!
Rich, you embarrass yourself.
Try putting “innocent until proven guilty” into google, and click on the link to the Wikipedia article on the subject.
Get some-one to explain it to you.
While the presumption of innocence is written into constitutions around the modern world (incuding the EU’s), it is not written into English or British law, or the Magna Carta.
As the wikipedia article says, the presumption of innocence leads to the fact that a jury can find some-one guilty or not guilty. A not guilty verdict has no bearing on whether or not the defendant is innocent.
Innocent is not a legal term. A “not guilty” verdict cannot prove innocence.
Habeas Corpus is to do with the right to a trial before a jury.
One of the tories’ trump cards is that the general public are hopeless at finding out things for themselves, despite the resources of the modern world. Please try.
@ John TT (& Rich I guess). In Scottish law there are three verdicts open to a jury – guilty, not guilty and not proven. I wouldn’t claim to know the finer legal meanings of these, but I am of the impression that the ‘not proven’ verdict implies an element of doubt that the defendant could have done it but the evidence wasn’t strong enough to convict, while the ‘not guilty’ is a clear statement that the defendant is ‘innocent’ of the charges. I don’t know if ‘not proven’ leaves the way open for a second trial if more evidence can be found.
I don’t think this will help you two fine chaps agree on this (or anything else for that matter) but it add a further dimension to you discussions.
ALEC ,
whatever gave you the idea we don’t agree on anything,to be serious we are having a healthy debate,apart from the name calling i have been subjected to,but hey no probs,i can handle it,i don’t give it back though.
The reason i don’t give it back is because even John’s opinion i will fight for the right for him to be heard,even if i don’t agree with anything he says.
FRUITCAKE,LOONY,RIGHT-WING PUSSY etc,
thanks for all those pointing out my best parts.
Glad to see I stirred up a response. I have yet to hear a single policy initiative from Osborne that deals with the Bankers Recession. Even the IMF now say that thanks to Gordon Brown & Alistair Darling’s policies the UK will lead the world out of recession. The debt crisis myth has been well spun – in truth the bulk of the money went on Nationalising the Banks – Northern Rock will be sold back to the Private Sector first makign a nice profit for Tax Payers and the other Banks will follow; that deals with the bulk of the debt. The rest of the debt is repesented by capital programmes brought forward, not revenue spending. When Labour came to power debt was 43% of GDP (That was John Major’s cost of his recession) when Brown became PM it was down to 37%, that is why he rightly claimed that we were better able than other countires to provide a fiscal stimulus to get the country moving again. The current debt, in terms of GDP, is still less than the debt run up by Ken Clarke during the 1990’s recession. All this fiscal probity would be squandered by incomign Tory Government who haven’t the faintest idea what to do about the current world-wide recession – arrogance is an under-staement (great to be able to be partisan for a while).
I see no-one took up my query on Europe – how is cameron going to continue with the schizm that must arise between his Europhile policies (exapnding the EU to Ukraine, Georgia & Turkey for example) and his memebership who want out of the EU? The Tory victiry on June 4th was a great con-trick – thousands believing that they are voting to leave the EU by voting Tory, but in reality the Tories are the Architects of UK membership of the EU and will never take us out
@Eric,
“The current debt, in terms of GDP, is still less than the debt run up by Ken Clarke during the 1990’s recession”
Crikey old son, you REALLY haven’t been paying attention have you. The “current debt” is far higher than it was “when Brown became PM” (due to the slight matter of a complete economic meltdown in between) and it is about to explode into the stratosphere and far exceed the debt that existed after the last recession.
And on what planet is the recession of 2008-9 completely not Brown/Darling’s fault and the recession of the early 90s completely Major/Lamont’s fault?
The point is in 1997 the UK economy had fully recovered from the recession and was just about to ride the next boom. Brown then enjoyed years of huge tax income (a lot of it from “The Bankers” and from taxes on the inflated asset prices that come with a boom). So, he managed to cut government debt a little relative to GDP. Not surprising considering that GDP increased significantly (that’s what happens in a boom). The point is that the Boom was always going to go Bust and to increase government spending as Labour did, without cutting the debt hugely first, left them without the tools to really deal with the Bust.
That said, some aspects of the government response have been perfectly competent, given the lack of the preferred option of falling back on reserves built up from those huge tax receipts. But borrowing against your greatchildren’s earnings and printing money are in extremis measures that are only necessary because of prior Labour policy.
As for European policy, there is certainly a divide in the Conservative party about how far to take EU integration, but I don’t think anyone voting Tory thought they were voting to leave the EU – hence the massive vote for UKIP. And you are wrong to describe EU expansion as a “Europhile” policy. Perhaps it is cynical, maybe even wrong-headed, but a large part of the Tory enthusiasm for expanding EU membership is that it actually makes deeper integration more difficult. Europhiles try and sell the Lisbon Treaty as “necessary to deal with an expanded EU” but that’s a smokescreen really. Don’t forget most continental parties are sworn to achieve “ever closer Union” within Europe. They would have wanted a Lisbon Treaty even if there were only 12 members. It’s just a stepping stone to the EU Government they are explicitly aiming for in the longterm. Tories tend to argue for a “wider, not deeper” EU, reasoning that imposing EU social and economic “harmony” on places like Turkey would break the whole integration project completely.
GB suspends GE because swine flu outbreak in the UK deemed ‘national emergency’ early 2010??
@Eric Goodyear
Expansion of the EU geographically is not necessarily Europhile.
France/Germany and the rest of ‘old Europe’ opposes Turkish membership. The UK, Scandiland and Eastern Europe supports it. Shame that Cyprus has a veto over our future, but that’s a mistake that Blair made.
Essentially, though, the broader the EU gets, the more chance it has of being an alliance/trading bloc than a federal superstate.
Gordon Brown is the most uncaring, selfish, deceitful man imaginable. On the day our men die in battle all he says it will go on and be tough. TOUGH! it would be alot easier if he hadnt made decisions to CUT defense spending has NO will power at all for this war. The Labour government started and made no provisions. I will NEVER forgive him and long for the day he is booted out of office and our lives for ever.
@Nostra – there was a fascinating post on I think Political Betting a week or so ago where someone had dug out the obscure legal fact that Brown technically doesn’t have to call an election for I think it was three years after the last day of the current Parliament. I can’t remember the full details, but I recall it revolves around the fact that a government has the right under ancient legislation to run for a given period after a Parliament expires. This is not the case when Parliament is formally dissolved, as this sets a time limit before a new Parliament must be called. If Brown just lets this Parliament end without going to HM for a dissolution – Bob’s you’re uncle, three more years of Labour!
Of course it won’t happen, (not least as he needs an annual vote to keep taking income tax) but there is a window for a fw months should swine flu be a problem.
@Stephen – I broadly agree with you in many ways. If you are going to go to war there are two key issues; 1)You have to go in extremely hard with full commitment and resources 2) British troops will die.
Labour ignored the first, and the rest of the country is ignoring the second.
I am extremely ambivalent about the Afghan war, but if there’s one thing worse than fighting an unecessary war it’s half fighting an unecessary war.
The news from Afghanistan is awfull.
At least Iraq is a democracy now , and it’s government appears to embrace all of it’s ethnic & religeous parts.
Afghanistan is a tribal mess with a corrupt government whose writ runs solely in the capital.
Mathew Parish in today’s Times has a piece which lifts the lid on the “governance” of that country.
The British public should become increasingly unsupportive of these sort of losses of young lives in the cause of such an ungovernable country.
People keep making the point that it would be easier to buy the poppy crop from the Afghan farmers than fight a war.
The Lisbon Treaty returns power to Member States from Brussels; and gives national Parliaments the rights to reject and amend Commission proposals. It abolishes 1/3 of the Commission. It strengthens the scrutiny role of the elected EU Parliament.
Strange that Eurosceptics oppose it – but I guess they believe their own distortions
RE: Earlier points on reintroduction of death penalty.
1. The advance of science make s the ‘what if they are really innocent ‘ arguement redundant.
2. Where I live in the Middle East the deterrent works well.
3. If they need a new Mr Pierrepoint, I’d be happy to volanteer.
4. If it gets the country out of the EU; it’s not a silver lining – it’s a golden one.
Whilst we’re at it, what about flogging for lesser offences?
@Shaundubai – “1. The advance of science make s the ‘what if they are really innocent ‘ arguement redundant”
I’m afraid it doesn’t. Science still needs to be applied, and many police, judges, juries, and scientists themselves don’t fully understand the issues. Most of our major miscarraiges of justice in recent years have arisen out of ‘irrefutable’ scientific evidence and there is no reason whatever to asume this will not continue to be the case, albeit in a small number of cases.
“Where I live in the Middle East the deterrent works well.”
Stoning adulterers to death & shooting women in football stadiums is not the sort of “deterrant” that is appropriate for civilised countries, who no longer live by medieval standards.
Our young men are dying in a vain attempt to bring the 21st century to the Middle East.
Shaundubai,
I’m not a pacifist, someone who believes that killing and violence is wrong under any circumstances. But I do believe one should respond to wrongdoing and conflict with the least amount of violence that is reasonably possible. There is so much violence in the world already without us adding to it unnecessarily.
Regarding the death penalty, when we avoid killing those who kill we are showing that it is possible to respond to violence and pain without inflicting violence and pain. Ultimately it is only mercy that can bring to an end the vicious cycle of violence and pain, whether this is done by individuals or the state.
I consider it a very important principle that applies to both individuals and nations that one should seek the least aggressive resolution to problems.
This does not mean we should not use violence as a means of self-defence or punishment as a means of deterence. But it does mean that when it is pragmatical our response to wrongdoing or aggression should be measured with mercy in mind.
I should like to add that prison is not a soft option. Many in British prisons commit suicide, including some notorious murders, but also sadly some who have commited far lesser crimes.
Very often people commit crimes out of despair and it is understanding and help that is needed and not punishment and imprisonment. This leads to greater dispair resulting in people taking their own lives.
Mercy, compassion and understanding are not for the weak but for the strong! In Britain we need even more of this and still less moralistic judgementalism , I think.
@ Alec – what about DNA?
@ Colin – here you can leave a mobile, wallet or set of keys on a bar, go to the bathroom and KNOW they will still be there when you return. If that’s a mediaeval society, bring on the Middle Ages. BTW – since when did the ‘our boys’ sacrifice” have anything to do with a debate about hanging?
@Philip JW – I hear what you are saying, but the Christian ethics bit doesn’t wash. Tell that to a mother / father of somone who’s been raped and murdered?
@Shaundubai – “what about DNA?”
What about contamination of samples? What about human interpretation of results? What about the fact that DNA is not unique, and that there’s a c. 1:2,000,000 chance of one sample identifying two people (better than the lottery odds)? What about some of the techniques used to generate DNA from tiny original samples that have led to at least one current case collapsing? What about poor scientific application? Finally, remember that although DNA can place people at a crime scene or connect them to a victim, it still doesn’t prove what actually happened and whether it was murder/manslaughter/completely innocent.
My wife is a biochemist, so I’ve had a good breifing on this.
@ Shaundubai-
“here you can leave a mobile, wallet or set of keys on a bar, go to the bathroom and KNOW they will still be there when you return. If that’s a mediaeval society, bring on the Middle Ages.”
I have no doubt of it-if ours were a society in which the death penalty was prescribed for apostacy, our citizens would indeed be the placid zombies which the state insists on. Yor last sentence defines your position-it’s not mine.
“when did the ‘our boys’ sacrifice” have anything to do with a debate about hanging?”
You extolled the “virtues” of the death penalty in UAE.
The death penalty in UAE & many other countries in the region is part of a penal code derived from a strict reading of an obscure & ancient religeous tract .
That penal code is itself a part of a system of State imposed Religeous belief which allows no free thought, and imposes barbarous methods of State killing for any departure from a way of life imposed by “clerics.”
Some-perhaps many-of these “clerics” have declared a “holy war” on “the west” and wish to impose their laws & way of life on us. To further this aim they have, and continue to kill innocent civilians in our countries .
Our young men are fighting & dying to stop these people in their quest, by killing them & facilitating governance by peacefull democracy in their place……….at least I think that’s what they are fighting for…it’s certainly why they are dying.
Isn’t a major point about the death penalty that the majority of the public are supposed to support it? I’m not sure whether this is a myth that’s grown up, or whether there’s actually any hard polling data – but if it is true then it seems distinctly absent from many of the debates on the death penalty.
As for the inheritance tax cut policy of the Conservatives – it isn’t, contrary to what has been asserted a tax cut for the wealthy. The policy plans to raise the threshold to £1 million – so how it is a tax cut for ‘millionaires’ I’m not entirely sure. In any case as the tax covers all assets, not merely income, and given how much house prices have increased (even with the recent falls) in the last few years the result has been that lots of people on relatively modest ‘incomes’ are liable to pay it. Moreover hasn’t the taxed money already been taxed, and how can making people pay tax because somebody die not be considered amoral. Its not as if the person chose to die like they chose to earn income or purchase a good, which is when you are primarily taxed.
“# Jack
AS I have said at various times here; we have always had a xenophobic right wing nutters group in the UK/ England. Consider the support for Mosley’s Blackshirts in the later 20s early 30s. And in times of depression they come to the fore (why? It’s easier to blame others for being poor / unemployed than oneself).
July 9th, 2009 at 10:42 am
#
john t t
Absolutely right Jack – if some-one who looks and sounds reasonable tells you the reason you are failing is that others have an unfair advantage, then extremist responses are likely.”
—————
…that’s such lazy rubbish to spout.
Aren’t just a little self-aware that there is practically no difference between you applying a label of opprobrium to a set of people whom you define in such simplistic and loblogical ways, and then rallying a mob to condemn?
It seems as though people who express views as you have done characterise xenophobia as being disagree with things that have an extra-national dimension… the insinuation being that special pleading applies and that it is somehow impossible to for objections to things like EU membership or mass immigration that are in any way cogent and rational.
Yes, there are idiots who express idiotic views, and idiots who express reasonable views; as there are generally reasonable people who express idiotic views; and generally reasonably people that express reasonable views… and most people would place themselves in the latter category, and their chosen subjects for whom they wish to incite opprobrium (and worse) in any of the other categories, according to convenience.
However, there is no intrinsic link with views you espouse or despise and any of those categories.
The fact that you use or raise no eyebrow at language like “xenophobic right-wing nutters”, speaks volumes, in much the same was as it always seems to be religious (and banal) people who call some people “evil” (as if it means something beyond a boo in “boo-hurrah theory”).
There is nothing “makey-uppy” or implausible or unreasonable about pointing out instances where unfair advantages exist and are creating failings… particularly where the source of the “unfairness” is due to logically fallacious and inconsistent truisms coalescing into a pseudo-secular, group-thinky, and cryptofascistic ideology, that likes to answer it’s own questions, and market everything it does with some new bowlderised benign nomenclature.
+++
…but no, I’m not a fan of the death penalty… and I don’t believe anyone who says they’d accept being that one innocent (or parent/child/spouse thereof) put to death for the good of the whole system.
…but then I regard abortion as a form of death penalty as well, and perhaps the most sickening and appalling product of a moral relativist, individualist, consumerist culture at the pits of decadence.
Soylent Green anyone?!
+++
I’d rather we were taxed on what we consume rather than simply for existing (which is what income tax seems to be essentially about)… there are countless things I’d prefer not to contribute to, and I think it would be a very progressive step to allow all adults to be treated thus and seeing as though we have a massive bureaucracy and self-assessment, have a load of tick-boxes to say which bits of the state we want to “subscribe” to… (i suppose some core things would have to stay… but I doubt may people would not want to pay for policing, nhs, and prisons!)
Aren’t just a little self-aware that there is practically no difference between you applying a label of opprobrium to a set of people whom you define in such simplistic and loblogical ways, and then rallying a mob to condemn?
…and the sorts of people you seem to be trying to package up into a user-friendly bogeyman-come-whipping boy (now that’s an image! eurgh!).
It seems as though people who express views as you have done characterise xenophobia as being disagree with things that have an extra-national dimension… the insinuation being that special pleading applies and that it is somehow impossible to for objections to things like EU membership or mass immigration that are in any way cogent and rational
…my god! well i am dyslexic, but i didn’t realise it was that bad!
TRY: “somehow impossible for people to have objections to things like EU membership…”
soz
particularly where the source of the “unfairness” is due to logically fallacious and inconsistent truisms coalescing into a pseudo-secular, group-thinky, and cryptofascistic ideology, that likes to answer it’s own questions, and market everything it does with some new bowlderised benign nomenclature.
e.g.: terms like “diversity”, “multiculturalism”, “community” etc…
…but then I regard abortion as a form of death penalty as well, and perhaps the most sickening and appalling product of a moral relativist, individualist, consumerist culture at the pits of decadence.
…this comes from having faced the issue personally, and being quite shocked at seeing the real results of abortion – both in a medical setting, with a sliced up foetus; and finding one dumped in a bin bag… it changed my whole perspective on it from being midly pro-choice to being strongly pro-life (and from a non-religious pov).
Shaundubai,
I’m not concerned about labels, whether what I refered to is Christian ethics. But the principles I spoke of are held by those of various religious faiths and those with a humanistic perspective of life. Indeed, in Islam one of the many great titles for Allah is the merciful one.
My experience is that it is not so much the faith that a person declares that matter but rather the particular truthes that person emphasises that matters.
You said, “Tell that to a father/mother of someone who has been raped and murdered.”
I believe I understand where you are coming from. It is a lot easier to talk about mercy than to practise it, particularly in the extreme case you mentioned. I would certain feel like killing that person. What I would actually do I do not know.
One of the main reasons we have judicial systems is that such issues can be so emotive. Therefore it is not left to the father or mother to decide what is the appropriate punishment for a particular crime.
It is worth remembering that executing the person concerned will not undo the harm done, and it will not bring back to life the person murdered.
@ Philip JW
“executing the person concerned will not undo the harm done, and it will not bring back to life the person murdered”
Qisas-or an eye for an eye-is enforced today in countries which follow the Sharia, such as Saudi Arabia, Iran] and Pakistan
Colin,
In practise its a LOT more complicated than the expression eye for an eye suggests.
In all modern Muslim states, there are large sections of the law in which the dominant influence is a Western legal system, or modern international practise.
It is also true that al-Rahmen “The Merciful” and al-Rahim “The Compassionate” are among the most commonly used names for God among Muslims.
Shaundubai,
It is wonderful to hear that where you live you can leave your wallet on a table and come back later knowing it will still be there. Where in the middle East do you live?
I come from Wales in Great Britain. My parents have told me that it used to be the same here with being able to trust other people. However, I don’t think it had anything to do with the death penalty or physical punishment. Rather I think it was due to a stronger sense of community which has diminished as people became more materialistically minded.
The reality is that there are pockets of people all over the world with very varying laws, cultural practises and beliefs whose sense of belonging to one another makes stealing from one another unthinkable.
Idolatry in the form of the worshipping of money is perhaps the greatest threat to our world.
Shaundubai,
I should like to say that people in Wales are generally friendly, caring and honest. But I do believe that over the decades the standard has dropped. How much it has dropped is a hard thing to measure.
“its a LOT more complicated”
And that is the problem with Islam Philip-it is open to interpretation-mostly by “clerics” whose only education is lifetime familiarity with religious texts.
Now that wouldn’t matter a damn if Islam was seperate from The State-but in many many countries it IS The State…it sets out the way an individual MUST conduct his or her ( particularly “her”) life, and prescribes the criminal code.
So these States are subject to the whim of interpretation of Islamic texts. And when that interpretation derives from strict viewpoints like Wahabiism-the conduct of that State follows suit-and please note that there is no lay opinion involved .
I see precious little evidence of “Merciful and Compassionate” in the killing of muslims by muslims in the name of the same God-nor in the use of Qisas as in the recent Iranian state ordered blinding at a victim’s request.
@Philip JW – I totally agree that standards (sadly) have slipped and I blame a large part of it on the, now discredited, socialist ‘big-state’ ideas that predominated in the UK post-WWII.
The accompanying cult of so-called Political Correctness needs to be eradicated root and branch. It is the cancer killing Britain.
We have the best armed forces in the world and I am disgusted that they are being sacrificed as political pawns by a dying government (If you have domestic woes, try a foreign adventure as a distraction – see: Argentine Junta c. 1982).
Does the situation in Afghanistan REALLY affect us, or is it just another bunch of ‘45 minutes WMD’ lies?
I wish people would think about that more.
Oh how we forget.
The intervention in Afghanistan began for perfectly clear and compelling reasons and when it started it had the overwhelming support not only of the vast majority of Britons but of the majority in most other countries too. Remember there are German, Italian, Spanish and yes, even French, soldiers there in large-ish numbers.
What is happening, quite frankly, is what always happens. The inevitable weakness of nerve that occurs when the mission is not achieved quickly, or cheaply. Every war we have ever fought (with the exception of WW2, having Nazis occupying the Channel Islands is a great encouragement to support the armed forces) has become less popular over time, particulary as the casualties mount.
I don’t think the West had any option but to send forces to Afghanistan, and having done so I don’t think we have any option than to stick it out until conditions have improved enough to we can leave with our heads high. The majority of Afghans do, and always have, support our presence there. Having said all that we absolutely must treat it as the priority and throw everything we have at it. It seems absurd to me that we are launching a “major offensive” with 700 troops. That’s less than the crew of some of our warships.
We should massively increase troop numbers and equipment, as should all of our allies. But there lies the rub; everyone knows we need more troops but there is a staring contest going on because everyone wants some other country to send them. If we could get 10,000 more French or German troops there, great. But their intransigence is no excuse to starve ISAF of what it needs.
A timely poll, however finds public support growing in recent months, which is encouraging, not only to those of us who prefer to stand up for our convictions, but for the services out there who are sticking their lives on the line for us.
Education / Sport
Okay, I always thought the following was urban mythology BUT a friend of my wife’s at work went to her child’s primary school sports day in Essex.
1) The best kid was not allowed to compete (disheartening for the others)
2) No applause allowed (it’s only sport)
3) Sprint events on grass not allowed as it had rained and they might fall over (health and safety excessive)
Seriously what an evil farce. No wonder overall we are rubbish at sport. I’ve spent many years in Australia and they’d be having trouble with this as a comedy skit for English schools rather than a documentary! Nothing wrong with celebrating sporting skills- there is only something wrong when only sport is celebrated.
I believe in education we have killed professional spark (and that would mean some bad lessons but also great lessons) by massive paperwork to prove teachers can do the boringly obvious. BUT in this case Heads of primary schools should be lined up and shot. (But Primary teachers are so fundamentally thick that’s why the teach that group- look at the entry requirements throughout the western world.)
Allow more freedom for teachers to actually teach what they love, not what fits into league tables. But tell primary heads to join the real world and allow sporting excellence (end get parents to sign a form saying if a kid has a injury when doing PE / sports then tough unless its actual negligence rather than Primary Head paranoia).
I know of one state secondary school which refused to allow the best girl hockey player to play in the School First X1 as she wasn’t doing A level and would have her chance later. It was suggested that the school should rename the team A level team which went down like lead balloon but I enjoyed it. Again, school sport is stuffed in this country.
Continuing the Australian theme. It’s worth noting that school sport in Australia is highly competitive but irrelevant. It’s really based about the suburb / town / city clubs. they realise in Oz that teachers can’t possibly deal with all the sports and its also far to late–sport in Oz starts early. My last memory of the Australian Institute of Sport was watching the pre primary gymnast being coached by the Chinese coaches …
‘NEIL A
Oh how we forget.
The intervention in Afghanistan began for perfectly clear and compelling reasons and when it started it had the overwhelming support not only of the vast majority of Britons but of the majority in most other countries too. Remember there are German, Italian, Spanish and yes, even French, soldiers there in large-ish numbers.’
Oh, and how many are allowed to fight? Basically nil. They are there because their arms were twisted by Bush -need one say more about the most loathed evil rightwinger?
Posted here as it is not really poll related:
Amid the talk of possible successsor to Brown, one name had theoretically been ruled out as he is now a life peer.
But the draft Constitution bill just announced will include a provision for life peers to resign their seat in teh lords. Now what can Gordon be thinking allowing the grand-panjandrum a route back into the commons (assuming he can find a seat to stand in and not lose) ?
Of course, the government would have to pull all the stops out and persuade the Lords to support the bill before it could be implemented, so not much chance of it helping Mandy in time for next GE – but watch out fo him to run for party leader after the GE !
British politics are in a mess (again!) – the country seems to be moving towards electing the Tory party not because of its leadership qualities, not because of its policies, but because this is what is done in a backlash. There is, of course, much to lash out against. However, and let’s be honest, neither the Tories nor the Liberals foresaw the economic crisis: did anyone hear them demanding that the financial-powers-that-be be regulated prior to the slump? No, I didn’t either.
I – and many others in my community – will never forget and forgive the Tories for what they did the last time they were in power. The brutality of the state in the miners’ strike was a disgrace. The Liberals will say anything to please whatever audience they are faced with. New Labour lost any drive it had when it embraced war games as opposed to social reform.
The next General Election will be the first in which I do not cast a vote. There is nothing to vote FOR!
No doubt Cameron will win by a large margin. He will quickly make a complete mess of it. (He is a very mediocre politician.) He will be ousted by an out-of-date right-winger and we’ll be back to the reasoning that says the market is a god… exactly the type of thinking that has led to the worldwide recession.
Democracy isn’t working.
Interesting Bagehot piece in the Economist this week. My reading is that it skewers Cameron.
Cogload,
Interesting piece in tonight’s Evening Standard. My reading is that it skewers Bagehot.
@ Mark Green :-
neither the Tories nor the Liberals foresaw the economic crisis.
“We are concerned about the division of responsibility between the FSA and the Bank over banking and
market regulation. Fortunately, conditions in the last decade have been benign internationally, with no
serious threats to banking liquidity. We think it would be safer if the Bank of England had
responsibility for solvency regulation of UK-based banks, as well as having an overall duty to keep the
system solvent. Otherwise, there could be dangerous delays if a banking crisis did hit, with information having to be exchanged between the two regulators; and there might be gaps in each
regulator’s view of the banking sector at a crucial time, when early regulatory action might have
spared a worse problem.”
Conservative Economic Competitiveness Review.
Chair John Redwood
August 2007
@ Mark Green :-
neither the Tories nor the Liberals foresaw the economic crisis.
“The growth of the British economy is sustained by consumer spending pinned against record levels of personal debt, which is secured, if at all, against house prices that the Bank of England describes as well above equilibrium level. What action will the Chancellor take on the problem of consumer debt?”
Vince Cable:Treasury Questions. November 2003
“We have been right about the prospects for growth in the British economy, and the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cable) has been wrong.”
Gordon Brown-Chancellor of the EXchequer-reply to Cable: Treasury Questions. November 2003
Mark,
Further to Colin’s evidenced response to your assertions, may I suggest that Democracy in the UK was not working from around 2000 to about 2006. From 2007 we have seen clear evdience that democracy is beginning to function properly again – but Labour MPs are doing their best to ignore it by putting off the election our country desperately needs for as long as possible for no better reason than protecting their own personal financial interests.
As to the state of our economy. That has been brought about by an (im)morality that holds consumerism as its god, in turn built upon the flawed concept of personal / relativist ideas of right and wrong.
So-called progressives need to reassess their philosophical positions on morality. If there are no moral / ethical absolutes, then it logically follows that you cannot complain if individuals choose to pursue their selfish ends. Don’t blame the market. It will create opportunities to serve all tastes – however vain or selfish they may be.