This week’s YouGov/Sunday Times poll has topline figures of CON 37%, LAB 42%, LD 9%. Full tables are here.

The tables also include some questions on long term care for the elderly (the answers are unsurprising… people tend to think that wealthier people should pay for their own care, but bridle at the idea of making them sell their homes. They tend to support a higher level of assets than the current £23,000 when means testing), and on Olympic tickets. 23% think the distribution of tickets was fair, 23% unfair. 34% would have preferred if they’d been sold on a first-come-first-served basis, compared to 31% who think the ballot system was the best way of distributing them.

I’ll be back on the site properly from tomorrow.


250 Responses to “YouGov/Sunday Times – CON 37, LAB 42, LDEM 9”

1 3 4 5
  1. @ Bill Patrick

    “This is the UK. We haven’t traditional bothered with things like formal rights, including parental rights, because traditionally the idea of government getting involved in such things was so unthinkable.

    The limits of self-regulation in government are as apparent as the limits of self-regulation in banking. The British constitution developed on the assumption that no government would consider micro-managing how parents would dress their children…”

    Parental rights aren’t explicit though they’ve been inferred. Obviously, there’s bad taste and there are certain things that are inappropriate. But if kids are covering up their business (as adults are required to), I don’t see what the big deal is or why this requires governmental attention. Just discussing the issue seems like a big waste of time.

    It’s sort of like the new proposed ordinance in San Francisco to ban male circumcision (because obviously, there’s nothing better for San Francisco supervisors to focus their energy and attention on than this issue). If this were to pass, I think I will have found the place where my liberalism (at least on social issues) does get crossed. All in all though, the fact that they’re going to even have a campaign on this strikes me as a complete and utter time and energy waste.

  2. @SOCALIBERAL
    I assume being Jewish or medical reasons would be excluded from this nonsense?

  3. Amber Star,

    Good, but not quite. I agree that the current inflation is not demand-driven, since NGDP growth (the best measure of aggregate demand) is roughly normal at around 5% and economic growth is below its long-term trend.

    However, if we are going to accept the proposition that “this inflation is caused by too few goods relative to money”, then it is still possible that downward pressure on money (through higher taxes and reduced government borrowing) could reduce inflation.

    This can be demonstrated in a series of classic Keynesian equations:

    1. Y = C + I + G + (X – M)

    2. Y = P*T

    3. P*T = M*V

    – where Y is nominal GDP, C is private consumption, I is investment, G is government spending, (X – M) is exports less imports, P is the price level, T is the number of transactions, M is the money supply and V is the inverse of the demand for money.

    A reduction of G reduces P and T by definition and an increase in G increases P and T by definition, unless there is an offsetting of this action by the monetary policymakers, say by increasing/decreasing interest rates which affects M and V or by a programme of open market operations which affects M.

    The Bank of England and the Chancellor are right that inflation right now is largely due to supply-side factors i.e. Y is ok, but T is in trouble. That is compatible with believing that the cuts are having a downward effect on inflation.

    One theory I have is that there is a tendency to think that fiscal policy affects only short-term growth, while monetary policy affects only inflation. In reality, they can both affect both inflation and growth, because they both operate through the same fundamental force i.e. aggregate demand.

    The reason why, in practice, we don’t forecast inflation on the basis of fiscal policy anymore is that, since 1971, monetary policy has been freed to offset changes in fiscal policy. So big surpluses in the late 1980s correlated with overheating and inflation, while huge budget deficits in the mid-1990s correlated with low inflation and unprecedented stability. If one accepts this logic, as (joking aside) I suspect Osborne does, any counter-inflationary effects of fiscal contraction will be offset by looser monetary policy. However, since inflation and growth are two sides of the same coin, any contractionary effects of fiscal policy on growth will also be offset by looser monetary policy.

    If one thinks as economists did back in the Keynesian era of the 1950s and 1960s (monetary policy is basically ineffective) then the government’s fiscal contraction is preventing us from experiencing even higher inflation. (Though, given the choice, they would recommend that David Cameron invites Bob Crow & co. to Number 10 for beer and sandwiches so they can sort out an incomes policy that will contain inflation while fiscal policy is expansionary. That was the snake-oil that the Tories sold the country in the early 1970s..)

  4. “If David Cameron gets the votes from English and Welsh mothers who do care…”

    Yes there may well be votes in this. God forbid that we have Lab, LDs ands others vying to see who can be the toughest on this issue.

    Apparently a website is being set up so that people can post details of which products are ‘inappropriate’.

    Utterly bonkers.

    Anyway, here’s a downside for DC to this. If mumsnet or whatever group of do-gooders decide to organise to persuade the gov to act what hapens if DC doesn’t – perhaps because the retailers decide things have gone far enough?

    DC could easily end up a hostage to mumsnet and other groups.

    This has the hallmarks of another ill-considered policy.

  5. Oh yesm and whetever happened to DC’s plan annaounced during the GE campaign that some UK-wide event would be organised and held along the lines of the X-Factor, and BGT?

    I trust all the participants will be wearing appropriate clothing.

  6. SoCal

    ” I don’t think the government has any place micromanaging the upbringing of children”

    For crying out loud-no one is proposing “micromanaging” what children wear.

    Some parents-perhaps many parents don’t like the stuff to which their youngerv children are exposed in the media & advertising-and they don’t like the trend to offer clothing for very young children ,which is more appropriate for older children.

    What’s Cameron proposing to do about this ?

    “David Cameron has backed proposals to shield children from sexual imagery across the media and tackle the commercialisation and in some cases sexualisation of young children by retailers and advertisers among others, reports The Guardian.

    The recommendations of a report by Mothers’ Union will see so-called “lad’s mags” be sold in brown sleeves, the UK Advertising Standards Authority examine ways in which to discourage billboards near schools and music videos be given age-appropriate ratings.

    However Cameron will not introduce legislation to this effect meaning that the onus will on those industries affected to enforce the proposals voluntarily within the next 18 months.

    Cameron said that changes must come through “social responsibility, not state control”.

    BBC News reports that parents will be able to highlight examples of child sexualisation on a new website with new home internet services, laptops and mobiles phones having an option to ban adult material.

    The review coincides with “good practice” guidance issued by the British Retail Consortium which has introduced stricter guidelines on the sale of inappropriate children’s clothing including lace lingerie and push-up bras.

    Nine stores, some of whom operate in Ireland, have signed up to the guidelines with others urged to participate.

    These include Asda, Debenhams, Argos, John Lewis, Next, Marks & Spencer, Peacocks, Sainsbury’s and Tesco.”

    OK ?

    So if you’re a parent who shares these concerns, the Government want to help you.

    If you’re a parent who doesn’t mind what your younger children watch & wear then you are free to put them in front of YouTube-and find the Teeny Bras & stuff wherever you can .

  7. @MIKE N
    It ill behoves you to discuss “do gooders” Mr. I have to say Dave must go about whistling “Somebody up there loves me”, these terrible errors he keeps making, do not seem to be holding him back much.

    By the way, while you are on, is it time for Ed Balls plan B ???

  8. R Huckle,

    Another tautology: NGDP is a function of aggregate demand and aggregate supply.

    Supply-side factors can push up specific prices and they can change the balance of NGDP between growth and inflation, but they cannot in themselves increase NGDP.

    If the Bank of England had a deathwish, they could bring CPI down to 2%. It might take interest rates of 5-10% and it would plunge the economy into depression, but they could do it. As consumers, we cannot spend money we do not have.

    What you seem to be saying is that growth is determined by fiscal policy and inflation is determined by exogenous factors like the Chinese growth rate (back in the 1970s most economists blamed Arab Sheikhs, greedy businessmen and trade unions). But there’s no economic model (unless you’re willing to defend Post-Keynesianism) which implies such relationships.

    Insofar as energy costs etc. have an impact on inflation, it is through reducing growth i.e. there are less goods relative to the public’s spending power. This can always be offset by reducing the public’s spending power, though again at the cost of throwing the economy of a cliff.

  9. @COLIN
    I think you may have got this wrong Colin. Men who have recently retired from the Parachute Regiment, will call at homes with young children and ransack their clothing cupboards. Where anything other than a liberty bodice and gym slip is found, the rubber hoses will be used on the parents. In Ireland the name Black and Tans is being reintroduced.

  10. @ Bill Patrick

    I am just of the opinion that the current sitution is highly complex, due to globalisation causing increased demand, with depleted supply of certain raw materials. For this reason some of the old economic models need to be reconsidered.

    I believe Vince Cable was making a similar point, when answering on last weeks QT. Not that I think VC is totally behind all the decisions made by GO. I think if VC had his way he would have a slower pace of cuts, more taxation for some and more incentives for businesses to invest.

  11. Lord Tory
    “It ill behoves you to discuss “do gooders” Mr.”

    Why?

  12. Theresa May is illiberally telling vice – chancellors to dump Islamic trouble makes from their campuses. Another sure vote looser from the idiotic Cameron.

  13. R Huckle,

    “I am just of the opinion that the current sitution is highly complex, due to globalisation causing increased demand, with depleted supply of certain raw materials. For this reason some of the old economic models need to be reconsidered.”

    I quite agree. I suppose what I’m trying to get people to accept is this: since prices and output are two sides of the same coin, if-

    (a) one opposes the government’s cuts on the basis that they will hurt demand and therefore growth, one must accept that this entails a faster rate of inflation,

    AND if

    (b) one supports the government’s cuts, one has to admit that one is relying on the Bank of England offsetting any downward effects on growth by keeping interest rates low and so on.

    The UK is in a nasty place right now. Demand has recovered from 2009, but supply has not. There are long-run things that can be done to improve the trade-off between inflation and growth (by increasing the efficiency of the economy) but in the short-term things look very grim indeed, with the economy running at about 66% of potential output even with nominal GDP (i.e. aggregate demand) running at the long-term trend level of 5%.

    Anyway, what all this entails is that the cuts debate is indeed about ideology, ON BOTH SIDES. If Darling was at No. 11, we’d have had interest rate rises by now in response to even higher inflation and this would offset any positive effect of slower cuts on growth. It is also true that a Labour government could choose to have no deficit cuts at all, because (since we’ve kept the pound) we can always finance the deficit by debasing our currency.

  14. @ Lord Tory

    “I assume being Jewish or medical reasons would be excluded from this nonsense?”

    To my knowledge, no. Though admittedly I’m not an expert on the subject. I think the point is that medical male circumcisions would be banned. I think I (like Samantha Jones in Sex and the CIty) have finally found a line that can be crossed. Just might be a little to the left.

    Ironically, an exemption for Jews would almost certainly make this (if it passed) unconstitutional.

  15. @ Bill Patrick

    Anyway, what all this entails is that the cuts debate is indeed about ideology, ON BOTH SIDES. If Darling was at No. 11, we’d have had interest rate rises by now in response to even higher inflation and this would offset any positive effect of slower cuts on growth. It is also true that a Labour government could choose to have no deficit cuts at all, because (since we’ve kept the pound) we can always finance the deficit by debasing our currency.
    ———————————————————–
    The deficit reduction strategy, which you are trying to dress in Keynsian clothing, is taking Keynes out of context. I don’t have time to give you an answer with graphs & charts etc. but I’ll post one later, if nobody beats me to it.

    Osborne is certainly not following a ‘Keynsian strategy of deficit reduction’ regarding inflation because…

    …check the BBC coverage of the IMF report; it suggests that GO may be considering another round of QE (i.e. asset purchases from the banks) to inject more liquidity into the economy. Hardly an inflation busting strategy.
    8-)

  16. @ Bill Patrick

    Good points, except 5. Frankly, I think this showing-off of unmentionables has gone too far! We should cover up unmentionables. Especially table unmentionables- an uncovered table unmentionable is representative of the moral decline of our society!
    ——————————————————–
    :-) Yep, modesty panels required.

  17. Amber Star,

    The point about Osborne being a Keynesian was facetious. It was simply to highlight an implication: if one thinks that fiscal policy determine aggregate demand, then fiscal contraction is counter-inflationary.

    I do believe (or at least hope) that Osborne thinks that, insofar as fiscal policy affects growth, it also affects inflation. In fact, what we call “growth” (real GDP) is really just a product of “deflating” nominal GDP with a measure of price inflation. In a very important sense, inflation and growth are two sides of the same coin.

    If Osborne is considering a bout of QE to offset a future fall in NGDP (not actually something he can directly order, but he could support the MPC and he could also change the Bank’s mandate, say to a 5% NGDP target or an average money wage target) then this is consistent with the logic of his position. One might have ideological objections to the strategy of fiscal austerity and monetary laxity; one might take the Stafford Cripps view of ageeing with such a position but emphasising tax increases rather than spending cuts; but this is a public vs. private argument, not a growth vs. austerity argument.

    (The “coin” argument applies to QE as well i.e. QE can only boost inflation if it is boosting growth, if there is excess capacity in the economy.)

  18. @ Colin

    All good points. However, I think that if you are a parent who is unhappy with kids clothing that seems a bit to risque, isn’t the simplest solution to simply not buy the clothing? Doesn’t a parent shopping for their kids clothing have an option to turn away from the little Ms. Paris Hilton outfit (complete with matching mini CFM heels!) and choose the Little Maggie Thatcher outfit instead? If you don’t like it, don’t buy it.

    I’ll give you an example. I hated the movie the Hangover. If I wasn’t with my friend, I would have walked out not even halfway through it. Do I advocate for this horrible (though widely loved) movie to be banned? No. Instead, I simply won’t rent it on Netflix, won’t buy it on DVD, and won’t see the sequel. For that matter, do I think that the government needs to encourage Hollywood to stop making profitable movies just because they’re in bad taste? No.

  19. Anybody know how to contact AW?
    The contact page is broken.

    I made a comment, in haste (that thankfully was automatically put in to moderation) that I’m hoping to have deleted.
    It’s not anything too inflammatory – I basically said what Amber has said, only in a way that was a little too ‘passionate’ and I don’t feel it was in the spirit of the site.

    I realise that admitting that here makes me appear dodgy – but I think I should just stick to commenting on polling.

  20. @ Bill Patrick

    ” If one accepts this logic, as (joking aside) I suspect Osborne does, any counter-inflationary effects of fiscal contraction will be offset by looser monetary policy.”

    You suspect correctly.

    He said so on R4 this morning.

  21. @ Bill Patrick

    Perhaps the debate should be about the current ability of the UK to compete in the changed global world we are in. The way I see it, is that genuine money really only comes from producing something which others demand.

    Germany is doing well because it is brilliant at engineering and is therefore producing high quality goods at competitve prices, which they export all around the world. Since the 1970’s, the UK has struggled comparitively, because engineering/technical skills in the economy have declined. I keep hearing that we need to invest in high end products and research, which of course is correct, but totally misses the point that other countries are just as capable of producing the same at less cost. It does not help that western companies have helped China and other cheap labour economies, by moving production to these countries. Eventually, these Chinese companies will just earn and learn enough to either take over the western companies or set themselves up as competitors. So some of the short term profit making policies that shareholders/investors have and continue to demand, could end up biting them in the backside.

    I only raise this issue, as it is part of the reason, we have come to the positon we are in. This is not a fear reaction to globalisation, but a reality check that the western economies need to increase innovation and production of products at home that they can export. You won’t get anywhere if you just cede all the production to other countries. As we have found with the recent Japanese earthquake, UK car factories (Honda/Toyata) have had to cut production, because the UK does not have a supply chain for parts. They have to rely on the Japanese factories restarting production. This is a bit sad, when the UK is not geared up to producing the parts and instead relies on huge cargo ships taking weeks to bring them half way around the world. At some point due to the cost of fuel, transporting such parts in the cargo ships, will not be the most economical way to obtain them.

  22. @Amber,

    “1. Some of these ‘inappropriate’ clothes are not made for children. They are made for Asian men & women, many of whom are smaller than Western children. The garments are sold as adult clothing but worn by Western children.”

    They are not. Many are specifically aimed at children.

    “If 7 year olds in ‘sexy’ clothing don’t turn *you* on, then the clothing itself isn’t ‘sexy’.”

    I disagree. I didn’t use the word ‘sexy’. I said indecent. Some children’s clothes are now. No offence, but you clearly haven’t seen some.

    “Research has shown that people who are sexually attracted to children most often prefer them to be dressed like children: Shirley Temple frocks or Boy Scout uniforms etc.”

    For most people, including me, this issue is not at all about paedophilia. I agree that it is not linked at all. It’s about protecting children’s innocence and right to have a childhood, much of which is taken away by large retailers intent on ramming sexualised clothing down their throats.

    “It isn’t the children who want “inappropriate” clothes; they just think the clothes are pretty. It’s not the fault of the children”

    I agree. It’s the thought of their parents and the large retailers who are prepared to do anything for money.

    “When women of any age can wear whatever they want without judgemental men & prudish women labelling them ‘whores’ or ‘overly sexualised’, then feminists like me will be happier.”

    I wasn’t talking about women though. I agree that women should be able to wear what they like without being judged.

    My point was about little girls who are wearing provocative clothing, and the commercialisation culture which is taking their innocence and childhood away.

    Re: feminism

    Because everything is foisted on young girls and teenagers now, they are also under increasing pressure to have sex at a very young age, often when they are not ready. If you don’t, you are labelled ‘frigid’. This is a serious problem, particularly for young females IMO.

  23. But as I said before, I agree with others that nothing can be done anyway. I think we should just all surrender to current trends, as fighting them is pointless anyway. That’s why I’ve never been much of a moralist – never seen the point or benefit from it, myself.

    Anyway, got to dash now. I’ll probably be back on here in a few months to see how the polls are going. Till then….

  24. SoCal

    “However, I think that if you are a parent who is unhappy with kids clothing that seems a bit to risque, isn’t the simplest solution to simply not buy the clothing? ”

    Yes I have some sympathy with that view-which I suppose makes me socially liberal. :-)

    However, I am not socially laissez faire-and I think there is a trend of exposure in the UK media to more & more soft porn images, and the kiddies kinky clothing thing is part of that trend too.

    You ( or your 7 year old grandaughter) have only to open a Sunday Paper “style” mag here to see female crotches on ready display. TV shows here recently have featured groin groping pop stars before the watershed. Hoarding adverts follow the same trend.

    It is becoming all pervasive & parents are at a loss how to avoid exposure if that is what they wish.

    I read this about your country recently :-

    ” First there was the California mom injecting her 8-year-old daughter with Botox so she can win beauty pageants, now I find out about leg and butt-toning shoes aimed at girls as young as 8-years-old.

    The brand Skechers has introduced a new model of their popular “Shape-ups” shoes – previously targeting adult women – in sizes small enough to fit little girls. Some even come with Velcro straps.

    The shoes are featured in a sassy commercial starring young girls as pop stars. The girls are followed around by three boys dressed in costumes representing ice cream, a hot dog and a cupcake. In one part of the commercial, a girl wearing Shape-ups confidently walks away from the boys/food.

    Outraged parents worry the commercial’s slogan: “Stay Fit…Have Fun…In Shape-ups!” will send the message that girls should be unhappy with their bodies and strive to change them whether they’re 8.

    Parents have started an online petition demanding that Robert Greenburg, CEO of Skechers USA discontinue the line of shoes for girls. The petition says in part:

    “An international survey commissioned by Dove shows that 77% of young girls between ages 10 and 14 think that they are ugly. 80% of 13 year old girls have tried to lose weight, and 50% of girls between the ages of 10 and 13 think that they are overweight. The overwhelming majority of these girls say that their negative feelings have been reinforced by products and ads such as the ones your company is now marketing. Nearly 90% of girls report feeling depressed about their appearance,

    Please stop adding fuel to this fire with your gendered marketing approach that targets young girls. This kind of product and marketing scheme is unacceptable, sexist, and damaging, and your company must be responsible for removing it.” ”

    So I think DC is just reflecting on a problem we have in both our countries-a problem parents want some help with.

    Responsible parents will always try to take the right choice for their young children-but they need to have an environment in which that choice can be excercised, and in which premature & unneccessary pressures are not applied to their young ones by voracious commercial interests.

    I would rather see this blanket exposure rolled back, helping the majority-and leaving the minority to go find what they want .

  25. Oh, I forgot to say that BTW by provocative clothing I was talking about the sale of things like lingerie to the under 10s. That is what I find particularly unsavoury.

    I suppose if someone disagrees, and would find the thought of a 7 year in lingerie inoffensive, then they are quite entitled to their opinion (obviously), but I’d be very worried about their moral compass. That’s just me, though.

    Anyway, I am off. Happy poll watching everyone.

  26. SoCal

    “However, I think that if you are a parent who is unhappy with kids clothing that seems a bit to risque, isn’t the simplest solution to simply not buy the clothing? ”

    Yes I have some sympathy with that view-which I suppose makes me socially liberal.

    However, I am not socially laissez faire-and I think there is a trend of exposure in the UK media to more & more soft p**n images, and the kiddies k***y clothing thing is part of that trend too.

    You ( or your 7 year old grandaughter) have only to open a Sunday Paper “style” mag here to see female legs generously splayed. TV shows here recently have featured groin groping pop stars before the watershed. Hoarding adverts follow the same trend.

    It is becoming all pervasive & parents are at a loss how to avoid exposure if that is what they wish.

    I read this about your country recently :-

    ” First there was the California mom injecting her 8-year-old daughter with Botox so she can win beauty pageants, now I find out about leg and butt-toning shoes aimed at girls as young as 8-years-old.

    The brand Skechers has introduced a new model of their popular “Shape-ups” shoes – previously targeting adult women – in sizes small enough to fit little girls. Some even come with Velcro straps.

    The shoes are featured in a sassy commercial starring young girls as pop stars. The girls are followed around by three boys dressed in costumes representing ice cream, a hot dog and a cupcake. In one part of the commercial, a girl wearing Shape-ups confidently walks away from the boys/food.

    Outraged parents worry the commercial’s slogan: “Stay Fit…Have Fun…In Shape-ups!” will send the message that girls should be unhappy with their bodies and strive to change them whether they’re 8.

    Parents have started an online petition demanding that Robert Greenburg, CEO of Skechers USA discontinue the line of shoes for girls. The petition says in part:

    “An international survey commissioned by Dove shows that 77% of young girls between ages 10 and 14 think that they are ugly. 80% of 13 year old girls have tried to lose weight, and 50% of girls between the ages of 10 and 13 think that they are overweight. The overwhelming majority of these girls say that their negative feelings have been reinforced by products and ads such as the ones your company is now marketing. Nearly 90% of girls report feeling depressed about their appearance,

    Please stop adding fuel to this fire with your gendered marketing approach that targets young girls. This kind of product and marketing scheme is unacceptable, sexist, and damaging, and your company must be responsible for removing it.” ”

    So I think DC is just reflecting on a problem we have in both our countries-a problem parents want some help with.

    Responsible parents will always try to take the right choice for their young children-but they need to have an environment in which that choice can be excercised, and in which premature & unneccessary pressures are not applied to their young ones by voracious commercial interests.

    I would rather see this blanket exposure rolled back, helping the majority-and leaving the minority to go find what they want .

  27. “First there was the California mom injecting her 8-year-old daughter with Botox so she can win beauty pageants”
    Just want to update you on this story –
    “TMZ has obtained a sworn declaration written by Sheena Upton, who claims she was recently approached by the British tabloid, The Sun, and asked “to play the role of Kerry Campbell” for a story called “I Give My 8-Year-Old Daughter Botox.””

    “Upton now confesses The Sun paid her $200 adding, “I was provided with the story, instructions and a script to follow for a recorded interview.””

    So the story was made up by The Sun to promote moral outrage (aka sell newspapers).

  28. Once we assume others have the responsibility for making good judgements about what we can dress ourselves in….we’ve lost the battle….

    Neither the acceptable face of capitalist consummerism nor the precarious laws of religioun can better the designs of Nature and Evolution….

    Like Mrs Whitehouse in her extremis the foaming horror over half-imagined assualts upon our impressionable childish imaginations wholly leave out of account both our childrens’ appetite for the exagggerated and ghoulish as well as the banal realities of our own experience.

    Common sense and good parenting will achieve more than all the fig leaves and moralisitic nihilism that spouts from a media intoxicated with its prurient self-importance

    It’s clear none of these self proclaimed experts reads…. let alone reads Shakespeare or Chaucer or Virgil, Ovid and Cicero or Homer…..

    For most of human history we’ve dressed our children in the drab of our own times and fashions….This faultless commentary is merelt exaggerated comment upon us and not upon what our vices might easily lead our children to do…..

    If nudity, nakedness and knowledge were dangerous to our survival as a species we’d never have made it from the grasslands let alone evolved into sentience.

    and those who will holler loudest will think there’s nothing wrong with the Sun or Daily Star….as it says in the scriptures….remove the moat from your own eye before seeking to pluck it from another’s….

  29. John Murphy

    “Once we assume others have the responsibility for making good judgements about what we can dress ourselves in….we’ve lost the battle…”

    I rather think it is the parents of very young children who are asking to make their own judgements about what they clothe them in.

    They are simply asking voracious commercialism to take a step back & stop imposing pressures on young children , which they should not be exposed to.

    It deprives them of their childhood , which is very precious.

    …………and it’s “mote”….not “moat” :-)

  30. @ Ambivalent Supporter

    My point was about little girls who are wearing provocative clothing, and the commercialisation culture which is taking their innocence and childhood away.
    ———————————————–
    But it isn’t. The children (only girls in your opinion?) are innocently wearing these clothes because they are ‘dressing up’…. as to the clothing being ‘indecent’, what does that even mean in this context? Give me some examples, help me understand because I don’t ‘get’ it.

    Surely being told to cover up & wear clothes that are ‘decent’ is sexualising children & telling them they cannot ‘innocently’ show whatever parts of their body are exposed by these ‘indecent’ clothes.

    If adults can’t react appropriately, that’s a problem for adults to address without name calling against parents who don’t pander to the ‘dirty minds’ which see pretty clothes as provocative.
    8-)
    —————————————————-
    Re: feminism

    Because everything is foisted on young girls and teenagers now, they are also under increasing pressure to have sex at a very young age, often when they are not ready. If you don’t, you are labelled ‘frigid’. This is a serious problem, particularly for young females IMO.
    —————————————————
    Here’s the thing: Women over the age of 16 can decide for themselves. Women under 16 (or female children, if you refuse to concede that they are women) don’t get to make the decision, it’s been made for them by legislation.

    Therefore, to properly empower women (& men too, IMO): just make it clear that until they are 16 neither they nor their peers, nor their parents have any decision to make. No is the only possible answer. They don’t get to say Yes because their peers call them ‘frigid’; they don’t get to say Yes to sex at all.

    After 16, it’s up to the ex-children, now adults, to decide for themselves.

    It’s black & white. Introducing all this blurry, media & peer pressure stuff is just an excuse for adults who don’t want to see it clearly themselves, never mind lay it out clearly for their children.
    8-)

  31. The total donations between January and March 2011 to the three main parties were:

    Conservative Party – £3,878,324
    Labour Party – £2,882,765*
    Liberal Democrats – £810,029

    * £2,507,372 of that came from trade unions – more than 85% of total Q1 donations.

    No wonder Vince has told the Unions he aint going to stand for any trouble from them. :-)

  32. @ Colin & Bill Patrick

    ” If one accepts this logic, as (joking aside) I suspect Osborne does, any counter-inflationary effects of fiscal contraction will be offset by looser monetary policy.”

    You suspect correctly.

    He said so on R4 this morning.
    ———————————————————-
    Absolutely. Before Bill made it clear he was being facecious, this is why I said that any claim that Osborne was targeting inflation (especially within Keynsianism) was not the context in which to view his deficit reduction strategy.

    Deficit reduction is being pursued either:
    1. To maintain a AAA credit rating; &/or
    2. For ideological reasons.

    Deficit reduction is not intended to benefit the Uk economy – & GO is at his weakest when he attempts to present it as a tool for economic management.

    I’m pleased to say that, lately, he has all but given up on claiming it is good for the economy & now cites external factors as forcing his strategy upon him, rather than trying to sell it to the voters.
    8-)

  33. Amber

    On the contrary .
    GO said on R4 today-as he has consistently said, that ( unlike you) he believes that stability & credibility ( aka the deficit reduction programme ) is intended to benefit the UK economy -and has done by allowing us to have German style borrowing costs , with a Portuguese style deficit.

    ie It is pursuit of “AAA credit rating” ( aka bond holder confidence) which underpins the flexibility available to BoE on monetary policy.

  34. @ Colin

    Isn’t it great that 85% of £2,507,372 donations to the Labour Party came from about 2.5million working people, each chosing to make a small contribution?

    How many ordinary working people chose to donate to the Tory Party, do you know?
    8-)

  35. @ Colin

    You ( or your 7 year old grandaughter) have only to open a Sunday Paper “style” mag here to see female legs generously splayed. TV shows here recently have featured groin groping pop stars before the watershed. Hoarding adverts follow the same trend.
    ————————————————-
    I wonder if David Cameron will be exerting some pressure on his friends at News International.
    8-)

  36. @ Colin

    …..he believes that stability & credibility ( aka the deficit reduction programme ) is intended to benefit the UK economy
    ——————————————————
    Yes, it may be intended to ‘benefit the Uk economy’ but it is not a tool with which he can manage the economy.

    There is an important distiction between the two.
    8-)

  37. Amber

    Isn’t it great that 85% of £2,507,372 donations to the Labour Party came from about 2.5million working people, each chosing to make a small contribution?

    I’m quqite sure that 2.5M

  38. Whoops.

    Amber

    Isn’t it great that 85% of £2,507,372 donations to the Labour Party came from about 2.5million working people, each chosing to make a small contribution?

    I’m quite sure that 2.5M didn’t choose anything of the sort, their union bsses decided it for them. They may regard it as an inevitable part of membership, but that’s not quite the same as choosing to give to the dearly beloved Labour Party, however sweetly you like to imagine it! :)

  39. Colin

    “They are simply asking voracious commercialism to take a step back….”

    The genie is out of that particular bottle.

    It will be fascinating to watch DC try to curb rampant commercialism in this one tiny area whilst extolling it’s virtues everywhere else.

    I’m entirely with you on the precious nature of childhood tho’.

  40. @BT SAYS…

    Quite a few unions allow you to opt out of donating money to the Labour Party whilst retaining membership, so I’m not sure that’s fair.

  41. BT

    I’ll go further than that. the law says that union members have to explicitly agree to the political levy. The default is that you don’t pay it. Only Union members who choose to pay that element of the membership are donating to political campaigning such as donations to the Party.

    Contrast this with the position of shareholders. They have no individual decision about their companies decisions to put money towards political parties.

  42. Top Hat

    I appreciate your point, but honestly how many are going to be that motivated to go to the trouble of opting out of what is a key plank of union politics (i.e. feeding Labour)? I can’t imagine it’s the ‘done’ thing to opt out.

  43. @Lord Tory

    “No, they act, they take steps to reduce the impact of the omnipresent media, which happily turns kids from Peter Rabbit to a video of simulated sexual intercourse with some bird howling down a microphone”

    Roland, Roland, Roland. I warned you many months ago to wean yourself off that dodgy video collection of yours. It would appear that not even mutating into Lord Tory of Wormwood Scrubs has relieved you of your many vices! lol.

  44. Amber

    ” wonder if David Cameron will be exerting some pressure on his friends at News International”

    A very fair comment. You are right to highlight the “difficulties” DC might be walking into.

    “but it is not a tool with which he can manage the economy.”

    Depends what you mean by “manage”

    If you believe that an economy can be micro-managed for a given outurn, then we have probably reached the point of political difference between us…………and between you & GO :-)

  45. Woodsman

    “It will be fascinating to watch DC try to curb rampant commercialism in this one tiny area whilst extolling it’s virtues everywhere else.”

    It will.

    Can you remind me of the occasion DC extolled rampant commercialism ?

  46. @ BT Says

    I’m quite sure that 2.5M didn’t choose anything of the sort, their union bsses decided it for them. They may regard it as an inevitable part of membership, but that’s not quite the same as choosing to give to the dearly beloved Labour Party, however sweetly you like to imagine it!
    ———————————————–
    You are not correct, BT.

    The Union bosses don’t decide. Any member can very easily opt out of the political contribution.
    8-)

  47. Will labour ever realise where it all went wrong? With Ed Balls on Newsnight saying that he is right & 112 economists at the IMF are wrong and that the IMF is politically motivated in favour of the Coalition government, suggests not.

    Time EM got a credible shadow chancellor and got rid of the flat earthers in his cabinet.

  48. @ Robert Newark

    The IMF have foisted a cuts program on every country they’ve been involved in over the past 30 years. They prolonged recessions in several Asian, African & South American countries.

    That’s why the developing world are unimpressed with the IMF & don’t want another European in charge. They’ll likely not make too much fuss about it, though. But the emerging economies won’t increase their IMF contribution either. They’ll set up their own BRIC version of the IMF.
    8-)

  49. @ John Murphy

    “Once we assume others have the responsibility for making good judgements about what we can dress ourselves in….we’ve lost the battle….”

    100% Agreed.

    @ Amber Star

    “That’s why the developing world are unimpressed with the IMF & don’t want another European in charge.”

    That’s why they need a Scot running things. :)

  50. My granddaughter, 9, looks beautiful in any of the clothes she has, or none. She would look beautiful wearing a bin bag with three holes for the head and arms.

    Artifice could not improve her.She couldn’t look possibly more beautiful made to look like some pop star or barbie doll.

    That’s a plain enough fact and she isn’t stupid so body image isn’t a problem. The hairdresser said to her “You’re very beautiful.” and she just said “I know.” When the time comes that she thinks she wants to look sexy, she wont need any artificial help.

    She sings in a choir, is learning piano, cooks, skates, skis, rollerblades, wins prizes in the school sports and speaks fluent Italian.

    Of course she has a quarter of my DNA so that’s not really surprising.

1 3 4 5