''I fear that the chances of us going into the next recession with a balanced budget, let alone having made any impact on the debt mountain overhanging us, Aberfan like, are vanishingly slim. ''
I disagree. Anybody who read the appalling details of the public sector rich list will question the resolve of Osborne to slash the public sector in the right places.
This is still going on after six years of his chancellorship?? do me a favour.
I have been pointing this out for the last 5 years. :-)
To be fair Osborne was constrained by the lib dems for those 5 years. He had limited influence. He ain't constrained now.
Osborne is just where the left want him, falling between two stools. Not balancing the budget, and not satisfying those who want a spendathon either.
Constrained ?
The man's a politician, are you saying he can't cut a deal in areas where he and the LDs shared views ? fact is he's Brown's mini-me. He dabbles in everything and ignores the day job.
We have now had 18 years of political CoEs trying to get their boss' job, time for a reformer.
I pointed out early today that Osborne's honeymoon was over, his record is going to come under scrutiny now. Some will argue that he did better under the coalition which is extremely damning.
@DAaronovitch: The @Ed_Miliband interview on @BBCr4today was profoundly depressing. 'I take full responsibility for getting everything right'. Oh Vanity.
How much is Ed to blame for the current mess Labour find themselves in? A question for history perhaps, but personally I'd say a great deal.
One of Ed's mistakes was to try and keep the party united, which he did do reasonably successfully.
This was at a cost of increasing dissatisfaction of the membership, and (it must be said) increasingly muddled policy.
The Golden Rule of Civil Wars is -- If you are going to have a Civil War, have it and get it over quickly.
Ed's procrastination has made the forces in the Labour Civil War more evenly matched, and so the fight will now be bloodier than it would have been in 2010.
That's all very well as long as you know that you are going to have a civil war. Was one inevitable? Absolutely not. But for the MPs lending Corbyn their votes, we would never have seen him as leader and without that, whatever the theoretical wishes of the membership, Labour would probably be tootling along under Cooper or Burnham. The power of the left would never have been realised because even if it existed - which given what has happened, it clearly did - without someone to rally round, it would never have been evident: polls would not have named a far-left candidate, never mind voters being given a chance to support them.
Without understanding the extent of their own latent power, it's highly unlikely that the current efforts of the left, to grab control of CLPs and the NEC would have been successful, if it had even been tried in any organised way (which would have been more difficult without the leadership anyway).
It was the fact that Corbyn ended up on the ballot, combined with the booster effect that the three-quidders gave him that has resulted in the Moderate Sandwich - moderate MPs squeezed by the leadership on one side and the membership on the other. While the three-quidders didn't elect Cobyn in the end - he had enough membership votes even without them - they were hugely important in allowing his campaign to reach terminal velocity.
I don't think a civil war was inevitable though EdM's changes and vacillation as leader greatly increased the risk of one. Now, the risk is not of a civil war - that's already underway - it's whether it becomes a fight to the death or not.
Putting Corbyn on the ballot was not the key to his success. I have little doubt that Harriet Harman's response to the July Budget carries the can for that. Had she not been so maladroit Corbyn would probably emerged from the contest in third place - at best.
In May when the prospect of Osborne no longer being Chancellor looked realistic, the voters came out for the Tories, boosting their votes and seats and giving them a majority.
The voters didn't want to lose the genius of George Osborne from the Treasury.
The people have spoken, and no one ever got rich from underestimating Osborne.
How useful are such polls without clear questions?
There are 4 possible groups:
1. Those who approve wholeheartedly of IS, its aims & means. They are willing/likely to join them. 2. Those who would not join themselves but understand IS's attraction (the "pull" factor) and/or have some sympathy for why others join (the "push" factor). They may be willing to assist/turn a blind eye to others' actions. 3. Those who abhor the violence used by IS but think in general terms that it would be better, cet.par., for Muslims to live in an Islamic caliphate subject to sharia law. Some of this group may also think that Muslims in a non-Islamic country should be subject to sharia law rather than the secular law of the country concerned. 4. Those who abhor both the violence used by IS & its aims i.e. they see themselves as both citizens of the countries they live in and Muslim and no contradiction between the two. Within this group there are those who feel that they should not be held responsible and criticised for the actions of those falling within 1 & possibly also 2) and those who, while agreeing with this, feel that in order to reduce the numbers falling within the first two groups they need to take more active steps to stop this happening. These latter two may also be the source of intelligence against those in 1 & 2.
Ideally, we'd like to have everyone fall into 4 and none in 1. That is not the case. Those in 2 are also a problem because they provide implicit support for those in 1 - the sea, as it were, in which the terrorist fish can swim.
No. 3 is a bit more ambivalent. Having a vague ideal which you do nothing to bring about and/or which you recognise has next to no chance of coming about is fine - though it may be perceived as less fine at a time of increasing terror risk & jangled nerves. It's when this morphs into providing a religious/ideological/intellectual/cultural [take your pick] justification for the actions of those in the previous two groups that it can become a problem. Separately, the idea that certain groups should be subject to separate laws based on their religion can be a real problem because it implies that not everyone is subject to the same laws/equal under them. This is heightened when one legal system is completely at odds with the main one in the country.
What is undeniable is that even if the numbers in 1/2 are relatively small even a small number can create chaos. After all, the actions of 8-9 people have led to a major European country into a national state of emergency. The consequent search for one man has shut down the capital city of another country for 3 days.
If the numbers are larger - and who would bet against that after recent events - that is going to have severe implications for the structure of & resources devoted to policing & intelligence work across Europe, which the political class have not even begun to digest.
In May when the prospect of Osborne no longer being Chancellor looked realistic, the voters came out for the Tories, boosting their votes and seats and giving them a majority.
The voters didn't want to lose the genius of George Osborne from the Treasury.
The people have spoken, and no one ever got rich from underestimating Osborne.
we all underrate him because he makes no-one rich.
And as we all know he's only in place because of Nicola.
In May when the prospect of Osborne no longer being Chancellor looked realistic, the voters came out for the Tories, boosting their votes and seats and giving them a majority.
The voters didn't want to lose the genius of George Osborne from the Treasury.
The people have spoken, and no one ever got rich from underestimating Osborne.
The people spoke, they decided that Osborne's pledges were more plausible than the others, its turned out they were nothing more than hot air. In 2010 Cameron said he'd eliminate the deficit and get immigration down to tens of thousands and the seals clapped enthusiastically.
He and Osborne are nothing more than convincing liars that tribal tories lap up.
Haven't there been droughts in some US states for a number of years now? Have those droughts had similar effects? And, if not, why not? Perhaps Charles might care to look more closely and then come back with his considered views. As it is, he gives the impression of regurgitating the views of whoever last spoke to him. And, more importantly, the key quality we need from a royal family is to be, to be seen, to be a cipher and a symbol and not, really, to be heard at all, especially when the person we are hearing from is really not very bright but thinks he has some special insight largely because, I would guess, no-one around him challenges him and tells him that he is talking balls. Being dutiful and a bit dim are admirable qualities in a monarch; not so admirable in someone who seeks to pontificate on complex matters.
Are people being forced off the land in the US? If so is there other work for them to do in that democratic and stable nation?
Isn't that precisely the point? The political and economic environment in the US meant that the consequences of a drought were better handled. It's the political and economic environment in Syria that was the issue not the droughts.
Yes that is the point I was making. If the US had been poorer, an autocratic state and less stable then the drought may have had a similar effect. You said "Haven't there been droughts in some US states for a number of years now? Have those droughts had similar effects?" Well I think that we can agree about the reason the US remained stable. The point of disagreement now is that you consider the drought in Syria wasn't a contributory factor. You then say "It's the political and economic environment in Syria that was the issue". Well wouldn't the drought affect the economic wellbeing of the people?
It would affect the wellbeing if other measures are not in place to mitigate its effects. I don't think we fundamentally disagree. I was taking issue with the rather simplistic and reductive view being expressed by Prince Charles, which seemed to say more about his views on climate change than on the inability of the Syrian people and the Syrian state to cope with a natural phenomenon which has affected plenty of other countries without the same consequences.
It is not a given to say that a drought leads to civil war anymore than a tsunami leads to terrorism.
But Labour's problem is that the Corbynites *are* representative of the activist base. They're just not representative of the passivist base, nor were they remotely interested in appealing to the floating voter.
That's not quite the whole story, though. After the catastrophic misjudgement by MPs in getting Corbyn on to the ballot, some of the moderate party members (a sample of whom are represented here on PB) made a second catastrophic error, namely to think that the fact that the other three candidates were so useless meant that they might as well vote for Corbyn. This of course was a non-sequitur: yes, the other three candidates were poor to abysmal, but at least two of them would have held the line and prevented the total collapse of Labour which now looks likely.
It's a new twist on Voltaire's 'the best is the enemy of the good'. In this case the bad was the friend of the disastrous.
I have been pointing this out for the last 5 years. :-)
To be fair Osborne was constrained by the lib dems for those 5 years. He had limited influence. He ain't constrained now.
Osborne is just where the left want him, falling between two stools. Not balancing the budget, and not satisfying those who want a spendathon either.
Constrained ?
The man's a politician, are you saying he can't cut a deal in areas where he and the LDs shared views ? fact is he's Brown's mini-me. He dabbles in everything and ignores the day job.
We have now had 18 years of political CoEs trying to get their boss' job, time for a reformer.
I pointed out early today that Osborne's honeymoon was over, his record is going to come under scrutiny now. Some will argue that he did better under the coalition which is extremely damning.
Quite so,
He no longer has a flak jacket called Nick Clegg.
Arent we all jumping the gun here. Lets wait until Wednesday to see what the spending plans really are. Over the last 5 years we have become used to the LDs leaking all his plans ahead of time. This set of announcements could contain real surprises.
But Labour's problem is that the Corbynites *are* representative of the activist base. They're just not representative of the passivist base, nor were they remotely interested in appealing to the floating voter.
That's not quite the whole story, though. After the catastrophic misjudgement by MPs in getting Corbyn on to the ballot, some of the moderate party members (a sample of whom are represented here on PB) made a second catastrophic error, namely to think that the fact that the other three candidates were so useless meant that they might as well vote for Corbyn. This of course was a non-sequitur: yes, the other three candidates were poor to abysmal, but at least two of them would have held the line and prevented the total collapse of Labour which now looks likely.
It's a new twist on Voltaire's 'the best is the enemy of the good'. In this case the bad was the friend of the disastrous.
I don't think either members or supporters are inevitably or permanently wedded to Corbynism. They're looking for Labour to be a moral crusade. Jeremy Corbyn offered that. The other candidates didn't.
More centrist Labour MPs should be thinking carefully about what Labour as a moral crusade should look like in 2015.
In May when the prospect of Osborne no longer being Chancellor looked realistic, the voters came out for the Tories, boosting their votes and seats and giving them a majority.
The voters didn't want to lose the genius of George Osborne from the Treasury.
The people have spoken, and no one ever got rich from underestimating Osborne.
The people spoke, they decided that Osborne's pledges were more plausible than the others, its turned out they were nothing more than hot air. In 2010 Cameron said he'd eliminate the deficit and get immigration down to tens of thousands and the seals clapped enthusiastically.
He and Osborne are nothing more than convincing liars that tribal tories lap up.
Talking of liars, how is the new UKIP leader doing after Farage honoured his promise to stand down if he didn't win South Thanet?
In May when the prospect of Osborne no longer being Chancellor looked realistic, the voters came out for the Tories, boosting their votes and seats and giving them a majority.
The voters didn't want to lose the genius of George Osborne from the Treasury.
The people have spoken, and no one ever got rich from underestimating Osborne.
The people spoke, they decided that Osborne's pledges were more plausible than the others, its turned out they were nothing more than hot air. In 2010 Cameron said he'd eliminate the deficit and get immigration down to tens of thousands and the seals clapped enthusiastically.
He and Osborne are nothing more than convincing liars that tribal tories lap up.
Talking of liars, how is the new UKIP leader doing after Farage honoured his promise to stand down if he didn't win South Thanet?
I have been pointing this out for the last 5 years. :-)
To be fair Osborne was constrained by the lib dems for those 5 years. He had limited influence. He ain't constrained now.
Osborne is just where the left want him, falling between two stools. Not balancing the budget, and not satisfying those who want a spendathon either.
Constrained ?
The man's a politician, are you saying he can't cut a deal in areas where he and the LDs shared views ? fact is he's Brown's mini-me. He dabbles in everything and ignores the day job.
We have now had 18 years of political CoEs trying to get their boss' job, time for a reformer.
I pointed out early today that Osborne's honeymoon was over, his record is going to come under scrutiny now. Some will argue that he did better under the coalition which is extremely damning.
Quite so,
He no longer has a flak jacket called Nick Clegg.
Arent we all jumping the gun here. Lets wait until Wednesday to see what the spending plans really are. Over the last 5 years we have become used to the LDs leaking all his plans ahead of time. This set of announcements could contain real surprises.
The omnishambles budget showed nobody leaks more than GO.
However my expectations are set suitably low, once we've had the showmanship, we get to learn what he didn't tell us. That's when the fun starts.
But Labour's problem is that the Corbynites *are* representative of the activist base. They're just not representative of the passivist base, nor were they remotely interested in appealing to the floating voter.
That's not quite the whole story, though. After the catastrophic misjudgement by MPs in getting Corbyn on to the ballot, some of the moderate party members (a sample of whom are represented here on PB) made a second catastrophic error, namely to think that the fact that the other three candidates were so useless meant that they might as well vote for Corbyn. This of course was a non-sequitur: yes, the other three candidates were poor to abysmal, but at least two of them would have held the line and prevented the total collapse of Labour which now looks likely.
It's a new twist on Voltaire's 'the best is the enemy of the good'. In this case the bad was the friend of the disastrous.
Although that's true, Corbyn would almost certainly have won anyway, even without the support of the misguided mainstream. I don't think the three-quidders would have voted significantly differently whatever the party's mainstream was doing; all the evidence is that they were a push rather than pulled factor. Had the NickP's of this world backed Burnham or Cooper, Corbyn would have won anyway. After all, a first-round vote of about 42% would have seen him over the line; he won nearly 60%.
However, what that massive mandate does mean is that it will be far harder to get rid of him. A final round knife-edge result (as per EdM vs DM) would have left him far more vulnerable than the way the numbers did work out. Had he been taken to a second or third round, it would have looked a good deal closer than the landslide that did result.
I don't think either members or supporters are inevitably or permanently wedded to Corbynism. They're looking for Labour to be a moral crusade. Jeremy Corbyn offered that. The other candidates didn't.
More centrist Labour MPs should be thinking carefully about what Labour as a moral crusade should look like in 2015.
Yes, I think you are right - your article of the previous thread was excellent BTW.
Some of my friends who are interested in politics are convinced that Corbyn will be ousted soon, but that is because they are looking at what 'Labour' ought to do. I try to explain that the problem is that 'Labour' as an abstract concept doesn't have the combination of the will and the means to oust him; MPs don't have the power, and the members don't have the will.
I have been pointing this out for the last 5 years. :-)
To be fair Osborne was constrained by the lib dems for those 5 years. He had limited influence. He ain't constrained now.
Osborne is just where the left want him, falling between two stools. Not balancing the budget, and not satisfying those who want a spendathon either.
Constrained ? The man's a politician, are you saying he can't cut a deal in areas where he and the LDs shared views ? fact is he's Brown's mini-me. He dabbles in everything and ignores the day job. We have now had 18 years of political CoEs trying to get their boss' job, time for a reformer.
It would affect the wellbeing if other measures are not in place to mitigate its effects. I don't think we fundamentally disagree. I was taking issue with the rather simplistic and reductive view being expressed by Prince Charles, which seemed to say more about his views on climate change than on the inability of the Syrian people and the Syrian state to cope with a natural phenomenon which has affected plenty of other countries without the same consequences.
It is not a given to say that a drought leads to civil war anymore than a tsunami leads to terrorism.
Putting aside the ComRes Independent polls -which have appeared consistently well out of line with other pollsters in the same way that Angus Reid did prior to the 2010 election - the Tory lead seems to be much where it was in May - ie 6 or 7%. That is a clear lead, but it is far from being massive and is barely half the 12 to 15% lead the Tories were enjoying at the end of 1987 six months following Thatcher's third election victory - indeed the Tories remained pretty consistently ahead in that Parliament until early 1989. Going back further to the 1959 Parliament , in the Spring of 1960 Labour was further adrift of the Tories than at the previous election - and had lost the Brighouse & Spenborough by election to them - a very rare Government gain from the Opposition. So whilst things look far from bright for Labour at present , they have been worse,and the public mood can quickly change - particularly if the view gains ground that Osborne & Cameron conned their way to re-election.
Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership is already over. It is no more. It has ceased to be. It has rung down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. It is an ex-leadership. He may stay in situ beyond the guaranteed catastrophe of next May’s various electoral tests; horrifyingly, he may even cling on, like some energy-sucking wraith, until the next general election, ensuring a historically unprecedented mauling. If he does, he will leave behind him a desiccated corpse, a Labour Party locked in an eternal scream and locked out of power, and his name will live in infamy. Whatever, he will not, and cannot, lead. He makes IDS look like FDR.
In May when the prospect of Osborne no longer being Chancellor looked realistic, the voters came out for the Tories, boosting their votes and seats and giving them a majority.
The voters didn't want to lose the genius of George Osborne from the Treasury.
The people have spoken, and no one ever got rich from underestimating Osborne.
The people spoke, they decided that Osborne's pledges were more plausible than the others, its turned out they were nothing more than hot air. In 2010 Cameron said he'd eliminate the deficit and get immigration down to tens of thousands and the seals clapped enthusiastically.
He and Osborne are nothing more than convincing liars that tribal tories lap up.
They weren't promises, they were targets, which were not achieved for various reasons which you don't want to know about because it would unhinge your prejudices.
I've decided I like Corbyn, I disagree with virtually everything he says but he clearly believes it himself, he's going to live by his principles, those that he was elected to represent. If he fails so be it, his conscience will be clear.
We need more people standing up for what they believe in as opposed to saying what they think will get their filthy hands on power.
In May when the prospect of Osborne no longer being Chancellor looked realistic, the voters came out for the Tories, boosting their votes and seats and giving them a majority.
The voters didn't want to lose the genius of George Osborne from the Treasury.
The people have spoken, and no one ever got rich from underestimating Osborne.
The people spoke, they decided that Osborne's pledges were more plausible than the others, its turned out they were nothing more than hot air. In 2010 Cameron said he'd eliminate the deficit and get immigration down to tens of thousands and the seals clapped enthusiastically.
He and Osborne are nothing more than convincing liars that tribal tories lap up.
They weren't promises, they were targets, which were not achieved for various reasons which you don't want to know about because it would unhinge your prejudices.
I've decided I like Corbyn, I disagree with virtually everything he says but he clearly believes it himself, he's going to live by his principles, those that he was elected to represent. If he fails so be it, his conscience will be clear.
We need more people standing up for what they believe in as opposed to saying what they think will get their filthy hands on power.
We need more people standing up for what they believe in as opposed to saying what they think will get their filthy hands on power.
So you must really hate John Bickley and Nigel Farage, then, given that they have produced one of the most blatantly dishonest election leaflets of modern times:
Whenever people moan about the Nimrod MRA4 being cancelled, they never acknowledge that those aircraft have had a history of serious problems that have caused trouble for multiple programmes. I don't know if the Boeing P-8 Poseidon is the right aircraft, but it is probably better and cheaper than anything we would have built by going it alone.
Keeping Sentinel running, buying Rivet Joint, buying the P-8, buying the extended range Reaper, keeping more Typhoons operational, are all good decisions. Whispers it quietly but maybe the MOD/Treasury are doing a decent job.
We need more people standing up for what they believe in as opposed to saying what they think will get their filthy hands on power.
So you must really hate John Bickley and Nigel Farage, then, given that they have produced one of the most blatantly dishonest election leaflets of modern times:
Putting aside the ComRes Independent polls -which have appeared consistently well out of line with other pollsters in the same way that Angus Reid did prior to the 2010 election - the Tory lead seems to be much where it was in May - ie 6 or 7%. That is a clear lead, but it is far from being massive and is barely half the 12 to 15% lead the Tories were enjoying at the end of 1987 six months following Thatcher's third election victory - indeed the Tories remained pretty consistently ahead in that Parliament until early 1989. Going back further to the 1959 Parliament , in the Spring of 1960 Labour was further adrift of the Tories than at the previous election - and had lost the Brighouse & Spenborough by election to them - a very rare Government gain from the Opposition. So whilst things look far from bright for Labour at present , they have been worse,and the public mood can quickly change - particularly if the view gains ground that Osborne & Cameron conned their way to re-election.
Keep whistling. The nights will get darker yet....
We need more people standing up for what they believe in as opposed to saying what they think will get their filthy hands on power.
So you must really hate John Bickley and Nigel Farage, then, given that they have produced one of the most blatantly dishonest election leaflets of modern times:
Whenever people moan about the Nimrod MRA4 being cancelled, they never acknowledge that those aircraft have had a history of serious problems that have caused trouble for multiple programmes. I don't know if the Boeing P-8 Poseidon is the right aircraft, but it is probably better and cheaper than anything we would have built by going it alone.
Keeping Sentinel running, buying Rivet Joint, buying the P-8, buying the extended range Reaper, keeping more Typhoons operational, are all good decisions. Whispers it quietly but maybe the MOD/Treasury are doing a decent job.
Ironically, the financial constraints have forced the government into buying existing kit off-the-shelf that works, instead of buying paper kit that will arrive late, over budget, and won't do what you want it to do.
Now if we could have kept the existing carriers in service then bought second-hand Nimitz-class carriers from the US (they're replacing them with new Ford-class ones) instead of scrapping the existing ones and betting the ranch on the two new QE-class ones (Late? Yup. Over budget? Yup. Doesn't do what you originally wanted it to? Yup. BAE? Yup.), we'd've had a bigger, cheaper, better navy
I have been pointing this out for the last 5 years. :-)
To be fair Osborne was constrained by the lib dems for those 5 years. He had limited influence. He ain't constrained now.
Osborne is just where the left want him, falling between two stools. Not balancing the budget, and not satisfying those who want a spendathon either.
Constrained ?
The man's a politician, are you saying he can't cut a deal in areas where he and the LDs shared views ? fact is he's Brown's mini-me. He dabbles in everything and ignores the day job.
We have now had 18 years of political CoEs trying to get their boss' job, time for a reformer.
I pointed out early today that Osborne's honeymoon was over, his record is going to come under scrutiny now. Some will argue that he did better under the coalition which is extremely damning.
Quite so,
He no longer has a flak jacket called Nick Clegg.
Arent we all jumping the gun here. Lets wait until Wednesday to see what the spending plans really are. Over the last 5 years we have become used to the LDs leaking all his plans ahead of time. This set of announcements could contain real surprises.
The omnishambles budget showed nobody leaks more than GO.
However my expectations are set suitably low, once we've had the showmanship, we get to learn what he didn't tell us. That's when the fun starts.
Actually not, there has been many occasions when we have been given leaked information that was totally off the mark. And other times theyve completely kept quiet and allowed everyone else to reach grunts of orgasmic delight in protest at something they thought wasnt going to happen.
The funniest of recent times was the drop in child poverty. Everything was geared up to condemn the rise. The press releases wrote, the questions tabled in Parliament, the front pages written and the websites primed for what was an indictment of the evil Tory government.
Utter hilarity when the numbers came out and there had been a reduction. All of a sudden child poverty wasnt a 'thing' anymore, despite the build up from the media, columnists, tv editorials, twitterati, MPs, even leader of the opposition at PMQs.
At any point, under quite ferocious criticism, Cameron could have hinted that people might be surprised at what was going to be released the next day. He didnt. The entire industry of poverty mongers had egg on their face.
The best they could come up with was a criticism that the rate of the reduction in child poverty had slowed.
I have been pointing this out for the last 5 years. :-)
To be fair Osborne was constrained by the lib dems for those 5 years. He had limited influence. He ain't constrained now.
Osborne is just where the left want him, falling between two stools. Not balancing the budget, and not satisfying those who want a spendathon either.
Constrained ?
The man's a politician, are you saying he can't cut a deal in areas where he and the LDs shared views ? fact is he's Brown's mini-me. He dabbles in everything and ignores the day job.
We have now had 18 years of political CoEs trying to get their boss' job, time for a reformer.
I pointed out early today that Osborne's honeymoon was over, his record is going to come under scrutiny now. Some will argue that he did better under the coalition which is extremely damning.
Quite so,
He no longer has a flak jacket called Nick Clegg.
Arent we all jumping the gun here. Lets wait until Wednesday to see what the spending plans really are. Over the last 5 years we have become used to the LDs leaking all his plans ahead of time. This set of announcements could contain real surprises.
They are jumping the gun but you will never get them to admit it. This review will cover spending for the next 3 to 5 years. So its going to be significant. Unprotected depts can expect 25% cuts over that time. I think we can expect announcements about corresponding dept reforms as well as about infrastructure investment from abroad. Welfare is still going to have to find 12bn. When of course the govt do announce something tricky like tax credits we get a huge outcry and in this case as well a politically motivated vote in the Lords. But hey ... It's all all Osborne's fault for not cutting quickly enough.
Whenever people moan about the Nimrod MRA4 being cancelled, they never acknowledge that those aircraft have had a history of serious problems that have caused trouble for multiple programmes. I don't know if the Boeing P-8 Poseidon is the right aircraft, but it is probably better and cheaper than anything we would have built by going it alone.
Keeping Sentinel running, buying Rivet Joint, buying the P-8, buying the extended range Reaper, keeping more Typhoons operational, are all good decisions. Whispers it quietly but maybe the MOD/Treasury are doing a decent job.
But Labour's problem is that the Corbynites *are* representative of the activist base. They're just not representative of the passivist base, nor were they remotely interested in appealing to the floating voter.
That's not quite the whole story, though. After the catastrophic misjudgement by MPs in getting Corbyn on to the ballot, some of the moderate party members (a sample of whom are represented here on PB) made a second catastrophic error, namely to think that the fact that the other three candidates were so useless meant that they might as well vote for Corbyn. This of course was a non-sequitur: yes, the other three candidates were poor to abysmal, but at least two of them would have held the line and prevented the total collapse of Labour which now looks likely.
It's a new twist on Voltaire's 'the best is the enemy of the good'. In this case the bad was the friend of the disastrous.
I don't think either members or supporters are inevitably or permanently wedded to Corbynism. They're looking for Labour to be a moral crusade. Jeremy Corbyn offered that. The other candidates didn't.
More centrist Labour MPs should be thinking carefully about what Labour as a moral crusade should look like in 2015.
"Moral crusades", eh? So Corbyn is the Left's version of Mary Whitehouse!
I have to say that the problem with Corbyn for me is that his views and the actions he takes in support of them are very far from moral. Quite amoral, in some cases.
The moral decency which was behind Labour's best instincts is what has gone missing from Labour. They need to get that back. Some of those who say that Corbyn is personally decent seem to confuse moral decency with being quietly spoken and having an execrable taste in clothes.
Putting aside the ComRes Independent polls -which have appeared consistently well out of line with other pollsters in the same way that Angus Reid did prior to the 2010 election - the Tory lead seems to be much where it was in May - ie 6 or 7%. That is a clear lead, but it is far from being massive and is barely half the 12 to 15% lead the Tories were enjoying at the end of 1987 six months following Thatcher's third election victory - indeed the Tories remained pretty consistently ahead in that Parliament until early 1989. Going back further to the 1959 Parliament , in the Spring of 1960 Labour was further adrift of the Tories than at the previous election - and had lost the Brighouse & Spenborough by election to them - a very rare Government gain from the Opposition. So whilst things look far from bright for Labour at present , they have been worse,and the public mood can quickly change - particularly if the view gains ground that Osborne & Cameron conned their way to re-election.
Keep whistling. The nights will get darker yet....
I think perhaps you might be in need of your own advice here. Osborne's star is already clearly descending even before the signs of the economy going 'tits up' again become obvious to the public at large.
I've decided I like Corbyn, I disagree with virtually everything he says but he clearly believes it himself, he's going to live by his principles, those that he was elected to represent. If he fails so be it, his conscience will be clear.
We need more people standing up for what they believe in as opposed to saying what they think will get their filthy hands on power.
What, like resigning one day, only to un-resign the next aka Doing a Farage?
Mr. Eagles, that's the issue with having a multi-point scale for what's ultimately a binary attitude (sympathy or no sympathy). You can't have neither sympathy nor no sympathy.
Worth recalling the daftness of one pollster having multiple options but only one could be selected. They had lower taxes and higher spending (separately) then tax credit cuts, which obviously got a small share of the vote, to try and prove tax credit cuts had sod all support.
Question and answer phrasing is as important, sometimes more so, than how the respondents are selected and filtered.
The polls and pollsters and those that commission them are totally shafted. Total garbage from top to bottom, no matter how low they put Corbyn or how big a lead to the conservatives, they are all decrepit in my eyes.
I've decided I like Corbyn, I disagree with virtually everything he says but he clearly believes it himself, he's going to live by his principles, those that he was elected to represent. If he fails so be it, his conscience will be clear.
We need more people standing up for what they believe in as opposed to saying what they think will get their filthy hands on power.
Except he doesn't live by his principles, does he? One of them is that he will talk to anyone, even those he strongly disagrees with, if it will advance the cause of peace. But when you look at those causes he has taken an interest in, there is no evidence that he has talked to those he disagrees with. Quite the contrary.
It would affect the wellbeing if other measures are not in place to mitigate its effects. I don't think we fundamentally disagree. I was taking issue with the rather simplistic and reductive view being expressed by Prince Charles, which seemed to say more about his views on climate change than on the inability of the Syrian people and the Syrian state to cope with a natural phenomenon which has affected plenty of other countries without the same consequences.
It is not a given to say that a drought leads to civil war anymore than a tsunami leads to terrorism.
Putting aside the ComRes Independent polls -which have appeared consistently well out of line with other pollsters in the same way that Angus Reid did prior to the 2010 election - the Tory lead seems to be much where it was in May - ie 6 or 7%. That is a clear lead, but it is far from being massive and is barely half the 12 to 15% lead the Tories were enjoying at the end of 1987 six months following Thatcher's third election victory - indeed the Tories remained pretty consistently ahead in that Parliament until early 1989. Going back further to the 1959 Parliament , in the Spring of 1960 Labour was further adrift of the Tories than at the previous election - and had lost the Brighouse & Spenborough by election to them - a very rare Government gain from the Opposition. So whilst things look far from bright for Labour at present , they have been worse,and the public mood can quickly change - particularly if the view gains ground that Osborne & Cameron conned their way to re-election.
Keep whistling. The nights will get darker yet....
I think perhaps you might be in need of your own advice here. Osborne's star is already clearly descending even before the signs of the economy going 'tits up' again become obvious to the public at large.
"Clearly"?
FWIW, I have never been backward on here at stating that Osborne will never be PM.
@gsoh31: Labour Nov poll average 30.7%. If they follow 2010-15 glidepath from here, in 2020 they will win only about 140-150 seats in 600-seat HoC.
But if they follow the glidepaths of 1987 - 92 or 1959 - 64 the figure will be rather different.
Do you really think Corbyn is as good as Kinnock or a Wilson? I mean really?
I really do not think that is the point at all. I am not inclined to assume that Corbyn will be there in 2020 anyway. Moreover if we end up back in recession at some point I suspect the electorate will be pretty unforgiving of a Government that has been in office for 10 years which had confidently told people in 2015 that economic recovery was secure and that things would continue to improve. Many will feel that they had been duped by Cameron et al.
I've decided I like Corbyn, I disagree with virtually everything he says but he clearly believes it himself, he's going to live by his principles, those that he was elected to represent. If he fails so be it, his conscience will be clear.
We need more people standing up for what they believe in as opposed to saying what they think will get their filthy hands on power.
What, like resigning one day, only to un-resign the next aka Doing a Farage?
Must be the umpteenth time we've discussed this. He tendered his resignation and it was declined, it could have been handled better but the constant reference to it on here is pathetic, quite frankly.
It would affect the wellbeing if other measures are not in place to mitigate its effects. I don't think we fundamentally disagree. I was taking issue with the rather simplistic and reductive view being expressed by Prince Charles, which seemed to say more about his views on climate change than on the inability of the Syrian people and the Syrian state to cope with a natural phenomenon which has affected plenty of other countries without the same consequences.
It is not a given to say that a drought leads to civil war anymore than a tsunami leads to terrorism.
"Of the shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell, and the current Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, there is little to say, save how grotesquely unfitted they are for the challenges of the hour. Their equivocation – at very best – on IRA terrorism stands utterly exposed. They have had chance after chance to show that they’re opposed to fascistic men of violence, but time after time they duck under the lowest of hurdles.
It will do no one in British public life any credit, from either side of the House of Commons, if they try to do anything which artificially prolongs such people in office in one of our great political parties. Every day Jeremy Corbyn leads Labour, he does a day’s more harm to this country at home and abroad. Labour MPs in their own and the national interest need to unseat him. No one who puts this country first can seriously be expected to work in opposition with Corbyn and McDonnell."
I've decided I like Corbyn, I disagree with virtually everything he says but he clearly believes it himself, he's going to live by his principles, those that he was elected to represent. If he fails so be it, his conscience will be clear.
We need more people standing up for what they believe in as opposed to saying what they think will get their filthy hands on power.
What, like resigning one day, only to un-resign the next aka Doing a Farage?
Must be the umpteenth time we've discussed this. He tendered his resignation and it was declined, it could have been handled better but the constant reference to it on here is pathetic, quite frankly.
When you criticise other parties for being led by liars, you're going to get that thrown back in your face.
@gsoh31: Labour Nov poll average 30.7%. If they follow 2010-15 glidepath from here, in 2020 they will win only about 140-150 seats in 600-seat HoC.
But if they follow the glidepaths of 1987 - 92 or 1959 - 64 the figure will be rather different.
Do you really think Corbyn is as good as Kinnock or a Wilson? I mean really?
I really do not think that is the point at all. I am not inclined to assume that Corbyn will be there in 2020 anyway. Moreover if we end up back in recession at some point I suspect the electorate will be pretty unforgiving of a Government that has been in office for 10 years which had confidently told people in 2015 that economic recovery was secure and that things would continue to improve. Many will feel that they had been duped by Cameron et al.
bit late to feel duped by Cameron he will have cleared off by then, it will be more a problem for his party.
Putting aside the ComRes Independent polls -which have appeared consistently well out of line with other pollsters in the same way that Angus Reid did prior to the 2010 election - the Tory lead seems to be much where it was in May - ie 6 or 7%. That is a clear lead, but it is far from being massive and is barely half the 12 to 15% lead the Tories were enjoying at the end of 1987 six months following Thatcher's third election victory - indeed the Tories remained pretty consistently ahead in that Parliament until early 1989. Going back further to the 1959 Parliament , in the Spring of 1960 Labour was further adrift of the Tories than at the previous election - and had lost the Brighouse & Spenborough by election to them - a very rare Government gain from the Opposition. So whilst things look far from bright for Labour at present , they have been worse,and the public mood can quickly change - particularly if the view gains ground that Osborne & Cameron conned their way to re-election.
You're putting aside the poll you don't like - says it all.
Putting aside the ComRes Independent polls -which have appeared consistently well out of line with other pollsters in the same way that Angus Reid did prior to the 2010 election - the Tory lead seems to be much where it was in May - ie 6 or 7%. That is a clear lead, but it is far from being massive and is barely half the 12 to 15% lead the Tories were enjoying at the end of 1987 six months following Thatcher's third election victory - indeed the Tories remained pretty consistently ahead in that Parliament until early 1989. Going back further to the 1959 Parliament , in the Spring of 1960 Labour was further adrift of the Tories than at the previous election - and had lost the Brighouse & Spenborough by election to them - a very rare Government gain from the Opposition. So whilst things look far from bright for Labour at present , they have been worse,and the public mood can quickly change - particularly if the view gains ground that Osborne & Cameron conned their way to re-election.
Keep whistling. The nights will get darker yet....
I think perhaps you might be in need of your own advice here. Osborne's star is already clearly descending even before the signs of the economy going 'tits up' again become obvious to the public at large.
"Clearly"?
FWIW, I have never been backward on here at stating that Osborne will never be PM.
But neither will Corbyn.
I don't disagree with either prediction.
'Clearly'.? Yes compared with last Spring we have clear signs of economic slowdown - the worst October Borrowing figures since 2009 and a Balance of Payments problem that the markets are beginning to pay more attention to. The clouds are gathering ..
I've decided I like Corbyn, I disagree with virtually everything he says but he clearly believes it himself, he's going to live by his principles, those that he was elected to represent. If he fails so be it, his conscience will be clear.
We need more people standing up for what they believe in as opposed to saying what they think will get their filthy hands on power.
But he maybe does clearly believe in these things, but that doesnt mean he should be Prime Minister. You need people who can asses the circumstances in light of a set of values, but no frontline politician principles survive a period of time with executive power. It just doesnt. The theory and the reality are often very different. You have to be flexible and you have to be practical. You cannot achieve things otherwise. The world is not a black and white absolute.
I've decided I like Corbyn, I disagree with virtually everything he says but he clearly believes it himself, he's going to live by his principles, those that he was elected to represent. If he fails so be it, his conscience will be clear.
We need more people standing up for what they believe in as opposed to saying what they think will get their filthy hands on power.
What, like resigning one day, only to un-resign the next aka Doing a Farage?
Must be the umpteenth time we've discussed this. He tendered his resignation and it was declined, it could have been handled better but the constant reference to it on here is pathetic, quite frankly.
It's never been clear as to whether Farage resigned at all, or whether it was merely weasel words from an opportunist politician.
I've decided I like Corbyn, I disagree with virtually everything he says but he clearly believes it himself, he's going to live by his principles, those that he was elected to represent. If he fails so be it, his conscience will be clear.
We need more people standing up for what they believe in as opposed to saying what they think will get their filthy hands on power.
What, like resigning one day, only to un-resign the next aka Doing a Farage?
Must be the umpteenth time we've discussed this. He tendered his resignation and it was declined, it could have been handled better but the constant reference to it on here is pathetic, quite frankly.
When you criticise other parties for being led by liars, you're going to get that thrown back in your face.
Matthew 7:5 old bean
Not for the first time you're blinded by tribalism. As I've pointed out Farage didn't lie, I'm sure if he could wind the clock back he'd do things differently.
I'd love to see things as simplistically as you i.e. Dave/George have said it, that's good enough for me. Such unquestioning devotion used to be reserved for teenage girls and the Bay City Rollers.
I've decided I like Corbyn, I disagree with virtually everything he says but he clearly believes it himself, he's going to live by his principles, those that he was elected to represent. If he fails so be it, his conscience will be clear.
We need more people standing up for what they believe in as opposed to saying what they think will get their filthy hands on power.
What, like resigning one day, only to un-resign the next aka Doing a Farage?
Must be the umpteenth time we've discussed this. He tendered his resignation and it was declined, it could have been handled better but the constant reference to it on here is pathetic, quite frankly.
When you criticise other parties for being led by liars, you're going to get that thrown back in your face.
Matthew 7:5 old bean
" and behold all promises will be cast-iron, and deficit and debt shall shrink as a spent Eagles manhood, the sunny uplands will glow on the march of the makers and all will be in this together "
Putting aside the ComRes Independent polls -which have appeared consistently well out of line with other pollsters in the same way that Angus Reid did prior to the 2010 election - the Tory lead seems to be much where it was in May - ie 6 or 7%. That is a clear lead, but it is far from being massive and is barely half the 12 to 15% lead the Tories were enjoying at the end of 1987 six months following Thatcher's third election victory - indeed the Tories remained pretty consistently ahead in that Parliament until early 1989. Going back further to the 1959 Parliament , in the Spring of 1960 Labour was further adrift of the Tories than at the previous election - and had lost the Brighouse & Spenborough by election to them - a very rare Government gain from the Opposition. So whilst things look far from bright for Labour at present , they have been worse,and the public mood can quickly change - particularly if the view gains ground that Osborne & Cameron conned their way to re-election.
You're putting aside the poll you don't like - says it all.
Not at all - I am looking at the overall picture. You appear to want to believe the poll that is most out of line! I wonder why that would be.
I've decided I like Corbyn, I disagree with virtually everything he says but he clearly believes it himself, he's going to live by his principles, those that he was elected to represent. If he fails so be it, his conscience will be clear.
We need more people standing up for what they believe in as opposed to saying what they think will get their filthy hands on power.
But he maybe does clearly believe in these things, but that doesnt mean he should be Prime Minister. You need people who can asses the circumstances in light of a set of values, but no frontline politician principles survive a period of time with executive power. It just doesnt. The theory and the reality are often very different. You have to be flexible and you have to be practical. You cannot achieve things otherwise. The world is not a black and white absolute.
He'll never be PM, he has no intention of it, he's a fool but a pleasant antidote to the lickspittles in parliament who simply do as they're told.
I've decided I like Corbyn, I disagree with virtually everything he says but he clearly believes it himself, he's going to live by his principles, those that he was elected to represent. If he fails so be it, his conscience will be clear.
We need more people standing up for what they believe in as opposed to saying what they think will get their filthy hands on power.
What, like resigning one day, only to un-resign the next aka Doing a Farage?
Must be the umpteenth time we've discussed this. He tendered his resignation and it was declined, it could have been handled better but the constant reference to it on here is pathetic, quite frankly.
When you criticise other parties for being led by liars, you're going to get that thrown back in your face.
Matthew 7:5 old bean
" and behold all promises will be cast-iron, and deficit and debt shall shrink as a spent Eagles manhood, the sunny uplands will glow on the march of the makers and all will be in this together "
Book of Dave 20:10
My proudest achievement as guest editor was quoting from the Book of Revelation about Corbyn.
I've decided I like Corbyn, I disagree with virtually everything he says but he clearly believes it himself, he's going to live by his principles, those that he was elected to represent. If he fails so be it, his conscience will be clear.
We need more people standing up for what they believe in as opposed to saying what they think will get their filthy hands on power.
What, like resigning one day, only to un-resign the next aka Doing a Farage?
Must be the umpteenth time we've discussed this. He tendered his resignation and it was declined, it could have been handled better but the constant reference to it on here is pathetic, quite frankly.
When you criticise other parties for being led by liars, you're going to get that thrown back in your face.
Matthew 7:5 old bean
Not for the first time you're blinded by tribalism. As I've pointed out Farage didn't lie, I'm sure if he could wind the clock back he'd do things differently.
I'd love to see things as simplistically as you i.e. Dave/George have said it, that's good enough for me. Such unquestioning devotion used to be reserved for teenage girls and the Bay City Rollers.
I know you Kippers never listen, but I've said I won't be voting for Osborne as Tory leader* and have quite happily criticised Dave on many occasions.
*Unless his opponent is some voter repellent loonbag Eurosceptic like Owen Paterson or Liam Fox.
I've decided I like Corbyn, I disagree with virtually everything he says but he clearly believes it himself, he's going to live by his principles, those that he was elected to represent. If he fails so be it, his conscience will be clear.
We need more people standing up for what they believe in as opposed to saying what they think will get their filthy hands on power.
What, like resigning one day, only to un-resign the next aka Doing a Farage?
Must be the umpteenth time we've discussed this. He tendered his resignation and it was declined, it could have been handled better but the constant reference to it on here is pathetic, quite frankly.
When you criticise other parties for being led by liars, you're going to get that thrown back in your face.
Matthew 7:5 old bean
" and behold all promises will be cast-iron, and deficit and debt shall shrink as a spent Eagles manhood, the sunny uplands will glow on the march of the makers and all will be in this together "
Book of Dave 20:10
My proudest achievement as guest editor was quoting from the Book of Revelation about Corbyn.
Nah, "pounded like a dockside hooker" is so much a part of the PB lexicon..
I've decided I like Corbyn, I disagree with virtually everything he says but he clearly believes it himself, he's going to live by his principles, those that he was elected to represent. If he fails so be it, his conscience will be clear.
We need more people standing up for what they believe in as opposed to saying what they think will get their filthy hands on power.
What, like resigning one day, only to un-resign the next aka Doing a Farage?
Must be the umpteenth time we've discussed this. He tendered his resignation and it was declined, it could have been handled better but the constant reference to it on here is pathetic, quite frankly.
When you criticise other parties for being led by liars, you're going to get that thrown back in your face.
Matthew 7:5 old bean
Not for the first time you're blinded by tribalism. As I've pointed out Farage didn't lie, I'm sure if he could wind the clock back he'd do things differently.
I'd love to see things as simplistically as you i.e. Dave/George have said it, that's good enough for me. Such unquestioning devotion used to be reserved for teenage girls and the Bay City Rollers.
I know you Kippers never listen, but I've said I won't be voting for Osborne as Tory leader* and have quite happily criticised Dave on many occasions.
*Unless his opponent is some voter repellent loonbag Eurosceptic like Owen Paterson or Liam Fox.
Oh I listen alright, to people saying things like:
The voters didn't want to lose the genius of George Osborne from the Treasury.
Comments
He no longer has a flak jacket called Nick Clegg.
The voters didn't want to lose the genius of George Osborne from the Treasury.
The people have spoken, and no one ever got rich from underestimating Osborne.
There are 4 possible groups:
1. Those who approve wholeheartedly of IS, its aims & means. They are willing/likely to join them.
2. Those who would not join themselves but understand IS's attraction (the "pull" factor) and/or have some sympathy for why others join (the "push" factor). They may be willing to assist/turn a blind eye to others' actions.
3. Those who abhor the violence used by IS but think in general terms that it would be better, cet.par., for Muslims to live in an Islamic caliphate subject to sharia law. Some of this group may also think that Muslims in a non-Islamic country should be subject to sharia law rather than the secular law of the country concerned.
4. Those who abhor both the violence used by IS & its aims i.e. they see themselves as both citizens of the countries they live in and Muslim and no contradiction between the two. Within this group there are those who feel that they should not be held responsible and criticised for the actions of those falling within 1 & possibly also 2) and those who, while agreeing with this, feel that in order to reduce the numbers falling within the first two groups they need to take more active steps to stop this happening. These latter two may also be the source of intelligence against those in 1 & 2.
Ideally, we'd like to have everyone fall into 4 and none in 1. That is not the case. Those in 2 are also a problem because they provide implicit support for those in 1 - the sea, as it were, in which the terrorist fish can swim.
No. 3 is a bit more ambivalent. Having a vague ideal which you do nothing to bring about and/or which you recognise has next to no chance of coming about is fine - though it may be perceived as less fine at a time of increasing terror risk & jangled nerves. It's when this morphs into providing a religious/ideological/intellectual/cultural [take your pick] justification for the actions of those in the previous two groups that it can become a problem. Separately, the idea that certain groups should be subject to separate laws based on their religion can be a real problem because it implies that not everyone is subject to the same laws/equal under them. This is heightened when one legal system is completely at odds with the main one in the country.
What is undeniable is that even if the numbers in 1/2 are relatively small even a small number can create chaos. After all, the actions of 8-9 people have led to a major European country into a national state of emergency. The consequent search for one man has shut down the capital city of another country for 3 days.
If the numbers are larger - and who would bet against that after recent events - that is going to have severe implications for the structure of & resources devoted to policing & intelligence work across Europe, which the political class have not even begun to digest.
And as we all know he's only in place because of Nicola.
The glitter is falling off the turd.
He and Osborne are nothing more than convincing liars that tribal tories lap up.
It is not a given to say that a drought leads to civil war anymore than a tsunami leads to terrorism.
It's a new twist on Voltaire's 'the best is the enemy of the good'. In this case the bad was the friend of the disastrous.
Lets wait until Wednesday to see what the spending plans really are.
Over the last 5 years we have become used to the LDs leaking all his plans ahead of time. This set of announcements could contain real surprises.
More centrist Labour MPs should be thinking carefully about what Labour as a moral crusade should look like in 2015.
However my expectations are set suitably low, once we've had the showmanship, we get to learn what he didn't tell us. That's when the fun starts.
However, what that massive mandate does mean is that it will be far harder to get rid of him. A final round knife-edge result (as per EdM vs DM) would have left him far more vulnerable than the way the numbers did work out. Had he been taken to a second or third round, it would have looked a good deal closer than the landslide that did result.
Some of my friends who are interested in politics are convinced that Corbyn will be ousted soon, but that is because they are looking at what 'Labour' ought to do. I try to explain that the problem is that 'Labour' as an abstract concept doesn't have the combination of the will and the means to oust him; MPs don't have the power, and the members don't have the will.
Not wholly sure I buy it (there are lots of other factors at play), but very interesting all the same
We need more people standing up for what they believe in as opposed to saying what they think will get their filthy hands on power.
http://www.sunnation.co.uk/fight-for-oldham-west-seat-gets-dirty-with-fake-election-leaflet/
Hmm.
Have they stopped buying BAE?
EDIT: blockquote tag incorrectly retained, now removed
Le Pen (FN-ENF): 40%
Juppé (R-EPP): 20%
Hollande (PS-S&D): 19%
Mélenchon (FG-LEFT): 8%
#SaintDenis #LePen
Now if we could have kept the existing carriers in service then bought second-hand Nimitz-class carriers from the US (they're replacing them with new Ford-class ones) instead of scrapping the existing ones and betting the ranch on the two new QE-class ones (Late? Yup. Over budget? Yup. Doesn't do what you originally wanted it to? Yup. BAE? Yup.), we'd've had a bigger, cheaper, better navy
Actually not, there has been many occasions when we have been given leaked information that was totally off the mark. And other times theyve completely kept quiet and allowed everyone else to reach grunts of orgasmic delight in protest at something they thought wasnt going to happen.
The funniest of recent times was the drop in child poverty. Everything was geared up to condemn the rise. The press releases wrote, the questions tabled in Parliament, the front pages written and the websites primed for what was an indictment of the evil Tory government.
Utter hilarity when the numbers came out and there had been a reduction. All of a sudden child poverty wasnt a 'thing' anymore, despite the build up from the media, columnists, tv editorials, twitterati, MPs, even leader of the opposition at PMQs.
At any point, under quite ferocious criticism, Cameron could have hinted that people might be surprised at what was going to be released the next day. He didnt. The entire industry of poverty mongers had egg on their face.
The best they could come up with was a criticism that the rate of the reduction in child poverty had slowed.
Labour to draw up 'social media code of conduct' to curb Jeremy Corbyn criticism
Labour MPs could be banned from posting tweets criticising Jeremy Corbyn
http://bit.ly/1I6dG5R
When of course the govt do announce something tricky like tax credits we get a huge outcry and in this case as well a politically motivated vote in the Lords. But hey ... It's all all Osborne's fault for not cutting quickly enough.
I have to say that the problem with Corbyn for me is that his views and the actions he takes in support of them are very far from moral. Quite amoral, in some cases.
The moral decency which was behind Labour's best instincts is what has gone missing from Labour. They need to get that back. Some of those who say that Corbyn is personally decent seem to confuse moral decency with being quietly spoken and having an execrable taste in clothes.
FWIW, I have never been backward on here at stating that Osborne will never be PM.
But neither will Corbyn.
Which of course brings in to focus just how common an event climate variation has been human experience.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/12011126/Anyone-who-is-still-opposed-to-British-military-action-in-Syria-cannot-be-taken-seriously.html
"Of the shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell, and the current Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, there is little to say, save how grotesquely unfitted they are for the challenges of the hour. Their equivocation – at very best – on IRA terrorism stands utterly exposed. They have had chance after chance to show that they’re opposed to fascistic men of violence, but time after time they duck under the lowest of hurdles.
It will do no one in British public life any credit, from either side of the House of Commons, if they try to do anything which artificially prolongs such people in office in one of our great political parties. Every day Jeremy Corbyn leads Labour, he does a day’s more harm to this country at home and abroad. Labour MPs in their own and the national interest need to unseat him. No one who puts this country first can seriously be expected to work in opposition with Corbyn and McDonnell."
Matthew 7:5 old bean
'Clearly'.? Yes compared with last Spring we have clear signs of economic slowdown - the worst October Borrowing figures since 2009 and a Balance of Payments problem that the markets are beginning to pay more attention to. The clouds are gathering ..
But he maybe does clearly believe in these things, but that doesnt mean he should be Prime Minister. You need people who can asses the circumstances in light of a set of values, but no frontline politician principles survive a period of time with executive power. It just doesnt. The theory and the reality are often very different. You have to be flexible and you have to be practical. You cannot achieve things otherwise. The world is not a black and white absolute.
http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/05/exclusive-nigel-farage-never-resigned-from-ukip-in-stitch-up/
I'd love to see things as simplistically as you i.e. Dave/George have said it, that's good enough for me. Such unquestioning devotion used to be reserved for teenage girls and the Bay City Rollers.
Book of Dave 20:10
*Unless his opponent is some voter repellent loonbag Eurosceptic like Owen Paterson or Liam Fox.
New Thread New Thread
The voters didn't want to lose the genius of George Osborne from the Treasury.