Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Defining Britain: who wins that battle will likely win GE2022

SystemSystem Posts: 6,199
edited December 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Defining Britain: who wins that battle will likely win GE2022

By rights, the Conservative Party should have disappeared a long time ago. On the wrong side of the Reform debate before 1832, their opponents dominated the middle of the nineteenth century. That was in no small part down to divisions within the Tories but was also because the Liberals had a better vision to sell to a rapidly industrialising and urbanising Britain and to its newly enfranchised electorate. As the vote was distributed wider and wider – and hence further and further down the social scale – you’d think that a party of landed privilege would be left behind.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,831
    "It will be much easier to destroy that which is opposed than to successfully fill the voids created," says the Brexit supporting Conservative while wondering why his party is struggling to present a convincing post-Brexit national vision...
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 1,774
    The tories have nothing to worry about when they have visionaries like Alan Mak who can comed up with stuff like this:

    https://www.alanmak.org.uk/sites/www.alanmak.org.uk/files/inline-images/4IR ConHome brochure cover jgp.jpg

    He did that. WITH HIS BRAIN.

    Jezzah's gonna jez, that much is obvious but if the LibDems elect a leader who is not clinically dead then the tories are going to get fucked in the sort of C220d on a lease households that JC can't reach.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,540
    Well that was a boring draw on a boring pitch. The only consolation is that it means we avoided the whitewash.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,038
    edited December 2017
    Sandpit said:

    Well that was a boring draw on a boring pitch. The only consolation is that it means we avoided the whitewash.

    The result highlights England's lack of a world class spinner tbh.

    I think the batting is actually OK now though
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,168
    Pulpstar said:

    Sandpit said:

    Well that was a boring draw on a boring pitch. The only consolation is that it means we avoided the whitewash.

    The result highlights England's lack of a world class spinner tbh.

    I think the batting is actually OK now though
    World class ?

    One who could just spin the ball might well have made a difference. Moeen bowled 13 overs out of 120 odd in the second innings (and a similar proportion in the first). For our sole spinner on such a slow pitch, that is an absolute joke.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,540
    Pulpstar said:

    Sandpit said:

    Well that was a boring draw on a boring pitch. The only consolation is that it means we avoided the whitewash.

    The result highlights England's lack of a world class spinner tbh.

    I think the batting is actually OK now though
    We’ve not had a decent spinner since Monty Panasar, The batsmen aren’t consistent enough though, Cook’s previous six innings in this series had a high of 37 and an average of about 13 before he finally got some runs.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,168
    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Sandpit said:

    Well that was a boring draw on a boring pitch. The only consolation is that it means we avoided the whitewash.

    The result highlights England's lack of a world class spinner tbh.

    I think the batting is actually OK now though
    We’ve not had a decent spinner since Monty Panasar, The batsmen aren’t consistent enough though, Cook’s previous six innings in this series had a high of 37 and an average of about 13 before he finally got some runs.
    I wouldn't be as complacent about the batting, either. Cook showed he still has it - against an attack which doesn't have real pace - but must be getting close to the end of his career, but the jury is still out on Stoneman. We don't have a number three. Our spinning all rounder, who with Stokes gave the lower order such strength, is completely out of form with the bat as well as ball and only playing because we didn't bring another selectable spinner...

    The team still lacks a defined shape, and their are some hard decisions to be taken over the next year... by a bunch of selectors who seem to have less idea than I do.


  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,168
    edited December 2017
    On topic, I still think it not beyond the bounds of possibility that the Labour right and Tory left move to a resurgent centre party.
    But as David points out, that would require a leader and a vision, neither of which seem to exist at present. It is at least a third alternative to the two he posits.
  • Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Herdson, another good article. We must hope that Jonathan Pryce's character from Game of Thrones is not truly popular [being as vague as possible to avoid spoilers].
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,168
    I still can't get over the fact that our only spinner bowled so few overs in the second innings, and everyone is saying there was never going to be a result on that pitch...
  • Lord Adonis's comment is entirely fair. The Conservatives are implementing UKIP's 2015 manifesto piecemeal. The Prime Minister talks of citizens of nowhere and encourages retrospection with blue passports. Brexit could have been implemented in an entirely tonally different way. But the government has chosen to let UKIP's vision fill the void.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,941
    Can’t see much vision from Jezza other than “spend more money”.

    the post - Brexit news cycle cant be any mor stacked against the govt than now - suspect it will see a modest uptick in polling fortunes whilst the reach of Corbynism is capped.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,941
    Nigelb said:

    I still can't get over the fact that our only spinner bowled so few overs in the second innings, and everyone is saying there was never going to be a result on that pitch...

    He’s an average player out of form and mentally awol.

    Needs dropped - permenantly.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,941

    Lord Adonis's comment is entirely fair. The Conservatives are implementing UKIP's 2015 manifesto piecemeal. The Prime Minister talks of citizens of nowhere and encourages retrospection with blue passports. Brexit could have been implemented in an entirely tonally different way. But the government has chosen to let UKIP's vision fill the void.

    Who is this UKIP you speak of ?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,540
    Nigelb said:

    I still can't get over the fact that our only spinner bowled so few overs in the second innings, and everyone is saying there was never going to be a result on that pitch...

    And that we only took one, out of form spinner to such a flat pitch. The convicts will be much happier with today’s result than us, it was our game to win and we didn’t.
  • When, oh when, are we moving on from the colour of the passports of Her Majesty's subjects? Yes, it may be symbolic but no-one has been physically injured as a result (as per the burgundy change)....
  • MetatronMetatron Posts: 124
    The Tory Govt is NOT applying UKIP`s policies on energy (sceptical about global warming),foreign aid ( reduce it) or HS2 (stop it)
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,364
    TGOHF said:

    Lord Adonis's comment is entirely fair. The Conservatives are implementing UKIP's 2015 manifesto piecemeal. The Prime Minister talks of citizens of nowhere and encourages retrospection with blue passports. Brexit could have been implemented in an entirely tonally different way. But the government has chosen to let UKIP's vision fill the void.

    Who is this UKIP you speak of ?
    Of which you speak, please.
  • MetatronMetatron Posts: 124
    The Tories should try to form an identity based on opposing the victim obsessed identity politics of the left.
    A leader who believes in personal responsibility , self-reliance and state clearly that affuent educated ethnics,females ,gays etc are not
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,364
    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Sandpit said:

    Well that was a boring draw on a boring pitch. The only consolation is that it means we avoided the whitewash.

    The result highlights England's lack of a world class spinner tbh.

    I think the batting is actually OK now though
    World class ?

    One who could just spin the ball might well have made a difference. Moeen bowled 13 overs out of 120 odd in the second innings (and a similar proportion in the first). For our sole spinner on such a slow pitch, that is an absolute joke.

    Apparently Rashid and Root ‘don’t get on’. For me, the jury is still out on Crane. Essex championship was in no small part due to the efforts of the Saffir, Harmer, who was, by some distance the best spinner in English cricket last season.
  • Good article, but note to David and OGH - it should be SouthamObserver (I think), not Southern ...

    On substance, both main parties are now governed by nostalgia and rooted firmly in the 20th century. For the Tories its blue passports, royal yachts, Big Ben’s chimes and Britain leading the Anglosphere; for Labour its nationalisation, council housing and flying pickets. Neither has any kind of vision for the realities of the 21st century.

    But the UK is a nostalgic country - or at least a large part of its population is. Things used to be better, we tell ourselves, as we watch Downton Abbey and Call the Midwife. Funnily enough, though, the politicians that have won big majorities for their parties have tended to lead, to look forward. If the Tories can find one of these before Labour does, they are likely to reap the dividends.
  • Mr. Observer, worth noting nostalgia generally is popular. Just look at all the remakes and reboots of old classics.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,364

    Good article, but note to David and OGH - it should be SouthamObserver (I think), not Southern ...

    On substance, both main parties are now governed by nostalgia and rooted firmly in the 20th century. For the Tories its blue passports, royal yachts, Big Ben’s chimes and Britain leading the Anglosphere; for Labour its nationalisation, council housing and flying pickets. Neither has any kind of vision for the realities of the 21st century.

    But the UK is a nostalgic country - or at least a large part of its population is. Things used to be better, we tell ourselves, as we watch Downton Abbey and Call the Midwife. Funnily enough, though, the politicians that have won big majorities for their parties have tended to lead, to look forward. If the Tories can find one of these before Labour does, they are likely to reap the dividends.

    I started in the NHS at the time of the later “Call the Midwife” programmes. For example I remember the anxiety around as we realised what we’d done in supplying Thalidomide, and I can recall the snow of 1962/3.
    I have no nostalgia for that part of those days; I do though also remember the hope that was around in the early and mid 60’s. If someone could resell that, then they’d be on a winner!
  • King Cole, it's like music, though. People remember The Beatles. They tend not to reminisce about Love Is A Rubber Ball Bouncing Back To Me.
  • Mr. Observer, worth noting nostalgia generally is popular. Just look at all the remakes and reboots of old classics.

    Yep - we’re a very nostalgic country that tends to believe our best days are behind us and that the past provides the solutions to today’s ills. That’s clearly the guiding philosophy of both major parties currently. However, the likes of Thatcher and Blair (and Attlee and Macmillan) succeeded by looking very firmly forwards. It’s the great British political contradiction: we yearn for the past, but reward leaders who challenge our tendency to look back.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,818
    The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.

    It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.

    Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,982
    Charles said:

    The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.

    It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.

    Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.

    well said sir
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,168

    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Sandpit said:

    Well that was a boring draw on a boring pitch. The only consolation is that it means we avoided the whitewash.

    The result highlights England's lack of a world class spinner tbh.

    I think the batting is actually OK now though
    World class ?

    One who could just spin the ball might well have made a difference. Moeen bowled 13 overs out of 120 odd in the second innings (and a similar proportion in the first). For our sole spinner on such a slow pitch, that is an absolute joke.

    Apparently Rashid and Root ‘don’t get on’. For me, the jury is still out on Crane. Essex championship was in no small part due to the efforts of the Saffir, Harmer, who was, by some distance the best spinner in English cricket last season.
    I thought we'd seen an end to the 'not getting on' nonsense after Pietersen.
    It is one of the primary roles of any captain to manage a team of the best players, whatever their personalities, and make sure that they do get on. Otherwise they shouldn't be captain.
    Cook never seems to be able to do this, either.

    As for Crane, the selectors don't seem to have any confidence in him either - otherwise he'd have played in this test.
  • Charles said:

    The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.

    It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.

    Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.

    Old maids cycling, warm beer and cricket?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,540
    Charles said:

    The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.

    It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.

    Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.

    Indeed so, we need more community and less individualism in society but that doesn’t necessarily mean we need high taxes and more government.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,827
    Lord Adonis was made to look like a complete numpty on Sky News just now. When asked about what was to come out about Grayling's role in the early termination of the VTEC contract, he had nothing to say. Utterly pathetic.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,978
    Charles said:

    The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.

    It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.

    Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.

    Nails it, as ever.

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,856
    edited December 2017
    Well done to say something new about Brexit.

    The Leave campaign was fought in the negative, which is a problem when you are arguing for change. (The Remain campaign was negative too, but they were arguing for the status quo, and in any case lost). To be clear with another negative, Brexit isn't about openness and more trade. If you want those you should want the UK to be in the European Union. That's the way Britain has sought out openness and more trade, which we rejected by voting to leave the EU. So a Brexit philosophy would be based on restriction, closing doors and less trade. So far no-one that I know has articulated that philosophy as a good thing. A template could be the Sakoku closed country policy of the Japanese Tokugawa period.

    As a year and a half have passed without any philosophy or workable plan being developed, I doubt they ever will. Brexit will muddle along in its mediocrity. The effort will go into limiting the damage rather than developing new ideas.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,540
    tlg86 said:

    Lord Adonis was made to look like a complete numpty on Sky News just now. When asked about what was to come out about Grayling's role in the early termination of the VTEC contract, he had nothing to say. Utterly pathetic.

    He’s looked like a complete numpty for two decades and more, why does anyone think he’d be any different today?
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,978

    Mr. Observer, worth noting nostalgia generally is popular. Just look at all the remakes and reboots of old classics.

    Yep - we’re a very nostalgic country that tends to believe our best days are behind us and that the past provides the solutions to today’s ills. That’s clearly the guiding philosophy of both major parties currently. However, the likes of Thatcher and Blair (and Attlee and Macmillan) succeeded by looking very firmly forwards. It’s the great British political contradiction: we yearn for the past, but reward leaders who challenge our tendency to look back.

    Do we? I think, like the passports mania and empire 2.0, this is another of those memes that liberals like to use as a stick to beat conservatives...
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,827
    LOL! BBC anchor just described the resignation of Adonis as "a big loss to the government."
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,827
    FF43 said:

    Well done to say something new about Brexit.

    The Leave campaign was fought in the negative, which is a problem when you are arguing for change. (The Remain campaign was negative too, but they were arguing for the status quo, and in any case lost). To be clear with another negative, Brexit isn't about openness and more trade. If you want those you should want the UK to be in the European Union. That's the way Britain has sought out openness and more trade, which we rejected by voting to leave the EU. So a Brexit philosophy would be based on restriction, closing doors and less trade. So far no-one that I know has articulated that philosophy as a good thing. A template could be the Sakoku closed country policy of the Japanese Tokugawa period.

    As a year and a half have passed without any philosophy or workable plan being developed, I doubt they ever will. Brexit will muddle along in its mediocrity. The effort will go into limiting the damage rather than developing new ideas.

    BiB - I disagree. Forty years ago the common market was about bringing down barriers to trade. Now it's a protectionist racket.
  • Mr. 43, whilst my knowledge of the Tokugawa Shogunate is limited, I think your comparison is quite silly.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,168
    Charles said:

    The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.

    It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.

    Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.

    Nothing inherently wrong with old fashioned Tory paternalism, but it's hardly a vision of Britain's future to sweep all before it at the nest election. You appear to have persuaded the already persuaded...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,582

    Charles said:

    The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.

    It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.

    Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.

    Old maids cycling, warm beer and cricket?
    I don't think anyone wants to talk about cricket right now. We have lost our Root in the game.
  • Mortimer said:

    Mr. Observer, worth noting nostalgia generally is popular. Just look at all the remakes and reboots of old classics.

    Yep - we’re a very nostalgic country that tends to believe our best days are behind us and that the past provides the solutions to today’s ills. That’s clearly the guiding philosophy of both major parties currently. However, the likes of Thatcher and Blair (and Attlee and Macmillan) succeeded by looking very firmly forwards. It’s the great British political contradiction: we yearn for the past, but reward leaders who challenge our tendency to look back.

    Do we? I think, like the passports mania and empire 2.0, this is another of those memes that liberals like to use as a stick to beat conservatives...

    Yep, we do. As I say, nostalgia is the dominant force in both major parties currently.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,540
    FF43 said:

    Well done to say something new about Brexit.

    The Leave campaign was fought in the negative, which is a problem when you are arguing for change. (The Remain campaign was negative too, but they were arguing for the status quo, and in any case lost). To be clear with another negative, Brexit isn't about openness and more trade. If you want those you should want the UK to be in the European Union. That's the way Britain has sought out openness and more trade, which we rejected by voting to leave the EU. So a Brexit philosophy would be based on restriction, closing doors and less trade. So far no-one that I know has articulated that philosophy as a good thing. A template could be the Sakoku closed country policy of the Japanese Tokugawa period.

    As a year and a half have passed without any philosophy or workable plan being developed, I doubt they ever will. Brexit will muddle along in its mediocrity. The effort will go into limiting the damage rather than developing new ideas.

    Not at all, it is the EU which is inward-looking and protectionist, in leaving we can now look to broaden our horizons with the ever growing rest of the world.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 2,326
    Why do the Conservatives appoint Labour people to certain roles who inevitably use the opportunity to attack the government?

    Did Labour do the same from 1997 to 2010?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    tlg86 said:

    FF43 said:

    Well done to say something new about Brexit.

    The Leave campaign was fought in the negative, which is a problem when you are arguing for change. (The Remain campaign was negative too, but they were arguing for the status quo, and in any case lost). To be clear with another negative, Brexit isn't about openness and more trade. If you want those you should want the UK to be in the European Union. That's the way Britain has sought out openness and more trade, which we rejected by voting to leave the EU. So a Brexit philosophy would be based on restriction, closing doors and less trade. So far no-one that I know has articulated that philosophy as a good thing. A template could be the Sakoku closed country policy of the Japanese Tokugawa period.

    As a year and a half have passed without any philosophy or workable plan being developed, I doubt they ever will. Brexit will muddle along in its mediocrity. The effort will go into limiting the damage rather than developing new ideas.

    BiB - I disagree. Forty years ago the common market was about bringing down barriers to trade. Now it's a protectionist racket.
    Really? EU external tariffs have been shrinking over the years, and the number of EU FTA's with the RoW significantly increasing. Tis a funny sort of protectionist racket that does that.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,856
    tlg86 said:

    FF43 said:

    Well done to say something new about Brexit.

    The Leave campaign was fought in the negative, which is a problem when you are arguing for change. (The Remain campaign was negative too, but they were arguing for the status quo, and in any case lost). To be clear with another negative, Brexit isn't about openness and more trade. If you want those you should want the UK to be in the European Union. That's the way Britain has sought out openness and more trade, which we rejected by voting to leave the EU. So a Brexit philosophy would be based on restriction, closing doors and less trade. So far no-one that I know has articulated that philosophy as a good thing. A template could be the Sakoku closed country policy of the Japanese Tokugawa period.

    As a year and a half have passed without any philosophy or workable plan being developed, I doubt they ever will. Brexit will muddle along in its mediocrity. The effort will go into limiting the damage rather than developing new ideas.

    BiB - I disagree. Forty years ago the common market was about bringing down barriers to trade. Now it's a protectionist racket.
    In hard practical terms, there will be more barriers outside the system than inside it.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,818

    Charles said:

    The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.

    It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.

    Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.

    Old maids cycling, warm beer and cricket?
    No.

    A society where rich bankers and lawyers accept they have a duty to pay their taxes.

    A society where Londoners appreciate they need to share their wealth with the rest of the country

    A society to which the successful respect their fellow citizens rather than mocking and excoriating them at every opportunity.

    A society to which everyone contributes what they can and in which we all acknowledge the ties that bind us
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,818
    edited December 2017
    Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.

    It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.

    Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.

    Indeed so, we need more community and less individualism in society but that doesn’t necessarily mean we need high taxes and more government.
    The state is a means, not an end. There are times it makes sense to use the state as a tool, but those who see it only tool view every problem as a nail
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 3,151
    edited December 2017
    Do people want more well paid jobs or cheaper goods? That will be a battleground of ideas.

    It will show up in the battle of the FTAs, particularly with the US. You can have cheaper crap food but your jobs will be at risk. Which do you want? I think the Tories are going to lose that one.

    If the penny drops early enough on the electoral poison of FTAs, the Government may downgrade them (and fire Fox). In that case, what's the problem with a customs union?

    FF43 pointed it out downthread:
    "So a Brexit philosophy would be based on restriction, closing doors and less trade. So far no-one that I know has articulated that philosophy as a good thing."
  • Charles said:

    The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.

    It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.

    Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.

    Tory paternalism would be a great leap forward from where we are now. But focusing a philosophy on how to ensure those at the top remain there may not prove to be a big seller. What’s in it for the 99%? Should they just learn to accept their place?

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,856

    Mr. 43, whilst my knowledge of the Tokugawa Shogunate is limited, I think your comparison is quite silly.

    Why?

    Sakoku was developed to deal with particular problems that Japan faced. It was somewhat successful on its own terms, unlike a similar policy in China under the Ming dynasty. My point is that Brexit doesn't have a coherent philosophy behind it. Without one it is unlikely to be successful.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 11,785
    edited December 2017
    Charles said:

    The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.

    It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.

    Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.

    Noblesse oblige, another thing for which to feel nostalgic, no?

    Of course I'd be ever so grateful if my betters felt obligated enough to get off its collective arse and sort out the situation you describe.
  • Mr. 43, because, as I understand it, Japan almost entirely cut itself off from the rest of the world. Nobody is proposing that for the UK.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,818
    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.

    It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.

    Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.

    Nothing inherently wrong with old fashioned Tory paternalism, but it's hardly a vision of Britain's future to sweep all before it at the nest election. You appear to have persuaded the already persuaded...
    You need to foundation before you can build. Too many ask "what can my country do for me, not what can I do for my country"
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,812
    Charles said:

    The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.

    It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.

    Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.

    Excellent comment. Companies like Apple, Amazon and Google have become leaches on the society that feeds them. They are the unacceptable face of capitalism for our times and their business model should not be tolerated. It is a challenge for a medium sized country to take on the power they represent but it is certainly a part of the challenge our government faces going forward.

    More broadly but connected the challenge is to ensure that the fruits of society are shared more equally, that all of us have the life chances to make the most of our skills and productive lives. It is not easy in the face of international competition and advancing technology which threatens so many of us with redundancy but it should be the aspiration of government.
  • Charles said:

    Charles said:

    The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.

    It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.

    Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.

    Old maids cycling, warm beer and cricket?
    No.

    A society where rich bankers and lawyers accept they have a duty to pay their taxes.

    A society where Londoners appreciate they need to share their wealth with the rest of the country

    A society to which the successful respect their fellow citizens rather than mocking and excoriating them at every opportunity.

    A society to which everyone contributes what they can and in which we all acknowledge the ties that bind us

    “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” - Karl Marx

  • Charles said:

    Charles said:

    The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.

    It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.

    Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.

    Old maids cycling, warm beer and cricket?
    No.

    A society where rich bankers and lawyers accept they have a duty to pay their taxes.

    A society where Londoners appreciate they need to share their wealth with the rest of the country

    A society to which the successful respect their fellow citizens rather than mocking and excoriating them at every opportunity.

    A society to which everyone contributes what they can and in which we all acknowledge the ties that bind us
    Why on earth should Londoners share their wealth with a bunch of stupid yokels who hate them and who have just sabotaged their economy because they're frightened of foreigners?

    And the more fundamental problem with your vision is that it is essentially rural. Britain is an essentially urban country. 1950s Britain is not coming back.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,856
    edited December 2017
    Sandpit said:

    FF43 said:

    Well done to say something new about Brexit.

    The Leave campaign was fought in the negative, which is a problem when you are arguing for change. (The Remain campaign was negative too, but they were arguing for the status quo, and in any case lost). To be clear with another negative, Brexit isn't about openness and more trade. If you want those you should want the UK to be in the European Union. That's the way Britain has sought out openness and more trade, which we rejected by voting to leave the EU. So a Brexit philosophy would be based on restriction, closing doors and less trade. So far no-one that I know has articulated that philosophy as a good thing. A template could be the Sakoku closed country policy of the Japanese Tokugawa period.

    As a year and a half have passed without any philosophy or workable plan being developed, I doubt they ever will. Brexit will muddle along in its mediocrity. The effort will go into limiting the damage rather than developing new ideas.

    Not at all, it is the EU which is inward-looking and protectionist, in leaving we can now look to broaden our horizons with the ever growing rest of the world.
    We won't. That's a delusion Cutting ourselves from our neighbors doesn't bring us closer to everyone else. Somewhat the opposite in fact. The US Commerce Department asked US businesses what they wanted from a potential post Brexit deal with the UK. The only thing they were interested in was the UK remaining in the Single Market and Customs Union. We're interesting as long as we are integrated.
  • Charles said:

    Charles said:

    The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.

    It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.

    Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.

    Old maids cycling, warm beer and cricket?
    A society to which the successful respect their fellow citizens rather than mocking and excoriating them at every opportunity.
    I can't imagine who you mean! ]Innocent Face[
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,818

    Charles said:

    The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.

    It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.

    Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.

    Tory paternalism would be a great leap forward from where we are now. But focusing a philosophy on how to ensure those at the top remain there may not prove to be a big seller. What’s in it for the 99%? Should they just learn to accept their place?

    not enough space for a manifesto - that post was only focused on part of the story - but equality of opportunity and make sure there are paths back into the mainstream for those excluded are the core of this philosophy.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,668
    Do those who successfully define and sell a vision of Britain win? I get the impression that outside of landslides it's more just buggins turn, we get sick of a party after a while as grievances rise, so we give the other lot a go.

    Perhaps we are just a nation of knights and nitwits after all.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,584
    Another interesting article by David. I felt much the same about Labour in 2010 (and 2015), even as a candidate - like the Conservatives now, our main argument was that we weren't the other lot, and that's rarely quite enough. It's genuinely very difficult to rethink one's vision while in Government, for two reasons:

    (1) Consideration of party loyalty restrict blue-skies thinking. If you come up with something interestingly different, it's by implication a criticism of the incumbents that they're not doing it. For instance, Robert Halfon's case for working-class Tory policies is muffled by the fact that he doesn't want to be nasty to the current Government.

    (2) Distractions come almost every day: every time you want to make a speech (or even just think and discuss) about a new policy, there's a rail crash or a fire or a diplomatic crisis which it's imperative to respond to, and which makes discussion of anything else look like a dereliction of duty.

    The main Tory hope has to be that the EU deal, which will I think emerge in the end, will look like at least a half-success, and May or an associate will get the credit for it and a mandate for a vague "Now - forward!" slogan, akin to Labour's "Now, win the peace" in 1945. The twin problems are that this is a hostage to fortune (because the deal may seem to most clearly inferior to the status quo) and the absence of any real plan may become evident.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,818

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.

    It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.

    Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.

    Old maids cycling, warm beer and cricket?
    No.

    A society where rich bankers and lawyers accept they have a duty to pay their taxes.

    A society where Londoners appreciate they need to share their wealth with the rest of the country

    A society to which the successful respect their fellow citizens rather than mocking and excoriating them at every opportunity.

    A society to which everyone contributes what they can and in which we all acknowledge the ties that bind us

    “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” - Karl Marx

    Freely given, without the threat of force or expropriation
  • saddosaddo Posts: 440
    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    Lord Adonis was made to look like a complete numpty on Sky News just now. When asked about what was to come out about Grayling's role in the early termination of the VTEC contract, he had nothing to say. Utterly pathetic.

    He’s looked like a complete numpty for two decades and more, why does anyone think he’d be any different today?
    Classic numpty request in his letter from Branson to be questioned about East Coast rail. If Adonis is as clever as he thinks he is, he'd know that the Virgin bit is only a brand license with Stagecoach owning 90%. Even in his ranting letter, he shows what an idiot he is.

    If May is going for any reshuffle in the new year, can she clear out all the quango numpties like Adonis at the same time.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 3,151
    FF43 said:

    Sandpit said:

    FF43 said:

    Well done to say something new about Brexit.

    The Leave campaign was fought in the negative, which is a problem when you are arguing for change. (The Remain campaign was negative too, but they were arguing for the status quo, and in any case lost). To be clear with another negative, Brexit isn't about openness and more trade. If you want those you should want the UK to be in the European Union. That's the way Britain has sought out openness and more trade, which we rejected by voting to leave the EU. So a Brexit philosophy would be based on restriction, closing doors and less trade. So far no-one that I know has articulated that philosophy as a good thing. A template could be the Sakoku closed country policy of the Japanese Tokugawa period.

    As a year and a half have passed without any philosophy or workable plan being developed, I doubt they ever will. Brexit will muddle along in its mediocrity. The effort will go into limiting the damage rather than developing new ideas.

    Not at all, it is the EU which is inward-looking and protectionist, in leaving we can now look to broaden our horizons with the ever growing rest of the world.
    We won't. That's a delusion Cutting ourselves from our neighbors doesn't bring us closer to everyone else. Somewhat the opposite in fact. The US Commerce Department asked US businesses what they wanted from a potential post Brexit deal with the UK. The only thing they were interested in was the UK remaining in the Single Market and Customs Union. We're interesting as long as we are integrated.
    Quite.
  • Charles said:

    Charles said:

    The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.

    It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.

    Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.

    Old maids cycling, warm beer and cricket?
    No.

    A society where rich bankers and lawyers accept they have a duty to pay their taxes.

    A society where Londoners appreciate they need to share their wealth with the rest of the country

    A society to which the successful respect their fellow citizens rather than mocking and excoriating them at every opportunity.

    A society to which everyone contributes what they can and in which we all acknowledge the ties that bind us
    ...... stupid yokels ....Britain is an essentially urban country. 1950s Britain is not coming back.
    If you want a predominantly rural Britain you've got to go back to before 1850....

    uninformed metropolitans.....
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,573

    Another interesting article by David. I felt much the same about Labour in 2010 (and 2015), even as a candidate - like the Conservatives now, our main argument was that we weren't the other lot, and that's rarely quite enough. It's genuinely very difficult to rethink one's vision while in Government, for two reasons:

    (1) Consideration of party loyalty restrict blue-skies thinking. If you come up with something interestingly different, it's by implication a criticism of the incumbents that they're not doing it. For instance, Robert Halfon's case for working-class Tory policies is muffled by the fact that he doesn't want to be nasty to the current Government.

    (2) Distractions come almost every day: every time you want to make a speech (or even just think and discuss) about a new policy, there's a rail crash or a fire or a diplomatic crisis which it's imperative to respond to, and which makes discussion of anything else look like a dereliction of duty.

    The main Tory hope has to be that the EU deal, which will I think emerge in the end, will look like at least a half-success, and May or an associate will get the credit for it and a mandate for a vague "Now - forward!" slogan, akin to Labour's "Now, win the peace" in 1945. The twin problems are that this is a hostage to fortune (because the deal may seem to most clearly inferior to the status quo) and the absence of any real plan may become evident.

    How do you know there won't be any "real plan"
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,856
    edited December 2017

    Mr. 43, because, as I understand it, Japan almost entirely cut itself off from the rest of the world. Nobody is proposing that for the UK.

    Not quite. Japan put severe restrictions on the movement of people, goods and ideas. Trade still continued. It was a relatively peaceful and prosperous, if static period, but ultimately unsustainable.

    PS I should add the Chinese equivalent policy was a disaster as it encouraged smuggling and piracy. I think these policies only work if you have a highly disciplined society.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,540
    FF43 said:

    Sandpit said:

    FF43 said:

    Well done to say something new about Brexit.

    The Leave campaign was fought in the negative, which is a problem when you are arguing for change. (The Remain campaign was negative too, but they were arguing for the status quo, and in any case lost). To be clear with another negative, Brexit isn't about openness and more trade. If you want those you should want the UK to be in the European Union. That's the way Britain has sought out openness and more trade, which we rejected by voting to leave the EU. So a Brexit philosophy would be based on restriction, closing doors and less trade. So far no-one that I know has articulated that philosophy as a good thing. A template could be the Sakoku closed country policy of the Japanese Tokugawa period.

    As a year and a half have passed without any philosophy or workable plan being developed, I doubt they ever will. Brexit will muddle along in its mediocrity. The effort will go into limiting the damage rather than developing new ideas.

    Not at all, it is the EU which is inward-looking and protectionist, in leaving we can now look to broaden our horizons with the ever growing rest of the world.
    We won't. That's a delusion Cutting ourselves from our neighbors doesn't bring us closer to everyone else. Somewhat the opposite in fact. The US Commerce Department asked US businesses what they wanted from a potential post Brexit deal with the UK. The only thing they were interested in was the UK remaining in the Single Market and Customs Union. We're interesting as long as we are integrated.
    So the Americans asked didn’t understand that if we are in the EU CU we can’t make independent trade deals with anyone?
  • Charles said:

    Charles said:

    The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.

    It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.

    Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.

    Old maids cycling, warm beer and cricket?
    No.

    A society where rich bankers and lawyers accept they have a duty to pay their taxes.

    A society where Londoners appreciate they need to share their wealth with the rest of the country

    A society to which the successful respect their fellow citizens rather than mocking and excoriating them at every opportunity.

    A society to which everyone contributes what they can and in which we all acknowledge the ties that bind us
    ...... stupid yokels ....Britain is an essentially urban country. 1950s Britain is not coming back.
    If you want a predominantly rural Britain you've got to go back to before 1850....

    uninformed metropolitans.....
    If you're suggesting that Charles's vision is nearly 200 years out of date, I wouldn't disagree. No wonder pb's Tories think it's cutting edge.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,941

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.

    It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.

    Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.

    Old maids cycling, warm beer and cricket?
    No.

    A society where rich bankers and lawyers accept they have a duty to pay their taxes.

    A society where Londoners appreciate they need to share their wealth with the rest of the country

    A society to which the successful respect their fellow citizens rather than mocking and excoriating them at every opportunity.

    A society to which everyone contributes what they can and in which we all acknowledge the ties that bind us
    Why on earth should Londoners share their wealth with a bunch of stupid yokels who hate them and who have just sabotaged their economy because they're frightened of foreigners?

    And the more fundamental problem with your vision is that it is essentially rural. Britain is an essentially urban country. 1950s Britain is not coming back.
    Says the man with a property in rural, immigrant free Hungary...
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 29,042
    edited December 2017

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.

    It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.

    Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.

    Old maids cycling, warm beer and cricket?
    No.

    A society where rich bankers and lawyers accept they have a duty to pay their taxes.

    A society where Londoners appreciate they need to share their wealth with the rest of the country

    A society to which the successful respect their fellow citizens rather than mocking and excoriating them at every opportunity.

    A society to which everyone contributes what they can and in which we all acknowledge the ties that bind us
    ...... stupid yokels ....Britain is an essentially urban country. 1950s Britain is not coming back.
    If you want a predominantly rural Britain you've got to go back to before 1850....

    uninformed metropolitans.....
    If you're suggesting that Charles's vision is nearly 200 years out of date, I wouldn't disagree. No wonder pb's Tories think it's cutting edge.
    No. You just chucked a rock through your glass house.....(and 1850 is 167 years ago, not 200.....)
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 2,326

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.

    It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.

    Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.

    Old maids cycling, warm beer and cricket?
    No.

    A society where rich bankers and lawyers accept they have a duty to pay their taxes.

    A society where Londoners appreciate they need to share their wealth with the rest of the country

    A society to which the successful respect their fellow citizens rather than mocking and excoriating them at every opportunity.

    A society to which everyone contributes what they can and in which we all acknowledge the ties that bind us
    Why on earth should Londoners share their wealth with a bunch of stupid yokels who hate them and who have just sabotaged their economy because they're frightened of foreigners?

    And the more fundamental problem with your vision is that it is essentially rural. Britain is an essentially urban country. 1950s Britain is not coming back.
    Did you grow up in the capital?

    Also, Britain has been essentially urban since the latter part of the 19th century. In fact, 50s Britain was probably more urban than in subsequent decades, as shown by the fact that Greater London’s population declined from the late 30s until 1990.
  • saddosaddo Posts: 440

    Another interesting article by David. I felt much the same about Labour in 2010 (and 2015), even as a candidate - like the Conservatives now, our main argument was that we weren't the other lot, and that's rarely quite enough. It's genuinely very difficult to rethink one's vision while in Government, for two reasons:

    (1) Consideration of party loyalty restrict blue-skies thinking. If you come up with something interestingly different, it's by implication a criticism of the incumbents that they're not doing it. For instance, Robert Halfon's case for working-class Tory policies is muffled by the fact that he doesn't want to be nasty to the current Government.

    (2) Distractions come almost every day: every time you want to make a speech (or even just think and discuss) about a new policy, there's a rail crash or a fire or a diplomatic crisis which it's imperative to respond to, and which makes discussion of anything else look like a dereliction of duty.

    The main Tory hope has to be that the EU deal, which will I think emerge in the end, will look like at least a half-success, and May or an associate will get the credit for it and a mandate for a vague "Now - forward!" slogan, akin to Labour's "Now, win the peace" in 1945. The twin problems are that this is a hostage to fortune (because the deal may seem to most clearly inferior to the status quo) and the absence of any real plan may become evident.

    I agree that the Tory pitch will have to be "let's win the post Brexit period" either with or without May. If they are as useless policy wise as this year, Jezza, even at 73, will have a good chance of winning, but even the Tories under May, couldn't be that stupid, could they?

    A message of going forward in the 2020's has to be stronger than let's go back to the 1970's
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,667
    RoyalBlue said:

    Why do the Conservatives appoint Labour people to certain roles who inevitably use the opportunity to attack the government?

    Did Labour do the same from 1997 to 2010?

    No it shows however which is the most inflexible and ideological of the 2.
  • Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.

    It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.

    Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.

    Old maids cycling, warm beer and cricket?
    No.

    A society where rich bankers and lawyers accept they have a duty to pay their taxes.

    A society where Londoners appreciate they need to share their wealth with the rest of the country

    A society to which the successful respect their fellow citizens rather than mocking and excoriating them at every opportunity.

    A society to which everyone contributes what they can and in which we all acknowledge the ties that bind us

    “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” - Karl Marx

    Freely given, without the threat of force or expropriation

    So, your prescription for the future is for us to place our trust in the goodwill and enlightened self-interest of the privileged elite. History teaches us that may not be the best plan.

  • Rebourne_FluffyRebourne_Fluffy Posts: 225
    edited December 2017
    If we can go back in time:

    Can we bring back proper draught Guinness, served from 9 and 18-gallon barrels (self-gassed) and not this shytey 'Cool' stuff that is gassed like larger! And can wine be drunk buy gurlies* only when within the boundaries of a pub. :neutral:

    Ta'

    * Gurlies can be a gender-fluid concept within this context.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,691
    Millenials are set to receive the biggest inheritances of any post war generation, with inheritances more than doubling over the next 30 years and peaking in 2035 says the Resolution Foundation. However they will have to wait until 61 on average to receive them in full

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42519073
  • RoyalBlue said:

    Why do the Conservatives appoint Labour people to certain roles who inevitably use the opportunity to attack the government?

    Did Labour do the same from 1997 to 2010?

    Yup, Tony Blair appointed Chris Patten to review the the policing in Northern Ireland.

    I think there were a few others but I can't remember them at the moment.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,668
    saddo said:

    Another interesting article by David. I felt much the same about Labour in 2010 (and 2015), even as a candidate - like the Conservatives now, our main argument was that we weren't the other lot, and that's rarely quite enough. It's genuinely very difficult to rethink one's vision while in Government, for two reasons:

    (1) Consideration of party loyalty restrict blue-skies thinking. If you come up with something interestingly different, it's by implication a criticism of the incumbents that they're not doing it. For instance, Robert Halfon's case for working-class Tory policies is muffled by the fact that he doesn't want to be nasty to the current Government.

    (2) Distractions come almost every day: every time you want to make a speech (or even just think and discuss) about a new policy, there's a rail crash or a fire or a diplomatic crisis which it's imperative to respond to, and which makes discussion of anything else look like a dereliction of duty.

    The main Tory hope has to be that the EU deal, which will I think emerge in the end, will look like at least a half-success, and May or an associate will get the credit for it and a mandate for a vague "Now - forward!" slogan, akin to Labour's "Now, win the peace" in 1945. The twin problems are that this is a hostage to fortune (because the deal may seem to most clearly inferior to the status quo) and the absence of any real plan may become evident.

    I agree that the Tory pitch will have to be "let's win the post Brexit period" either with or without May. If they are as useless policy wise as this year, Jezza, even at 73, will have a good chance of winning, but even the Tories under May, couldn't be that stupid, could they?

    A message of going forward in the 2020's has to be stronger than let's go back to the 1970's
    Yes, however saying it, even sincerely, will be a lot easier than convincing people they believe it, since both parties claim to be future facing but both are still accused of wanting to go backwards, to the 50's and 70s respectively.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,584

    Another interesting article by David. I felt much the same about Labour in 2010 (and 2015), even as a candidate - like the Conservatives now, our main argument was that we weren't the other lot, and that's rarely quite enough. It's genuinely very difficult to rethink one's vision while in Government, for two reasons:

    (1) Consideration of party loyalty restrict blue-skies thinking. If you come up with something interestingly different, it's by implication a criticism of the incumbents that they're not doing it. For instance, Robert Halfon's case for working-class Tory policies is muffled by the fact that he doesn't want to be nasty to the current Government.

    (2) Distractions come almost every day: every time you want to make a speech (or even just think and discuss) about a new policy, there's a rail crash or a fire or a diplomatic crisis which it's imperative to respond to, and which makes discussion of anything else look like a dereliction of duty.

    The main Tory hope has to be that the EU deal, which will I think emerge in the end, will look like at least a half-success, and May or an associate will get the credit for it and a mandate for a vague "Now - forward!" slogan, akin to Labour's "Now, win the peace" in 1945. The twin problems are that this is a hostage to fortune (because the deal may seem to most clearly inferior to the status quo) and the absence of any real plan may become evident.

    How do you know there won't be any "real plan"
    I don't. But my post was saying how difficult it is to draw up a new plan while in Government, because by definition you're busy implementing the old one. It wasn't an anti-Tory post - we had the same problem.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,856
    Sandpit said:

    FF43 said:

    Sandpit said:

    FF43 said:

    Well done to say something new about Brexit.

    The Leave campaign was fought in the negative, which is a problem when you are arguing for change. (The Remain campaign was negative too, but they were arguing for the status quo, and in any case lost). To be clear with another negative, Brexit isn't about openness and more trade. If you want those you should want the UK to be in the European Union. That's the way Britain has sought out openness and more trade, which we rejected by voting to leave the EU. So a Brexit philosophy would be based on restriction, closing doors and less trade. So far no-one that I know has articulated that philosophy as a good thing. A template could be the Sakoku closed country policy of the Japanese Tokugawa period.

    As a year and a half have passed without any philosophy or workable plan being developed, I doubt they ever will. Brexit will muddle along in its mediocrity. The effort will go into limiting the damage rather than developing new ideas.

    Not at all, it is the EU which is inward-looking and protectionist, in leaving we can now look to broaden our horizons with the ever growing rest of the world.
    We won't. That's a delusion Cutting ourselves from our neighbors doesn't bring us closer to everyone else. Somewhat the opposite in fact. The US Commerce Department asked US businesses what they wanted from a potential post Brexit deal with the UK. The only thing they were interested in was the UK remaining in the Single Market and Customs Union. We're interesting as long as we are integrated.
    So the Americans asked didn’t understand that if we are in the EU CU we can’t make independent trade deals with anyone?
    No. They have almost zero interest in a separate trade deal with us. They are however interested in protecting their investments in the UK that depend on the free movement of goods and possibly people across Europe. We should be concerned about those investments too as they underpin a lot of jobs and wealth in the UK.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,941
    edited December 2017

    If we can go back in time:

    Can we bring back proper draught Guinness, served from 9 and 18-gallon barrels (self-gassed) and not this shytey 'Cool' stuff that is gassed like larger! And can wine be drunk buy gurlies* only when within the boundaries of a pub. :neutral:

    Ta'

    * Gurlies can be a gender-fluid concept within this context.

    The craft beer revolution has made Guinness about as relevant to modern life as Betamax,the spinning Jenny and being in the EU.
  • Paging @Scrapheap

    Real Madrid are going to bid £180 million for Harry Kane in the summer, and absolute kicker.

    They will fund it by selling Gareth Bale to Manchester United.

    https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2017/dec/30/harry-kane-english-clubs-real-madrid-january-transfer-window

    That said, I can see Liverpool signing Harry Kane as a back up to Fab Four if we sell Sturridge.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,812

    Another interesting article by David. I felt much the same about Labour in 2010 (and 2015), even as a candidate - like the Conservatives now, our main argument was that we weren't the other lot, and that's rarely quite enough. It's genuinely very difficult to rethink one's vision while in Government, for two reasons:

    (1) Consideration of party loyalty restrict blue-skies thinking. If you come up with something interestingly different, it's by implication a criticism of the incumbents that they're not doing it. For instance, Robert Halfon's case for working-class Tory policies is muffled by the fact that he doesn't want to be nasty to the current Government.

    (2) Distractions come almost every day: every time you want to make a speech (or even just think and discuss) about a new policy, there's a rail crash or a fire or a diplomatic crisis which it's imperative to respond to, and which makes discussion of anything else look like a dereliction of duty.

    The main Tory hope has to be that the EU deal, which will I think emerge in the end, will look like at least a half-success, and May or an associate will get the credit for it and a mandate for a vague "Now - forward!" slogan, akin to Labour's "Now, win the peace" in 1945. The twin problems are that this is a hostage to fortune (because the deal may seem to most clearly inferior to the status quo) and the absence of any real plan may become evident.

    A very fair comment Nick. Government is about managing, not visions, and after a while parties in government come to act as if that is an end in itself rather than for any particular purpose. It doesn’t help when the PM is a pragmatic realist with no particularly strong ideas in the first place.

    David is right to note the lack of ideas on both sides of the House. Corbyn seems to me to be against a lot of things (some quite rightly) but seems a lot less clear about what he is for and how it can be achieved.
  • HYUFD said:

    Millenials are set to receive the biggest inheritances of any post war generation, with inheritances more than doubling over the next 30 years and peaking in 2035 says the Resolution Foundation. However they will have to wait until 61 on average to receive them in full

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42519073

    Unless we spend it first........
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,667

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.

    It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.

    Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.

    Old maids cycling, warm beer and cricket?
    No.

    A society where rich bankers and lawyers accept they have a duty to pay their taxes.

    A society where Londoners appreciate they need to share their wealth with the rest of the country

    A society to which the successful respect their fellow citizens rather than mocking and excoriating them at every opportunity.

    A society to which everyone contributes what they can and in which we all acknowledge the ties that bind us
    Why on earth should Londoners share their wealth with a bunch of stupid yokels who hate them and who have just sabotaged their economy because they're frightened of foreigners?

    And the more fundamental problem with your vision is that it is essentially rural. Britain is an essentially urban country. 1950s Britain is not coming back.
    That metropolitan arrogance seems happiest to gorge itself on petulant whingeing again and again and....
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,668
    Surprised to see Mexico so low down there, even with the drug war.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,582
    felix said:
    Sounds like the famous time the Tories under Thatcher came up with the slogan '10,500 more officers are helping the police with their enquiries.'
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,975
    edited December 2017
    Charles said:

    The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.

    It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.

    Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.

    A thoughtful post, with echoes of what used to be called one-nation Toryism. The problem with business is wider however - it is that oligopoly is replacing capitalism, that big corporations have too much power and are able to act globally 'above' and out of reach of government (actually one of the arguments for the EU), and that top management is effectively almost unrestrained; I don't see much evidence of excessive shareholder power?

    For the Conservatives the problem is that the growing list of things that are clearly 'wrong' generates a political desire for solutions, action and intervention - hence the growing Corbynism amongst the young; they aren't too worried (yet) about whether his solutions will work, they just want someone who appears willing to step up to the plate. May sees this, intellectually, but she lacks the character, and now the power, and quite probably the imagination, to do anything about it. And of course much of her party sees itself as the champion of lassez faire.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,691
    edited December 2017
    No change yet in the Conservative Home Tory members next Tory leader poll this month.

    Rees-Mogg leads followed by Gove, Boris is third and Davis is fourth.

    https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/12/our-survey-next-tory-leader-as-last-month-rees-mogg-leads-and-gove-is-second.html
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,582

    Another interesting article by David. I felt much the same about Labour in 2010 (and 2015), even as a candidate - like the Conservatives now, our main argument was that we weren't the other lot, and that's rarely quite enough. It's genuinely very difficult to rethink one's vision while in Government, for two reasons:

    (1) Consideration of party loyalty restrict blue-skies thinking. If you come up with something interestingly different, it's by implication a criticism of the incumbents that they're not doing it. For instance, Robert Halfon's case for working-class Tory policies is muffled by the fact that he doesn't want to be nasty to the current Government.

    (2) Distractions come almost every day: every time you want to make a speech (or even just think and discuss) about a new policy, there's a rail crash or a fire or a diplomatic crisis which it's imperative to respond to, and which makes discussion of anything else look like a dereliction of duty.

    The main Tory hope has to be that the EU deal, which will I think emerge in the end, will look like at least a half-success, and May or an associate will get the credit for it and a mandate for a vague "Now - forward!" slogan, akin to Labour's "Now, win the peace" in 1945. The twin problems are that this is a hostage to fortune (because the deal may seem to most clearly inferior to the status quo) and the absence of any real plan may become evident.

    How do you know there won't be any "real plan"
    I don't. But my post was saying how difficult it is to draw up a new plan while in Government, because by definition you're busy implementing the old one. It wasn't an anti-Tory post - we had the same problem.
    The Liberals had exactly the same problem in 1913-14, and the Unionists in 1903-5. Even Gladstone in 1873 suffered from it. It is an age old problem for the very reasons you state.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,668
    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.

    It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.

    Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.

    A thoughtful post, with echoes of what used to be called one-nation Toryism. The problem with business is wider however - it is that oligopoly is replacing capitalism, that big corporations have too much power and are able to act globally 'above' and out of reach of government (actually one of the arguments for the EU), and that stakeholders (particularly top management) are effectively almost unrestrained; I don't see much evidence of excessive shareholder power?

    For the Conservatives the problem is that the growing list of things that are clearly 'wrong' generates a political desire for solutions, action and intervention - hence the growing Corbynism amongst the young; they aren't too worried (yet) about whether his solutions will work, they just want someone who appears willing to step up to the plate. May sees this, intellectually, but she lacks the character, and now the power, and quite probably the imagination, to do anything about it. And of course much of her party sees itself as the champion of lassez faire.
    Sound thinking.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,582
    kle4 said:

    Surprised to see Mexico so low down there, even with the drug war.
    I'm just astounded that 10% of people in Venezuela think life is better.

    I had no idea that many Venezuelans were members of the ruling party.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,818

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    The vision is simple - but not as glamouring as the siren cries from Jezzaiah's acolytes.

    It's of an organic community, in which those at the top realise that they have obligations and duties to the rest of society. They are not "citizens of nowhere" - but that means they have responsibilities: to pay their taxes, not to use crafty schemes to minimise their contribution; to invest in the workforce and local communities; to accept that as they have benefited from being in the the UK they have an obligation to pay back and pay forward.

    Fundamental what has gone wrong with commerce is the exclusive focus on shareholders not stakeholders. What has gone wrong with society as s whole is the same.

    Old maids cycling, warm beer and cricket?
    No.

    A society where rich bankers and lawyers accept they have a duty to pay their taxes.

    A society where Londoners appreciate they need to share their wealth with the rest of the country

    A society to which the successful respect their fellow citizens rather than mocking and excoriating them at every opportunity.

    A society to which everyone contributes what they can and in which we all acknowledge the ties that bind us
    Why on earth should Londoners share their wealth with a bunch of stupid yokels who hate them and who have just sabotaged their economy because they're frightened of foreigners?

    And the more fundamental problem with your vision is that it is essentially rural. Britain is an essentially urban country. 1950s Britain is not coming back.
    No, it's not. It's a vision built on communities, not transience: a sense that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

    It doesn't matter whether than community is in Wiltshire or Clerkenwell, Devonshire or Farringdon Without
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,812
    kle4 said:

    Surprised to see Mexico so low down there, even with the drug war.
    Hungary and Italy are symptoms of crises in the EU to come. Their travails will not end when they get rid of the troublesome Brits.
  • PeterCPeterC Posts: 1,066
    HYUFD said:

    No change yet in the Conservative Home Tory members next Tory leader poll this month.

    Rees-Mogg leads followed by Gove, Boris is third and Davis is fourth.

    https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/12/our-survey-next-tory-leader-as-last-month-rees-mogg-leads-and-gove-is-second.html

    Would JRM even be candidate? He has himself commented on the implausibility of a backbencher becoming PM. Whatever anyone might say about JRM, I would personally believe what he says.
This discussion has been closed.