Insight to Hungary is interesting. I would also request the trope - which I dropped many moons ago - about his EU residence is observed by more of us (assuming you read his comments).
Now the serious business:
Boy-oh-boy, the accidental - and I think on reflection that the may agree - "antisemites" have been caught-out by Bagehot! Hopefully, after a few sobs over the 'Weet-Bix' (a'la Steve Smith) they will accept that they called this wrong.
Worse than 'Crush the saboteurs' or 'Mutineers' attacks?
Personally, I find May & Co. v Corbyn & Co. a very easy choice to make.
Yet circa 40% of the country seemingly prefer Corbyn to May.
That's a damning indictment on Mrs May.
Mrs May has twice beaten Corbyn in the popular vote in both the 2017 county and general elections and might do so again in May.
Corbyn beat Cameron in the popular vote in the 2016 local elections in the only national election they faced each other.
The idea Corbyn's surge was down to May is absurd (beyond her stupid idea for a dementia tax, now dropped).
It was austerity, the public sector pay cap, high interest rates on student fees and out of reach house prices for the young which drove the Corbyn surge and all of which were present under Cameron and Osborne. May has started to gradually try and rectify concerns in those areas by increasing public sector pay, more housebuilding, a student fees review etc
For me Corbyn is the child of Osborne, his rise was the natural reaction to the austerity regime and the constant ramping of house prices promulgated by George. A Cameroon/Corbyn election could well have ended by with JC in No .10 . May actually managed to win a lot of voters who'd never would have voted for an Old Etotian.
The Tories have enabled the far Left with the high house price , low wage austerity economy.
You make austerity sound like a choice.
If Osborne’s austerity was so bad how did the Tories win a majority in 2015?
Also how on earth did the Tories get 25% ahead in the polls last April/May?
Face it Mrs May blew it.
Austerity was a choice.
The government chose not to apply it to pensioners.
It could have chosen instead not to triple student tuition fees and not to triple lock pensions.
Sadly, after the last election, the Tories will never take perks from old people again.
For me Corbyn is the child of Osborne, his rise was the natural reaction to the austerity regime and the constant ramping of house prices promulgated by George. A Cameroon/Corbyn election could well have ended by with JC in No .10 . May actually managed to win a lot of voters who'd never would have voted for an Old Etotian.
The Tories have enabled the far Left with the high house price , low wage austerity economy.
Had Remain won Osborne might well have succeeded Cameron as PM and Corbyn could well have beaten Osborne in 2020 certainly.
Taking the harshest edges off of austerity by ending the public sector pay cap and building more houses is something May has got right ( though Osborne did at least increase the minimum wage)
It's possible to take the harshest edge off austerity because debt is now falling as a share of GDP, a luxury Osborne never had. What I find remarkable is that it has been so relatively painless to reduce the deficit by over £100bn, more than 1/8th of all government expenditure.
Some budgets have undoubtedly got tighter, the head count in the public sector has fallen fairly significantly (thankfully absorbed and then some by the private sector); some high demand services such as health are really hurting now, a significant pain for tomorrow has been built up in student debt but wow. To achieve this whilst taking millions out of tax altogether and only modestly increasing the taxes on the better off is a remarkable achievement which suggests massive quantities of money was being wasted before the crash.
Pumping endless billions into the public sector, with extra spending being deemed righteous in itself irrespective of result, as Gordon Brown did led inevitably to it becoming bloated and inefficient.
A similar thing happened to the nationalised heavy industries in the 1970s.
I suspect that the vast debt subsidised consumption bubble of the past two decades did likewise to the shopping and leisure sectors. The pruning of dead wood retail and restaurant chains is an overdue consequence.
For me Corbyn is the child of Osborne, his rise was the natural reaction to the austerity regime and the constant ramping of house prices promulgated by George. A Cameroon/Corbyn election could well have ended by with JC in No .10 . May actually managed to win a lot of voters who'd never would have voted for an Old Etotian.
The Tories have enabled the far Left with the high house price , low wage austerity economy.
Had Remain won Osborne might well have succeeded Cameron as PM and Corbyn could well have beaten Osborne in 2020 certainly.
Taking the harshest edges off of austerity by ending the public sector pay cap and building more houses is something May has got right ( though Osborne did at least increase the minimum wage)
It's possible to take the harshest edge off austerity because debt is now falling as a share of GDP, a luxury Osborne never had. What I find remarkable is that it has been so relatively painless to reduce the deficit by over £100bn, more than 1/8th of all government expenditure.
Some budgets have undoubtedly got tighter, the head count in the public sector has fallen fairly significantly (thankfully absorbed and then some by the private sector); some high demand services such as health are really hurting now, a significant pain for tomorrow has been built up in student debt but wow. To achieve this whilst taking millions out of tax altogether and only modestly increasing the taxes on the better off is a remarkable achievement which suggests massive quantities of money was being wasted before the crash.
Pumping endless billions into the public sector, with extra spending being deemed righteous in itself irrespective of result, as Gordon Brown did led inevitably to it becoming bloated and inefficient.
A similar thing happened to the nationalised heavy industries in the 1970s.
I suspect that the vast debt subsidised consumption bubble of the past two decades did likewise to the shopping and leisure sectors. The pruning of dead wood retail and restaurant chains is an overdue consequence.
Public spending only crept up incrementally during the New Labour years. Debt remained at about 40% of GDP. The explosion of debt was in the personal sector and the financial sector. Both of which should have been regulated more tightly.
Worse than 'Crush the saboteurs' or 'Mutineers' attacks?
Personally, I find May & Co. v Corbyn & Co. a very easy choice to make.
Yet circa 40% of the country seemingly prefer Corbyn to May.
That's a damning indictment on Mrs May.
Mrs May has twice beaten Corbyn in the popular vote in both the 2017 county and general elections and might do so again in May.
Corbyn beat Cameron in the popular vote in the 2016 local elections in the only national election they faced each other.
The idea Corbyn's surge was down to May is absurd (beyond her stupid idea for a dementia tax, now dropped).
It was austerity, the public sector pay cap, high interest rates on student fees and out of reach house prices for the young which drove the Corbyn surge and all of which were present under Cameron and Osborne. May has started to gradually try and rectify concerns in those areas by increasing public sector pay, more housebuilding, a student fees review etc
For me Corbyn is the child of Osborne, his rise was the natural reaction to the austerity regime and the constant ramping of house prices promulgated by George. A Cameroon/Corbyn election could well have ended by with JC in No .10 . May actually managed to win a lot of voters who'd never would have voted for an Old Etotian.
The Tories have enabled the far Left with the high house price , low wage austerity economy.
You make austerity sound like a choice.
If Osborne’s austerity was so bad how did the Tories win a majority in 2015?
Also how on earth did the Tories get 25% ahead in the polls last April/May?
Face it Mrs May blew it.
Austerity was a choice.
The government chose not to apply it to pensioners.
It could have chosen instead not to triple student tuition fees and not to triple lock pensions.
Exactly, Osborne choose to let the heaviest weight fall on the younger section of society to protect his base of elderly supporters , he then doubled down with Help to Buy to keep house prices high and exclude an ever great number of younger voters from the housing market. Corbyn's success is as a direct result of these 2 choices by Osborne.
As the BES study showed it's the 25-35's that swung massively towards Corbyn. Osborne's lost generation of Conservative voters.
Had Remain won Osborne might well have succeeded Cameron as PM and Corbyn could well have beaten Osborne in 2020 certainly.
Taking the harshest edges off of austerity by ending the public sector pay cap and building more houses is something May has got right ( though Osborne did at least increase the minimum wage)
It's possible to take the harshest edge off austerity because debt is now falling as a share of GDP, a luxury Osborne never had. What I find remarkable is that it has been so relatively painless to reduce the deficit by over £100bn, more than 1/8th of all government expenditure.
Some budgets have undoubtedly got tighter, the head count in the public sector has fallen fairly significantly (thankfully absorbed and then some by the private sector); some high demand services such as health are really hurting now, a significant pain for tomorrow has been built up in student debt but wow. To achieve this whilst taking millions out of tax altogether and only modestly increasing the taxes on the better off is a remarkable achievement which suggests massive quantities of money was being wasted before the crash.
Pumping endless billions into the public sector, with extra spending being deemed righteous in itself irrespective of result, as Gordon Brown did led inevitably to it becoming bloated and inefficient.
A similar thing happened to the nationalised heavy industries in the 1970s.
I suspect that the vast debt subsidised consumption bubble of the past two decades did likewise to the shopping and leisure sectors. The pruning of dead wood retail and restaurant chains is an overdue consequence.
Public spending only crept up incrementally during the New Labour years. Debt remained at about 40% of GDP. The explosion of debt was in the personal sector and the financial sector. Both of which should have been regulated more tightly.
The surge of debt in the private sector led to much greater tax receipts reducing the need for government borrowing.
Gordon Brown would never have regulated household borrowing more tightly - he needed that money to be pumped into the economy for both the feel-good votes and tax receipts it brought.
Cake and eat it isn't just a UK phenomenon. The good operation of the EU depends on member states following the rules. The lack of respect for the rule of law in Hungary and Poland is a problem for the EU as well as the countries themselves.
You think France and Germany have followed the rules?
The relationship where he came on to a board of politics geeks and boasted he was having sex with a girl less than half his age? Turned out not to be a lasting one.
Mrs May has twice beaten Corbyn in the popular vote in both the 2017 county and general elections and might do so again in May.
Corbyn beat Cameron in the popular vote in the 2016 local elections in the only national election they faced each other.
The idea Corbyn's surge was down to May is absurd (beyond her stupid idea for a dementia tax, now dropped).
It was austerity, the public sector pay cap, high interest rates on student fees and out of reach house prices for the young which drove the Corbyn surge and all of which were present under Cameron and Osborne. May has started to gradually try and rectify concerns in those areas by increasing public sector pay, more housebuilding, a student fees review etc
For me Corbyn is the child of Osborne, his rise was the natural reaction to the austerity regime and the constant ramping of house prices promulgated by George. A Cameroon/Corbyn election could well have ended by with JC in No .10 . May actually managed to win a lot of voters who'd never would have voted for an Old Etotian.
The Tories have enabled the far Left with the high house price , low wage austerity economy.
You make austerity sound like a choice.
If Osborne’s austerity was so bad how did the Tories win a majority in 2015?
Also how on earth did the Tories get 25% ahead in the polls last April/May?
Face it Mrs May blew it.
Austerity was a choice.
The government chose not to apply it to pensioners.
It could have chosen instead not to triple student tuition fees and not to triple lock pensions.
Exactly, Osborne choose to let the heaviest weight fall on the younger section of society to protect his base of elderly supporters , he then doubled down with Help to Buy to keep house prices high and exclude an ever great number of younger voters from the housing market. Corbyn's success is as a direct result of these 2 choices by Osborne.
As the BES study showed it's the 25-35's that swung massively towards Corbyn. Osborne's lost generation of Conservative voters.
The Conservatives forgot about aspiration.
For all their talk about 'detoxifying' the Conservative brand they made it far worse to anyone leaving university with £50k debts or anyone still renting a room in their 30s.
Worse than 'Crush the saboteurs' or 'Mutineers' attacks?
Personally, I find May & Co. v Corbyn & Co. a very easy choice to make.
Yet circa 40% of the country seemingly prefer Corbyn to May.
That's a damning indictment on Mrs May.
It’s really quite something that Corbyn - even after this month - still has kept his coalition together, and despite being a much more controversial candidate has polled better than the two more mainstream previous Labour leaders. There are a lot of people out there who really dislike the Conservative party, and it looks like they aren’t budging.
Yep, it does cut both ways. It is extraordinary that the Labour party is not miles ahead of an incompetent government comprised mainly of halfwits and mediocrities presiding over a sustained stagnation in living standards; but it is just as extraordinary that the Tories are not miles ahead of a party led by a Marxist friend of anti-Semites who is an apologist for every regime no matter how tyrannical and murderous just as long as it is anti-West.
Really interesting and fair-looking article - thanks Alastair. The potential for corrupt systems to generate support for extremists is pretty universal - even in Afghanistan I understand that a lot of people thought the Taliban were a welcome change as they initially at least ostentatiously refused bribes: so long as you did what you were told on religion, nobody would ask you for a backhander.
Sorry to hear of SeanT's potentially ruptured marriage, though as he says the feeling that it was sort of mutual probably takes the edge off, and it always sounded a bit like a golden dream rather than cosy permanence, and perhaps felt that way?
Had Remain won Osborne might well have succeeded Cameron as PM and Corbyn could well have beaten Osborne in 2020 certainly.
Taking the harshest edges off of austerity by ending the public sector pay cap and building more houses is something May has got right ( though Osborne did at least increase the minimum wage)
It's possible to take the harshest edge off austerity because debt is now falling as a share of GDP, a luxury Osborne never had. What I find remarkable is that it has been so relatively painless to reduce the deficit by over £100bn, more than 1/8th of all government expenditure.
Some budgets have undoubtedly got tighter, the head count in the public sector has fallen fairly significantly (thankfully absorbed and then some by the private sector); some high demand services such as health are really hurting now, a significant pain for tomorrow has been built up in student debt but wow. To achieve this whilst taking millions out of tax altogether and only modestly increasing the taxes on the better off is a remarkable achievement which suggests massive quantities of money was being wasted before the crash.
Pumping endless billions into the public sector, with extra spending being deemed righteous in itself irrespective of result, as Gordon Brown did led inevitably to it becoming bloated and inefficient.
A similar thing happened to the nationalised heavy industries in the 1970s.
I suspect that the vast debt subsidised consumption bubble of the past two decades did likewise to the shopping and leisure sectors. The pruning of dead wood retail and restaurant chains is an overdue consequence.
Public spending only crept up incrementally during the New Labour years. Debt remained at about 40% of GDP. The explosion of debt was in the personal sector and the financial sector. Both of which should have been regulated more tightly.
The surge of debt in the private sector led to much greater tax receipts reducing the need for government borrowing.
Gordon Brown would never have regulated household borrowing more tightly - he needed that money to be pumped into the economy for both the feel-good votes and tax receipts it brought.
Spending levels were set based on the size of the economy, not the other way round. Brown was at fault because he believed central bank independence + inflation targeting had got rid of large recessions. It was lack of understanding, not mendacity. A lack of understanding that happened worldwide. See the results in the US and Eurozone too.
I see Remain luvvies Nick Cohen and others are turning on Adonis and Campbell over there absurd attempts to blame the BBC for Brexit. The spat is a twitteriot !
Had Remain won Osborne might well have succeeded Cameron as PM and Corbyn could well have beaten Osborne in 2020 certainly.
Taking the harshest edges off of austerity by ending the public sector pay cap and building more houses is something May has got right ( though Osborne did at least increase the minimum wage)
It's possible to take the harshest edge off austerity because debt is now falling as a share of GDP, a luxury Osborne never had. What I find remarkable is that it has been so relatively painless to reduce the deficit by over £100bn, more than 1/8th of all government expenditure.
Some budgets have undoubtedly got tighter, the head count in the public sector has fallen fairly significantly (thankfully absorbed and then some by the private sector); some high demand services such as health are really hurting now, a significant pain for tomorrow has been built up in student debt but wow. To achieve this whilst taking millions out of tax altogether and only modestly increasing the taxes on the better off is a remarkable achievement which suggests massive quantities of money was being wasted before the crash.
Pumping endless billions into the public sector, with extra spending being deemed righteous in itself irrespective of result, as Gordon Brown did led inevitably to it becoming bloated and inefficient.
A similar thing happened to the nationalised heavy industries in the 1970s.
I suspect that the vast debt subsidised consumption bubble of the past two decades did likewise to the shopping and leisure sectors. The pruning of dead wood retail and restaurant chains is an overdue consequence.
Public spending only crept up incrementally during the New Labour years. Debt remained at about 40% of GDP. The explosion of debt was in the personal sector and the financial sector. Both of which should have been regulated more tightly.
There was also £375bn of Quantitative Easing and around £300bn of PFI contracts, which don’t appear in the headline borrowing figures.
Debt should have been reducing sharply given the size of the boom in the first half of the last decade, that it was allowed to remain so high going into the recession is why we still talk of ‘Austerity’ a decade later - even though it didn’t happen, public spending has increased every year thanks to the rapidly expanding debt interest bill.
The relationship where he came on to a board of politics geeks and boasted he was having sex with a girl less than half his age? Turned out not to be a lasting one.
Mrs May has twice beaten Corbyn in the popular vote in both the 2017 county and general elections and might do so again in May.
Corbyn beat Cameron in the popular vote in the 2016 local elections in the only national election they faced each other.
The idea Corbyn's surge was down to May is absurd (beyond her stupid idea for a dementia tax, now dropped).
It was austerity, the public sector pay cap, high interest rates on student fees and out of reach house prices for the young which drove the Corbyn surge and all of which were present under Cameron and Osborne. May has started to gradually try and rectify concerns in those areas by increasing public sector pay, more housebuilding, a student fees review etc
For me Corbyn is the child of Osborne, his rise was the natural reaction to the austerity regime and the constant ramping of house prices promulgated by George. A Cameroon/Corbyn election could well have ended by with JC in No .10 . May actually managed to win a lot of voters who'd never would have voted for an Old Etotian.
The Tories have enabled the far Left with the high house price , low wage austerity economy.
You make austerity sound like a choice.
If Osborne’s austerity was so bad how did the Tories win a majority in 2015?
Also how on earth did the Tories get 25% ahead in the polls last April/May?
Face it Mrs May blew it.
Austerity was a choice.
The government chose not to apply it to pensioners.
It could have chosen instead not to triple student tuition fees and not to triple lock pensions.
As the BES study showed it's the 25-35's that swung massively towards Corbyn. Osborne's lost generation of Conservative voters.
The Conservatives forgot about aspiration.
For all their talk about 'detoxifying' the Conservative brand they made it far worse to anyone leaving university with £50k debts or anyone still renting a room in their 30s.
Both sets of Tories are blind to the fact that they were (and to an extent still are) toxic for two reasons. The traditional Tories are blind to the toxicity about being a bunch of stuck up bigots that like killing foxes. The metropolitan Tories are blind to the toxicity about being a bunch of rich elitists that don't care about the less fortunate while they look after their rich mates. Both are exaggerated stereotypes but they need someone who can combat both.
It's possible to take the harshest edge off austerity because debt is now falling as a share of GDP, a luxury Osborne never had. What I find remarkable is that it has been so relatively painless to reduce the deficit by over £100bn, more than 1/8th of all government expenditure.
Some budgets have undoubtedly got tighter, the head count in the public sector has fallen fairly significantly (thankfully absorbed and then some by the private sector); some high demand services such as health are really hurting now, a significant pain for tomorrow has been built up in student debt but wow. To achieve this whilst taking millions out of tax altogether and only modestly increasing the taxes on the better off is a remarkable achievement which suggests massive quantities of money was being wasted before the crash.
Pumping endless billions into the public sector, with extra spending being deemed righteous in itself irrespective of result, as Gordon Brown did led inevitably to it becoming bloated and inefficient.
A similar thing happened to the nationalised heavy industries in the 1970s.
I suspect that the vast debt subsidised consumption bubble of the past two decades did likewise to the shopping and leisure sectors. The pruning of dead wood retail and restaurant chains is an overdue consequence.
Public spending only crept up incrementally during the New Labour years. Debt remained at about 40% of GDP. The explosion of debt was in the personal sector and the financial sector. Both of which should have been regulated more tightly.
There was also £375bn of Quantitative Easing and around £300bn of PFI contracts, which don’t appear in the headline borrowing figures.
Debt should have been reducing sharply given the size of the boom in the first half of the last decade, that it was allowed to remain so high going into the recession is why we still talk of ‘Austerity’ a decade later - even though it didn’t happen, public spending has increased every year thanks to the rapidly expanding debt interest bill.
There wasn't a 'boom' in the 2000s.
What we had instead was a debt fueled consumption and house price bubble.
I had never previously considered that free movement might turn eastern Europe into the equivalent of the red states. Something else to ponder.
On Cameron Osborne and austerity it's revealing to me that people define the success or failure of that government in terms of whether austerity worked. It's quite possible to argue that austerity worked but the government was a failure. In my opinion what was needed in 2010 wasn't just a fiscal plan but a fundamental re-think of finance, housing, investment and many other things. But there was no imagination, no vision, no major new ideas. Just a view that government was there to balance the books as best it could with the major fillip of reduced corporation tax and then a hope that everything else would sort itself out. Except it didn't.
It's possible to take the harshest edge off austerity because debt is now falling as a share of GDP, a luxury Osborne never had. What I find remarkable is that it has been so relatively painless to reduce the deficit by over £100bn, more than 1/8th of all government expenditure.
Some budgets have undoubtedly got tighter, the head count in the public sector has fallen fairly significantly (thankfully absorbed and then some by the private sector); some high demand services such as health are really hurting now, a significant pain for tomorrow has been built up in student debt but wow. To achieve this whilst taking millions out of tax altogether and only modestly increasing the taxes on the better off is a remarkable achievement which suggests massive quantities of money was being wasted before the crash.
Pumping endless billions into the public sector, with extra spending being deemed righteous in itself irrespective of result, as Gordon Brown did led inevitably to it becoming bloated and inefficient.
A similar thing happened to the nationalised heavy industries in the 1970s.
I suspect that the vast debt subsidised consumption bubble of the past two decades did likewise to the shopping and leisure sectors. The pruning of dead wood retail and restaurant chains is an overdue consequence.
Public spending only crept up incrementally during the New Labour years. Debt remained at about 40% of GDP. The explosion of debt was in the personal sector and the financial sector. Both of which should have been regulated more tightly.
The surge of debt in the private sector led to much greater tax receipts reducing the need for government borrowing.
Gordon Brown would never have regulated household borrowing more tightly - he needed that money to be pumped into the economy for both the feel-good votes and tax receipts it brought.
Spending levels were set based on the size of the economy, not the other way round. Brown was at fault because he believed central bank independence + inflation targeting had got rid of large recessions. It was lack of understanding, not mendacity. A lack of understanding that happened worldwide. See the results in the US and Eurozone too.
But without the surge in household borrowing - and it was running at over £100bn per year - the economy and tax receipts would have been much smaller.
Brown's economy was dependent upon people borrowing ever more money to spend on ever more imported consumer tat and ever higher house prices.
It was fundamentally unbalanced and unsustainable.
It's possible to take the harshest edge off austerity because debt is now falling as a share of GDP, a luxury Osborne never had. What I find remarkable is that it has been so relatively painless to reduce the deficit by over £100bn, more than 1/8th of all government expenditure.
Some budgets have undoubtedly got tighter, the head count in the public sector has fallen fairly significantly (thankfully absorbed and then some by the private sector); some high demand services such as health are really hurting now, a significant pain for tomorrow has been built up in student debt but wow. To achieve this whilst taking millions out of tax altogether and only modestly increasing the taxes on the better off is a remarkable achievement which suggests massive quantities of money was being wasted before the crash.
Pumping endless billions into the public sector, with extra spending being deemed righteous in itself irrespective of result, as Gordon Brown did led inevitably to it becoming bloated and inefficient.
A similar thing happened to the nationalised heavy industries in the 1970s.
I suspect that the vast debt subsidised consumption bubble of the past two decades did likewise to the shopping and leisure sectors. The pruning of dead wood retail and restaurant chains is an overdue consequence.
Public spending only crept up incrementally during the New Labour years. Debt remained at about 40% of GDP. The explosion of debt was in the personal sector and the financial sector. Both of which should have been regulated more tightly.
The surge of debt in the private sector led to much greater tax receipts reducing the need for government borrowing.
Gordon Brown would never have regulated household borrowing more tightly - he needed that money to be pumped into the economy for both the feel-good votes and tax receipts it brought.
Spending levels were set based on the size of the economy, not the other way round. Brown was at fault because he believed central bank independence + inflation targeting had got rid of large recessions. It was lack of understanding, not mendacity. A lack of understanding that happened worldwide. See the results in the US and Eurozone too.
But without the surge in household borrowing - and it was running at over £100bn per year - the economy and tax receipts would have been much smaller.
Brown's economy was dependent upon people borrowing ever more money to spend on ever more imported consumer tat and ever higher house prices.
It was fundamentally unbalanced and unsustainable.
No mention of investment banking I see. Funny that.
I had never previously considered that free movement might turn eastern Europe into the equivalent of the red states. Something else to ponder.
On Cameron Osborne and austerity it's revealing to me that people define the success or failure of that government in terms of whether austerity worked. It's quite possible to argue that austerity worked but the government was a failure. In my opinion what was needed in 2010 wasn't just a fiscal plan but a fundamental re-think of finance, housing, investment and many other things. But there was no imagination, no vision, no major new ideas. Just a view that government was there to balance the books as best it could with the major fillip of reduced corporation tax and then a hope that everything else would sort itself out. Except it didn't.
Though 'balancing the books' only ever referred to the government deficit - which they never managed to end in any case.
Cameron and Osborne never showed any interest that the UK had a cumulative balance of payments deficit of over half a trillion quid during their time in office.
Pumping endless billions into the public sector, with extra spending being deemed righteous in itself irrespective of result, as Gordon Brown did led inevitably to it becoming bloated and inefficient.
A similar thing happened to the nationalised heavy industries in the 1970s.
I suspect that the vast debt subsidised consumption bubble of the past two decades did likewise to the shopping and leisure sectors. The pruning of dead wood retail and restaurant chains is an overdue consequence.
Public spending only crept up incrementally during the New Labour years. Debt remained at about 40% of GDP. The explosion of debt was in the personal sector and the financial sector. Both of which should have been regulated more tightly.
The surge of debt in the private sector led to much greater tax receipts reducing the need for government borrowing.
Gordon Brown would never have regulated household borrowing more tightly - he needed that money to be pumped into the economy for both the feel-good votes and tax receipts it brought.
Spending levels were set based on the size of the economy, not the other way round. Brown was at fault because he believed central bank independence + inflation targeting had got rid of large recessions. It was lack of understanding, not mendacity. A lack of understanding that happened worldwide. See the results in the US and Eurozone too.
But without the surge in household borrowing - and it was running at over £100bn per year - the economy and tax receipts would have been much smaller.
Brown's economy was dependent upon people borrowing ever more money to spend on ever more imported consumer tat and ever higher house prices.
It was fundamentally unbalanced and unsustainable.
No mention of investment banking I see. Funny that.
Pumping endless billions into the public sector, with extra spending being deemed righteous in itself irrespective of result, as Gordon Brown did led inevitably to it becoming bloated and inefficient.
A similar thing happened to the nationalised heavy industries in the 1970s.
I suspect that the vast debt subsidised consumption bubble of the past two decades did likewise to the shopping and leisure sectors. The pruning of dead wood retail and restaurant chains is an overdue consequence.
Public spending only crept up incrementally during the New Labour years. Debt remained at about 40% of GDP. The explosion of debt was in the personal sector and the financial sector. Both of which should have been regulated more tightly.
The surge of debt in the private sector led to much greater tax receipts reducing the need for government borrowing.
Gordon Brown would never have regulated household borrowing more tightly - he needed that money to be pumped into the economy for both the feel-good votes and tax receipts it brought.
Spending levels were set based on the size of the economy, not the other way round. Brown was at fault because he believed central bank independence + inflation targeting had got rid of large recessions. It was lack of understanding, not mendacity. A lack of understanding that happened worldwide. See the results in the US and Eurozone too.
But without the surge in household borrowing - and it was running at over £100bn per year - the economy and tax receipts would have been much smaller.
Brown's economy was dependent upon people borrowing ever more money to spend on ever more imported consumer tat and ever higher house prices.
It was fundamentally unbalanced and unsustainable.
I largely agree with all of that, but easy to see in hindsight. In general most commentators didn't realise how much of a mirage the financial boom was. He kept within all the IMF recommendations of fiscal prudence until the last year or two. As I said, the USA and the Eurozone made all the same mistakes. In retrospect we shouldn't have expected Nordic social services with US taxation.
Mrs May has twice beaten Corbyn in the popular vote in both the 2017 county and general elections and might do so again in May.
Corbyn beat Cameron in the popular vote in the 2016 local elections in the only national election they faced each other.
The idea Corbyn's surge was down to May is absurd (beyond her stupid idea for a dementia tax, now dropped).
It was austerity, the public sector pay cap, high interest rates on student fees and out of reach house prices for the young which drove the Corbyn surge and all of which were present under Cameron and Osborne. May has started to gradually try and rectify concerns in those areas by increasing public sector pay, more housebuilding, a student fees review etc
For me Corbyn is the child of ft with the high house price , low wage austerity economy.
You make austerity sound like a choice.
If Osborne’s austerity was so bad how did the Tories win a majority in 2015?
Also how on earth did the Tories get 25% ahead in the polls last April/May?
Face it Mrs May blew it.
Austerity was a choice.
The government chose not to apply it to pensioners.
It could have chosen instead not to triple student tuition fees and not to triple lock pensions.
As the BES study showed it's the 25-35's that swung massively towards Corbyn. Osborne's lost generation of Conservative voters.
The Conservatives forgot about aspiration.
For all their talk about 'detoxifying' the Conservative brand they made it far worse to anyone leaving university with £50k debts or anyone still renting a room in their 30s.
Both sets of Tories are blind to the fact that they were (and to an extent still are) toxic for two reasons. The traditional Tories are blind to the toxicity about being a bunch of stuck up bigots that like killing foxes. The metropolitan Tories are blind to the toxicity about being a bunch of rich elitists that don't care about the less fortunate while they look after their rich mates. Both are exaggerated stereotypes but they need someone who can combat both.
Cameron should have been toxic on both scores, he was a rich Old Etonian with a house in Notting Hill and in rural Oxfordshire and he went foxhunting. Yet he won a majority in 2015, the first Tory majority won in 23 years. He won in large part because he had charisma, hence Boris remains the Tories best bet
It's possible to take the harshest edge off austerity because debt is now falling as a share of GDP, a luxury Osborne never had. What I find remarkable is that it has been so relatively painless to reduce the deficit by over £100bn, more than 1/8th of all government expenditure.
Some budgets have undoubtedly got tighter, the head count in the public sector has fallen fairly significantly (thankfully absorbed and then some by the private sector); some high demand services such as health are really hurting now, a significant pain for tomorrow has been built up in student debt but wow. To achieve this whilst taking millions out of tax altogether and only modestly increasing the taxes on the better off is a remarkable achievement which suggests massive quantities of money was being wasted before the crash.
Pumping endless billions into the public sector, with extra spending being deemed righteous in itself irrespective of result, as Gordon Brown did led inevitably to it becoming bloated and inefficient.
A similar thing happened to the nationalised heavy industries in the 1970s.
I suspect that the vast debt subsidised consumption bubble of the past two decades did likewise to the shopping and leisure sectors. The pruning of dead wood retail and restaurant chains is an overdue consequence.
Public spending only crept up incrementally during the New Labour years. Debt remained at about 40% of GDP. The explosion of debt was in the personal sector and the financial sector. Both of which should have been regulated more tightly.
The surge of debt in the private sector led to much greater tax receipts reducing the need for government borrowing.
Gordon Brown would never have regulated household borrowing more tightly - he needed that money to be pumped into the economy for both the feel-good votes and tax receipts it brought.
Spending levels were set based on the size of the economy, not the other way round. Brown was at fault because he believed central bank independence + inflation targeting had got rid of large recessions. It was lack of understanding, not mendacity. A lack of understanding that happened worldwide. See the results in the US and Eurozone too.
But without the surge in household borrowing - and it was running at over £100bn per year - the economy and tax receipts would have been much smaller.
Brown's economy was dependent upon people borrowing ever more money to spend on ever more imported consumer tat and ever higher house prices.
It was fundamentally unbalanced and unsustainable.
I see Remain luvvies Nick Cohen and others are turning on Adonis and Campbell over there absurd attempts to blame the BBC for Brexit. The spat is a twitteriot !
The view that the BBC is pro-Brexit is pretty odd.
Mrs May has twice beaten Corbyn in the popular vote in both the 2017 county and general elections and might do so again in May.
Corbyn beat Cameron in the popular vote in the 2016 local elections in the only national election they faced each other.
The idea Corbyn's surge was down to May is absurd (beyond her stupid idea for a dementia tax, now dropped)., a student fees review etc
For me Corbyn is the child of ft with the high house price , low wage austerity economy.
You make austerity sound like a choice.
If Osborne’s austerity was so bad how did the Tories win a majority in 2015?
Also how on earth did the Tories get 25% ahead in the polls last April/May?
Face it Mrs May blew it.
Austerity was a choice.
The government chose not to apply it to pensioners.
It could have chosen instead not to triple student tuition fees and not to triple lock pensions.
As the BES study showed it's the 25-35's that swung massively towards Corbyn. Osborne's lost generation of Conservative voters.
The Conservatives forgot about aspiration.
For all their talk about 'detoxifying' the Conservative brand they made it far worse to anyone leaving university with £50k debts or anyone still renting a room in their 30s.
Both sets of Tories are blind to the fact that they were (and to an extent still are) toxic for two reasons. The traditional Tories are blind to the toxicity about being a bunch of stuck up bigots that like killing foxes. The metropolitan Tories are blind to the toxicity about being a bunch of rich elitists that don't care about the less fortunate while they look after their rich mates. Both are exaggerated stereotypes but they need someone who can combat both.
Cameron should have been toxic on both scores, he was a rich Old Etonian with a house in Notting Hill and in rural Oxfordshire and he went foxhunting. Yet he won a majority in 2015, the first Tory majority won in 23 years. He won in large part because ge had charisma, hence Boris remains the Tories best bet
Cameron was careful not too speak too much publicly about his views on hunting and in other ways he seemed quite culturally different from an old fashioned brusque rural Tory. As time went on I think people became more suspicious of his class instincts but it was a mentality that many people felt had gone away. And the left were always afraid to challenge him on that basis for fear of reigniting their own negative image on class resentment.
Public spending only crept up incrementally during the New Labour years. Debt remained at about 40% of GDP. The explosion of debt was in the personal sector and the financial sector. Both of which should have been regulated more tightly.
The surge of debt in the private sector led to much greater tax receipts reducing the need for government borrowing.
Gordon Brown would never have regulated household borrowing more tightly - he needed that money to be pumped into the economy for both the feel-good votes and tax receipts it brought.
Spending levels were set based on the size of the economy, not the other way round. Brown was at fault because he believed central bank independence + inflation targeting had got rid of large recessions. It was lack of understanding, not mendacity. A lack of understanding that happened worldwide. See the results in the US and Eurozone too.
But without the surge in household borrowing - and it was running at over £100bn per year - the economy and tax receipts would have been much smaller.
Brown's economy was dependent upon people borrowing ever more money to spend on ever more imported consumer tat and ever higher house prices.
It was fundamentally unbalanced and unsustainable.
I largely agree with all of that, but easy to see in hindsight. In general most commentators didn't realise how much of a mirage the financial boom was. He kept within all the IMF recommendations of fiscal prudence until the last year or two. As I said, the USA and the Eurozone made all the same mistakes. In retrospect we shouldn't have expected Nordic social services with US taxation.
There were clear warning signs:
1998 - last month of trade surplus 1999 - FTSE100 peaks 2000 - industrial output peaks 2002 - debt as a % of GDP starts rising 2003 - home ownership levels start to fall 2004 - productivity starts to stagnate 2006 - employment starts to fall
But most commentators, often being affluent middle aged people, were benefiting from the higher house prices and greater consumer spending. Its easier to assume things are fine for the country when they're fine for you personally.
I see Remain luvvies Nick Cohen and others are turning on Adonis and Campbell over there absurd attempts to blame the BBC for Brexit. The spat is a twitteriot !
The view that the BBC is pro-Brexit is pretty odd.
I never thought I'd say this, but I think the BBC is actually trying fairly hard to be balanced on Brexit. Even if they don't always get it right.
For me Corbyn is the child of ft with the high house price , low wage austerity economy.
You make austerity sound like a choice.
If Osborne’s austerity was so bad how did the Tories win a majority in 2015?
Also how on earth did the Tories get 25% ahead in the polls last April/May?
Face it Mrs May blew it.
Austerity was a choice.
The government chose not to apply it to pensioners.
It could have chosen instead not to triple student tuition fees and not to triple lock pensions.
As the BES study showed it's the 25-35's that swung massively towards Corbyn. Osborne's lost generation of Conservative voters.
The Conservatives forgot about aspiration.
For all their talk about 'detoxifying' the Conservative brand they made it far worse to anyone leaving university with £50k debts or anyone still renting a room in their 30s.
Both sets of Tories are blind to the fact that they were (and to an extent still are) toxic for two reasons. The traditional Tories are blind to the toxicity about being a bunch of stuck up bigots that like killing foxes. The metropolitan Tories are blind to the toxicity about being a bunch of rich elitists that don't care about the less fortunate while they look after their rich mates. Both are exaggerated stereotypes but they need someone who can combat both.
Cameron should have been toxic on both scores, he was a rich Old Etonian with a house in Notting Hill and in rural Oxfordshire and he went foxhunting. Yet he won a majority in 2015, the first Tory majority won in 23 years. He won in large part because he had charisma, hence Boris remains the Tories best bet
He won a majority in 2015 because he wasn't expected to and what was expected - an EdM minority government dependent upon the SNP - was believed to be more toxic than Cameron by enough people.
Mrs May has twice beaten Corbyn in the popular vote in both the 2017 county and general elections and might do so again in May.
Corbyn beat Cameron in the popular vote in the 2016 local elections in the only national election they faced each other.
The idea Corbyn's surge was down to May is absurd (beyond her stupid idea for a dementia tax, now dropped).
It was austerity, the public sector pay cap, high interest rates on student fees and out of reach house prices for the young which drove the Corbyn surge and all of which were present under Cameron and Osborne. May has started to gradually try and rectify concerns in those areas by increasing public sector pay, more housebuilding, a student fees review etc
For me Corbyn is the child of ft with the high house price , low wage austerity economy.
You make austerity sound like a choice.
If Osborne’s austerity was so bad how did the Tories win a majority in 2015?
Also how on earth did the Tories get 25% ahead in the polls last April/May?
Face it Mrs May blew it.
Austerity was a choice.
The government chose not to apply it to pensioners.
It could have chosen instead not to triple student tuition fees and not to triple lock pensions.
As the BES study showed it's the 25-35's that swung massively towards Corbyn. Osborne's lost generation of Conservative voters.
The Conservatives forgot about aspiration.
For all their talk about 'detoxifying' the Conservative brand they made it far worse to anyone leaving university with £50k debts or anyone still renting a room in their 30s.
Both sets of Tories are blind to the fact that they were (and to an extent still are) toxic for two reasons. The traditional Tories are blind to the toxicity about being a bunch of stuck up bigots that like killing foxes. The metropolitan Tories are blind to the toxicity about being a bunch of rich elitists that don't care about the less fortunate while they look after their rich mates. Both are exaggerated stereotypes but they need someone who can combat both.
Cameron should have been toxic on both scores, he was a rich Old Etonian with a house in Notting Hill and in rural Oxfordshire and he went foxhunting. Yet he won a majority in 2015, the first Tory majority won in 23 years. He won in large part because he had charisma, hence Boris remains the Tories best bet
The Tories won with a majority in 2015 with an identical foxhunting pledge.
Mrs May has twice beaten Corbyn in the popular vote in both the 2017 county and general elections and might do so again in May.
Corbyn beat Cameron in the popular vote in the 2016 local elections in the only national election they faced each other.
The idea Corbyn's surge was down to May is absurd (beyond her stupid idea for a dementia tax, now dropped)., a student fees review etc
For me Corbyn is the child of ft with the high house price , low wage austerity economy.
You make austerity sound like a choice.
If Osborne’s austerity was so bad how did the Tories win a majority in 2015?
Also how on earth did the Tories get 25% ahead in the polls last April/May?
Face it Mrs May blew it.
Austerity was a choice.
The government chose not to apply it to pensioners.
It could have chosen instead not to triple student tuition fees and not to triple lock pensions.
As the BES study showed it's the 25-35's that swung massively towards Corbyn. Osborne's lost generation of Conservative voters.
The Conservatives forgot about aspiration.
For all their talk about 'detoxifying' the Conservative brand they made it far worse to anyone leaving university with £50k debts or anyone still renting a room in their 30s.
Both sets of Tories are blind to the fact that they were (and to an ombat both.
Cameron should have been toxic on both scores, he was a rich Old Etonian with a house in Notting Hill and in rural Oxfordshire and he went foxhunting. Yet he won a majority in 2015, the first Tory majority won in 23 years. He won in large part because ge had charisma, hence Boris remains the Tories best bet
Cameron was careful not too speak too much publicly about his views on hunting and in other ways he seemed quite culturally different from an old fashioned brusque rural Tory. As time went on I think people became more suspicious of his class instincts but it was a mentality that many people felt had gone away. And the left were always afraid to challenge him on that basis for fear of reigniting their own negative image on class resentment.
Yes but it does prove that it does not matter whether you were born on a council estate or in a stately home or went to a comprehensive school or grammar school or posh private school the most common factor uniting general election winners, Wilson, Thatcher, Blair and Cameron for example is they all had charisma.
Mrs May has twice beaten Corbyn in the popular vote in both the 2017 county and general elections and might do so again in May.
Corbyn beat Cameron in the popular vote in the 2016 local elections in the only national election they faced each other.
The idea Corbyn's surge was down to May is absurd (beyond her stupid idea for a dementia tax, now dropped).
It was austerity, the public sector pay cap, high interest rates on student fees and out of reach house prices for the young which drove the Corbyn surge and all of which were present under Cameron and Osborne. May has started to gradually try and rectify concerns in those areas by increasing public sector pay, more housebuilding, a student fees review etc
For me Corbyn is the child of ft with the high house price , low wage austerity economy.
You make austerity sound like a choice.
If Osborne’s austerity was so bad how did the Tories win a majority in 2015?
Also how on earth did the Tories get 25% ahead in the polls last April/May?
Face it Mrs May blew it.
Austerity was a choice.
The government chose not to apply it to pensioners.
It could have chosen instead not to triple student tuition fees and not to triple lock pensions.
As the BES study showed it's the 25-35's that swung massively towards Corbyn. Osborne's lost generation of Conservative voters.
The Conservatives forgot about aspiration.
For all their talk about 'detoxifying' the Conservative brand they made it far worse to anyone leaving university with £50k debts or anyone still renting a room in their 30s.
Both sets of Tories are blind to the fact that they were (and to an extent still bat both.
Cameron should have been toxic on both scores, he was a rich Old Etonian with a house in Notting Hill and in rural Oxfordshire and he went foxhunting. Yet he won a majority in 2015, the first Tory majority won in 23 years. He won in large part because he had charisma, hence Boris remains the Tories best bet
The Tories won with a majority in 2015 with an identical foxhunting pledge.
Proving it was not foxhunting which cost the Tories a majority in 2015
Speaker after speaker said some version of ‘words are cheap, it is time for action’. They are right. So what can Corbyn and Labour do to tackle antisemitism in the party? There are 10 things that could be quickly done to show real desire to change.
First, tell Ken Livingstone he is out, never coming back and not welcome at any Labour party, leader’s office or affiliated trade union events ever again.
Second, give the Compliance Unit the resources it need to process the complaints about antisemitism, ensure the National Constitutional Committee meets to hear the cases and write to everyone under investigation to demand of them that they make themselves available for hearings.
Third, call a special meeting of the National Executive Committee to reaffirm the Labour party’s full support for the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism and make clear that any engagement in Holocaust denial is not compatible with Labour membership – this is equally applicable to council candidate Alan Bull in Peterborough through to film maker Ken Loach.
Fourth, Corbyn could make a speech to a Jewish audience or with the Jewish press, on antisemitism, its history and its various manifestations. Point out that anti-Zionism is not inherently antisemitism but can be and often is – and that is not acceptable. Make clear that there are plenty of reasonable to criticisms of the state of Israel, its occupation of the West Bank and blockade of Gaza and the government of Israel – especially Benjamin Netanyahu’s rightwing coalition – but none of them are should include antisemitism, age old antisemitic tropes or likening Israel to the Nazis or apartheid South Africa. Use of ‘Zio’ and Zionism as a pejorative word or term of abuse should lead to automatic suspension.
Five, establish a Twitter and Facebook profile that singles out antisemitic supporters of his leadership – Scott Nelson and the like – with a simple instruction: ‘Either delete your tweet or delete your Twibbon – you do not do this in my name.’ Every time one of these repugnant antisemites rears their ugly head send the message and keep doing it until they get the message. This one act could do a lot to clean up the Labour twittersphere and Facebook for Jewish members, councillors and members of parliament.
Six, implement the final recommendations of Shami Chakrabarti’s report.
Seven, commission the Jewish Labour Movement to do a full audit of the of the actions taken since Jan Royall’s report, Chakrabarti’s report, the home affairs select committee’s investigation, highlight any outstanding actions and any further recommendations they would include and instruct the chair of the equalities sub-committee of the NEC to personally see they are implemented.
Eight, commission Jewish Labour Movement-led training for the NEC in modern antisemitism and unconscious bias like Labour Students have done. It should be compulsory and attended by the leader himself.
Nine, once and for all set up and independent complaints procedure, run by a third party that can deal with bullying, sexual harassment and that would include antisemitism. No one has confidence in the Labour party processes anymore, and rightly so, not least because the leader’s office cannot help themselves but interfere.
Ten, stop all attacks on the Jewish Labour Movement, which has been affiliated to Labour since the 1920s. That means making clear that JLM will not be stripped of its best practice awards, that JVL is not eligible for local or national affiliation, and asking Katy Clark to confirm that the relationship between JLM and the party, including its representation on the NEC through the socialist societies collective, will not be diminished by the democracy review.
For me Corbyn is the child of ft with the high house price , low wage austerity economy.
You make austerity sound like a choice.
If Osborne’s austerity was so bad how did the Tories win a majority in 2015?
Also how on earth did the Tories get 25% ahead in the polls last April/May?
Face it Mrs May blew it.
Austerity was a choice.
The government chose not to apply it to pensioners.
It could have chosen instead not to triple student tuition fees and not to triple lock pensions.
As the BES study showed it's the 25-35's that swung massively towards Corbyn. Osborne's lost generation of Conservative voters.
The Conservatives forgot about aspiration.
For all their talk about 'detoxifying' the Conservative brand they made it far worse to anyone leaving university with £50k debts or anyone still renting a room in their 30s.
Both sets of Tories are blind to the fact that they were (and to an extent still are) toxic for two reasons. The traditional Tories are blind to the toxicity about being a bunch of stuck up bigots that like killing foxes. The metropolitan Tories are blind to the toxicity about being a bunch of rich elitists that don't care about the less fortunate while they look after their rich mates. Both are exaggerated stereotypes but they need someone who can combat both.
Cameron should have been toxic on both scores, he was a rich Old Etonian with a house in Notting Hill and in rural Oxfordshire and he went foxhunting. Yet he won a majority in 2015, the first Tory majority won in 23 years. He won in large part because he had charisma, hence Boris remains the Tories best bet
He won a majority in 2015 because he wasn't expected to and what was expected - an EdM minority government dependent upon the SNP - was believed to be more toxic than Cameron by enough people.
Which will help them in 2022 too given the most likely outcome will be a Corbyn minority government dependent upon the SNP
I see that Shawcroft lady is going with the 'I'm a moron' defence.
I had not seen the appalling and abhorrent post which was shared, and if I had seen it I would not have sent the supportive email.
They why the hell did you do so without knowing the facts?!
As for this:
This whole row is being stirred up to attack Jeremy, as we all know
I would suggest if people like her don't want to be seen to be suggesting there is no issue (which would be contrary to what Jeremy himself has said), then wording like 'This row is unfairly being used by some to attack Jeremy' would make the point about any political angle without looking like a complete denier.
Mrs May has twice beaten Corbyn in the popular vote in both the 2017 county and general elections and might do so again in May.
Corbyn beat Cameron in the popular vote in the 2016 local elections in the only national election they faced each other.
The idea Corbyn's surge was down to May is absurd (beyond her stupid idea for a dementia tax, now dropped).
It was austerity, the public sector pay cap, high interest rates on student fees and out of reach house prices for the young which drove the Corbyn surge and all of which were present under Cameron and Osborne. May has started to gradually try and rectify concerns in those areas by increasing public sector pay, more housebuilding, a student fees review etc
For me Corbyn is the child of ft with the high house price , low wage austerity economy.
You make austerity sound like a choice.
If Osborne’s austerity was so bad how did the Tories win a majority in 2015?
Also how on earth did the Tories get 25% ahead in the polls last April/May?
Face it Mrs May blew it.
Austerity was a choice.
The government chose not to apply it to pensioners.
It could have chosen instead not to triple student tuition fees and not to triple lock pensions.
As the BES study showed it's the 25-35's that swung massively towards Corbyn. Osborne's lost generation of Conservative voters.
The Conservatives forgot about aspiration.
For all their talk about 'detoxifying' the Conservative brand they made it far worse to anyone leaving university with £50k debts or anyone still renting a room in their 30s.
Both sets of Tories are blind to the fact that they were (and to an extent still bat both.
Cameron should have been toxic on both scores, he was a rich Old Etonian with a house in Notting Hill and in rural Oxfordshire and he went foxhunting. Yet he won a majority in 2015, the first Tory majority won in 23 years. He won in large part because he had charisma, hence Boris remains the Tories best bet
The Tories won with a majority in 2015 with an identical foxhunting pledge.
Proving it was not foxhunting which cost the Tories a majority in 2015
I see that Shawcroft lady is going with the 'I'm a moron' defence.
I had not seen the appalling and abhorrent post which was shared, and if I had seen it I would not have sent the supportive email.
They why the hell did you do so without knowing the facts?!
As for this:
This whole row is being stirred up to attack Jeremy, as we all know
I would suggest if people like her don't want to be seen to be suggesting there is no issue (which would be contrary to what Jeremy himself has said), then wording like 'This row is unfairly being used by some to attack Jeremy' would make the point about any political angle without looking like a complete denier.
Cake and eat it isn't just a UK phenomenon. The good operation of the EU depends on member states following the rules. The lack of respect for the rule of law in Hungary and Poland is a problem for the EU as well as the countries themselves.
You think France and Germany have followed the rules?
Mostly, yes. Germany is the subject of nearly twice as many infringement procedures as the UK, but if we accept the UK mostly abides by the rules, Germany is only somewhat worse. Even so, Germany complies the vast majority of EU rules:
I see Remain luvvies Nick Cohen and others are turning on Adonis and Campbell over there absurd attempts to blame the BBC for Brexit. The spat is a twitteriot !
The view that the BBC is pro-Brexit is pretty odd.
It is an interesting one. Of course I think most people accept that the BBC is not faultless but it does, as whole, attempt to be impartial and the like, and that there are people a little too eager to paint it as totally biased (again, not to say there may not be issues, but when the tiniest thing is cited as evidence, it seems over the top), but the idea it is pro-Brexit, even for opponents of the BBC, comes across as strange. I presume because it had Farage on too much? What else could it be? Not attacking Brexit enough?
Had Remain won Osborne might well have succeeded Cameron as PM and Corbyn could well have beaten Osborne in 2020 certainly.
Taking the harshest edges off of austerity by ending the public sector pay cap and building more houses is something May has got right ( though Osborne did at least increase the minimum wage)
It's possible to take the harshest edge off austerity because debt is now falling as a share of GDP, a luxury Osborne never had. What I find remarkable is that it has been so relatively painless to reduce the deficit by over £100bn, more than 1/8th of all government expenditure.
Some budgets have undoubtedly got tighter, the head count in the public sector has fallen fairly significantly (thankfully absorbed and then some by the private sector); some high demand services such as health are really hurting now, a significant pain for tomorrow has been built up in student debt but wow. To achieve this whilst taking millions out of tax altogether and only modestly increasing the taxes on the better off is a remarkable achievement which suggests massive quantities of money was being wasted before the crash.
Pumping endless billions into the public sector, with extra spending being deemed righteous in itself irrespective of result, as Gordon Brown did led inevitably to it becoming bloated and inefficient.
A similar thing happened to the nationalised heavy industries in the 1970s.
I suspect that the vast debt subsidised consumption bubble of the past two decades did likewise to the shopping and leisure sectors. The pruning of dead wood retail and restaurant chains is an overdue consequence.
Public spending only crept up incrementally during the New Labour years. Debt remained at about 40% of GDP. The explosion of debt was in the personal sector and the financial sector. Both of which should have been regulated more tightly.
The surge of debt in the private sector led to much greater tax receipts reducing the need for government borrowing.
Gordon Brown would never have regulated household borrowing more tightly - he needed that money to be pumped into the economy for both the feel-good votes and tax receipts it brought.
Spending levels were set based on the size of the economy, not the other way round. Brown was at fault because he believed central bank independence + inflation targeting had got rid of large recessions. It was lack of understanding, not mendacity. A lack of understanding that happened worldwide. See the results in the US and Eurozone too.
Megalomania more like , the great clunking dullard actually thought he was the most clever man in the world.
I see Remain luvvies Nick Cohen and others are turning on Adonis and Campbell over there absurd attempts to blame the BBC for Brexit. The spat is a twitteriot !
The view that the BBC is pro-Brexit is pretty odd.
It is an interesting one. Of course I think most people accept that the BBC is not faultless but it does, as whole, attempt to be impartial and the like, and that there are people a little too eager to paint it as totally biased (again, not to say there may not be issues, but when the tiniest thing is cited as evidence, it seems over the top), but the idea it is pro-Brexit, even for opponents of the BBC, comes across as strange. I presume because it had Farage on too much? What else could it be? Not attacking Brexit enough?
You woudn't know that the BBC is pro-Brexit from any aspects of its "comedy" output....
Mrs May has twice beaten Corbyn in the popular vote in both the 2017 county and general elections and might do so again in May.
Corbyn beat Cameron in the popular vote in the 2016 local elections in the only national election they faced each other.
The idea Corbyn's surge was down to May is absurd (beyond her stupid idea for a dementia tax, now dropped).
It was austerity, the public sector pay cap, high interest rates on student fees and out of reach house prices for the young which drove the Corbyn surge and all of which were present under Cameron and Osborne. May has started to gradually try and rectify concerns in those areas by increasing public sector pay, more housebuilding, a student fees review etc
For me Corbyn is the child of ft with the high house price , low wage austerity economy.
You make austerity sound like a choice.
If Osborne’s austerity was so bad how did the Tories win a majority in 2015?
Also how on earth did the Tories get 25% ahead in the polls last April/May?
Face it Mrs May blew it.
Austerity was a choice.
The government chose not to apply it to pensioners.
It could have chosen instead not to triple student tuition fees and not to triple lock pensions.
As the BES study showed it's the 25-35's that swung massively towards Corbyn. Osborne's lost generation of Conservative voters.
The Conservatives forgot about aspiration.
For all their talk about 'detoxifying' the Conservative brand they made it far worse to anyone leaving university with £50k debts or anyone still renting a room in their 30s.
Both sets of Tories are blind to the fact that they were (and to an extent still are) toxic for two reasons. The traditional Tories are blind to the toxicity about being a bunch of stuck up bigots that like killing foxes. The metropolitan Tories are blind to the toxicity about being a bunch of rich elitists that don't care about the less fortunate while they look after their rich mates. Both are exaggerated stereotypes but they need someone who can combat both.
Cameron should have been toxic on both scores, he was a rich Old Etonian with a house in Notting Hill and in rural Oxfordshire and he went foxhunting. Yet he won a majority in 2015, the first Tory majority won in 23 years. He won in large part because he had charisma, hence Boris remains the Tories best bet
I see that Shawcroft lady is going with the 'I'm a moron' defence.
I had not seen the appalling and abhorrent post which was shared, and if I had seen it I would not have sent the supportive email.
They why the hell did you do so without knowing the facts?!
As for this:
This whole row is being stirred up to attack Jeremy, as we all know
I would suggest if people like her don't want to be seen to be suggesting there is no issue (which would be contrary to what Jeremy himself has said), then wording like 'This row is unfairly being used by some to attack Jeremy' would make the point about any political angle without looking like a complete denier.
For me Corbyn is the child of ft with the high house price , low wage austerity economy.
You make austerity sound like a choice.
If Osborne’s austerity was so bad how did the Tories win a majority in 2015?
Also how on earth did the Tories get 25% ahead in the polls last April/May?
Face it Mrs May blew it.
Austerity was a choice.
The government chose not to apply it to pensioners.
It could have chosen instead not to triple student tuition fees and not to triple lock pensions.
As the BES study showed it's the 25-35's that swung massively towards Corbyn. Osborne's lost generation of Conservative voters.
The Conservatives forgot about aspiration.
For all their talk about 'detoxifying' the Conservative brand they made it far worse to anyone leaving university with £50k debts or anyone still renting a room in their 30s.
Both sets of Tories are blind to the fact that they were (and to an extent still are) toxic for two reasons. The traditional Tories are blind to the toxicity about being a bunch of stuck up bigots that like killing foxes. The metropolitan Tories are blind to the toxicity about being a bunch of rich elitists that don't care about the less fortunate while they look after their rich mates. Both are exaggerated stereotypes but they need someone who can combat both.
Cameron should have been toxic on both scores, he was a rich Old Etonian with a house in Notting Hill and in rural Oxfordshire and he went foxhunting. Yet he won a majority in 2015, the first Tory majority won in 23 years. He won in large part because he had charisma, hence Boris remains the Tories best bet
He won a majority in 2015 because he wasn't expected to and what was expected - an EdM minority government dependent upon the SNP - was believed to be more toxic than Cameron by enough people.
Which will help them in 2022 too given the most likely outcome will be a Corbyn minority government dependent upon the SNP
I see Remain luvvies Nick Cohen and others are turning on Adonis and Campbell over there absurd attempts to blame the BBC for Brexit. The spat is a twitteriot !
The view that the BBC is pro-Brexit is pretty odd.
It is an interesting one. Of course I think most people accept that the BBC is not faultless but it does, as whole, attempt to be impartial and the like, and that there are people a little too eager to paint it as totally biased (again, not to say there may not be issues, but when the tiniest thing is cited as evidence, it seems over the top), but the idea it is pro-Brexit, even for opponents of the BBC, comes across as strange. I presume because it had Farage on too much? What else could it be? Not attacking Brexit enough?
My problem with the BBC's coverage of Brexit is that it is formula, which they pretend gives balance, but doesn't engage with the topic at all. When the BBC reports A says X, it needs to find a B to say Y, the opposite of X. But there's no analysis of X or Y, why you might believe either of them or whether either of them actually stands up.
Faisal Islam is criticised on PB for bias, but at least he engages intelligently on the topic and comes up with insight, even if it's all one way. I would like to hear arguments from the Leave side and why it's a good thing. I suspect the reason why we don't hear about the upsides of Brexit is that there aren't any, and not that Leavers are denied a platform. Either way, it's a problem.
For me Corbyn is the child of ft with the high house price , low wage austerity economy.
You make austerity sound like a choice.
If Osborne’s austerity was so bad how did the Tories win a majority in 2015?
Also how on earth did the Tories get 25% ahead in the polls last April/May?
Face it Mrs May blew it.
Austerity was a choice.
The government chose not to apply it to pensioners.
It could have chosen instead not to triple student tuition fees and not to triple lock pensions.
As the BES study showed it's the 25-35's that swung massively towards Corbyn. Osborne's lost generation of Conservative voters.
The Conservatives forgot about aspiration.
For all their talk about 'detoxifying' the Conservative brand they made it far worse to anyone leaving university with £50k debts or anyone still renting a room in their 30s.
Both sets of Tories are blind to the fact that they were (and to an extent still are) toxic for two reasons. The traditional Tories are blind to the toxicity about being a bunch of stuck up bigots that like killing foxes. The metropolitan Tories are blind to the toxicity about being a bunch of rich elitists that don't care about the less fortunate while they look after their rich mates. Both are exaggerated stereotypes but they need someone who can combat both.
Cameron should have been toxic on both scores, he was a rich Old Etonian with a house in Notting Hill and in rural Oxfordshire and he went foxhunting. Yet he won a majority in 2015, the first Tory majority won in 23 years. He won in large part because he had charisma, hence Boris remains the Tories best bet
He won a majority in 2015 because he wasn't expected to and what was expected - an EdM minority government dependent upon the SNP - was believed to be more toxic than Cameron by enough people.
Which will help them in 2022 too given the most likely outcome will be a Corbyn minority government dependent upon the SNP
Not if Scotland is independent by then
Well, presumably even if there has been a vote for independence the legalities won't have been tied up, so they might still need some MPs?
I see Remain luvvies Nick Cohen and others are turning on Adonis and Campbell over there absurd attempts to blame the BBC for Brexit. The spat is a twitteriot !
The view that the BBC is pro-Brexit is pretty odd.
It is an interesting one. Of course I think most people accept that the BBC is not faultless but it does, as whole, attempt to be impartial and the like, and that there are people a little too eager to paint it as totally biased (again, not to say there may not be issues, but when the tiniest thing is cited as evidence, it seems over the top), but the idea it is pro-Brexit, even for opponents of the BBC, comes across as strange. I presume because it had Farage on too much? What else could it be? Not attacking Brexit enough?
My problem with the BBC's coverage of Brexit is that it is formula, which they pretend gives balance, but doesn't engage with the topic at all. When the BBC reports A says X, it needs to find a B to say Y, the opposite of X. But there's no analysis of X or Y, why you might believe either of them or whether either of them actually stands up.
Wasn't that a criticism of the BBC in relation to evolution vs creationism or some similar topic - that 'impartiality' had been mistaken as not, therefore, able to say whether one side had a lot more support or evidence than the other? I cannot recall
I see Remain luvvies Nick Cohen and others are turning on Adonis and Campbell over there absurd attempts to blame the BBC for Brexit. The spat is a twitteriot !
The view that the BBC is pro-Brexit is pretty odd.
I never thought I'd say this, but I think the BBC is actually trying fairly hard to be balanced on Brexit. Even if they don't always get it right.
I think there has been a change in coverage over the last few weeks. It now seems to be accepted as inevitable and not worth moaning about. When the issue was still, is this really going to happen, they were a long way from neutral.
I see Remain luvvies Nick Cohen and others are turning on Adonis and Campbell over there absurd attempts to blame the BBC for Brexit. The spat is a twitteriot !
The view that the BBC is pro-Brexit is pretty odd.
It is an interesting one. Of course I think most people accept that the BBC is not faultless but it does, as whole, attempt to be impartial and the like, and that there are people a little too eager to paint it as totally biased (again, not to say there may not be issues, but when the tiniest thing is cited as evidence, it seems over the top), but the idea it is pro-Brexit, even for opponents of the BBC, comes across as strange. I presume because it had Farage on too much? What else could it be? Not attacking Brexit enough?
My problem with the BBC's coverage of Brexit is that it is formula, which they pretend gives balance, but doesn't engage with the topic at all. When the BBC reports A says X, it needs to find a B to say Y, the opposite of X. But there's no analysis of X or Y, why you might believe either of them or whether either of them actually stands up.
Wasn't that a criticism of the BBC in relation to evolution vs creationism or some similar topic - that 'impartiality' had been mistaken as not, therefore, able to say whether one side had a lot more support or evidence than the other? I cannot recall
At the extreme, yes, because Creationism goes beyond the commonly understood facts of science. But even if both opposite opinions are potentially valid, you want them to be be analysed, put into context, assertions to be tested, otherwise you just end up with meaningless guff.
For me Corbyn is the child of ft with the high house price , low wage austerity economy.
You make austerity sound like a choice.
If Osborne’s austerity was so bad how did the Tories win a majority in 2015?
Also how on earth did the Tories get 25% ahead in the polls last April/May?
Face it Mrs May blew it.
Austerity was a choice.
The government chose not to apply it to pensioners.
It could have chosen instead not to triple student tuition fees and not to triple lock pensions.
As the BES study showed it's the 25-35's that swung massively towards Corbyn. Osborne's lost generation of Conservative voters.
The Conservatives forgot about aspiration.
For all their talk about 'detoxifying' the Conservative brand they made it far worse to anyone leaving university with £50k debts or anyone still renting a room in their 30s.
.
Cameron should have been toxic on both scores, he was a rich Old Etonian with a house in Notting Hill and in rural Oxfordshire and he went foxhunting. Yet he won a majority in 2015, the first Tory majority won in 23 years. He won in large part because he had charisma, hence Boris remains the Tories best bet
He won a majority in 2015 because he wasn't expected to and what was expected - an EdM minority government dependent upon the SNP - was believed to be more toxic than Cameron by enough people.
Which will help them in 2022 too given the most likely outcome will be a Corbyn minority government dependent upon the SNP
Not if Scotland is independent by then
Well, presumably even if there has been a vote for independence the legalities won't have been tied up, so they might still need some MPs?
True, would likely be in transition. Will be some job of cross transitions should it happen. SNP have to have another go whilst they have the majority or they could lose out big time. Will be interesting to see how Brexit goes and whether Tories keeping trying to rollback devolution and continue to lie and insult Scotland re same.
I had never previously considered that free movement might turn eastern Europe into the equivalent of the red states. Something else to ponder.
On Cameron Osborne and austerity it's revealing to me that people define the success or failure of that government in terms of whether austerity worked. It's quite possible to argue that austerity worked but the government was a failure. In my opinion what was needed in 2010 wasn't just a fiscal plan but a fundamental re-think of finance, housing, investment and many other things. But there was no imagination, no vision, no major new ideas. Just a view that government was there to balance the books as best it could with the major fillip of reduced corporation tax and then a hope that everything else would sort itself out. Except it didn't.
I was once in southern Indiana and I realised there were some towns there where it was shockingly clear there just wasn't an economy there outside of federal tenasfers. And there would never be an economy because it was just so far from any other potential economic centre that commuting was impossible. It made me realise the problems with free movement over a large area. Anyone with getup and go got up and went.
It was clear to anyone who owned a house (or whose parents did) and had the vaguest understanding of economic factors that the house price boom was going to be a problem. Both Brown and Osborne did nothing about it. Toxic for centrism amongst my generation.
...it does not matter whether you were born on a council estate or in a stately home or went to a comprehensive school or grammar school or posh private school the most common factor uniting general election winners, Wilson, Thatcher, Blair and Cameron for example is they all had charisma...
Weirdly, there is another factor that perhaps explains it better: the willingness to tailor one's personality to influence others. Wilson was a middle-class cigar-smoking statistician and civil servant who presented as a Northern working-class pipe-smoker. Thatcher was a Lincolnshire research chemist who reinvented her voice and self as Britannia. Whether Blair has an essential personality is possibly debatable[1], but presented as a classless blue-shirted professional and Estuary Englishman.
You could push this further.
Macmillan was a publisher and businessman whose persona was a grouse-shooting Laird. Lloyd-George had more sex than SeanT in a gimp suit but that was downplayed.
Let's push this further still.
The less successful you are at tailoring, the smaller your majority. Major is a tall attractive successful self-made professional but comes across as a grey civil servant. Cameron could never shake off the smell of the Ermine. Brown was born, lived and will die as Kirkaldy's swottiest autist. Churchill was gloriously never anything other than himself, but only attained power when elections were suspended and never won an election
I have a horrible feeling I know where this is going.
The only one of the current crop who is a successful politician, who has impressed even his enemies in any position he has occupied, who mirrors and reflects his interlocutor's stance, and who can reinvent himself as times demand, is... Gove.
Gulp.
[1] I'd argue that he has, but developed it in later life
I see Remain luvvies Nick Cohen and others are turning on Adonis and Campbell over there absurd attempts to blame the BBC for Brexit. The spat is a twitteriot !
The view that the BBC is pro-Brexit is pretty odd.
I never thought I'd say this, but I think the BBC is actually trying fairly hard to be balanced on Brexit. Even if they don't always get it right.
I think there has been a change in coverage over the last few weeks. It now seems to be accepted as inevitable and not worth moaning about. When the issue was still, is this really going to happen, they were a long way from neutral.
As I mentioned on the previous thread, the BBC line seems to be reflecting the Betfair position on the likelihood of Brexit happening. The BBC has come round to the view that it WILL now happen, so they get too much stick following a Remaner line that looks daily more exposed as unbalanced.
It was clear to anyone who owned a house (or whose parents did) and had the vaguest understanding of economic factors that the house price boom was going to be a problem. Both Brown and Osborne did nothing about it. Toxic for centrism amongst my generation.
Osborn did do something about it. He made it worse. Prices between 2009 and 2012/3 were flat. Then TSE's favorite pol introduced Help to Buy, and the laws of economics promptly demonstrated what happens when you inject money into a market with infinite demand and inelastic supply.
Thankfully he tried to kill BTL, and hopefully will succeed. We'll have to see...
For me Corbyn is the child of ft with the high house price , low wage austerity economy.
You make austerity sound like a choice.
If Osborne’s austerity was so bad how did the Tories win a majority in 2015?
Also how on earth did the Tories get 25% ahead in the polls last April/May?
Face it Mrs May blew it.
Austerity was a choice.
The government chose not to apply it to pensioners.
It could have chosen instead not to triple student tuition fees and not to triple lock pensions.
As the BES study showed it's the 25-35's that swung massively towards Corbyn. Osborne's lost generation of Conservative voters.
The Conservatives forgot about aspiration.
For all their talk about 'detoxifying' the Conservative brand they made it far worse to anyone leaving university with £50k debts or anyone still renting a room in their 30s.
Both sets of Tories are blind to the fact that they were (and to an extent still are) toxic for two reasons. The traditional Tories are blind to the toxicity about being a bunch of stuck up bigots that like killing foxes. The metropolitan Tories are blind to the toxicity about being a bunch of rich elitists that don't care about the less fortunate while they look after their rich mates. Both are exaggerated stereotypes but they need someone who can combat both.
Cameron should have been toxic on both scores, he was a rich Old Etonian with a house in Notting Hill and in rural Oxfordshire and he went foxhunting. Yet he won a majority in 2015, the first Tory majority won in 23 years. He won in large part because he had charisma, hence Boris remains the Tories best bet
He won a majority in 2015 because he wasn't expected to and what was expected - an EdM minority government dependent upon the SNP - was believed to be more toxic than Cameron by enough people.
Which will help them in 2022 too given the most likely outcome will be a Corbyn minority government dependent upon the SNP
I see Remain luvvies Nick Cohen and others are turning on Adonis and Campbell over there absurd attempts to blame the BBC for Brexit. The spat is a twitteriot !
The view that the BBC is pro-Brexit is pretty odd.
I never thought I'd say this, but I think the BBC is actually trying fairly hard to be balanced on Brexit. Even if they don't always get it right.
I think there has been a change in coverage over the last few weeks. It now seems to be accepted as inevitable and not worth moaning about. When the issue was still, is this really going to happen, they were a long way from neutral.
As I mentioned on the previous thread, the BBC line seems to be reflecting the Betfair position on the likelihood of Brexit happening. The BBC has come round to the view that it WILL now happen, so they get too much stick following a Remaner line that looks daily more exposed as unbalanced.
I too have sensed a change. There seems to have been some steering towards acceptance.
Comments
Insight to Hungary is interesting. I would also request the trope - which I dropped many moons ago - about his EU residence is observed by more of us (assuming you read his comments).
Now the serious business:
Boy-oh-boy, the accidental - and I think on reflection that the may agree - "antisemites" have been caught-out by Bagehot! Hopefully, after a few sobs over the 'Weet-Bix' (a'la Steve Smith) they will accept that they called this wrong.
:lives-in-hope:
A similar thing happened to the nationalised heavy industries in the 1970s.
I suspect that the vast debt subsidised consumption bubble of the past two decades did likewise to the shopping and leisure sectors. The pruning of dead wood retail and restaurant chains is an overdue consequence.
As the BES study showed it's the 25-35's that swung massively towards Corbyn.
Osborne's lost generation of Conservative voters.
Gordon Brown would never have regulated household borrowing more tightly - he needed that money to be pumped into the economy for both the feel-good votes and tax receipts it brought.
For all their talk about 'detoxifying' the Conservative brand they made it far worse to anyone leaving university with £50k debts or anyone still renting a room in their 30s.
Sorry to hear of SeanT's potentially ruptured marriage, though as he says the feeling that it was sort of mutual probably takes the edge off, and it always sounded a bit like a golden dream rather than cosy permanence, and perhaps felt that way?
Debt should have been reducing sharply given the size of the boom in the first half of the last decade, that it was allowed to remain so high going into the recession is why we still talk of ‘Austerity’ a decade later - even though it didn’t happen, public spending has increased every year thanks to the rapidly expanding debt interest bill.
What we had instead was a debt fueled consumption and house price bubble.
On Cameron Osborne and austerity it's revealing to me that people define the success or failure of that government in terms of whether austerity worked. It's quite possible to argue that austerity worked but the government was a failure. In my opinion what was needed in 2010 wasn't just a fiscal plan but a fundamental re-think of finance, housing, investment and many other things. But there was no imagination, no vision, no major new ideas. Just a view that government was there to balance the books as best it could with the major fillip of reduced corporation tax and then a hope that everything else would sort itself out. Except it didn't.
Brown's economy was dependent upon people borrowing ever more money to spend on ever more imported consumer tat and ever higher house prices.
It was fundamentally unbalanced and unsustainable.
Cameron and Osborne never showed any interest that the UK had a cumulative balance of payments deficit of over half a trillion quid during their time in office.
You are both correct in what you say.
1998 - last month of trade surplus
1999 - FTSE100 peaks
2000 - industrial output peaks
2002 - debt as a % of GDP starts rising
2003 - home ownership levels start to fall
2004 - productivity starts to stagnate
2006 - employment starts to fall
But most commentators, often being affluent middle aged people, were benefiting from the higher house prices and greater consumer spending. Its easier to assume things are fine for the country when they're fine for you personally.
Labour quietly reinstated six councillors who posted anti-Semitic messages
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/03/29/labour-quietly-reinstated-six-councillors-posted-anti-semitic/
What can the Labour party do to better tackle antisemitism? Richard Angell at PROGRESS offers 10 immediate steps to take the initiative.
Source:
http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2018/03/27/how-labour-can-start-stamping-out-antisemitism/
Speaker after speaker said some version of ‘words are cheap, it is time for action’. They are right. So what can Corbyn and Labour do to tackle antisemitism in the party? There are 10 things that could be quickly done to show real desire to change.
First, tell Ken Livingstone he is out, never coming back and not welcome at any Labour party, leader’s office or affiliated trade union events ever again.
Second, give the Compliance Unit the resources it need to process the complaints about antisemitism, ensure the National Constitutional Committee meets to hear the cases and write to everyone under investigation to demand of them that they make themselves available for hearings.
Third, call a special meeting of the National Executive Committee to reaffirm the Labour party’s full support for the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism and make clear that any engagement in Holocaust denial is not compatible with Labour membership – this is equally applicable to council candidate Alan Bull in Peterborough through to film maker Ken Loach.
Fourth, Corbyn could make a speech to a Jewish audience or with the Jewish press, on antisemitism, its history and its various manifestations. Point out that anti-Zionism is not inherently antisemitism but can be and often is – and that is not acceptable. Make clear that there are plenty of reasonable to criticisms of the state of Israel, its occupation of the West Bank and blockade of Gaza and the government of Israel – especially Benjamin Netanyahu’s rightwing coalition – but none of them are should include antisemitism, age old antisemitic tropes or likening Israel to the Nazis or apartheid South Africa. Use of ‘Zio’ and Zionism as a pejorative word or term of abuse should lead to automatic suspension.
Five, establish a Twitter and Facebook profile that singles out antisemitic supporters of his leadership – Scott Nelson and the like – with a simple instruction: ‘Either delete your tweet or delete your Twibbon – you do not do this in my name.’ Every time one of these repugnant antisemites rears their ugly head send the message and keep doing it until they get the message. This one act could do a lot to clean up the Labour twittersphere and Facebook for Jewish members, councillors and members of parliament.
Six, implement the final recommendations of Shami Chakrabarti’s report.
Seven, commission the Jewish Labour Movement to do a full audit of the of the actions taken since Jan Royall’s report, Chakrabarti’s report, the home affairs select committee’s investigation, highlight any outstanding actions and any further recommendations they would include and instruct the chair of the equalities sub-committee of the NEC to personally see they are implemented.
Eight, commission Jewish Labour Movement-led training for the NEC in modern antisemitism and unconscious bias like Labour Students have done. It should be compulsory and attended by the leader himself.
Nine, once and for all set up and independent complaints procedure, run by a third party that can deal with bullying, sexual harassment and that would include antisemitism. No one has confidence in the Labour party processes anymore, and rightly so, not least because the leader’s office cannot help themselves but interfere.
Ten, stop all attacks on the Jewish Labour Movement, which has been affiliated to Labour since the 1920s. That means making clear that JLM will not be stripped of its best practice awards, that JVL is not eligible for local or national affiliation, and asking Katy Clark to confirm that the relationship between JLM and the party, including its representation on the NEC through the socialist societies collective, will not be diminished by the democracy review.
https://twitter.com/JosephDaul/status/979656982121467904
Of course the EPP wasn't right wing enough for the UK Cons so they went off and formed the ECR.
I had not seen the appalling and abhorrent post which was shared, and if I had seen it I would not have sent the supportive email.
They why the hell did you do so without knowing the facts?!
As for this:
This whole row is being stirred up to attack Jeremy, as we all know
I would suggest if people like her don't want to be seen to be suggesting there is no issue (which would be contrary to what Jeremy himself has said), then wording like 'This row is unfairly being used by some to attack Jeremy' would make the point about any political angle without looking like a complete denier.
https://order-order.com/2018/03/30/shawcroft-speaks-anti-semitism-stirred-attack-jeremy/
Good thing being a moron is not a hindrance to being at the top levels of a party, we know that at least is something which can cross party lines,
https://global.handelsblatt.com/politics/germany-leading-breaker-eu-rules-883837
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-43595129
Oh, she does already?
Faisal Islam is criticised on PB for bias, but at least he engages intelligently on the topic and comes up with insight, even if it's all one way. I would like to hear arguments from the Leave side and why it's a good thing. I suspect the reason why we don't hear about the upsides of Brexit is that there aren't any, and not that Leavers are denied a platform. Either way, it's a problem.
It was clear to anyone who owned a house (or whose parents did) and had the vaguest understanding of economic factors that the house price boom was going to be a problem. Both Brown and Osborne did nothing about it. Toxic for centrism amongst my generation.
You could push this further.
Macmillan was a publisher and businessman whose persona was a grouse-shooting Laird. Lloyd-George had more sex than SeanT in a gimp suit but that was downplayed.
Let's push this further still.
The less successful you are at tailoring, the smaller your majority. Major is a tall attractive successful self-made professional but comes across as a grey civil servant. Cameron could never shake off the smell of the Ermine. Brown was born, lived and will die as Kirkaldy's swottiest autist. Churchill was gloriously never anything other than himself, but only attained power when elections were suspended and never won an election
I have a horrible feeling I know where this is going.
The only one of the current crop who is a successful politician, who has impressed even his enemies in any position he has occupied, who mirrors and reflects his interlocutor's stance, and who can reinvent himself as times demand, is... Gove.
Gulp.
[1] I'd argue that he has, but developed it in later life
Thankfully he tried to kill BTL, and hopefully will succeed. We'll have to see...