Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tomorrow is the third anniversary of David Cameron of winning

2

Comments

  • FenmanFenman Posts: 1,047
    There is one thing that remains unclear to me about Brexit. Can any PBer help? When I get my free Unicorn how much space does it need? Food? Do I need a barn to store hay? Is this actually just a poison chalice that's going to cost me a fortune? We should be told!
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786
    Fenman said:

    There is one thing that remains unclear to me about Brexit. Can any PBer help? When I get my free Unicorn how much space does it need? Food? Do I need a barn to store hay? Is this actually just a poison chalice that's going to cost me a fortune? We should be told!

    I believe they live in the cloud. Or is it ‘a’ cloud?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,052
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    viewcode said:

    Sandpit said:

    viewcode said:

    Sandpit said:

    Elliot said:

    GIN1138 said:

    .

    .
    The flawed assuption made was that Remain had democratic credentials and would unite behind getting a good deal after they lost.
    What would the unity solution for the Irish border look like?
    On the British side, exactly as it does now.

    On the Irish side, that’s up to them and their EU masters.
    Vote Leave. Give control to the EU.
    Let the EU control their own country, meanwhile we take back control and can do as we please.
    The point I was making

    [1] Might have got the wrong politician here: if so, apols.
    It would be brilliant if we could sit down with the Irish and decide how we can maintain the current arrangement with minimal change, but sadly that’s not allowed.
    Translation: It would be brilliant if we could just tell Ireland what our plan is and they would have no choice but to accept it, but sadly they are part of a union that gives them the upper hand so that isn’t the case.
    Not at all, I said it would be great if we could negotiate with Ireland - but they won’t let us. We have to negotiate with the EU instead, who are not interested in negotiating a deal that’s mutually beneficial in good faith, only a deal that’s completely one-sided and presented as an eleventh hour fait accompli.
    That's the power of a Union. It prevents the small being bullied by bigger neighbours.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,052
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    The size of the Civil Service has nearly halved since around 1975. Can any older posters advise if the quality of government (excluding party politics) has decreased in line with this?

    Does that include the reclassification of museum workers, librarians, transport administrators etc as charity workers or private sector employees?
    Good point.

    My interpretation of the numbers here (http://www.civilservant.org.uk/information-numbers.html) mean that excluding museum workers, librarians, transport administrators etc the number has reduced by 40%.
    A more pertinent question might be, did the size of the Civil Service in the 1970s lead to good government?

    You might find this blogpost on the size of the Civil Service in the nineteenth century of interest:

    http://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/blog/uk-government-did-we-rule-the-empire-with-4000-civil-servants/

    They omit what i still think is the most amazing statistic: until 1908, excluding customs and excise officers, there were just 25 civil servants in the Treasury. And they were very, very proud that despite a vast increase in workload they hadn't had to increase the number of staff.
    Of course, in 1974 we gained a partshare of the Euro Civil Service. Post Brexit we are going to need substantial CS recruitment, and particularly Customs and Revenue.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,733
    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    viewcode said:

    Sandpit said:

    viewcode said:

    Sandpit said:

    Elliot said:

    GIN1138 said:

    .

    .
    The flawed assuption made was that Remain had democratic credentials and would unite behind getting a good deal after they lost.
    What would the unity solution for the Irish border look like?
    On the British side, exactly as it does now.

    On the Irish side, that’s up to them and their EU masters.
    Vote Leave. Give control to the EU.
    Let the EU control their own country, meanwhile we take back control and can do as we please.
    The point I was making

    [1] Might have got the wrong politician here: if so, apols.
    It would be brilliant if we could sit down with the Irish and decide how we can maintain the current arrangement with minimal change, but sadly that’s not allowed.
    Translation: It would be brilliant if we could just tell Ireland what our plan is and they would have no choice but to accept it, but sadly they are part of a union that gives them the upper hand so that isn’t the case.
    Not at all, I said it would be great if we could negotiate with Ireland - but they won’t let us. We have to negotiate with the EU instead, who are not interested in negotiating a deal that’s mutually beneficial in good faith, only a deal that’s completely one-sided and presented as an eleventh hour fait accompli.
    That's the power of a Union. It prevents the small being bullied by bigger neighbours.
    Well, it does when it suits their purposes.

    At other times however...

    https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/ireland-s-future-depends-on-breaking-free-from-bailout-1.565236
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,052

    kle4 said:

    Truly terrible Liverpool display - every 4-5 games they go on a run where they look like they have forgotten how to play football. No energy, no ideas, no threat, even with all they have at their disposal. It's one of the signs of why Klopp is not a good manager - when they are not able to power forward, they have not a clue.

    Chelsea were ALWAYS going to win today (another winning bet for me....) as the nightmare for Spurs gets ever more likely to happen.... I'm at Wembley on Weds to see the next step in this calamity and then Sunday too...
    No fear for next Sunday. Leicester are rubbish at present,
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,543
    Sandpit said:


    Not at all, I said it would be great if we could negotiate with Ireland - but they won’t let us. We have to negotiate with the EU instead, who are not interested in negotiating a deal that’s mutually beneficial in good faith, only a deal that’s completely one-sided and presented as an eleventh hour fait accompli.

    The.EU owns a system that we want access to. It insists any such access is on its terms. I can't see' why we should expect anything different.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,563

    Mr. Palmer, Labour, in particular Watson, have form on supporting Max Mosley's censorious and unacceptable approach to press regulation.

    Given the number of Lords defeats on the EU recently, it will be interesting to see how the next vote goes.

    Don't care for Mosley, but I do think our press is a disgrace, and its self-serving rejection of decent rebuttals with equal prominence when they turn out to have lied is a double disgrace. To portrayt it as the end of press freedom is Just Silly.
    To described it as a curtailment of press freedom would be entirely accurate, though.

    Your blanket description of ‘our press’ as ‘a disgrace’ really make the point about the dangers of regulation.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    FF43 said:

    Sandpit said:


    Not at all, I said it would be great if we could negotiate with Ireland - but they won’t let us. We have to negotiate with the EU instead, who are not interested in negotiating a deal that’s mutually beneficial in good faith, only a deal that’s completely one-sided and presented as an eleventh hour fait accompli.

    The.EU owns a system that we want access to. It insists any such access is on its terms. I can't see' why we should expect anything different.
    So no deal then, and no £39bn.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,733
    Nigelb said:

    Mr. Palmer, Labour, in particular Watson, have form on supporting Max Mosley's censorious and unacceptable approach to press regulation.

    Given the number of Lords defeats on the EU recently, it will be interesting to see how the next vote goes.

    Don't care for Mosley, but I do think our press is a disgrace, and its self-serving rejection of decent rebuttals with equal prominence when they turn out to have lied is a double disgrace. To portrayt it as the end of press freedom is Just Silly.
    To described it as a curtailment of press freedom would be entirely accurate, though.

    Your blanket description of ‘our press’ as ‘a disgrace’ really make the point about the dangers of regulation.
    Loses its way in the last minute when Mark Steel tries to be funny, but this remains very telling:

    https://youtu.be/jG-1YQ1qC8w
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,052
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    viewcode said:

    Sandpit said:

    viewcode said:

    Sandpit said:

    Elliot said:

    GIN1138 said:

    .

    .
    The flawed assuption made was that Remain had democratic credentials and would unite behind getting a good deal after they lost.
    What would the unity solution for the Irish border look like?
    On the British side, exactly as it does now.

    On the Irish side, that’s up to them and their EU masters.
    Vote Leave. Give control to the EU.
    Let the EU control their own country, meanwhile we take back control and can do as we please.
    The point I was making

    [1] Might have got the wrong politician here: if so, apols.
    It would be brilliant if we could sit down with the Irish and decide how we can maintain the current arrangement with minimal change, but sadly that’s not allowed.
    Translation: It would be brilliant if we could just tell Ireland what our plan is and they would have no choice but to accept it, but sadly they are part of a union that gives them the upper hand so that isn’t the case.
    Not at all, I said it would be great if we could negotiate with Ireland - but they won’t let us. We have to negotiate with the EU instead, who are not interested in negotiating a deal that’s mutually beneficial in good faith, only a deal that’s completely one-sided and presented as an eleventh hour fait accompli.
    That's the power of a Union. It prevents the small being bullied by bigger neighbours.
    Well, it does when it suits their purposes.

    At other times however...

    https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/ireland-s-future-depends-on-breaking-free-from-bailout-1.565236
    It didn't work out that way though did it? Ireland is on the up again.

    Ultimately, devaluation is not a curefor economic ills, it is a drug providing short term relief at the price of long term addiction.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,733
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    viewcode said:

    Sandpit said:

    viewcode said:

    Sandpit said:

    Elliot said:

    GIN1138 said:

    .

    .
    The flawed assuption made was that Remain had democratic credentials and would unite behind getting a good deal after they lost.
    What would the unity solution for the Irish border look like?
    On the British side, exactly as it does now.

    On the Irish side, that’s up to them and their EU masters.
    Vote Leave. Give control to the EU.
    Let the EU control their own country, meanwhile we take back control and can do as we please.
    The point I was making

    [1] Might have got the wrong politician here: if so, apols.
    It would be brilliant if we could sit down with the Irish and decide how we can maintain the current arrangement with minimal change, but sadly that’s not allowed.
    Translation: It would be brilliant if we could just tell Ireland what our plan is and they would have no choice but to accept it, but sadly they are part of a union that gives them the upper hand so that isn’t the case.
    Not at all, I said it would be great if we could negotiate with Ireland - but they won’t let us. We have to negotiate with the EU instead, who are not interested in negotiating a deal that’s mutually beneficial in good faith, only a deal that’s completely one-sided and presented as an eleventh hour fait accompli.
    That's the power of a Union. It prevents the small being bullied by bigger neighbours.
    Well, it does when it suits their purposes.

    At other times however...

    https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/ireland-s-future-depends-on-breaking-free-from-bailout-1.565236
    It didn't work out that way though did it? Ireland is on the up again.

    Ultimately, devaluation is not a curefor economic ills, it is a drug providing short term relief at the price of long term addiction.
    It is showing some signs of recovery. But that is at least partly on credit provided by the ECB. They still have ongoing issues with a debt overhang (although we can hardly talk).
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,232
    Scott_P said:
    Is Sajid becoming a kind of secular Mohammad? No one's allowed to publish cartoons mocking him.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,092
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    viewcode said:

    Sandpit said:

    viewcode said:

    Sandpit said:

    Elliot said:

    GIN1138 said:

    .

    .
    The flawed assuption made was that Remain had democratic credentials and would unite behind getting a good deal after they lost.
    What would the unity solution for the Irish border look like?
    On the British side, exactly as it does now.

    On the Irish side, that’s up to them and their EU masters.
    Vote Leave. Give control to the EU.
    Let the EU control their own country, meanwhile we take back control and can do as we please.
    The point I was making

    [1] Might have got the wrong politician here: if so, apols.
    It would be brilliant if we could sit down with the Irish and decide how we can maintain the current arrangement with minimal change, but sadly that’s not allowed.
    Translation: It would be brilliant if we could just tell Ireland what our plan is and they would have no choice but to accept it, but sadly they are part of a union that gives them the upper hand so that isn’t the case.
    Not at all, I said it would be great if we could negotiate with Ireland - but they won’t let us. We have to negotiate with the EU instead, who are not interested in negotiating a deal that’s mutually beneficial in good faith, only a deal that’s completely one-sided and presented as an eleventh hour fait accompli.
    That's the power of a Union. It prevents the small being bullied by bigger neighbours.
    Well, it does when it suits their purposes.

    At other times however...

    https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/ireland-s-future-depends-on-breaking-free-from-bailout-1.565236
    It didn't work out that way though did it? Ireland is on the up again.

    Ultimately, devaluation is not a curefor economic ills, it is a drug providing short term relief at the price of long term addiction.
    It is showing some signs of recovery. But that is at least partly on credit provided by the ECB. They still have ongoing issues with a debt overhang (although we can hardly talk).
    Credit too from British taxpayers, courtesy of Geo Osborne.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,092
    Was anyone else in Paris 50 years ago for the événements? We were on a delayed honeymoon and quite oblivious of all the action tbh.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,392
    The main problem with that Sajid Javid cartoon is that it just echoes a thought 90% of the population had within 5 seconds of hearing of his appointment.

  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 3,701
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Interesting chart.

    The most successful winners of election majorities since WW2 are first Thatcher, Blair and Wilson with 3 each.

    Then Attlee with 2. Then Churchill, Eden, Macmillan, Heath, Major and Cameron with 1 each

    So 5 One Nation Tories, 2 Old Labour leaders, 1 rightwing Thatcherite Tory, 1 New Labour leader. Churchill appealed to both One Nation and right wing Tories.

    That suggests One Nation Toryism is the default ideology of most voters

    So in the last 44 years that default ideolgy managed to vote in one One Nation Tory pm for 5 years of minority govenment, and 1 year of smallish majority government? Not what you'd call overwhelmingly successful for the poor old defaulter.
    May too is arguably One Nation Tory and comfortably won most seats at the last general election even if not a majority
    The only leader in recent times to turn a working majority for one party into a working majority for the other was Ted Heath.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,122
    Scott_P said:
    Sanity restored - not sure about Stark Dawning of this parish .
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,052
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    viewcode said:

    Sandpit said:

    viewcode said:

    Sandpit said:

    Elliot said:

    GIN1138 said:

    .

    .
    The flawed assuption made was that Remain had democratic credentials and would unite behind getting a good deal after they lost.
    What would the unity solution for the Irish border look like?
    On the British side, exactly as it does now.

    On the Irish side, that’s up to them and their EU masters.
    Vote Leave. Give control to the EU.
    Let the EU control their own country, meanwhile we take back control and can do as we please.
    The point I was making

    [1] Might have got the wrong politician here: if so, apols.
    It would be brilliant if we could sit down with the Irish and decide how we can maintain the current arrangement with minimal change, but sadly that’s not allowed.
    Translation: It would be brilliant if we could just tell Ireland what our plan is and they would have no choice but to accept it, but sadly they are part of a union that gives them the upper hand so that isn’t the case.
    Not at all, I said it would be great if we could negotiate with Ireland - but they won’t let us. We have to negotiate with the EU instead, who are not interested in negotiating a deal that’s mutually beneficial in good faith, only a deal that’s completely one-sided and presented as an eleventh hour fait accompli.
    That's the power of a Union. It prevents the small being bullied by bigger neighbours.
    Well, it does when it suits their purposes.

    At other times however...

    https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/ireland-s-future-depends-on-breaking-free-from-bailout-1.565236
    It didn't work out that way though did it? Ireland is on the up again.

    Ultimately, devaluation is not a curefor economic ills, it is a drug providing short term relief at the price of long term addiction.
    It is showing some signs of recovery. But that is at least partly on credit provided by the ECB. They still have ongoing issues with a debt overhang (although we can hardly talk).
    C'mon, that is a little churlish. Ireland are predicted second fastest growth in the EU28, while we are holders of the wooden spoon:

    https://twitter.com/EU_Commission/status/993027604927086592?s=19
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,122

    The main problem with that Sajid Javid cartoon is that it just echoes a thought 90% of the population had within 5 seconds of hearing of his appointment.

    No it really doesn't - it illustrates the dangers of political partiality going too far. You aren't usually so unpleasant.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,543
    Sandpit said:

    FF43 said:

    Sandpit said:


    Not at all, I said it would be great if we could negotiate with Ireland - but they won’t let us. We have to negotiate with the EU instead, who are not interested in negotiating a deal that’s mutually beneficial in good faith, only a deal that’s completely one-sided and presented as an eleventh hour fait accompli.

    The.EU owns a system that we want access to. It insists any such access is on its terms. I can't see' why we should expect anything different.
    So no deal then, and no £39bn.
    That's a bit spiteful to our nose. Scorched earth is always possible but don't believe people won't notice the earth is scorched. Leavers need Brexit to be at least tolerable, even it is never actually going to be a success, I suggest.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786
    FF43 said:

    Sandpit said:

    FF43 said:

    Sandpit said:


    Not at all, I said it would be great if we could negotiate with Ireland - but they won’t let us. We have to negotiate with the EU instead, who are not interested in negotiating a deal that’s mutually beneficial in good faith, only a deal that’s completely one-sided and presented as an eleventh hour fait accompli.

    The.EU owns a system that we want access to. It insists any such access is on its terms. I can't see' why we should expect anything different.
    So no deal then, and no £39bn.
    That's a bit spiteful to our nose. Scorched earth is always possible but don't believe people won't notice the earth is scorched. Leavers need Brexit to be at least tolerable, even it is never actually going to be a success, I suggest.
    Yes, cutting off our nose wouldn’t be wise when the EU also owns the clinic for face saving.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,747

    The main problem with that Sajid Javid cartoon is that it just echoes a thought 90% of the population had within 5 seconds of hearing of his appointment.

    Swiftly followed by the successor thought 'A Tory minster who wouldn't bend the rules for his own family? Nah.'
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,733
    Foxy said:

    C'mon, that is a little churlish. Ireland are predicted second fastest growth in the EU28, while we are holders of the wooden spoon:

    https://twitter.com/EU_Commission/status/993027604927086592?s=19

    You may find this of interest:

    https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/why-do-the-irish-still-owe-more-than-the-greeks-1.3001026
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,052
    felix said:

    The main problem with that Sajid Javid cartoon is that it just echoes a thought 90% of the population had within 5 seconds of hearing of his appointment.

    No it really doesn't - it illustrates the dangers of political partiality going too far. You aren't usually so unpleasant.
    Though it does look as if there are a lot of issues to address in the Home Office. It will be an interesting test of character for Javid:

    https://twitter.com/guardian/status/993160090877349891?s=19
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Mr. Palmer, Labour, in particular Watson, have form on supporting Max Mosley's censorious and unacceptable approach to press regulation.

    Given the number of Lords defeats on the EU recently, it will be interesting to see how the next vote goes.

    Don't care for Mosley, but I do think our press is a disgrace, and its self-serving rejection of decent rebuttals with equal prominence when they turn out to have lied is a double disgrace. To portrayt it as the end of press freedom is Just Silly.
    To described it as a curtailment of press freedom would be entirely accurate, though.

    Your blanket description of ‘our press’ as ‘a disgrace’ really make the point about the dangers of regulation.
    Loses its way in the last minute when Mark Steel tries to be funny, but this remains very telling:

    https://youtu.be/jG-1YQ1qC8w
    Indeed. Mr Palmer is doing his usual "see no evil" act, I'm afraid.

    The proposal would make the press pay all the costs of any libel action against them, even when they won i.e. even when they published the truth. This is simply a licence for anyone to try and put a newspaper they don't like out of business by bringing repeated, completely unjustified legal actions in the hope of bankrupting them.

    It would force the press to join Impress, an organisation set up and funded by Max Mosley, a man who has the most enormous conflict of interest and therefore should be well away from any regulatory position. Quite why a party always banging on about the press being in the pocket of a few press barons should be so content to have a regulatory system in the hands of one person and, moreover, a person who is taking legal action to stop us knowing that it is his family trust funding Impress is hard to say. Possibly - and maybe I'm being too cynical here - it may have something to do with the enormous sums of money the same person has handed to the deputy leader of the Labour Party.

    And, in a spiteful little gesture, it would exempt not-for profit organisations i.e. the Guardian - coincidentally a paper which happens to support the Labour Party.

    None of this is necessary in order to get newspapers to print retractions in a way that they can be seen. It is using the proverbial sledgehammer to crack a nut.

    In this malicious proposal we see the three main elements of today's Labour Party: a fondness for people with fascist views; a dislike of any criticism or freedom to think differently to how Labour thinks we ought to think; and a hatred of profit.

    I do not like being personal but it is dear old Nick who is being "Just Silly" in thinking this is not an attack - a very deliberate attack - on the press and on our right to know.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    "war criminal wing" - very good TSE
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,052
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    C'mon, that is a little churlish. Ireland are predicted second fastest growth in the EU28, while we are holders of the wooden spoon:

    https://twitter.com/EU_Commission/status/993027604927086592?s=19

    You may find this of interest:

    https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/why-do-the-irish-still-owe-more-than-the-greeks-1.3001026
    Yes, the Irish are doing rather well, I see:

    "Moreover the debt-to-GDP ratio, the typical metric to determine whether debt is sustainable – tracking, as it does, a country’s debt to its income – is also slumping, down to 77.9 per cent from a high of 125 per cent reached in June 2013, and is forecast to fall to 76 by year end."



  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Foxy said:

    felix said:

    The main problem with that Sajid Javid cartoon is that it just echoes a thought 90% of the population had within 5 seconds of hearing of his appointment.

    No it really doesn't - it illustrates the dangers of political partiality going too far. You aren't usually so unpleasant.
    Though it does look as if there are a lot of issues to address in the Home Office. It will be an interesting test of character for Javid:

    https://twitter.com/guardian/status/993160090877349891?s=19
    If I were Mr Javid I’d be looking to replace the whole damn management team at the Home Office with outsiders. It’s clearly not fit for purpose and hasn’t been for decades.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    Cyclefree said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Mr. Palmer, Labour, in particular Watson, have form on supporting Max Mosley's censorious and unacceptable approach to press regulation.

    Given the number of Lords defeats on the EU recently, it will be interesting to see how the next vote goes.

    SNIP

    Your blanket description of ‘our press’ as ‘a disgrace’ really make the point about the dangers of regulation.
    Loses its way in the last minute when Mark Steel tries to be funny, but this remains very telling:

    https://youtu.be/jG-1YQ1qC8w
    Indeed. Mr Palmer is doing his usual "see no evil" act, I'm afraid.

    The proposal would make the press pay all the costs of any libel action against them, even when they won i.e. even when they published the truth. This is simply a licence for anyone to try and put a newspaper they don't like out of business by bringing repeated, completely unjustified legal actions in the hope of bankrupting them.

    It would force the press to join Impress, an organisation set up and funded by Max Mosley, a man who has the most enormous conflict of interest and therefore should be well away from any regulatory position. Quite why a party always banging on about the press being in the pocket of a few press barons should be so content to have a regulatory system in the hands of one person and, moreover, a person who is taking legal action to stop us knowing that it is his family trust funding Impress is hard to say. Possibly - and maybe I'm being too cynical here - it may have something to do with the enormous sums of money the same person has handed to the deputy leader of the Labour Party.

    And, in a spiteful little gesture, it would exempt not-for profit organisations i.e. the Guardian - coincidentally a paper which happens to support the Labour Party.

    None of this is necessary in order to get newspapers to print retractions in a way that they can be seen. It is using the proverbial sledgehammer to crack a nut.

    In this malicious proposal we see the three main elements of today's Labour Party: a fondness for people with fascist views; a dislike of any criticism or freedom to think differently to how Labour thinks we ought to think; and a hatred of profit.

    I do not like being personal but it is dear old Nick who is being "Just Silly" in thinking this is not an attack - a very deliberate attack - on the press and on our right to know.
    I used to refer to Nick as "Arsene Palmer"

    He has a tendency to not see things if they are negatives for his tribe.
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138
    viewcode said:

    Thank You TSE
    I am now educated.
    Can you do a graph of how long the Liberal Elite have been in power please

    Brexit was an argument between one faction of the elite and another. One faction recruited the poor to their side and when their usefulness expires they will be discarded. If you genuinely think Brexit was a defeat of the elite, I have a bridge to sell you.
    Quite. It was a Conservative elite, of course. Elites always are.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195

    The main problem with that Sajid Javid cartoon is that it just echoes a thought 90% of the population had within 5 seconds of hearing of his appointment.

    Wow - I hardly think so Sandy

    Not your finest post mate.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,052
    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    felix said:

    The main problem with that Sajid Javid cartoon is that it just echoes a thought 90% of the population had within 5 seconds of hearing of his appointment.

    No it really doesn't - it illustrates the dangers of political partiality going too far. You aren't usually so unpleasant.
    Though it does look as if there are a lot of issues to address in the Home Office. It will be an interesting test of character for Javid:

    https://twitter.com/guardian/status/993160090877349891?s=19
    If I were Mr Javid I’d be looking to replace the whole damn management team at the Home Office with outsiders. It’s clearly not fit for purpose and hasn’t been for decades.
    They are only following orders. The real question is whether those orders change.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,741
    Evening all :)

    For all the jibes about "Blair", he wasn't that different in his own way from Wilson. Both were able to convince millions of voters (many of them former Conservatives) that the Labour Party they led was a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left.

    Both Blair and Wilson resonated with their time - Wilson had the technocratic "white heat of technology", a message wrapped in modernity for what seemed an optimistic new age.

    Blair had "Cool Britannia", an optimistic message for the post-Cold War era and both faced Conservative Governments, exhausted and out of touch after long periods in Government.

    Corbyn's fate is perhaps to be the same as Kinnock's. For all the latter's achievements in beginning the rehabilitation of Labour he was never seen as a credible Prime Minister in the way John Smith might have been and Blair certainly was.

    Aspects of politics can be seen as cyclical but all politics isn't cyclical - if it was, it would be much easier to predict the future.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,761
    Floater said:

    "war criminal wing" - very good TSE

    +1. Gave me a good laugh.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    Cyclefree said:

    Indeed. Mr Palmer is doing his usual "see no evil" act, I'm afraid.

    The proposal would make the press pay all the costs of any libel action against them, even when they won i.e. even when they published the truth. This is simply a licence for anyone to try and put a newspaper they don't like out of business by bringing repeated, completely unjustified legal actions in the hope of bankrupting them.

    It would force the press to join Impress, an organisation set up and funded by Max Mosley, a man who has the most enormous conflict of interest and therefore should be well away from any regulatory position. Quite why a party always banging on about the press being in the pocket of a few press barons should be so content to have a regulatory system in the hands of one person and, moreover, a person who is taking legal action to stop us knowing that it is his family trust funding Impress is hard to say. Possibly - and maybe I'm being too cynical here - it may have something to do with the enormous sums of money the same person has handed to the deputy leader of the Labour Party.

    And, in a spiteful little gesture, it would exempt not-for profit organisations i.e. the Guardian - coincidentally a paper which happens to support the Labour Party.

    None of this is necessary in order to get newspapers to print retractions in a way that they can be seen. It is using the proverbial sledgehammer to crack a nut.

    In this malicious proposal we see the three main elements of today's Labour Party: a fondness for people with fascist views; a dislike of any criticism or freedom to think differently to how Labour thinks we ought to think; and a hatred of profit.

    I do not like being personal but it is dear old Nick who is being "Just Silly" in thinking this is not an attack - a very deliberate attack - on the press and on our right to know.


    +10

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    felix said:

    The main problem with that Sajid Javid cartoon is that it just echoes a thought 90% of the population had within 5 seconds of hearing of his appointment.

    No it really doesn't - it illustrates the dangers of political partiality going too far. You aren't usually so unpleasant.
    Though it does look as if there are a lot of issues to address in the Home Office. It will be an interesting test of character for Javid:

    https://twitter.com/guardian/status/993160090877349891?s=19
    If I were Mr Javid I’d be looking to replace the whole damn management team at the Home Office with outsiders. It’s clearly not fit for purpose and hasn’t been for decades.
    They are only following orders. The real question is whether those orders change.
    I imagine that inside the HO resembles something out of Yes Mininster. It doesn’t matter who is the politician notionally in charge, things continue to carry on as they’ve always done, and the CS bureaucracy is what’s important.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516

    Scott_P said:
    Is Sajid becoming a kind of secular Mohammad? No one's allowed to publish cartoons mocking him.
    Were there mass protests, buildings set on fire and several deaths? No? Not really the same.

    Freedom of speech allows you to say what you want. It doesn't mean others can't judge you for what you say.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516
    FF43 said:

    Sandpit said:


    Not at all, I said it would be great if we could negotiate with Ireland - but they won’t let us. We have to negotiate with the EU instead, who are not interested in negotiating a deal that’s mutually beneficial in good faith, only a deal that’s completely one-sided and presented as an eleventh hour fait accompli.

    The.EU owns a system that we want access to. It insists any such access is on its terms. I can't see' why we should expect anything different.
    Equally, if the EU wants access to the UK, including the biggest city economy in Europe and the world's largest financial centre, it can compromise.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516

    Sean_F said:

    I think we can add 'nasty' to 'barking':

    https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/993151218162823169

    At what point did Andrew Adonis go mad?
    Why does someone tweeting a cartoon suggest they're insane?
    ... have you seen his twitter recently??
    No I haven't. Presumably he isn't a slavish advocate of ultra Hard Brexit and his lips aren't firmly stapled to Theresa's buttocks. Therefore his mental health has to be questioned.
    There are plenty of sane Remainers. Adonis is not one of them. He has had a mini-breakdown over Brexit.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,876
    Drinking a bottle of Israeli wine from the Negev Desert I picked up when I was over there last week. It’s fantastic - all blackberry - but unbelievably strong. I used to be able to do it, but not any more. Tomorrow will be tough.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,761
    Anyway, these charts reflect something that I was thinking about this morning, before the BBQ and more than a bottle of wine. Why do the Tories find it so hard to get a proper majority? They have not had one since Maggie. On a good day, like 2015, the Tories can just about scrape a majority but it has become almost impossible for them to do much better than this. May got 42% of the vote and still fell short.

    It seems to me, even without the wine, that this country has been changed so that there is a natural soft left majority such as Blair was able to put together. The Tories can, just, overcome this by having an exceptional leader like Cameron or an exceptionally repellent opponent like Corbyn but the legacy of Blair (and Brown) is a massive and massively entitled middle class that either works for the public sector or for the rather more amorphous third sector using largely public money.

    This new class is not only numerous but also completely dominates our media and policy making structures whether through charities, think tanks, institutes, Universities and the like. It is currently furious that it did not get its way on Brexit but this is an almost unique occurrence and they have by no means given up yet.

    They have the effect that even Tory governments sign up to ever increasing public spending and the State being a solution to almost any problem. They drive a consensus which is politically rather than economically driven. And it may not be sustainable. Maggie built a natural right wing majority in this country. Blair reversed it. No one since has managed to change the weather again.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,876
    DavidL said:

    Anyway, these charts reflect something that I was thinking about this morning, before the BBQ and more than a bottle of wine. Why do the Tories find it so hard to get a proper majority? They have not had one since Maggie. On a good day, like 2015, the Tories can just about scrape a majority but it has become almost impossible for them to do much better than this. May got 42% of the vote and still fell short.

    It seems to me, even without the wine, that this country has been changed so that there is a natural soft left majority such as Blair was able to put together. The Tories can, just, overcome this by having an exceptional leader like Cameron or an exceptionally repellent opponent like Corbyn but the legacy of Blair (and Brown) is a massive and massively entitled middle class that either works for the public sector or for the rather more amorphous third sector using largely public money.

    This new class is not only numerous but also completely dominates our media and policy making structures whether through charities, think tanks, institutes, Universities and the like. It is currently furious that it did not get its way on Brexit but this is an almost unique occurrence and they have by no means given up yet.

    They have the effect that even Tory governments sign up to ever increasing public spending and the State being a solution to almost any problem. They drive a consensus which is politically rather than economically driven. And it may not be sustainable. Maggie built a natural right wing majority in this country. Blair reversed it. No one since has managed to change the weather again.

    The majority of people work in the private sector. All votes are equal. A disgusting, middle class, public sector vote is worth the same as a noble, working class, free enterprise vote. Most people are mostly the same. They want what is best for their families, themselves and their country, in that order.

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786
    DavidL said:

    Anyway, these charts reflect something that I was thinking about this morning, before the BBQ and more than a bottle of wine. Why do the Tories find it so hard to get a proper majority? They have not had one since Maggie. On a good day, like 2015, the Tories can just about scrape a majority but it has become almost impossible for them to do much better than this. May got 42% of the vote and still fell short.

    It seems to me, even without the wine, that this country has been changed so that there is a natural soft left majority such as Blair was able to put together. The Tories can, just, overcome this by having an exceptional leader like Cameron or an exceptionally repellent opponent like Corbyn but the legacy of Blair (and Brown) is a massive and massively entitled middle class that either works for the public sector or for the rather more amorphous third sector using largely public money.

    This new class is not only numerous but also completely dominates our media and policy making structures whether through charities, think tanks, institutes, Universities and the like. It is currently furious that it did not get its way on Brexit but this is an almost unique occurrence and they have by no means given up yet.

    They have the effect that even Tory governments sign up to ever increasing public spending and the State being a solution to almost any problem. They drive a consensus which is politically rather than economically driven. And it may not be sustainable. Maggie built a natural right wing majority in this country. Blair reversed it. No one since has managed to change the weather again.

    Putting the Corbyn phenomenon to one side, the problem the Tories have had since the early 90s is allowing Labour to outflank them on pro-business internationalism by succumbing to their Eurosceptic wing. The Tories always need to be more pro-EU than Labour to avoid this trap but to do this they need to break free from their own perception that to be in favour of the EU is inherently a soft left position - it isn't.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516
    DavidL said:

    Anyway, these charts reflect something that I was thinking about this morning, before the BBQ and more than a bottle of wine. Why do the Tories find it so hard to get a proper majority? They have not had one since Maggie. On a good day, like 2015, the Tories can just about scrape a majority but it has become almost impossible for them to do much better than this. May got 42% of the vote and still fell short.

    It seems to me, even without the wine, that this country has been changed so that there is a natural soft left majority such as Blair was able to put together. The Tories can, just, overcome this by having an exceptional leader like Cameron or an exceptionally repellent opponent like Corbyn but the legacy of Blair (and Brown) is a massive and massively entitled middle class that either works for the public sector or for the rather more amorphous third sector using largely public money.

    This new class is not only numerous but also completely dominates our media and policy making structures whether through charities, think tanks, institutes, Universities and the like. It is currently furious that it did not get its way on Brexit but this is an almost unique occurrence and they have by no means given up yet.

    They have the effect that even Tory governments sign up to ever increasing public spending and the State being a solution to almost any problem. They drive a consensus which is politically rather than economically driven. And it may not be sustainable. Maggie built a natural right wing majority in this country. Blair reversed it. No one since has managed to change the weather again.

    The basic problem for the Tories is that so few people benefit from capitalism these days. That is primarily due to the cost of housing. Even people that slug their guts out to get a good degree, do all the necessary internships, get a great milk round offer, work hard in London for ten years and marry someone similar end up not being able to get more than a three bed house unless they have an hour commute each way. And to do that you need to be working 15 hours a week more than our parents.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516

    DavidL said:

    Anyway, these charts reflect something that I was thinking about this morning, before the BBQ and more than a bottle of wine. Why do the Tories find it so hard to get a proper majority? They have not had one since Maggie. On a good day, like 2015, the Tories can just about scrape a majority but it has become almost impossible for them to do much better than this. May got 42% of the vote and still fell short.

    It seems to me, even without the wine, that this country has been changed so that there is a natural soft left majority such as Blair was able to put together. The Tories can, just, overcome this by having an exceptional leader like Cameron or an exceptionally repellent opponent like Corbyn but the legacy of Blair (and Brown) is a massive and massively entitled middle class that either works for the public sector or for the rather more amorphous third sector using largely public money.

    This new class is not only numerous but also completely dominates our media and policy making structures whether through charities, think tanks, institutes, Universities and the like. It is currently furious that it did not get its way on Brexit but this is an almost unique occurrence and they have by no means given up yet.

    They have the effect that even Tory governments sign up to ever increasing public spending and the State being a solution to almost any problem. They drive a consensus which is politically rather than economically driven. And it may not be sustainable. Maggie built a natural right wing majority in this country. Blair reversed it. No one since has managed to change the weather again.

    Putting the Corbyn phenomenon to one side, the problem the Tories have had since the early 90s is allowing Labour to outflank them on pro-business internationalism by succumbing to their Eurosceptic wing. The Tories always need to be more pro-EU than Labour to avoid this trap but to do this they need to break free from their own perception that to be in favour of the EU is inherently a soft left position - it isn't.
    The Tories currently have their highest share of the vote for a generation. They failed to get a majority because Corbyn's Labour have done the same. How on Earth you look at that and blame it on the Tories being insufficiently pro-business internationalist is beyond me.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    DavidL said:



    It seems to me, even without the wine, that this country has been changed so that there is a natural soft left majority such as Blair was able to put together. The Tories can, just, overcome this by having an exceptional leader like Cameron or an exceptionally repellent opponent like Corbyn but the legacy of Blair (and Brown) is a massive and massively entitled middle class that either works for the public sector or for the rather more amorphous third sector using largely public money.

    This new class is not only numerous but also completely dominates our media and policy making structures whether through charities, think tanks, institutes, Universities and the like. It is currently furious that it did not get its way on Brexit but this is an almost unique occurrence and they have by no means given up yet.

    They have the effect that even Tory governments sign up to ever increasing public spending and the State being a solution to almost any problem. They drive a consensus which is politically rather than economically driven. And it may not be sustainable. Maggie built a natural right wing majority in this country. Blair reversed it. No one since has managed to change the weather again.

    Maggie had 2 advantages: (1) she came to power when things had got so bad that even those who would normally be members of what you call the "soft left" class felt the need for some drastic change; and (2) she argued the case for what she was trying to do. She argued for why the state should be smaller and taxes lower and people should take more responsibility and why socialism brought disaster and why Communism (in foreign affairs) was wrong. She did not simply assert. She argued her case. And she did not simply accept previously accepted verities and assumptions.

    No Tory leader since then has done the latter, even though Cameron came to power in circumstances not that dissimilar to those in 1979. If you want to change the political weather you need to have some idea of what you want to change it to and have the ability to argue your case. One reason the Tories have not done this is because Cameron felt that he had to accept existing assumptions rather than challenge them. And too many of them have been arguing about Europe. Even if you accept that this is the most important issue for ordinary voters (itself a colourable statement), they simply have not been able to argue for how they want to change things nor how they intend getting there. Thatcher could do - and did do - both. Today's Tories: not so much.

    If you want the change you are seeking you need to have people behind the scenes doing the intellectual heft - think tanks and the like. Are there such things anymore? Is anyone in our political class (and I'm thinking more widely than just MPs) doing any thinking at all?
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223
    edited May 2018
    DavidL said:

    Anyway, these charts reflect something that I was thinking about this morning, before the BBQ and more than a bottle of wine. Why do the Tories find it so hard to get a proper majority? They have not had one since Maggie. On a good day, like 2015, the Tories can just about scrape a majority but it has become almost impossible for them to do much better than this. May got 42% of the vote and still fell short.

    It seems to me, even without the wine, that this country has been changed so that there is a natural soft left majority such as Blair was able to put together. The Tories can, just, overcome this by having an exceptional leader like Cameron or an exceptionally repellent opponent like Corbyn but the legacy of Blair (and Brown) is a massive and massively entitled middle class that either works for the public sector or for the rather more amorphous third sector using largely public money.

    This new class is not only numerous but also completely dominates our media and policy making structures whether through charities, think tanks, institutes, Universities and the like. It is currently furious that it did not get its way on Brexit but this is an almost unique occurrence and they have by no means given up yet.

    They have the effect that even Tory governments sign up to ever increasing public spending and the State being a solution to almost any problem. They drive a consensus which is politically rather than economically driven. And it may not be sustainable. Maggie built a natural right wing majority in this country. Blair reversed it. No one since has managed to change the weather again.

    Public sector employment has fallen by 1.1 million since 2009, but 700,000 of this represents the reprivatisation of Lloyds, and other sleights of hand (classifying housing associations and colleges as private sector). Ignoring reclassifications, employment is back to where it was in 2002/3. It is still 200-300,000 above where it was in 1999, when the government ran a surplus.

    I think the biggest problems the Tories face electorally are the decline in home ownership, and the expansion of tax credits to a large proportion of the workforce. The median ‘taxpayer’ actually takes more from the public purse than they put in.
  • ExiledInScotlandExiledInScotland Posts: 1,501
    edited May 2018
    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    For all the jibes about "Blair", he wasn't that different in his own way from Wilson. Both were able to convince millions of voters (many of them former Conservatives) that the Labour Party they led was a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left.

    Both Blair and Wilson resonated with their time - Wilson had the technocratic "white heat of technology", a message wrapped in modernity for what seemed an optimistic new age.

    Blair had "Cool Britannia", an optimistic message for the post-Cold War era and both faced Conservative Governments, exhausted and out of touch after long periods in Government.

    Corbyn's fate is perhaps to be the same as Kinnock's. For all the latter's achievements in beginning the rehabilitation of Labour he was never seen as a credible Prime Minister in the way John Smith might have been and Blair certainly was.

    Aspects of politics can be seen as cyclical but all politics isn't cyclical - if it was, it would be much easier to predict the future.

    I tend to trust the common sense of the British people. They want reasonably competent government that at least tries to balance what we need with what we can afford. They choose leaders on that basis.

    The problem is that the balance is being broken as we have proportionally more retired people. The current centre-left model relies on increasing taxation which eventually stops working. I don't know what the answer is but it won't be pretty.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Elliot said:

    DavidL said:

    Anyway, these charts reflect something that I was thinking about this morning, before the BBQ and more than a bottle of wine. Why do the Tories find it so hard to get a proper majority? They have not had one since Maggie. On a good day, like 2015, the Tories can just about scrape a majority but it has become almost impossible for them to do much better than this. May got 42% of the vote and still fell short.

    It seems to me, even without the wine, that this country has been changed so that there is a natural soft left majority such as Blair was able to put together. The Tories can, just, overcome this by having an exceptional leader like Cameron or an exceptionally repellent opponent like Corbyn but the legacy of Blair (and Brown) is a massive and massively entitled middle class that either works for the public sector or for the rather more amorphous third sector using largely public money.

    This new class is not only numerous but also completely dominates our media and policy making structures whether through charities, think tanks, institutes, Universities and the like. It is currently furious that it did not get its way on Brexit but this is an almost unique occurrence and they have by no means given up yet.

    They have the effect that even Tory governments sign up to ever increasing public spending and the State being a solution to almost any problem. They drive a consensus which is politically rather than economically driven. And it may not be sustainable. Maggie built a natural right wing majority in this country. Blair reversed it. No one since has managed to change the weather again.

    The basic problem for the Tories is that so few people benefit from capitalism these days. That is primarily due to the cost of housing. Even people that slug their guts out to get a good degree, do all the necessary internships, get a great milk round offer, work hard in London for ten years and marry someone similar end up not being able to get more than a three bed house unless they have an hour commute each way. And to do that you need to be working 15 hours a week more than our parents.
    All true but applies to one part of the country only. My nephews and nieces living a long way from London have had absolutely no problem getting jobs, buying houses and starting families.

    It is a serious issue but to make it the only reason is too limited.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307
    Completely off topic.
    I've just booked several flights european flights on 'go to gate', an online travel agency. I've used them several times before, so they are a legitimate concern.
    Basically, in both cases the flights were about 20% cheaper than booking them with the airline, or another more established travel agency like opodo or expedia.
    The actual reservation generated is with the airline (in this case Norwegian and Finnair). I can access the reservation online through the airline website, so I can add baggage, book seats etc there if I want to.
    But in clicking through to book the ticket, go to gate tried to flog me endless amounts of totally useless services. They also tried sell me extra baggage and seat reservations at 3 times the cost it would to book these services directly with the airline.
    For instance, they say that I can get a 'more flexible' ticket for £9 more, implying that you can change the ticket date through go to gate. But I know for a fact that you could not change the ticket on the fare I have booked, as they aren't flexible tickets.
    They also warned me that if I had any request, it would cost me £29 to speak to them, unless I paid them £9 to get the 'standard' service. Or, if I paid them £29, I could get a premium customer service.
    Its all bullsh*t, because the customer service is with the airline itself, go to gate are just a travel agency.
    It strikes me as ridiculous that they can operate a business model whereby they undercut the airlines by selling tickets at a loss, then get away with selling meaningless services to people who are gullible, naive or ignorant.
    The airlines probably don't care, because they probably earn the same amount if I book the flight with them or go to gate. But I think that they should try and shut these websites down.



  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,761

    DavidL said:

    Anyway, these charts reflect something that I was thinking about this morning, before the BBQ and more than a bottle of wine. Why do the Tories find it so hard to get a proper majority? They have not had one since Maggie. On a good day, like 2015, the Tories can just about scrape a majority but it has become almost impossible for them to do much better than this. May got 42% of the vote and still fell short.

    It seems to me, even without the wine, that this country has been changed so that there is a natural soft left majority such as Blair was able to put together. The Tories can, just, overcome this by having an exceptional leader like Cameron or an exceptionally repellent opponent like Corbyn but the legacy of Blair (and Brown) is a massive and massively entitled middle class that either works for the public sector or for the rather more amorphous third sector using largely public money.

    This new class is not only numerous but also completely dominates our media and policy making structures whether through charities, think tanks, institutes, Universities and the like. It is currently furious that it did not get its way on Brexit but this is an almost unique occurrence and they have by no means given up yet.

    They have the effect that even Tory governments sign up to ever increasing public spending and the State being a solution to almost any problem. They drive a consensus which is politically rather than economically driven. And it may not be sustainable. Maggie built a natural right wing majority in this country. Blair reversed it. No one since has managed to change the weather again.

    The majority of people work in the private sector. All votes are equal. A disgusting, middle class, public sector vote is worth the same as a noble, working class, free enterprise vote. Most people are mostly the same. They want what is best for their families, themselves and their country, in that order.

    That is true Joff but the self entitled people I am talking about dominate the BBC, C4 News and all other media outlets not just by populating the programs but providing their views to those that make the programs. They set the parameters within which debate takes place. Those working for the private sector don't have those ways of having their views heard (referendum excepted). It could be argued that those self entitled people are civilised, urbane, compassionate and reasonable so it is a good thing that they fix the terms of the debate. But it is undoubtedly much, much easier for Labour to get a decent majority in the UK than the Tories. Even when not led by a war criminal.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786
    edited May 2018
    Elliot said:

    DavidL said:

    Anyway, these charts reflect something that I was thinking about this morning, before the BBQ and more than a bottle of wine. Why do the Tories find it so hard to get a proper majority? They have not had one since Maggie. On a good day, like 2015, the Tories can just about scrape a majority but it has become almost impossible for them to do much better than this. May got 42% of the vote and still fell short.

    It seems to me, even without the wine, that this country has been changed so that there is a natural soft left majority such as Blair was able to put together. The Tories can, just, overcome this by having an exceptional leader like Cameron or an exceptionally repellent opponent like Corbyn but the legacy of Blair (and Brown) is a massive and massively entitled middle class that either works for the public sector or for the rather more amorphous third sector using largely public money.

    This new class is not only numerous but also completely dominates our media and policy making structures whether through charities, think tanks, institutes, Universities and the like. It is currently furious that it did not get its way on Brexit but this is an almost unique occurrence and they have by no means given up yet.

    They have the effect that even Tory governments sign up to ever increasing public spending and the State being a solution to almost any problem. They drive a consensus which is politically rather than economically driven. And it may not be sustainable. Maggie built a natural right wing majority in this country. Blair reversed it. No one since has managed to change the weather again.

    Putting the Corbyn phenomenon to one side, the problem the Tories have had since the early 90s is allowing Labour to outflank them on pro-business internationalism by succumbing to their Eurosceptic wing. The Tories always need to be more pro-EU than Labour to avoid this trap but to do this they need to break free from their own perception that to be in favour of the EU is inherently a soft left position - it isn't.
    The Tories currently have their highest share of the vote for a generation. They failed to get a majority because Corbyn's Labour have done the same. How on Earth you look at that and blame it on the Tories being insufficiently pro-business internationalist is beyond me.
    Both the 2015 and 2017 elections were aberrations, in different ways. In 2015 the Lib Dem collapse gifted the Tories a majority, and 2017 was a referendum on Theresa May's leadership.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,761
    Elliot said:

    DavidL said:

    Anyway, these charts reflect something that I was thinking about this morning, before the BBQ and more than a bottle of wine. Why do the Tories find it so hard to get a proper majority? They have not had one since Maggie. On a good day, like 2015, the Tories can just about scrape a majority but it has become almost impossible for them to do much better than this. May got 42% of the vote and still fell short.

    It seems to me, even without the wine, that this country has been changed so that there is a natural soft left majority such as Blair was able to put together. The Tories can, just, overcome this by having an exceptional leader like Cameron or an exceptionally repellent opponent like Corbyn but the legacy of Blair (and Brown) is a massive and massively entitled middle class that either works for the public sector or for the rather more amorphous third sector using largely public money.

    This new class is not only numerous but also completely dominates our media and policy making structures whether through charities, think tanks, institutes, Universities and the like. It is currently furious that it did not get its way on Brexit but this is an almost unique occurrence and they have by no means given up yet.

    They have the effect that even Tory governments sign up to ever increasing public spending and the State being a solution to almost any problem. They drive a consensus which is politically rather than economically driven. And it may not be sustainable. Maggie built a natural right wing majority in this country. Blair reversed it. No one since has managed to change the weather again.

    The basic problem for the Tories is that so few people benefit from capitalism these days. That is primarily due to the cost of housing. Even people that slug their guts out to get a good degree, do all the necessary internships, get a great milk round offer, work hard in London for ten years and marry someone similar end up not being able to get more than a three bed house unless they have an hour commute each way. And to do that you need to be working 15 hours a week more than our parents.
    Yes that is undoubtedly a part of it. And a significant majority benefit directly and indirectly from the spending of more public money. Even a significant proportion of those working for the private sector through in work benefits.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516

    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    For all the jibes about "Blair", he wasn't that different in his own way from Wilson. Both were able to convince millions of voters (many of them former Conservatives) that the Labour Party they led was a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left.

    Both Blair and Wilson resonated with their time - Wilson had the technocratic "white heat of technology", a message wrapped in modernity for what seemed an optimistic new age.

    Blair had "Cool Britannia", an optimistic message for the post-Cold War era and both faced Conservative Governments, exhausted and out of touch after long periods in Government.

    Corbyn's fate is perhaps to be the same as Kinnock's. For all the latter's achievements in beginning the rehabilitation of Labour he was never seen as a credible Prime Minister in the way John Smith might have been and Blair certainly was.

    Aspects of politics can be seen as cyclical but all politics isn't cyclical - if it was, it would be much easier to predict the future.

    I tend to trust the common sense of the British people. They want reasonably competent government that at least tries to balance what we need with what we can afford. They choose leaders on that basis.

    The problem is that the balance is being broken as we more retired people. The current centre-left model relies on increasing taxation which eventually stops working. I don't know what the answer is but it won't be pretty.
    The old Tory argument against higher taxes was that it discouraged people from being sufficiently rewarded to work hard. That argument has fallen apart when the top 2% have astronomically higher rewards than they did during Thatcherism. We could substantially jack up their taxes while keeping Thatcher-level rewards, and pay for vast new housing development, infrastructure and social care.

    The first party to combine toughness on immigration and toughness on the rich, while supporting broader pro-growth policies will win a landslide
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    RoyalBlue said:

    DavidL said:

    Anyway, these charts reflect something that I was thinking about this morning, before the BBQ and more than a bottle of wine. Why do the Tories find it so hard to get a proper majority? They have not had one since Maggie. On a good day, like 2015, the Tories can just about scrape a majority but it has become almost impossible for them to do much better than this. May got 42% of the vote and still fell short.

    It seems to me, even without the wine, that this country has been changed so that there is a natural soft left majority such as Blair was able to put together. The Tories can, just, overcome this by having an exceptional leader like Cameron or an exceptionally repellent opponent like Corbyn but the legacy of Blair (and Brown) is a massive and massively entitled middle class that either works for the public sector or for the rather more amorphous third sector using largely public money.

    This new class is not only numerous but also completely dominates our media and policy making structures whether through charities, think tanks, institutes, Universities and the like. It is currently furious that it did not get its way on Brexit but this is an almost unique occurrence and they have by no means given up yet.

    They have the effect that even Tory governments sign up to ever increasing public spending and the State being a solution to almost any problem. They drive a consensus which is politically rather than economically driven. And it may not be sustainable. Maggie built a natural right wing majority in this country. Blair reversed it. No one since has managed to change the weather again.



    I think the biggest problems the Tories face electorally are the decline in home ownership, and the expansion of tax credits to a large proportion of the workforce. The median ‘taxpayer’ actually takes more from the public purse than they put in.
    That last statement is why - unless something changes - we are screwed as a country. We cannot go on not paying our way.

    Interesting in that context to see a suggestion in today's newspapers about those working past retirement age having to pay NI. Seems only fair and I would expect any sensible government to introduce such a change. But it is only a sticking plaster.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    The problem for the Tories is two fold.

    1. Capitalism is not working properly anymore.

    2. The economic and cultural gap between London - where the elites live, work, and play - is wider than ever. The elites are now left-leaning (or at least, liberal) and control the media and most institutions of public opinion shaping.

    Tories need to be both culturally acceptable, and recognise that “if we want things to stay the same, things will have to change”.

    In other words, how do the Tories create an economic policy for the lower middle class while being culturally acceptable (if not admirable) to the upper middle class?
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516

    Elliot said:

    DavidL said:

    Anyway, these charts reflect something that I was thinking about this morning, before the BBQ and more than a bottle of wine. Why do the Tories find it so hard to get a proper majority? They have not had one since Maggie. On a good day, like 2015, the Tories can just about scrape a majority but it has become almost impossible for them to do much better than this. May got 42% of the vote and still fell short.

    It seems to me, even without the wine, that this country has been changed so that there is a natural soft left majority such as Blair was able to put together. The Tories can, just, overcome this by having an exceptional leader like Cameron or an exceptionally repellent opponent like Corbyn but the legacy of Blair (and Brown) is a massive and massively entitled middle class that either works for the public sector or for the rather more amorphous third sector using largely public money.

    This new class is not only numerous but also completely dominates our media and policy making structures whether through charities, think tanks, institutes, Universities and the like. It is currently furious that it did not get its way on Brexit but this is an almost unique occurrence and they have by no means given up yet.

    They have the effect that even Tory governments sign up to ever increasing public spending and the State being a solution to almost any problem. They drive a consensus which is politically rather than economically driven. And it may not be sustainable. Maggie built a natural right wing majority in this country. Blair reversed it. No one since has managed to change the weather again.

    Putting the Corbyn phenomenon to one side, the problem the Tories have had since the early 90s is allowing Labour to outflank them on pro-business internationalism by succumbing to their Eurosceptic wing. The Tories always need to be more pro-EU than Labour to avoid this trap but to do this they need to break free from their own perception that to be in favour of the EU is inherently a soft left position - it isn't.
    The Tories currently have their highest share of the vote for a generation. They failed to get a majority because Corbyn's Labour have done the same. How on Earth you look at that and blame it on the Tories being insufficiently pro-business internationalist is beyond me.
    Both the 2015 and 2017 elections were aberrations, in different ways. In 2015 the Lib Dem collapse gifted the Tories a majority, and 2017 was a referendum on Theresa May's leadership.
    And yet the polls show both parties in a similar situation. Some aberration!
  • TomsToms Posts: 2,478
    kle4 said:

    God I love our Ambassador to Washington.

    https://twitter.com/scribblercat/status/992422774101639169

    Interesting to call it a spat - I'd have thought it was just a bit of fun between ambassadors, who I would hope can take a joke about their histories (at least when the current nations are friends).
    Yes. It's a pity we can't do more joke-joke and less war-war.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,761

    DavidL said:

    Anyway, these charts reflect something that I was thinking about this morning, before the BBQ and more than a bottle of wine. Why do the Tories find it so hard to get a proper majority? They have not had one since Maggie. On a good day, like 2015, the Tories can just about scrape a majority but it has become almost impossible for them to do much better than this. May got 42% of the vote and still fell short.

    It seems to me, even without the wine, that this country has been changed so that there is a natural soft left majority such as Blair was able to put together. The Tories can, just, overcome this by having an exceptional leader like Cameron or an exceptionally repellent opponent like Corbyn but the legacy of Blair (and Brown) is a massive and massively entitled middle class that either works for the public sector or for the rather more amorphous third sector using largely public money.

    This new class is not only numerous but also completely dominates our media and policy making structures whether through charities, think tanks, institutes, Universities and the like. It is currently furious that it did not get its way on Brexit but this is an almost unique occurrence and they have by no means given up yet.

    They have the effect that even Tory governments sign up to ever increasing public spending and the State being a solution to almost any problem. They drive a consensus which is politically rather than economically driven. And it may not be sustainable. Maggie built a natural right wing majority in this country. Blair reversed it. No one since has managed to change the weather again.

    Putting the Corbyn phenomenon to one side, the problem the Tories have had since the early 90s is allowing Labour to outflank them on pro-business internationalism by succumbing to their Eurosceptic wing. The Tories always need to be more pro-EU than Labour to avoid this trap but to do this they need to break free from their own perception that to be in favour of the EU is inherently a soft left position - it isn't.
    I really don't see that. The EU is just another system by which these self entitled can by pass democracy and impose their own agenda. They have been doing that for 40+years and the politicians shake their heads and say there is nothing they can do.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786
    Elliot said:

    Both the 2015 and 2017 elections were aberrations, in different ways. In 2015 the Lib Dem collapse gifted the Tories a majority, and 2017 was a referendum on Theresa May's leadership.

    And yet the polls show both parties in a similar situation. Some aberration!
    If Theresa May called an election tomorrow, would you expect the position at the end of the campaign to be unchanged? I think there are a lot of underlying shifts that are not yet being picked up because of political inertia.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Elliot said:

    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    For all the jibes about "Blair", he wasn't that different in his own way from Wilson. Both were able to convince millions of voters (many of them former Conservatives) that the Labour Party they led was a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left.

    Both Blair and Wilson resonated with their time - Wilson had the technocratic "white heat of technology", a message wrapped in modernity for what seemed an optimistic new age.

    Blair had "Cool Britannia", an optimistic message for the post-Cold War era and both faced Conservative Governments, exhausted and out of touch after long periods in Government.

    Corbyn's fate is perhaps to be the same as Kinnock's. For all the latter's achievements in beginning the rehabilitation of Labour he was never seen as a credible Prime Minister in the way John Smith might have been and Blair certainly was.

    Aspects of politics can be seen as cyclical but all politics isn't cyclical - if it was, it would be much easier to predict the future.

    I tend to trust the common sense of the British people. They want reasonably competent government that at least tries to balance what we need with what we can afford. They choose leaders on that basis.

    The problem is that the balance is being broken as we more retired people. The current centre-left model relies on increasing taxation which eventually stops working. I don't know what the answer is but it won't be pretty.
    The old Tory argument against higher taxes was that it discouraged people from being sufficiently rewarded to work hard. That argument has fallen apart when the top 2% have astronomically higher rewards than they did during Thatcherism. We could substantially jack up their taxes while keeping Thatcher-level rewards, and pay for vast new housing development, infrastructure and social care.

    The first party to combine toughness on immigration and toughness on the rich, while supporting broader pro-growth policies will win a landslide
    In part the rich have those rewards because of globalisation. How to tax the rich during a time of globalisation is a tough question to which I have seen no well-thought out answers. See, for instance, all the talk about taxing the Amazons and Googles and Facebooks of this world. Brexit may, ironically, be an attempt to retreat from that globalisation but I've yet to see how it will help Britain get a fair share of tax from the top 2%.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    The problem for the Tories is two fold.

    1. Capitalism is not working properly anymore.

    2. The economic and cultural gap between London - where the elites live, work, and play - is wider than ever. The elites are now left-leaning (or at least, liberal) and control the media and most institutions of public opinion shaping.

    Tories need to be both culturally acceptable, and recognise that “if we want things to stay the same, things will have to change”.

    In other words, how do the Tories create an economic policy for the lower middle class while being culturally acceptable (if not admirable) to the upper middle class?

    It's difficult to say whether the elites really are left-wing or just affect to be.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,876
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Anyway, these charts reflect something that I was thinking about this morning, before the BBQ and more than a bottle of wine. Why do the Tories find it so hard to get a proper majority? They have not had one since Maggie. On a good day, like 2015, the Tories can just about scrape a majority but it has become almost impossible for them to do much better than this. May got 42% of the vote and still fell short.

    It seems to me, evenmore amorphous third sector using largely public money.

    This newup yet.

    They haveggie built a natural right wing majority in this country. Blair reversed it. No one since has managed to change the weather again.

    The majority of people work in the private sector. All votes are equal. A disgusting, middle class, public sector vote is worth the same as a noble, working class, free enterprise vote. Most people are mostly the same. They want what is best for their families, themselves and their country, in that order.

    That is true Joff but the self entitled people I am talking about dominate the BBC, C4 News and all other media outlets not just by populating the programs but providing their views to those that make the programs. They set the parameters within which debate takes place. Those working for the private sector don't have those ways of having their views heard (referendum excepted). It could be argued that those self entitled people are civilised, urbane, compassionate and reasonable so it is a good thing that they fix the terms of the debate. But it is undoubtedly much, much easier for Labour to get a decent majority in the UK than the Tories. Even when not led by a war criminal.

    We mostly meet in the middle, all of us. It’s about tone. For as long as Corbyn leads Labour, the Tories win. But no-one has begun to work out how to deal with the 21st century. I am 100% certain that if you and I met we would agree on almost everything. We would be divided by nuance. But we are on different sides. That is ridiculous. And it’s our fault, no-one else’s.

  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223
    Cyclefree said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    DavidL said:

    Anyway, these charts reflect something that I was thinking about this morning, before the BBQ and more than a bottle of wine. Why do the Tories find it so hard to get a proper majority? They have not had one since Maggie. On a good day, like 2015, the Tories can just about scrape a majority but it has become almost impossible for them to do much better than this. May got 42% of the vote and still fell short.

    It seems to me, even without the wine, that this country has been changed so that there is a natural soft left majority such as Blair was able to put together. The Tories can, just, overcome this by having an exceptional leader like Cameron or an exceptionally repellent opponent like Corbyn but the legacy of Blair (and Brown) is a massive and massively entitled middle class that either works for the public sector or for the rather more amorphous third sector using largely public money.

    This new class is not only numerous but also completely dominates our media and policy making structures whether through charities, think tanks, institutes, Universities and the like. It is currently furious that it did not get its way on Brexit but this is an almost unique occurrence and they have by no means given up yet.

    They have the effect that even Tory governments sign up to ever increasing public spending and the State being a solution to almost any problem. They drive a consensus which is politically rather than economically driven. And it may not be sustainable. Maggie built a natural right wing majority in this country. Blair reversed it. No one since has managed to change the weather again.



    I think the biggest problems the Tories face electorally are the decline in home ownership, and the expansion of tax credits to a large proportion of the workforce. The median ‘taxpayer’ actually takes more from the public purse than they put in.
    That last statement is why - unless something changes - we are screwed as a country. We cannot go on not paying our way.

    Interesting in that context to see a suggestion in today's newspapers about those working past retirement age having to pay NI. Seems only fair and I would expect any sensible government to introduce such a change. But it is only a sticking plaster.
    The reluctance of the Tory Party to grasp the nettle and put the national budget into surplus is indicative. The press witter on about ‘austerity’, when we have had no such thing.

    We have a mild case of Argentina syndrome. If Corbyn seizes power, it will go full-blown.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766
    Elliot said:

    DavidL said:

    Anyway, these charts reflect something that I was thinking about this morning, before the BBQ and more than a bottle of wine. Why do the Tories find it so hard to get a proper majority? They have not had one since Maggie. On a good day, like 2015, the Tories can just about scrape a majority but it has become almost impossible for them to do much better than this. May got 42% of the vote and still fell short.

    It seems to me, even without the wine, that this country has been changed so that there is a natural soft left majority such as Blair was able to put together. The Tories can, just, overcome this by having an exceptional leader like Cameron or an exceptionally repellent opponent like Corbyn but the legacy of Blair (and Brown) is a massive and massively entitled middle class that either works for the public sector or for the rather more amorphous third sector using largely public money.

    This new class is not only numerous but also completely dominates our media and policy making structures whether through charities, think tanks, institutes, Universities and the like. It is currently furious that it did not get its way on Brexit but this is an almost unique occurrence and they have by no means given up yet.

    They have the effect that even Tory governments sign up to ever increasing public spending and the State being a solution to almost any problem. They drive a consensus which is politically rather than economically driven. And it may not be sustainable. Maggie built a natural right wing majority in this country. Blair reversed it. No one since has managed to change the weather again.

    The basic problem for the Tories is that so few people benefit from capitalism these days. That is primarily due to the cost of housing. Even people that slug their guts out to get a good degree, do all the necessary internships, get a great milk round offer, work hard in London for ten years and marry someone similar end up not being able to get more than a three bed house unless they have an hour commute each way. And to do that you need to be working 15 hours a week more than our parents.
    The issue is that median family incomes have gone backwards since 2000.

    This may be because of low skilled immigration from Eastern Europe, or there may be other reasons. (It's worth noting that basically all developed countries have seen stagnant or falling median incomes, and that's happened irrespective of immigration policy, or whether in the Eurozone, or whatever.)

    The reason Donald Trump won in America, that the Front National surged in France, and that there is so much unhappiness with the 'elites', is that they have not delivered on their side of the bargain: they have not delivered steadily rising incomes for all.

    Now, the question is why is that? (Note: I have the answer,)
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    DavidL said:

    Anyway, these charts reflect something that I was thinking about this morning, before the BBQ and more than a bottle of wine. Why do the Tories find it so hard to get a proper majority? They have not had one since Maggie. On a good day, like 2015, the Tories can just about scrape a majority but it has become almost impossible for them to do much better than this. May got 42% of the vote and still fell short.

    It seems to me, even without the wine, that this country has been changed so that there is a natural soft left majority such as Blair was able to put together. The Tories can, just, overcome this by having an exceptional leader like Cameron or an exceptionally repellent opponent like Corbyn but the legacy of Blair (and Brown) is a massive and massively entitled middle class that either works for the public sector or for the rather more amorphous third sector using largely public money.

    This new class is not only numerous but also completely dominates our media and policy making structures whether through charities, think tanks, institutes, Universities and the like. It is currently furious that it did not get its way on Brexit but this is an almost unique occurrence and they have by no means given up yet.

    They have the effect that even Tory governments sign up to ever increasing public spending and the State being a solution to almost any problem. They drive a consensus which is politically rather than economically driven. And it may not be sustainable. Maggie built a natural right wing majority in this country. Blair reversed it. No one since has managed to change the weather again.

    The loss of aspiration and middle class regression particularly in the urban areas.

    Falling home ownership and increasing inequality is killing people's belief that capitalism works for them.

    The way greedy bankers and shyster businessmen can walk away with millions after leaving a trail of unpaid taxes, redundant workers and empty pension pots destroys faith in the system.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,272

    DavidL said:

    Anyway, these charts reflect something that I was thinking about this morning, before the BBQ and more than a bottle of wine. Why do the Tories find it so hard to get a proper majority? They have not had one since Maggie. On a good day, like 2015, the Tories can just about scrape a majority but it has become almost impossible for them to do much better than this. May got 42% of the vote and still fell short.

    It seems to me, even without the wine, that this country has been changed so that there is a natural soft left majority such as Blair was able to put together. The Tories can, just, overcome this by having an exceptional leader like Cameron or an exceptionally repellent opponent like Corbyn but the legacy of Blair (and Brown) is a massive and massively entitled middle class that either works for the public sector or for the rather more amorphous third sector using largely public money.

    This new class is not only numerous but also completely dominates our media and policy making structures whether through charities, think tanks, institutes, Universities and the like. It is currently furious that it did not get its way on Brexit but this is an almost unique occurrence and they have by no means given up yet.

    They have the effect that even Tory governments sign up to ever increasing public spending and the State being a solution to almost any problem. They drive a consensus which is politically rather than economically driven. And it may not be sustainable. Maggie built a natural right wing majority in this country. Blair reversed it. No one since has managed to change the weather again.

    The loss of aspiration and middle class regression particularly in the urban areas.

    Falling home ownership and increasing inequality is killing people's belief that capitalism works for them.

    The way greedy bankers and shyster businessmen can walk away with millions after leaving a trail of unpaid taxes, redundant workers and empty pension pots destroys faith in the system.
    Agreed - well put.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766

    DavidL said:

    Anyway, these charts reflect something that I was thinking about this morning, before the BBQ and more than a bottle of wine. Why do the Tories find it so hard to get a proper majority? They have not had one since Maggie. On a good day, like 2015, the Tories can just about scrape a majority but it has become almost impossible for them to do much better than this. May got 42% of the vote and still fell short.

    It seems to me, even without the wine, that this country has been changed so that there is a natural soft left majority such as Blair was able to put together. The Tories can, just, overcome this by having an exceptional leader like Cameron or an exceptionally repellent opponent like Corbyn but the legacy of Blair (and Brown) is a massive and massively entitled middle class that either works for the public sector or for the rather more amorphous third sector using largely public money.

    This new class is not only numerous but also completely dominates our media and policy making structures whether through charities, think tanks, institutes, Universities and the like. It is currently furious that it did not get its way on Brexit but this is an almost unique occurrence and they have by no means given up yet.

    They have the effect that even Tory governments sign up to ever increasing public spending and the State being a solution to almost any problem. They drive a consensus which is politically rather than economically driven. And it may not be sustainable. Maggie built a natural right wing majority in this country. Blair reversed it. No one since has managed to change the weather again.

    The loss of aspiration and middle class regression particularly in the urban areas.

    Falling home ownership and increasing inequality is killing people's belief that capitalism works for them.

    The way greedy bankers and shyster businessmen can walk away with millions after leaving a trail of unpaid taxes, redundant workers and empty pension pots destroys faith in the system.
    This is something we can test: in parts of the country where home ownership is not falling, is there greater happiness with the status quo?
  • nunuonenunuone Posts: 1,138
    just drove past this....this is getting out of hand now....

    https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/993173286367449088
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    rcs1000 said:

    Elliot said:

    DavidL said:

    Anyway, these charts reflect something that I was thinking about this morning, before the BBQ and more than a bottle of wine. Why do the Tories find it so hard to get a proper majority? They have not had one since Maggie. On a good day, like 2015, the Tories can just about scrape a majority but it has become almost impossible for them to do much better than this. May got 42% of the vote and still fell short.

    It seems to me, even without the wine, that this country has been changed so that there is a natural soft left majority such as Blair was able to put together. The Tories can, just, overcome this by having an exceptional leader like Cameron or an exceptionally repellent opponent like Corbyn but the legacy of Blair (and Brown) is a massive and massively entitled middle class that either works for the public sector or for the rather more amorphous third sector using largely public money.

    This new class is not only numerous but also completely dominates our media and policy making structures whether through charities, think tanks, institutes, Universities and the like. It is currently furious that it did not get its way on Brexit but this is an almost unique occurrence and they have by no means given up yet.

    The basic problem for the Tories is that so few people benefit from capitalism these days. That is primarily due to the cost of housing. Even people that slug their guts out to get a good degree, do all the necessary internships, get a great milk round offer, work hard in London for ten years and marry someone similar end up not being able to get more than a three bed house unless they have an hour commute each way. And to do that you need to be working 15 hours a week more than our parents.
    The issue is that median family incomes have gone backwards since 2000.

    This may be because of low skilled immigration from Eastern Europe, or there may be other reasons. (It's worth noting that basically all developed countries have seen stagnant or falling median incomes, and that's happened irrespective of immigration policy, or whether in the Eurozone, or whatever.)

    The reason Donald Trump won in America, that the Front National surged in France, and that there is so much unhappiness with the 'elites', is that they have not delivered on their side of the bargain: they have not delivered steadily rising incomes for all.

    Now, the question is why is that? (Note: I have the answer,)
    Ten years ago I asked this question here:

    In an increasingly globalised world economy how do we compete against countries whose people are as intelligent and educated as us but who are willing to work harder, for lower pay and under fewer restrictions ?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,761
    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:



    Maggie had 2 advantages: (1) she came to power when things had got so bad that even those who would normally be members of what you call the "soft left" class felt the need for some drastic change; and (2) she argued the case for what she was trying to do. She argued for why the state should be smaller and taxes lower and people should take more responsibility and why socialism brought disaster and why Communism (in foreign affairs) was wrong. She did not simply assert. She argued her case. And she did not simply accept previously accepted verities and assumptions.

    No Tory leader since then has done the latter, even though Cameron came to power in circumstances not that dissimilar to those in 1979. If you want to change the political weather you need to have some idea of what you want to change it to and have the ability to argue your case. One reason the Tories have not done this is because Cameron felt that he had to accept existing assumptions rather than challenge them. And too many of them have been arguing about Europe. Even if you accept that this is the most important issue for ordinary voters (itself a colourable statement), they simply have not been able to argue for how they want to change things nor how they intend getting there. Thatcher could do - and did do - both. Today's Tories: not so much.

    If you want the change you are seeking you need to have people behind the scenes doing the intellectual heft - think tanks and the like. Are there such things anymore? Is anyone in our political class (and I'm thinking more widely than just MPs) doing any thinking at all?
    The situation in 2010 was far more catastrophic than the local difficulties of 1979. 8 years on and we have not started to recover, mainly because our public/private sector balance is way off what is sustainable. We are still running a significant structural deficit and yet the argument against "austerity" is all we ever hear. That is what really concerns me. The cosy consensus of these entitled led us to 2008. It doesn't work.

    I do agree that the arguments about Europe have been out of all proportion to its importance or relevance. I was saying as much earlier today.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,005
    DavidL seems to be suggesting that the Tories problem is a client state created by Labour and their 'ownership' of institutions. I'm not so sure. 13 years of Labour government left us with Leveson, a banking crisis, Iraq and much else which still provokes anger on the centre left - never mind radical left.

    The core of the problem to my mind would seem to be that it isn't cleat whether in a modern market economy, as it's currently configured, most people can expect to see substantial increases in prosperity or quality of life. The Tory vote has surely always been built on secure comfortable asset owners, a diminishing demographic whilst the 'aspirational' can only allow themselves so much positivity.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786
    rcs1000 said:

    This is something we can test: in parts of the country where home ownership is not falling, is there greater happiness with the status quo?

    Using the right metric will be difficult. The statistics tend to be dwelling-centric rather than person-centric. A boomerang kid could be living in an owner-occupied house, but will be on the wrong side of the equation.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307
    Cyclefree said:

    Elliot said:

    DavidL said:

    Anyway, these charts reflect something that I was thinking about this morning, before the BBQ and more than a bottle of wine. Why do the Tories find it so hard to get a proper majority? They have not had one since Maggie. On a good day, like 2015, the Tories can just about scrape a majority but it has become almost impossible for them to do much better than this. May got 42% of the vote and still fell short.


    This new class is not only numerous but also completely dominates our media and policy making structures whether through charities, think tanks, institutes, Universities and the like. It is currently furious that it did not get its way on Brexit but this is an almost unique occurrence and they have by no means given up yet.

    They have the effect that even Tory governments sign up to ever increasing public spending and the State being a solution to almost any problem. They drive a consensus which is politically rather than economically driven. And it may not be sustainable. Maggie built a natural right wing majority in this country. Blair reversed it. No one since has managed to change the weather again.

    The basic problem for the Tories is that so few people benefit from capitalism these days. That is primarily due to the cost of housing. Even people that slug their guts out to get a good degree, do all the necessary internships, get a great milk round offer, work hard in London for ten years and marry someone similar end up not being able to get more than a three bed house unless they have an hour commute each way. And to do that you need to be working 15 hours a week more than our parents.
    All true but applies to one part of the country only. My nephews and nieces living a long way from London have had absolutely no problem getting jobs, buying houses and starting families.

    It is a serious issue but to make it the only reason is too limited.
    Even if you have a 'good' job in the private sector in Manchester, Birmingham, Scotland or wherever and a high standard of living, you are still highly vulnerable and have to live with a lot of anxiety. You can still effectively get fired at whim. In many jobs there is very little sense of a meaningful contract between yourself and your employer whereby one is loyal to the other, it is more a case of co-operation towards mutual advancement, underpinned by suspicion. I guess that is why a lot of people don't stay in post for long these days.

    It isn't difficult to realise that the whole system is broken.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766

    Ten years ago I asked this question here:

    In an increasingly globalised world economy how do we compete against countries whose people are as intelligent and educated as us but who are willing to work harder, for lower pay and under fewer restrictions ?

    I think the answer is to look at other, relatively resource poor developed countries, who have managed to increase incomes, and ask what do they do differently?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,272
    edited May 2018
    AndyJS said:

    The problem for the Tories is two fold.

    1. Capitalism is not working properly anymore.

    2. The economic and cultural gap between London - where the elites live, work, and play - is wider than ever. The elites are now left-leaning (or at least, liberal) and control the media and most institutions of public opinion shaping.

    Tories need to be both culturally acceptable, and recognise that “if we want things to stay the same, things will have to change”.

    In other words, how do the Tories create an economic policy for the lower middle class while being culturally acceptable (if not admirable) to the upper middle class?

    It's difficult to say whether the elites really are left-wing or just affect to be.
    'The elite'? Surely this must mean those born with every advantage and guaranteed entitlement... For example: Rees-Mogg, Johnson, Cameron, Osborne. None of these people were ever going to struggle in life. These are the people with a built-in sense of entitlement.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,761

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Anyway, these charts reflect something that I was thinking about this morning, before the BBQ and more than a bottle of wine. Why do the Tories find it so hard to get a proper majority? They have not had one since Maggie. On a good day, like 2015, the Tories can just about scrape a majority but it has become almost impossible for them to do much better than this. May got 42% of the vote and still fell short.

    It seems to me, evenmore amorphous third sector using largely public money.

    This newup yet.

    They haveggie built a natural right wing majority in this country. Blair reversed it. No one since has managed to change the weather again.

    The majority of people work in the private sector. All votes are equal. A disgusting, middle class, public sector vote is worth the same as a noble, working class, free enterprise vote. Most people are mostly the same. They want what is best for their families, themselves and their country, in that order.

    That is true Joff but the self entitled people I am talking about dominate the BBC, C4 News and all other media outlets not just by populating the programs but providing their views to those that make the programs. They set the parameters within which debate takes place. Those working for the private sector don't have those ways of having their views heard (referendum excepted). It could be argued that those self entitled people are civilised, urbane, compassionate and reasonable so it is a good thing that they fix the terms of the debate. But it is undoubtedly much, much easier for Labour to get a decent majority in the UK than the Tories. Even when not led by a war criminal.

    We mostly meet in the middle, all of us. It’s about tone. For as long as Corbyn leads Labour, the Tories win. But no-one has begun to work out how to deal with the 21st century. I am 100% certain that if you and I met we would agree on almost everything. We would be divided by nuance. But we are on different sides. That is ridiculous. And it’s our fault, no-one else’s.

    I completely agree Joff. I would be delighted to meet for a pint or two (or even some Negev wine) should an opportunity arise. I am sure we would find an easy consensus on many issues.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    Anyway, these charts reflect something that I was thinking about this morning, before the BBQ and more than a bottle of wine. Why do the Tories find it so hard to get a proper majority? They have not had one since Maggie. On a good day, like 2015, the Tories can just about scrape a majority but it has become almost impossible for them to do much better than this. May got 42% of the vote and still fell short.

    It seems to me, even without the wine, that this country has been changed so that there is a natural soft left majority such as Blair was able to put together. The Tories can, just, overcome this by having an exceptional leader like Cameron or an exceptionally repellent opponent like Corbyn but the legacy of Blair (and Brown) is a massive and massively entitled middle class that either works for the public sector or for the rather more amorphous third sector using largely public money.

    This new class is not only numerous but also completely dominates our media and policy making structures whether through charities, think tanks, institutes, Universities and the like. It is currently furious that it did not get its way on Brexit but this is an almost unique occurrence and they have by no means given up yet.

    They have the effect that even Tory governments sign up to ever increasing public spending and the State being a solution to almost any problem. They drive a consensus which is politically rather than economically driven. And it may not be sustainable. Maggie built a natural right wing majority in this country. Blair reversed it. No one since has managed to change the weather again.

    The loss of aspiration and middle class regression particularly in the urban areas.

    Falling home ownership and increasing inequality is killing people's belief that capitalism works for them.

    The way greedy bankers and shyster businessmen can walk away with millions after leaving a trail of unpaid taxes, redundant workers and empty pension pots destroys faith in the system.
    This is something we can test: in parts of the country where home ownership is not falling, is there greater happiness with the status quo?
    Hasn't home ownership been falling almost everywhere to varying degrees ?

    Apart perhaps from a few odd places like maybe Bolsover.

    And how do we test whether people are happy with the status quo ? Are areas which swung to the Conservatives last week regarded as such ?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    rcs1000 said:

    Ten years ago I asked this question here:

    In an increasingly globalised world economy how do we compete against countries whose people are as intelligent and educated as us but who are willing to work harder, for lower pay and under fewer restrictions ?

    I think the answer is to look at other, relatively resource poor developed countries, who have managed to increase incomes, and ask what do they do differently?
    And is there a specific, detailed answer ?
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    rcs1000 said:



    The issue is that median family incomes have gone backwards since 2000.

    This may be because of low skilled immigration from Eastern Europe, or there may be other reasons. (It's worth noting that basically all developed countries have seen stagnant or falling median incomes, and that's happened irrespective of immigration policy, or whether in the Eurozone, or whatever.)

    The reason Donald Trump won in America, that the Front National surged in France, and that there is so much unhappiness with the 'elites', is that they have not delivered on their side of the bargain: they have not delivered steadily rising incomes for all.

    Now, the question is why is that? (Note: I have the answer,)

    Because they discovered that they could keep the money for themselves, and get away with it. If all the income in the world accrued to one individual, bar one dollar a day for everyone else, there would still be people saying that X's remuneration had been set by the market, and you can't interfere with the market, and, if he paid income tax at the rate of half of one percent per year, that you can't increase that because Laffer curves. It is very wrong of me to say so, but workers on BoDs and a limit of executive pay to a multiple of what the workers get can look like pretty useful ideas.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223

    rcs1000 said:

    Elliot said:

    DavidL said:

    Anyway, these charts reflect something that I was thinking about this morning, before the BBQ and more than a bottle of wine. Why do the Tories find it so hard to get a proper majority? They have not had one since Maggie. On a good day, like 2015, the Tories can just about scrape a majority but it has become almost impossible for them to do much better than this. May got 42% of the vote and still fell short.

    It seems to me, even without the wine, that this country has been changed so that there is a natural soft left majority such as Blair was able to put together. The Tories can, just, overcome this by having an exceptional leader like Cameron or an exceptionally repellent opponent like Corbyn but the legacy of Blair (and Brown) is a massive and massively entitled middle class that either works for the public sector or for the rather more amorphous third sector using largely public money.

    This new class is not only numerous but also completely dominates our media and policy making structures whether through charities, think tanks, institutes, Universities and the like. It is currently furious that it did not get its way on Brexit but this is an almost unique occurrence and they have by no means given up yet.

    The issue is that median family incomes have gone backwards since 2000.

    This may be because of low skilled immigration from Eastern Europe, or there may be other reasons. (It's worth noting that basically all developed countries have seen stagnant or falling median incomes, and that's happened irrespective of immigration policy, or whether in the Eurozone, or whatever.)

    The reason Donald Trump won in America, that the Front National surged in France, and that there is so much unhappiness with the 'elites', is that they have not delivered on their side of the bargain: they have not delivered steadily rising incomes for all.

    Now, the question is why is that? (Note: I have the answer,)
    Ten years ago I asked this question here:

    In an increasingly globalised world economy how do we compete against countries whose people are as intelligent and educated as us but who are willing to work harder, for lower pay and under fewer restrictions ?
    We can’t. Eventually, our respective standards of living will converge, or ours will dip below theirs.

    We can avoid this in two ways. We can fix our broken education system and invest in infrastructure to enhance our productivity. We could also significantly increase our savings rate, to end the sale of assets and accumulation of overseas liabilities that is turning us into tenants in our own country. Neither of these will be popular.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,876
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Anyway, these charts reflect something that I was thinking about this morning, before the BBQ and more than a bottle of wine. Why do the Tories find it so hard to get a proper majority? They have not had one since Maggie. On a good day, like 2015, the Tories can just about scrape a majority but it has become almost impossible for them to do much better than this. May got 42% of the vote and still fell short.

    It seems to me, evenmore amorphous third sector using largely public money.

    This newup yet.

    They haveggie built a natural right wing majority in this country. Blair reversed it. No one since has managed to change the weather again.

    The majority of people work in the private sector. All votes are equal. A disgusting, middle class, public sector vote is worth the same as a noble, working class, free enterprise vote. Most people are mostly the same. They want what is best for their families, themselves and their country, in that order.

    That is true Joff but the self entitled people I am talking about dominate the BBC, C4 News and all other media outlets not just by populating the programs but providing their views to those that make the programs. They set the parameters within which debate takes place. Those working for the private sector don't have those ways of having their views heard (referendum excepted). It could be argued that those self entitled people are civilised, urbane, compassionate and reasonable so it is a good thing that they fix the terms of the debate. But it is undoubtedly much, much easier for Labour to get a decent majority in the UK than the Tories. Even when not led by a war criminal.

    We mostly meet in the middle, all of us. It’s about tone. For as long as Corbyn leads Labour, the Tories win. But no-one has begun to work out how to deal with the 21st century. I am 100% certain that if you and I met we would agree on almost everything. We would be divided by nuance. But we are on different sides. That is ridiculous. And it’s our fault, no-one else’s.

    I completely agree Joff. I would be delighted to meet for a pint or two (or even some Negev wine) should an opportunity arise. I am sure we would find an easy consensus on many issues.

    You’re on!!

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,761
    rcs1000 said:

    Elliot said:

    DavidL said:

    The basic problem for the Tories is that so few people benefit from capitalism these days. That is primarily due to the cost of housing. Even people that slug their guts out to get a good degree, do all the necessary internships, get a great milk round offer, work hard in London for ten years and marry someone similar end up not being able to get more than a three bed house unless they have an hour commute each way. And to do that you need to be working 15 hours a week more than our parents.
    The issue is that median family incomes have gone backwards since 2000.

    This may be because of low skilled immigration from Eastern Europe, or there may be other reasons. (It's worth noting that basically all developed countries have seen stagnant or falling median incomes, and that's happened irrespective of immigration policy, or whether in the Eurozone, or whatever.)

    The reason Donald Trump won in America, that the Front National surged in France, and that there is so much unhappiness with the 'elites', is that they have not delivered on their side of the bargain: they have not delivered steadily rising incomes for all.

    Now, the question is why is that? (Note: I have the answer,)
    I think that there are several answers. Increasing inequality has driven the median wage higher. Technology has deskilled many jobs reducing their economic value. No doubt there are others.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,272
    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:



    Maggie had 2 advantages: (1) she came to power when things had got so bad that even those who would normally be members of what you call the "soft left" class felt the need for some drastic change; and (2) she argued the case for what she was trying to do. She argued for why the state should be smaller and taxes lower and people should take more responsibility and why socialism brought disaster and why Communism (in foreign affairs) was wrong. She did not simply assert. She argued her case. And she did not simply accept previously accepted verities and assumptions.

    No Tory leader since then has done the latter, even though Cameron came to power in circumstances not that dissimilar to those in 1979. If you want to change the political weather you need to have some idea of what you want to change it to and have the ability to argue your case. One reason the Tories have not done this is because Cameron felt that he had to accept existing assumptions rather than challenge them. And too many of them have been arguing about Europe. Even if you accept that this is the most important issue for ordinary voters (itself a colourable statement), they simply have not been able to argue for how they want to change things nor how they intend getting there. Thatcher could do - and did do - both. Today's Tories: not so much.

    If you want the change you are seeking you need to have people behind the scenes doing the intellectual heft - think tanks and the like. Are there such things anymore? Is anyone in our political class (and I'm thinking more widely than just MPs) doing any thinking at all?
    The situation in 2010 was far more catastrophic than the local difficulties of 1979. 8 years on and we have not started to recover, mainly because our public/private sector balance is way off what is sustainable. We are still running a significant structural deficit and yet the argument against "austerity" is all we ever hear. That is what really concerns me. The cosy consensus of these entitled led us to 2008. It doesn't work.

    I do agree that the arguments about Europe have been out of all proportion to its importance or relevance. I was saying as much earlier today.
    Is the public/private sectore balance in say Sweden or Denmark also unsustainable David?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,272
    Ishmael_Z said:

    rcs1000 said:



    The issue is that median family incomes have gone backwards since 2000.

    This may be because of low skilled immigration from Eastern Europe, or there may be other reasons. (It's worth noting that basically all developed countries have seen stagnant or falling median incomes, and that's happened irrespective of immigration policy, or whether in the Eurozone, or whatever.)

    The reason Donald Trump won in America, that the Front National surged in France, and that there is so much unhappiness with the 'elites', is that they have not delivered on their side of the bargain: they have not delivered steadily rising incomes for all.

    Now, the question is why is that? (Note: I have the answer,)

    Because they discovered that they could keep the money for themselves, and get away with it. If all the income in the world accrued to one individual, bar one dollar a day for everyone else, there would still be people saying that X's remuneration had been set by the market, and you can't interfere with the market, and, if he paid income tax at the rate of half of one percent per year, that you can't increase that because Laffer curves. It is very wrong of me to say so, but workers on BoDs and a limit of executive pay to a multiple of what the workers get can look like pretty useful ideas.
    +1
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:



    Maggie had 2 advantages: (1) she came to power when things had got so bad that even those who would normally be members of what you call the "soft left" class felt the need for some drastic change; and (2) she argued the case for what she was trying to do. She argued for why the state should be smaller and taxes lower and people should take more responsibility and why socialism brought disaster and why Communism (in foreign affairs) was wrong. She did not simply assert. She argued her case. And she did not simply accept previously accepted verities and assumptions.

    No Tory leader since then has done the latter, even though Cameron came to power in circumstances not that dissimilar to those in 1979. If you want to change the political weather you need to have some idea of what you want to change it to and have the ability to argue your case. One reason the Tories have not done this is because Cameron felt that he had to accept existing assumptions rather than challenge them. And too many of them have been arguing about Europe. Even if you accept that this is the most important issue for ordinary voters (itself a colourable statement), they simply have not been able to argue for how they want to change things nor how they intend getting there. Thatcher could do - and did do - both. Today's Tories: not so much.

    If you want the change you are seeking you need to have people behind the scenes doing the intellectual heft - think tanks and the like. Are there such things anymore? Is anyone in our political class (and I'm thinking more widely than just MPs) doing any thinking at all?
    The situation in 2010 was far more catastrophic than the local difficulties of 1979. 8 years on and we have not started to recover, mainly because our public/private sector balance is way off what is sustainable. We are still running a significant structural deficit and yet the argument against "austerity" is all we ever hear. That is what really concerns me. The cosy consensus of these entitled led us to 2008. It doesn't work.

    I do agree that the arguments about Europe have been out of all proportion to its importance or relevance. I was saying as much earlier today.
    A country which has had 241 consecutivie months of trade deficit (plus a similar tourism deficit) has in no way been undergoing austerity.

    Your anecdote about the job vacancies in Edinburgh bars are restaurants backs this up.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787
    nielh said:


    They also warned me that if I had any request, it would cost me £29 to speak to them, unless I paid them £9 to get the 'standard' service. Or, if I paid them £29, I could get a premium customer service.
    Its all bullsh*t, because the customer service is with the airline itself, go to gate are just a travel agency.

    Usually with travel agent tickets, airline customer service can’t do anything with them until the last 24 hours or so before departure.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766

    rcs1000 said:

    This is something we can test: in parts of the country where home ownership is not falling, is there greater happiness with the status quo?

    Using the right metric will be difficult. The statistics tend to be dwelling-centric rather than person-centric. A boomerang kid could be living in an owner-occupied house, but will be on the wrong side of the equation.
    Sure, there can always be more data. But the fact is that the current extreme housing issues (in terms of price and availability, leading to smaller numbers of owner occupiers) are principally in London, and to a lesser extent, the South East).

    In London, a 30 year old associate at a top law firm struggles to buy an ex-local authority apartment in a third tier location. But a 23 year old graduate accountant can afford a nice apartment in a reasonable part of the Manchester/Salford area.

    If housing affordability was the biggest issue, we would expect that places where housing was more affordable would be happier with 'the status quo', than those in places like London.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,761

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:



    Maggie had 2 advantages: (1) she came to power when things had got so bad that even those who would normally be members of what you call the "soft left" class felt the need for some drastic change; and (2) she argued the case for what she was trying to do. She argued for why the state should be smaller and taxes lower and people should take more responsibility and why socialism brought disaster and why Communism (in foreign affairs) was wrong. She did not simply assert. She argued her case. And she did not simply accept previously accepted verities and assumptions.

    No Tory leader since then has done the latter, even though Cameron came to power in circumstances not that dissimilar to those in 1979. If you want to change the political weather you need to have some idea of what you want to change it to and have the ability to argue your case. One reason the Tories have not done this is because Cameron felt that he had to accept existing assumptions rather than challenge them. And too many of them have been arguing about Europe. Even if you accept that this is the most important issue for ordinary voters (itself a colourable statement), they simply have not been able to argue for how they want to change things nor how they intend getting there. Thatcher could do - and did do - both. Today's Tories: not so much.

    If you want the change you are seeking you need to have people behind the scenes doing the intellectual heft - think tanks and the like. Are there such things anymore? Is anyone in our political class (and I'm thinking more widely than just MPs) doing any thinking at all?
    The situation in 2010 was far more catastrophic than the local difficulties of 1979. 8 years on and we have not started to recover, mainly because our public/private sector balance is way off what is sustainable. We are still running a significant structural deficit and yet the argument against "austerity" is all we ever hear. That is what really concerns me. The cosy consensus of these entitled led us to 2008. It doesn't work.

    I do agree that the arguments about Europe have been out of all proportion to its importance or relevance. I was saying as much earlier today.
    Is the public/private sectore balance in say Sweden or Denmark also unsustainable David?
    Its a good question. I think the answer is yes in the medium term because I don't see how they can be competitive with countries that don't spend so much on the State. But they certainly show that the structural deficit can be addressed by either cutting spending or by increasing taxes. We still have politicians who pretend we can have their services but our tax rates. They are liars.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,272
    nielh said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Elliot said:

    DavidL said:




    This new class is not only numerous but also completely dominates our media and policy making structures whether through charities, think tanks, institutes, Universities and the like. It is currently furious that it did not get its way on Brexit but this is an almost unique occurrence and they have by no means given up yet.

    They have the effect that even Tory governments sign up to ever increasing public spending and the State being a solution to almost any problem. They drive a consensus which is politically rather than economically driven. And it may not be sustainable. Maggie built a natural right wing majority in this country. Blair reversed it. No one since has managed to change the weather again.

    The basic problem for the Tories is that so few people benefit from capitalism these days. That is primarily due to the cost of housing. Even people that slug their guts out to get a good degree, do all the necessary internships, get a great milk round offer, work hard in London for ten years and marry someone similar end up not being able to get more than a three bed house unless they have an hour commute each way. And to do that you need to be working 15 hours a week more than our parents.
    All true but applies to one part of the country only. My nephews and nieces living a long way from London have had absolutely no problem getting jobs, buying houses and starting families.

    It is a serious issue but to make it the only reason is too limited.
    Even if you have a 'good' job in the private sector in Manchester, Birmingham, Scotland or wherever and a high standard of living, you are still highly vulnerable and have to live with a lot of anxiety. You can still effectively get fired at whim. In many jobs there is very little sense of a meaningful contract between yourself and your employer whereby one is loyal to the other, it is more a case of co-operation towards mutual advancement, underpinned by suspicion. I guess that is why a lot of people don't stay in post for long these days.

    It isn't difficult to realise that the whole system is broken.

    "Even if you have a 'good' job in the private sector in Manchester, Birmingham, Scotland or wherever and a high standard of living, you are still highly vulnerable and have to live with a lot of anxiety"

    That's not my experience working for a major retail bank... very good protection for the permanent employees. Of course that led the bank to resort increasingly to outsourcing and employing staff on short-term contracts, but the public sector is doing the same.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,272
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:





    No Tory leader since then has done the latter, even though Cameron came to power in circumstances not that dissimilar to those in 1979. If you want to change the political weather you need to have some idea of what you want to change it to and have the ability to argue your case. One reason the Tories have not done this is because Cameron felt that he had to accept existing assumptions rather than challenge them. And too many of them have been arguing about Europe. Even if you accept that this is the most important issue for ordinary voters (itself a colourable statement), they simply have not been able to argue for how they want to change things nor how they intend getting there. Thatcher could do - and did do - both. Today's Tories: not so much.

    If you want the change you are seeking you need to have people behind the scenes doing the intellectual heft - think tanks and the like. Are there such things anymore? Is anyone in our political class (and I'm thinking more widely than just MPs) doing any thinking at all?
    The situation in 2010 was far more catastrophic than the local difficulties of 1979. 8 years on and we have not started to recover, mainly because our public/private sector balance is way off what is sustainable. We are still running a significant structural deficit and yet the argument against "austerity" is all we ever hear. That is what really concerns me. The cosy consensus of these entitled led us to 2008. It doesn't work.

    I do agree that the arguments about Europe have been out of all proportion to its importance or relevance. I was saying as much earlier today.
    Is the public/private sectore balance in say Sweden or Denmark also unsustainable David?
    Its a good question. I think the answer is yes in the medium term because I don't see how they can be competitive with countries that don't spend so much on the State. But they certainly show that the structural deficit can be addressed by either cutting spending or by increasing taxes. We still have politicians who pretend we can have their services but our tax rates. They are liars.
    Yes, I agree. We do need to reduce the deficit, but cutting spending is not the only way to do that.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766
    nielh said:

    Even if you have a 'good' job in the private sector in Manchester, Birmingham, Scotland or wherever and a high standard of living, you are still highly vulnerable and have to live with a lot of anxiety. You can still effectively get fired at whim. In many jobs there is very little sense of a meaningful contract between yourself and your employer whereby one is loyal to the other, it is more a case of co-operation towards mutual advancement, underpinned by suspicion. I guess that is why a lot of people don't stay in post for long these days.

    It isn't difficult to realise that the whole system is broken.

    Places where it is hard to fire people have very high levels of youth unemployment, because firms are wary of adding cost they cannot lose.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,764

    DavidL said:

    Anyway, these charts reflect something that I was thinking about this morning, before the BBQ and more than a bottle of wine. Why do the Tories find it so hard to get a proper majority? They have not had one since Maggie. On a good day, like 2015, the Tories can just about scrape a majority but it has become almost impossible for them to do much better than this. May got 42% of the vote and still fell short.

    It seems to me, even without the wine, that this country has been changed so that there is a natural soft left majority such as Blair was able to put together. The Tories can, just, overcome this by having an exceptional leader like Cameron or an exceptionally repellent opponent like Corbyn but the legacy of Blair (and Brown) is a massive and massively entitled middle class that either works for the public sector or for the rather more amorphous third sector using largely public money.

    This new class is not only numerous but also completely dominates our media and policy making structures whether through charities, think tanks, institutes, Universities and the like. It is currently furious that it did not get its way on Brexit but this is an almost unique occurrence and they have by no means given up yet.

    They have the effect that even Tory governments sign up to ever increasing public spending and the State being a solution to almost any problem. They drive a consensus which is politically rather than economically driven. And it may not be sustainable. Maggie built a natural right wing majority in this country. Blair reversed it. No one since has managed to change the weather again.

    Putting the Corbyn phenomenon to one side, the problem the Tories have had since the early 90s is allowing Labour to outflank them on pro-business internationalism by succumbing to their Eurosceptic wing. The Tories always need to be more pro-EU than Labour to avoid this trap but to do this they need to break free from their own perception that to be in favour of the EU is inherently a soft left position - it isn't.
    For most naturally conservative people it is a soft left position.

    I would accept that a wealthy banker might see it differently, but that's a small part f the conservative coalition.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307

    Ishmael_Z said:

    rcs1000 said:



    The issue is that median family incomes have gone backwards since 2000.

    This may be because of low skilled immigration from Eastern Europe, or there may be other reasons. (It's worth noting that basically all developed countries have seen stagnant or falling median incomes, and that's happened irrespective of immigration policy, or whether in the Eurozone, or whatever.)

    The reason Donald Trump won in America, that the Front National surged in France, and that there is so much unhappiness with the 'elites', is that they have not delivered on their side of the bargain: they have not delivered steadily rising incomes for all.

    Now, the question is why is that? (Note: I have the answer,)

    Because they discovered that they could keep the money for themselves, and get away with it. If all the income in the world accrued to one individual, bar one dollar a day for everyone else, there would still be people saying that X's remuneration had been set by the market, and you can't interfere with the market, and, if he paid income tax at the rate of half of one percent per year, that you can't increase that because Laffer curves. It is very wrong of me to say so, but workers on BoDs and a limit of executive pay to a multiple of what the workers get can look like pretty useful ideas.
    +1
    +2. The problem is with the culture of capitalism.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:



    Maggie had 2 advantages: (1) she came to power when things had got so bad that even those who would normally be members of what you call the "soft left" class felt the need for some drastic change; and (2) she argued the case for what she was trying to do. She argued for why the state should be smaller and taxes lower and people should take more responsibility and why socialism brought disaster and why Communism (in foreign affairs) was wrong. She did not simply assert. She argued her case. And she did not simply accept previously accepted verities and assumptions.

    No Tory leader since then has done the latter, even though Cameron came to power in circumstances not that dissimilar to those in 1979. If you want to change the political weather you need to have some idea of what you want to change it to and have the ability to argue your case. One reason the Tories have not done this is because Cameron felt that he had to accept existing assumptions rather than challenge them. And too many of them have been arguing about Europe. Even if you accept that this is the most important issue for ordinary voters (itself a colourable statement), they simply have not been able to argue for how they want to change things nor how they intend getting there. Thatcher could do - and did do - both. Today's Tories: not so much.

    If you want the change you are seeking you need to have people behind the scenes doing the intellectual heft - think tanks and the like. Are there such things anymore? Is anyone in our political class (and I'm thinking more widely than just MPs) doing any thinking at all?
    The situation in 2010 was far more catastrophic than the local difficulties of 1979. 8 years on and we have not started to recover, mainly because our public/private sector balance is way off what is sustainable. We are still running a significant structural deficit and yet the argument against "austerity" is all we ever hear. That is what really concerns me. The cosy consensus of these entitled led us to 2008. It doesn't work.

    I do agree that the arguments about Europe have been out of all proportion to its importance or relevance. I was saying as much earlier today.
    Is the public/private sectore balance in say Sweden or Denmark also unsustainable David?
    On a related note, when people say do we want 'Scandinavian style public services' I wonder if they are only possible with a Scandinavian sized country.

    Perhaps different economic systems work optimally only for countries of a certain size or type.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766
    DavidL said:

    Its a good question. I think the answer is yes in the medium term because I don't see how they can be competitive with countries that don't spend so much on the State. But they certainly show that the structural deficit can be addressed by either cutting spending or by increasing taxes. We still have politicians who pretend we can have their services but our tax rates. They are liars.

    We have a system which encourages lying to the electorate.

    And in the old days, they'd just blame the EU, and move on.

    I think the biggest Brexit dividend is that it will force our politicians to take responsibility for their actions.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    rcs1000 said:

    nielh said:

    Even if you have a 'good' job in the private sector in Manchester, Birmingham, Scotland or wherever and a high standard of living, you are still highly vulnerable and have to live with a lot of anxiety. You can still effectively get fired at whim. In many jobs there is very little sense of a meaningful contract between yourself and your employer whereby one is loyal to the other, it is more a case of co-operation towards mutual advancement, underpinned by suspicion. I guess that is why a lot of people don't stay in post for long these days.

    It isn't difficult to realise that the whole system is broken.

    Places where it is hard to fire people have very high levels of youth unemployment, because firms are wary of adding cost they cannot lose.
    The flexibility of the UK labour market is one of the reasons why unemployment is so low.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,761

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:



    Maggie had 2 advantages: (1) she came to power when things had got so bad that even those who would normally be members of what you call the "soft left" class felt the need for some drastic change; and (2) she argued the case for what she was trying to do. She argued for why the state should be smaller and taxes lower and people should take more responsibility and why socialism brought disaster and why Communism (in foreign affairs) was wrong. She did not simply assert. She argued her case. And she did not simply accept previously accepted verities and assumptions.

    No Tory leader since then has done the latter, even though Cameron came to power in circumstances not that dissimilar to those in 1979. If you want to change the political weather you need to have some idea of what you want to change it to and have the ability to argue your case. One reason the Tories have not done this is because Cameron felt that he had to accept existing assumptions rather than challenge them. And too many of them have been arguing about Europe. Even if you accept that this is the most important issue for ordinary voters (itself a colourable statement), they simply have not been able to argue for how they want to change things nor how they intend getting there. Thatcher could do - and did do - both. Today's Tories: not so much.

    If you want the change you are seeking you need to have people behind the scenes doing the intellectual heft - think tanks and the like. Are there such things anymore? Is anyone in our political class (and I'm thinking more widely than just MPs) doing any thinking at all?
    The situation in 2010 was far more catastrophic than the local difficulties of 1979. 8 years on and we have not started to recover, mainly because our public/private sector balance is way off what is sustainable. We are still running a significant structural deficit and yet the argument against "austerity" is all we ever hear. That is what really concerns me. The cosy consensus of these entitled led us to 2008. It doesn't work.

    I do agree that the arguments about Europe have been out of all proportion to its importance or relevance. I was saying as much earlier today.
    A country which has had 241 consecutivie months of trade deficit (plus a similar tourism deficit) has in no way been undergoing austerity.

    Your anecdote about the job vacancies in Edinburgh bars are restaurants backs this up.
    Agreed. Demand remains excessive, partly driven by borrowing.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    edited May 2018
    Everyone will be pleased to know that my partner and I have laid down the law and we're now having a small, tasteful wedding and it will cost less than a quarter of what the original budget was. Out closest friends and family, a church and a party in the evening.

    My mum didn't want to give up without a fight, but as @rcs1000 said he who pay the bill calls the tune. When I said, "if you want us to have a huge Indian wedding then give us the £80k" she was suddenly a lot more agreeable to our way.
This discussion has been closed.