What a pickle! The typical working class,lowish income,trade unionist can no longer vote for Labour because they made such a s*** pile of the place the last time they were in. Your average high flying, white collar/van men are struggling to vote Tory because Dave has put a significant dent in their wallets.
Ignoring the source of the stats as that make it too easy to discredit them if you are inclined to the right like yourself, focus on the difference between the HMRC's own figures for tax evasion, etc and compare that to the government's own figures for benefit fraud. Given the populist politics played out by this coalition over welfare reform does the difference in approach not indicate to you that they would rather focus anywhere but at the biggest loss of revenue to the UK?
To put benefit fraud into further context, it costs the UK economy £3.6b as a result of (overseas generally) mass marketing frauds. That's scam mailing, emails, fake lotteries to you and me and is three times the amount lost to benefit fraud yet what are the government doing about it? Very little other than cutting back on the services like the OFT aimed at countering it. Does it ever get anywhere hear the attention in the media as the amount lost to benefit 'scroungers'? Of course not but then again it's a lot sexier for the media to run with stories about single mums with 6,7,8 kids asking for bigger council houses isn't it and those in power are very happy to see them focus at this side of the balance rather than asking difficult questions about what they are going to do about the Starbucks or Bernie Ecclestones of this world.
I have no doubt that the figure for benefit fraud is grossly underestimated, just as the immigration figures are. There is a huge black market of people working for "cash only" thus avoiding paying any tax. I also have no doubt that many of these same people are claiming benefits. The system therefore gets hit both on the taxation side and the welfare side. But where you have such a lax welfare system, such widespread fraud is to be expected. It may well pale into insignificance compared to the money lost through Tax Avoidance. But Tax Avoidance is not a crime, Tax Evasion is. But this doesn't distract from my argument that we need to either somehow increase tax revenue or cut welfare, because things are presently unsustainable. Yes I agree that systems should be put in place that prevents the likes of Starbucks avoiding paying their fair share of tax and that would be a good place to start in generating more tax revenue. But if the population continues to increase and more people go onto welfare, at the same time as some of these Corporations close up shop, or move offshore due to high taxation, then things get really ugly. As for the press, it's time to cut the crap, stop the spin and start telling people the facts. Charts like the one above are designed and produced based on political bias and mislead people who take them at face value. I don't believe any stats or charts produced by any political party anymore. I only believe what I see with my own eyes and hear with my ears, out on the street as it were. It's pretty easy to see if an area is overcrowded, queues, traffic jams, long wait to see GP etc. It's also quite easy to see if an economy is doing well, few shops up for lease, coffee shops full, low crime rates, people taking frequent holidays abroad etc.
It will indeed be difficult for UKIP to win Parliamentary seats under a first past the post system. Indeed, despite the success of the past few days in the local elections, UKIP control no councils themselves athough the effect of the UKIP vote has been to throw many (Maidstone being a good relatively local example) into no overall control or indeed a gain for one or the other major parties.
If the UKIP vote holds this phenomenon can affect the 2015 General Election by making many more seats "marginal" for want of a better word. It has been suggested that in 2010, with a much smaller share of the vote, UKIP alone contributed to 23 seats being lost by the Tories and 27 seats lost by the Tories in 2005 when their vote is combined with Veritas (Kilroy Silk's party when he flounced off from UKIP).
A higher UKIP share of the vote will affect Labour and the Lib Dems similarly.
That's why the pigs in their blue, red and yellow rosettes are concerned. The predictability of the routine of setting their sat navs once every 5 years to find their constituencies and inspect their second homes whilst the sheep meekly re-elect them has been called into question.
What a pickle! The typical working class,lowish income,trade unionist can no longer vote for Labour because they made such a s*** pile of the place the last time they were in. Your average high flying, white collar/van men are struggling to vote Tory because Dave has put a significant dent in their wallets.
Devil and the deep blue sea.
"Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country" Time to take our medicine, our kids will appreciate us for it!
Seriously what state do you think the economy would be in now if labour were in control
Well, when the Tories came in to power, the economy was GROWING. Osborne killed that growth and put us into recession, and it's taken four years to get the economy roughly back where it was when he became Chancellor.
Missing out the Q2 performances whilst the elections were going on, the last Labour Government grew the economy by a toal of 1.3% in their 5 year tenure.
Conversely, the current coalition have grown the economy by 5% so far in the four years they have been in power.
I certainly don’t want to overly defend the record of the last Labour government – but, as I’m sure you know if you select your time window to suit your purposes (as you seem to have done) then you can (usually) get the result you want.
“The last 10 quarters of growth whilst Labour were in power” of course included the largest international financial crisis since the 1930’s (and possibly longer) when the economy shrank by record amounts.
The article I posted was about the direction of travel after that crisis when the economy began to grow again. Nor is it valid for you to “Miss…out the [2010] Q2 performances whilst the elections were going on” or for that matter Q3 2010 (unless you’re suggesting that Osborne can claim credit for growth while he was standing for election and the immediate few months afterwards – only to be followed by up-down stagnation until the first quarter of 2013; much of which is missed out by your chosen “last 10 quarters of the current coalition”)?
I think this graph of UK GDP quarter on quarter growth 2003-2014 shows a more balanced picture (taken from the same ONS Statistical release referred to in the article I posted and which you seem to have selected from):
It will indeed be difficult for UKIP to win Parliamentary seats under a first past the post system. Indeed, despite the success of the past few days in the local elections, UKIP control no councils themselves athough the effect of the UKIP vote has been to throw many (Maidstone being a good relatively local example) into no overall control or indeed a gain for one or the other major parties.
If the UKIP vote holds this phenomenon can affect the 2015 General Election by making many more seats "marginal" for want of a better word. It has been suggested that in 2010, with a much smaller share of the vote, UKIP alone contributed to 23 seats being lost by the Tories and 27 seats lost by the Tories in 2005 when their vote is combined with Veritas (Kilroy Silk's party when he flounced off from UKIP).
A higher UKIP share of the vote will affect Labour and the Lib Dems similarly.
That's why the pigs in their blue, red and yellow rosettes are concerned. The predictability of the routine of setting their sat navs once every 5 years to find their constituencies and inspect their second homes whilst the sheep meekly re-elect them has been called into question.
That’s why I find the results and timing of former Tory treasurer Lord Ashcroft’s release of his latest opinion polls so interesting (released at a post election Tory get-together over the weekend):
“In the last few weeks I have polled more than 26,000 voters in 26 constituencies that will be among the most closely contested between the Conservatives and Labour at the next general election.
Across the battleground I found a 6.5% swing from the Conservatives to Labour – enough to topple 83 Tory MPs and give Ed Miliband a comfortable majority. But this is a snapshot, not a prediction. The research also found that most voters in these seats are optimistic about the economy, and only three in ten would rather see Mr Miliband as Prime Minister than David Cameron. As I have found in the Ashcroft National Poll, half of voters say they may change their mind before the election – and there is still a year to go”.
Apart from the results the ‘interesting’ bit (to me) is - while all the parties regularly do their own private polls (which may explain Milliband's apparrent 'confidence' about the General Election plus the criticism from people like John Mann MP that Labour has decided not to directly attack UKIP) - why have the Tories chosen to release these figures (and why now).....?
It will indeed be difficult for UKIP to win Parliamentary seats under a first past the post system. Indeed, despite the success of the past few days in the local elections, UKIP control no councils themselves athough the effect of the UKIP vote has been to throw many (Maidstone being a good relatively local example) into no overall control or indeed a gain for one or the other major parties.
If the UKIP vote holds this phenomenon can affect the 2015 General Election by making many more seats "marginal" for want of a better word. It has been suggested that in 2010, with a much smaller share of the vote, UKIP alone contributed to 23 seats being lost by the Tories and 27 seats lost by the Tories in 2005 when their vote is combined with Veritas (Kilroy Silk's party when he flounced off from UKIP).
A higher UKIP share of the vote will affect Labour and the Lib Dems similarly.
That's why the pigs in their blue, red and yellow rosettes are concerned. The predictability of the routine of setting their sat navs once every 5 years to find their constituencies and inspect their second homes whilst the sheep meekly re-elect them has been called into question.
That’s why I find the results and timing of former Tory treasurer Lord Ashcroft’s release of his latest opinion polls so interesting (released at a post election Tory get-together over the weekend):
“In the last few weeks I have polled more than 26,000 voters in 26 constituencies that will be among the most closely contested between the Conservatives and Labour at the next general election.
Across the battleground I found a 6.5% swing from the Conservatives to Labour – enough to topple 83 Tory MPs and give Ed Miliband a comfortable majority. But this is a snapshot, not a prediction. The research also found that most voters in these seats are optimistic about the economy, and only three in ten would rather see Mr Miliband as Prime Minister than David Cameron. As I have found in the Ashcroft National Poll, half of voters say they may change their mind before the election – and there is still a year to go”.
Apart from the results the ‘interesting’ bit (to me) is - while all the parties regularly do their own private polls (which may explain Milliband's apparrent 'confidence' about the General Election plus the criticism from people like John Mann MP that Labour has decided not to directly attack UKIP) - why have the Tories chosen to release these figures (and why now).....?
Very interesting post and some great questions - none of which are easy to answer.
I think the bottom line is that the 2015 General Election will be near impossible to call, seems unlikely that anybody will get a majority on their own.
I think that the Lib Dems - possibly with a new leader - will again hold the balance of power and have a choice between Coalition with either Conservative or Labour.
For the Conservatives a Coalition with UKIP would be their worst nightmare because the tough calls on Europe they have put off for 25 years will have to be made very quickly.
What a pickle! The typical working class,lowish income,trade unionist can no longer vote for Labour because they made such a s*** pile of the place the last time they were in. Your average high flying, white collar/van men are struggling to vote Tory because Dave has put a significant dent in their wallets.
Devil and the deep blue sea.
"Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country" Time to take our medicine, our kids will appreciate us for it!
Shame that the media chooses to completely black out other parties outside of the main 4 + BNP.
Did the Greens receive any coverage at all? They're a much bigger party than the BNP, but which party got more airtime in the run-up to the election coverage? The BNP.
How can the population be educated and informed when the media picks and chooses which parties deserve to be covered. Madness that the 4th biggest party before these elections weren't given any attention whatsoever, with the 5th biggest receiving by far the most.
What a pickle! The typical working class,lowish income,trade unionist can no longer vote for Labour because they made such a s*** pile of the place the last time they were in. Your average high flying, white collar/van men are struggling to vote Tory because Dave has put a significant dent in their wallets.
Devil and the deep blue sea.
"Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country" Time to take our medicine, our kids will appreciate us for it!
Remind me Queensland. Where is it you live again?
Aus, but try to come back each year to see the mighty Addicks. The reason for my interest in this thread is because I see parallels with what is happening in the UK and what is now happening in Australia. In each case a Conservative government has come in and had to make extremely tough and unpopular decisions in order to try to deal with the mountains of debt left behind by a previous Labor government. Predictably the citizens of both countries are turning against the Government, because the concept of short term pain for long term again is no longer acceptable. We now live in a "what's in it for me" society. I, like you am working class, out of work and doing it very tough at the moment. But I am trying to see the bigger picture. I always live within my means and I expect my government to do likewise and keep their own economic house in order. I do not want my kids to inherit mountains of debt and the kind of problems that we saw recently in Greece.
Ah God bless the Guardian! Those figures are crazy. So the HMRC estimate of tax avoidance is 30 Billion, but the "Tax Justice Network" (Who the hell are they)? estimate it at 120 billion, 400% higher. Now have you got a chart that shows the total cost of the welfare system V Revenue generated via taxation? Then add to that figure the amount of interest that the Government has to pay on it's debts. Then factor in future rising interest rates and an aging demographic and the burden this will place on the welfare system. Preferably something not produced by the Guardian!
Hi, I don't understand why you're ignoring the government's own estimates.
Anyway, here you go. A graphic of benefits payments including interest payments (I think these might be 2012 figures), and how these fit into total spending. Please note, the figures marked HMRC are the costs of tax credits etc, not revenue from HMRC.
I don't understand your point on an aging demographic. Can you please elaborate, including reasons why your interest in restricting the population would help?
Being unemployed when you want to work is soul-destroying and very damaging to individuals and society as a whole. Being in a working environment where you feel bullied and threatened with the loss of your job is also damaging. Both these situations prevail at the moment, for me in a very personal way. I feel bullied myself at the moment and my younger son is long-term unemployed.
These are the things that matter to the working man (or woman). Telling them that the reason they feel like this is because some foreigners have moved in next door is the politics of fear. We should guard against this. UKIP are, to my mind, dangerous. They are using immigration for their own ends - don't be fooled.
Being unemployed when you want to work is soul-destroying and very damaging to individuals and society as a whole. Being in a working environment where you feel bullied and threatened with the loss of your job is also damaging. Both these situations prevail at the moment, for me in a very personal way. I feel bullied myself at the moment and my younger son is long-term unemployed.
These are the things that matter to the working man (or woman). Telling them that the reason they feel like this is because some foreigners have moved in next door is the politics of fear. We should guard against this. UKIP are, to my mind, dangerous. They are using immigration for their own ends - don't be fooled.
I don't think UKIP are trying to suggest that the direct personal problems of yourself or anyone are the fault of immigration etc. More that mass unregulated immigration is having a detrimental effect on the Country as a whole.
I hope your personal issue you mention above resolve themselves soon btw.
IA, thanks for providing. Unfortunately I cannot enlarge, so cannot study too closely to work out how it all adds up. The article that I read which was based on 2010 treasury figures was 165 billion outgoing in Benefits payments, with Income tax receipts of only 145 billion. It was anticipated that the spending on Social Security would quickly exceed income from both Income Tax and National Insurance revenue. I cannot imagine that things have improved although I would be very interested to see if that has eventuated in the latest figures. My concern with the aging demographic is that as time goes on more people will be retiring than entering the workforce, meaning less income tax revenue and National Insurance payments to the Government, whilst the government is paying out more money in not only Pensions but also the added healthcare costs of an aging population. Now the argument from the Left would be, well bring more people in. But the problem is, there are no jobs, so these immigrants would also end up on state benefits. Hence the reason I believe we need to reduce the population, not just in England, but worldwide. It comes down to resources, or lack of. Worldwide, that involves a lack of food and water in some places. In England it involves a lack of jobs and affordable housing. Less people in England would mean that a larger proportion of the working age population would be able to find Employment, which obviously means less of a strain on welfare, housing, healthcare, infrastructure and numerous other elements of life.
Being unemployed when you want to work is soul-destroying and very damaging to individuals and society as a whole. Being in a working environment where you feel bullied and threatened with the loss of your job is also damaging. Both these situations prevail at the moment, for me in a very personal way. I feel bullied myself at the moment and my younger son is long-term unemployed.
These are the things that matter to the working man (or woman). Telling them that the reason they feel like this is because some foreigners have moved in next door is the politics of fear. We should guard against this. UKIP are, to my mind, dangerous. They are using immigration for their own ends - don't be fooled.
I don't think UKIP are trying to suggest that the direct personal problems of yourself or anyone are the fault of immigration etc. More that mass unregulated immigration is having a detrimental effect on the Country as a whole.
I hope your personal issue you mention above resolve themselves soon btw.
But surely we look to our politicians to help us in our daily struggle so it is personal. We listen to what they say and we apply it to our personal circumstances and decide if what they propose will help us as individuals. I'm not having a dig, but if, as you say, my direct personal problems and anyone else's are not the fault of immigration, why is immigration seen as a problem? This is similar to when I was at school and a friend started supporting the National Front, when our Asian friend picked him up on his wish to send people of colour "home" he said it wasn't personal. How can it not be personal?
Saga, what I think The Organiser is saying is that a needs based, skilled and regulated immigration program is absolutely fine, it is mass unregulated migration that is the problem. What you unfortunately have is a situation where there are probably 200 + people ready to jump into your job for probably less money than you are currently taking. Of course employers know this and take advantage of it. People like you then sadly suffer as a result. Your perception seems to be that UKIP are promoting the politics of fear, which I agree is wrong. But I see them as simply stating the truth, ie there are too many people chasing too few jobs so we do not need even more people to add to the problem. There is nothing racist about that, it is simply a mathematical fact and I would challenge anyone to dispute that fact. I don't think UKIP are racist, whereas the National Front most certainly were.
IA, thanks for providing. Unfortunately I cannot enlarge, so cannot study too closely to work out how it all adds up. The article that I read which was based on 2010 treasury figures was 165 billion outgoing in Benefits payments, with Income tax receipts of only 145 billion. It was anticipated that the spending on Social Security would quickly exceed income from both Income Tax and National Insurance revenue. I cannot imagine that things have improved although I would be very interested to see if that has eventuated in the latest figures. My concern with the aging demographic is that as time goes on more people will be retiring than entering the workforce, meaning less income tax revenue and National Insurance payments to the Government, whilst the government is paying out more money in not only Pensions but also the added healthcare costs of an aging population. Now the argument from the Left would be, well bring more people in. But the problem is, there are no jobs, so these immigrants would also end up on state benefits. Hence the reason I believe we need to reduce the population, not just in England, but worldwide. It comes down to resources, or lack of. Worldwide, that involves a lack of food and water in some places. In England it involves a lack of jobs and affordable housing. Less people in England would mean that a larger proportion of the working age population would be able to find Employment, which obviously means less of a strain on welfare, housing, healthcare, infrastructure and numerous other elements of life.
If a company has 10 employees, and one of them retires, it then has 9 employees and 1 vacancy. It will want to fill that vacancy as quickly as possible by hiring a new employee.
Why doesn't that apply to the aggregate, national level?
By the way, the pro-immigration argument you outlined is a right-wing argument (in the free market sense), not a left-wing one. It's supply-side economics by definition.
I was 13 when I was at the first planning meeting for the Valley back in 1990. Even though I was relatively young it stuck with me how the working class party was so out of touch with what working class people thought and what they liked, it practically bordered on contempt. I know all 3 political parties were included (possibly even the SDP ) but it was a clear Labour majority on it. Since then the Labour party has got even worse with how they treat the working class, so much so it now has a leader who has no idea what the majority of his party's voters lives are like
I was 13 when I was at the first planning meeting for the Valley back in 1990. Even though I was relatively young it stuck with me how the working class party was so out of touch with what working class people thought and what they liked, it practically bordered on contempt. I know all 3 political parties were included (possibly even the SDP ) but it was a clear Labour majority on it. Since then the Labour party has got even worse with how they treat the working class, so much so it now has a leader who has no idea what the majority of his party's voters lives are like
I’ve a lot of sympathy with that - but to return to the original focus of this thread – does a Dulwich College educated former city trader and son of a stockbroker have any better idea, and, perhaps even more important, does he have any real answers to their problems….?
Saga, what I think The Organiser is saying is that a needs based, skilled and regulated immigration program is absolutely fine, it is mass unregulated migration that is the problem. What you unfortunately have is a situation where there are probably 200 + people ready to jump into your job for probably less money than you are currently taking. Of course employers know this and take advantage of it. People like you then sadly suffer as a result. Your perception seems to be that UKIP are promoting the politics of fear, which I agree is wrong. But I see them as simply stating the truth, ie there are too many people chasing too few jobs so we do not need even more people to add to the problem. There is nothing racist about that, it is simply a mathematical fact and I would challenge anyone to dispute that fact. I don't think UKIP are racist, whereas the National Front most certainly were.
I don't think you are quite getting my point. The Organiser doesn't want me to take things personally, whereas I think I should.
What does the line below actually mean, particularly the bit I highlighted? If my problems and everyone else's are not the fault of immigration, why say immigration is a problem?
"I don't think UKIP are trying to suggest that the direct personal problems of yourself or anyone are the fault of immigration etc."
On the wireless today I heard that Michael Gove wants to reduce the amount of American literature in GCSE English exams, works such as 'The Catcher in the Rye', 'the Crucible', and a particular one that pisses him off 'Of Mice and Men'. he wants study of those works replaced with more 'home grown' works written in English. Leaving out the ins and outs for a moment, we have a politician saying 'I want it to be a certain way, let it be so', presumably because the thought line goes something like 'I am the minister, so whatever I think must be right, the voters have empowered me, ha!' Gove also decided that because the Chinese up to a certain age and point are 'better' at Mathematics, so he would send a team out there to study the mathematics teaching methods in China. He completely missed the point (as covered some years ago in a London University study) that by simply speaking number in Mandarin a huge amount of rudimentary arithmetic is automatically 'done' embedded as it is in the Chinese language. He however ignores the evidence and rides his self-perceived omnipotence. He has done the same with Free Schools, and wants PHd's to teach Science and Maths because they are good at it, never mind if they're no good at teaching it. I write all this, not because he is a Tory, but because he is a politician. Loads get elected and their reality seems a world away from mine, and from (un)common sense. As a result, all kinds of politicians swan around making stuff up off the top of their heads which we then have to endure. There is a (to use the buzz word) disconnect between how ordinary folk experience life and the high echelons of many of those in power. Flailing around, the ordinary folk look for something else, be it UKIP, or in Italy where the internet enabled a stand up comedian to be elected. As I grew up you had a good chance to feel involved. You could get active in your Union, or local political party, or Rotary club or whatever. You had demonstrations, left and right wing publications, and somehow you felt you could influence stuff. Nowadays I look at the political landscape and despair, it is so distant and so bleak. Going on the march for Lewisham Hospital stands out for me in recent memory as a reminder of the times when the people felt they mattered and could be acknowledged, and horrifically others got a similar feeling when participating in the London riots. Michael Gove is state school, not Dulwich College, not a Bellenden (?) Oxford toff, but he feels so alien to me as an example of the political animal, but so much in tune with his fellow politicians of all colours. I am getting sick of them all, last Thursday I voted National health and Green because mainstream seems so other these days.
On the wireless today I heard that Michael Gove wants to reduce the amount of American literature in GCSE English exams, works such as 'The Catcher in the Rye', 'the Crucible', and a particular one that pisses him off 'Of Mice and Men'. he wants study of those works replaced with more 'home grown' works written in English. Leaving out the ins and outs for a moment, we have a politician saying 'I want it to be a certain way, let it be so', presumably because the thought line goes something like 'I am the minister, so whatever I think must be right, the voters have empowered me, ha!' Gove also decided that because the Chinese up to a certain age and point are 'better' at Mathematics, so he would send a team out there to study the mathematics teaching methods in China. He completely missed the point (as covered some years ago in a London University study) that by simply speaking number in Mandarin a huge amount of rudimentary arithmetic is automatically 'done' embedded as it is in the Chinese language. He however ignores the evidence and rides his self-perceived omnipotence. He has done the same with Free Schools, and wants PHd's to teach Science and Maths because they are good at it, never mind if they're no good at teaching it. I write all this, not because he is a Tory, but because he is a politician. Loads get elected and their reality seems a world away from mine, and from (un)common sense. As a result, all kinds of politicians swan around making stuff up off the top of their heads which we then have to endure. There is a (to use the buzz word) disconnect between how ordinary folk experience life and the high echelons of many of those in power. Flailing around, the ordinary folk look for something else, be it UKIP, or in Italy where the internet enabled a stand up comedian to be elected. As I grew up you had a good chance to feel involved. You could get active in your Union, or local political party, or Rotary club or whatever. You had demonstrations, left and right wing publications, and somehow you felt you could influence stuff. Nowadays I look at the political landscape and despair, it is so distant and so bleak. Going on the march for Lewisham Hospital stands out for me in recent memory as a reminder of the times when the people felt they mattered and could be acknowledged, and horrifically others got a similar feeling when participating in the London riots. Michael Gove is state school, not Dulwich College, not a Bellenden (?) Oxford toff, but he feels so alien to me as an example of the political animal, but so much in tune with his fellow politicians of all colours. I am getting sick of them all, last Thursday I voted National health and Green because mainstream seems so other these days.
This was a great post.
However, I would challenge it by saying that Gove is perhaps an accentuated example of a careerist ideologue - unfortunately, such types tend to end up in Cabinet.
I'm sure there are both Labour and Conservative MPs with enormous integrity and determination to do right by their constituents (I'm not usually very charitable to Conservatives but a man I deeply admire has said with justification that he votes Tory because his local MP, John Baron, is apparently a very committed and successful local politician). The thing is - these politicians, whether Labour or Conservative, almost never make it to the positions of national power, because they refuse to toe the line. Baron, for instance, was the only Tory politician to vote against certain military actions at various points (and, to give him a stronger case, is an ex-serviceman himself). Would such a dangerous renegade make Cabinet? Would he hell.
It's not even about the mainstream parties being constituted entirely of beige, nefarious, fraudulent jobs-for-city-boys arseholes. They're not. Many of their members and activists are clued-in, locally-engaged and compassionate. However, at the top end, their passions are sublimated, mysteriously, into a sort of compliant fog, which lifts to reveal the nation sold to the highest bidder.
The system works at the low end. It doesn't work at the high. I don't know what to do, but I do suspect that the Cabinet system is not only outdated but dangerous.
On the wireless today I heard that Michael Gove wants to reduce the amount of American literature in GCSE English exams, works such as 'The Catcher in the Rye', 'the Crucible', and a particular one that pisses him off 'Of Mice and Men'. he wants study of those works replaced with more 'home grown' works written in English. Leaving out the ins and outs for a moment, we have a politician saying 'I want it to be a certain way, let it be so', presumably because the thought line goes something like 'I am the minister, so whatever I think must be right, the voters have empowered me, ha!' Gove also decided that because the Chinese up to a certain age and point are 'better' at Mathematics, so he would send a team out there to study the mathematics teaching methods in China. He completely missed the point (as covered some years ago in a London University study) that by simply speaking number in Mandarin a huge amount of rudimentary arithmetic is automatically 'done' embedded as it is in the Chinese language. He however ignores the evidence and rides his self-perceived omnipotence. He has done the same with Free Schools, and wants PHd's to teach Science and Maths because they are good at it, never mind if they're no good at teaching it. I write all this, not because he is a Tory, but because he is a politician. Loads get elected and their reality seems a world away from mine, and from (un)common sense. As a result, all kinds of politicians swan around making stuff up off the top of their heads which we then have to endure. There is a (to use the buzz word) disconnect between how ordinary folk experience life and the high echelons of many of those in power. Flailing around, the ordinary folk look for something else, be it UKIP, or in Italy where the internet enabled a stand up comedian to be elected. As I grew up you had a good chance to feel involved. You could get active in your Union, or local political party, or Rotary club or whatever. You had demonstrations, left and right wing publications, and somehow you felt you could influence stuff. Nowadays I look at the political landscape and despair, it is so distant and so bleak. Going on the march for Lewisham Hospital stands out for me in recent memory as a reminder of the times when the people felt they mattered and could be acknowledged, and horrifically others got a similar feeling when participating in the London riots. Michael Gove is state school, not Dulwich College, not a Bellenden (?) Oxford toff, but he feels so alien to me as an example of the political animal, but so much in tune with his fellow politicians of all colours. I am getting sick of them all, last Thursday I voted National health and Green because mainstream seems so other these days.
This was a great post.
However, I would challenge it by saying that Gove is perhaps an accentuated example of a careerist ideologue - unfortunately, such types tend to end up in Cabinet.
I'm sure there are both Labour and Conservative MPs with enormous integrity and determination to do right by their constituents (I'm not usually very charitable to Conservatives but a man I deeply admire has said with justification that he votes Tory because his local MP, John Baron, is apparently a very committed and successful local politician). The thing is - these politicians, whether Labour or Conservative, almost never make it to the positions of national power, because they refuse to toe the line. Baron, for instance, was the only Tory politician to vote against certain military actions at various points (and, to give him a stronger case, is an ex-serviceman himself). Would such a dangerous renegade make Cabinet? Would he hell.
It's not even about the mainstream parties being constituted entirely of beige, nefarious, fraudulent jobs-for-city-boys arseholes. They're not. Many of their members and activists are clued-in, locally-engaged and compassionate. However, at the top end, their passions are sublimated, mysteriously, into a sort of compliant fog, which lifts to reveal the nation sold to the highest bidder.
The system works at the low end. It doesn't work at the high. I don't know what to do, but I do suspect that the Cabinet system is not only outdated but dangerous.
I like this post too.
I think the phrase is; 'power tends to corrupt, absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely'. I agree that here and there you can find people with integrity. Denis Skinner seems to be one such example. However in a field that seems to demand creative and imaginative and even idealistic action, we are constantly told that it is the politicians who have to behave as they do because they are more engaged with the real problems than the rest of us, and their decisions are therefore more practical and correct. Things like Privatisation of Water, or going in to Iraq may well have had a smidgen of reasoning behind them but I can't help feeling that it was more about suiting ideologies at the time. Yes there is integrity, work to bring peace to Northern Ireland, and to sustain it is a good example, and interestingly all mainstream parties co-operated in Northern Ireland policies. maybe the future is about a bit more of that kind of practical problem solving and co-operation, but I won't hold my breath for too long.
Comments
The typical working class,lowish income,trade unionist can no longer vote for Labour because they made such a s*** pile of the place the last time they were in.
Your average high flying, white
collar/van men are struggling to vote Tory because Dave has put a significant dent in their wallets.
Devil and the deep blue sea.
It's pretty easy to see if an area is overcrowded, queues, traffic jams, long wait to see GP etc. It's also quite easy to see if an economy is doing well, few shops up for lease, coffee shops full, low crime rates, people taking frequent holidays abroad etc.
If the UKIP vote holds this phenomenon can affect the 2015 General Election by making many more seats "marginal" for want of a better word. It has been suggested that in 2010, with a much smaller share of the vote, UKIP alone contributed to 23 seats being lost by the Tories and 27 seats lost by the Tories in 2005 when their vote is combined with Veritas (Kilroy Silk's party when he flounced off from UKIP).
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=71150
http://www.brugesgroup.com/eu/election-analysis-the-effect-of-ukipveritas.htm?xp=media
A higher UKIP share of the vote will affect Labour and the Lib Dems similarly.
That's why the pigs in their blue, red and yellow rosettes are concerned. The predictability of the routine of setting their sat navs once every 5 years to find their constituencies and inspect their second homes whilst the sheep meekly re-elect them has been called into question.
Time to take our medicine, our kids will appreciate us for it!
“The last 10 quarters of growth whilst Labour were in power” of course included the largest international financial crisis since the 1930’s (and possibly longer) when the economy shrank by record amounts.
The article I posted was about the direction of travel after that crisis when the economy began to grow again. Nor is it valid for you to “Miss…out the [2010] Q2 performances whilst the elections were going on” or for that matter Q3 2010 (unless you’re suggesting that Osborne can claim credit for growth while he was standing for election and the immediate few months afterwards – only to be followed by up-down stagnation until the first quarter of 2013; much of which is missed out by your chosen “last 10 quarters of the current coalition”)?
I think this graph of UK GDP quarter on quarter growth 2003-2014 shows a more balanced picture (taken from the same ONS Statistical release referred to in the article I posted and which you seem to have selected from):
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2014/05/conservative-labour-battleground/
He says:
“In the last few weeks I have polled more than 26,000 voters in 26 constituencies that will be among the most closely contested between the Conservatives and Labour at the next general election.
Across the battleground I found a 6.5% swing from the Conservatives to Labour – enough to topple 83 Tory MPs and give Ed Miliband a comfortable majority. But this is a snapshot, not a prediction. The research also found that most voters in these seats are optimistic about the economy, and only three in ten would rather see Mr Miliband as Prime Minister than David Cameron. As I have found in the Ashcroft National Poll, half of voters say they may change their mind before the election – and there is still a year to go”.
Apart from the results the ‘interesting’ bit (to me) is - while all the parties regularly do their own private polls (which may explain Milliband's apparrent 'confidence' about the General Election plus the criticism from people like John Mann MP that Labour has decided not to directly attack UKIP) - why have the Tories chosen to release these figures (and why now).....?
I think the bottom line is that the 2015 General Election will be near impossible to call, seems unlikely that anybody will get a majority on their own.
I think that the Lib Dems - possibly with a new leader - will again hold the balance of power and have a choice between Coalition with either Conservative or Labour.
For the Conservatives a Coalition with UKIP would be their worst nightmare because the tough calls on Europe they have put off for 25 years will have to be made very quickly.
Did the Greens receive any coverage at all? They're a much bigger party than the BNP, but which party got more airtime in the run-up to the election coverage? The BNP.
How can the population be educated and informed when the media picks and chooses which parties deserve to be covered. Madness that the 4th biggest party before these elections weren't given any attention whatsoever, with the 5th biggest receiving by far the most.
I, like you am working class, out of work and doing it very tough at the moment. But I am trying to see the bigger picture. I always live within my means and I expect my government to do likewise and keep their own economic house in order. I do not want my kids to inherit mountains of debt and the kind of problems that we saw recently in Greece.
Anyway, here you go. A graphic of benefits payments including interest payments (I think these might be 2012 figures), and how these fit into total spending. Please note, the figures marked HMRC are the costs of tax credits etc, not revenue from HMRC.
I don't understand your point on an aging demographic. Can you please elaborate, including reasons why your interest in restricting the population would help?
These are the things that matter to the working man (or woman). Telling them that the reason they feel like this is because some foreigners have moved in next door is the politics of fear. We should guard against this. UKIP are, to my mind, dangerous. They are using immigration for their own ends - don't be fooled.
More that mass unregulated immigration is having a detrimental effect on the Country as a whole.
I hope your personal issue you mention above resolve themselves soon btw.
My concern with the aging demographic is that as time goes on more people will be retiring than entering the workforce, meaning less income tax revenue and National Insurance payments to the Government, whilst the government is paying out more money in not only Pensions but also the added healthcare costs of an aging population. Now the argument from the Left would be, well bring more people in. But the problem is, there are no jobs, so these immigrants would also end up on state benefits. Hence the reason I believe we need to reduce the population, not just in England, but worldwide. It comes down to resources, or lack of. Worldwide, that involves a lack of food and water in some places. In England it involves a lack of jobs and affordable housing. Less people in England would mean that a larger proportion of the working age population would be able to find Employment, which obviously means less of a strain on welfare, housing, healthcare, infrastructure and numerous other elements of life.
Why doesn't that apply to the aggregate, national level?
By the way, the pro-immigration argument you outlined is a right-wing argument (in the free market sense), not a left-wing one. It's supply-side economics by definition.
What does the line below actually mean, particularly the bit I highlighted? If my problems and everyone else's are not the fault of immigration, why say immigration is a problem?
"I don't think UKIP are trying to suggest that the direct personal problems of yourself or anyone are the fault of immigration etc."
Least we're not France, 25% of them voted for the National Front! Jesus.
Leaving out the ins and outs for a moment, we have a politician saying 'I want it to be a certain way, let it be so', presumably because the thought line goes something like 'I am the minister, so whatever I think must be right, the voters have empowered me, ha!'
Gove also decided that because the Chinese up to a certain age and point are 'better' at Mathematics, so he would send a team out there to study the mathematics teaching methods in China. He completely missed the point (as covered some years ago in a London University study) that by simply speaking number in Mandarin a huge amount of rudimentary arithmetic is automatically 'done' embedded as it is in the Chinese language. He however ignores the evidence and rides his self-perceived omnipotence.
He has done the same with Free Schools, and wants PHd's to teach Science and Maths because they are good at it, never mind if they're no good at teaching it.
I write all this, not because he is a Tory, but because he is a politician. Loads get elected and their reality seems a world away from mine, and from (un)common sense. As a result, all kinds of politicians swan around making stuff up off the top of their heads which we then have to endure.
There is a (to use the buzz word) disconnect between how ordinary folk experience life and the high echelons of many of those in power. Flailing around, the ordinary folk look for something else, be it UKIP, or in Italy where the internet enabled a stand up comedian to be elected.
As I grew up you had a good chance to feel involved. You could get active in your Union, or local political party, or Rotary club or whatever. You had demonstrations, left and right wing publications, and somehow you felt you could influence stuff.
Nowadays I look at the political landscape and despair, it is so distant and so bleak.
Going on the march for Lewisham Hospital stands out for me in recent memory as a reminder of the times when the people felt they mattered and could be acknowledged, and horrifically others got a similar feeling when participating in the London riots.
Michael Gove is state school, not Dulwich College, not a Bellenden (?) Oxford toff, but he feels so alien to me as an example of the political animal, but so much in tune with his fellow politicians of all colours. I am getting sick of them all, last Thursday I voted National health and Green because mainstream seems so other these days.
However, I would challenge it by saying that Gove is perhaps an accentuated example of a careerist ideologue - unfortunately, such types tend to end up in Cabinet.
I'm sure there are both Labour and Conservative MPs with enormous integrity and determination to do right by their constituents (I'm not usually very charitable to Conservatives but a man I deeply admire has said with justification that he votes Tory because his local MP, John Baron, is apparently a very committed and successful local politician). The thing is - these politicians, whether Labour or Conservative, almost never make it to the positions of national power, because they refuse to toe the line. Baron, for instance, was the only Tory politician to vote against certain military actions at various points (and, to give him a stronger case, is an ex-serviceman himself). Would such a dangerous renegade make Cabinet? Would he hell.
It's not even about the mainstream parties being constituted entirely of beige, nefarious, fraudulent jobs-for-city-boys arseholes. They're not. Many of their members and activists are clued-in, locally-engaged and compassionate. However, at the top end, their passions are sublimated, mysteriously, into a sort of compliant fog, which lifts to reveal the nation sold to the highest bidder.
The system works at the low end. It doesn't work at the high. I don't know what to do, but I do suspect that the Cabinet system is not only outdated but dangerous.
I think the phrase is; 'power tends to corrupt, absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely'.
I agree that here and there you can find people with integrity. Denis Skinner seems to be one such example. However in a field that seems to demand creative and imaginative and even idealistic action, we are constantly told that it is the politicians who have to behave as they do because they are more engaged with the real problems than the rest of us, and their decisions are therefore more practical and correct.
Things like Privatisation of Water, or going in to Iraq may well have had a smidgen of reasoning behind them but I can't help feeling that it was more about suiting ideologies at the time.
Yes there is integrity, work to bring peace to Northern Ireland, and to sustain it is a good example, and interestingly all mainstream parties co-operated in Northern Ireland policies. maybe the future is about a bit more of that kind of practical problem solving and co-operation, but I won't hold my breath for too long.