I think you can always tell which way a person is going to vote by whether they spell the leader of the opposition's name right.
To be honest when surveyed a lot of Labour voters either can't name the leader or think it is his brother David, plus the Mirror and Graun regularly throw in an extra L when attempting to spell his name.
One of the sad features of the current political situation is that all of the current 3 main Party leaders have a similar educational and employment background .
Really? David Cameron went to Eton. Nick Clegg to Westminster. Ed Milliband to Haverstock Comprehensive.
You missed out and went on to Oxford, the LSE and Harvard.
In any event, my personal preference, whatever party we're talking about is to have politicians with a brain cell or two. As much as I hate to say it, it also helps if a very high percentage of them have some form of legal training so that they can actually understand draft legislation and debate it properly and make a meaningful contribution on select committees. As entertaining as individuals like Dennis Skinner and Jim Fitzpatrick may be, you really wouldn't want them anywhere near any decision-making roles.
Does anyone still buy the line that the global economic downturn was Labour's fault?
Apparently yes! Strange since most Economists refer to it as a global phenomenon and cite US sub-prime mortgage lending and bonuses as the main reason.
Strange also that the Tory's backed Labours spending plans until January 2010 - I seem to recall them howling for Brown to spend even more!
I think that there are many things Labour can be proud of; the NHS, the Welfare State, an expansion of nursery school provision, a massive expansion of Higher Education, the minimum wage, legislation re discrimination on the grounds of disability, sex, race and sexuality and Introducing civil partnerships are just a few.
Interesting also that in spite of 13 years in opposition, a once in a century economic calamity and a very unpopular PM, that the Tories were still not rewarded with a majority.
Same tired old arguments re NHS and lack of majority (despite having a higher % of the vote than Labour did in 2005).
Ed and Ed have admitted their mistakes in office. It's time their support did so too.
Btw you do realise that in 47 Bevan was baulking at the cost of rolling out the NHS and it was Tory rebels who pushed the vote through?
I find it absolutely incredible that nobody thought of this when they were scheduling the Yes/No referendum. I Cameron forces this issue, which is a complete insult to our democracy, I would expect a vote of no confidence pretty quickly.
One of the sad features of the current political situation is that all of the current 3 main Party leaders have a similar educational and employment background .
Really? David Cameron went to Eton. Nick Clegg to Westminster. Ed Milliband to Haverstock Comprehensive.
Fair comment about Miliband's school. He still went to Oxford and worked as a SPAD.
Does anyone still buy the line that the global economic downturn was Labour's fault?
Apparently yes! Strange since most Economists refer to it as a global phenomenon and cite US sub-prime mortgage lending and bonuses as the main reason.
Strange also that the Tory's backed Labours spending plans until January 2010 - I seem to recall them howling for Brown to spend even more!
I think that there are many things Labour can be proud of; the NHS, the Welfare State, an expansion of nursery school provision, a massive expansion of Higher Education, the minimum wage, legislation re discrimination on the grounds of disability, sex, race and sexuality and Introducing civil partnerships are just a few.
Interesting also that in spite of 13 years in opposition, a once in a century economic calamity and a very unpopular PM, that the Tories were still not rewarded with a majority.
Same tired old arguments re NHS and lack of majority (despite having a higher % of the vote than Labour did in 2005).
Ed and Ed have admitted their mistakes in office. It's time their support did so too.
Btw you do realise that in 47 Bevan was baulking at the cost of rolling out the NHS and it was Tory rebels who pushed the vote through?
You've just made that up.
Actually he's right - in 2010 the Tories polled about 1.5% more than Labour's 2005 total on an increased turnout. However, it's a nonsense point to begin with, as for - relatively - well-established social reasons, turnout is heavily weighted towards safe Conservative seats.
True, there's an argument to say that if people don't vote, then they don't deserve any say in the composition of government, but I find that that makes light of serious issues in why people - largely in low-income/high-density constituencies - don't vote.
So, the way our electoral system (including voter registration and official responsibility) is constituted means that a percentage reading of any majority will never be the simple representative sample it's too often treated as.
Does anyone still buy the line that the global economic downturn was Labour's fault?
Apparently yes! Strange since most Economists refer to it as a global phenomenon and cite US sub-prime mortgage lending and bonuses as the main reason.
Strange also that the Tory's backed Labours spending plans until January 2010 - I seem to recall them howling for Brown to spend even more!
I think that there are many things Labour can be proud of; the NHS, the Welfare State, an expansion of nursery school provision, a massive expansion of Higher Education, the minimum wage, legislation re discrimination on the grounds of disability, sex, race and sexuality and Introducing civil partnerships are just a few.
Interesting also that in spite of 13 years in opposition, a once in a century economic calamity and a very unpopular PM, that the Tories were still not rewarded with a majority.
Same tired old arguments re NHS and lack of majority (despite having a higher % of the vote than Labour did in 2005).
Ed and Ed have admitted their mistakes in office. It's time their support did so too.
Btw you do realise that in 47 Bevan was baulking at the cost of rolling out the NHS and it was Tory rebels who pushed the vote through?
You've just made that up.
Actually he's right - in 2010 the Tories polled about 1.5% more than Labour's 2005 total on an increased turnout. However, it's a nonsense point to begin with, as for - relatively - well-established social reasons, turnout is heavily weighted towards safe Conservative seats.
True, there's an argument to say that if people don't vote, then they don't deserve any say in the composition of government, but I find that that makes light of serious issues in why people - largely in low-income/high-density constituencies - don't vote.
So, the way our electoral system (including voter registration and official responsibility) is constituted means that a percentage reading of any majority will never be the simple representative sample it's too often treated as.
Right I've got you. I completely misread what he meant and assumed he was implying that the Tories got a higher % of the vote in 2005 than Labour despite Labour winning the election...as was the case in 1951. My bad.
Nobody claims that Labour caused the 2008 crash, it's a childish strawman. They did however spend the tax receipts that flooded in prior to the crash on their client base (investment was what they called it) with no thought that the income was a temporary blip. When the crash came and the taxes evaporated they found themselves with an unaffordable state which could only be suppported by eye watering levels of borrowing. It's a lot easier to bash bankers, there rich or evil Tories than to admit you've monumentally f***ed up by basing long term spending plans on bubble tax receipts that are unlikely to be matched again.
Does anyone still buy the line that the global economic downturn was Labour's fault?
Apparently yes! Strange since most Economists refer to it as a global phenomenon and cite US sub-prime mortgage lending and bonuses as the main reason.
Strange also that the Tory's backed Labours spending plans until January 2010 - I seem to recall them howling for Brown to spend even more!
I think that there are many things Labour can be proud of; the NHS, the Welfare State, an expansion of nursery school provision, a massive expansion of Higher Education, the minimum wage, legislation re discrimination on the grounds of disability, sex, race and sexuality and Introducing civil partnerships are just a few.
Interesting also that in spite of 13 years in opposition, a once in a century economic calamity and a very unpopular PM, that the Tories were still not rewarded with a majority.
Same tired old arguments re NHS and lack of majority (despite having a higher % of the vote than Labour did in 2005).
Ed and Ed have admitted their mistakes in office. It's time their support did so too.
Btw you do realise that in 47 Bevan was baulking at the cost of rolling out the NHS and it was Tory rebels who pushed the vote through?
You've just made that up.
Actually he's right - in 2010 the Tories polled about 1.5% more than Labour's 2005 total on an increased turnout. However, it's a nonsense point to begin with, as for - relatively - well-established social reasons, turnout is heavily weighted towards safe Conservative seats.
True, there's an argument to say that if people don't vote, then they don't deserve any say in the composition of government, but I find that that makes light of serious issues in why people - largely in low-income/high-density constituencies - don't vote.
So, the way our electoral system (including voter registration and official responsibility) is constituted means that a percentage reading of any majority will never be the simple representative sample it's too often treated as.
Right I've got you. I completely misread what he meant and assumed he was implying that the Tories got a higher % of the vote in 2005 than Labour despite Labour winning the election...as was the case in 1951. My bad.
Oh I see - that makes sense. 1951 is a really interesting election actually, as - although I don't have the figures to hand anymore - it was a high-turnout in working class seats that lead to the c3% swing toward Labour, but a high swing from the Liberal vote (not necessarily costing them seats mind) in southern - and largely middle class - seats that propelled the Tories in. Only time in the 20th century that the turnout relationship reversed if I correctly recall. If Attlee had held off until 1051, the 13 wasted years probably would've been avoided, and the post-war state would've had a prolonged period of growth to bolster it, rather than let it plateau.
There is, of course, the possibility that 2015 is going to mirror 1951, with very low turnout in safe Labour seats, the Lib Dem vote collapsing (again, not necessarily costing them seats) and the growing toxicity of the Tories in target seats.
All-in-all, we really need compulsory voting laws.
In terms of easily effectible changes, compulsory voting goes the longest way to ensuring some form of fair representation of the populace. Voting should have been compulsory for all the devolution referendums and it should be for all other elections.
Nobody claims that Labour caused the 2008 crash, it's a childish strawman. They did however spend the tax receipts that flooded in prior to the crash on their client base (investment was what they called it) with no thought that the income was a temporary blip. When the crash came and the taxes evaporated they found themselves with an unaffordable state which could only be suppported by eye watering levels of borrowing. It's a lot easier to bash bankers, there rich or evil Tories than to admit you've monumentally f***ed up by basing long term spending plans on bubble tax receipts that are unlikely to be matched again.
Heaven forbid we are nasty to the Bankers and Rich! They have a hell of a time bless 'em!
You're comparing a loss of £3.3bn to the £trn's (debt + QE) which we experienced under Labour? You really need some different straws to clutch at.
Cameron wasn't Lamont's right hand man. He worked for a civil servant called Gus O'Donnell in the treasury. O'Donnell went on to work for Brown and Blair.
Our entry into the ERM was in Labour's 87 manifesto too.
The recent performance of the Euro Zone, and various papers on how the UK would have faired had we adopted currency union, demonstrates that the UKs decision to exit the Euros predecessor was a sound one.
Not all the blame for Black Wednesday can be laid at the Govts door. I would strongly suggest Googling George Soros and reading up on the facts.
Other than all of that your post was spot on mate.
I thought Cameron was a Special Political Adviser (SPAD) for Norman Lamont not a politically neutral civil servant managed by Gus O'Donnell .
Are you saying the unelected and politically neutral civil service manage SPADs ? I thought it was the other way around and SPADs gave them a sense of political direction and access to the politicians .David Cameron's Wikipedia entry confirms that he was Lamont's 'special adviser' (or right hand man) and no mention of O'Donnell.
One of the sad features of the current political situation is that all of the current 3 main Party leaders have a similar educational and employment background .
O'Donnell was classed as a "Treasury Mandarin" so Cameron in whatever capacity in No11 would have reported into him.
One of the sad features of the current political situation is that all of the current 3 main Party leaders have a similar educational and employment background .
Really? David Cameron went to Eton. Nick Clegg to Westminster. Ed Milliband to Haverstock Comprehensive.
I think we would focus on Universities here Cameron Oxford, Clegg Cambridge, Miliband Oxford & LSE
Whatever else the Labour governments did post 97 , they should take credit for virtually rebuilding the capital infrastructure of the country. The extent to which they rebuilt schools and hospitals should not be underestimated. At the latter end of the Thatcher/Major period many if not most hospitals were Victorian and schools were falling apart.....
Whatever else the Labour governments did post 97 , they should take credit for virtually rebuilding the capital infrastructure of the country. The extent to which they rebuilt schools and hospitals should not be underestimated. At the latter end of the Thatcher/Major period many if not most hospitals were Victorian and schools were falling apart.....
What do you think would be the difference between the two main parties in terms of capital infrastructure after the '15 election?
Whatever else the Labour governments did post 97 , they should take credit for virtually rebuilding the capital infrastructure of the country. The extent to which they rebuilt schools and hospitals should not be underestimated. At the latter end of the Thatcher/Major period many if not most hospitals were Victorian and schools were falling apart.....
I would agree had not much of this been bankrolled by hugely expensive PFI deals.
The new Queen Elizabeth Hospital In Birmingham where Labour launched their 2010 GE campaign had a build cost of £670m the taxpayer has been left with an overall bill of £2bn.
Equally the BSF project was mostly funded by PFI deals leaving local authorities with massive bills and the need to cut costs elsewhere to meet these commitments.
Hence why we then needed to borrow huge amounts from 2005 onward and carry on needing to do so.
You're comparing a loss of £3.3bn to the £trn's (debt + QE) which we experienced under Labour? You really need some different straws to clutch at.
Cameron wasn't Lamont's right hand man. He worked for a civil servant called Gus O'Donnell in the treasury. O'Donnell went on to work for Brown and Blair.
Our entry into the ERM was in Labour's 87 manifesto too.
The recent performance of the Euro Zone, and various papers on how the UK would have faired had we adopted currency union, demonstrates that the UKs decision to exit the Euros predecessor was a sound one.
Not all the blame for Black Wednesday can be laid at the Govts door. I would strongly suggest Googling George Soros and reading up on the facts.
Other than all of that your post was spot on mate.
I thought Cameron was a Special Political Adviser (SPAD) for Norman Lamont not a politically neutral civil servant managed by Gus O'Donnell .
Are you saying the unelected and politically neutral civil service manage SPADs ? I thought it was the other way around and SPADs gave them a sense of political direction and access to the politicians .David Cameron's Wikipedia entry confirms that he was Lamont's 'special adviser' (or right hand man) and no mention of O'Donnell.
One of the sad features of the current political situation is that all of the current 3 main Party leaders have a similar educational and employment background .
O'Donnell was classed as a "Treasury Mandarin" so Cameron in whatever capacity in No11 would have reported into him.
Incorrect I am afraid.
SPADs work only for the Minister they absolutely do not report to anyone in the Civil Service, this is why the position has become so controversial.
I have been working with SPADs in Australia (same set up as the UK) for about three years and they report only to their Minister who in turn deals with the Civil Service.
The Civil Service typically hates the SPADs because they can have the type of influence over Ministerial thinking that the Civil Service would like for itself.
You're comparing a loss of £3.3bn to the £trn's (debt + QE) which we experienced under Labour? You really need some different straws to clutch at.
Cameron wasn't Lamont's right hand man. He worked for a civil servant called Gus O'Donnell in the treasury. O'Donnell went on to work for Brown and Blair.
Our entry into the ERM was in Labour's 87 manifesto too.
The recent performance of the Euro Zone, and various papers on how the UK would have faired had we adopted currency union, demonstrates that the UKs decision to exit the Euros predecessor was a sound one.
Not all the blame for Black Wednesday can be laid at the Govts door. I would strongly suggest Googling George Soros and reading up on the facts.
Other than all of that your post was spot on mate.
I thought Cameron was a Special Political Adviser (SPAD) for Norman Lamont not a politically neutral civil servant managed by Gus O'Donnell .
Are you saying the unelected and politically neutral civil service manage SPADs ? I thought it was the other way around and SPADs gave them a sense of political direction and access to the politicians .David Cameron's Wikipedia entry confirms that he was Lamont's 'special adviser' (or right hand man) and no mention of O'Donnell.
One of the sad features of the current political situation is that all of the current 3 main Party leaders have a similar educational and employment background .
O'Donnell was classed as a "Treasury Mandarin" so Cameron in whatever capacity in No11 would have reported into him.
Incorrect I am afraid.
SPADs work only for the Minister they absolutely do not report to anyone in the Civil Service, this is why the position has become so controversial.
I have been working with SPADs in Australia (same set up as the UK) for about three years and they report only to their Minister who in turn deals with the Civil Service.
The Civil Service typically hates the SPADs because they can have the type of influence over Ministerial thinking that the Civil Service would like for itself.
Comments
http://gu.com/p/4x9tx
True, there's an argument to say that if people don't vote, then they don't deserve any say in the composition of government, but I find that that makes light of serious issues in why people - largely in low-income/high-density constituencies - don't vote.
So, the way our electoral system (including voter registration and official responsibility) is constituted means that a percentage reading of any majority will never be the simple representative sample it's too often treated as.
Oh I see - that makes sense. 1951 is a really interesting election actually, as - although I don't have the figures to hand anymore - it was a high-turnout in working class seats that lead to the c3% swing toward Labour, but a high swing from the Liberal vote (not necessarily costing them seats mind) in southern - and largely middle class - seats that propelled the Tories in. Only time in the 20th century that the turnout relationship reversed if I correctly recall. If Attlee had held off until 1051, the 13 wasted years probably would've been avoided, and the post-war state would've had a prolonged period of growth to bolster it, rather than let it plateau.
There is, of course, the possibility that 2015 is going to mirror 1951, with very low turnout in safe Labour seats, the Lib Dem vote collapsing (again, not necessarily costing them seats) and the growing toxicity of the Tories in target seats.
All-in-all, we really need compulsory voting laws.
Wait, what?
"UK National Debt" by Chris55 - Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons.
Er didn't they cause it though?
If you a 50% tax payer however you get a tax cut and a big increase in income!
Now that's what I call pandering to your client base!
;-)
Nick Clegg's free school meals policy came under heavy fire today, when a nine-year-old schoolboy challenged him on Call Clegg.
http://www.lbc.co.uk/nine-year-old-tears-into-clegg-over-school-meals-96497
The new Queen Elizabeth Hospital In Birmingham where Labour launched their 2010 GE campaign had a build cost of £670m the taxpayer has been left with an overall bill of £2bn.
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/annual-repayments-of-birminghams-superhospital-rise-122372
Equally the BSF project was mostly funded by PFI deals leaving local authorities with massive bills and the need to cut costs elsewhere to meet these commitments.
Hence why we then needed to borrow huge amounts from 2005 onward and carry on needing to do so.
SPADs work only for the Minister they absolutely do not report to anyone in the Civil Service, this is why the position has become so controversial.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9241164/Stand-up-you-Spads-and-be-accountable.html
I have been working with SPADs in Australia (same set up as the UK) for about three years and they report only to their Minister who in turn deals with the Civil Service.
The Civil Service typically hates the SPADs because they can have the type of influence over Ministerial thinking that the Civil Service would like for itself.