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?
I fear not too much difference. One of the sad indictments of British politics is the coming together of the two main parties so that they are indistinct ;It is almost as if the choice left to anyone is regards who is the best "managers" rather than who has a vision for the country.
Unfortunately history shows us if this phenomena goes on for too long, ie a blurred anodyne political centre ground parties on the fringes (communist and Fascist) tend to attract support from the public. I think It could be argued the Second World War was a direct result of the failure of the centrist parties in Germany in the 30s hence the rise of Hitler's fascist party.
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.....
Getting rid of Grammar schools, one of the biggest acts of social vandalism.
So poor kids don't get the chance to gain an education that they wouldn't be able to afford in the private sector?
Getting rid of Grammar schools was more like academic vandalism. Red Brick intake from state schools has dropped since grammar schools were abolished in most of England and there are studies which show that this has directly impacted on social mobility of the working class.
Again the politics of envy and wish to make everyone equal has actually widened the gap between rich and poor and not narrowed it.
More young people than ever now go to University following a big increase in the provision of higher education under the Labour governments of the 1960's, 90's and 00,s I am not aware of any studies linking attendance at University with the closure of Grammar Schools - The main influence upon performance at Schools, attendance at University and future earning, was and is, Socio - Economic class.
Personally I don't think that a party who's higher echelons were all schooled at Eton and the like and were members of elite University elite Toffs clubs know much about meritocracy or social mobility and care even less. The main influence affecting attendance for poorer students has been the abolition of EMA and massive hike in tuition fees.
.
I said Red Bricks not Universities in general.
Do some Googling. The papers are out there.
When most of the Labour Party are schooled or attended these sort if Unis it really shows that the old battle lines over class division which the left love to drivel on about proves this argument is now moot.
Maggie was working class and attended a state school.
Blair went to Scotland's equivalent of Eton / Harrow.
The tuition fees which Labour 05 manifesto said would not be introduced but then were?
Besides, what's more important? A degree which many will do nothing with, or something more vocational like apprenticeships?
If you look at Germany, who have a much stronger engineering and manufacturing base than we do, the emphasis is on vocational education.
I do not subscribe to the politics of envy, but the politics of opportunity, hope and justice for all - not just an elite few.
John Major did pretty well then getting to be Prime Minister having left school at 16 with three 'O' levels.
Michael Portillo, son of an exiled Spaniard, went to a state school. Norman Tebbitt, state school. Iain Duncan Smith, left school at 14, went into a Royal navy training college. William Hague, a comprehensive in Rotherham. Michael Gove, a state school before winning a scholarship. Teresa May, daughter of a Vicar. John Redwood, brought up in a council house, won a scholarship to a college. Maria Miller, Welsh comprehensive. Sajid Javid, son of a bus driver, went to a comprehensive. Jeremy Hunt Head Boy at Charterhouse (oops didn't mean to include that one!)
It seems to me that the Conservative politicians often hated most by the left are actually those with fairly ordinary backgrounds and upbringing. Perhaps it's to deflect criticism away from the likes of Hilary Benn, who went to fee-paying schools and is the son of a Viscount. Or Rosie Winterton, independent boarding school. Or Dianne Abbot sending her son to private school. Or Harriet Harman, fee-paying school. Or Alistair Darling, etc, etc, etc.
The rational truth of the matter is that, whatever political party, it is the job of local selection committees to provide their constituents with the most able prospective parliamentary candidates they possibly can from the list of those that apply/are put forward. They would be failing the voters and their party if they did anything different.
So, imagine, one is sitting on a selection committee and wants the best and brightest brains to represent one's constituency. Who does one choose? A privately educated, confident, intelligent individual with great communication skills or just some ordinary bloke/tte that umms and ahs, adds "you know" or "to be honest" after very couple of words, wouldn't understand the purpose of complex legislation going through parliament or look anything but a bumbling idiot in the media? Of course, you choose the best candidate available to you.
It seems the cream (and the scum too sometimes) does indeed rise to the top. It means we get what some would say is an unrepresentative Westminster but, frankly, I'd rather that than end up with more third-rate politicians than we have already because the role of MP has now become deeply unattractive, has no job security, and doesn't pay enough to attract the truly able to the corridors of power.
This is why pretty much the only lawyers in Parliament are those that couldn't hack it in private practice (like Tony Blair, but unlike his wife).
And why the really agile, smart people look to the City rather than the West End.
The basic pay of an MP is £67,060 for god's sake. That's on a par with what some tube drivers are getting. It's also about what City law firms pay newly qualified lawyers and pales into insignificance once a couple of years post-qualification experience is built up.
Why anyone with a half a brain would choose politics as a career is an utter mystery frankly.
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.....
Getting rid of Grammar schools, one of the biggest acts of social vandalism.
So poor kids don't get the chance to gain an education that they wouldn't be able to afford in the private sector?
Getting rid of Grammar schools was more like academic vandalism. Red Brick intake from state schools has dropped since grammar schools were abolished in most of England and there are studies which show that this has directly impacted on social mobility of the working class.
Again the politics of envy and wish to make everyone equal has actually widened the gap between rich and poor and not narrowed it.
More young people than ever now go to University following a big increase in the provision of higher education under the Labour governments of the 1960's, 90's and 00,s I am not aware of any studies linking attendance at University with the closure of Grammar Schools - The main influence upon performance at Schools, attendance at University and future earning, was and is, Socio - Economic class.
Personally I don't think that a party who's higher echelons were all schooled at Eton and the like and were members of elite University elite Toffs clubs know much about meritocracy or social mobility and care even less. The main influence affecting attendance for poorer students has been the abolition of EMA and massive hike in tuition fees.
.
I said Red Bricks not Universities in general.
Do some Googling. The papers are out there.
When most of the Labour Party are schooled or attended these sort if Unis it really shows that the old battle lines over class division which the left love to drivel on about proves this argument is now moot.
Maggie was working class and attended a state school.
Blair went to Scotland's equivalent of Eton / Harrow.
The tuition fees which Labour 05 manifesto said would not be introduced but then were?
Besides, what's more important? A degree which many will do nothing with, or something more vocational like apprenticeships?
If you look at Germany, who have a much stronger engineering and manufacturing base than we do, the emphasis is on vocational education.
I do not subscribe to the politics of envy, but the politics of opportunity, hope and justice for all - not just an elite few.
John Major did pretty well then getting to be Prime Minister having left school at 16 with three 'O' levels.
Michael Portillo, son of an exiled Spaniard, went to a state school. Norman Tebbitt, state school. Iain Duncan Smith, left school at 14, went into a Royal navy training college. William Hague, a comprehensive in Rotherham. Michael Gove, a state school before winning a scholarship. Teresa May, daughter of a Vicar. John Redwood, brought up in a council house, won a scholarship to a college. Maria Miller, Welsh comprehensive. Sajid Javid, son of a bus driver, went to a comprehensive. Jeremy Hunt Head Boy at Charterhouse (oops didn't mean to include that one!)
It seems to me that the Conservative politicians often hated most by the left are actually those with fairly ordinary backgrounds and upbringing. Perhaps it's to deflect criticism away from the likes of Hilary Benn, who went to fee-paying schools and is the son of a Viscount. Or Rosie Winterton, independent boarding school. Or Dianne Abbot sending her son to private school. Or Harriet Harman, fee-paying school. Or Alistair Darling, etc, etc, etc.
The rational truth of the matter is that, whatever political party, it is the job of local selection committees to provide their constituents with the most able prospective parliamentary candidates they possibly can from the list of those that apply/are put forward. They would be failing the voters and their party if they did anything different.
So, imagine, one is sitting on a selection committee and wants the best and brightest brains to represent one's constituency. Who does one choose? A privately educated, confident, intelligent individual with great communication skills or just some ordinary bloke/tte that umms and ahs, adds "you know" or "to be honest" after very couple of words, wouldn't understand the purpose of complex legislation going through parliament or look anything but a bumbling idiot in the media? Of course, you choose the best candidate available to you.
It seems the cream (and the scum too sometimes) does indeed rise to the top. It means we get what some would say is an unrepresentative Westminster but, frankly, I'd rather that than end up with more third-rate politicians than we have already because the role of MP has now become deeply unattractive, has no job security, and doesn't pay enough to attract the truly able to the corridors of power.
This is why pretty much the only lawyers in Parliament are those that couldn't hack it in private practice (like Tony Blair, but unlike his wife).
And why the really agile, smart people look to the City rather than the West End.
The basic pay of an MP is £67,060 for god's sake. That's on a par with what some tube drivers are getting. It's also about what City law firms pay newly qualified lawyers and pales into insignificance once a couple of years post-qualification experience is built up.
Why anyone with a half a brain would choose politics as a career is an utter mystery frankly.
Theses are a relatively few and statistically insignificant. Socio - economic class is the main determinant of success whether you like it or not. It is generally the rich that rise to the top, not the cream.
Allowing a few people to " escape" is not sufficient - I want to change the opportunity and conditions for for the majority in this country.
Quote all the figures you like but most people are currently worst off than five years ago by a noticeable margin. Cutting taxes for the rich? Whatever happened to we're all in this together? If someone fiddle benifits they are quite correctly pursued at great effort. If you are rich and avoid paying legitimate taxes you get a tax cut?????
I do not subscribe to the politics of envy, but the politics of opportunity, hope and justice for all - not just an elite few.
John Major did pretty well then getting to be Prime Minister having left school at 16 with three 'O' levels.
Michael Portillo, son of an exiled Spaniard, went to a state school. Norman Tebbitt, state school. Iain Duncan Smith, left school at 14, went into a Royal navy training college. William Hague, a comprehensive in Rotherham. Michael Gove, a state school before winning a scholarship. Teresa May, daughter of a Vicar. John Redwood, brought up in a council house, won a scholarship to a college. Maria Miller, Welsh comprehensive. Sajid Javid, son of a bus driver, went to a comprehensive. Jeremy Hunt Head Boy at Charterhouse (oops didn't mean to include that one!)
It seems to me that the Conservative politicians often hated most by the left are actually those with fairly ordinary backgrounds and upbringing. Perhaps it's to deflect criticism away from the likes of Hilary Benn, who went to fee-paying schools and is the son of a Viscount. Or Rosie Winterton, independent boarding school. Or Dianne Abbot sending her son to private school. Or Harriet Harman, fee-paying school. Or Alistair Darling, etc, etc, etc.
The rational truth of the matter is that, whatever political party, it is the job of local selection committees to provide their constituents with the most able prospective parliamentary candidates they possibly can from the list of those that apply/are put forward. They would be failing the voters and their party if they did anything different.
So, imagine, one is sitting on a selection committee and wants the best and brightest brains to represent one's constituency. Who does one choose? A privately educated, confident, intelligent individual with great communication skills or just some ordinary bloke/tte that umms and ahs, adds "you know" or "to be honest" after very couple of words, wouldn't understand the purpose of complex legislation going through parliament or look anything but a bumbling idiot in the media? Of course, you choose the best candidate available to you.
It seems the cream (and the scum too sometimes) does indeed rise to the top. It means we get what some would say is an unrepresentative Westminster but, frankly, I'd rather that than end up with more third-rate politicians than we have already because the role of MP has now become deeply unattractive, has no job security, and doesn't pay enough to attract the truly able to the corridors of power.
This is why pretty much the only lawyers in Parliament are those that couldn't hack it in private practice (like Tony Blair, but unlike his wife).
And why the really agile, smart people look to the City rather than the West End.
The basic pay of an MP is £67,060 for god's sake. That's on a par with what some tube drivers are getting. It's also about what City law firms pay newly qualified lawyers and pales into insignificance once a couple of years post-qualification experience is built up.
Why anyone with a half a brain would choose politics as a career is an utter mystery frankly.
Theses are a relatively few and statistically insignificant. Socio - economic class is the main determinant of success whether you like it or not. It is generally the rich that rise to the top, not the cream.
Allowing a few people to " escape" is not sufficient - I want to change the opportunity and conditions for for the majority in this country.
Quote all the figures you like but most people are currently worst off than five years ago by a noticeable margin. Cutting taxes for the rich? Whatever happened to we're all in this together? If someone fiddle benifits they are quite correctly pursued at great effort. If you are rich and avoid paying legitimate taxes you get a tax cut?????
My examples may have been few and statistically insignificant but at least they were broadly accurate. They also served the purpose of indicating the problems there are in getting good quality people into politics, which was the main point of my post. How do you even go about beginning to find someone who can do an admirable job as an MP and then, perhaps, later, a cabinet minister but is more likely in any event to see the attractions of a career elsewhere?
In any event I was mainly talking about the choice of MPs for the next election and the difficulties in getting representative AND competent Government - of any persuasion - so I don't understand the relevance of your inaccurate comments about the rich and taxation. Look at this with the figures taken from HMRC before talking nonsense about taxes paid by the rich and, since you like the phrase, there are relatively few and statistically insignificant rich people avoiding taxation.
Then take a look back at the few hundred or so additional, mainly regressive, stealth taxes that were brought in by the previous Government and impacted the less well off the most. Take a look at the coalition's efforts to raise the income tax threshold while holding the rate at which higher tax bands kick in which does the opposite and effects the more well off while benefiting the poor. Take a look at the additional 1.4mn people (fiscal drift) kicked into the higher rate tax bracket since 2010. Then consider other regressive Labour taxes, like the fuel duty escalator which has been frozen by the current government. And don't forget that with inheritance tax thresholds frozen, fiscal drift (again) means that the UK has the second highest death taxes in the World. So, if the taxman doesn't get you when you are alive, boy oh boy, does he get you when you are dead! IHT receipts are at an all time high and will go on getting bigger now that house prices have risen to new peaks. And don't forget that this is a tax on money that's already been taxed upon receipt, (twice with Income tax and NICs), taxed again when you get any income from your savings, taxed again (stamp duty) if you bought a house or shares with it, taxed again (VAT) if you bought anything else and taxed again if it made a capital gain while you were alive.
So, setting aside the political rhetoric for a moment, who should you vote for if you want to take your highly honourable aims forward? Labour with a never-ending history of messing up the economy and making things worse for the poor seems like a bad bet to me. On current form, Conservative excesses tempered by the LibDems looks like the better bet. But how could you engineer such a hung parliament again?
UKIP will do well next year. People are well and truly pi$$ed off with the Lib,Lab,Con element and want a change. Think the Cons will end up trying to do a deal with UKIP and I fully expect more Cons to cross over to UKIP in the next few weeks........I've had that on good authority - and i'm a UKIP councillor!
UKIP will do well next year. People are well and truly pi$$ed off with the Lib,Lab,Con element and want a change. Think the Cons will end up trying to do a deal with UKIP and I fully expect more Cons to cross over to UKIP in the next few weeks........I've had that on good authority - and i'm a UKIP councillor!
Oh and proud off it! Amazing?
Apart from the obvious xenophobic and racist stuff you have such wonderful policies, such as; £10 to visit your GP; flat rate 20% tax meaning someone on 10k pays the same tax rate as a Millionaire; Doubling the size of the Army and Police Force ( with what money? ) and reintroducing smoking in all public places.
Not to mention the calibre of your politicians; the dozens of right- wing nut jobs who weekly invade our news with their distasteful rants; the Hamilton's and .., Killroy!!!
You may pick up a couple of seats next year but which party do you think you will vote with? You are just the nasty lunatic fringe of the Tory party.
I do not subscribe to the politics of envy, but the politics of opportunity, hope and justice for all - not just an elite few.
John Major did pretty well then getting to be Prime Minister having left school at 16 with three 'O' levels.
Michael Portillo, son of an exiled Spaniard, went to a state school. Norman Tebbitt, state school. Iain Duncan Smith, left school at 14, went into a Royal navy training college. William Hague, a comprehensive in Rotherham. Michael Gove, a state school before winning a scholarship. Teresa May, daughter of a Vicar. John Redwood, brought up in a council house, won a scholarship to a college. Maria Miller, Welsh comprehensive. Sajid Javid, son of a bus driver, went to a comprehensive. Jeremy Hunt Head Boy at Charterhouse (oops didn't mean to include that one!)
It seems to me that the Conservative politicians often hated most by the left are actually those with fairly ordinary backgrounds and upbringing. Perhaps it's to deflect criticism away from the likes of Hilary Benn, who went to fee-paying schools and is the son of a Viscount. Or Rosie Winterton, independent boarding school. Or Dianne Abbot sending her son to private school. Or Harriet Harman, fee-paying school. Or Alistair Darling, etc, etc, etc.
The rational truth of the matter is that, whatever political party, it is the job of local selection committees to provide their constituents with the most able prospective parliamentary candidates they possibly can from the list of those that apply/are put forward. They would be failing the voters and their party if they did anything different.
So, imagine, one is sitting on a selection committee and wants the best and brightest brains to represent one's constituency. Who does one choose? A privately educated, confident, intelligent individual with great communication skills or just some ordinary bloke/tte that umms and ahs, adds "you know" or "to be honest" after very couple of words, wouldn't understand the purpose of complex legislation going through parliament or look anything but a bumbling idiot in the media? Of course, you choose the best candidate available to you.
It seems the cream (and the scum too sometimes) does indeed rise to the top. It means we get what some would say is an unrepresentative Westminster but, frankly, I'd rather that than end up with more third-rate politicians than we have already because the role of MP has now become deeply unattractive, has no job security, and doesn't pay enough to attract the truly able to the corridors of power.
This is why pretty much the only lawyers in Parliament are those that couldn't hack it in private practice (like Tony Blair, but unlike his wife).
And why the really agile, smart people look to the City rather than the West End.
The basic pay of an MP is £67,060 for god's sake. That's on a par with what some tube drivers are getting. It's also about what City law firms pay newly qualified lawyers and pales into insignificance once a couple of years post-qualification experience is built up.
Why anyone with a half a brain would choose politics as a career is an utter mystery frankly.
Theses are a relatively few and statistically insignificant. Socio - economic class is the main determinant of success whether you like it or not. It is generally the rich that rise to the top, not the cream.
Allowing a few people to " escape" is not sufficient - I want to change the opportunity and conditions for for the majority in this country.
Quote all the figures you like but most people are currently worst off than five years ago by a noticeable margin. Cutting taxes for the rich? Whatever happened to we're all in this together? If someone fiddle benifits they are quite correctly pursued at great effort. If you are rich and avoid paying legitimate taxes you get a tax cut?????
My examples may have been few and statistically insignificant but at least they were broadly accurate. They also served the purpose of indicating the problems there are in getting good quality people into politics, which was the main point of my post. How do you even go about beginning to find someone who can do an admirable job as an MP and then, perhaps, later, a cabinet minister but is more likely in any event to see the attractions of a career elsewhere?
In any event I was mainly talking about the choice of MPs for the next election and the difficulties in getting representative AND competent Government - of any persuasion - so I don't understand the relevance of your inaccurate comments about the rich and taxation. Look at this with the figures taken from HMRC before talking nonsense about taxes paid by the rich and, since you like the phrase, there are relatively few and statistically insignificant rich people avoiding taxation.
Then take a look back at the few hundred or so additional, mainly regressive, stealth taxes that were brought in by the previous Government and impacted the less well off the most. Take a look at the coalition's efforts to raise the income tax threshold while holding the rate at which higher tax bands kick in which does the opposite and effects the more well off while benefiting the poor. Take a look at the additional 1.4mn people (fiscal drift) kicked into the higher rate tax bracket since 2010. Then consider other regressive Labour taxes, like the fuel duty escalator which has been frozen by the current government. And don't forget that with inheritance tax thresholds frozen, fiscal drift (again) means that the UK has the second highest death taxes in the World. So, if the taxman doesn't get you when you are alive, boy oh boy, does he get you when you are dead! IHT receipts are at an all time high and will go on getting bigger now that house prices have risen to new peaks. And don't forget that this is a tax on money that's already been taxed upon receipt, (twice with Income tax and NICs), taxed again when you get any income from your savings, taxed again (stamp duty) if you bought a house or shares with it, taxed again (VAT) if you bought anything else and taxed again if it made a capital gain while you were alive.
So, setting aside the political rhetoric for a moment, who should you vote for if you want to take your highly honourable aims forward? Labour with a never-ending history of messing up the economy and making things worse for the poor seems like a bad bet to me. On current form, Conservative excesses tempered by the LibDems looks like the better bet. But how could you engineer such a hung parliament again?
Labour and pr - but the dual member system used by the Germans.
I do agree re the benefits of coalitions and have long been convinced that a system of pr is the way to go. Was never keen on the STV system however.
I wonder where the Labour Party would be if the well respected leader John Smith had not died, thus allowing Meddleson/Blair/Brown to turn the Labour Party from red to light blue.
It's called a democracy and people will vote for whoever they wish. If they are UKIP policies, so what? At least they're trying something different in certain areas.
Your rant is just typical of the three main centrists parties - all you can do is slag off the opposition with nothing constructive to add - what with that and the personal insults, peope have had enough of that kind of crap from all sides.
You and your party are obviously running scared - and I find that really amusing.
It's called a democracy and people will vote for whoever they wish. If they are UKIP policies, so what? At least they're trying something different in certain areas.
Your rant is just typical of the three main centrists parties - all you can do is slag off the opposition with nothing constructive to add - what with that and the personal insults, peope have had enough of that kind of crap from all sides.
You and your party are obviously running scared - and I find that really amusing.
I gave a critique of their policies and the calibre of politicians - Hardly slagging off? Which of the points I made do you disagree with and why?
The polices are largely ill - considered, unfair and unworkable and massively retrograde. The politicians are of a very poor calibre ( except for the leader) and hardly a week goes by when one of them makes and offensive statement.
I don't agree with leaving the EU and I don't agree with their unworkable stance on immigration.
UKIP was formed by disaffected right wing Tories.
I support pr which means I advocate democracy and accept that others opinion will be represented - no matter how much I disagree with them. I am however permitted to criticise political parties and that is what I have done.
Was it "closet racists and loonies" our PM called UKIP?
I hope this can remain an intelligent debate . I like hearing different political opinions without any offence either being given or taken . One of the problems when you have stated views is that people either try to wind you up or passively agree to be polite.
This will always be a circular argument and we can all selectively throw statistics about to reinforce our own prejudices and viewpoints .I doubt if anyone will change their voting habits as a result .Most different political systems can always be made to work at some level . It is just the unforeseen consequences that we all have to deal with. In the 1980's and for most of the 1990's the Tories reshaped the mix of the economy between the private and public sector which had a profound effect on British manufacturing industry which was destroyed. The relationship about the way services were paid for also altered. Not many people when they voted were explicitly aware of this or its social consequences .
Another irony is around Europe. Michael Foot's Labour Party promised a referendum on British membership of the EEC in 1983 whereas Margaret Thatcher went on to sign the Single European Act within the lifetime of the next parliament. I wonder if Nigel Farage supported Labour in the 1983 election? Labour gradually changed its view under Kinnock Smith and Blair and now it is the Conservative Party who are more Eurosceptic.
My view is that one of the consequences of Margaret Thatcher's governments was that it changed the philosophy of not just her own party but Labour also was reframed by her actions . The political consensus moved away from 'Butskillite' social democracy, which had broadly been applied by both Labour and Tory Governments between 1945 and 1979. Blair was the first post Thatcher Labour PM and as such embraced PFI and deregulation in a way that would have been unthinkable a decade earlier.
It's called a democracy and people will vote for whoever they wish. If they are UKIP policies, so what? At least they're trying something different in certain areas.
Your rant is just typical of the three main centrists parties - all you can do is slag off the opposition with nothing constructive to add - what with that and the personal insults, peope have had enough of that kind of crap from all sides.
You and your party are obviously running scared - and I find that really amusing.
I gave a critique of their policies and the calibre of politicians - Hardly slagging off? Which of the points I made do you disagree with and why?
The polices are largely ill - considered, unfair and unworkable and massively retrograde. The politicians are of a very poor calibre ( except for the leader) and hardly a week goes by when one of them makes and offensive statement.
I don't agree with leaving the EU and I don't agree with their unworkable stance on immigration.
UKIP was formed by disaffected right wing Tories.
I support pr which means I advocate democracy and accept that others opinion will be represented - no matter how much I disagree with them. I am however permitted to criticise political parties and that is what I have done.
Was it "closet racists and loonies" our PM called UKIP?
Ahh - a PR supporter.
So how many BNP MPs would there be now if we had PR at the last election?
Or how many Respect MPs?
There are your real closet racists and loonies.
Cameron is running scared of UKIP and so is Miliband. Why? Not because of their policies or their individuals. They're running scared because a large amount of the voting age population have been looking for a credible alternative - and Farage is very good at making UKIP look credible.
This was a good thread until it got personal. I like us saying 'I reckon it might be like this, or like that', rather than the usual oppositional stuff. Anyway. I reckon that people will vote UKIP because they're voting against stuff, and will vote for some other parties (Green?) because they're voting for stuff.
The Conservative party have said they will use an open primary to select their candidate for the Clacton by-election. bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29061300 So everyone in the constituency, of whatever political bent, will have the opportunity of selecting the candidate. It will be interesting to see how many take the opportunity given them. This passed me by but apparently the same technique was used to select this MP en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Wollaston at the last election. (Sorry, IAgree, but another Tory from a humble background!)
Yes I support PR because it is democratic and democracy has to be the bedrock of a fair society. I have long admired the German dual member system where by 50% of MPs are elected by FPTP and the other 50% are allocated according to popular vote where only parties with above 5% popular vote are allocated seats.
This system does need simplification, however keeps the constituency concept and in effect allows half FPTP and half PR. It is not entirely proportional but much fairer than the system we currently have. Personally I find both the BNP and Respect abhorrent, but neither would be very likely to flourish with this system. If they did them that is the price of democracy.
I am a Labour supporter, but that does not mean that I always support everything they do. I also think other parties have have made positive achievements. I think a more plural system of politics would make all parties more responsive and also curb some of the excesses we have seen ( Thatcher and Blair ).
In terms of change I personally advocate small, significant and sustainable changes of the sort which have characterised British politics for the last two centuries.
I've become increasingly bored with all the partisan crap and don't really support any party, though I still follow events closely. Bit like watching the world cup when England have been knocked out.
Two new polls today:
Populus: Con 32 Lab 38 LDEM 8 UKIP 14 GRN 4 Yougov: Con 32 Lab 36 LDEM 7 UKIP 16
What's been suprising over the last year or so is the lack of volatilty in the polls. Lab have been consistently in the low to mid 30s, Tories in high 20s, low 30s, Libs in high singles and UKIP in mid teens. Nothing much seems to shake this, whether its improved economic news, UKIP wins in the May elections, bacon sandwich gaffes or whatever.
Obviously the major even coming up is the Scottish referendum. A no vote and little will change. A yes vote and we'll be dealing with a constitutional meltdown and bitter internal party recriminations in both the major parties.
After that the Clacton by-election will almost certainly give UKIP their first MP. The interesting question is whether this will re-open the divisions in the Tory party that Cameron has worked so hard (and it seemed so effectively) to resolve through his promise of an in/out referendum. Ironically, the huge lead Cresswell has established in the two opinion polls taken so far may help in lowering expectations for the Tories to such an extent that even a bad defeat will seam like a minor victory.
Cameron and Osborne will talk about the economic recovery, whcih has absolutely been impressive. But it's a one note song and will be tedious after a while especially when wages are lagging behind so much. The lack of any other interesting policies is problemati. Expect a lot of Euroblow ups. Cameron is in a hard place.
Milliband's strategy of softly, softly cathee monkee seems vidicated at the moment. To my mind he's one of the least impressive major party leader of the last 30 years (alongside Foot, Hague and IDS) but he has kept the party unified when one would normally expect a degree of bloodletting after 13 years in power. BUt again, no interesting policies apart from a few populist headline grabbers. Expect some shoring up of the left vote - a promise to renationalise the railway on a TfL style basis (concessions rather than franchises) is my bet.
The Libdems are screwed and have been since the tuition fee meltdown. They should have kept out of Gvernment rather than accept that, it was suicidal. They'll keep a few seats but will just have to take their medicine. Clegg will go and they will rebrand with a more leftish tinge. The Orange bookers are finished in the party.
What will happen with UKIP is anyone's guess. Cresswell joining takes a bit of the pressure off Farage and provides and intelligent and measured counter-point to his undoubted charisma. But will Farage's blokey facade survive the policy scrutiny that comes with being a serious party? When the auditors examine their policies (tax cuts and additional spending), expect that to have a lot of traction. Still, they are now establsihed as a significant force, with grassroots organisation and enthusiasm and will not implode however much the intelligensia want them to.
The difficulty with Carswell in Clacton is evaluating whether he gets in because he has a good reputation as a constituency MP and is liked or because of support for UKIP.
If he doesn't get in at all that will not look good for UKIP in terms of gaining seats but they will still be well placed in my opinion to put a spanner in the works to both Conservative and Labour via ' the UKIP effect' whereby the number of votes for UKIP exceeds the Parliamentary majority and thus changes the outcome in a given constituency. In other words a seat that "should" be Tory goes Labour for example.
Until now, historically, the Tories have been the ones to lose out through this in the main but UKIP is also gaining disillusioned Labour voters and I can see the same happening in Labour marginals.
I still don't think UKIP will get seats under first past the post but they will have an undoubted effect on the result for the reasons given.
Seen a lot in the news today about people calling for Cameron to stand down in the event of the Scots voting Yes in 2 weeks time. Not really sure how Cameron could possibly be blamed for an independence movement that largely started in May 1995 with the release of Mel Gibson's epic Braveheart and has gained momentum largely thanks to the myopia of a people who believe the festering boils on the arse of society known as politicians reside only in Westminster.
It seems the cream (and the scum too sometimes) does indeed rise to the top. It means we get what some would say is an unrepresentative Westminster but, frankly, I'd rather that than end up with more third-rate politicians than we have already because the role of MP has now become deeply unattractive, has no job security, and doesn't pay enough to attract the truly able to the corridors of power.
This is why pretty much the only lawyers in Parliament are those that couldn't hack it in private practice (like Tony Blair, but unlike his wife).
And why the really agile, smart people look to the City rather than the West End.
The basic pay of an MP is £67,060 for god's sake. That's on a par with what some tube drivers are getting. It's also about what City law firms pay newly qualified lawyers and pales into insignificance once a couple of years post-qualification experience is built up.
Why anyone with a half a brain would choose politics as a career is an utter mystery frankly.
Agreed. People complain about the waste and expense of politicians but frankly at the moment it is a waste of money even paying for these people at all considering how utterly thick and contemptible they all seem to be. We have the among the largest number of elected officials per capita in any modern democracy and even halving the size of the House of Commons would seat us in the higher quintiles of that measurement.
We could easily get by with 1 MP for every 400,000 to 500,000 people rather than the ludicrously small yet highly variable constituency sizes we currently have. If we could cut the size of the House of Commons by 60% and the House of Lords down to 25% of its current size (another kettle of fish entirely, but currently filled to the rafters with brown-nosing arseholes and sanctimonious fools with a chip on their shoulder), I'd endorse increasing an MPs basic salary to £250,000 per annum, with expenses and some kind of post-politics golden goodbye to make up for the lack of job security, if only so someone with at least half a braincell and without sharing a relative who already sits or has previously sat in the House would stand for election.
Personally, although this would seem ludicrous to those who believe in having an all-powerful nanny state and generally like the government to do everyone for them from spoon-feeding them breakfast to wiping their bottom, I'd prefer the Swiss model - where politicians were only part-time and justified their existence in the real world. This has the twin benefits of people actually having a career in the real world prior to politics and build up enough security in order to run for election, as well as grounding people who have to return to a real occupation when Parliament is shut, thus forcing them to actually interact with normal people as well as having to experience the effect of their own actions.
They choose politics as it ensures them a well paid job for life plus generous pension, to say nothing of the hidden sweeteners that companies use to influence policy. The main objective is to get elected, to actually have any coherent policies are an optional add on.
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.....
Getting rid of Grammar schools, one of the biggest acts of social vandalism.
So poor kids don't get the chance to gain an education that they wouldn't be able to afford in the private sector?
Getting rid of Grammar schools was more like academic vandalism. Red Brick intake from state schools has dropped since grammar schools were abolished in most of England and there are studies which show that this has directly impacted on social mobility of the working class.
Again the politics of envy and wish to make everyone equal has actually widened the gap between rich and poor and not narrowed it.
More young people than ever now go to University following a big increase in the provision of higher education under the Labour governments of the 1960's, 90's and 00,s I am not aware of any studies linking attendance at University with the closure of Grammar Schools - The main influence upon performance at Schools, attendance at University and future earning, was and is, Socio - Economic class.
Personally I don't think that a party who's higher echelons were all schooled at Eton and the like and were members of elite University elite Toffs clubs know much about meritocracy or social mobility and care even less. The main influence affecting attendance for poorer students has been the abolition of EMA and massive hike in tuition fees.
.
I said Red Bricks not Universities in general.
Do some Googling. The papers are out there.
When most of the Labour Party are schooled or attended these sort if Unis it really shows that the old battle lines over class division which the left love to drivel on about proves this argument is now moot.
Maggie was working class and attended a state school.
Blair went to Scotland's equivalent of Eton / Harrow.
The tuition fees which Labour 05 manifesto said would not be introduced but then were?
Besides, what's more important? A degree which many will do nothing with, or something more vocational like apprenticeships?
If you look at Germany, who have a much stronger engineering and manufacturing base than we do, the emphasis is on vocational education.
By the way the reference to the supposed papers is about as accurate as your reference to Bevan!
Given my reference to Bevan was correct then I assume you didn't bother to read beyond the headlines
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.....
Getting rid of Grammar schools, one of the biggest acts of social vandalism.
So poor kids don't get the chance to gain an education that they wouldn't be able to afford in the private sector?
Getting rid of Grammar schools was more like academic vandalism. Red Brick intake from state schools has dropped since grammar schools were abolished in most of England and there are studies which show that this has directly impacted on social mobility of the working class.
Again the politics of envy and wish to make everyone equal has actually widened the gap between rich and poor and not narrowed it.
More young people than ever now go to University following a big increase in the provision of higher education under the Labour governments of the 1960's, 90's and 00,s I am not aware of any studies linking attendance at University with the closure of Grammar Schools - The main influence upon performance at Schools, attendance at University and future earning, was and is, Socio - Economic class.
Personally I don't think that a party who's higher echelons were all schooled at Eton and the like and were members of elite University elite Toffs clubs know much about meritocracy or social mobility and care even less. The main influence affecting attendance for poorer students has been the abolition of EMA and massive hike in tuition fees.
.
I said Red Bricks not Universities in general.
Do some Googling. The papers are out there.
When most of the Labour Party are schooled or attended these sort if Unis it really shows that the old battle lines over class division which the left love to drivel on about proves this argument is now moot.
Maggie was working class and attended a state school.
Blair went to Scotland's equivalent of Eton / Harrow.
The tuition fees which Labour 05 manifesto said would not be introduced but then were?
Besides, what's more important? A degree which many will do nothing with, or something more vocational like apprenticeships?
If you look at Germany, who have a much stronger engineering and manufacturing base than we do, the emphasis is on vocational education.
I do not subscribe to the politics of envy, but the politics of opportunity, hope and justice for all - not just an elite few.
John Major did pretty well then getting to be Prime Minister having left school at 16 with three 'O' levels.
Michael Portillo, son of an exiled Spaniard, went to a state school. Norman Tebbitt, state school. Iain Duncan Smith, left school at 14, went into a Royal navy training college. William Hague, a comprehensive in Rotherham. Michael Gove, a state school before winning a scholarship. Teresa May, daughter of a Vicar. John Redwood, brought up in a council house, won a scholarship to a college. Maria Miller, Welsh comprehensive. Sajid Javid, son of a bus driver, went to a comprehensive. Jeremy Hunt Head Boy at Charterhouse (oops didn't mean to include that one!)
It seems to me that the Conservative politicians often hated most by the left are actually those with fairly ordinary backgrounds and upbringing. Perhaps it's to deflect criticism away from the likes of Hilary Benn, who went to fee-paying schools and is the son of a Viscount. Or Rosie Winterton, independent boarding school. Or Dianne Abbot sending her son to private school. Or Harriet Harman, fee-paying school. Or Alistair Darling, etc, etc, etc.
The rational truth of the matter is that, whatever political party, it is the job of local selection committees to provide their constituents with the most able prospective parliamentary candidates they possibly can from the list of those that apply/are put forward. They would be failing the voters and their party if they did anything different.
So, imagine, one is sitting on a selection committee and wants the best and brightest brains to represent one's constituency. Who does one choose? A privately educated, confident, intelligent individual with great communication skills or just some ordinary bloke/tte that umms and ahs, adds "you know" or "to be honest" after very couple of words, wouldn't understand the purpose of complex legislation going through parliament or look anything but a bumbling idiot in the media? Of course, you choose the best candidate available to you.
It seems the cream (and the scum too sometimes) does indeed rise to the top. It means we get what some would say is an unrepresentative Westminster but, frankly, I'd rather that than end up with more third-rate politicians than we have already because the role of MP has now become deeply unattractive, has no job security, and doesn't pay enough to attract the truly able to the corridors of power.
This is why pretty much the only lawyers in Parliament are those that couldn't hack it in private practice (like Tony Blair, but unlike his wife).
And why the really agile, smart people look to the City rather than the West End.
The basic pay of an MP is £67,060 for god's sake. That's on a par with what some tube drivers are getting. It's also about what City law firms pay newly qualified lawyers and pales into insignificance once a couple of years post-qualification experience is built up.
Why anyone with a half a brain would choose politics as a career is an utter mystery frankly.
Theses are a relatively few and statistically insignificant. Socio - economic class is the main determinant of success whether you like it or not. It is generally the rich that rise to the top, not the cream.
Allowing a few people to " escape" is not sufficient - I want to change the opportunity and conditions for for the majority in this country.
Quote all the figures you like but most people are currently worst off than five years ago by a noticeable margin. Cutting taxes for the rich? Whatever happened to we're all in this together? If someone fiddle benifits they are quite correctly pursued at great effort. If you are rich and avoid paying legitimate taxes you get a tax cut?????
This higher rate tax cut is such a vacuous straw man.
Labour brought the 50% rate in weeks before the GE as a vote grabbing / moral high ground stunt, claiming it would raise an extra £2.5bn. It raised just over £1bn.
HMRC themselves have stated that dropping the top rate to 45% will see that figure increase.
So what would you rather have IA. Higher rate lower revenue or lower rate higher revenue?
This politics of Tory = old Victorian landowner, Labour = dyed in the wool working class salt of the earth is so moronic it makes me shudder people still fall for the tripe they hear.
Never really get how some people get so entrenched in left / right politics, particularly when they by nature they fail to see anything good in one parties policies, and nothing wrong in another. Especially at a time when in reality there is a fag packet between the main parties.
However, every time I see Milliband on the telly I just ask myself how any sane individual could ever consider voting for that man to lead this country. Utterly bonkers.
How the Labour Party and their voters never addressed that in the last few years I will never understand. Genuinely feel if one of the main parties put an inflatable doll up to lead the country, the people who always vote for that party would continue to do so.
However, every time I see Milliband on the telly I just ask myself how any sane individual could ever consider voting for that man to lead this country. Utterly bonkers.
How the Labour Party and their voters never addressed that in the last few years I will never understand.
Indeed. You would have thought they'd have learnt their lesson with Gordon Brown. They had a chance to replace Brown in 2009 with the very electable David Miliband.
Let us see how the referendum proceeds... I've just "liked" AFKABartram's post because it's very simple: 21st century parties need decent political philosophy, an appetite for challenge and good presentational skills... We are a global player FFS playing on the world stage and we as CAFC fans live in or near one of the best cities in the world. FACT! Why would a major party put someone who isn't convincing front of stage?
Comments
Unfortunately history shows us if this phenomena goes on for too long, ie a blurred anodyne political centre ground parties on the fringes (communist and Fascist) tend to attract support from the public. I think It could be argued the Second World War was a direct result of the failure of the centrist parties in Germany in the 30s hence the rise of Hitler's fascist party.
John Major did pretty well then getting to be Prime Minister having left school at 16 with three 'O' levels.
Michael Portillo, son of an exiled Spaniard, went to a state school. Norman Tebbitt, state school. Iain Duncan Smith, left school at 14, went into a Royal navy training college. William Hague, a comprehensive in Rotherham. Michael Gove, a state school before winning a scholarship. Teresa May, daughter of a Vicar. John Redwood, brought up in a council house, won a scholarship to a college. Maria Miller, Welsh comprehensive. Sajid Javid, son of a bus driver, went to a comprehensive. Jeremy Hunt Head Boy at Charterhouse (oops didn't mean to include that one!)
It seems to me that the Conservative politicians often hated most by the left are actually those with fairly ordinary backgrounds and upbringing. Perhaps it's to deflect criticism away from the likes of Hilary Benn, who went to fee-paying schools and is the son of a Viscount. Or Rosie Winterton, independent boarding school. Or Dianne Abbot sending her son to private school. Or Harriet Harman, fee-paying school. Or Alistair Darling, etc, etc, etc.
The rational truth of the matter is that, whatever political party, it is the job of local selection committees to provide their constituents with the most able prospective parliamentary candidates they possibly can from the list of those that apply/are put forward. They would be failing the voters and their party if they did anything different.
So, imagine, one is sitting on a selection committee and wants the best and brightest brains to represent one's constituency. Who does one choose? A privately educated, confident, intelligent individual with great communication skills or just some ordinary bloke/tte that umms and ahs, adds "you know" or "to be honest" after very couple of words, wouldn't understand the purpose of complex legislation going through parliament or look anything but a bumbling idiot in the media? Of course, you choose the best candidate available to you.
It seems the cream (and the scum too sometimes) does indeed rise to the top. It means we get what some would say is an unrepresentative Westminster but, frankly, I'd rather that than end up with more third-rate politicians than we have already because the role of MP has now become deeply unattractive, has no job security, and doesn't pay enough to attract the truly able to the corridors of power.
This is why pretty much the only lawyers in Parliament are those that couldn't hack it in private practice (like Tony Blair, but unlike his wife).
And why the really agile, smart people look to the City rather than the West End.
The basic pay of an MP is £67,060 for god's sake. That's on a par with what some tube drivers are getting. It's also about what City law firms pay newly qualified lawyers and pales into insignificance once a couple of years post-qualification experience is built up.
Why anyone with a half a brain would choose politics as a career is an utter mystery frankly.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/04/ukips-elizabeth-jones_n_5767266.html
Fast forward to 13.40.
Allowing a few people to " escape" is not sufficient - I want to change the opportunity and conditions for for the majority in this country.
Quote all the figures you like but most people are currently worst off than five years ago by a noticeable margin. Cutting taxes for the rich? Whatever happened to we're all in this together? If someone fiddle benifits they are quite correctly pursued at great effort. If you are rich and avoid paying legitimate taxes you get a tax cut?????
In any event I was mainly talking about the choice of MPs for the next election and the difficulties in getting representative AND competent Government - of any persuasion - so I don't understand the relevance of your inaccurate comments about the rich and taxation. Look at this with the figures taken from HMRC before talking nonsense about taxes paid by the rich and, since you like the phrase, there are relatively few and statistically insignificant rich people avoiding taxation.
order-order.com/2012/12/12/labour-taxed-poor-more-and-rich-less-than-coalition/
Then take a look back at the few hundred or so additional, mainly regressive, stealth taxes that were brought in by the previous Government and impacted the less well off the most. Take a look at the coalition's efforts to raise the income tax threshold while holding the rate at which higher tax bands kick in which does the opposite and effects the more well off while benefiting the poor. Take a look at the additional 1.4mn people (fiscal drift) kicked into the higher rate tax bracket since 2010. Then consider other regressive Labour taxes, like the fuel duty escalator which has been frozen by the current government. And don't forget that with inheritance tax thresholds frozen, fiscal drift (again) means that the UK has the second highest death taxes in the World. So, if the taxman doesn't get you when you are alive, boy oh boy, does he get you when you are dead! IHT receipts are at an all time high and will go on getting bigger now that house prices have risen to new peaks. And don't forget that this is a tax on money that's already been taxed upon receipt, (twice with Income tax and NICs), taxed again when you get any income from your savings, taxed again (stamp duty) if you bought a house or shares with it, taxed again (VAT) if you bought anything else and taxed again if it made a capital gain while you were alive.
So, setting aside the political rhetoric for a moment, who should you vote for if you want to take your highly honourable aims forward?
Labour with a never-ending history of messing up the economy and making things worse for the poor seems like a bad bet to me.
On current form, Conservative excesses tempered by the LibDems looks like the better bet. But how could you engineer such a hung parliament again?
Apart from the obvious xenophobic and racist stuff you have such wonderful policies, such as; £10 to visit your GP; flat rate 20% tax meaning someone on 10k pays the same tax rate as a Millionaire; Doubling the size of the Army and Police Force ( with what money? ) and reintroducing smoking in all public places.
Not to mention the calibre of your politicians; the dozens of right- wing nut jobs who weekly invade our news with their distasteful rants; the Hamilton's and .., Killroy!!!
You may pick up a couple of seats next year but which party do you think you will vote with? You are just the nasty lunatic fringe of the Tory party.
I do agree re the benefits of coalitions and have long been convinced that a system of pr is the way to go. Was never keen on the STV system however.
It's called a democracy and people will vote for whoever they wish. If they are UKIP policies, so what? At least they're trying something different in certain areas.
Your rant is just typical of the three main centrists parties - all you can do is slag off the opposition with nothing constructive to add - what with that and the personal insults, peope have had enough of that kind of crap from all sides.
You and your party are obviously running scared - and I find that really amusing.
The polices are largely ill - considered, unfair and unworkable and massively retrograde. The politicians are of a very poor calibre ( except for the leader) and hardly a week goes by when one of them makes and offensive statement.
I don't agree with leaving the EU and I don't agree with their unworkable stance on immigration.
UKIP was formed by disaffected right wing Tories.
I support pr which means I advocate democracy and accept that others opinion will be represented - no matter how much I disagree with them. I am however permitted to criticise political parties and that is what I have done.
Was it "closet racists and loonies" our PM called UKIP?
This will always be a circular argument and we can all selectively throw statistics about to reinforce our own prejudices and viewpoints .I doubt if anyone will change their voting habits as a result .Most different political systems can always be made to work at some level . It is just the unforeseen consequences that we all have to deal with. In the 1980's and for most of the 1990's the Tories reshaped the mix of the economy between the private and public sector which had a profound effect on British manufacturing industry which was destroyed. The relationship about the way services were paid for also altered. Not many people when they voted were explicitly aware of this or its social consequences .
Another irony is around Europe. Michael Foot's Labour Party promised a referendum on British membership of the EEC in 1983 whereas Margaret Thatcher went on to sign the Single European Act within the lifetime of the next parliament. I wonder if Nigel Farage supported Labour in the 1983 election? Labour gradually changed its view under Kinnock Smith and Blair and now it is the Conservative Party who are more Eurosceptic.
My view is that one of the consequences of Margaret Thatcher's governments was that it changed the philosophy of not just her own party but Labour also was reframed by her actions . The political consensus moved away from 'Butskillite' social democracy, which had broadly been applied by both Labour and Tory Governments between 1945 and 1979. Blair was the first post Thatcher Labour PM and as such embraced PFI and deregulation in a way that would have been unthinkable a decade earlier.
So how many BNP MPs would there be now if we had PR at the last election?
Or how many Respect MPs?
There are your real closet racists and loonies.
Cameron is running scared of UKIP and so is Miliband. Why? Not because of their policies or their individuals. They're running scared because a large amount of the voting age population have been looking for a credible alternative - and Farage is very good at making UKIP look credible.
Anyway.
I reckon that people will vote UKIP because they're voting against stuff, and will vote for some other parties (Green?) because they're voting for stuff.
The Conservative party have said they will use an open primary to select their candidate for the Clacton by-election. bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29061300
So everyone in the constituency, of whatever political bent, will have the opportunity of selecting the candidate. It will be interesting to see how many take the opportunity given them.
This passed me by but apparently the same technique was used to select this MP en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Wollaston at the last election. (Sorry, IAgree, but another Tory from a humble background!)
This system does need simplification, however keeps the constituency concept and in effect allows half FPTP and half PR. It is not entirely proportional but much fairer than the system we currently have. Personally I find both the BNP and Respect abhorrent, but neither would be very likely to flourish with this system. If they did them that is the price of democracy.
I am a Labour supporter, but that does not mean that I always support everything they do. I also think other parties have have made positive achievements. I think a more plural system of politics would make all parties more responsive and also curb some of the excesses we have seen ( Thatcher and Blair ).
In terms of change I personally advocate small, significant and sustainable changes of the sort which have characterised British politics for the last two centuries.
Two new polls today:
Populus: Con 32 Lab 38 LDEM 8 UKIP 14 GRN 4
Yougov: Con 32 Lab 36 LDEM 7 UKIP 16
What's been suprising over the last year or so is the lack of volatilty in the polls. Lab have been consistently in the low to mid 30s, Tories in high 20s, low 30s, Libs in high singles and UKIP in mid teens. Nothing much seems to shake this, whether its improved economic news, UKIP wins in the May elections, bacon sandwich gaffes or whatever.
Obviously the major even coming up is the Scottish referendum. A no vote and little will change. A yes vote and we'll be dealing with a constitutional meltdown and bitter internal party recriminations in both the major parties.
After that the Clacton by-election will almost certainly give UKIP their first MP. The interesting question is whether this will re-open the divisions in the Tory party that Cameron has worked so hard (and it seemed so effectively) to resolve through his promise of an in/out referendum. Ironically, the huge lead Cresswell has established in the two opinion polls taken so far may help in lowering expectations for the Tories to such an extent that even a bad defeat will seam like a minor victory.
Cameron and Osborne will talk about the economic recovery, whcih has absolutely been impressive. But it's a one note song and will be tedious after a while especially when wages are lagging behind so much. The lack of any other interesting policies is problemati. Expect a lot of Euroblow ups. Cameron is in a hard place.
Milliband's strategy of softly, softly cathee monkee seems vidicated at the moment. To my mind he's one of the least impressive major party leader of the last 30 years (alongside Foot, Hague and IDS) but he has kept the party unified when one would normally expect a degree of bloodletting after 13 years in power. BUt again, no interesting policies apart from a few populist headline grabbers. Expect some shoring up of the left vote - a promise to renationalise the railway on a TfL style basis (concessions rather than franchises) is my bet.
The Libdems are screwed and have been since the tuition fee meltdown. They should have kept out of Gvernment rather than accept that, it was suicidal. They'll keep a few seats but will just have to take their medicine. Clegg will go and they will rebrand with a more leftish tinge. The Orange bookers are finished in the party.
What will happen with UKIP is anyone's guess. Cresswell joining takes a bit of the pressure off Farage and provides and intelligent and measured counter-point to his undoubted charisma. But will Farage's blokey facade survive the policy scrutiny that comes with being a serious party? When the auditors examine their policies (tax cuts and additional spending), expect that to have a lot of traction. Still, they are now establsihed as a significant force, with grassroots organisation and enthusiasm and will not implode however much the intelligensia want them to.
If he doesn't get in at all that will not look good for UKIP in terms of gaining seats but they will still be well placed in my opinion to put a spanner in the works to both Conservative and Labour via ' the UKIP effect' whereby the number of votes for UKIP exceeds the Parliamentary majority and thus changes the outcome in a given constituency. In other words a seat that "should" be Tory goes Labour for example.
Until now, historically, the Tories have been the ones to lose out through this in the main but UKIP is also gaining disillusioned Labour voters and I can see the same happening in Labour marginals.
I still don't think UKIP will get seats under first past the post but they will have an undoubted effect on the result for the reasons given.
Interesting political times.
We could easily get by with 1 MP for every 400,000 to 500,000 people rather than the ludicrously small yet highly variable constituency sizes we currently have. If we could cut the size of the House of Commons by 60% and the House of Lords down to 25% of its current size (another kettle of fish entirely, but currently filled to the rafters with brown-nosing arseholes and sanctimonious fools with a chip on their shoulder), I'd endorse increasing an MPs basic salary to £250,000 per annum, with expenses and some kind of post-politics golden goodbye to make up for the lack of job security, if only so someone with at least half a braincell and without sharing a relative who already sits or has previously sat in the House would stand for election.
Personally, although this would seem ludicrous to those who believe in having an all-powerful nanny state and generally like the government to do everyone for them from spoon-feeding them breakfast to wiping their bottom, I'd prefer the Swiss model - where politicians were only part-time and justified their existence in the real world. This has the twin benefits of people actually having a career in the real world prior to politics and build up enough security in order to run for election, as well as grounding people who have to return to a real occupation when Parliament is shut, thus forcing them to actually interact with normal people as well as having to experience the effect of their own actions.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/05/left-behind-voters-only-ukip-understands
Labour brought the 50% rate in weeks before the GE as a vote grabbing / moral high ground stunt, claiming it would raise an extra £2.5bn. It raised just over £1bn.
HMRC themselves have stated that dropping the top rate to 45% will see that figure increase.
So what would you rather have IA. Higher rate lower revenue or lower rate higher revenue?
This politics of Tory = old Victorian landowner, Labour = dyed in the wool working class salt of the earth is so moronic it makes me shudder people still fall for the tripe they hear.
However, every time I see Milliband on the telly I just ask myself how any sane individual could ever consider voting for that man to lead this country. Utterly bonkers.
How the Labour Party and their voters never addressed that in the last few years I will never understand. Genuinely feel if one of the main parties put an inflatable doll up to lead the country, the people who always vote for that party would continue to do so.
Madness.
Danny from Basildon will always vote blue in the same way that Danny from Barnsley will always vote red
Bar the odd election the vote in this country has barely changed in the last 30 years
Northerners vote red and southerners ex greater London and 95% of charlton life vote blue
The difference next year is that there are 2 shades of blue that will let red get in
Worrying times if Mr Milliband gets the job whoever you vote for
I've just "liked" AFKABartram's post because it's very simple:
21st century parties need decent political philosophy, an appetite for challenge and good presentational skills...
We are a global player FFS playing on the world stage and we as CAFC fans live in or near one of the best cities in the world. FACT!
Why would a major party put someone who isn't convincing front of stage?