Wednesday 15th April

[mikems]

(a) free market libertarian

or

(b) a denial that markets ever work, so that any market distortion just has to be accepted.

I say explicitly that we should be aiming for a regulated, mixed economy, with cartels and monopolies broken up or taken into public ownership.

Once that has been achieved we should pursue incremental reforms to protect people from the power of concentrated private wealth, so we can all live as free people, with choices.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Anyone not convinced that the LibDems are lining up to back Labour?

Focus policing on crime prevention, saving money by scrapping Police and Crime Commissioners

After some of these I really can't see how they can go into coalition with the Tories again.

Its all about Clegg, really - he is viscerally anti-Labour but few others at the top of the party are.

[StephenDolan]

Anyone not convinced that the LibDems are lining up to back Labour?

Focus policing on crime prevention, saving money by scrapping Police and Crime Commissioners

After some of these I really can't see how they can go into coalition with the Tories again.

The cynic in me says these are (for the Lib Dems) low priorities to be used as trade in chips, for acquiring Tory concessions elsewhere.

[SpinningHugo]

I agree we can't just return to the 1970s/80s, but TE's analysis is fundamentally correct. 2008 and its fallout has wiped out the platform from with New Labour governed (and often very successfully, I'm certainly not going to disagree with you there) We need something new and Ed realises that. The blueprint is sketchy at the moment, but (as is often forgotten now) very much the same was true when the Tories won in 1979.

We have had five years. The policy review was the dampest of squibs. [As should be apparent, I want a return to the 00s, not the 70s.]

Ok, putting my Blairite cards on the table, things that make me angry include treating people like Stewart Wood, Neal Lawson, John Cruddas and Maurice Glasman as intellectual heavyweights. They really are not. It is all just vague waffle. Cruddas is a product of studying continental philosophy at Warwick and it shows. Blather about the paradigm shift that the financial crash (of seven years ago) caused butters no parsnips.

When you actually try and examine the policies that involve a break from the Blairite past, and try to put some flesh on the bones of the rhetoric of predistribution (as I try and do above) it turns out not to be very good. A promise to reinstate the funding for sex and race discrimination claims, and to change back the rules on accidents at work, would be worth ten times all of it.

I apologise to everyone for starting this. Now is emphatically not the time for navel gazing. Not having the Tories in government is more, much more, than enough.

[mikems]

I agree Hugo, they are no intellectual heavyweights. But put yourself in the shoes of someone with views like the ones I have expressed here - a direction of travel away from what might be thought of as the Thatcher/Blair consensus.

They can't simply jump to their desired position in public statements and take people with them. It is too big a paradigm shift and would be presented as a risky step into the unknown.

Labour is a party of reform and always has been. It cannot help but change as capitalism evolves. From the late 80s to 2010 it went too far in the wrong direction for its own good, and now is struggling to regain its old territory.

But that is the necessary first step. Otherwise we are condemned to be perpetually fighting on ground of the enemy's choosing. Labour need them on the back foot defending the inequitable status quo, under constant, but not extremist, pressure.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Yes, its all been a slow and tortuous process but that is the price that has had to be paid for keeping the party basically united.

(again, this was all true with Thatcher pre-1979 as well)

That really is a very very good piece by Behr indeed - though it maybe could have mentioned Balls totally tanking at the last conference and the negative effect it had on morale (much more so than Ed's speech there IMO, whatever its shortcomings) and how nearly losing Heywood/Middleton a few weeks later - after UKIP had fought a deeply cynical but brutally effective "we're the *real* Labour option" campaign - shook the party to its core, especially with the collapse in Scottish polling post-referendum (the debilitating effects of that might have been touched on by RB, as well)

Tories genuinely thought they had this election in the bag in about November. Miliband coming back from that shows his astonishing resilience if nothing else

[gilsey]

I apologise to everyone for starting this. Now is emphatically not the time for navel gazing. Not having the Tories in government is more, much more, than enough.

No need to apologise imo, it stayed civil.

Gove on Newsnight last night, was one word he said true?
Usually I don't watch, that's definitely the best plan.

[utopiandreams]

Anyone not convinced that the LibDems are lining up to back Labour?

Focus policing on crime prevention, saving money by scrapping Police and Crime Commissioners

After some of these I really can't see how they can go into coalition with the Tories again.

I agree, Roger, but it still angers me to hear some of the same arguments that Tories throw at Labour. I've always felt them more natural bed-fell ows especially since merger of the SDP. The Libs may have once been more aligned with old Tory when unions wielded far more power, whereasTories have seemingly aligned themselves with corporate interests. I await to be corrected, of course, just my impression.

[RogerOThornhill]

Anyone not convinced that the LibDems are lining up to back Labour?

Focus policing on crime prevention, saving money by scrapping Police and Crime Commissioners

After some of these I really can't see how they can go into coalition with the Tories again.

Its all about Clegg, really - he is viscerally anti-Labour but few others at the top of the party are.

I'm not so sure - I've seen clear divisions between laws and Gove/Morgan. LibDems clearly want education as one of their departments in a Tory/LibDem coalition - not sure Gove would allow that to happen.

[AngryAsWell]

I agree we can't just return to the 1970s/80s, but TE's analysis is fundamentally correct. 2008 and its fallout has wiped out the platform from with New Labour governed (and often very successfully, I'm certainly not going to disagree with you there) We need something new and Ed realises that. The blueprint is sketchy at the moment, but (as is often forgotten now) very much the same was true when the Tories won in 1979.

We have had five years. The policy review was the dampest of squibs. [As should be apparent, I want a return to the 00s, not the 70s.]

Ok, putting my Blairite cards on the table, things that make me angry include treating people like Stewart Wood, Neal Lawson, John Cruddas and Maurice Glasman as intellectual heavyweights. They really are not. It is all just vague waffle. Cruddas is a product of studying continental philosophy at Warwick and it shows. Blather about the paradigm shift that the financial crash (of seven years ago) caused butters no parsnips.

When you actually try and examine the policies that involve a break from the Blairite past, and try to put some flesh on the bones of the rhetoric of predistribution (as I try and do above) it turns out not to be very good. A promise to reinstate the funding for sex and race discrimination claims, and to change back the rules on accidents at work, would be worth ten times all of it.

I apologise to everyone for starting this. Now is emphatically not the time for navel gazing. Not having the Tories in government is more, much more, than enough.

Don't apologise, its a thought provoking thread. I have much to say but can't articulate it at the moment, but would like to just add a simplistic thought.
If companies were forced back to the original idea of "shares" in that shareholders were rewarded for their investment by a dividend, AFTER all running costs - including proper liveable wages - had been calculated we might start to rebalance the economy to work for everyday people.
That's what I call predistribution.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

Patrick Wintour ‏@patrickwintour · 1h1 hour ago
Worst launch press conference yet by Lib Dems one question from the FT and the rest dolly drops by party members. Pathetic.

Poor little Patrick. He spends five years cravenly justifying every policy his poster boy Clegg facilitated, and this is how they treat him; now he understands how the rest of us feel!!!

[ephemerid]

UKIP have promised to open a new 500-bed hospital for soldiers and veterans.

The old military hospitals were closed down for very good reasons - and the beds were replaced by dedicated Ministry of Defence Hospital Units.

Defence Medical Services run 5 MDHU's in the UK; plus there are specialist acute and rehab care facilities like Selly Oak and Queen Elizabeth's in Birmingham. Altogether that's way more than 500 beds.

[utopiandreams]

Just thought I'd bring it over here but AS provided an interesting link to The Conversation in the G and their Manifesto Check 2015.
https://theconversation.com/uk/manifesto-check-2015

[SpinningHugo]

Yes, its all been a slow and tortuous process but that is the price that has had to be paid for keeping the party basically united.

(again, this was all true with Thatcher pre-1979 as well)

That really is a very very good piece by Behr indeed - though it maybe could have mentioned Balls totally tanking at the last conference and the negative effect it had on morale (much more so than Ed's speech there IMO, whatever its shortcomings) and how nearly losing Heywood/Middleton a few weeks later - after UKIP had fought a deeply cynical but brutally effective "we're the *real* Labour option" campaign - shook the party to its core, especially with the collapse in Scottish polling post-referendum (the debilitating effects of that might have been touched on by RB, as well)

Tories genuinely thought they had this election in the bag in about November. Miliband coming back from that shows his astonishing resilience if nothing else

Ok, one last thing.

One of the hangovers from the Blair/Brown years is that the personal animosity between the two of them obscured more fundamental differences of principle.

In policy terms there really wasn't that much between Blair and Brown. The Euro was one area, and Brown has been completely vindicated on that issue. But, fundamentally, what else?

What they shared, however, was much more important, and one thing was a market based pragmatism. I think Balls accepts that too. It is that view that I still hold to. One part of that is the view that the only sensible way to help the poorest is through giving them money: old fashioned tax and distribution.

It is that view that the likes of Wood, Cruddas, Lawson etc are arguing against.

You can see the shift away from pragmatism most obviously if you compare the 2010 and 2015 manifestos on health. In 2010 Labour was promising that patients would have the right to private provision if NHS provision fell below certain targets. Unimaginable as a proposal now.

I do think Balls is clever (cleverer than the last three I mentioned put together) and would make a very good Chancellor. He did lose his political mojo once he knew he was never going to be leader though.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Tbf to Balls, I think he has come back quite well from that low point - even if I often agree more with the other Ed re their differences.

(which certainly exist, but are maybe exaggerated by some)

[pk1]

Just skimmed the first 50 posts but the ganging up on Hugo is unseemly, given that we know Labour is a broad church & each of us will fall some way between the far left & the far right of the movement.

It doesn't mean either end is correct or incorrect, just appealing to different emotional pull factors within us.

[gilsey]

What they shared, however, was much more important, and one thing was a market based pragmatism. I think Balls accepts that too. It is that view that I still hold to.

I think we should pursue this another day but feel the need to make a point.

Market based pragmatism, not just in the UK, led to the 2007 financial crisis. That's where it takes you.

[adam]

More success stories from the wonderful world of new-stylee education

Second Telford School Put In Special Measures

Wrockwardine Wood Arts Academy has become the second school in the Telford Cooperative Multi Academy Trust (TCMAT) this month to receive the lowest possible overall rating from the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Edit - needed a slash

[PorFavor]

I've enjoyed following the "SpinningHugo and others" debate. Interesting and civil. Thanks to the various participants. Perhaps we could have a "to be continued . . . . " for after the election.

[TechnicalEphemera]

Just skimmed the first 50 posts but the ganging up on Hugo is unseemly, given that we know Labour is a broad church & each of us will fall some way between the far left & the far right of the movement.

It doesn't mean either end is correct or incorrect, just appealing to different emotional pull factors within us.

I'm not intending to gang up on Hugo, I think he makes some very interesting points that I need to find time to think about.

[ohsocynical]

Morning all.

This tells us everything one needs to know about both the original tweeter and re-tweeter...

Toby Young retweeted
Sarah Vine @SarahVine · 10h 10 hours ago
Ed Miliband is the Kim Kardashian of British politics. He thinks he's amazing - but all anyone can see when they look at him is a giant arse

Touch of the old green eyed monster there. Probably looks at Ed and then at her own old man and knows for sure she has the worst of the bargain.

[SpinningHugo]

What they shared, however, was much more important, and one thing was a market based pragmatism. I think Balls accepts that too. It is that view that I still hold to.

I think we should pursue this another day but feel the need to make a point.

Market based pragmatism, not just in the UK, led to the 2007 financial crisis. That's where it takes you.

I think this is one area where I am very unfashionably conservative (NB size of c).

I don't think you can eradicate market failures. There will be bubbles, they will burst, and this will cause shocks.

You can do your best to regulate, but regulation is difficult and you can have too much of it as well as too little. (Too much and you prevent new entrants, destroying competition).

Pragmatism involves accepting that there will be busts.

BUT, we know how to deal with busts now, in a way that we did not in the 1920s or 30s. We know that the State has to fill the demand gap that is created. And that is what Labour, under Brown did in 2008 on, opposed by the Tories. (Other governments did the same too.) Modern neo-Keynsian economics tells us what to do.

The rhetoric of Stewart Wood et al, that we need to re-write the rules of society, both promises far more than it can deliver, and obscures how successful more pragmatic approaches are.

[adam]

In other news

UKIP chair Suzanne Evans defends owning 'two and a third homes'

(Honest response - I think this is a little bit of a cheap shot, but if you're going to blame the housing crisis on those furriners turing up and taking our houses you need to be Ceaser's wife).

[AngryAsWell]

Hugo, I hope you don't feel ganged up on, that certainly was not my intent with my simplistic post. I've found it an interesting thought provoking discussion, the kind friends sit down in the pub with a pint and toss around between them.
Sorry if it's not come across like that to all.

[utopiandreams]

Morning all.

This tells us everything one needs to know about both the original tweeter and re-tweeter...

Toby Young retweeted
Sarah Vine @SarahVine · 10h 10 hours ago
Ed Miliband is the Kim Kardashian of British politics. He thinks he's amazing - but all anyone can see when they look at him is a giant arse

Touch of the old green eyed monster there. Probably looks at Ed and then at her own old man and knows for sure she has the worst of the bargain.

Excuse my saying so, but I suspect that is one household where all the mirrors are behind cupboard doors.

[Rebecca]

Morning all.

This tells us everything one needs to know about both the original tweeter and re-tweeter...

Toby Young retweeted
Sarah Vine @SarahVine · 10h 10 hours ago
Ed Miliband is the Kim Kardashian of British politics. He thinks he's amazing - but all anyone can see when they look at him is a giant arse

Touch of the old green eyed monster there. Probably looks at Ed and then at her own old man and knows for sure she has the worst of the bargain.

Also Mrs Vine has definitely got a bigger ass than Ed,ànatomically speaking,so she should keep her ridiculous thoughts to herself.

[PorFavor]

I have to admit that Ukip looked in danger of turning professional for a short while (or at least as professional as the Conservatives when you compare the funding promises). Then Nigel Farage came back.

[utopiandreams]

What they shared, however, was much more important, and one thing was a market based pragmatism. I think Balls accepts that too. It is that view that I still hold to.

I think we should pursue this another day but feel the need to make a point.

Market based pragmatism, not just in the UK, led to the 2007 financial crisis. That's where it takes you.

I think this is one area where I am very unfashionably conservative (NB size of c).

I don't think you can eradicate market failures. There will be bubbles, they will burst, and this will cause shocks.

You can do your best to regulate, but regulation is difficult and you can have too much of it as well as too little. (Too much and you prevent new entrants, destroying competition).

Pragmatism involves accepting that there will be busts.

BUT, we know how to deal with busts now, in a way that we did not in the 1920s or 30s. We know that the State has to fill the demand gap that is created. And that is what Labour, under Brown did in 2008 on, opposed by the Tories. (Other governments did the same too.) Modern neo-Keynsian economics tells us what to do.

The rhetoric of Stewart Wood et al, that we need to re-write the rules of society, both promises far more than it can deliver, and obscures how successful more pragmatic approaches are.

Whilst agreeing with much of what you say here, SpinningHugo, I want to single out this bit: 'Pragmatism involves accepting that there will be busts.' This is the very reason that essential services in the societal sense must be provided by the public sector, or at the very least be very heavily regulated, otherwise the social impact of failure is just too high a price (for some). Anyway... 3 weeks to go.

[ohsocynical]

Yes, its all been a slow and tortuous process but that is the price that has had to be paid for keeping the party basically united.

(again, this was all true with Thatcher pre-1979 as well)

That really is a very very good piece by Behr indeed - though it maybe could have mentioned Balls totally tanking at the last conference and the negative effect it had on morale (much more so than Ed's speech there IMO, whatever its shortcomings) and how nearly losing Heywood/Middleton a few weeks later - after UKIP had fought a deeply cynical but brutally effective "we're the *real* Labour option" campaign - shook the party to its core, especially with the collapse in Scottish polling post-referendum (the debilitating effects of that might have been touched on by RB, as well)

Tories genuinely thought they had this election in the bag in about November. Miliband coming back from that shows his astonishing resilience if nothing else

Ok, one last thing.

One of the hangovers from the Blair/Brown years is that the personal animosity between the two of them obscured more fundamental differences of principle.

In policy terms there really wasn't that much between Blair and Brown. The Euro was one area, and Brown has been completely vindicated on that issue. But, fundamentally, what else?

What they shared, however, was much more important, and one thing was a market based pragmatism. I think Balls accepts that too. It is that view that I still hold to. One part of that is the view that the only sensible way to help the poorest is through giving them money: old fashioned tax and distribution.

It is that view that the likes of Wood, Cruddas, Lawson etc are arguing against.

You can see the shift away from pragmatism most obviously if you compare the 2010 and 2015 manifestos on health. In 2010 Labour was promising that patients would have the right to private provision if NHS provision fell below certain targets. Unimaginable as a proposal now.

I do think Balls is clever (cleverer than the last three I mentioned put together) and would make a very good Chancellor. He did lose his political mojo once he knew he was never going to be leader though.

What else? Leadership issues from quite early on between Blair and Brown. Originally Brown was to have been PM, and Blair chancellor but then Blair proved very good in front of the cameras and more popular, so the positions were reversed. Brown seems to have been a law unto himself; lots of under currents.

Campbell managed to keep them on track and from what I've read, Prescott smoothed a few ruffled egos too.

[ohsocynical]

PS. Sorry about the late post. Just come in from the garden...

[SpinningHugo]

Hugo, I hope you don't feel ganged up on, that certainly was not my intent with my simplistic post. I've found it an interesting thought provoking discussion, the kind friends sit down in the pub with a pint and toss around between them.
Sorry if it's not come across like that to all.

Not at all. Sheesh, this is not like BTL at the Graun.

[Rebecca]

Touch of the old green eyed monster there. Probably looks at Ed and then at her own old man and knows for sure she has the worst of the bargain.

Also Mrs Vine has definitely got a bigger ass than Ed,ànatomically speaking,so she should keep her ridiculous thoughts to herself.

Sarah Vine, on the other hand, is the Mrs Michael Gove of British politics.

I used to have a very right wing boyfriend who had been completely ruined by his Irish mother.He said once "if there's one thing I can't stand it's an ugly,voluble woman".
This deplorable sentiment springs to mind whenever I think of Sarah Vine.Shame on me.

[RogerOThornhill]

Interesting that UKIP seem to have changed their stance on the EU.

Previous
UKIP will leave the EU and save at least £8bn pa in net contributions.

Now
UKIP believes British citizens should have an in/out referendum on our membership of the EU as soon as possible. Our question of choice will be:
DO YOU WISH BRITAIN TO BE A FREE, INDEPENDENT, SOVEREIGN DEMOCRACY?

Ignoring the fact that the Electoral Commission wouldn't let them get away with that wording...their savings are dependent on the UK voting yes for leaving.

Now, in my old accounting days would have had that down as something which doesn't get shown in the accounts since it is dependent on an event happening - a potential cost would be shown as a contingent liability.

So how are they able to get away with taking the savings?

[pk1]

Hugo, I hope you don't feel ganged up on, that certainly was not my intent with my simplistic post. I've found it an interesting thought provoking discussion, the kind friends sit down in the pub with a pint and toss around between them.
Sorry if it's not come across like that to all.

Not at all. Sheesh, this is not like BTL at the Graun.

God forbid this place ever becomes like that one !

[Rebecca]

Hugo, I hope you don't feel ganged up on, that certainly was not my intent with my simplistic post. I've found it an interesting thought provoking discussion, the kind friends sit down in the pub with a pint and toss around between them.
Sorry if it's not come across like that to all.

Not at all. Sheesh, this is not like BTL at the Graun.

Sorry Hugo,managed to report your post instead of thanking it.Blame the pup who is waiting for a walk.
Anyway,this is so not like btl at the Guardian,you would have been banned on day one if you were there.For some reason.

[PorFavor]

@ Rebecca

Sorry Hugo,managed to report your post

Ha! How very Guardian of you!

[ohsocynical]

Lord Ashcroft ‏@LordAshcroft Apr 13

Quite something politics. Tories now promising unfunded policies while Labour working hard at fully costing policies #topsyturvy

I find this comment quite illuminating.

[AngryAsWell]

Interesting... (at Ukippery conference)

Alex Wickham @WikiGuido
Follow
Carswell and Reckless not here, Reckless not even in manifesto. Apparently "they're busy".

[pk1]

@ Rebecca

Sorry Hugo,managed to report your post

Ha! How very Guardian of you!

[ohsocynical]

Yesterday the staff of the Guardian voted on which party to support in May. Any clues yet?

[yahyah]

Morning all.

This tells us everything one needs to know about both the original tweeter and re-tweeter...

Toby Young retweeted
Sarah Vine @SarahVine · 10h 10 hours ago
Ed Miliband is the Kim Kardashian of British politics. He thinks he's amazing - but all anyone can see when they look at him is a giant arse

Staggering, truly staggering that the wife of Michael Gove wrote that.
Does she really not see Gove as other humans do ?

[LadyCentauria]

I sort-of love Prince Janek Zylinski – he who has challenged Nigel Farage to a duel with swords in Hyde Park for Farage's anti-Polish/anti-immigrant rhetoric. He was just on the Daily Politics up against UKIP's Patrick Flynn.

And here's his original youtube challenge:
[youtube]jBtcQ4vkRg0[/youtube]

[PorFavor]

Lord Ashcroft ‏@LordAshcroft Apr 13

Quite something politics. Tories now promising unfunded policies while Labour working hard at fully costing policies #topsyturvy

I find this comment quite illuminating.

Yes - to me, it puts a different slant on the situation to that which the mainstream press is pushing, doesn't it (ie the "swapping clothes" line which I take to be a slur on Labour)?

[ohsocynical]

Interesting... (at Ukippery conference)

Alex Wickham @WikiGuido
Follow
Carswell and Reckless not here, Reckless not even in manifesto. Apparently "they're busy".

As Mr Ohso says: UKIP? Meh, shot their bolt.

[ohsocynical]

Lord Ashcroft ‏@LordAshcroft Apr 13

Quite something politics. Tories now promising unfunded policies while Labour working hard at fully costing policies #topsyturvy

I find this comment quite illuminating.

Yes - to me, it puts a different slant on the situation to that which the mainstream press is pushing, doesn't it (ie the "swapping clothes" line which I take to be a slur on Labour)?

Straight from the horses mouth isn't it.
I take is as confirmation that Ed is telling the truth re carefully costing policies, and the Conservatives aren't.

[yahyah]

Anyone not convinced that the LibDems are lining up to back Labour?

Focus policing on crime prevention, saving money by scrapping Police and Crime Commissioners

After some of these I really can't see how they can go into coalition with the Tories again.

Maybe I'm just suspicious, but I view it as the Lib Dems trying to appeal to their lost leftish voters, and they'd change their minds if Cameron whistled at them again.


& interesting debate on capitalism, competition etc. Thanks.

[AngryAsWell]

Yesterday the staff of the Guardian voted on which party to support in May. Any clues yet?

I think they will push for another coalition - "Vote Green or Liberal for a more democratic representation!" kind of thing.
I'll be gob smacked if they come out for Labour.

[ohsocynical]

Yesterday the staff of the Guardian voted on which party to support in May. Any clues yet?

Well, it doesn't appear to be the Conservatives...
David Cameron gave an upbeat launch to his campaign, but his party is selling a false prospectus of prosperity to a divided nation
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... are_btn_tw

[PorFavor]

I'm still confused about the tax\minimum wage thing. Amongst other things - doesn't HMRC tax you on the amount of money you get - and that not co-related to how many hours you worked to get it (ie how do they know you're on minimum wage and not just working short hours)? It sounds like a form-filling nightmare.

[yahyah]

I'm still confused about the tax\minimum wage thing. Amongst other things - doesn't HMRC tax you on the amount of money you get - and that not co-related to how many hours you worked to get it (ie how do they know you're on minimum wage and not just working short hours)? It sounds like a form-filling nightmare.

Maybe the Tories are going to do what I think they've planned for the married allowance if they are re-elected, that it would be settled at the end of the tax year.

Or maybe, more likely, they haven't actually thought about it.