Saturday, July 18th - Sunday, July 19th 2015

[citizenJA]

This, I think will be the last of this flurry of posts from me but...

@Ohso: I hope Mr. Ohso is feeling a bit stronger and more hopeful - and that the accidentally washed 'phone will be ok. If you just leave it in a dry place at room temperature (not on or by a radiator!) for 24-48 hours before attempting to switch it on, it might well be fine. Or, it is sometimes recommended that you 'bury it' in dry rice in an airtight container - tupperware, perhaps - for about 36 hours. The rice substitutes for those dessicating-gel packets you often find in the packaging of electrical or electronic goods. If it wo'n't power up after you've given it proper time to dry out you'll find phone-repair shops dotted about all over the place in even pretty small towns with guys who can work wonders for a small charge; and, of course, if it's under a replacement insurance policy you can take advantage of that and the shop he got it from should be able to retrieve any data on it. The SIM should have survived, so you could just remove that and stick it in another phone - it will have some data on it and, possibly, all his contacts. xxx

@RR2: Was it you posted about that awful plan to open a new beagle- and ferret-breeding 'kennels' with the animals being used for medical/scientific research? It's bloody heartbreaking and I would have great difficulty in accepting that it's necessary, in this day and age!
:flame:

Twasn't an expensive phone. Ten quid from Sainsburys, thank goodness!
Thank God his iPad is too big to get in his trouser pockets otherwise it would only be a matter of time.

Our granddaughter nipped along there yesterday and brought a replacement for nine pound...He only has it for emergencies, and the hospital sends him reminders for appointment texts.

Good early afternoon, Ohso.
Apologies for my hasty posts here the last few days - I've followed sporadically & posted randomly.
Please give Mr. Ohso my love & I love you too.
I hope you're both comfortable, rested & without pain.
I wish that for all of us, actually.

[rebeccariots2]

Keep us from Liz Kendall.

Aside from not agreeing with anything she says, she presents what she says appallingly badly. She is coming across as having no conviction about anything. She's not even a conviction right-winger\right of centre-er, whatever. She's just a waffling leadership candidate. That's her raison d'etre - and it's becoming increasingly obvious.

She would come across less badly to me if she made any - any - concession or supportive remarks about the many people who did support (and work for) Labour at the last election, and also made it clear that she wants to appeal to younger voters and those former or potential Labour voters who are really disenchanted but have different views to her own such as those who voted SNP, Ukip etc - but she just seems to hark on about Tory voters and responding to the Tory agenda line by line. We have to be broader than that - that's an incredibly narrow and defensive approach.

[PorFavor]

Keep us from Liz Kendall.

Aside from not agreeing with anything she says, she presents what she says appallingly badly. She is coming across as having no conviction about anything. She's not even a conviction right-winger\right of centre-er, whatever. She's just a waffling leadership candidate. That's her raison d'etre - and it's becoming increasingly obvious.

She would come across less badly to me if she made any - any - concession or supportive remarks about the many people who did support (and work for) Labour at the last election, and also made it clear that she wants to appeal to younger voters and those former or potential Labour voters who are really disenchanted but have different views to her own such as those who voted SNP, Ukip etc - but she just seems to hark on about Tory voters and responding to the Tory agenda line by line. We have to be broader than that - that's an incredibly narrow and defensive approach.

Yes. But it's too late for that now. She could send flowers and thank you cards from now until the close of voting and I wouldn't be convinced. I wonder if she will belatedly realise (be told) that she should give a nod in the direction of the last election's Labour supporters - even as a mater of politeness. That she hasn't, to date, made a point of doing so marks her down as being not at all a canny politician, in my view.

[PorFavor]

Keep us from Liz Kendall.

Aside from not agreeing with anything she says, she presents what she says appallingly badly. She is coming across as having no conviction about anything. She's not even a conviction right-winger\right of centre-er, whatever. She's just a waffling leadership candidate. That's her raison d'etre - and it's becoming increasingly obvious.

She would come across less badly to me if she made any - any - concession or supportive remarks about the many people who did support (and work for) Labour at the last election, and also made it clear that she wants to appeal to younger voters and those former or potential Labour voters who are really disenchanted but have different views to her own such as those who voted SNP, Ukip etc - but she just seems to hark on about Tory voters and responding to the Tory agenda line by line. We have to be broader than that - that's an incredibly narrow and defensive approach.

Yes. But it's too late for that now. She could send flowers and thank you cards from now until the close of voting and I wouldn't be convinced. I wonder if she will belatedly realise (be told) that she should give a nod in the direction of the last election's Labour supporters - even as a mater of politeness. That she hasn't, to date, made a point of doing so marks her down as being not at all a canny politician, in my view.


Edited to add -

Nick Clegg took a similar line re a large chunk of LbDem voters. It didn't do much for the LibDems, did it?

[rebeccariots2]

Julie Glover was told her home has been 'reclassified' after we revealed she was ordered to pay hated levy on death of her boy David, also disabled.

Mum Julie Glover has been told she no longer has to pay the bedroom tax she was ordered to after the sudden death of disabled son David.

The full-time carer and son Royston, who is also disabled, were yesterday overjoyed at the news which will save Julie £624 a year.

Last week we reported that her council was charging her while the housing association was refusing to move her because it was too costly to alter a property for Royston, 35. He has cerebral palsy, as did David.

“We had a visit from a Newport City Homes support worker and she said she had some information,” Julie said.

“When she arrived she said, ‘Your property has been reclassified as a two-bedroomed property.’ That’s all she said.

Last week it was three-bedroomed.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales ... nk-9683774" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

More reclassifications should have been happening. I hope housing associations will start being stronger voices now they are also under attack and in danger of being wiped out of existence by the Tory government.

[PorFavor]

The site's being a bit stroppy today (it is for me, at any rate).

[PorFavor]

The site's being a bit stroppy today (it is for me, at any rate).

[PorFavor]

I rest my case . . . .

[gilsey]

Our friend Richard Murphy laying into the Obs.

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015 ... ch+UK+2%29" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If sending people into poverty, deliberately; slashing funding for the NHS; cutting investment in education; sending undergraduates deeper into debt; holding wages at near poverty levels; offering tax cuts for the richest and no one else; threatening to end the BBC and going to war without bothering to tell anyone is the middle ground then the Observer has clearly lost the plot. And anyone saying that this is where Labour needs to be, or thereabouts, has also lost any scintilla of reasoning they might have once possessed.

[SpinningHugo]

Don't polls always overstate turnout?
Will you vote?
Nah, I am too lazy. (Not a popular answer)

To some extent, but they were a lot closer in 2005 and 2010. To a degree in recent years, it has become fashionable amongst certain groups to say you *won't* vote in order to express your dissatisfaction with the political process.

There is also, of course, the fact that the "shortfall" in turnout this time didn't affect all parties equally. Tories and SNP got their vote out extremely efficiently - other parties, not so much.

I honestly think the Tories were taken aback when they won. And the low polling figures were a shock to them too.

When I was telling on the day, the big wigs on the council toured all the polling stations. They were all confidently saying they expected a high turnout, and there'd be another election very, very soon. They didn't for one minute think they'd get a workable majority.

Osborne said as much last week.

One unpleasant lesson for Labour was how nearly irrelevant the superior "ground war" was.

The Tories have no activists in any numbers any longer. Didvthem no harm at all.

Non voters don't vote. That is that.

[citizenJA]

Our friend Richard Murphy laying into the Obs.

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015 ... ch+UK+2%29" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If sending people into poverty, deliberately; slashing funding for the NHS; cutting investment in education; sending undergraduates deeper into debt; holding wages at near poverty levels; offering tax cuts for the richest and no one else; threatening to end the BBC and going to war without bothering to tell anyone is the middle ground then the Observer has clearly lost the plot. And anyone saying that this is where Labour needs to be, or thereabouts, has also lost any scintilla of reasoning they might have once possessed.

I respect his work - good link.

[rebeccariots2]

Our friend Richard Murphy laying into the Obs.

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015 ... ch+UK+2%29" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If sending people into poverty, deliberately; slashing funding for the NHS; cutting investment in education; sending undergraduates deeper into debt; holding wages at near poverty levels; offering tax cuts for the richest and no one else; threatening to end the BBC and going to war without bothering to tell anyone is the middle ground then the Observer has clearly lost the plot. And anyone saying that this is where Labour needs to be, or thereabouts, has also lost any scintilla of reasoning they might have once possessed.

That's a very good piece. Thanks.

[SpinningHugo]

Our friend Richard Murphy laying into the Obs.

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015 ... ch+UK+2%29" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If sending people into poverty, deliberately; slashing funding for the NHS; cutting investment in education; sending undergraduates deeper into debt; holding wages at near poverty levels; offering tax cuts for the richest and no one else; threatening to end the BBC and going to war without bothering to tell anyone is the middle ground then the Observer has clearly lost the plot. And anyone saying that this is where Labour needs to be, or thereabouts, has also lost any scintilla of reasoning they might have once possessed.

That's a very good piece. Thanks.

Not a fan of Murphy (I know a bit about tax law, although tax policy specifically is not my thing).

He makes it too easy for himself in that quote, attributing to his opponents ridiculous positions. Not even a very rightwing Tory wants all that list. 'Neoliberalism' is also as empty a target as is possible.

[AnatolyKasparov]

To some extent, but they were a lot closer in 2005 and 2010. To a degree in recent years, it has become fashionable amongst certain groups to say you *won't* vote in order to express your dissatisfaction with the political process.

There is also, of course, the fact that the "shortfall" in turnout this time didn't affect all parties equally. Tories and SNP got their vote out extremely efficiently - other parties, not so much.

I honestly think the Tories were taken aback when they won. And the low polling figures were a shock to them too.

When I was telling on the day, the big wigs on the council toured all the polling stations. They were all confidently saying they expected a high turnout, and there'd be another election very, very soon. They didn't for one minute think they'd get a workable majority.

Osborne said as much last week.

One unpleasant lesson for Labour was how nearly irrelevant the superior "ground war" was.

The Tories have no activists in any numbers any longer. Didvthem no harm at all.

Non voters don't vote. That is that.

Because the Tories trumped it with the newest most sophisticated "targeting" techniques (many of them US originated, Messina's influence?) mostly below the radar.

I have said myself that Labour's approach often just seemed to be that sheer weight of numbers would work - it needs to be a *bit* more nuanced than that. Though other parties might have caught up with the Tories on the newfangled stuff by 2020, if so the ground game might count for more again.

(it helps, too, that the Tories are rich enough to pay lots of people to deliver their propaganda - would a Kendall-led party if she p***ed off all the activists?)

As for your last comment, if that was true turnout wouldn't have improved (indeed fallen further) from the 59% it hit in 2001. There are people who don't vote because they are genuinely apathetic and can't be arsed, and those who don't because they are dissatisfied and don't think anybody speaks for them. The latter group can be targeted and won over (indeed, part of the SNP's astonishing success was doing so)

[PorFavor]

Our friend Richard Murphy laying into the Obs.

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015 ... ch+UK+2%29" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's a very good piece. Thanks.

Not a fan of Murphy (I know a bit about tax law, although tax policy specifically is not my thing).

He makes it too easy for himself in that quote, attributing to his opponents ridiculous positions. Not even a very rightwing Tory wants all that list. 'Neoliberalism' is also as empty a target as is possible.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that "not even a rightwing Tory wants that list" is true - the fact that this government is prepared to put up with the list's contents as a means to an end, or even as collateral damage in pursuit of that same end, seems very much to be the case, though. So none of it strikes me as ridiculous.

[gilsey]

That's a very good piece. Thanks.

Not a fan of Murphy (I know a bit about tax law, although tax policy specifically is not my thing).

He makes it too easy for himself in that quote, attributing to his opponents ridiculous positions. Not even a very rightwing Tory wants all that list. 'Neoliberalism' is also as empty a target as is possible.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that "not even a rightwing Tory wants that list" is true - the fact that this government is prepared to put up with the list's contents as a means to an end, or even as collateral damage in pursuit of that same end, seems very much to be the case, though. So none of it strikes me as ridiculous.

PF, you've missed a crucial 'all' out. "Not even a very rightwing Tory wants all that list" may be true, but all of them want some of it.
I don't want any of it.

[PorFavor]

Not a fan of Murphy (I know a bit about tax law, although tax policy specifically is not my thing).

He makes it too easy for himself in that quote, attributing to his opponents ridiculous positions. Not even a very rightwing Tory wants all that list. 'Neoliberalism' is also as empty a target as is possible.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that "not even a rightwing Tory wants that list" is true - the fact that this government is prepared to put up with the list's contents as a means to an end, or even as collateral damage in pursuit of that same end, seems very much to be the case, though. So none of it strikes me as ridiculous.

PF, you've missed a crucial 'all' out. "Not even a very rightwing Tory wants all that list" may be true, but all of them want some of it.
I don't want any of it.

Whoops! Good point.

[gilsey]

Murphy has also highlighted something I've been thinking for a while.

What is astonishing is that when the Tory narrative on Europe is close to shredding itself and that people may reject the whole Tory edifice when they lose parts of the NHS, education, the BBC, or just the nation as Cameron shatters the Union which was supposed to be the basis of his party, the Observer seems quite unable to notice any such possibility, at all.

I'm amazed by the consistent message from politicians, including Labour ones, and the media that the 2020 election will be fought on the same ground as the 2015 one. It may be different in ways other than Murphy suggests, but it will be different.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Murphy has also highlighted something I've been thinking for a while.

What is astonishing is that when the Tory narrative on Europe is close to shredding itself and that people may reject the whole Tory edifice when they lose parts of the NHS, education, the BBC, or just the nation as Cameron shatters the Union which was supposed to be the basis of his party, the Observer seems quite unable to notice any such possibility, at all.

I'm amazed by the consistent message from politicians, including Labour ones, and the media that the 2020 election will be fought on the same ground as the 2015 one. It may be different in ways other than Murphy suggests, but it will be different.

Well, that is the line of Kendall and her supporters. Not sure about many others in the party......

[RogerOThornhill]

I love this exchange...

https://twitter.com/toadmeister/status/ ... 4331286528

Toby YoungVerified account
‏@toadmeister
.@jeremycorbyn makes no bones about simply making up the fact that raising top rate to 50% would bring in £5bn. Shameless #bbcdp

OK, fair enough but then someone comes and spoils it somewhat...

Suspicious Voter ‏@Any_Homunculous 3h3 hours ago
@toadmeister @jeremycorbyn Similar to the way Burnham forgets the £500bn of PFi debt he burdened us with. #bbcdp

Er...right. He did that in less than a year as Health Secretary? And that's far more than the total PFI liability for everything.

According to the Telegraph only today, latest figures for the NHS only seem to be £79bn over the next 30 years. And that for deals signed over 13 years.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs/117 ... -year.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you're going to accuse someone of making stuff up, it helps if you don't do the very same thing...

[Tubby Isaacs]

Whittingdale was educated at Sandroyd School[3] and Winchester College, followed by University College London (UCL) where he was Chairman of UCL Conservative Society. He graduated with a 2:2 in Economics (1982).

From 1982–84, Whittingdale was head of the political section of the Conservative Research Department. He then served as Special Adviser to three successive Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry, Norman Tebbit, 1984–85; Leon Brittan, 1985–86, and Paul Channon, 1986–87. He worked on international privatisation at NM Rothschild in 1987 and in January 1988, became Political Secretary to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Upon her resignation Whittingdale was appointed OBE and continued to serve as her Political Secretary until being elected to Parliament in 1992.

Glad we've someone with that kind of real world experience taking on the out of touch BBC.

He makes Michael Fallon sound like Ernie Bevin.

[ohsocynical]

Labour MPs are plotting to mount a coup against Jeremy Corbyn before Christmas, if he wins the leadership in September.

The left-wing MP for Islington North has staged a stunning raid on support among constituency labour party (CLP) organisations in the past week, prompting panic among supporters of the three mainstream candidates, Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall. Two internal polls also suggested a surge in support for Mr Corbyn, with one even suggesting he could win on 12 September

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/je ... 99272.html

Lots of negative articles about Corbyn in the weekend papers.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I love this exchange...

https://twitter.com/toadmeister/status/ ... 4331286528

Toby YoungVerified account
‏@toadmeister
.@jeremycorbyn makes no bones about simply making up the fact that raising top rate to 50% would bring in £5bn. Shameless #bbcdp

OK, fair enough but then someone comes and spoils it somewhat...

Suspicious Voter ‏@Any_Homunculous 3h3 hours ago
@toadmeister @jeremycorbyn Similar to the way Burnham forgets the £500bn of PFi debt he burdened us with. #bbcdp

Er...right. He did that in less than a year as Health Secretary? And that's far more than the total PFI liability for everything.

According to the Telegraph only today, latest figures for the NHS only seem to be £79bn over the next 30 years. And that for deals signed over 13 years.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs/117 ... -year.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you're going to accuse someone of making stuff up, it helps if you don't do the very same thing...

PFI is appallingly badly reported, and you don't have to be a fan of it to say that.

It can include running costs of up to 30 years, which clearly very much more than the notional capital cost with which it is compared.

Sadly, the left, inside and outside Labour, are happy to mislead people.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Unveiling the government’s green paper on the future of the BBC last week, Whittingdale said the scale and scope of the BBC had grown exponentially in the past decade and the time was right to question “whether this particular range of services best serves licence fee payers”.

If it can grow exponentially over a period where it's income has been frozen for 5 years, we should put the BBC in charge of the Treasury.

[SpinningHugo]

As for your last comment, if that was true turnout wouldn't have improved (indeed fallen further) from the 59% it hit in 2001.

I don't think so. Votes go up and down according to how close the race is perceived. Blair was obviously going to win in 2001, so the vote fell. In 1992 it was a close race, and so up it went. See also 2010.

Nothing to do with being able to persuade more people to vote in one year rather than another.

[RogerOThornhill]

Unveiling the government’s green paper on the future of the BBC last week, Whittingdale said the scale and scope of the BBC had grown exponentially in the past decade and the time was right to question “whether this particular range of services best serves licence fee payers”.

If it can grow exponentially over a period where it's income has been frozen for 5 years, we should put the BBC in charge of the Treasury.

Yes, it's almost like there's an alternate reality where that and the BBC taking the cost of the World Service didn't happen.

I wish they'd be honest and just come out and say what size they want the BBC to be and what they want them to do instead of faffing about with a green paper and handpicked private sector lackeys to form a committee that will just tell them the answer they want anyway.

How did they get away with letting that committee have sight of the green paper before it was presented to parliament?

[AnatolyKasparov]

As for your last comment, if that was true turnout wouldn't have improved (indeed fallen further) from the 59% it hit in 2001.

I don't think so. Votes go up and down according to how close the race is perceived. Blair was obviously going to win in 2001, so the vote fell. In 1992 it was a close race, and so up it went. See also 2010.

Nothing to do with being able to persuade more people to vote in one year rather than another.

Except that a lot of people thought the Tories were a shoo-in five years ago, at least before Cleggmania intervened.....

There is no innate reason IMO why turnout amongst certain groups can't be higher than it has been in post '97 GEs.

(one of these is renters, a growing demographic that is potentially very fertile ground for anti-Tory parties)

[Tubby Isaacs]

Unveiling the government’s green paper on the future of the BBC last week, Whittingdale said the scale and scope of the BBC had grown exponentially in the past decade and the time was right to question “whether this particular range of services best serves licence fee payers”.

If it can grow exponentially over a period where it's income has been frozen for 5 years, we should put the BBC in charge of the Treasury.

Yes, it's almost like there's an alternate reality where that and the BBC taking the cost of the World Service didn't happen.

And indeed S4C, extra £76m cost to the BBC.

Use to be paid for by the Culture Department. Another brave saving there by the government.

[Tubby Isaacs]

The Thatcher government got caught out when the Peacock Committee recommended retaining the licence fee, albeit with Radio 1 and 2 privatized.

This lot aren't going to risk a committee giving the wrong answer.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Ha ha.

Friend of mine on another board cracked a good joke about 2006, watching the testcard.

[utopiandreams]

Regarding voter turnout, I recall patrolling cars with loudspeakers encouraging people to get out there and vote on polling day. I'm not saying they weren't annoying but wonder what effect their absence has. Well I haven't heard any for years or am I more deaf than I thought?

Edit: which reminds me... Rightly or wrongly I've always prided myself on my powers of observation. Well maybe not always. Some years back I was working on my computer, marking OU assignments I think, when one of my clients had been let in by my wife and came to talk to me. A while later she asked what he had wanted but I'd no idea he'd even been so popped to his nearby office to see what he'd wanted. Apparently he'd been immediately next to me for five minutes or so he claimed trying to gain my attention and figured I must have been very busy when I totally ignored him. Of course they may just have been winding me up because I still find it hard to believe.

[SpinningHugo]

As for your last comment, if that was true turnout wouldn't have improved (indeed fallen further) from the 59% it hit in 2001.

I don't think so. Votes go up and down according to how close the race is perceived. Blair was obviously going to win in 2001, so the vote fell. In 1992 it was a close race, and so up it went. See also 2010.

Nothing to do with being able to persuade more people to vote in one year rather than another.

Except that a lot of people thought the Tories were a shoo-in five years ago, at least before Cleggmania intervened.....

There is no innate reason IMO why turnout amongst certain groups can't be higher than it has been in post '97 GEs.

(one of these is renters, a growing demographic that is potentially very fertile ground for anti-Tory parties)

That is to re-write history in my opinion.

Yes, a year before the election it looked like the Tories would walk it, but by the time of the election the polls had narrowed considerably. Admittedly their winning in 2015 was more of a surprise than their winning in 2010 would have been, but as I repeatedly pointed out to you for years before the 2015 election: incumbents always do better than the polls suggest. 2015 reinforced that. 2010 was nowhere near as certain as 2001 was (as the result itself showed)

Voting will increase gradually (with peaks and troughs according to how close the election looks likely to be) because the population is ageing and the elderly vote. Not a lot of joy in that for Labour.

If the economy recovers for the entire Parliament (big if) and once the boundary changes have happened, I doubt the 2020 election will be expected to be close, and so the turnout will fall.

Almost the only good thing to say about 2015 was that it removed any veneer of credibility Russell Brand may have had for the more gullible, and so the 'don't vote' protest will be very much diminished next time, whatever its size.

[ohsocynical]

Hope ‏@YEqual 3 hrs3 hours ago
Liz Kendall on #bbcsp "My family &friends voted Tory"
If she couldn't convince them how can she convince the UK

Everyone agreed it was good to have left and right candidates for the leadership election.

The above is why Liz isn't doing so well....But why are so many people getting pissed off because the left wing candidate is proving so popular? It just means there are a lot of us.

Edited to add. What happened to will of the people?

[AnatolyKasparov]

Well saying what will happen in 2020 is a mug's game (despite the utter certainty of so many that total Tory hegemony is assured for the forseeable)

Tories managed a tiny increase in their overall share this time by cannibalising their coalition partners in the most brutal and ruthless way, and using extremely effective targeting techniques that blindsided the opposition. The former will certainly not apply five years from now, and the latter may well not either (ie other parties may catch up)

And the likelihood of major economic turbulence in this parliament is pretty high I would say......

[utopiandreams]

Hope ‏@YEqual 3 hrs3 hours ago
Liz Kendall on #bbcsp "My family &friends voted Tory"
If she couldn't convince them how can she convince the UK

Everyone agreed it was good to have left and right candidates for the leadership election.

Why are so many people getting pissed off because the left wing candidate is proving so popular?

Everyone agreed did they, ohso? I'm not having a go at you but imagine your last statement if Liz Kendall were mentioned instead.

I's just as well I didn't reply to your phone cleaning post yesterday. I thought you'd meant cleaning so was going to joke about what setting you'd used. Trust all goes well, btw

[SpinningHugo]

Well saying what will happen in 2020 is a mug's game (despite the utter certainty of so many that total Tory hegemony is assured for the forseeable)

Tories managed a tiny increase in their overall share this time by cannibalising their coalition partners in the most brutal and ruthless way, and using extremely effective targeting techniques that blindsided the opposition. The former will certainly not apply five years from now, and the latter may well not either (ie other parties may catch up)

And the likelihood of major economic turbulence in this parliament is pretty high I would say......

(i) I am very sceptical indeed about your claims that Tory victory was attributable to their brilliance in campaigning.

(ii) I also recall your scepticism about the sustainability of the recovery pre-2015. Let us hope you are right this time.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Well saying what will happen in 2020 is a mug's game (despite the utter certainty of so many that total Tory hegemony is assured for the forseeable)

Tories managed a tiny increase in their overall share this time by cannibalising their coalition partners in the most brutal and ruthless way, and using extremely effective targeting techniques that blindsided the opposition. The former will certainly not apply five years from now, and the latter may well not either (ie other parties may catch up)

And the likelihood of major economic turbulence in this parliament is pretty high I would say......

(i) I am very sceptical indeed about your claims that Tory victory was attributable to their brilliance in campaigning.

(ii) I also recall your scepticism about the sustainability of the recovery pre-2015. Let us hope you are right this time.

Well, claim (i) is also being made by ConHome and similar sources.

That doesn't alone make it right of course, but it is at least interesting that they are saying it

As for the economy, yes I doubt whether the present recovery is sustainable - and there are also (as you may have noticed) external factors to consider. But might it not also be the case that Osborne got lucky with his timing in the last parliament (recession early doors, mini-boom towards the end - plus things basically outside his control such a huge fall in energy prices that few had predicted) and that might not be so true this time?

[RogerOThornhill]

(ii) I also recall your scepticism about the sustainability of the recovery pre-2015. Let us hope you are right this time.

Well, we have a sort of a recovery but one which is heavily based around services. Note that we don't hear anything about 'rebalancing' any longer and our export performance is as bad as ever and not forecast to get any better.

Our share of the export market is forecast to fall even from where it is now.

If you look at the OBR tables, it certainly doesn't look like we have any kind of a 'march of the maker' as we were promised.

Given that that the forecast for clearing the deficit isn't now until 2019/20, it won't take much for that to slip. I doubt they can use 'that' note and the 'clearing up Labour's mess' again - they won't be believed.

[SpinningHugo]

Well saying what will happen in 2020 is a mug's game (despite the utter certainty of so many that total Tory hegemony is assured for the forseeable)

Tories managed a tiny increase in their overall share this time by cannibalising their coalition partners in the most brutal and ruthless way, and using extremely effective targeting techniques that blindsided the opposition. The former will certainly not apply five years from now, and the latter may well not either (ie other parties may catch up)

And the likelihood of major economic turbulence in this parliament is pretty high I would say......

(i) I am very sceptical indeed about your claims that Tory victory was attributable to their brilliance in campaigning.

(ii) I also recall your scepticism about the sustainability of the recovery pre-2015. Let us hope you are right this time.

Well, claim (i) is also being made by ConHome and similar sources.

That doesn't alone make it right of course, but it is at least interesting that they are saying it

As for the economy, yes I doubt whether the present recovery is sustainable - and there are also (as you may have noticed) external factors to consider. But might it not also be the case that Osborne got lucky with his timing in the last parliament (recession early doors, mini-boom towards the end - plus things basically outside his control such a huge fall in energy prices that few had predicted) and that might not be so true this time?

(i) Ah.

(ii) Osborne's plan worked. Galling as it may be. In economic terms what he did was crazy. Fiscal tightening in 2010, eased off by 2012, with none at all by 2015 made no sense. In political terms it is what governments in democracies always try and do: get the boom going by the time of the election. Now, the plan didn't work perfectly, the initial slowdown was worse than he must have bargained for (caused by a combination of commodity price rises, ez crisis, banking regulation tightening operating as de facto monetary policy tightening). That meant the relaxation had to come earlier than he had planned. I had still thought the recovery had come a year too late for it to work (Osborne would have preferred an election this autumn or next spring in an ideal world) but I was wrong.

The problem now is that the fiscal position is not as bad now as it was in 2010. The BoE is finally making noises about a rise in interest rates (which is a signal of a return to normality, 8 years after the crash). It looks easier in 2015 for the government than it did back in 2010. Yes, there is always the unexpected (EMU exit, Lehmans crash) but I fear that Labour is now in the same position the Tories were in back in 2001. Waiting for something to turn up. Something will come along eventually. That could be next year. Or in 25 years.

[rebeccariots2]

HuffPost UK ‏@HuffPostUK 3m3 minutes ago
No, it's not #EdBallsDay. Ed Balls is trending for an even nicer reason: http://huff.to/1gI4MPx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; #EdBalls @bbctms

[AnatolyKasparov]

(ii) I also recall your scepticism about the sustainability of the recovery pre-2015. Let us hope you are right this time.

Well, we have a sort of a recovery but one which is heavily based around services. Note that we don't hear anything about 'rebalancing' any longer and our export performance is as bad as ever and not forecast to get any better.

Our share of the export market is forecast to fall even from where it is now.

If you look at the OBR tables, it certainly doesn't look like we have any kind of a 'march of the maker' as we were promised.

Given that that the forecast for clearing the deficit isn't now until 2019/20, it won't take much for that to slip. I doubt they can use 'that' note and the 'clearing up Labour's mess' again - they won't be believed.

The last point is a good one IMO - not least because I think the next Labour leader (especially since it won't be Liz) is going to be a fair bit more robust in rebutting Tory/MSM "myths" such as the above. Ed, bless him, thought that the essential decency of the British people would see through it all

You could add that they struck gold with their "Great Scots Scare" this time round - apparently even CCO officials were gobsmacked at just how well it played with focus groups and the like. By 2020 we can at least hope that the other parties will have learned how to combat it better, even if the SNP star hasn't started to wane by then........

[SpinningHugo]

(ii) I also recall your scepticism about the sustainability of the recovery pre-2015. Let us hope you are right this time.

Well, we have a sort of a recovery but one which is heavily based around services.

As services account for 80% of the economy, and 84% of jobs, that is a good thing.

That is the shape of a developed economy. The days of the UK's economic growth being based around banging metal stuff together is over. UK manufacturing is around the same size as that for other developed economies (Germany is an outlier here, but there are lots of ways in which this does the people in Germany no good at all).

Note that we don't hear anything about 'rebalancing' any longer

Yes. Good. Such talk was always daft, especially coming from a supposedly free market party. Nothing very much any government can do about things like this.

and our export performance is as bad as ever and not forecast to get any better.

True, but not worth worrying about.

What the government SHOULD worry about are things within its control. Productivity is a major problem. With interest rates at historic lows we should be engaging asap in major infrastructure investment (eg Heathrow), and spending more on education. With our major near trading partner in perma slump for other five years expecting an export led recovery is not really sensible.

I note, as a sop to Mickems, that the only person making the point about investment spending in today's hustings was Corbyn.

[SpinningHugo]

Ed, bless him, thought that the essential decency of the British people would see through it all
.

It is one of life's ironies that many of those who were the staunchest defenders of Ed now attribute defeat to his not making the arguments well enough.

[ohsocynical]

Hope ‏@YEqual 3 hrs3 hours ago
Liz Kendall on #bbcsp "My family &friends voted Tory"
If she couldn't convince them how can she convince the UK

Everyone agreed it was good to have left and right candidates for the leadership election.

Why are so many people getting pissed off because the left wing candidate is proving so popular?

Everyone agreed did they, ohso? I'm not having a go at you but imagine your last statement if Liz Kendall were mentioned instead.

I's just as well I didn't reply to your phone cleaning post yesterday. I thought you'd meant cleaning so was going to joke about what setting you'd used. Trust all goes well, btw

I seem to remember the other contenders saying a broad canvas could only be for the good of the party, but now there are so many apparently supporting the far left, suddenly it's not such a good thing.
In other words they were just playing lip service. And that's not helpful.

And reading that Liz's relatives and friends voted Tory puts her at even more of a disadvantage. Sorry, but it does.

[ohsocynical]

Ed, bless him, thought that the essential decency of the British people would see through it all
.

It is one of life's ironies that many of those who were the staunchest defenders of Ed now attribute defeat to his not making the arguments well enough.

I don't. I blame the public. You can't win against stupid.

[Tubby Isaacs]

With our major near trading partner in perma slump for other five years expecting an export led recovery is not really sensible.

Some countries in the Euro have improved their exports a fair bit eg Spain. As they've had to because Germany doesn't want to lose competitiveness within the Eurozone.

It is harder for Britain with its strong currency, but if it doesn't improve, then it'll always restrict growth.

[ohsocynical]

It's just as well I didn't reply to your phone cleaning post yesterday. I thought you'd meant cleaning so was going to joke about what setting you'd used. Trust all goes well, btw

I'm an absolute philistine when it comes to mobile phones and Mr Ohso is even worse if that's possible.
It's why we stick to cheap ones that do nothing but make phone calls.

I did get him a Google iPad [I think that's what it was called]with some unused Curry's vouchers a few weeks ago when I suspected something a bit horrible might be happening to him, and for a 74 year old who's never used a computer or complicated phone, he's taken to it quite well. Stops him sitting around worrying...

Like I said though, it's a good job the iPad doesn't fit in any of his pockets because I never check them when I chuck his clothes in the wash.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Yes, there is always the unexpected (EMU exit, Lehmans crash) but I fear that Labour is now in the same position the Tories were in back in 2001. Waiting for something to turn up. Something will come along eventually. That could be next year. Or in 25 years.

I agree with this but the Tories don't have the same sense Blair and Brown did of where to put the "dividing lines". A Poll Tax style muck up which brought Labour back from the dead is always possible.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Check out Portugal's exports too.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/portugal/exports" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think the Eurozone has been far too austere (though for understandable reasons). But the increase in competitiveness around most of its periphery has been impressive.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Ed, bless him, thought that the essential decency of the British people would see through it all
.

It is one of life's ironies that many of those who were the staunchest defenders of Ed now attribute defeat to his not making the arguments well enough.

No, he didn't fight dirty enough. Whatever else you say about them, both AB and YC know how to when needed, and hopefully will