24-April 2023 : LAB 44% / CON 29% / LDEM 11% / GRN 5%

[alec]

Never really understood why creating a recession via interest rate rises which particularly hurt young house buyers and business investors, while making the rich richer, is the preferred inflation control of choice, while tax rises, that can be targeted towards those who can afford it and to protect productive investment and that help the public finances, are seen as bad, even though the right wing claims in the good times that we can't raise taxes because they..er..slow the economy.

This is one of the longest running scams the right have inflicted upon the public, and we're still as gullible as ever.

[steve]

In other sentient beings can be arseholes too news.
Orcas seemingly enjoy ramming boats and wearing Salmon as hats along with pretending to be seals before eating them!
There are no reported incidents of a wild orca ever killing a human being but if they think it's funny who knows, probably safe as they need someone to share the joke with.

www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/11/the-orca-uprising-whales-are-ramming-boats-but-are-they-inspired-by-revenge-grief-or-memory

[Danny]

Jul 11, 2023 5:45:04 GMT steve said:

As events develop the latest media hunt the celebrity nonce alternative to the news appears to be being exposed as possibly scurrilous nonsense.
There will of course be no reflection by the various outlets on the nature of fact checking before publication after all click bait is click bait.

The parents concerned seem to gave spent an hour previously talking to the bbc. Similar or longer talking to the newspapers. Already taken all this to the police. Are reported as saying the celebrity has got into the head of their child.

If the police have already determined their is nothing to investigate and its obvious the adult child involved does not want any action, probably wants to be left alone, why is all of this happening?

Is this another instance of the old and reactionary against the young? The young need to stand up for their rights against the establishment?

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Jul 10, 2023 22:41:01 GMT leftieliberal said:

Jul 10, 2023 18:55:58 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

“In Place of Strife” didn’t necessarily address the real problem. The late Sixties until the onset of the Eighties were characterised by very high inflation due to a complex of factors including the impact of devaluation, of the fall in Sterling on making the currency free-floating, then the Barber Boom and the big hikes in oil prices.

Even before the oil crisis, inflation had risen to nearly ten percent, then with the oil price rises it shot up to a peak of 25%. Consider the CUMULATIVE rise year-after-year over the WHOLE period, and how that destroyed wage packets, and it’s pretty sobering: 


1970 - 6.1% inflation 
1971 - 9.5
1972 - 6.6
1973 - 8.8
1974 - 16.7
1975 - 25
1976 - 16.9
1977 - 16.2
1978 - 8.4
1979 - 12.5
1980 - 16.4


As it happens, the unions did a deal with Labour, where they greatly restricted the pay awards, first restricting them to 10%, and then to 5%, in an effort to bear down on the inflation. At the expense of their members’ ability to cope with the inflation.

In turn this did see inflation drop to 8%, but then there was the second oil price spike, inflation shot up again, and the unions couldn’t hold the line anymore, as wages got trashed, even more.

Fundamentally, the problem is governments’ desire to control inflation through restricting wages while inflation rages, instead of doing more to curtail the prices. A problem that we are revisiting now. But while some may point the finger at the working class unions in the 70s, despite the fact that they did actually act to bring inflation down at a cost to their members, there may be a relative silence about some of the more middle-class unions striking now.

"In Place of Strife" was in 1969 before the years of inflation you cite. How do you know that its failure wasn't a contributory cause to inflation, particularly as the first OPEC price rise wasn't until 1973 and so would have affected the 1973 & 1974 inflation figures. Also there was the three-day week at the beginning of 1974.

Inflation was already higher in the period than we would accept nowadays because of the policy of full employment, but also on top there were currency falls that typically lead to inflation, partly because of devaluation and partly because of then making the currency free-floating.

Then you had the Barber Boom and the massive oil price hikes leading to big inflation and more pressure on wages. In Place of Strife had no way of dealing with this: if an independent body kept wages low then workers would struggle, and if it let them go higher then it might continue the inflation. 

It would have the same problem trying to deal with the strikes now. Whether you have some kind of arbitration or not, if you don’t have systems to pull down the price of essentials, then when you have significant inflation either workers will suffer if you hold wages down, or you might keep stoking inflation if you allow fairer wage claims. 

The unions weren’t the problem, indeed they chose to keep wages down anyway and helped to pull inflation down in the Seventies, until the second oil price spike when holding wages down became untenable. The problem was an economic policy that uses suppressing wages to deal with a failure to manage prices and energy supplies properly etc.

[Danny]

Jul 11, 2023 6:53:50 GMT alec said:

Never really understood why creating a recession via interest rate rises which particularly hurt young house buyers and business investors, while making the rich richer, is the preferred inflation control of choice,

.Actually i dont think it is. We have raised interest rates because the US has raised interest rates and we have no choice but to follow. In fact some economists have admitted we need to lead this because of pressure on the pound.

So far at least rising interest has caused inflation, not reduced it at all.


Thev obvious reason for our uniquely bad position is brexit.

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Jul 11, 2023 0:43:53 GMT mercian said:

Jul 10, 2023 17:06:49 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

p.s. what do folk think of Labour’s education proposals the other day? Oracy etc.

I think if you have to use a word that few people have heard of to describe a policy it's a waste of time.

Maybe the word is a kind of test. If you don’t know what the word means, clearly there is a need for lessons in Oracy?! I wonder as to the rationale for it though. One can make a case for learning to speak in public, but the idea that it’s to catch up with private school folk I’m not so sure about. I’ve yet to meet someone who went to a private school and had lessons in public speaking. Even without lessons in it, there wasn’t much chance to do it at all, we weren’t doing much in the way of debates etc.

[domjg]

Jul 11, 2023 1:10:18 GMT ptarmigan said:

Jul 10, 2023 11:19:48 GMT leftieliberal said:

Here's Philip Cunliffe largely agreeing with you: www.newstatesman.com/world/europe/2023/07/britain-liberal-nation-europe
I am dubious about him describing us as the last liberal nation in Europe, though. Iceland and Norway still figure pretty high (and certainly higher than the UK) in the league table of liberal nations.

I think this is a truly bizarre article. The author talks about the national-populist tide sweeping across Europe, but that's surely exactly what Britain's been experiencing for the past few years. What's Johnson if not a national-populist? He states, After Brexit, Britain was supposed to float adrift of our liberal and progressive neighbours, as we became a gloomy island buffeted by storms of imperial nostalgia, xenophobia and nativism. Not only would the British economy collapse, we were told that the venerable institutions of British parliamentary democracy would rapidly degenerate into irresponsible right-wing extremism, leading us to “Weimar Britain”. with apparently no hint of irony. Someone might like to remind him that we have an ailing economy and a government that has continually sought to undermine public institutions and been comfortable fanning the flames of right-wing extremism by pursuing an incredibly hostile anti-migrant agenda. He cites Italy pursuing its culture-war policies against gay parents but fails to mention any parallels in the UK where the government whips up hostility against trans people. The claim that Far from stimulating populism, Brexit destroyed it, torpedoing both Ukip and the Brexit Party, by removing their sole reason for existing is only superficially true, as the Conservative Party essentially subsumed the Brexiteer populists, purging the more moderate One Nation Tories from its ranks. The reason why Britain might seem to be moving in a different direction is because we've had our own brush with national-populism and *shock horror* it's entirely failed to deliver on what it was promising.

Absolutely. We're just at a different stage in the populism cycle. I thought that article was to be frank utter bollocks.

[pjw1961]

Jul 11, 2023 1:12:47 GMT mercian said:

Jul 10, 2023 19:29:52 GMT crossbat11 said:

Interesting metaphor but of course there are exceptions. For instance the stance of the top three (at least) parties being in favour of the EU when around 50% of the electorate were against it led to the rise of UKIP. Because of the PR system for EU elections they got a lot of publicity especially when they got more votes and seats than any other party in 2014 (and even more in 2019).  
 If we ever did get a form of PR for GEs (highly unlikely in my lifetime IMO) there might be a nasty shock for the traditional parties if they were challenged by a party whose main policy was restoration of the death sentence for instance. There might be a left-wing equivalent too. The cosy tacit agreement about trendy viewpoints could be seriously challenged.

Hmm ... so the economic prosperity and security and relative political influence we enjoyed as part of the EU and have now sacrificed was just a "trendy viewpoint". Says it all really. 

[Mr Poppy]

Jul 11, 2023 0:52:16 GMT mercian said:

Jul 10, 2023 17:22:37 GMT Mr Poppy said:

* EG if LAB have a huge majority in your seat then I expect some might consider voting Green in GE'24. 

Some might consider RUK or stand as OMRLP. The only thing holding me back from the latter choice is that I'm not fond of dressing up in weird costumes, and even if I did, what to choose?  The hat seems to be the main thing. Maybe a Davy Crockett hat?

Well there is obviously different types of protest and I perhaps should have added in "attention seeking candidates*" 

Count Binface was fairly original but given a lot of people like dogs then maybe dress as a dog - I reckon your more of a British bulldog type than a French Poodle or ones of those lapdog breeds but depends who you hope might vote for you (eg being a lapdog might make you quite popular with LDEM types  )

Anyway, RUK/Green are 'protest votes' for a clear 'protest reason' (immigration/green stuff). One good thing (IMO) about FPTP is that your vote is never 'wasted' (as the PR fanatics seem to think). The most successful party in UK in modern times was UKIP (IMO). Pretty much a 'single issue' party that at max had 2 MPs yet managed to get its 'single issue' DONE.

Hence, why I would consider a 'protest vote' as being a worthwhile vote noting I don't actually want RUK to win any/many MPs - just for the larger parties to take notice (and same applies for Greens).

* Most MPs are "attention seeking" and quite a few seem to be "having a laugh". OMRLP do take it to a different level though. IMO then RUK and Green are a bit different and are quite genuine about the 'protest' causes they are making. 

[Danny]

Jul 11, 2023 7:18:47 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Inflation was already higher in the period than we would accept nowadays because of the policy of full employment,

It is repeatedly said full employment causes inflation, but is this really true? A free market supposedly is caimed to be the most efficient market which will maximise economic success for everyone. Shortage of labour will lead to the price of Labour rising, but that will create pressure to increase mechanization and therefore net reduce the cost of finished goods. It is claimed the uk currently has poor investment and falling productivity. Maybe thats because we have too much labour and wages are too low.

Our labour market now needs to adjust to less labour availability by raising wages significantly. Its not clear that either now or in that past a shortage of labour was really harming the UK or causing inflation.

but also on top there were currency falls that typically lead to inflation, partly because of devaluation and partly because of then making the currency free-floating.

the past problem then was really the fixed exchange rate and inflationary pressure which had built up then been released once the fixed rate was abandoned.

Then you had the Barber Boom and the massive oil price hikes leading to big inflation and more pressure on wages. In Place of Strife had no way of dealing with this: if an independent body kept wages low then workers would struggle, and if it let them go higher then it might continue the inflation. 

one might observe inflation only resolved last time after market forces were allowed to adjust wages to a new normal. Its not clear either that anti union measures had much impact in the long term. What likely did was adjustment of the labour market.including a huge wave of closing uneconomic industry and encouraging immigration. At the moment we seem to be suffering because labour is not paid enough. After as policy deciding to cut off the supply of cheap labour we are upset that this must result in rising wages and industries closing.

, if you don’t have systems to pull down the price of essentials,

you cannot pull down the price of essentials coming from outside. You have to adjust to them. Internally you might indeed look at profits of companies and see if you might tax them more and subsidise other things, for example by providing cheap housing. Thereby forcing them to invest.

[Mr Poppy]

Erdogan being a bit naughty* but two points:

1/ Turkey "was officially recognised as a candidate for full membership on 12 December 1999" and probably a bit fed up being "needed" when they are "needed" and ignored when they are not needed:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union#
2/ The Rejoin fanatics (fortunately ignored by GB wide parties for now) might consider the headache that EU (and more importantly NATO**) would have if they let UK "jump the queue" and Rejoin whilst continuing to say "non" to likes of Turkey, Serbia, Albania, etc (with 'freedom of movement', etc). 

Of course we don't know what would happen if we asked to Rejoin and do we live in a democracy. Hence if the Rejoin fanatics want to do anything more than 'Carry on Moaning' then they can start the campaign to Rejoin.EU and become UKIP in reverse. Who knows, maybe LDEM or even LAB take up the cause in the way CON eventually had to offer voters EURef. Or just 'Carry on Moaning' of course. 

As for Sweden and NATO then Finland was more important. For Russia to attack Sweden they'd have to go past/over NATO countries. So, whilst not ideal, then Sweden can stay as NATO candidate and have various guarantees for as long as Erdogan wants (or Erdogan gets something else he'd accept in the 'horse trading' game)

* Pave way for Turkish EU entry then Sweden can join Nato, says Erdoğan
www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/10/nato-sweden-pm-to-meet-with-turkeys-erdogan-in-last-ditch-bid-to-seal-membership

** US probably very keen to keep Turkey in NATO and Turkey will know US has a lot of influence in EU. IIRC then a former US president said something about 'back of the queue' and maybe a future US president would say the same if we wanted to try to Rejoin EU and Turkey threatened to pull out of NATO on the basis they were being treating like 'useful idiots'. 

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Jul 11, 2023 7:57:46 GMT Danny said:

Jul 11, 2023 7:18:47 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Inflation was already higher in the period than we would accept nowadays because of the policy of full employment,

It is repeatedly said full employment causes inflation, but is this really true? A free market supposedly is caimed to be the most efficient market which will maximise economic success for everyone. Shortage of labour will lead to the price of Labour rising, but that will create pressure to increase mechanization and therefore net reduce the cost of finished goods. It is claimed the uk currently has poor investment and falling productivity. Maybe thats because we have too much labour and wages are too low.

Our labour market now needs to adjust to less labour availability by raising wages significantly. It’s not clear that either now or in that past a shortage of labour was really harming the UK or causing inflation.

Yes, this is an important issue Danny. It’s not inevitable that full employment leads to inflation, but it’s non-trivial to ensure that it doesn’t.

If the economy is at full capacity then this can lead to inflation, especially if injecting more money into the economy, as if business is at full capacity and cannot hire more people, then it can’t produce more goods to pull prices back down.

As you suggest, if you can’t get more workers, then an alternative is to invest in greater productivity via technology etc., but this is a risk, especially in eras of higher inflation and hence higher interest rates. Especially if you then get an inflationary shock on top, as happened in the Seventies, with really high interest rates wrecking swathes of industry dependent on borrowing to invest (as well as borrowing to make stuff in advance of payment).

This is why it can help if the government acts to keep prices down, in turn helping to limit interest rate rises, and if it acts to help with some of the productivity investment, especially the riskier stuff.

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Jul 11, 2023 7:57:46 GMT Danny said:

Jul 11, 2023 7:18:47 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Inflation was already higher in the period than we would accept nowadays because of the policy of full employment,

one might observe inflation only resolved last time after market forces were allowed to adjust wages to a new normal. Its not clear either that anti union measures had much impact in the long term. What likely did was adjustment of the labour market.including a huge wave of closing uneconomic industry and encouraging immigration. At the moment we seem to be suffering because labour is not paid enough. After as policy deciding to cut off the supply of cheap labour we are upset that this must result in rising wages and industries closing.

Well what actually pulled inflation down in the end was the collapse in oil prices that ushered in the world boom in the mid-Eighties, for which Thatcher hoovered up the credit. What she tried - high interest rates plus cuts to limit the money in circulation, plus a load of redundancies in consequence - didn’t work to pull down inflation and she quietly abandoned the policy, but the damage was done.

Regarding labour not currently being paid enough, problem is that if you pay them more, it may stoke more inflation. This is why the priority in such circs is to pull down the price of essentials, as it leaves workers better off without stoking inflation. It also makes business more competitive and allows consumers to buy more product etc.

[shevii]

Jul 11, 2023 7:54:54 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Jul 11, 2023 0:52:16 GMT mercian said:

Anyway, RUK/Green are 'protest votes' for a clear 'protest reason' (immigration/green stuff). One good thing (IMO) about FPTP is that your vote is never 'wasted' (as the PR fanatics seem to think). The most successful party in UK in modern times was UKIP (IMO). Pretty much a 'single issue' party that at max had 2 MPs yet managed to get its 'single issue' DONE.

Not entirely sure the motivation of the voters saying Reform UK and whether it really is immigration- I had a look at their policies and it was on page 20 they mentioned "the boats" etc.  With UKIP it was a clear single issue and it worked but maybe Reform is somewhere right wing Tories go when they are fed up with the Tories because there is nowhere else a right wing Tory would want to go?  But it's not so obvious they have a defining agenda that the Tories can as easily address as they did with brexit.  Maybe it's as simple as not being impressed with the state of the economy.

From the Green perspective, although they are picking up lots of council seats now, the "protest vote" to have the same impact as UKIP is not there in sufficient numbers to keep Labour honest, which is a disappointment.  To be fair, with the Tories imploding and Labour 20 points ahead, Labour won't need to pay any attention to the Greens even if they were hitting 10% plus in the opinion polls but it might make them think a little bit about their priorities and currently they can sweep up the Tory vote and not need to bother with any Green or left wing policy. Green is also a bit of a mix these days- obviously Green issues are top of their list but I'm sure an element of socialist outlook is also present and it also wouldn't surprise me if their vote is a good bit different to 2019 when a lot of remainers who couldn't vote for Corbyn ended up there.

[Mr Poppy]

Jul 11, 2023 8:12:58 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Jul 11, 2023 7:57:46 GMT Danny said:

It is repeatedly said full employment causes inflation, but is this really true? A free market supposedly is caimed to be the most efficient market which will maximise economic success for everyone. Shortage of labour will lead to the price of Labour rising, but that will create pressure to increase mechanization and therefore net reduce the cost of finished goods. It is claimed the uk currently has poor investment and falling productivity. Maybe thats because we have too much labour and wages are too low.

Our labour market now needs to adjust to less labour availability by raising wages significantly. It’s not clear that either now or in that past a shortage of labour was really harming the UK or causing inflation.

Yes, this is an important issue Danny. It’s not inevitable that full employment leads to inflation, but it’s non-trivial to ensure that it doesn’t.

If the economy is at full capacity then this can lead to inflation, especially if injecting more money into the economy, as if business is at full capacity and cannot hire more people, then it can’t produce more goods to pull prices back down.

As you suggest, if you can’t get more workers, then an alternative is to invest in greater productivity via technology etc., but this is a risk, especially in eras of higher inflation and hence higher interest rates. Especially if you then get an inflationary shock on top, as happened in the Seventies, with really high interest rates wrecking swathes of industry dependent on borrowing to invest (as well as to make stuff in advance of payment).

This is why it can help if the government acts to keep prices down, in turn helping to limit interest rate rises, and to help with some of the productivity investment, especially the riskier stuff.

IMO interest rate rises are fuelling the 'wage-price' spiral but it shouldn't be long before real wages turn +ve (for those that understand base effects)

Record wage growth fuels fresh inflation fears
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66156713

Anyway, instead of a 'Groundhog Day' then one idea would be to not allow BoE such freedom on interest rates but put the 'inflation' target more in control of HMG (ie HMG can control the prices of mortgages and the 'pass-thru' effect on rents)

In extremis then 'overnight' interest rates are permanently locked at say 3%, with the rest of the yield curve influenced by 'market forces' and HMT policies.

In 'bad times' with low inflation then bond yields would drop but Keynesian policy would boost spending, boost inflation and move us back to 'good times' (OK levels of inflation).

The problem is obviously the good times which any govt would like to keep rolling into the election cycle - rather than raise taxes, reduce money supply*, etc to 'cool things down'. Pretty major flaw and that is the price we pay for 'democracy'.

* Inflation in 'assets' and the money supply is ignored by BoE (et al). In 'boom' times then there could be various ways to reduce the money supply (eg if house pries are rising above inflation then reduce availability of credit and/or charge a premium for credit to reduce demand). Hiking taxes in boom times should be obvious but Thatcher spassed the O&G revenues on tax cuts and Blair spassed the NICE decade on public spending. Govts don't like setting up a rainy day fund for the next govt to spass (other than Major perhaps?)

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Jul 11, 2023 7:57:46 GMT Danny said:

Jul 11, 2023 7:18:47 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Inflation was already higher in the period than we would accept nowadays because of the policy of full employment,

you cannot pull down the price of essentials coming from outside. You have to adjust to them. Internally you might indeed look at profits of companies and see if you might tax them more and subsidise other things, for example by providing cheap housing. Thereby forcing them to invest.

Well you can pull down the price of imported essentials, e.g. you can impose price controls and enact subsidies etc., maybe invest in cheaper supplies from abroad, but yes, more ideally you might prepare for it and invest in more home-grown supply and have commodity buffers on top, more stocks of essentials.

Part of the reason we got hit hard in the Seventies energy crisis was that we didn’t have enough energy stores. (Thatcher did actually stockpile coal, but she used it to break the miners rather than to protect from energy shocks).

I do think it’s worth trying to get more investment, though there is quite a lot the private sector might do but which is more risky or long term or expensive or difficult, which is why I think governments need to do quite a lot to assist.

[Mr Poppy]

Jul 11, 2023 8:27:50 GMT shevii said:

Jul 11, 2023 7:54:54 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Anyway, RUK/Green are 'protest votes' for a clear 'protest reason' (immigration/green stuff). One good thing (IMO) about FPTP is that your vote is never 'wasted' (as the PR fanatics seem to think). The most successful party in UK in modern times was UKIP (IMO). Pretty much a 'single issue' party that at max had 2 MPs yet managed to get its 'single issue' DONE.

Not entirely sure the motivation of the voters saying Reform UK and whether it really is immigration- I had a look at their policies and it was on page 20 they mentioned "the boats" etc.  With UKIP it was a clear single issue and it worked but maybe Reform is somewhere right wing Tories go when they are fed up with the Tories because there is nowhere else a right wing Tory would want to go?  But it's not so obvious they have a defining agenda that the Tories can as easily address as they did with brexit.  Maybe it's as simple as not being impressed with the state of the economy.

From the Green perspective, although they are picking up lots of council seats now, the "protest vote" to have the same impact as UKIP is not there in sufficient numbers to keep Labour honest, which is a disappointment.  To be fair, with the Tories imploding and Labour 20 points ahead, Labour won't need to pay any attention to the Greens even if they were hitting 10% plus in the opinion polls but it might make them think a little bit about their priorities and currently they can sweep up the Tory vote and not need to bother with any Green or left wing policy. Green is also a bit of a mix these days- obviously Green issues are top of their list but I'm sure an element of socialist outlook is also present and it also wouldn't surprise me if their vote is a good bit different to 2019 when a lot of remainers who couldn't vote for Corbyn ended up there.

Not yet. I was jumping ahead a bit and as per previous comments did say that would only be if Rishi-Braverman didn't get a grip on 'illegal immigration'.

Cometh the hour, cometh the protest. However, if you ever check RUK's twitter feed then they are as keen as LoC ABCONs to point out that Rishi is failing. Tick tock to GE'24.

WRT to Greens then if they keep lending their vote to LAB then what do Green voters expect. Perhaps stop lending their vote to LAB, notably given how far Starmer has shifted LAB to the Right (and broken promises on PR, environment, etc as well). 'Leavers' saw CON moan about the EU but never want to Leave the EU - so we made CON notice at the ballot box. If Greens don't want to use their 'influence' at the ballot box to force LAB to adopt Green policies and then potentially 'break through' and win lots more MP seats in GEs then that is up to them - join the 'Carry on Moaning' types like Rejoiners. 

[crossbat11]

mandolinist

In terms of my point about the longevity of the Labour and Tory domination of our party politics, and how the two parties have swapped governing exclusively between themselves for very nearly 100 years now, I wasn't arguing that this was destined to be so for perpetuity. I wasn't at all ruling out some extraordinary future event bringing an end to it, nor discounting past examples of such events. That said, you were going back almost a century for the Liberal Party implosion and, albeit more recently in the case of the SNP surge, diving into regional politics and different electoral systems.

The point I was making on the back of pjw1961's interesting statistics that showed how voting behaviour had been volatile under FPTP, was how, despite that volatility, it remained virtually impossible to effect the ultimate outcomes of elections under our unrepresentative electoral system. Either the Tories form a government, or Labour do.

A bit like a swan. Serenity above the surface despite lots of paddling below. Serenity, in a political sense, being only one of two outcomes to general elections. Paddling, in a political sense, being us voters switching hither and thither.

Actually, thinking about the metaphor a bit more, maybe a surprising number of voters not paddling at all. Staying put, sullenly and reluctantly for want of an alternative vote option that they feel won't be an utterly wasted one.

[athena]

Jul 11, 2023 1:12:47 GMT mercian said:

If we ever did get a form of PR for GEs (highly unlikely in my lifetime IMO)

The chances certainly aren't improved by all the people who say they support electoral reform, but carry on voting for parties that are opposed - and try to insist that everyone else should too.

[Deleted]

Jul 10, 2023 20:24:29 GMT shevii said:

Jul 10, 2023 19:29:52 GMT crossbat11 said:

 

One further thought, and it does depend on how serious you think the worldwide economy is going to get and how serious global warming is going to be, 

 The boomer complacency is certainly coming to an end for the generations that are following on behind them and sometimes I do feel that comments on this site can miss the fact that things in the world aren't really that stable.

I do so agree with these thoughts shevii

I tried to articulate them yesterday in connection with the political impact of unregulated immigration, and climate change policy in Netherlands .

On the economy I do share your concern that the post Pandemic global economy may be moving into some sort of new paradigm where growth is harder to achieve. Debt overhang and higher interest rates. Availability of key global resources *. All of this-added to the inexorable growth of global population and Putin's war.

You are right to mention global warming effects. For me the lesson from the world of nature is clear. The response to global warming is to move north. So we can expect the movement of people from Sub Saharan Africa to increase. The very movement which currently exerts such influence on the EU and the politics of its member states.

William Hague articulates these thoughts this morning in The Times -I quote the opening words of an article which calls for better integration of migrants with desirable skills.-:-

"We are entering the age of migration. Measured in numbers of people, this is likely to be on a scale never known in human history. According to latest UN forecasts, the population of Africa and the Middle East is set to grow by around 320 million by the end of this decade, and 1.17 billion by 2050. We should hope that those vast numbers of young, digitally connected people will prosper in strong economies and stable political systems. But it is only realistic to assume many will be driven by poverty, persecution and accelerating climate change to search for opportunity or safety elsewhere, particularly since they can research the countries that might provide that on their phones. If only one in twenty of the people of that region migrated by mid-century — surely a conservative estimate — there would be 140 million people on the move.
The much smaller numbers that have moved northwards in recent years are already transforming the politics of Europe. Last week, the Dutch government fell, brought down by irreconcilable differences over migration policy. Hard-right parties have entered government in Italy, hold the balance of power in Sweden, and have just won a local election in Germany. Although the next presidential election in France is three years away, the prospect looms over Europe that it could be won by Marine Le Pen, fortified by the backlash against violent riots and a promise to pass strict laws limiting immigration.
Here in Britain, migration played a key part in the vote to leave the EU, although immigration, expanded by people fleeing Ukraine, departing Hong Kong, seeking education and staffing our health services, is higher now than it was then. Peers and MPs are set to spend this week in acrimonious debates over the Illegal Migration Bill, as ministers attempt to deter migrants from crossing the channel with their Rwanda relocation policy while staying within international legal obligations.
If we are only in the early stages of the age of migration, the intense divisions already aroused by it do not bode well for the future politics of this continent, already destabilised by anger on all sides. Voters are demanding governments show they are in control of their borders, and those demands are hurting many left-wing parties associated with greater openness to migration. Yet the response from the right cannot be so simple as preventing migration, because the second clear conclusion from population forecasts is that the need of European countries for migrants is inescapable."

from -"Even rightwingers know we need migrants"
William Hague
Times


* I have just finished " The Earth Transformed" by Peter Frankopan. Ostensibly a fantastically detailed account of the effects of the earths natural cycles on human civilisations , its accounts of the post Columbus period have made a huge impression on me.
He details the staggering plunder of natural resources and human beings undertaken by European countries in the Americas,Africa and Asia since the discovery of the New World and the rounding of The Cape. The wealth generated by this ,( often brutal)  exploitation is vast and forms the basis of European economics still. The  History of European colonialism  is a long and vastly profitable one.

I admit to being attracted to notions of fundamental truths and am too often persuaded of their existence, but I do wonder if the long era of colonial  exploitation which underpins this continent's standards of living is fading away and with it our economic future.

[Mark]

Jul 11, 2023 0:43:53 GMT mercian said:

Jul 10, 2023 17:06:49 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

p.s. what do folk think of Labour’s education proposals the other day? Oracy etc.

I think if you have to use a word that few people have heard of to describe a policy it's a waste of time.

Depending on what it entails, I actually don't think this is a bad idea.

I'm remembering a friend, who went to a private school for a few years and had something like wwhat is being proposed.

It wasn't about accents or sounding posh, but, things like learning to project your voice. A skill tyhat I, like most people, sadly lack.

Had I not known my friend, I guess I would have thought this was a silly idea/waste of time/gimmick, but, having seen how this (what she calls a life skill) has helped her, I'm for it.

[steve]

@trevor

Refuk: We'll demonize people so you don't have to!I
Attachment Deleted

[pete]

Not good from the EU
www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/11/eu-to-drop-ban-of-hazardous-chemicals-after-industry-pressure

[graham]

Jul 11, 2023 5:57:38 GMT steve said:

Interesting to consider how low would Tory representation in parliament have to go before they were considered a permanently spent force.
Anything over 150 would I suspect maintain normal two party b.s..
Under 100 and particularly if it's accompanied by competing for main opposition party status could do it.

Of course we will then have the irony of toryites complaining about the inequities of fptp. if the party gets 25% of the vote and less than 100 seats while not giving a toss when the lib dems with 25% of the vote received around 50 seats or the Greens with a fifth of this won just one.

Labour will declare an overwhelming mandate based on 55% voting for other parties and the merry go round trundles on.

In 1931 Labour collapsed from 287 to just 52 seats - but was still able to recover to 154 seats in 1935.

[pjw1961]

Jul 11, 2023 8:41:19 GMT crossbat11 said:

mandolinist

In terms of my point about the longevity of the Labour and Tory domination of our party politics, and how the two parties have swapped governing exclusively between themselves for very nearly 100 years now, I wasn't arguing that this was destined to be so for perpetuity. I wasn't at all ruling out some extraordinary future event bringing an end to it, nor discounting past examples of such events. That said, you were going back almost a century for the Liberal Party implosion and, albeit more recently in the case of the SNP surge, diving into regional politics and different electoral systems.

The point I was making on the back of pjw1961's interesting statistics that showed how voting behaviour had been volatile under FPTP, was how, despite that volatility, it remained virtually impossible to effect the ultimate outcomes of elections under our unrepresentative electoral system. Either the Tories form a government, or Labour do.

A bit like a swan. Serenity above the surface despite lots of paddling below. Serenity, in a political sense, being only one of two outcomes to general elections. Paddling, in a political sense, being us voters switching hither and thither.

Actually, thinking about the metaphor a bit more, maybe a surprising number of voters not paddling at all. Staying put, sullenly and reluctantly for want of an alternative vote option that they feel won't be an utterly wasted one.

It is true that you can't manufacture a hung parliament under FPTP but we have had two in the last four elections. We might even have got some movement on electoral reform in 2010 if the Lib Dems had played their hand more wisely. 

Here - just for fun - is a scenario that is at least plausible. Labour wins in 2024 with an overall majority, however the economy is a mess, times are tough and the government struggles to improve things at the pace people want. It also disappoints green and leftist voters with its centrist policies. Labour goes into the 2029 election seen as safe and broadly competent but uninspiring. This should favour the Conservatives, but in opposition they have engaged in a period of in-fighting and then a big shift to the right, electing Kemi Badenoch as leader, who has fully embraced US style social conservatism. Her personal poll ratings are dire. Faced with this choice voters are shopping around for options. Moderate RoC voters are looking at the revived Lib Dems, as are some disillusioned Laboiur voters. Meanwhile the Greens are being boosted by the disgruntled left and the SNP are once more on the up in Scotland, making hay with Labour's difficulties.

That sort of situation could lead to a significant number of non-Labour or Conservative MPs elected and a parliament that might be more willing to look at PR. Not a prediction of course, as I say just for fun, but it doesn't look wildly improbable. 

[James E]

Jul 11, 2023 8:58:01 GMT Mark said:

Jul 11, 2023 0:43:53 GMT mercian said:

I think if you have to use a word that few people have heard of to describe a policy it's a waste of time.

Depending on what it entails, I actually don't think this is a bad idea.

I'm remembering a friend, who went to a private school for a few years and had something like wwhat is being proposed.

It wasn't about accents or sounding posh, but, things like learning to project your voice. A skill tyhat I, like most people, sadly lack.

Had I not known my friend, I guess I would have thought this was a silly idea/waste of time/gimmick, but, having seen how this (what she calls a life skill) has helped her, I'm for it.

Oracy is not a new thing. I have been a Primary School Governor since 2005, and recall our first Headteacher, who retired in 2009, explaining the concept and how it can be promoted in our school. So that must have been around 15 years ago.

And it really isn't about accents nor projecting your voice. It's more a matter of learning the skills to express yourself well verbally, through things such as story-telling, debating and presenting. 

[alurqa]

Jul 11, 2023 1:12:47 GMT mercian said:

If we ever did get a form of PR for GEs (highly unlikely in my lifetime IMO) there might be a nasty shock for the traditional parties if they were challenged by a party whose main policy was restoration of the death sentence for instance.

I presume you do know that this can never happen for exactly the same reasons that we can't simply ship back immigrants, because of that bloody European human rights guff. The EU and the US were really clever in incorporating that into the Good Friday Agreement, well away from the clutches of any British politician. The bigger question is, which numptie came up with the idea that captial punishment was bad in the first place, and imposed it on the rest of Europe so they could do the same to us?

[domjg]

Jul 11, 2023 10:17:20 GMT James E said:

Jul 11, 2023 8:58:01 GMT Mark said:

Depending on what it entails, I actually don't think this is a bad idea.

I'm remembering a friend, who went to a private school for a few years and had something like wwhat is being proposed.

It wasn't about accents or sounding posh, but, things like learning to project your voice. A skill tyhat I, like most people, sadly lack.

Had I not known my friend, I guess I would have thought this was a silly idea/waste of time/gimmick, but, having seen how this (what she calls a life skill) has helped her, I'm for it.

Oracy is really not a new thing. I have been a Primary School Governor since 2005, and recall our first Headteacher, who retired in 2009, explaining the concept and how it can be promoted in our school. So that must have been around 15 years ago.

And it really isn't about accents nor projecting your voice. It's more a matter of learning the skills to express yourself well verbally, through things such as story-telling, debating and presenting. 

Absolutely in favour of this. The ability to sound convincing, confident and authoritative even when talking total bollocks is one of the main things people pay private schools for. That and the connections of course..

[leftieliberal]

Jul 11, 2023 9:46:51 GMT graham said:

Jul 11, 2023 5:57:38 GMT steve said:

Interesting to consider how low would Tory representation in parliament have to go before they were considered a permanently spent force.
Anything over 150 would I suspect maintain normal two party b.s..
Under 100 and particularly if it's accompanied by competing for main opposition party status could do it.

Of course we will then have the irony of toryites complaining about the inequities of fptp. if the party gets 25% of the vote and less than 100 seats while not giving a toss when the lib dems with 25% of the vote received around 50 seats or the Greens with a fifth of this won just one.

Labour will declare an overwhelming mandate based on 55% voting for other parties and the merry go round trundles on.

In 1931 Labour collapsed from 287 to just 52 seats - but was still able to recover to 154 seats in 1935.

The 1931 General Election was an unusual result caused by unique circumstances. When the National Government was formed a few months before the election and included not only Conservative but Labour and Liberal MPs with Stanley Baldwin, Ramsey McDonald and Herbert Samuel in it and with both the Labour and Liberal Parties splitting it is not surprising that Labour only retained 52 seats. In contrast to Labour, Herbert Samuel's Liberals continued to decline in 1935. A bad loss does not usually lead to a recovery as the Lib Dems found after 2015.

[leftieliberal]

Jul 11, 2023 10:18:06 GMT alurqa said:

Jul 11, 2023 1:12:47 GMT mercian said:

If we ever did get a form of PR for GEs (highly unlikely in my lifetime IMO) there might be a nasty shock for the traditional parties if they were challenged by a party whose main policy was restoration of the death sentence for instance.

I presume you do know that this can never happen for exactly the same reasons that we can't simply ship back immigrants, because of that bloody European human rights guff. The EU and the US were really clever in incorporating that into the Good Friday Agreement, well away from the clutches of any British politician. The bigger question is, which numptie came up with the idea that captial punishment was bad in the first place, and imposed it on the rest of Europe so they could do the same to us?

I'm sure that the Birmingham 6 and the Guildford 4 wouldn't have agreed with you. Once you have hanged someone for a crime they did not commit you cannot bring them back to life. Those were just two of the big miscarriages of justice in that time period.