***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 6 *****
==========================================================
Continuing debate
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 12 Nov 15 at 01:10
|
Rochdale MP Simon Danczuk says he'll try and force a new contest if Local Gov and Welsh/Scottish devolved are bad for party:
www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/25/corbyn-leadership-challenge-labour-mp-threatens-to-stand-if-may-elections-disappoint
|
we need a leader who can win a general election, not parliamentary beard of the year
Probably not meant to be funny, but made me smile.
|
|
A party led by Tom and Jerry...you couldn't make it up. Tom Watson has now embarrassed himself greatly sadly. I thought he was a good egg. Credabiity gone in an instant.
|
Tom and Jerry are both more or less OK by me, despite the unholy clamour being kicked up by reactionaries of every stripe including one or two here who ought to know better.
OOOOH, shock horror, the Labour Party is being led by a mild English socialist! Man the lifeboats! Nothing like this has ever happened before! Save us, Donald sodding Trumpet...
Shameless, lying and idiotic.
|
>>Tom Watson
snip
>>Credabiity gone in an instant.
The Telegraph's coverage would suggest that but not sure it stands up. He's quite within his rights, when a decision is made not to prosecute, to ask the Police to look again. The trenchant view of DCI Settle is not of itself conclusive.
Settle's evidence to the Home Affairs Committee sounded like the talk of an embittered soon to be ex-Copper.
Watson should have avoided some of the words he used and apologised more quickly to Lady Brittan. But it's a long leap from there to blown credibility.
There are plenty of press knives still out for him following his role in the hacking affair.
|
|
I've no doubt at all about that.....but the language he engaged in was a tad how can we say...tabloid ?
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34751471
There's two distinct strands to Labour now.
One with the leader, deputy leader and a few strange people at the edges.... and the mainstream.
How long before it bubbles over properly?
|
|
Good fun watching it, though!
|
|
Irrespective of it's political stance, if the current Labour party were a whelk stall the receivers would be in by now.
|
>> One with the leader, deputy leader and a few strange people at the edges.... and the mainstream.
The leader represents the mainstream and its views Westpig.
|
>> The leader represents the mainstream and its views Westpig.
>>
In normal circumstances.
|
|
There's mainstream in the party and mainstream in Parliament. A split that's not unique to Labour though more pronounced there right now.
|
>> There's mainstream in the party and mainstream in Parliament.
The Members of Parliament are there because the party put them there. If the party doesn't want them, then the party has no Members. I am not aware of any other political party in the UK in my lifetime that has seen that sort of a split.
|
To answer the question in the title -
The party put the candidates there, the constituents elected them.
You can't get away from the fact that there are two factions, the Tory-lites and the socialists. The Tory-lites formerly held sway, and as I perceive it foisted many candidates in their own image onto the constituencies.
Perhaps the foisting was wrong, and the branches should have more freedom to select candidates. That might of course make things worse from the point of view of electability.
Corbyn (or any successor of similar views) has three bridges to cross.
- He has to persuade the electorate in sufficient numbers to buy into his own personality, his socialist policies and those of his like-minded comrades, and
- contrive for similarly minded candidates to stand on the Labour ticket, since a majority government of the kind of MPs making up the Labour benches currently would simply depose him; and
- win a general election.
The chances of that happening seem low.
It's a terrible mess, because there is so little common ground and a workable compromise between the two factions is not there to be found by negotiation.
The last time something like this happened, there was a split (albeit a very uneven one), the gang of four formed the SDP, and Labour was out of power for 18 years.
|
"The last time something like this happened, there was a split (albeit a very uneven one), the gang of four formed the SDP, and Labour was out of power for 18 years."
That was a practice and very amateurish.. This is the real thing...
|
|
Since elections are won by convincing the undecideds, both parties face the issue of keeping the zealots on message: look at Major's struggles with the 'b******s', or Cameron's today with Ukip-Lite. The danger lies in letting a zealot take control; the Tories did it with Howard - and lost even to post-Iraq Blair - and now it's Labour's turn to make the same mistake.
|
>> Since elections are won by convincing the undecideds, both parties face the issue of keeping
>> the zealots on message: look at Major's struggles with the 'b******s', or Cameron's today with
>> Ukip-Lite. The danger lies in letting a zealot take control; the Tories did it with
>> Howard - and lost even to post-Iraq Blair - and now it's Labour's turn to
>> make the same mistake.
>>
+1
|
If by zealot you mean someone uncompromising, I agree with that.
So far Corbyn doesn't seem worried by the existence different opinions. Unfortunately that state of affairs is too sophisticated and insufficiently clear to garner votes. At some point it needs to coalesce into a consistent message, and some of the areas of difference are so fundamental that a compromise difficult if not impossible.
I'm sure there could be a compromise position on nuclear weapons for example, but Corbyn has already painted himself into a corner on that one.
The best thing for the non-zealots in the party to do now is work out when the right time is to overset the current leadership, and how to do it.
A starting point would be to challenge the one-person-one-vote and £3 vote system. I suspect a critical number of votes at the margin came from the same sort of idiots who go on anti-capitalist marches and set fire to police cars, certainly more votes than were wielded by the PLP.
Under the previous electoral college arrangement, one third weight was given to each of the PLP, the wider membership, and the trades union votes. Now the PLP has essentially no impact at all other than in the nomination process, so they cocked up the only safeguard they had!
Politicians generally seem to be very bad at the concept of moral hazard and unintended consequences.
|
I note that Jeremy Corbyn appeared at the Cenotaph properly dressed, with a poppy of the correct colour, and made a visible slight bow deemed adequate by one of my comic's opinion-forming columnists. Just as one would expect really.
The photos showed a scowling Duchess of Cambridge in a very cute titfer, and a telephoto shot of part of a row of royals. The caption named princes Harry and William but not prince Andrew who was also present. Does the comic think he is an unperson? Why?
|
>> I note that Jeremy Corbyn appeared at the Cenotaph properly dressed, with a poppy of
>> the correct colour, and made a visible slight bow deemed adequate
I thought him exceptionally childish. The 'slight bow' was the merest movement of the head, so slight most wouldn't have noticed it if it weren't for a t.v. camera zoomed right in on him.
What a twonk.
Why is it a problem for him to bow, as is the tradition, to respect those that have gone before us and fought for our freedoms?
|
|
He went on to speak to some live veterans though....which s more than the other lot did. I'm not a fan though.
|
>> Why is it a problem for him to bow, as is the tradition, to respect those that have gone before
Have a heart Westpig. That was a bow, just, and he was respectably turned out.
What are you, an Internet deference critic?
:o}
|
...good god, I bet the man even leaves the toilet seat up! Damn Commie! ;-)
I particularly liked the "respectful bow" protractor here:
bellacaledonia.org.uk/2015/11/08/a-history-of-forgetting/
|
>> I particularly liked the "respectful bow" protractor here:
>> bellacaledonia.org.uk/2015/11/08/a-history-of-forgetting/
So did I. Very funny.
|
>>What a twonk.
Pretty much. Making silly gestures and points where none are required. Daft idiot.
Never mind his political views, which would in any case stop me voting for him, I don't think I could vote for such a buffoon whichever party he was in.
|
|
You're right....I worked with one of his former colleagues...very, very set in his ways - deeply dogmatic and entrenched outlook. Nice enough bloke I'm sure...but.....
|
Got it!
FMR is a very old, red-faced retired colonel with reactionary political views.
|
As accurate and useful as most of your opinions.
Still, every cloud, you got it in the right thread.
|
>> FMR is a very old, red-faced retired colonel with reactionary political views.
Perhaps that 'is' is a bit misleading. 'Might as well be' would be more strictly accurate.
|
Thinking about this word 'buffoon' which is being bandied about, it's lavished with equal injustice on Boris Johnson. Both of course are unusually able, hard-working and ambitious men.
Of course to a choleric lefty - no names no packdrill - both the traditional mainstream English socialist and the bouncing liberal conservative count as buffoons or even worse. But they're both good guys in my book. Not Hitler or Stalin or El Qaeda. People like us.
|
I would rather he stuck to his well known left wing, anti nuclear, pacifist principals, rather than make half hearted, clearly un felt concessions to the status quo that the party machine feels he needs to be moulded into.
The party voted him in on his principals, they can proposer or wither on them. I know which side that will be, but clearly the party membership need reminding. Again.
|
Am I the only person who doesn't need to be reminded that politics/government are one thing and the State is another?
Doesn't matter a toss what JC thinks. Until the Revolution which may come one day, or until the Commons change the constitution, Jeremy Corbyn is the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.
He doesn't seem remotely uncomfortable in the role either. Whistle and tie ready and pressed.
I regret being rude about his schmutter. It was that nice jersey that did it. I guess the snappers just jumped him... they're like that. He should have known. Dumb idle aides if you ax me.
|
I'm not sure buffoon describes Mr Corbyn. What he appears to lack is much in the way of a sense of humour or lightness of touch. He seems to be be a deeply serious man. A buffoon by definition has the element of a clown about him, not something you could accuse him of, certainly not in the literal sense.
I feel a little sorry for him - he appears to be seriously out of this depth and ended up in the job almost by accident but perhaps time will prove me wrong
|
|
What Corbyn lacks is what many politicians of all persuasions lack today - experience of life outside the political bubble. From an early age they're steeped in ideals and dogma and don't really get how the nuts and bolts of day to day life work. Miliband was a classic example of this, as was William Hague before him.
|
|
Always been thus. Don't think Lloyd-Gerorge, Winston Churchill, Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson etch had much "experience of life outside the political bubble"
|
|
Current PM and the opposition leader are slight in their achievements, but not so much the leaders selected earlier! Major Attlee and Lieutenant-Colonel Churchill might differ. Lloyd-George had a solicitors practice, Wilson was an Oxford don, lecturer and research fellow. All made careers before Parliament.
|
Lloyd-George had a solicitors practice
And it's still there ! On the High Street in Porthmadog !
|
Attlee's service was of a wartime nature and hardly a career. Churchill's military experience was very much a precursor to an inevitable career in government. Harold Wilsons spent his academic career immersed in politics and the economy. Lloyd George did indeed have a short career as a country solicitor. Maybe that helped him run a world war.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Mon 9 Nov 15 at 20:54
|
|
Mixed reviews for him Wales - seen as, no doubt, the Welsh Wizard who waved his magic wand at the Shell Shortage in WW1. And there's no doubt that that was a war winner ultimately. He's certainly seen as the designer of the Wales Pals' Battalions (which were/was a bad thing) - he had other magic wand issues as well !
|
>> he had other magic wand issues as well
As in Lloyd George knew was my Father
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 9 Nov 15 at 21:07
|
|
Yes...very much a local joke in the area.
|
www.theguardian.com/books/2010/sep/19/david-lloyd-george-hattersley-wheatcroft
I was lucky enough to go and listen to Hattersley talking about Lloyd George. This book is supposed to be very good
|
|
Great - meant to buy this when the price dropped. Didn't remember until this thread reminded me. Got it for four quid from Ebay...!
|
>> Yes...very much a local joke in the area.
We've some knowledge of the place. Mrs B's ex worked a Trawsfynydd so she spent quite a bit of her twenties round Porthmadog. More recently we stayed on the Camping Club site at Llanystumdwy when Miss B and her Beau were taking part in the Mirror dinghy championships in that nek of the woods. .
|
|
Let me know when you're up here next and maybe we can have a meet ?
|
|
CGN. You said "experience of life outside the political bubble" which the parties, you selected, certainly did.
Last edited by: NortonES2 on Mon 9 Nov 15 at 22:23
|
Not really most of their careers were in politics or preparing for it. Churchill for example spent over 50 years in the political bubble. I don't think a few years in the army gave him much of an insight into how the great majority of the population lived and thought.
|
|
Who, by your test, does have such great insight, prior to great office? And is it even necessary? Asquith, Lloyd Georges predecessor, was a barrister, famous only for his defence role in the amusing case of Carlill vs Carbolic Smoke Ball Company. The majority of PM's, other than full-fledged toffs, were Oxbridge graduates, of course. Well known for their common touch? I doubt whether any candidate for high office had time or opportunity to gain an insight into the great majority of the population. Churchill and Attlee perhaps more than most, due to their immersion in front line combat and the privations of war, for a time at least.
|
"Who, by your test, does have such great insight, prior to great office?"
Very few major politicians.
"And is it even necessary?"
No
|
>> "Who, by your test, does have such great insight, prior to great office?"
>>
>> Very few major politicians.
Pretty much inevitable I think. In most circumstances if you're going to be PM you've got to be in Cabinet (or Shadowing) by the time you're 40. That implies being elected to Westminster not much later than early thirties. If you graduate at 21/22 and are 'apprenticed' to a profession e.g. as a lawyer, management consultant or whatever the you're 25+ before being fully qualified. Being a Westminster candidate usually requires some commitment to local government politics first too. Realisitally you're probably engaged with politics throughout Uni too.
Even if one regards the professions as 'real life', and for many the cloistered world of the Inns of Court or a youthful partnership in McKinsey are not, then there's not much time to be a common man. See ACL Blair for example.
One argument against my enthusiasm for Keir Starmer as Labour leader will be his age and fact that he only entered Parliament after his legal career. Same would go for say Sarah Wollaston on the Tory side.
The World Wars varied things a bit and a generation of politicians from Attlee through to Heath, Callaghan, Jenkins and of course Healey as last survivor saw the real world under fire.
Thatcher, for all her faults had two careers - the Bar and Industrial Chemistry - as well as 'housewife'. John Major seemed to get quite a bit done before being elected too.
|
Agree with you on this. There's not a lot of time to get to the top, and there are many who didn't who might have done as well. But there is no telling even for Thatcher who wasn't regarded as an experienced politician but grew into it.
Last edited by: NortonES2 on Tue 10 Nov 15 at 11:02
|
>> I thought him exceptionally childish. The 'slight bow'
Surprise, surprise.
The bow thing started in The Sun which was looking for anything to compare with Foot's donkey jacket. If Corbyn had bowed deeply you and they would have have said he was faking. He looked to me like what he is - a man struggling to come to terms with where fate has placed him.
In the real world maybe he's more concerned by whether veterans and others in straightened circumstances can eat or heat their homes?
|
|
I'm no fan of Corbyn as a politician, but how far he bowed or what he wore is of no relevance whatsoever, anymore than Foot's donkey jacket was.
|
Well said R O'R and shame on everyone, including the media, for trying to turn a festival of remembrance into a political points scoring contest.
No doubt it will all start again tomorrow.
Pat
|
>> The bow thing started in The Sun which was looking for anything to compare with
>> Foot's donkey jacket.
In this household it had nothing to do with the Sun or any other media... I was watching the ceremony live on Sky news.... funnily enough, I'm capable of forming my own opinion without help from other people, inc the media.
If you are the leader of a significant political party and you are attending a formal ceremony to honour the fallen, people who fought for our freedoms, it would be respectful to continue with that tradition, wouldn't it?
What angle is he coming from for not wishing to bow? Does bowing at the cenotaph make him a war monger in his eyes?
Did the first world war not kill millions of working class people? Can he not at least respect that?... (although to steal someone else's words 'people are people').
|
>> Can he not
>> at least respect that?
I would be utterly amazed and discombobulated if he didn't. It's up to him how he shows it though, and evidently you and the right wing press have no intention of considering or reporting that side of it. And I thought it was your side of things who were in favour of individual freedoms above groupthink and state interference.
Not that I think I'd ever vote for him but please. This is all guff.
|
I dislike the Remembrance Day facism we have now. Did x wear a poppy, was it at the right angle, did he bow, was it photoshopped etc. etc.
Kind of ironic when you consider that Remembrance Day is all about remembering people who fought for us to have the right to choose, including choosing not to wear a poppy.
.*******
Edit: Damned swear filter.
Something along the lines of "he's a buffoon for allowing / encouraging / causing these silly little arguments to keep occurring, which is a sign of his buffoonness and of his unsuitability to actually be a leader. He is far more suited to sniping at them from the background.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 10 Nov 15 at 10:01
|
"Kind of ironic when you consider that Remembrance Day is all about remembering people who fought for us to have the right to choose, including choosing not to wear a poppy."
Remembrance day is to remember those who died doing their duty in war.
What they fought for does not come into it
|
Read what I wrote.
....remembering people *who*....
I did not write..
...remembering people *for*...
|
"Remembrance day is to remember those who died doing their duty in war."
Sorry, but for me it's more than that. I remember all those who came back from war with physical and mental injuries which change the rest of their lives, those who suffered at the hands of the Japanese during WW2, those who lost loved ones during the bombings of our cities, the list goes on.
But in particular, I remember my father who spent six years of his early life fighting in WW2 and my grandfather who fought for four years in the trenches. Because they did, I didn't have to.
|
"Sorry, but for me it's more than that. I remember all those who came back from war with physical and mental injuries which change the rest of their lives, those who suffered at the hands of the Japanese during WW2, those who lost loved ones during the bombings of our cities, the list goes on.
But in particular, I remember my father who spent six years of his early life fighting in WW2 and my grandfather who fought for four years in the trenches. Because they did, I didn't have to."
Let me just explain a little more. Of course individual attach their own meaning to Remembrance day especially those who have lost family members in wars and of course many people believe that the wars in which they fought were just wars.
There are people who have however other views of those conflicts. Perhaps they believe that the First World Wars was unnecessary. Perhaps they believe that the the millions who died in the trenches died needlessly. Many feel the same way about more recent conflicts such as The Gulf War, The Falklands and Afghanistan
Remembrance Day is a day in which everyone should be able to join in to simply remember those who died in those conflicts The discussions regarding the right or wrongs of war can be had at other times.
|
>> Damned swear filter.
Don't keep on swearing then.
I bet you don't do it in the presence of children or strangers? Of which I'm sure we have a few of the like viewing this forum ;)
ps, remember, a lot of those naughty words were put into the filter by you. Not many have since been added.
|
|
Thank you Violet Elizabeth.
|
|
You're welcome potty mouth.
|
Undoubtedly true, but this time the swear filter tripped up on a syllable it didn't like, in an inoffensive word.
You'll recall that the swear filter was never particularly good and had to be bodged quite often. Its 17 years later now, or something like that, such software is rather more effective these days.
|
>> Undoubtedly true, but this time the swear filter tripped up on a syllable it didn't like, in an inoffensive word.
You must have found the 0.1% of words that we haven't trained it to ignore. It's been tweaked to cope with most of them now. I've even managed to get it to like Scunthorpe.
>> You'll recall that the swear filter was never particularly good and had to be bodged quite often.
Yes, it can still has its dumb moments.
|
Like a***nal [Arsenal] for example?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 10 Nov 15 at 14:09
|
Yes, that's one that I cannot resolve.
It's only because it starts with the word, whereas coarse, hearse, parsed, rehearsed, sparse, etc are fine.
If someone didn't keep using it in their daily conversation, then 'maybe' it could be removed from the filter ;)
|
|
I'm sure I don't know what you mean.
|
....I'm not sure that "watching the ceremony live on Sky news" provides a good platform for criticising someone who physically attended the actual ceremony, suitably attired and of solemn demeanor, to (quite obviously) show his own respect.
Did you do a suitably low obeisance to the TV at the appropriate point?
;-)
|
> a suitably low obeisance
Well I had to look that up. A new word learned.
Sometimes its like the Reader's Digest* Word Power Challenge around here.
*Is it even still going?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 10 Nov 15 at 14:44
|
>>
>> Sometimes its like the Reader's Digest* Word Power Challenge around here.
>>
>>
>> *Is it even still going?
>>
You can have fun with "is it or isn't it" variety with "cromulant" then.
|
>> >> for criticising someone who physically attended the actual ceremony, suitably attired and of solemn demeanor,
>> to (quite obviously) show his own respect.
He wasn't there to show his own respects, he was there because he's the leader of her maj's opposition and it was expected of him.... and I can only presume a quick trip to Ben Nevis wasn't going to wear.
.... and he acted like my 7 year old.
When my son doesn't want to do something, he'll comply to the absolute minimal standard possible.
There must be plenty of Labour voters, most probably, who have the greatest of respect for our forebears who lost their lives fighting for our freedoms... why couldn't he make more effort even if just for them?.... although I cannot work out what the Left has against such a ceremony and would be glad if someone could explain.
If he was just some bloke down the pub, or to some extent a back bench MP.. then strange or quirky decisions..so what. He isn't those though, is he?
|
>> He looked to me like what he is - a man struggling to come to terms with where fate has
>>placed him.
Would you please explain this a little more? He stood to become Leader of HM's Loyal Opposition. He was elected to the post.
No fate. No struggle. No terms. You make him sound like somebody who inherited a crown he did not want but did not feel he could refuse. My heart bleeds for him.
|
Maybe he's struggling because he isn't loyal!
I hope not. Given everything else he has to do, sticking his bottom lip out about the monarchy or attending the remembrance ceremony would be puerile.
|
>> Would you please explain this a little more?
I didn't think it was that difficult.
He stood to be Leader of the Labour Party. He did so as a complete outsider with aim of widening the debate beyond degrees of Blairism. No serious political commentator thought he had a snowball's chance. A bet of £1k on Corbyn to win placed on the day after nominations closed would have made you a millionaire.
Do you really think his own perceptions were vastly different? He expected to follow Dianne Abbot's example and founder having 'made a point'.
After the hustings debates in which he looked far more convincing than the three stooges he suddenly acquired a momentum of his own. By that time it was too late to jump off.
So actually, the 'crown he could not refuse' isn't a bad analogy.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 10 Nov 15 at 17:49
|
|
That's certainly one of looking at. He could turn it down and can stop his currently role at any time he wishes.
|
He's a professional left (but not far-left) Labour parliamentarian, a thoughtful serious cat.
I met him once years ago in the back of beyond. He was courteous and no-nonsense. I don't remember any jokes but he certainly wasn't humourless.
He's seven months younger than I am but far more grown-up.
(Of course the real powers that be these days are mere schoolboys. That George Osborne is touchingly cute and eager to please. I always want to pat him on the head. No one so sweet could possibly want to undermine the living standards of the working class or anything of that sort).
:o}
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Tue 10 Nov 15 at 19:12
|
Are you serious?
Corbyn as this romantic campaigner with greatness foist upon him?
|
>> Are you serious?
>>
>> Corbyn as this romantic campaigner with greatness foist upon him?
If you use the word romantic you're on a different plane to me. More a practical campaigner.
But role foist upon him, albeit as a result of stepping into the breach, doesn't seem an unreasonable interpretation.
|
>>stepping into the breach
What breach?
>>doesn't seem an unreasonable interpretation.
This is just a shot in the dark, but is Comrade Corbyn a cyclist by any chance?
|
>>
>> This is just a shot in the dark, but is Comrade Corbyn a cyclist by
>> any chance?
>>
....and just when I thought no-one could stoop (bow?) any lower in the Corbyn insult war.
;-)
|
|
I pride myself on stooping low. Not *really* stooping you understand, more a slight incline of the head.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 10 Nov 15 at 20:02
|
Talking of stooping low, he's a useful gauge.
i.imgur.com/D0VAtB1.jpg
|
Corbyn accepted the nomination reluctantly as he was persuaded that a left wing candidate was needed to broaden the debate, and I suspect the right/centre of the party wanted to pull the rug from under the left who then wouldn't be able to moan they had been given no chance to air their views.
He no more expected to win than his nominees expected him to. It looks like after his shock of winning he is warming to the job. The big losers are the Parliamentary party who expected him to be a lamb going to slaughter.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Tue 10 Nov 15 at 20:24
|
>> I suspect the right/centre of the party wanted to
>> pull the rug from under the left who then wouldn't be able to moan they
>> had been given no chance to air their views.
That's very true - hence the rather odd list of nominators.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 11 Nov 15 at 07:52
|
>> No fate. No struggle. No terms.
No expectation of winning.
|
>> No expectation of winning.
People may think it's unlikely, but Jeremy Corbyn could be the next prime minister. He'd manage fine.
|
>>He'd manage fine.
The country meanwhile would not. Zimbabwean-style inflation, for instance, as an inevitable consequence of printing money for the sake of it.
|
>> The country meanwhile would not. Zimbabwean-style inflation
Tsk, honestly... even if Corbyn were an idiot, which he isn't, ministers are not free to do whatever they fancy with the economy, which has its own colossal inertia. That's why nothing much changes when the government does.
|
>> Tsk, honestly... even if Corbyn were an idiot, which he isn't, ministers are not free
>> to do whatever they fancy with the economy
Labour usually give it a damned good go.... then the Tories have to reign it all in again.
|
...the Tories have to reign it all in again.
By cutting the education budget?
|
>> By cutting the education budget?
>>
Surely you have to consider cutting anything, with priorities in some areas.... until you can afford to pay for it all... so that what comes in is the same or more than what goes out.
|
I was only having a gentle poke at the erroneous homophonia, WP.
But the analogies to household finances, much beloved of the right wing, are facile and generally wrong. Probably a topic for another thread.
|
>> I was only having a gentle poke at the erroneous homophonia, WP.
languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=13692
For anyone else that's never heard of that word.
|
>> facile and
>> generally wrong.
Half right.
|
so that what comes in is the same or
>> more than what goes out.
>>
Rarely happens, most government are run at a 'loss'. Five times in the last near 30 years has income equalled (or been greater than) expenditure. Go further back and it'll be similar.
|
Nah, it's Box and Cox (and Sox, Pox, etc. among the smaller parties). Been like that all my life, although there was a sort of frisson in 1945.
And long may it remain so. We are a deeply conservative bunch including all but the most rabid and deluded lefties. The British engulf and digest everything given a bit of time.
My old buddy Jeremy Corbyn is no exception, and neither am I.
|
Another Election? - Bromptonaut
