The election 2015

I shall wait with baited breath ;) and thank lots of things that I am able to treat it the same as overtime ( not guaranteed and can't be relied on) for her rather than something I need to be able to survive.
 
Grasshopper said:
Osborne at odds-against is surely a tap-in?

The Tories do not have another credible candidate to run against him.

People may enjoy the calamitous bufoon act that is Boris Johnson, but they don't particularly want him representing the country at anything more important than barreling into 8yo Japanese kids for a laugh. He is much more effective in his Court Jester role, whereas he is a liability as a Leader..
Click to expand...

Agreed,any odds-against is an opportunity to bet like a man - not that I have - but I'd be wary of t'other side across the great divide; and certainly wouldn't entertain fair odds of 2/5

Johnson has been careful to nurture the lovable buffoon whom everyone smiles with/at but I personally find him, beneath that polished veneer, a deeply unattractive individual who would, given free rein, be the Tories' equivalent of Corbyn but without the transparent track record. A 'man of the people' however and not to be underestimated

I have wet dreams about Theresa May - looker and impeccable dresser - but that apart and I do worry about her healthwise, she's been a fine Home Secretary and should be the thinking Tories vote

May, Merkel, Clinton - bring it on
 
I liked the fact when liberal American economists came along telling us in 2008 that the way to get out of trouble at that particular rock-bottom point was to spend our way out of it..... that the modernist U.K conservatives challenged this notion. This original approach was a sound and steadfast managerial decision by the opposition at the time.

Osborne's view that running an economy is like running a household is true in some ways, though its also true that a government prepared to invest in its own nation is also key in stimulating sustainable, long-term, and a better type of economic growth. A combination of doing both is a fairer way to run the economy, though admittedly it won't necessarily yield the same economic results as doing one or the other....

I'd like to see him ease the cuts now (e.g tax credits, helping the NHS pays its bills etc) and look to get rid of the deficit at a slower pace. This is essentially what Ed Balls and Ed Milliband said before they lost an election it has to be said.

These cuts are really going to stop certain areas like the Northeast growing at the same pace as places like London.

As for being a political tactician and his own personal political career, he was a nobody before the recession in 2008, then found an angle to run with about national debt and deficit being a bad thing, (as was the new centre-right consensus forming at the time), and is now doing well for himself.
He should be judged in a few years time, and doing it anytime sooner is premature.

Corbyn is a principled man with a left wing ideology but I think the conservatives will move towards implementing their own right wing ideology when Cameron hangs up his boots.
The issue of Europe within the Tory Party for example will be around long after Cameron goes.
 
Last edited:
I'll stay out of the politics for now. The system of tax credits is ludicrous - tax people then give some of it back to them in a system that's costly to administrate. Answer is to tax them less to start with.

Anyway back to important matters like betting. Osborne is a nailed on certainty here. The problem is that bookmakers will be in these markets for **** all. Do you think they'd lay you a five figure sum? You also have to consider the opportunity cost of tying up capital for that long. You could turn it over hundreds of times on loads of good 6/5 shots in the next two years.
 
marble said:
I liked the fact when liberal American economists came along telling us in 2008 that the way to get out of trouble at that particular rock-bottom point was to spend our way out of it..... that the modernist U.K conservatives challenged this notion. This original approach was a sound and steadfast managerial decision by the opposition at the time.
Click to expand...

The text that was very much in vogue (and adopted and preached by Osborne amongst other western conservatives) was called "Growth in a Time of Debt" by Reinhart and Rogoff. Sadly it met an hysterically funny end, as it took a student from the MIT to reverse engineer their number crunching and discovered they made a fatal error cutting and pasting data in Excel which had a dramatic effect on the results. Basically the whole thing was flawed, yet the conservatives in the UK and Republicans in the US built their economic policy around it. Despite being eminent Harvard professors they also made some really poor mistakes in the way they treated the averages in their data too making no attempt to weight or index to reflect the size of the economy they were analysising

Osborne when shadow Chancellor also used to complain on a regular basis that Labour were pinching all his ideas. He stopped saying this around 2008, but there can be little doubt he'd walked right in the credit crunch too following exactly the same path. Indeed, he said he was going to adopt Labours spending plans. He also memorably went to Ireland and showered praise on them in a speech in Dublin describing their economic model as one that the UK should copy

If you wanted to find an outsider now you need Cameron to renege on his promise to step down during this term and look to go on for another 5 years or so. Is Cameron a man of his word? By then Teresa May will be the wrong side of 104, so she'll be out the running. It's perhaps no coincidence that Nicky Morgan is starting to show some misplaced ambition in replacing her.

More importantly though, you need someone who has a platform to fight off. David Cameron was a really unusual exception having never held any ministerial position or shadow. The percentage call is still to look for someone who has held one of the so called 'great offices of state'. To that extend no one really knows what Phillip Hammonds aspirations are? (28/1). He rarely puts a foot wrong and has enjoyed a quiet progression through the ranks. He could easily emerge as a stop Boris alternative (remember that the parliamentary party selects two candidates to go before the membership). The Tories will be nervous that the blue rinse pyschos could vote for Boris if he appears as a choice. At the moment Boris has been denied a ministerial platform, but has cleverly been taken into the cabinet with associated collective responsbility to stop him launching a rival court. They might try handing him a problematic post in time where it's all but impossible to enhance your prospects, Health? but do they want to risk pictures of him groping nurses and looking all happy smiley with them. You could try and give him another minor ministry he'd hate like 'Agriculture and Fox Hunting', but the likelihood is he'd spot that a mile away and say no thanks

The real rank outsider at 100/1 might be Zac Goldsmith. For this to happen you need the electorate to vote to stay in the EU (which they will). Then I can easily see the Tories turning proper Euro sceptic when this happens. It's not unsual to try and salvage something of a position from a rejection, in much the same way as SNP support rose with the immediate passing of the 'danger'. It also requires David Cameron to be lying (hardly difficult to contemplate). Finally it requires Goldsmith to win the London Mayoral election (probable) do good a job and been seen to have done so (heaven knows?) and then to step down after one term with the view to having used the platform to launch a leadership bid. I think it's unlikely too, but there is a reason why he's 100/1, and he's surely a better bet than Ruth Davidson at 50's
 
Last edited:
Actually, in the game of crazy speculation and future scenarios, how about a government of national unity brought about by a major military crisis? Is that really a complete no chance in the next 5 years? (esepcially is President Trump ever gets the nod!!!)

Who would we turn to? An Atlanticst with a military background? Iain Duncan Smith - yikes!
Someone who has done Defence and Foreign Office? - Phillip Hammond?
Someone who has been there done it (to some extent) - Lord Blair?
 
Last edited:
It seems we agree on plenty of things (especially on the domestic scene!) Warbler.
Agree that the Europe issue won't be over within the tory party until we're actually out of it.

As I said, practically for Osborne and his party, once the recession kicked in, 9/10 shadow Tory chancellors would have argued to cut spending and the deficit, (bar a Ken Clarke or someone of that ilk running the treasury).
Whether any of it in the wider context is 'fair' or 'just' is a entirely different matter.

Tony Blair and Gordon Brown weren't afraid of stating how they'd spent X and X billions on this or that at PM questions, so this paints a picture of why it made sense in Osborne's mind to blame Labours spending record as reckless and sloppy.

The chancellor has gained a lot of political capital for brainwashing the public that Labours spending record was more reckless than was actually the case.
Its a case of 'if you say it enough it will actually start to become true'.

I see a report today that American growth is slowing in a big way. Add the slowdown in Chinas growth, and I have to ask does Osborne or Clivex seriously think the U.K's growth will keep going on an upward curve the next five years..?

I suspect someone will have to start seriously massaging the numbers...
 
Last edited:
I would think that come post 2020 there's a very real prospect that we'll see a new party emerge which for now I'll call 'The Progressive Democrats' (they might have called themselves the Social Democrats had it not already happened). It will be closer to New Labour in spirit and involve the Liberal party. It will be led by a young former Labour party member who isn't carrying scars from this leadership, nor baggage from another generation. The final make up of it could come down to how the nationalists of Scotland and Plaid align. It's always possible that Plaid might soften their independence stance (can't see the SNP doing so though). It's likely to be an emboldened pro-European party whilst continuty UKIP continues to fester in the ranks of the Conservatives.

By then the country will be due a change and it's quite possible it could ride a wave of optimism into the 2025 election. The landscape will change and it will ultimately evolve to be nearer to what America calls its 'Democrat' party (centre, soft right). I also suspect however that it will play out under the shadow of a deteriorating international situation and that this will provide plenty of fuel to feed a rabid nationalist agenda right across Europe in particular. This age of insecurity could start to channel the nationalists of Wales and Scotland into a rethink regarding full blown independence however. It's just possible that an accommodation can be found. It's usually a mistake in politics to think that things are set in stone. They invariably never are. However ludicrous something seems in the now, the landscape can look very different in even the near future
 
marble said:
It seems we agree on plenty of things (especially on the domestic scene!) Warbler.
Agree that the Europe issue won't be over within the tory party until we're actually out of it.

As I said, practically for Osborne and his party, once the recession kicked in, 9/10 shadow Tory chancellors would have argued to cut spending and the deficit, (bar a Ken Clarke or someone of that ilk running the treasury).
Whether any of it in the wider context is 'fair' or 'just' is a entirely different matter.

Tony Blair and Gordon Brown weren't afraid of stating how they'd spent X and X billions on this or that at PM questions, so this paints a picture of why it made sense in Osborne's mind to blame Labours spending record as reckless and sloppy.

The chancellor has gained a lot of political capital for brainwashing the public that Labours spending record was more reckless than was actually the case.
Its a case of 'if you say it enough it will actually start to become true'.

I see a report today that American growth is slowing in a big way. Add the slowdown in Chinas growth, and I have to ask does Osborne or Clivex seriously think the U.K's growth will keep going on an upward curve the next five years..?

I suspect someone will have to start seriously massaging the numbers...
Click to expand...

of course uks growth could continue upwards. Why not. Growth usually does go forward and recessions aren't a given. The uk is very well placed in so many ways to continue to prosper. Few would deny that

Also clearly if the deficit is reduced then that certainly frees up more resources to generate growth
 
There will be a new party and it will kill off labour. Labour is in terminal crisis because the hard left now have the grip on the party and being dogmatic as they always are, there will never be room for a leader who isn't a virtual Marxist. A bit of Jew hating and terrorist supporting thrown in would be a bonus too

there is now a massive constituency of voters who don't want to vote tory (but probably will for now) and are repulsed by corbyn . It will grow as labours splits become more transparent and they are obviously incapable of government. It will also become more apparent as voters gradually understand how much he despises this country and its values.

I believe that the biggest losses to labour will be in the north where the voters probably still largely have a traditional streak. That in itself is fatal

also the appointment of the sinister sea mus Milne and that advisor were the final confirmations that they have no intention of winning votes outside their immediate supporters
 
Last edited:
the only way that Corbyn will get in is if the tories continue their strategy of taking from the poor whilst at the same time giving to those that are deemed not as needy.

the tories at this moment have an open goal in 2020...but if they continue to squeeze the poorer with stunts like taking money off them first with nonsense about..well you will be might ok again in 4 years..they could blow it

the only thing stopping the tories regaining power..is the tories themselves

if they do lose the next election..all this..Corbyn is a joke talk will backfire big time....it will be...you lost the election ..against a joke

what makes me laugh is there are so many things they could do to save money..if they showed the same dogged attitude they show against the poorer in other directions. For a start..there is 30 billion being paid out in housing benefit..or should i say landlord benefit..an absolute disgrace...and even more disgraceful is the fact the tories show no interest in reducing that..i wonder why that is..oh yes....
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
There will be a new party and it will kill off labour.
Click to expand...

It won't kill off Labour, it will just reincarnate, quite probably with a new name (something the so-called progressives have fancied doing for decades). Labour is dead, long live Labour etc The Tories have made the mistake before of thinking they'd killed off Labour only to succeed in creating a much more potent electoral force that put them into opposition for over a decade. It's likely of course that the forging period will also see the Tories simultaneously grow complacent, ever more arrogant and detached from the pulse, and starting behaving in a way that considers themselves to be beyond redress.

The questions as I see it therefore are three fold

1: Timing
2: Composition
3: Funding

The momentum has to come from the parliamentary party. That's where the core of opposition to Corbyn lies amongst the engaged community. If they wait until 2020, many of them will have lost their seats and not be in a position to do much. If they wait too long into this term though, they risk de-selection as the Trotty aparatchiks get to work purging the party lists. I suspect the conversations started 24 hours after he was elected, and we could see a swathe of MP's haemohraging in 18 months time (can never spell that, but you know what it's supposed to say). Most Labour MP's will default to saving the party first though. That leads me think that they'll wait for a few local or European elections to go wrong first. They run a risk though if they do this, but for not at least, it's probably more palatable than to bite the bullet early and start the reforming process now. They're probably calculating that Corbyn won't last two years and that they can then have their party back (damaged as it will be)

The composition issue clearly embraces the two thirds of the liberal party and their voters who ally more naturally with Labour than they do the Tories. This pushes the likes of Clegg into the arms of the Tories, but my own suspicion is he probably becomes a media commentator instead, not that he as an individual is of any significance, but the third of the party who he represents are. The wildcard in all this becomes the Scottish Nationalists. Do they join a popular front coalition under the banner of something more modern like 'the Progressive Democrats'? Probably not, but then there's a real risk/ realisation that Scotland is no longer represented by this structure. They might even ally with what's left of Labour, but it looks an uneasy grouping at best, and will quickly come to be a Scottish socialist party with a few pockets of London thrown into it

Funding is an issue. The Trade Unions aren't as powerful in bank rolling Labour as they once were. Big business donors are also inclined to be slightly less partisan these days and hedge their bets a bit more (as they do in America). Perhaps we can crowd fund the government! Actually, it was the small $20 donors that catapulted Obama into the White House

One final thing that i do think's worth considering, that all the media commentators are overlooking, is that the political landscape of the country is quietly undergoing a revolution. We're seeing ever more powers handed out to city mayors, city regions, and regional devolved assemblies, and all manner of local government (including the Health service). It might be the case that in a decades time we have a situation not massively removed from that in America where second tier governmental structures are wielding ever greater influence over people's lives. The scope might start to emerge to govern without actually being in government, and that national government handles macro economics and foreign policy whereas the traditional social policy is formulated at regional or city level. Labour might naturally start to gravitate into this area and build a power base from what might be something akin to the senate
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
what makes me laugh is there are so many things they could do to save money..if they showed the same dogged attitude they show against the poorer in other directions. For a start..there is 30 billion being paid out in housing benefit..or should i say landlord benefit..an absolute disgrace...and even more disgraceful is the fact the tories show no interest in reducing that..i wonder why that is..oh yes....
Click to expand...

I meant to point that out earlier when some posters were saying that tax credits subsidised employers. I'm not so sure this is actually true. If trace it a bit further upstream the pressure comes from private sector rentals. Many of these working poor live in rented accommodation. The net beneficiary of tax credits used to supplement low pay is the useless landlord who doesn't really contribute a great deal to the economy based on cost and benefit (Eloi and Morlock again)

There are plenty of other policies that make good on this supplyside deficit. Implementing these would create a building programme, and decent paid skilled jobs. It would also reduce wage inflation in the pay settlements as market conditions brought about by an increase in supply caused the value of rents to fall. This would ultimately feed through as better productivity. The likelihood is that private sector landlords watching the yields on their rental incomes fall would alos seek to dispose and inject supply into the mortgage market too

There is a generation coming through who are being trapped on perma renting unable to ever make any progress for having to hand money over to a landlord every month and never being able to build up a reserve to break the cycle. You can hardly be surprised if this generation ultimately starts to rebel and vote for someone who offers an alternative model that frees them of this bondage (word only used to see if Trudi's still paying attention!)
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
osbourne isn't that savvy really is he?..for instance he would have made sure he put tax credits on a finance bill and kept the Lords at bay..schoolboy error ...just on that alone
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure that Osborne and the Tories haven't be saved by the House of Lords in honesty. In 3 months (yet alone 3 years) the majority of the population will have forgotten this. If it had gone through however, and people received a reminder every month of how they'd be robbed the damage would have been more lasting

I was saying to someone last week that one of the first symptoms of an authority that starts to lose the plot is when they begin to believe their own propaganda. I think this might be early evidence of it. The government set up a more independent approach to data led, evidence based policy, and then disregarded their own advisors findings, choosing instead believe their own hunch.

I'm not entirely sure how this idea came about? It's quite unusual for a Minister to have an idea. They're normally quite dangerous. The usual MO would be for the Chancellor to layout a savings wish list and then for some ambitious civil servant straight out of Oxbridge and into Whitehall to come up with porposals which usually have little understanding of how they'll play out. Statisticians, accountants, and economists normally make for particularly cruel politicians because they've essentially been trained to view the world through numbers and find it very difficult at times to apply a human empathy to what their book balancing translates into. Having said that, Osborne is actually a historian! very unusual for the Treasury

The other avenue that politicians use for policy formulation of course is the murky world of 'think tanks'. Again these are often formed by Oxbridge graduates many of whom went to college with the political classes of the day and forged friendships under the 'dreaming spires' or lazy lawns of the 'backs' which they then use to gain access and influence. To some extent if you have political ambition this is the smarter career move, for unlike politicians, think tanks don't get voted out of office. Their influence is more enduring, but they do need to compete in order cultivate sponsor ministers, and they do need to be able to spot rising stars and pitch their ideas.

I think it's unlikely myself that Osborne came up with this idea all on his own. He more than likely expressed the view that he wanted to make £X savings and asked people to explore budget line Y to see what scope existed. An instinctive politician would be able to cut through the accountants work though and put a human cost on the proposals and conclude that this carried an unacceptable electoral risk, or at the very least, was simply morally wrong. Labour famously did the same with its 10p tax rate when they started to lose the plot. As you become aloof though and divorce yourself from caring, you start to believe your won propaganda. I think Osborne likey had a near miss and can thank the House of Lords for saving him from his advisors and himself

The other thing that EC raised of course is that these plans were brought to a high level of readiness suspiciously quickly. David Cameron has to have known of their existance (as he did the decision to cut back on rail investment) before the election. Politicians tell lies - shock is hardly a revelation, but even by their own grubby low life standards this was a particularly poor example of lying to the electorate
 
Last edited:
Warbler said:
It won't kill off Labour, it will just reincarnate, quite probably with a new name (something the so-called progressives have fancied doing for decades). Labour is dead, long live Labour etc The Tories have made the mistake before of thinking they'd killed off Labour only to succeed in creating a much more potent electoral force that put them into opposition for over a decade. It's likely of course that the forging period will also see the Tories simultaneously grow complacent, ever more arrogant and detached from the pulse, and starting behaving in a way that considers themselves to be beyond redress.

The questions as I see it therefore are three fold

1: Timing
2: Composition
3: Funding

The momentum has to come from the parliamentary party. That's where the core of opposition to Corbyn lies amongst the engaged community. If they wait until 2020, many of them will have lost their seats and not be in a position to do much. If they wait too long into this term though, they risk de-selection as the Trotty aparatchiks get to work purging the party lists. I suspect the conversations started 24 hours after he was elected, and we could see a swathe of MP's haemohraging in 18 months time (can never spell that, but you know what it's supposed to say)

The composition issue clearly embraces the two thirds of the liberal party and their voters who ally more naturally with Labour than they do the Tories. This pushes the likes of Clegg into the arms of the Tories, but my own suspicion is he probably becomes a media commentator instead, not that he as an individual is of any significance, but the third of the party who he represents are. The wildcard in all this becomes the Scottish Nationalists. Do they join a popular front coalition under the banner of something more modern like 'the Progressive Democrats'? Probably not, but then there's a real risk/ realisation that Scotland is no longer represented by this structure. They might even ally with what's left of Labour, but it looks an uneasy grouping at best, and will quickly come to be a Scottish socialist party with a few pockets of London thrown into it

Funding is an issue. The Trade Unions aren't as powerful in bank rolling Labour as they once were. Big business donors are also inclined to be slightly less partisan these days and hedge their bets a bit more (as they do in America). Perhaps we can crowd fund the government! Actually, it was the small $20 donors that catapulted Obama into the White House
Click to expand...


Too long again

but no. This is the most extreme Labour Party in history and the least interested in power. the more rooted than becomes the more they will fade into irrelevance.

the hard left are the least tolerant of dissent of any political grouping. As Ken livingstone has stated this week, the objective now is to remove any MPs who do not believe in the economics of Zimbabwe and the freedoms of East germany. They will also be instructed to sneer at lee rigbys death and observe a minutes silence for the killers of children in warrington



Good riddance. We need a left leaning party free of bigoted brainwashed plankheads as soon as possible.
 
Germany France and Switzerland have lower home ownership levels than the uk. The idea that renting is somehow bad for the economy is complete nonsense

of course tax credits subsidise employers. How on earth can they not if Mike Ashley is paying £7 an hour, with the rest is from hmrc, when he will soon be compelled to pay £9 an hour?

Private rentals have absolutely nothing at all to do with this .

the key to more building is loosening planning permissions. There should perhaps be a longer term objective to build a couple of new towns but frankly I don't think either will lead to much change in rentals. The geography for a start and the time lag will stop that.
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
Too long again

but no. This is the most extreme Labour Party in history and the least interested in power. the more rooted than becomes the more they will fade into irrelevance.

the hard left are the least tolerant of dissent of any political grouping. As Ken livingstone has stated this week, the objective now is to remove any MPs who do not believe in the economics of Zimbabwe and the freedoms of East germany. They will also be instructed to sneer at lee rigbys death and observe a minutes silence for the killers of children in warrington



Good riddance. We need a left leaning party free of bigoted brainwashed plankheads as soon as possible.
Click to expand...

Too simplistic again
 
clivex said:
Germany France and Switzerland have lower home ownership levels than the uk. The idea that renting is somehow bad for the economy is complete nonsense
Click to expand...
Incredibly simplistic, and if you don't know how you should be drawing a like for like compartor - then shame on you

I should say I don't know what the actual relevant figures are myself, but do know what indicators I should be looking at and clearly you can't extrapolate the way you have
 
Last edited:
Just look it up

You claim that renting demotivates employees, which is very tenuous to say the least.

but if so, then there must be more demovtivated employees in the above economies?

simplistic? I don't think so.
 
You don't understand it do you? You simply aren't looking at the relevant indicator(s) Clive. Thats' why its simplistic. You simply have to drill in deeper rather than skimming the surface. As i said, I don't know what the figures will reveal, but at least know how to conduct the investigation in order to draw out a meaningful picture

Look, there's no end of chronically performing economies that have very high levels of private rental accommodation too, but I don't seek to use that because I don't believe it completes the picture. If you want to play that silly game I could start colouring the map in all over the globe, and run up a much bigger list of countries.

Equally there's a whole swathe of freelance mud huts in private hands. Does that prove that home ownership works?
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
Just look it up
Click to expand...

OK, I'll try and make you deal if you're so confident (for as I said, I don't know what the results will yield)

I'll ressearch it, and source the work etc if you accept the following

1: The percentage of personal income paid in rent is a more important indicator (net income is ultimately a big motivator of people is it not? - how many people would work for free etc?)
2: Some sort of concession also needs to be made to the quality of housing that you get for this rent in order to complete the picture (not sure how I do that - but I'm open to suggestions)

I suspect that I'll discover that the renting population of the UK is being asked to pay a significantly larger chunk of their disposable on housing than the other countries you're seeking to benchmark against - but I don't know that.

I'm hypothesising that it's the continual drain of losing this money each month that then knocks into things like motivation and wage demands (ultimately productivity). If by contrast someone in Germany is getting high quality housing and retaining a signficant larger wedge of their income to support lifestyle and consumer choices, then their revealed preference to rent their accommodation is a perfectly rational choice


Deal? or if you don't think my line of investigation is fair, then please explain why, for what I'm surely doing is completing the equation by framing housing costs within the all critical paramter of an income domain
 
Last edited:
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/comment/t...ial-housing-rents-will-132615440.html#vzNgqIz

Just a run-of-the-mill news item I picked up on my search engine but this links in to what you two are debating doesn't it.

This article evokes and reaffirms my own belief that there is a Conservative tendency which relates to what has been said about UKIP....kinda like 'I don't agree (or want) this world that we're in.... so can I just get off it or stop it.....please!' :)

My own mum was in one of these refuges in London in the early 80's shortly before I was born.

How things have changed eh...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top