Has Harper done anything more than buy himself time?
December 7th, 2008
Will Canada’s Conservative PM still be in office next spring?
It’s less than eight weeks ago that I (and in contrast to the US election night, probably few fellow Brits) had an “all-nighter” to watch the Canadian election results come through live. With the exceptions of Quebec and Newfoundland, the Conservatives performed strongly, turning three-figure majorities into five-figure ones, while the Liberals had a disastrous night under the hapless Dion and the NDP made progress.
But now, although Harper’s Conservatives secured a stronger minority government than in January 2006, Canada is probably ahead of Greece (where the Karamanlis government has a one-seat majority, in addition to the riots) as currently the most unstable of the established democracies. In many ways, Canada is probably closer to the UK in its setup (federalism aside) than anywhere else, with FPTP, a small number of parties winning seats, and a supersized version of the SNP in the shape of the Bloc Quebecois. The current situation in Ottawa may thus be of interest should the next UK election produce a hung parliament.
My feeling (and that of pundits on Canadian TV on election night) was that Harper would probably be safe for at least another year or so - no election until autumn 2009 as the Liberals licked their wounds after their massive defeat, with a new leader expected to be in place by May. However, as elsewhere around the world, the economic crisis has reshuffled the deck of cards, and so opposed were the Liberals and NDP to the economic proposals presented by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty that they put together an government-in-waiting which would be led by the Liberals but would also see the NDP taking cabinet seats. This agreement would last until mid-2011, and crucially, in terms of the Commons arithmetic, the BQ would be on board until mid-2010, supporting the putative coalition (a novelty in Canadian politics) in confidence votes without actually entering the government.
Despite the government dropping some proposals (notably that on party funding), this was not enough to placate the opposition parties, who held firmly to their plans to topple Harper, with a confidence vote originally scheduled for tomorrow. However, the Prime Minister visited the Governor-General Michelle Jaen, and she granted his request for parliament to be suspended until 26th January, for a prorogation period of almost two months - this is the first time in Canada that a PM has prorogued Parliament in order to avoid a confidence vote.
The government is thus safe for a few weeks now, with a vote on the Budget expected once Parliament returns. Polls suggest that if this crisis were to result in another election, the Conservatives would improve on their October performance, with a showing putting them into majority territory. Meanwhile, the Liberals are for now stuck with Dion, who proved to be an extremely unpopular leader. He was originally due to step down in the spring, but having someone who led their party to a huge defeat is not the ideal choice to lead a coalition government. It’s currently looking as though Dion will be gone early in the new year.
It remains to be seen what will happen at the end of January, but if the “coalition” can hold together, perhaps with Rae or Ignatieff at the helm of the Liberals, and defeat the government in a confidence vote, all eyes will then be on the Governor-General. Will she ask the Liberals and NDP to from a new government, or could she really dissolve Parliament for a new election less than six months since the previous one - an election which the Tories might win with a majority?
Double Carpet
MessageSpace Advertising
FPT (hey, this is the international thread):
178. Labour politicians boasted endlessly that we were the “fourth largest economy in the world”, and they weren’t using PPP figures.
They must therefore die by the statistical sword they wielded: we have been leapfrogged by France.
Anyway, as you say, it is very likely France would overtake us, even using PPP, by next year. As our recession will probably be much worse than theirs.
At least, when we compare the UK with France, we can comfort ourselves knowing we have a better health system, nicer food, better weather, more attractive cities, a less intrusive state, more cohesive sense of identity, and a shining record in Iraq.
Is Gordon, that risible little scrote of a man, still gonna lecture our European friends on “how to run an economy”?
lol
1. Gosh you’re fleet of foot Sean T! Quickest repost I’ve seen yet on PB.com.
1. Again an international flavour - Brown is trying for Voltaire’s dictum - “The treatment was a success, but the patient died.”
Glad to see Canada is getting more than a mention, at last, because this is serious and has possible serious consequences for our own situation if there was a hung parliament after the next election.
5 - it’s copy and paste StJ!!
What possible reason could she have to dissolve parliament when there is a viable coalition that can carry a motion of confidence?
“Ask me point blank-is your country a better place than it was on May 1st 1997-on points,by about 80% to 20%,I say a loud ‘YES!’
by Patrick (West Ham fan who will probably vote Labour next time) December 7th, 2008 at 9:03 pm”
Interesting. As I contemplated our humiliating national decline, this evening, I was asking myself a similar question.
I was trying to think of a single significant achievement by this government - just one single way in which the country is much better than it was in 1997 - one major accomplishment by Labour which the Tories wouldn’t have managed if they’d been in power.
All I wanted was one thing, just one, to set against all the acknowledged catastrophes this government has wrought - enormous unwanted immigration, the European betrayal, the illegal and shameful Iraq war, the ruined economy, the horribly debauched democracy, the hateful mess of Devolution, and so forth.
I couldn’t think of one thing. Not one. Sure Start? Give me strength.
This country has been turned into a f*cking embarrassing toilet by these lying and imbecile incompetents. And the worst of it is, they might get back in to continue the damage. It might take another five years of this dismal dismal misery before the voters wake up.
Right now, I would quite happily see every single Labour MP humanely put down. Needn’t be painful. Just a quick phenol injection.
5. I know DC but he was pretty quick on the draw. He was there before you could even think of saying “First”.
8. I am fired up by anger! And by drama - I just found out a close friend of mine went down for manslaughter on Friday. He got a three stretch.
7. SeanT. Minimum wage? Gay marriages? Improved primary school education? Better health care but at a considerable cost?
So I don’t see how this is correct. If a minority government does not enjoy the support of a majority of the house, but another coalition does, why should they not be invited to form a government? What grounds are there to simply allow a minority gvt to avoid a no-confidence vote?
I can see some validity in Harper’s argument that a coalition including the Bloc Quebecoise was never put before the electorate, and that this would have been a factor in their voting. But the logical outcome (if this was a convention) would be to call new elections, which I have no doubt would render the Conservatives an increased share if not an overall majority.
So again, why prorogue Parliament, rather than summon an election?
1. SeanT just because Brown and Labour are economically illiterate doesnt mean you should lower yourself to their level. Just as Labour are stupid short-sighted morons who dont understand what an appalling thing the arrest of Damian Green was, doesnt mean that the Tories should embrace their idiocy and try to lock up Labour MPs who receive leaks.
From the last thread-
190. Patrick - This recession will be particularly bad in the UK. The housing price bubble and the UK’s dependence on financial and allied services, the poor deficit situation all mean that the UK is in a bad place.
You like anecdotes - I prefer analysis
Iraq - we replaced a nasty non-religious dictator with whom the West had done business with a nearly failed state with a preponderance of radicalised Shiite politicians with overt religious backgrounds - and a bunch of really teed off Sunnis. (Everyone can stand and take the blame for this - although it is true that Campbell and Blair should be the ones in the dock most of all).
Mrs Thatcher - a great reformer, who removed the curse of strong unions and inefficient nationalised businesses. Some major policy mistakes along the way, it should be admitted. But if she hadnt tackled the unions and nationalised industry, the UK would be in a far worse state. UK economic growth was incredibly sclerotic until her reforms.
10. The minimum wage isnt an achievement - it is marginal as it should be in order to avoid serious economic dislocation.
Improved primary education? On what measure?
Gay marriage - a major achievement? I am in favour, but I dont think it can really be classed as a major achievement.
NHS - well I think the Tories could also have thrown money at it.
7 our country a better place (says Patrick) ?
Nah, I dont buy it either, nor did all those people who voted with their feet.
I would have been one of them too but for some unfortunate circumstances, we had sold up, bought a business and were ready and more than willing to go.
7. Is that it? A minimum wage? Gay marriage? Jesus f*cking Christ.
The only point in a minimum wage is if it reduces poverty and increases social mobility. As we all know social mobility has dramatically decreased under Labour (with only the faintest sign of an uptick last year), and meanwhile they have allowed in millions and millions of asylum seekers and immigrants, many of whom are working illegally for less than minimum wage - indeed they are living ten to a room and being treated like slaves.
Well done Labour.
So that leaves gay marriage as the one single notable achievement by this government, to set against the grotesque shame of Iraq, the utterly ruined economy, the smashed and corrupted democracy, the European betrayal, the hideous mess of Devolution, the worst recession in modern history, the horrible knife crime, the gangrenous welfare dependency, and the return of Noel Edmonds.
11 The Governor General (or the Queen) in a Westminster constitutional monarchy should follow the advice of her Prime Minister and if Harper does not resign but asks for a dissolution following a vote of no confidence then the GC should agree.
It then puts the decision in the hands of the electorate - the democratic way, rather than retaining it in the hands of the monarch.
15. I hardly think that something that has affected around 53,000 people out of nigh on 60 million can be viewed as a notable achievement however worthy it is.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2186574/Number-of-gay-marriages-in-Britain-falls-sharply.html
11 Morus. Agreed. I cannot see what precedent allows the Conservatives in Canada to prorogue Parliament, just because their opponents chose to form a proposed coalition AFTER the election.
The Liberals, NDP and BQ are not obliged to “warn” the electorate that they might form a coalition after all the results are in. In fact, the Liberals have often managed outright majorities on their own, so why should they talk of coalition before polling day.
The only thing that does make me uneasy though is the presence of BQ in all this. If it were three normal parties ganging up on the Canadian Tories then I would put it down to politics as usual. The presence of what the lead calls “a supersized version of the SNP” is highly undesirable for the unity of Canada.
I have a good friend in Edmonton, Alberta and though he is moderate on most issues he is furious that the Tail of Quebec seems to often wag the Dog that is Canada. And he assures me that he is far from alone in this view to put it mildly.
Ken - reduced crime?
15. I must admit that Labour have been parlous. I thought that John Major’s government was rubbish - the Cones hotline, railway privatisation. But they were also bringing in reforms like GP fund holding and giving independence to state schools.
I had hoped that Tony and Gordon would do better things. Their mantra of “education, education, education”. Skills. Increasing productivity. Surely these were the people who would tackle the NUT. Who would revitalise the NHS. Do brave and interesting things with welfare reform?
Instead, they benefited from the global boom and the newly streamlined economy bequeathed by the Thatcher reforms and spent money like crazy. They put in place higgledy piggledy management structures and discovered the joys of centralised targets. They fired Frank Field who did want to do proper welfare reform. They helped to entrench all the idiotic lefty nonsense that gives “rights” to the underclass and undermines school and wider social discipline. They did nothing but spray money around. When they did try “reforms”, it was either 1) centralised targets 2) A badly misunderstood model of managerial incentives 3) A combination of the two.
Disturbingly, I found that I agree with SeanT here - Labour have done nothing of any note that could not have been equally well done by John Major. (And that is an indictment btw).
11. Morus: why prorogue Parliament, rather than summon an election?
To give the Liberals time to realise how silly they’re being?
17. So they can’t even claim gay marriage as a significant achievement.
What’s left? Er…. the cones hotline? Or was that John Major? How about… the patio heater ban? Doesn’t that come into force soon?
Vote Labour: They Make Everything Worse.
OT - Is anyone having problems with Betfair at the moment? Their markets seem to have stalled and won’t accept bets.
10. Better health care but at a considerable cost.
You have to be joking! The only improved health care is for the immigrants who came over here to have their children and have now gone back to the country of their provenance.
19. Partially an economic effect, partially a demographic effect. Increasing police numbers first under Major and then (after a brief drop) under Blair helped. As did an increase in prison places (there was a brief period under Mrs T when the government stopped building enough prison places).
But, I actually think that even John Major would have managed at roughly the same level in crime reduction terms.
I’m hoping that a new Conservative government might fire (or reassing to frontline duty) all the box tickers and target monitorers in the police - which would be a far more sensible way of spending money on law and order.
23. Yup, trying to collect my winnings on the Eagles game. Not happy.
19. Reduced Crime.
You have to be joking, they don’t record it properly! I had my car broken into last summer. Because they could not find any finger prints it went down as intellegence! Not actually recorded crime.
Everything has got worse under Labour and the statistics are a tool Labour use to manipulate and manage failure.
27. The BCS also suggests crime is down. I dont think you can argue that “everything has gotten worse” under Labour. The NHS is better funded, we now have a decent number of GPs (back in the mid-90s it was impossible to find young GPs), schools have more kit.
What I would argue is that this government has spent money badly and done little in the way of sensible reforms. I seriously think that John Major would have done a similar job to Blair/Brown - although he probably wouldnt have gotten involved in as many foreign adventures. (Debatable point). And I thought Major was cr@p.
13. Quite a number of people seriously benefited from the minimum wage, it might have been marginal in the south, but ‘ere up north, it made a significant increase in income for a lot of people.
Of course, that improvement has been completely trumped by the Governments immigration policy since 1997. The minimum wage was supposed to be a floor, but with a massive surplus of unskilled labour caused by unprecedented levels of immigration resulted in the minimum wage becoming, for many people a ceiling to their earning potential.
Ken - are you a former senior civil servant. You seem very well informed.
27 Govt figures, I wouldn’t trust anything coming out of Parliament unless it had been leaked, on those docs are the truth. !
18. Disraeli: The Liberals, NDP and BQ are not obliged to “warn” the electorate that they might form a coalition after all the results are in. In fact, the Liberals have often managed outright majorities on their own, so why should they talk of coalition before polling day.
To an extent - but only to an extent. A coalition can only be said to have democratic legitimacy if the voters can reasonably have expected (at the time they voted) that the coalition was a possible outcome of the election results (assuming they had known what they would be).
If Canadian voters had known that the Tories would increase their seats and the Liberals would lose seats, would they have expected that a Lib-NDP-Bloc coalition was possible? I don’t believe so.
Crime has arguably come down under Labour, but the decline started in the early 90s, under the Tories, and has, in fact, been mirrored in almost every major developed nation - it’s nothing to do with Labour policies and everything to do with demographics (fewer young men = fewer crimes, simple as that).
Meanwhile the UK as of 2008 has one of the highest crime rates in the West, one of the worst records on youth crime, one of the highest rates of imprisonment, one of the worst records on recidivism. Oh yes, and the homicide rate has gone up. And this despite our spending more on law and order than most other countries.
Does anyone seriously feel SAFER in Britain now than they did in 97?
No, reduced crime is not a significant and uniquely Labour achievement, not by a long shot.
It’s the patio heater ban. That’s their main achievement.
17. jsfl. I find that an odd argument. To achieve something good for a few is worthwhile. If the number is actually over 50,000 and represents a minority of the population anyway, that’s a major achievement.
On the same theme, I think under this government we are a far more tolerant society than we were and I think Tony Blair is partly responsible for that change.
19. A few factors to consider regarding lower crime figures.
1) Boom times mean people have more money and therefore fewer are likely to commit certain types of crimes. As Jacqui Smith pointed out recession is likely to mean crime figures will rise.
2) The Police do not bother to investigate certain types of crime such as Burglary/ Car Theft etc - get your crime number and claim on your insurance. As a result if not insured people have no reason to report the crime.
3) Police do not investigate Internet crime unless reported by the company that hosted the crime. It is left to banks and other financial instiutions to report such crime. So where as in the past numerous individual crimes may well have been reported now if the company concerned can be bothered only one appears on the stats for however many individual occurrences.
4) The insurance companies by forcing improved security have ensured the reduction of crimes such as burglary and car theft to the extent that it is hardly worth following up.
5) Juvenile crime is not recorded.
6) Other crimes such as some sorts of drug related crimes and now I believe shop-lifting are not treated as seriously as they were.
7) The government use a ’survey’ to guide them on crime matters as opposed to full and complete statistics.
It may be true that Crime has fallen but firstly we cannot be sure of that and secondly even if it is it may well be other factors that have caused Crime to fall rather than the Government. The trouble is this Government has manipulated the scope and statistics so much that it is impossible to tell. As ever though they try to take the credit!
28. Sorry whilst money may have been spent on it! When ever i have gone to the doctors or hospital it seems worse run than pre-1997.
The local hospital is filthy and one consultant even advised me incorrectly on the probability of the effectiveness of an operation*I looked it up in the local libary and the internet!). In some senses due to me being out of work, having things stolen and having consultanted medical opinion as provided by the state. My experience has been either a deteroration or abject failure by taxpayer funded services.
I’m angry, SeanT, but for different reasons.
I can concede some things that you’re not prepared to - we had a decade of decent growth and employment, crime is lower (though fear of it has grown), health and education services are better thanks to massive investment (though much has been wasted).
The problems though are clear too - Constitutional Reform has been cackhanded-to-the-point of negligence in every single way, Immigration was never controlled, investment has been wasted and we don’t have the assets to show for it, our buget surplus was blown on the war that was viscerally opposed by about half the population, housing was never made a priority.
For me the best and the worst effects have been cultural. I think we are a more accepting society now, especially of gay people, but the other social trends have been towards a society that is ever more pernickety. The intrusion into the citizen’s life, the nannying, the bureaucratic nightmare that life in Britain has become.
For all the guff about decentralising government, I hate it. Power centralised in the State is a danger to be sure, but at least Central Government faces scrutiny. Devolving greater and greater powers to councils staffed with petty-overblown officials with none of that oversight - now there is harassment of the citzen for overfilled bins, for parking, for smoking, for being fat, for being every little thing.
I don’t like the managerial, HR driven, quasi corporate funk we’re in, and when it’s spiced up with the hint of sleaze and personal enrichment, I start thinking I’d take any change on offer.
The last bunch of Tories at the end were just as bad, and given an extra three terms, wouldn’t have invested in health and education and crime in the same way. They might now. But I don’t care - I don’t vote for oppositions, I vote against Governments, and I don’t think I’m alone in that. Labour will have to do something pretty special to get my vote next time. The Lib Dems will need to get rid of Clegg for me to consider it.
34. “We are a far more tolerant society under Labour”.
Actually you reminded me of another Labour achievement: making a far right party a significant electoral force for the first time in British history.
Yes, well done Labour. You’ve made us so tolerant we’re trying to vote Fascists into the European Parliament.
Labour: Making Everything Worse.
33. “it’s nothing to do with Labour policies and everything to do with demographics (fewer young men = fewer crimes, simple as that)”
I don’t have any stats but believe there are 2 important factors:
1) Improved security devices - eg cars are much harder to steal than say 20 years ago.
2) The declining value of many household goods - eg electrical goods such as TVs are less valuable than say 20 years ago so not worth the trouble of stealing them.
7. seanT: I was trying to think of a single significant achievement by this government - just one single way in which the country is much better than it was in 1997 - one major accomplishment by Labour which the Tories wouldn’t have managed if they’d been in power.
They banned fox hunting. That was for the miners.
Evening all
It’s an interesting situation developing in Canada but are there parallels with a possible post-GE situation in Britain ? Obviously, we have February 1974 as the “template” for what happened or didn’t happen.
Were Labour to be the largest party in a hung Parliament, Brown could decide to soldier on. The question then would be whether the other parties could gather enough votes to defeat the Queen’s Speech and bring Labour down. That depends on the maths of the next election but could depend on DUP or PC votes for example or whether any of the minor parties would want to face a second election so quickly.
I’ve long said on here that there will be no deals/negotiations between Labour, Conservatives and the LDs unless I’ve completely misread Cameron. If he can, Cameron will form a minority Government safe in the knowledge Labour won’t vote to bring him down.
A SECOND inconclusive election is where things get more interesting.
Perhaps after the next election here the Bloc won’t be quite so supersized compared with the SNP.
I think Harper would be foolish to face a confidence vote, especially with the latest opinion polls. He must surely ask for and get another dissolution and hope for a majority.
Labour has nourished the underclass and it has burgeoned. Soft on crime, the streets are more dangerous. Birmingham has certainly become more like a foreign country and on its public transport and in many of its districts it feels a lot more dangerous. The body and verbal language of the street has become uglier and fouler. The State broadcaster has gone downhill - from dumbed down to f***ing dumbed down. Funnily enough, everything’s overlayered by the excessive sensitivities of political correctness, which are, of course, barely offended when Chris Moyles on Radio 1 states that Poles make good prostitutes (of course, he’d have been instantly sacked if he’d made the equally outrageous suggestion re. (say) Nigerian women).
re 10 Gay marriages? Really?
40. Labour’s Britain: Better For Foxes. Much Worse For People.
34. stjohn I did say however worthy it is. In my eyes it is worthy but it is not earth shattering in the same ways that say Conservatives talk about the Thatcher years - helping bring down the Berlin wall, trade union reform, public sector reform, ending the economic disaster of the 1970’s etc.
The problem with Labour has been whilst they have been focussing on a multitude of minority issues and ideological hang-ups, they’ve let the country go to wrack and ruin. Broken Society, Broken Constitution and most of all a Broken Economy.
Victories such as gay marriage are Pyrrhic. Labour has one a few skirmishes and lost the war.
43. Sorry, link to Moyles/Radio 1 story: http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1091717/BBCs-Chris-Moyles-forced-say-sorry-suggesting-Poles-make-good-prostitutes.html
Can someone explain how, when there’s a chance that by leading a Coalition he could be PM by February, that Dion is already being talked about as though his departure is a given?
He was an awful choice for leader, but now really doesn’t seem the time to be changing him.
Re 46. er one = won
46. The tragedy is that it seems we went through all the pain of the Thatcher reforms for nothing. We’re gonna end up with horrible unemployment, huge deficits, massive structural problems - just like before. We are a nation in relative decline once again.
All that effort and sweat we endured in the 80s, rendered pointless: by a few years of idiotic Labour profligacy.
Makes you wanna weep.
49. As in One-Nil, to the Aston Villa!
44. Chris A. I should have said Civil Partnerships. Was that your point?
41. stodge: A SECOND inconclusive election is where things get more interesting.
Of course, a further Canadian election wouldn’t be inconclusive: it would deliver either a Conservative majority or a Lib-NDP-Bloc coalition (and the voters, when they vote, would know they had essentially those choices).
7. That’s an impossible question to answer since you’re putting Labour up against a theoretical Tory government (run by whom?) that you’re making assumptions about and dismiss all Labour’s achievements as ‘they would have done it anyway’.
The BCS says crime is down, gay marriage is a positive step. N.Ireland (even if you credit the big swing to Major, Blair did at least finish the job). And we had a long period of economic growth. Clearly we’re paying for at least some of that now but historically a lot of PMs would’ve given their eye-teeth for that sort of resume.
I’ve got a long list of complaints about New Labour, but to say they’ve had no achievements is biased foolishness.
“37.I can concede some things that you’re not prepared to - we had a decade of decent growth and employment,”
Did we? Did we really? I used to believe this - that at least, despite the other disastrous errors, Labour had achieved a few years of robust and reasonable growth.
But I wonder. How much of this growth was predicated on mass immigration simply lifting the number of economically active people in the country (with no thought for how this would affect native Britons, especially the poor)? And how much of this growth was based on wild consumer borrowing funded by a calamitous property price bubble?
Strip these out of the system and how much growth is left? Zero?
Factor these back in and you have to remember the downsides: the breakdown in social cohesion and national identity from untrammelled immigration, the terrible Brown bust we now face as the bubble bursts.
Labour: Making Everything Worse.
re 18 well there’s plenty of precedent from the UK for using prorogations in this manner. Before the Parliament Act 1949 the delaying power of the Lords was 2 years and the bill had to be rejected by the Lords in 3 consecutive sessions. This led to what became known as “Parliament Act sessions” when the government used the Parliament Act 1911 to enact the Parliament Act 1949, the Welsh Church Act 1914 and the Government of Ireland Act 1914. In each of these cases the second of the three consecutive sessions in which the bill was rejected was very short - a matter of a few days.
What you had was Parliament prorogued in the usual way at the end of the first session in October/November and then the state opening a Queen’s/King’s speech a few days later. The second session’s sole business was for the Commons to pass the relevant act again, send it up to the Lords for it to be rejected and then a further prorogation immediately they had done this. Then about a week later there was a second state opening, Queen’s speech etc which marked the third session when the original bill could be rejected for the third time and sent for royal assent on the second anniversary of its original second reading in the Commons. This effectively was the government using prorogation for a political purpose.
re 41 the 1922/23/24 elections provide a better precedent I would say.
53. Their record on economic growth is impressive, but, and their is a but, we must remember, that a lot of the economic growth of the last five years or so has been funded by deficit spending, remember we have *structural* annual deficit of at least £40 billion.
re 51 stjohn indeed, and if I had a civil partner and dropped down dead tomorrow he would be able to tell you exactly why gay marriage isn’t equal to straight marriage.
Latvia advising Brown or vice versa?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5298989.ece
“Does anyone seriously feel SAFER in Britain now than they did in 97?”
I do.
Personal experience aside, I also don’t think that everything good that has happened in the last eleven years would have happened anyway if John Major had been Prime Minister, and I don’t think statistics which show crime is lower, public services are better and most people are better off are all lies.
Happily, there is an actually existing example in George W Bush’s America of what Britain might have looked like if we’d not bothered to spend money on public services and infrastructure, bringing in laws against discrimination and reducing poverty in Britain and internationally, and instead put money into cutting taxes for the rich and enacting every policy proposal dear to the heart of right-wing loons.
Three opinion polls have been published since the crisis broke. Figures are:
EKOS - Con 44%, Lib 24.1%, NDP 15% Bloc 9% (37.4% Que) Green 11.6%
IPSOS - Con 46%, Lib 23%, NDP 13%, Bloc 9%, Green 8%
COMPAS - Con 51%, Lib 20%, NPD 10%, Bloc 8% (35% Que) Green 6%
This would produce approx seat totals of
EKOS - CON 178, LIB, 57, BQ, 48, NDP 25,
IPSOS - CON 195, LIB 48, BQ 48, NDP 16, IND 1
COMPAS - CON 229, BQ 38, LIB 27, NDP 11, IND 3
And result in the annihilation of the LIB-NDP-BLOC (Seperatist) Coalition in an election.
There is a school of thought that says the was plotted before Harpers proposal to end state funding (calculated per vote) last week and was planned for the budget on 26th January. Harper’s proposal was a means to smoke them out early.
There have been anti-coalition rallies across Canada this weekend. Some Liberal MP’s are unhappy about this. Liberal members are outraged and have actually been sending donations to the Conservatives.
I think the Coaltion will fall apart before the 26th January, but if not and there is an election, Harper will win a majority.
I share Dave (S) concerns as to what Gordon, Mandy and their Common Purpose friends will make of this.
53. It’s not the case that Labour have not achieved anything. The thing is the positive achievements pale into insignificance in comparison to the negative results of their actions.
53. Of course Labour have achieved some things. It would be pretty hard for a government to spend ten years in office and accomplish absolutely nothing.
I’m just saying their unique achievements (gay marriage) are extremely small when compared to the horrible disasters they have fashioned: Iraq, immigration, the ruined economy, trashed civil liberties, rise of the BNP, Devolutional horror, &c.
The one thing they had going for them was the economy. New that’s gone, there is a very good argument for saying this has been the worst government in postwar British history.
OT: anyone know why the Strictly markets on Betfair are still in-play and suspended? (Usually happens after the Saturday broadcast and ends after the Sunday one).
Been out most of the day, so apologies if I missed something obvious.
60. George Bush’s America has, in his reign spent more money on more government services then any other president in history. If we are to measure the ‘goodness’ of a government, by how much it spends on public services, then George W’s pretty close to nomination for sainthood.
54 - seant, you’ve probably mentioned this before, but as a migrant worker yourself, why the hostility to mass immigration?
66. Mass immigration has been an unmitigated disaster for this society. That is not to say that some migration has not been beneficial, but as a whole, a disaster. It has changed our nation out of all recognition, it has forced our law makers to bring in oppressive legislation that stops those who disagree with the ‘experiment’ expressing their views. The icing on the cake is the Governments policy of Multiculturalism which has butchered the concept of Britishness, and specifically Englishness.
I also worked as a migrant worker, my wife is also a immigrant.
66. Cause of its impact on the poor white Brits, and on national identity and social cohesion. And because Labour LIED about it.
They should have asked us first: “we are going to quadruple net immigration to historic highs, as we think this will be good for the economy: how do you feel about that?”
I don’t remember seeing that in their manifesto. For the very good reason it wasn’t there, the tra1torous lying scum.
With regards NHS, due to serious family illnesses have had more than fair share of experiences over the past 2 years, so thought I would chip in with one ancidotal story highlighting change in process and how stats are created (plenty more serious ones btw, but hopefully this makes my point).
Bad old days pre 1997, I broke my tow, went to casulty, waited 5+ hours, but then saw a full qualified doctor, got x-ray’ed etc and all sorted. There simply wasn’t enouhg doctors on duty to cope with the demand, but when you saw one NHS worked fine.
Now, last year my girlfriend became suddenly ill with terrible stomach cramps. Off we went to A&E, and found the waiting room with a total of 2 other people.
01:00 Waited for an hr, then saw what can only be described as a screener. I can’t remember proper job title, but she wasn’t a doctor or nurse, just literally there to see if in her opinion you really were in need of A&E treatment and fill in the initial paperwork. After passing that, we were taken to a cubical.
02:00 Another hour passed, before a health care assistant can in took the usual blood pressure, heart, etc and told my other half to take a pregenancy test.
03:00 Another hour passed, then a nurse can, did an examination and then realised that a doctor was required.
04:00 Doctor arrives and quickly tells my girlfriend that nothing serious and to go home. If it gets worse to make an appointment with GP.
So instead of 5hrs to get to see a doctor, A&E figures would have it down as 1hr, when in reality it was 4hrs and the doctor spent less than 5 mins.
Unsurprisingly it turned out more serious than initial diagnosis (by either A&E doctor or GP) and we ended up at A&E a few nights later. Again pretty much the same episode was followed, except due to the serious of the condition, the nurse was on hand faster, however still took 3hrs to see a doctor, and another 3hrs before he had decided on a course of action. Total time in excess of 10hrs, no hospital admission. Result given one days supply of the required drug to eleavate immediate problem, told to buy the rest from Boots, before sorting out treatment with the hospital through the GP.
So in both of the more recent cases the target of being seen by A&E was met, but in reality was it much quicker to get proper diagnosis and treatment than pre 1997 experiences. However, rather than just seeing a doctor, there is now a under qualified screener, a cheap and not properly qualified nurse (i.e healthcare assistant), a nurse and finally a doctor who twice passed the buck.
I would say yes it might, and I emphasis might, be quicker, but you are not initially assessed by a doctor, but a range of other people with varying levels of training / experience. Your access can be restricted and slowed by these people, and all comes with a cost. Then finally they want you out of A&E, not admitted unless you are going to pop your clogs there and then, only to be filled back round into a different queue by your GP. Again I’m sure meeting all the targets, but the reality of the matter is very different. I know of several ways that consultations and operations seem to follow similar fiddles to make sure that stats look good (I’m sure that isn’t true for everybody, but it is examples how target culture is so dominant in NHS planning / thinking).
It is obvious what they are attempting to do, but to me it was clear that this approach just doesn’t work, making the system more complex, restrictive and ultimately frustrating.
Sorry typo, tow -> toe
Sorry to copy this from Mrs Dale (especially if it’s been mentioned before today) but if the Ugandan newspapers are saying this that whatever their achievements over the last 11 years every supporter of this government should be hanging their heads in shame that any foreign newspaper can have justification for printing this.
And for good measure here’s the Ugandan Sunday Monitor…
Just like the Movement government are routinely misusing the police to silence the Opposition, the arrest by Counter-Terrorism Command Police of an opposition politician illustrates the determination by the New Labour government to misuse state institutions to prevent its critics from disclosing vote-losing information to the British people.
This development raises many disturbing questions for Ugandans, Africans and the British people. Has Mr Gordon Brown been publicly criticising Mr Robert Mugabe in the British Parliament, European Union, G8 and the United Nations while privately admiring the ways he deals with the opposition?
Will Zimbabwe’s Morgan Tsvangirai, Kenya’s Raila Odinga and the Congolese still trust Mr Gordon Brown and his New Labour government to be honest brokers in promoting political and human rights in their troubled countries?
Re: 52 - I was referring to Britain, not Canada.
To be honest, I can’t quite see why the Libs/NDP/BQ are so desperate to get into power at the moment. I imagine it will be as economically bleak this winter in Canada as here.
69 you would have seen the triage nurse first. But you were seen in under 4 hours so what are you complaining about? In the new Labour NHS it doesn’t matter if they’ve diagnosed you well and properly, all that matters is that you’re out of the door (in a box or otherwise) in under 4 hours. Box ticked, job done, satisfaction all round - surely.
Front pages
http://news.sky.com/portal/site/skynews/menuitem.4ac6ef1838e87e468d778d7789112da0/?vgnextoid=5f5bc7437231e110VgnVCM1000005d04170aRCRD&vgnextchannel=805b17a021297110VgnVCM1000009811d20aRCRD&pager.offset=1
One headline pops out is Tory/LabourGraph, secret Labour deal to force out speaker. Hmmmmmmmmm
60.
“bringing in laws against discrimination”
They have also brought forward laws which discrimnate against previously law abiding groups in our society.
Laws which discriminate against smokers.
Laws which discriminate against fox hunters.
Laws which discriminate against those who shoot as a hobby.
Laws which discriminate against the BDSM community.
Sorry, but I think they have discriminated against far more people than they have helped with the anti discrimination laws they have passed.
re 72 don’t believe everything Gordon tells you. Canada is not in recession, and is not expecting one.
Quelle surprise: Ireland calls a second referendum.
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/536641/2364519
Just make sure you get the answer right this time, Paddy. Or else.
74. I think the Human Rights Act reform is the most intriguing. I imagine Straw and the Government will ponce about showing how tough they are for endless months. It will spend an age going through Parliament. A fortune will be spent implementing the changes (training lawyers, government officials etc) and then the ECHR will throw out every single reform in a number of highly expensive court actions.
73 - Yes you are correct, that is the title of the old bat that did the “interview”. Nothing more than questioning (along the lines of “are you going to die, yes or no, no, how serious do you feel it is?, errh, quite as I’m at A&E in the middle of the night”), followed by form filling. No inspection, no real attempt to analyse the problem etc.
7 Deep respect as ever !
67/68. A proposal for you - let’s tell a story. In this story, Gordon Brown is sadly mangled in an incident involving a rocking horse, and David Cameron falls off a yacht and is eaten by a shark. Nick Clegg is Nick Clegg and doesn’t count. By popular acclaim YOU are PM - there are plenty of immigrants milling around. What do you do about them?
Asking as I see plenty of proposals when issues like taxes/police/civil liberties come up, but when immigration appears the consensus seems to be that immigrants contribute nothing to society (or what they contribute is vastly outweighed by their negative aspects), but nobody knows what to DO about the issue. Does any course of action appeal to you?
76, quite so. Sadly I think the Irish will give the EU the ‘right’ answer.
Bloody hell.
Regarding the Welfare reforms I’ve just read this (not that I am in favour of people sitting on their backsides doing nothing for their benefit):
A third “strike” would see claimants lose all benefits payments, with Job Centre staff paying essential bills like food and heating directly on the claimant’s behalf.
And what happens if the food and heating bills exceed their weekly JSA?
If someone has the answer I’d be interested to know?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/3659481/Welfare-claimants-face-benefit-cut-if-they-miss-one-interview.html
81. Indeed. The Irish will vote Yes. The recession will scare the voters into acceding. Lisbon will be in operation by the end of 2009.
Cameron will be faced with a fairly nasty dilemma *if* he gets into power. He can’t rescind a ratified Treaty, but his troops will be screaming for some kind of renegotiation.
On the other hand, he won’t have to kick off his premiership with a very divisive referendum and a massive row with Brussels, so maybe he will be pleased. He will be able to pick and choose his fight.
81 - will the “Irish pork” issue somehow be twisted wrongly into the EU debate?
78 But triage is not about analysing the problem. Originally, it was about splitting military casualties into 3 groups:
(1) Will die anyway
(2) Will survive anyway
(3) Might die, but might not with prompt treatment
Group (3) being the group that got priority treatment.
Actually my most recent trip to A&E (N Tyneside general) following a car accident, was fairly impressive, from the paramedic who turned up and took me to hospital, followed by investigation, x-ray and stitches - I think it was about 3 hours including treatment. The copper who attended was pretty good as well.
poster on the Guido site says a yougov poll in the telegraph puts labour 3 points ahead. Is this likely to be a spoof?
86 It normally is.
86 - Sure it would be on the front page if that was true, and I didn’t see it.
71,
Does this merit an “I told you so”?
The current Canadian crisis has no near precedent under the Westminster model [i.e. the UK and those Commonwealth countries whose "reserve powers" are vested in the representative of HM Queen]
Three factors are strongly in Harper’s favour.
i) He suffered no rebuff at the latest polls. On the contrary, he increased both the Tories seats and votes, and on 143 seats is only 11 seats short of a majority. The next largest party, the Liberals, suffered one of their heaviest defeats and stand on only 77 seats.
ii) despite media claims, there is no alternative coalition waiting in the wings. The Liberals and NDP combined would have only 114 seats. The Bloc Quebecois with 49 seats have said they will not vote the “coalition” down for a period of, IIRC, 18 months, but would not be members of the coalition. They reserve the right to amend legislation on a case by case basis. So there is no “coalition” with an agreed platform that can command a majority of the House - one of Lascelles principles which theorizes conditions when a dissolution may be denied.
iii) Liberal leader Dion’s position is hanging by a thread. It seems a question of when, not if, he is replaced or resigns. Consequently, his replacement as leader will surely impact on the stability of the hypothetical “coalition.” In other words, the new leader must be acceptable to the NDP and the Bloc, and until that leader first materializes, no-one knows the answer to that question.
Constitutional opinion is divided on the critical question of just when the Queen or her representative can refuse a PMs request for a dissolution of Parliament [Harper's preferred option if he loses a vote of confidence]
In 1926, the Governor General Lord Byng refused PM Mackenzie King’s request for a dissolution, although the circumstances were very different to those which pertain today. King had lost his majority - and his own parliamentary seat - and was now leading the second largest party. He carried on for almost a year with the support of the Progressive party, until his government was engulfed in scandal. Anticipating a vote of no-confidence, King requested a dissolution, which Byng refused, instead summoning Meighen, the Tory leader to form a government. This government collapsed within days, and Byng was forced to grant Meighen the dissolution he had refused to King. King was swept back into office at the polls, leaving Byng looking very foolish.
Applying all this to the present situation, the current Governor General would be ill-advised to refuse Harper a dissolution. She cannot in my view commission the Liberal leader Dion to form a government, when he is a lame-duck leader, and it is clear there is no guaranteed parliamentary majority to pass legislation, notwithstanding talks of a “coalition”.
The Liberals, Bloc and NDP had their chance at the Speech from the throne [equivalent to our Queen's Speech]. Had Harper been defeated on that, constitutional convention says that the Liberals would have been invited to form a government. That is exactly what happened here in 1924, leading to the first Labour government, even though the party was a distant second in both seats and votes.
The prorogation of Parliament in Canada to me seems a way of dodging the dissolution bullet. In the New Year the political situation may be clearer. Either a firmer commitment to an alternative coalition, under a New Liberal leader, may materialize, or the Governor General may feel that sufficient time has passed since the last election for Harper to be granted a dissolution.
My bet is on dissolution. Granting a commission to a lame-duck leader, whose party was heavily defeated, at the head of a non-coalition would rival the Gough Whitlam affair for its capacity to bring the Crown into disrepute, and sour Canadian politics for a generation…
86.
It’s the same anonymous poster who always whacks up goofy polling. Tories 22% ahead in the last poll remember?!
86. hodges. One of these days a Guido poster will post a valid poll scoop. Who knows, this one might be the one? But unless it is, then I suspect that the utmate poster will receive as much credence as Belloc’s “Matilda”.
Mind you, Belloc’s supereconomic “Nurse”, first flagged up here by your’s truly, still seems to be a-held onto, for fear of finding something worse.
91. If so, what’s the point? Apart from the pleasure of seeing us anoraks get excited…
Actually, I can see that would be rewarding, in a way.
£20bn tax package a flop, Gordon Brown told
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5299296.ece
FORECAST OF 3.5M JOBLESS BY 2010
Britain is threatened with its highest levels of unemployment since the second world war, analysts have warned. Standard Chartered, the London-based bank, this weekend forecast that 3.5m people will be unemployed by the end of 2010, as gloom grew over the economic crisis.
92. utmate = ultimate.
Everton 2, Villa 3 = Joy illimited!
Only thing remotely resembling a poll this weekend:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5299296.ece
93. I know, must admit I did double check myself.
Unfortunately, a 3% Labour leader isn’t beyond the bounds of possibility anymore
Hi. That’s me told then! I have only recently looked at guido’s site after various references to it on here. i feel this site can be quite scathing at times, but quite frankly it’s like the difference between “confessions of a window cleaner” and “debbie does dallas in the farmyard”. there seem to be no inhibitions on there at all.
93 - I believe it’s to make Guido hunt around removing them, or generally make his site look bad. Nothing quite like posting false information about a market people bet on to make a site look reckless. It could be right - for some reason people are behaving like a battered spouse and loving the person (Gordon) who is dishing out the beatings - but I doubt it.
97 Isabel Oakeshott… Is that a relative of the Lib Dem Treasury spokesperson in the House of Peers?
Its a spoof, sky site has Monday’s front pages.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Newspaper-Front-Pages-For-Monday-December-8-2008/Media-Gallery/200812115174320?lpos=UK_News_Left_Promo_Region_0&lid=GALLERY_15174320_Newspaper_Front_Pages_For_Monday%2C_December_8%2C_2008
Nothing on Bellylarf, think it would be on front page.
63. Fair enough then, your post at 7
“All I wanted was one thing, just one, to set against all the acknowledged catastrophes this government has wrought - enormous unwanted immigration, the European betrayal, the illegal and shameful Iraq war, the ruined economy, the horribly debauched democracy, the hateful mess of Devolution, and so forth.
I couldn’t think of one thing. Not one. Sure Start? Give me strength.”
Suggested otherwise.
91 Rod, good post.
I think it comes down to when in doubt let the people decide. The GG can say that she has considered the arguments and in her view it should be decided by the electorate.
Never read the comment personally. Too many comments sound like they have been posted by a teenager you thinks that swearing is clever.
Apologies if this has already been posted:
Another daming indictment of Labour’s decade of waste and ruin
From a government who claimed they put the defence of the realm first.
The problem the government have had with the Green case is that they are determined to make it about party politics between the tories and the government, when that has already been disproved. MP’s from all parties have condemmed it, Mandelson’s attempt to smear the tories backfired and just aggrivated labour backbenchers into revolting, even John Reid’s got wound up and stabbed Smith in the back. Overall the tories have played this well, putting over their case but also stepping back and letting the lib dems and other concerned parties get involved. They know this arrest, whereas it was a tory MP, involved the entire house itself. They know that they can count on MP’s from all sides feeling annoyed and doing a large part of their job for them. the government has continuously miscalculated the mood of their own party and opposition MP’s, desperately bringing out defence after defence, each one sounding slightly pathetic or just plain daft. They’ve now got to the point where only labour ministers are supporting the investigation, everyone else, including their own backbenchers and leaks from inside the police, think it was stupid and heavy handed.
95. Highest unemployment since WWII. Things can only get better!
102 Thanks Coldstone for the link to the front pages. This caught my eye from The Times…
“The Times says that subjects like history, geography and religious studies could be removed from the primary school curriculum and replaced with a ‘human, social and environmental’ learning programme.”
Now, I like the idea of teaching pupils to link subjects together to try to see the big picture, rather than viewing learning as something which is compartmentalised into subjects. However, I get the feeling that this is more of a “touchy-feely” reform which will used as a method of carefully censoring out politically incorrect information.
A few days old but I do wonder what Mr Senior would make of this result?
http://www.chesterchronicle.co.uk/chester-news/chester-breaking-news/2008/12/07/landslide-win-for-tories-in-chester-parish-by-election-59067-22425563/
I laughed.
http://www.order-order.com/2008/12/rich-marks-monday-morning-view_07.html
110. Given that the two councillors resigned, and we went down to third place I’m guessing that it was largely due to something very local that the outgoing councillors did that caused it.
I’d like to point one rarely-mentioned but (almost) unambiguously good thing which Labour have achieved in 11 years, which would probably not have been enacted under a Conservative government:
The Freedom of Information Act.
Admittedly it’s not perfect. But it is A Good Thing.
Add to that Civil Partnerships, as already pointed out. And, er, er, that’s it. The rest, inasmuch as it is good, is just spending money, which any fool can do.
The other side of the balance is too huge to list now, but we all know what the main items are.
113, Northern Ireland peace process is another plus.
However, Blair gave bugger all creidt to Major. Bloody arsehead.
114 MD - True on both counts.
7: ‘I was trying to think of a single significant achievement by this government - just one single way in which the country is much better than it was in 1997′
No more silly antiquated pub opening hours. That’s it in my view.
106.”This week, John Hutton, the defence secretary, will announce how he plans to do it. The FT has revealed his main decisions. Mr Hutton will delay the delivery of two new aircraft carriers; he will slow parts of a programme to build new armoured vehicles; and he will give the military slightly fewer new helicopters than it bargained for.”
He better not slow down the programme to build new armoured vehicles or give the Military fewer new helicopters than it bargained for!
These are not luxuries, but desperately needed essentials in Afghanistan! They are desperately needed, and men and women are dying and being terrible maimed due to roadside bombs!
93 stjohn - I did say that if you paraded that old one again, I would be forced to bring out the legendary Kipper tie joke. You should count yourelf lucky therefore that with only two and a half weeks to go until Christmas, I’ve decided to keep it under wraps until the big day.
We are forgetting the most important and relevant achievement of this Labour Government for a site called Politicalbetting.com. The abolition of 9% tax on betting winnings in October 2001.
John Redwood on What’s the point of this round trip?
“The banks are “persuaded” to borrow money from the government at 12% per annum through Preference shares.
The banks are then advised to lend it back to the governemnt, by buying gilts, yielding around 4%. The regulator sets capital ratios that “encourage” the banks to own more gilts.
So the banks lose 8% per annum on large slugs of money,and for once the taxpayer gains.
Unfortunately, the banks then make less profit or have bigger losses. The taxpayer owns lots of shares in several of them, so the taxpayer then loses money on the shares.
Meanwhile the banks have no more money to lend to families and businesses, because they have to lend to the government!
So the only winners in this round tripping are the advisers to the government and advisers to the banks who helped dream up this bizarre money go round.
It’s wonderful to have such talented people in charge of sorting out the banks.”
Isn’t this just typical of Brown’s sleight of hand economically and politically?
Didn’t Guido once post a great chart on his site explaining a similar scam which involved the wonderfully titled Trade Union Modernisation Fund?
119.stjohn, I would have kept quiet about that, money is tight in the treasury.
Labour has made a lot more things better than given credit for so far. Naturally, I think that the economy has not been well managed at all, and the Iraq war and Foreign Policy in general has been counter-productive to British interests. I can’t wait to get rid of Brown. However it is unfair and far too partisan not to recognize that Labour have made lots of small improvements to British life.
Labours used to list 50 Achievements on its website - some of which have been overtaken by events of course. They are (I believe) :
1. Longest period of sustained low inflation since the 60s.
2. Low mortgage rates.
3. Introduced the National Minimum Wage and raised it to £5.52.
4. Over 14,000 more police in England and Wales.
5. Cut overall crime by 32 per cent.
6. Record levels of literacy and numeracy in schools.
7. Young people achieving some of the best ever results at 14, 16, and 18.
8. Funding for every pupil in England has doubled.
9. Employment is at its highest level ever.
10. Written off up to 100 per cent of debt owed by poorest countries.
11. 85,000 more nurses.
12. 32,000 more doctors.
13. Brought back matrons to hospital wards.
14. Devolved power to the Scottish Parliament.
15. Devolved power to the Welsh Assembly.
16. Dads now get paternity leave of 2 weeks for the first time.
17. NHS Direct offering free convenient patient advice.
18. Gift aid was worth £828 million to charities last year.
19. Restored city-wide government to London.
20. Record number of students in higher education.
21. Child benefit up 26 per cent since 1997.
22. Delivered 2,200 Sure Start Children’s Centres.
23. Introduced the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
24. £200 winter fuel payment to pensioners & up to £300 for over-80s.
25. On course to exceed our Kyoto target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
26. Restored devolved government to Northern Ireland.
27. Over 36,000 more teachers in England and 274,000 more support staff and teaching assistants.
28. All full time workers now have a right to 24 days paid holiday.
29. A million pensioners lifted out of poverty.
30. 600,000 children lifted out of relative poverty.
31. Introduced child tax credit giving more money to parents.
32. Scrapped Section 28 and introduced Civil Partnerships.
33. Brought over 1 million social homes up to standard.
34. Inpatient waiting lists down by over half a million since 1997.
35. Banned fox hunting.
36. Cleanest rivers, beaches, drinking water and air since before the industrial revolution.
37. Free TV licences for over-75s.
38. Banned fur farming and the testing of cosmetics on animals.
39. Free breast cancer screening for all women aged between 50-70.
40. Free off peak local bus travel for over-60s.
41. New Deal - helped over 1.8 million people into work.
42. Over 3 million child trust funds have been started.
43. Free eye test for over 60s.
44. More than doubled the number of apprenticeships.
45. Free entry to national museums and galleries.
46. Overseas aid budget more than doubled.
47. Heart disease deaths down by 150,000 and cancer deaths down by 50,000.
48. Cut long-term youth unemployment by 75 per cent.
49. Free nursery places for every three and four-year-olds.
50. Free fruit for most four to six-year-olds at school.
119 Wow, 9% sounds incredible now, how did anyone then make a profit. Professional punters work on an overall profit margin of 5%, if they’re lucky.
118. Peter. As we are after the lagershed, I will forgive your vituperation on this occasion.
121 Christina - Betting and Gaming is one of the few areas where GB remains a world leader. Surely the Government isn’t about to wreck it?
120/123. ChristinaD/Peter. It was an inspired piece of legislation and I think it increased betting turnover to such an extent that the Treasury actually profitted from the change because of increased revenue from the tax on Bookies’ profits. This was the argument made at the time in favour of the change. To reverse it would be frankly stupid.
122. They forgot a couple:
51. Increase use of meaningless statistics - e.g. “cancer deaths down by 50,000″ - by fifteen basis points
52. Triple number of cloudy things
53. Seventy eighty new government lies produced every hour
54. This one is a lie
55. So’s this
56. Increase non-mentions of enormous recession, the worst in the western world, by fifty eight million
57. This one is also a lie
58. And this
59. Kill Iraqis in illegal war
60. Betray people on Europe, immigration, civil liberties, devolution, crime, immigration
61. Hate white people and men by six
62. Kill Iraqis
63. Kill Iraqis
64. Kill Iraqis
122.Disraeli, genuine question, did you post that list tongue in cheek?
I ask, because there a one or two claims in there that I would seriously dispute?
125&126. I just think we might be heading for a desperate search down the back of the sofa range of taxes shortly.
72 SeanT. I cannot think of anything more likely to make me vote against Lisbon, than to be told by the government that Brussels had forced them into a second referendum - regardless of my vote first time round. Are there any Irishmen on this site? Will this not make the Irish voter spitting mad? They are not gutless, far from it.
122. Disraeli.
Number 18 on that list: is Gift Aid a Blairism?
Peter. Yes. Good point.
At face value it doesn’t look so bad because the 9% is on the profits only. But say you had 10 bets of £100 over the season. 9 lost but the last one won at 9.5/1, so returned you £1050. Profit on the last bet is £950 and on the year is £50 or 5% of all stakes. Tax on the profit at 9% = £85.50. Net result on the year after tax is -£35.50. Ouch!
The government was largely forced to get rid of betting tax as the bookies had started moving overseas (I think Victor Chandler were the first to go).
Had they not acted then the tax revenue would have fallen massively, as they wouldn’t have been left with the tax on GP that continued to bring in a lot of revenue.
Still, at least they recognised that. A lot of governments wouldn’t have acted.
What is it with the newspapers these days, they tuck away some interesting little nuggets inside the newspaper.
The Times has a story about the Banks becoming angry at Brown’s behaviour, cannot post the link because my computer freezes every time I click on the story. Considering the credit crunch, and the way bank lending has been frozen, it would seem my computer has some sympathy!
“Blow for Clegg as Lib Dems lose biggest donor”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5302686.ece
129 Are there any Irishmen on this site?
What’s happened to Yokel? He used to post on this site virtually every day - I haven’t seen him for weeks.
Incredibly quiet on here today, after having reached fever pitch over the past week.
I’m off to bed, goodnight all.
135. Peter. I hope and expect we will see Yokel again when there’s something to bet on, as he is one of the shrewdest judges. He doesn’t tend to come here otherwise. Except sometimes for a scrap!
Dailymail, DAVID CAMERON: There are 5 million people on benefits in Britain. How do we stop them turning into Karen Matthews?.
136.Good idea, nite all.
91. “despite media claims, there is no alternative coalition waiting in the wings. The Liberals and NDP combined would have only 114 seats. The Bloc Quebecois with 49 seats have said they will not vote the “coalition” down for a period of, IIRC, 18 months, but would not be members of the coalition. They reserve the right to amend legislation on a case by case basis. So there is no “coalition” with an agreed platform that can command a majority of the House - one of Lascelles principles which theorizes conditions when a dissolution may be denied.”
Rod, surely the coalition only has to demonstrate to the Governor-General it would command a majority on confidence votes - and it’s already done that by having the three opposition leaders sign a formal letter to the GG pledging to support a Liberal/NDP government for eighteen months. I believe I also read about a petitions of individual MPs that has been sent to the GG - I’m not sure how much more evidence is required. Governments don’t need to win every single vote to be said to have the confidence of the House - they just need a guarantee of “confidence and supply”, and that’s already there.
By the way, if there is a lesson to be learned for our politics, perhaps it’s in the way this has played out in Quebec. While the Tories have gained in the polls everywhere else, in Quebec they’ve fallen even further from their dismal showing in October, while the Bloc have improved their position. That’s the price you pay for demonising the ’separatists’ - ie. a perfectly legitimate democratic party that people have voted for in considerable numbers - and treating them as politically untouchable. Menzies Campbell would have led the Lib Dems into precisely that mistake last year had the Holyrood election not thrown up such awkward arithmetic.
Without being vitrolic,many responses to 138,at the ‘Daily Mail’,refer back to Mrs.Thathcer,the 1980s,and do NOT offer flowers as gratitude.
‘Me,me!’ is inevitable in a capitalist society;she took it too far-by a couple of million miles.
Her party reap their reward;their longest period in oppositioin since the 18th century.
Whilst conceding the more moderate reforms were beneficial to the private sector of the economy,I nevertheless go to bed hopeful that the British Labour Party,having parked their tanks on the grounds of ‘One Nation Tory-ism’,yield at least a fourth term,if not more-come on,lets take the game to Cameron,Osborne and wipe the f***ers OUT!
138. ChristinaD. That Daily Mail article reads like a Party Political broadcast. Do the Tories now expect a 2009 election?
The headline is, in my view, offensive to the 5 million referred to and does not fairly reflect the content of the article itself; trenchant though it is.
Harper has gone up SHARPLY in the polls since this whole fiasco.
Infact, he he would get a majority if he called an election today.
It’s only a matter of time till till the liberals a) Replace Dion b) Force and election in Jan c) Lose.
142.”The headline is, in my view, offensive to the 5 million referred to and does not fairly reflect the content of the article itself; trenchant though it is.”
Totally agree, but when I link a story, I always put up the headline given and the site it came from.
138. That is a disgraceful headline in the Daily Mail.
It appears to attribute the headline question to David Cameron. I read through the article carefully, because I could not believe he had made such a blunder as to make that assertion.
Fortunately, Cameron said no such thing, I would think he would be pretty upset at that headline. It does him no favours at all.
138. When he says there are 5 million people on benefits, presumably he means exclusively on benefits?
When you think that people earning up to £65k can (astonishingly) claim benefits in the form of Child Tax Credits then the total on benefits must be far more than 5 million.
Indeed, the vast majority of the population must be on benefits.
128 ChristinaD. I was slightly tongue in cheek, yes.
On balance, I believe that this Government is one of the poorest on record. Even a poor government gets some things right( Labour have, of course). Some of the items on that list make grim reading now, though - in a Black Humour sort of way. e.g.
7. Young people achieving some of the best ever results at 14, 16, and 18. (Yes by fiddling the marking)
14. Devolved power to the Scottish Parliament.(i.e attempted to break up the most successful union in Europe)
23. Introduced the Equality and Human Rights Commission. (Whingers Charter)
35. Banned fox hunting. (Record number of foxes killed last year, I understand…..good)
46. Overseas aid budget more than doubled. (Helping to fund India’s space program)
146. Does inherited wealth count as ‘benefits’? Similar principle surely, if you haven’t worked for it. David Cameron and George Osborne must be in severe danger of turning into Karen Matthews.
142.stjohn, another headline I didn’t like tonight.
Fraser Nelson on the Coffee House Blog talks of Tackling the giant evil of idleness
147. “Devolved power to the Scottish Parliament.(i.e attempted to break up the most successful union in Europe)”
What do people actually mean they come out with that strange line? I can only assume they’re talking about long-since-past historic “success” because, as SeanT helpfully established earlier today, the UK now has a smaller economy than both Germany and France.
147. I am not sure this wee list bears close scrutiny.
“44. More than doubled the number of apprenticeships.”
“48. Cut long-term youth unemployment by 75 per cent.”
“25. On course to exceed our Kyoto target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”
“48. Cut long-term youth unemployment by 75 per cent.”
“41. New Deal - helped over 1.8 million people into work.”
150.Well, it has been a very successful Union for all concerned over the last 300 years.
151 Tractors!!!
152. I’d be slightly cautious about using the word “all” about anything. However, as I suspected you’re relying on past history rather than the present-day.
148.”146. Does inherited wealth count as ‘benefits’?”
Err, no, and especially if that money has been put throw so many *taxed* cycles it deserves to be squeaky clean and passed onto the families of those who earned it!
153.You and I were supposed to have disappeared off to our respective beds! This site is a bad influence.
154.Red Meteor, you will pleased to note that I have lost my voice, and therefore cannot argue the point.
The other half explained to the kids that they have discovered the ultimate mute button.
155. “Err, no, and especially if that money has been put throw so many *taxed* cycles it deserves to be squeaky clean and passed onto the families of those who earned it!”
Oh, I’m quite sure the people who actually earned the money and passed it on will have sweated blood for it. The same can’t quite be said for the people who inherit it, though, can it? Unless we regard people as an extension of their parents and ancestors in some kind of weird metaphysical way.
155.Throw??? Through. DOH.
Re 44, Chris A “re 10 Gay marriages? Really?”
I was going to point that out, but he is of course talking out of his hat.
He means civil partnerships. I have no problems with that.
Gay marriage? Seems to bugger up the term altogether if you don’t mind me saying so.
153.You and I were supposed to have disappeared off to our respective beds!
Christina - I’m glad you made that abundantly clear!
Goodnight, really this time.
130 - Gift Aid was introduced in 1990 but only to large gifts (£600+). Changes since about 2000 did, in fairness, massively increase the use of the scheme by removing the lower limit.
158.Red Meteor, I will never understand the mindset of anyone who cannot comprehend the right of someone who has “sweated blood for it”, suddenly losing all rights to the money and where it should then be bequeathed. It smacks of the worst kind of envy and socialism!
And who should then decide where that money goes, oh yeah, the State!
And where would they put it, yes, where it suits their political interests best.
161.
Nite PfP.
Its like the Waltons on here.
140. I’m not so sure. A government that limps on, uncertain of its legislative program, but assured of being undefeated on a confidence vote is hardly one of “another Prime Minister who could carry on his Government, for a reasonable period, with a working majority in the House of Commons.” [Lascelles, 1950]
Also, take note of “In general, the sovereign will best preserve his or her impartiality by following precedent and granting a dissolution wherever there is a real doubt. Were the sovereign to fail to act according to precedent, and refuse a dissolution, it might then be found that an alternative government could not survive - as in Canada in 1926 - or that it was repudiated in the country, and the sovereign would be blamed. If, on the other hand, the sovereign agreed to a dissolution, he or she would be merely inviting the electorate to resolve the conflict. The sovereign’s approach is likely to be dictated by prudence, and one may suspect that he or she would be unlikely ever to refuse a dissolution unless the arguments for such a course were quite incontrovertible…” [Bogdanor, "The Monarchy and the Constitution", OUP, 1997]
Re 58, Chris A “re 51 stjohn indeed, and if I had a civil partner and dropped down dead tomorrow he would be able to tell you exactly why gay marriage isn’t equal to straight marriage.”
How so? I thought that in those respects they were very similar if not the same.
163. Christina, you’re jumping to completely the wrong conclusions about what I said. I’m not suggesting it’s morally wrong to pass on wealth to your offspring. I’m merely pointing out that if incapacity benefit claimants can be demonised on the grounds of receiving money they have not personally earned, precisely the same principle must apply to all those who have benefitted from inherited wealth - a category which I’m assuming would almost certainly include both Cameron and Osborne. As Mike L points out, many people who are actually in work receive top-up benefits, so that makes the similarity even more apparent.
167.I simple cannot comprehend that argument, its got so many holes in it, you would need a bucket to catch them.
165. Well, we’re obviously not going to agree on this, but I have always taken the stock phrase “command a majority in the House” to refer mainly to confidence votes. After all, even many single-party majority governments in this country have suffered parliamentary defeats on significant issues, but still comfortably served out their full term.
By the way, looking at the Canadian media tonight, it looks like the issue may be in practice settled one way or another this week, as the Liberals sort out the rules of an accelerated leadership election. If the electorate is confined to the Liberal caucus, the insufferable former BBC presenter Michael Ignatieff is almost guaranteed victory, and that by all accounts would make the coalition less likely to proceed. If, on the other hand, the rules end up favouring the pro-coalition Bob Rae, Harper’s days as Prime Minister may be numbered.
168. I’m quite sure I’ve got a shiny red bucket equal to the task, but first I’ll need to know where the holes actually are.
New Sunderland Manager - Telegraph says Houllier is favourite.
Very high risk I know, but if anyone is interested he’s available at 11 on Betfair.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/premierleague/sunderland/3658498/Sunderland-to-give-30-million-to-Roy-Keanes-replacement-for-transfers-Football.html
170.Red Meteor, I have over the years seen some wonderful examples of where your arguments fall down. Too personal to post here, and I know you hate my little straws in the wind, but thank god there are people like that out there.
Nite all.
169. True enough, but such outcomes are mere happenstance…
In the extraordinary context of refusing a dissolution, Lascelles sets the bar rather higher: “..it can be properly assumed that no wise Sovereign—that is, one who has at heart the true interest of the country, the constitution, and the Monarchy—would deny a dissolution to his Prime Minister unless.. 3) he could rely on finding another Prime Minister who could carry on his Government, for a reasonable period, with a working majority in the House of Commons. When Sir Patrick Duncan refused a dissolution to his Prime Minister in South Africa in 1939, all these conditions were satisfied: when Lord Byng did the same in Canada in 1926, they appeared to be, but in the event the third proved illusory.”
As Bogdanor says, if in doubt, allow a dissolution. There is plenty of doubt. A repudiated party, led by a repudiated leader, without a coalition majority, supported on confidence votes by a separatist party who repudiates the Constitution of Canada is hardly what Lascelles was thinking of when he hypothesized the rare circumstances whereby a dissolution might be denied…
If the Liberals and NDP combined had a majority, it might be a runner. They don’t, and it isn’t.
172. And I know some truly wonderful people who are on incapacity benefit - and thank God there are people like that out there. I’m not saying those who legally inherit wealth should be demonised, I’m saying NOBODY who receives money legally should be demonised - not one side of the coin, nor the other. You see? You really didn’t get what I was saying at all. Which is unfortunate, given that we actually appear to agree that the five million people on benefits should be spared the fire-and-brimstone rhetoric we’re seeing in the press at the moment.
173. Is Bogdanor really the undisputed authority, though? As I told you the other night, the Canadian media have been reporting their own home-grown constitutional experts who seem to take precisely the opposite view - ie. because so little time has elapsed since the last election, and because a viable alternative government is waiting in the wings that would command a claer majority on “confidence and supply” issues, the Governor-General would have little choice to refuse a dissolution should Harper seek one following defeat in a confidence vote.
“If the Liberals and NDP combined had a majority, it might be a runner. They don’t, and it isn’t.”
Whichever of us is right, that’s far too strong a statement for such a murky situation. By the way, I would categorically refute your suggestion that the fact a ’separatist party’ is a player in all this changes anything. The Bloc is a legitimate democratic party like any other. If we were talking about a fascist or Marxist-Leninist party you might have a point, but the Bloc are what we would term a constitutional nationalist party - ie. they seek to change the constitutional position by democratic and legal means. They’re like the SDLP - or indeed in some ways like the Liberal Democrats, who also want to transform the constitution of this country by legal and democratic means.
From the Guardian CIF, Face up to the gilt.
“As debt levels soar, a national government may be the only way we can pull through”
And the author of this article, Frank Field!
134. Times need to do some checking, or might be biggest individual donor. I’m fairly sure we get more from the Rowntree Trust.
“A ‘Constitutional Expert’ is a historian who gives his home phone number to journalists” - Matthew D’Ancona
177 - And excluding the State.
Good nigth all.
178. Fair enough - so let’s have a written constitution without these ambiguities, and then we can safely dispense with the likes of Bogdanor. If there was ever on any dispute the matter could be settled by a court, but as things stand if the Queen were to misuse her powers over dissolution or the appointment of the Prime Minister there would be no recourse for anyone.
131: 9% is nothing, Betfair charge 22.5% on net profits now (if you don’t get up to that level with the standard <5% commission, they add a premium charge to top it up).
They tried to charge me £650 last week. For a single week. On top of £200ish regular commission. Fortunately I’d already withdrawn all my funds….
A National Government? Now there´s an interesting thought!
Who might lead it, I wonder. Obviously it could not be Brown, and equally obviously it could not be Cameron. And to be completely fair, it could not be Clegg either.
So some mature figure who commands respect outside his own party. Prsumably for the Tories, that might be Ken Clark, who is presumably still remembered in international circles as a respected Chancellor. The Tories don´t have anybody else, do they?
For the Lib dems, I imiagine it might be Ming, who was highly respected for his contriubtions to foreign affairs. Presumably Vince Cable - also much respected - would have to be the Chancellor of the national Government-
From the labour ranks, there is a distinct lack of candidates. The only one who comes to mind is Frank Field himself. The only possible alternatibe fromlabour is Nick Palmer, wbut he is -known interantiaonally.probably insufficiently well.
Sorry about the errors there - my computer seems to have a mind of its own. I certainly did not press the Submit button.