Posh Boys in trouble?

[Lateralthinking1]

Not sure what evidence you have for that, Lat. Experience of a university city suggests that they are hardly worth canvassing even though political parties all spend time in halls of residence, participating in discussions, attending meetings &.

This article says that in the last election it was hardly worth their time.

Conclusion: "Students who really care about future tuition fees should be voters before they are protesters—if all of them had voted the way they said they would last time, maybe they’d have got their way on fees after all."

So that's what happened to the LibDems' 29% support that wasn't...

Yes perhaps although by students I suppose I was including their parents too. And J Hari - I won't comment on his recent difficulties - does appear mainly to be lumping in together everyone of a particular age group.

On manifestos, I was flying a kite. I don't think it is impossible to do in broad brush terms but think you are right that they would then boil down to nothing. We could certainly require any promises in local elections to be in line with local powers. This didn't happen in London - permit smoking in pubs, lower beer tax (UKIP), cap salaries at £300,000 pa (Green) etc.

[Lateralthinking1]

Looking at the Boris and Dave show today, it didn't seem like "posh boys" were in trouble. By contrast, I am struck by the reporting today of Ken Livingstone's speech. While he announced that he wouldn't be standing again for election, that reporting, and indeed his own demeanour, have had the tone of an obituary. In a sense this has been the tale of the older man losing to the younger man. That is often life. It is certainly political life. He was not himself known for his sentiment twenty and more years ago. It is also the tale of one big character (ego?) being usurped by another. More significantly, it is a tale of how "the system" has changed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17968021

It is difficult to see how a white working class socialist Londoner of little education could ever now be depicted as such a radical threat. Much like punk rock, leftism of that kind has for decades been easily accommodated. It is seen as a dinosaur or else mockingly sidelined. Think George Galloway. Of course, if there was someone charismatic of a not dissimilar background from Ken's who represented the BNP, we would see all of the earlier kinds of demonising taking place. But the latter, if it ever happened, would not generally be considered cool. Back in the day, someone like Ken could be seen as cool, albeit bizarrely, by the young.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW1SIeI33sI

I think in some ways what we are witnessing here is the absolute end of the culture around post-1960s youth movements. I am not sure where that leaves those who are young people now but the situation doesn't look good. In more political terms, there has long been an apparent death of socialism which is undoubtedly sad, particularly at a time of recession. It hardly convinces though that those who are struggling financially would have had protection from a Mayor Ken in City Hall. His tax affairs are one thing. A symptom of growing arrogance. But this moment is also a chance to reassess what was really taking place in the early eighties.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8s8faPBbGM

The promotion of equality for ethnic groups and gay people, the reaching out to Sinn Fein. Those were the sorts of "leftist" issues where the battle lines were drawn. And yet ironically when pursued later by the Conservatives they were AOK. As for the economics, they were thrown into the mix by both sides as if they were inextricable from the other policies. In reality, was either side committed to economic fairness? The Tories kept the council tax down and raised the bus fares. Ken did the opposite. All involved became rich. And here we all are in a dire international system of finance, whatever the arguments that took place.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlD8WBMAcBc&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL33A0164826C1290B

[french frank]

But the article doesn't note that. It quotes a Clegg aide noting it:

A Clegg aide told Wilson: "The thing that changed minds was George Osborne saying that he had seen the figures and it was quite horrific in real life as opposed to spin life."

Well, there was the note of traditional advice from the outgoing Chief Secretary to his successor: "Dear chief secretary, I'm afraid to tell you there's no money left." . Can you imagine!!!

The notion that new, horrific, economic information became available once they had entered the offices, toppled the statues, pulled out the secret files is absolute rubbish. Unequivocal nonsense. Ludicrous beyond belief. It's the coalition's Foundation Myth, of course, but that doesn't make it real.

Yet it does seem to be the story successive parties tell, that until they open the books they can't be sure whether their manifesto plans will add up.

I still don't see why the LibDems are hard done by, or Clegg is unfortunate, though. As you say, it's politics as they are practised in the mainstream so if they go wrong on a party and they come off badly, so ...?

I suppose my only thought on that is that I'm not sure why this should damn the LibDems for all eternity. Au contraire, as a naturally left of centre party (and the Orange Book was a mixed bag which, if I remember, included Huhne's defence of the NHS(?), was never an offically adopted document, even if it set off alarm bells within the party) our country needs them - or will do .

For me there was only one negotiating point that mattered: getting PR, and then another election as soon as possible. Water under the bridge. Clegg blew it just as Steel had.

[french frank]

And J Hari - I won't comment on his recent difficulties - does appear mainly to be lumping in together everyone of a particular age group.

That wouldn't matter: the figures show the turnout in that age group didn't 'spike', indicating that there was no abnormal rise as there would have been if students had, unusually, turned out in force.

[John Skelton]

Well, there was the note of traditional advice from the outgoing Chief Secretary to his successor: "Dear chief secretary, I'm afraid to tell you there's no money left." . Can you imagine!!!

Yet it does seem to be the story successive parties tell, that until they open the books they can't be sure whether their manifesto plans will add up.

The information is available - it can't not be available (it's not like weapons of mass destruction and dossiers): the information isn't only of importance to domestic politicians. The situation with Greece might contradict that, of course, but I've not seen any specifics to back up the we opened the books and narrative. If that had been the case then I imagine the markets and credit rating agencies would have reacted accordingly. Yes, they all say it.

I suppose my only thought on that is that I'm not sure why this should damn the LibDems for all eternity. Au contraire, as a naturally left of centre party (and the Orange Book was a mixed bag which, if I remember, included Huhne's defence of the NHS(?), was never an offically adopted document, even if it set off alarm bells within the party) our country needs them - or will do .

All eternity is probably longer than the present system will last? No idea if it should or shouldn't damn them; I suppose my feeling is that if it does it does and it seems a bit beside the point to complain about it being unfair.

(Does this http://www.beveridgegroup.org.uk/archive/ help on Huhne and the NHS?)

[Lateralthinking1]

For me there was only one negotiating point that mattered: getting PR, and then another election as soon as possible. Water under the bridge. Clegg blew it just as Steel had.

That is why we must now introduce a £20 charge on individuals before each election to be refunded if someone votes. PR won't now happen for years and arguably a 90% FPTP turnout would be a more proportional system than PR with 30-70% voting.

The revenue generated from those who decided not to vote would be used to fund political parties. That funding would of course be allocated on the basis of the number of candidates fielded, not seats won. A level playing field.

If individuals knew that not turning up to vote would help to fund political parties, it is conceivable that voting could be at 95% plus. In that event, Plan B - a national lottery for political party funding with prizes. Allocation the same.

How do we get these sensible measures in place please?

[french frank]

The information is available - it can't not be available (it's not like weapons of mass destruction and dossiers): the information isn't only of importance to domestic politicians. The situation with Greece might contradict that, of course, but I've not seen any specifics to back up the we opened the books and narrative. If that had been the case then I imagine the markets and credit rating agencies would have reacted accordingly. Yes, they all say it.

Reading between the lines of this suggests all was not transparent, and that the Tories came in with a pledge to change that (on which they/the coalition is apparently running out of steam). The quote from Blair on the FOI is not one I'd read before ...

All eternity is probably longer than the present system will last? No idea if it should or shouldn't damn them; I suppose my feeling is that if it does it does and it seems a bit beside the point to complain about it being unfair.

I wouldn't complain; in the end I take the view Vox populi, vox dei. Not getting any of the benefits available to politicians, I probably won't be affected whoever is in power (I fall through every available net!)

(Does this http://www.beveridgegroup.org.uk/archive/ help on Huhne and the NHS?)

Thank you, yes, that was the essay I was thinking of. A response to Laws whose essay is the most damning. Cable on social justice is not standard' Orange Book', and there are sympathetic essays on education for prisoners and pensions. But Laws was the focus, which is why his appointment was a bad mistake. Not that things would be any different now

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

interesting if snide perspectives on Cameron in the Graun today ...Rawnsley on headless chickens braying for a tough right wing stance [don't you just love a good mixed metaphor]

and Nick Cohen on why the posh boys might really be in trouble this week and more even in the Indie

in conversations with friends in the real world as opposed to this one the thought keeps reappearing that what we need is a party that is a lot better than the Labour Party and we do not have one nor is the current labour Party at all capable of becoming what is needed ....the Lib dems are going to suffer the fate of the Liberals ... decades of insignificance ... the council election results are good but not enough for Labour [less than 40% share for one thing] we may be about to witness in the next few years the greatest tectonic split in the RIGHT ever known and we are possessed of ED M and B to take it on .... life is cruel and the gods play with us ...

ps i recall that Clegg et al referenced the briefing by Mervyn King and Sir Gus M as quite definitive in establishing in Lib Dem minds at least that the country faced a very real and devastating crisis ... i do not think we need concern ourselves with creation mythology there will be at least fifteen books by historians and participants and the debate may go on for years ... the point is we are here and now with two priorities, getting out alive and not falling prey again .... no one convinces me that they have the policies or the politics to realise either of those two modest aims

[teamsaint]

interesting if snide perspectives on Cameron in the Graun today ...Rawnsley on headless chickens braying for a tough right wing stance [don't you just love a good mixed metaphor]

and Nick Cohen on why the posh boys might really be in trouble this week and more even in the Indie



in conversations with friends in the real world as opposed to this one the thought keeps reappearing that what we need is a party that is a lot better than the Labour Party and we do not have one nor is the current labour Party at all capable of becoming what is needed ....the Lib dems are going to suffer the fate of the Liberals ... decades of insignificance ... the council election results are good but not enough for Labour [less than 40% share for one thing] we may be about to witness in the next few years the greatest tectonic split in the RIGHT ever known and we are possessed of ED M and B to take it on .... life is cruel and the gods play with us ...

Well who knows.......perhaps somehow Labour might decide to become a political party again.
They could decide to get out of the banks pockets, and implement policies that most people, (the bottom 80% or so) can agree with.
An NHS.
Policies to promote youth employment.
Properly costed retirement ages.(Not unsubstantiated lies about what HAS to happen).
Properly funded public transport.
Policies for economic growth, not to protect the interests of the city.
Regeneration of Town Centres.(including converting excess business premises to housing).


And people might vote for them.

[amateur51]

I think probably everyone should complete a course in politics. It's like people living in a foreign country not bothering to learn the language.

Don't they teach this sort of thing in 'citizenship' at schools?

Oh of course! It's the fault of the stupid voters!

God, it's tough being a politician. It's a tribute to their basic decency and altruism that they put up with us

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

well four years as a school governor had me all in favour of electing a new people .....

And people might vote for them.

well they just did but not enough people voted and not enough who voted voted for them ... [actually 'them' can be any major party, but let's say Labour]

[amateur51]

I think we have to remember that Ken's GLC was so popular in London in the early 80s that Thatcher had to abolish his power base and then launch an attack on one of his primary identifiers through section 28.

"The promotion of equality for ethnic groups and gay people, the reaching out to Sinn Fein. Those were the sorts of "leftist" issues where the battle lines were drawn. And yet ironically when pursued later by the Conservatives they were AOK."

Well that was in part because Ken got re-elected, not once but twice and so demonstrated that being seen as 'prgressive on race and sexuality issues didn't lose you votes on balance. The Tories only came around to it after 30 years however.

He was the first white mainstream politician to be 'cool' about people from Black, Asian and minority ethnic communites such as Irish people, lesbians and gay men and disabled people. It was part of his 'brand' and it didn't stop after the speeches - he was as good as his word, better than most mainstream politicians at least. He's still remembered with huge fondness here in Brent by those for whom he fought as a councillor, an MP and as Mayor. the sad thing for Ken is that they are a dwindling minority because like him they've got older and fewer.

I'll miss him and seriously hope that he does stay around to be involved at least in political punditry. We need someone with his experience of being a winner against all that the establishment (public and private) can throw at you.

Cheers Ken!

[amateur51]

Well, there was the note of traditional advice from the outgoing Chief Secretary to his successor: "Dear chief secretary, I'm afraid to tell you there's no money left." . Can you imagine!!!

The scrambled note of a desparate man I'd say.

What if he'd taken a little more time to write ..."Dear chief secretary, After bailing out the banks and the country's foreign adventures, I'm afraid to tell you there's no money left." ?

More truthful and less dramatic surely

[amateur51]

Reading between the lines of this suggests all was not transparent,

Having seen what 'transparency' means to mainstream British politicians perhaps we could change the demand to 'clarity', i.e., means and likely outcomes spelled out

[amateur51]

Well who knows.......perhaps somehow Labour might decide to become a political party again.
They could decide to get out of the banks pockets, and implement policies that most people, (the bottom 80% or so) can agree with.
An NHS.
Policies to promote youth employment.
Properly costed retirement ages.(Not unsubstantiated lies about what HAS to happen).
Properly funded public transport.
Policies for economic growth, not to protect the interests of the city.
Regeneration of Town Centres.(including converting excess business premises to housing).


And people might vote for them.

Could I put in a bid for the re-invention of council housing please and a regulated private housing market. We have got to get away from the madness that is huge individual investment in buying your own home as the only possible/desirable option

Aye theng yew