Blah Blah

To be fair Dave, every new government is a reaction to the last. So yes, the success of Blair was a reaction to Thatcher, just as the election of Corbyn as leader is a reaction to Blair. I still think and have said it many times, that the overton window doesn't and hasn't ever shifted much either way. The main parties still win elections by winning the centre ground on the whole. It's also why we get the parties and government we deserve, for better or worse. I also wouldn't call a comment like "No point in claiming advancement if much of your population has very poor [or no] accommodation or even not enough food." horseshit either. This is the reality of the impact of cuts made by this government, and some people really are suffering in ways I hope you never have to. I think most people rethink (or even thnk for the first time) their stance on politics Otta, during their twenties. It's easy to be idealistic and revolutionary when you are a student (and I've been there too), it's not so easy to be that when you have a family to raise and support. I'm just watching Dispatches on Momentum. It shows what I was saying about indvicuals and their links. But to be fair, the labour party will (and has) expelled anyone who shows support for the AWL. Momentum also has a rule that no person who is not a member of the Labour party can hold a position, however, Jill Mountford has been expelled, but still sits on the steering committee. This is the problem Momentum will have if they are seeking official affiliation to the labour party down the line (which I think they are). Thay will have to clean up their ranks. Some concerning issues around data collection there too.

That's an interesting perspective Otta, because for many of who lived through Thatcher, Blair and New Labour were saviours. That is, until the Iraq War, as you say. Just on Momentum. What do you know in reality about Momentum? I ask that because, as much as the media like to protray Momentum as some hard left top down organisation, it actually isn't. Local Momenuntum groups are self managing - there is no central office mantra in that orgaisation. There is a steering committee, but that's about it. On the whole, Momentum is a local campaigning affair, and most of the people who attend those meetings are people with campaign interests in local or trade union issues, the same issues you and I care about, housing, jobs, etc. Those people also knocked on doors for the Labour party to help get Sadiq elected etc. So there is a lot of nonsense written about Momentum, not based in any kind of reality. The problems seem to be with a few specific local Momentum groups (who are definitely behaving in a militant way) and with one or two specific steering group members, like Sam Tarry - who has a persona that is chilling at times. In other words, finding the hard left, or muppets within that is down to a few specific individuals. So the issue (or rather worry) there would be how close those individuals get to government. I tend to think that without Momentum, they would find another way anyway.

I think the last round of letters was sent two or three weeks ago? We had ours anyway.

Seconded nunun. No reason for not registering for the electoral register, and the council give plenty of oppurtunity to do so before they send someone out to your door.

Crossrail has cost a fortune but undoubtedly will be of huge benefit to London. HS2 will benefit who exactly? More commuters to London.

But there is no evidence of overuse. That is just an assumption by the OP. All of the medications prescribed are for conditions from Asthma to Hayfever. Pretty normal stuff. But they are required permission because they contain trace elements of substances that could fail a drugs test. That's all there is to it.

But where is the evidence of overuse of medicine? The leaked report shows legitimate use of treatments for things like allergies and Asthma etc, permission for which has to be gained in advance of treatment being used. Even athletes have medical conditions that need treatment from time to time. That is clearly very different to misuse of banned substances for performance enhancing purposes. You are making an assumption in your OP that just isn't true.

Electoral registration is important for councils because it determines the level of funding they get. So I can absolutely understand why the council would door knock at unregistered addresses (and they have done this in the past anyway). Sp I would say that if you want the council to provide services, help them to get the maximum central funding they can by registering to vote.

I completely agree with that Lordship, which is why I would argue that governemnt investment in housing for example would be a better use of money than HS2. It's not that investment in rail infrastructure in itself is a poor use of money, it isn't. But HS2 is kind of like putting all the eggs in one basket with only limited return. Plus the belief that state investment is bad and private investment is good is behind much of government policy.

It's a non story imo. Bitter Russians who DID cheat with performance enhancing drugs show how low they really are by trying to discredit athletes who actually win medals because they are better than everyone else shocker. Common sense tells anyone that all of the named athletes have given drugs tests in pretty much every competition they compete in and athletes can be tested at ANY time during training periods too. In fact, isn't that why the Russians got caught?

Definitely sounds targetted, but could also be mistaken identity too. Ditto Robert's post. Even an innocuous road 'rage' incident could be the motive. It doesn't take much these days for some people to behave bad sadly.

No I wouldn't for the reason Lordship gave you. "UK Government investment as a % of GDP 2015 14% - an all time low." That is the whole point of the discussion. It IS at an all time low.

No it is not correct LM. Investment dropped after the crash as you would expect (it did all over the world). It recovered a little (by ?10 billion annually) by 2010, and in fact, most of the recovery after the crash had come by 2010. Ths is why it is a myth that Osborne is responsible for all the recovery since 2008. Practically nothing has moved forward under his policies. Fluctuation by just ?10 billion over six years is a woefull performance by any comparison. All the charts are out there for you to look at. Even after the recessions of the 80s and 90s, there was no period of flatlining like this. And as I said, Germany, USA and France have all recovered on investment markedly. We haven't. Lordship has seconded everything I have said on that and gone further and explained how Osborne has messed it up (by degearing investment). ****crossed posts with Lordship, but agree of course.

And that is the view of most same economists Lordship, as you say. This area of economics is where Osborne has been very weak and I struggle to find another chancellor in history who had less understanding of or less wllingness to act (as I'm not sure of which Osborne is guilty of) in this area. Investment is a key engine of the economy we work under. It has to be a vital measure of those who manage it for us.

The ONS publish detailed figures on investment and breakdowns. It fell to ?60 billion annually after the 2008 crash and hasn't got above ?80 billion since. That gap of ?20 billion over 8 years represents a flatlining of investment. You would have to go back to 1990 to see investment flatlining, and even then it only did so for three years. Germany, France and the US have all recovered better than us on investment growth, Germany especially well (which puts to bed any idea that growth figures fuelled mainly by household consumption, really means any kind of tangible growth). I will find a chart to demonstrate that.

I don't hate Tories Dave. I just hate policies that penalise the poorest and most vulnerable. It's a different thing. But it is daft to pretend to know what 76.5% of the electorate think, and to assume how far within that hatred of the Tories goes. You have no way of knowing if it is a minority of that or not.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think many people who hate the Tories don't > realise that they are in a minority. Would that be the 76.5% of the electorate who didn't vote for them then 😁 Seems a daft thing to say Dave.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I wasn't being sarcastic. I'm not sure why you > think I was. > > You saying there was no growth, when there was > clearly growth is just factually incorrect. > Growth in 2014 was 2.9% and in 2015 was 2.2%. > That compares favourably to the global average and > is high relative to other developed countries. > > My view that the record pre-Brexit wasn't bad is > my view and I have clearly stated that I think the > referendum was a mistake and will ultimately be > Cameron's legacy. What exactly is your problem > with me talking about his record pre and post > Brexit? > > If you can't take people disagreeing with you > without becoming petulant I'm not sure what you > enjoy about debating issues on the forum... And now you resort to accusation of petulance. I think it's you unable to allow other perspectives here. By the way I never mentioned growth. I referred to investment being at an all time low. I prefer facts that relate to production, not figures that relate to the value of things ( things like rising house prices) as growth figures do.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Making cuts isn't easy politically or practically. > Also, the economy has grown-- actually up until > Brexit the economy with the cuts was the fastest > growing in Europe and unemployment was also low > which was finally starting to feed through to real > wages. Again, I have my criticisms of Cameron and > Osborne (some scathing) but they are balanced by > at least being able to acknowledge the facts of > what they have done. 'Up until Brexit' (which they have led us to btw) - and then let's try comparing the UK to any number of nations instead of equally stagnant EU countries. I'll spare you the same sarcasm directed at me by your selection of 'facts'.

Making cuts is easy LM. Any accountant can do that. The real measure of achievement is growth, investment, improved social mobility, improved living standards. Osborne achieved not a bit of any of that. He treated the nations economy like that of a household, when the two are not the same. He is one of the most unimaginative chancellors of all time.

Cameron and Osborne protected those that vote for them, such as the over 65s, and ringfenced so many areas (to get votes) that welfare was only one of three areas open to them for cuts. At the same time, investment and growth have fallen to all time lows, (and quantative easing is no replacement for public investment). Osborne achieved practically nothing in 6 years of government. And yes, our welfare state, NHS etc were born into an era of higher income tax, and not just by one or two pence either. It seems ridiculous that income tax remains some holy grail that can not be touched.

That is one of many ironic acts of Cameron. Creating tons of peers while seeking to cut the number of MPs - to erm cut costs. Would have nothing to do with increasing the power of the Tories in either house then? Agree with all the comments above.

Cameron was the end product of a party in opposition for a long time. They'd tried everything else. He was without doubt politically naive and it got him in the end. But he won't suffer in the way everyone else does if they quit their job. It was on his watch that welfare reform means that leaving a job denies benefits for six months, irregardless for the reasons for quitting. If only we could all leave our jobs when we don't like the new boss. I had no respect for him as PM and I have even less for him now. There is nothing 'nice' about Cameron. Self serving, arrogant, and as ruthless as they come.

She is going to have problems getting anything through the Lords that wasn't in the election manifesto. The Lords can only hold up a manifesto pledge for a year, but everything else, they can regect outright, if they wanted to. Backbenchers too, will never rebel against a manifesto pledge, but they may do so for anythng else and that majority is so slim. Worth bearing in mind too that we only know about these plans because of a sharp eyed photographer - otherwise we'd still be none the wiser. Party conference should be interesting!

I had no idea. Always assumed it was a free call because it is to the Police.