[Archived] Extra ! Extra ! Read All About It !

[RibbleValleyRover]

Its more accurate to say Labour has lost a big base of support in Scotland to the SNP. They've never looked to power sharing with the SNP.

It would be possible for Labour to win control of government without Scotland, but would currently require a big swing against the Tories.

Al rather spuriously keeps on claiming Labour can never win a majority due to the rise of the SNP. However if you take Scotland out of the equation Blair would have still had an overall majority in 1997, 2002 and 2005.

More like a massive swing, Labour would need something like a 13% swing in England to them last I read. With proposed boundary changes it's going to be even harder to get that sort of swing.

If they can't achieve that (which is possible as Labour aren't doing well at all in parts of the midlands or the south of England- except London of course) then their best bet is to become the largest party and will have to go into coalition. Unless we see some miracle Lib Dem revival that will probably have to be a deal done with the SNP, which a lot of voters rejected the prospect of last GE.

[joey_big_nose]

More like a massive swing, Labour would need something like a 13% swing in England to them last I read. With proposed boundary changes it's going to be even harder to get that sort of swing.

If they can't achieve that (which is possible as Labour aren't doing well at all in parts of the midlands or the south of England- except London of course) then their best bet is to become the largest party and will have to go into coalition. Unless we see some miracle Lib Dem revival that will probably have to be a deal done with the SNP, which a lot of voters rejected the prospect of last GE.

In real terms that means 6.5% of the population choosing Labour over conservative. A big ask but it has happened many times before.

I dont really think there has been any real paradigm shift to the left or right since Blair defined the "third way" in the nineties. Austerity has been used to chip away at the Welfare State but with littlle public support, only legitimised under the guise of "balancing the books". If the economy strengthens people will expect the same levels of investment as seen in the Blair years.

The swing electorate will vote for whoever has a solid centerist social democratic message and are trusted with the economy. If you resurrected a version of New Labour without the appalling errors in Iraq it would be very electable now imo.

The way the global economy is headed more radical platforms like Corbyn's and Farage's could be viable in 10-15 years but we are a way from that at the minute imo. The centre still dominates.

[Al]

In real terms that means 6.5% of the population choosing Labour over conservative. A big ask but it has happened many times before.

I dont really think there has been any real paradigm shift to the left or right since Blair defined the "third way" in the nineties. Austerity has been used to chip away at the Welfare State but with littlle public support, only legitimised under the guise of "balancing the books". If the economy strengthens people will expect the same levels of investment as seen in the Blair years.

The swing electorate will vote for whoever has a solid centerist social democratic message and are trusted with the economy. If you resurrected a version of New Labour without the appalling errors in Iraq it would be very electable now imo.

The way the global economy is headed more radical platforms like Corbyn's and Farage's could be viable in 10-15 years but we are a way from that at the minute imo. The centre still dominates.

Be honest that is unlikely, probably never, likely to happen and the very best they can expect is a coalition. An SNP/Labour coalition is absolutely abhorrent as is any coalition involving SNP.

SNP would effectively be able to push through more or less anything they wanted as a condition of their support. Can you imagine what that woman would ask for?

[oldjamfan1]

Be honest that is unlikely, probably never, likely to happen and the very best they can expect is a coalition. An SNP/Labour coalition is absolutely abhorrent as is any coalition involving SNP.

SNP would effectively be able to push through more or less anything they wanted as a condition of their support. Can you imagine what that woman would ask for?

Muirfield membership?

[ABBEY]

haahaahahaha

[Biddy]

As much as the decision by Muirfield members is absolutely barmy, it is still a private club able to make it's own rules. It's like me demanding to be let into an all female gym.

[joey_big_nose]

Be honest that is unlikely, probably never, likely to happen and the very best they can expect is a coalition. An SNP/Labour coalition is absolutely abhorrent as is any coalition involving SNP.

SNP would effectively be able to push through more or less anything they wanted as a condition of their support. Can you imagine what that woman would ask for?

I am bemused by why you are so convinced that the Tories can never be beaten for eternity? There is no factual evidence to support the assertion. As I have said Labour have won enough seats in England and Wales to form an absolute majority without even taking Scotland into consideration three times in the last 20 years. What has happened in the past can happen again.

All that needs to happen is Labour to find the broad appeal that they had under Blair. Not going to happen under Corbyn but the cycle will continue and they will swing back to the centre again sure enough.

[RibbleValleyRover]

I am bemused by why you are so convinced that the Tories can never be beaten for eternity? There is no factual evidence to support the assertion. As I have said Labour have won enough seats in England and Wales to form an absolute majority without even taking Scotland into consideration three times in the last 20 years. What has happened in the past can happen again.

All that needs to happen is Labour to find the broad appeal that they had under Blair. Not going to happen under Corbyn but the cycle will continue and they will swing back to the centre again sure enough.

I have no doubt Labour will get back in again at some point, it's just not going to happen under Corbyn and unlikely to happen in 2020.

[joey_big_nose]

I have no doubt Labour will get back in again at some point, it's just not going to happen under Corbyn and unlikely to happen in 2020.

I agree completely. After the Conservatives were thrashed in 1997 it took them 13 years to form themselves into an electable position from which Cameron ultimately won a coalition in 2010. Those 13 years were characterised by a lurch out to the Right to appease the grassroots for ten or so years then a steady reformation to the middle.

The same pattern can be seen in the Labour party after the routing they received from Thatcher in 1979. Through the eighties Labour was very Left and only moderated from the early 90s onwards.

The trend suggests it will take at least until 2025 for Labour to be electable again. Personally I hope it happens much sooner, but currently it does not look likely. It seems another loss in 2020 would be required for the leftst elements to consider compromising and coming back to the centre.

An interesting wild card is that the effects of wage stagnation, globalisation and immigration are all being felt ever more intensely fueling the rise of fringe politics (eg. Farage, Corbyn, Trump, Sanders). It is hard to predict when exactly this will critically impact the vote for the main parties, but in the absence of solid data I am inclined to put my money on the trends above.

What I do not doubt is that at some point in my lifetime we will enter a period of radical politics. Economic developments will force it to happen. There currently is no effective mechanism to distribute wealth creation away from the ultra rich to normal citizens, while at the same time the pace at which the wealth accumulates for elites accelerates enormously. Wages for the many will continue to stagnate fueling discontent on the left and right . Dis-satisfaction with the system will eventually hit a tipping point, and radical platforms will seem more and more attractive to the most moderate of voters.

This can already be seen with UKIP and leftist Corbyn supporters on the fringes, but this will at some point cross over into the mainstream. It's just really a question of when.

[JBiz]

As much as the decision by Muirfield members is absolutely barmy, it is still a private club able to make it's own rules. It's like me demanding to be let into an all female gym.

It is.... But also, it's not!

I see certain differences between fitness/gyms and a golf club. There will be options within gyms for different gender members, a wide amount of choice for anyone - it's also got to take into account marketing to specific groups - ones which may avoid a gym without the confidence to train amongst others not comfortable with!

Theres only one Muirfield. This is a specific rule for a golf club which makes no effort to cater in the slightest and makes archaic comments based on stature or the intelligence, ability, endurance of female golfers!

There will always be arguments about ability in such ways, but I find it completely ridiculous to think that they cannot even adopt a strategy similar to Troon, have a seperate club with a separate rota at the very least.

[Al]

I agree completely. After the Conservatives were thrashed in 1997 it took them 13 years to form themselves into an electable position from which Cameron ultimately won a coalition in 2010. Those 13 years were characterised by a lurch out to the Right to appease the grassroots for ten or so years then a steady reformation to the middle.

The same pattern can be seen in the Labour party after the routing they received from Thatcher in 1979. Through the eighties Labour was very Left and only moderated from the early 90s onwards.

The trend suggests it will take at least until 2025 for Labour to be electable again. Personally I hope it happens much sooner, but currently it does not look likely. It seems another loss in 2020 would be required for the leftst elements to consider compromising and coming back to the centre.

An interesting wild card is that the effects of wage stagnation, globalisation and immigration are all being felt ever more intensely fueling the rise of fringe politics (eg. Farage, Corbyn, Trump, Sanders). It is hard to predict when exactly this will critically impact the vote for the main parties, but in the absence of solid data I am inclined to put my money on the trends above.

What I do not doubt is that at some point in my lifetime we will enter a period of radical politics. Economic developments will force it to happen. There currently is no effective mechanism to distribute wealth creation away from the ultra rich to normal citizens, while at the same time the pace at which the wealth accumulates for elites accelerates enormously. Wages for the many will continue to stagnate fueling discontent on the left and right . Dis-satisfaction with the system will eventually hit a tipping point, and radical platforms will seem more and more attractive to the most moderate of voters.

This can already be seen with UKIP and leftist Corbyn supporters on the fringes, but this will at some point cross over into the mainstream. It's just really a question of when.

Plenty of conjecture stated as fact there but OK never say never I suppose.

[joey_big_nose]

Plenty of conjecture stated as fact there but OK never say never I suppose.

Apart from the bit about how long it took the parties to recover from defeat and get elected it is all conjecture and opinion yes. The vast majority of this messageboard, including your own posts, is.

[Paul]

Not news but worthy of mention. Our local Spar on Eaves Lane is selling milk from Denham Springs Farm at Brindle. Top marks.

[Al]

Apart from the bit about how long it took the parties to recover from defeat and get elected it is all conjecture and opinion yes. The vast majority of this messageboard, including your own posts, is.

I agree but most of us do not state our theories as fact.

[joey_big_nose]

I agree but most of us do not state our theories as fact.

Sorry to be tedious for everyone but my post was quite clear that it was largely my opinion rather than stating facts. See the bold underlined bits below which are clear qualifiers of opinion.

"I agree completely. After the Conservatives were thrashed in 1997 it took them 13 years to form themselves into an electable position from which Cameron ultimately won a coalition in 2010. Those 13 years were characterised by a lurch out to the Right to appease the grassroots for ten or so years then a steady reformation to the middle.

The same pattern can be seen in the Labour party after the routing they received from Thatcher in 1979. Through the eighties Labour was very Left and only moderated from the early 90s onwards.

The trend suggests it will take at least until 2025 for Labour to be electable again. Personally I hope it happens much sooner, but currently it does not look likely. It seems another loss in 2020 would be required for the leftst elements to consider compromising and coming back to the centre.

An interesting wild card is that the effects of wage stagnation, globalisation and immigration are all being felt ever more intensely fueling the rise of fringe politics (eg. Farage, Corbyn, Trump, Sanders). It is hard to predict when exactly this will critically impact the vote for the main parties, but in the absence of solid data I am inclined to put my money on the trends above.

What I do not doubt is that at some point in my lifetime we will enter a period of radical politics. Economic developments will force it to happen. There currently is no effective mechanism to distribute wealth creation away from the ultra rich to normal citizens, while at the same time the pace at which the wealth accumulates for elites accelerates enormously. Wages for the many will continue to stagnate fueling discontent on the left and right . Dis-satisfaction with the system will eventually hit a tipping point, and radical platforms will seem more and more attractive to the most moderate of voters.

This can already be seen with UKIP and leftist Corbyn supporters on the fringes, but this will at some point cross over into the mainstream. It's just really a question of when.

"

When I said "There currently is no effective mechanism to distribute wealth creation away from the ultra rich to normal citizens, while at the same time the pace at which the wealth accumulates for elites accelerates enormously." - this is a stonewall fact. The ultra rich are becoming wealthier at an increasing pace while other incomes stagnate. This has intensified since the 2008 financial crisis, but has been noticeable since the Reagan-Thatcher era.

When I said the following it is clearly a forecast, so logically can only be considered an opinion, not regarded as fact. I'd be willing to place good money on it though. "Wages for the many will continue to stagnate fueling discontent on the left and right . Dis-satisfaction with the system will eventually hit a tipping point, and radical platforms will seem more and more attractive to the most moderate of voters. This can already be seen with UKIP and leftist Corbyn supporters on the fringes, but this will at some point cross over into the mainstream. It's just really a question of when."

[jim mk2]

You didn't have to go to those lengths JBN - it was clear to anyone with a modicum of intelligence what you meant.

[Al]

Sorry to be tedious for everyone but my post was quite clear that it was largely my opinion rather than stating facts. See the bold underlined bits below which are clear qualifiers of opinion.

"I agree completely. After the Conservatives were thrashed in 1997 it took them 13 years to form themselves into an electable position from which Cameron ultimately won a coalition in 2010. Those 13 years were characterised by a lurch out to the Right to appease the grassroots for ten or so years then a steady reformation to the middle.

The same pattern can be seen in the Labour party after the routing they received from Thatcher in 1979. Through the eighties Labour was very Left and only moderated from the early 90s onwards.

The trend suggests it will take at least until 2025 for Labour to be electable again. Personally I hope it happens much sooner, but currently it does not look likely. It seems another loss in 2020 would be required for the leftst elements to consider compromising and coming back to the centre.

An interesting wild card is that the effects of wage stagnation, globalisation and immigration are all being felt ever more intensely fueling the rise of fringe politics (eg. Farage, Corbyn, Trump, Sanders). It is hard to predict when exactly this will critically impact the vote for the main parties, but in the absence of solid data I am inclined to put my money on the trends above.

What I do not doubt is that at some point in my lifetime we will enter a period of radical politics. Economic developments will force it to happen. There currently is no effective mechanism to distribute wealth creation away from the ultra rich to normal citizens, while at the same time the pace at which the wealth accumulates for elites accelerates enormously. Wages for the many will continue to stagnate fueling discontent on the left and right . Dis-satisfaction with the system will eventually hit a tipping point, and radical platforms will seem more and more attractive to the most moderate of voters.

This can already be seen with UKIP and leftist Corbyn supporters on the fringes, but this will at some point cross over into the mainstream. It's just really a question of when.

"

When I said "There currently is no effective mechanism to distribute wealth creation away from the ultra rich to normal citizens, while at the same time the pace at which the wealth accumulates for elites accelerates enormously." - this is a stonewall fact. The ultra rich are becoming wealthier at an increasing pace while other incomes stagnate. This has intensified since the 2008 financial crisis, but has been noticeable since the Reagan-Thatcher era.

When I said the following it is clearly a forecast, so logically can only be considered an opinion, not regarded as fact. I'd be willing to place good money on it though. "Wages for the many will continue to stagnate fueling discontent on the left and right . Dis-satisfaction with the system will eventually hit a tipping point, and radical platforms will seem more and more attractive to the most moderate of voters. This can already be seen with UKIP and leftist Corbyn supporters on the fringes, but this will at some point cross over into the mainstream. It's just really a question of when."

Maybe not to you but "will" indicates certainty or "fact", but if you say so it's just opinion.

[Audax]

Driver Andrew Nay jailed for paralysing sisters in 'road rage' crash

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-36396341

4 and a half years jail time; horrific incident.

[Stuart]

Interesting read. Thoughts, Jim?

http://gu.com/p/4jy5p?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

[adopted scouser]

Why did they have to kill the Gorilla ? Just a knockout dart, collect the kid, Gorilla lives.

[Audax]

AS: Exactly, the poor gorilla had to pay with his life. It's a tough call.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36407643

And this, I did not know about: http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-ohio-gorilla-idUKKCN0YK0P2?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

But there was a happy ending when a 3-year-old boy fell into the gorilla den at Brookfield Zoo near Chicago in 1996, and an 8-year-old female gorilla named Binti Jua picked up the unconscious boy and protected him from the other primates. The act of kindness won Binti Jua national attention as Newsweek's Hero of the Year and one of People's most intriguing people.

[donnermeat]

You don't know how fast the tranquiliser will act and what damage the Gorilla may do to the child in that time.

[Audax]

To me, they could have tried to distract the gorilla, offer him food, call him. I don't know all that went on. Just from the stories we have. A judgement is made, the child's life is worth more.

[Stuart]

The people who had to shoot it will feel the pain more than anyone. I don't expect the decision was taken lightly. The parents should be charged with neglect and ultimately causing the death of an animal though.

[jim mk2]

You don't know how fast the tranquiliser will act and what damage the Gorilla may do to the child in that time.

Quite. One swipe of the gorilla's hand and the child would have been dead. It's unfortunate but the zoo had no alternative but to kill.