Could it be?

A large dollop of wishful thinking but could the tide just be on the turn .....
If the Daily Mail are chucking this out?........
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1230109/MELANIE-PHILLIPS-Cynicism-cheap-stunts-voters-dont-trust-Tories.html

Some spot on analysis from the Standard

Hey it doesn't even cost any money now does it? (how would I know? I live in the South West, the zeitgeist capital of noughties low carbon free-thinking). However I thought this piece from the Standard was pretty coherent: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23767702-power-turns-to-pity-as-brown-gets-it-all-wrong.do
Of course, it's tactical retreat stuff - Labour will lose the next election - but it doesn't have to be the massacre circa 1997 for the Tories. Labour have (some) stuff to be proud of, need recharging and can come back with something better in four years. The best us left-leaning folk can hope for, I guess (although whether the Labour party are "left-leaning" anymore is another debate in itself).

The banks

From my mate Andy...

Some interesting items from yesterday - none of it cheerful.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/nov/02/globalisation-financial-markets-reforms

1) Option one is the Schumpeterian one: this is an era of creative destruction, so we may as well grin and bear it. The problem of the financial system is that the market has not been allowed to function properly: badly run banks need to be allowed to fail so that good banks can thrive (not very Keynesian, ie the markets are incapable of self-correcting).

2) The second option is business as usual, which, predictably enough, is the one favoured by the City and Wall Street. Given the size of their welfare cheques from the taxpayer, big finance can hardly demur at the prospect of tougher regulation, but it is lobbying hard against more radical change. There is plenty of talk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater and killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
The Conservatives are in this camp, not just because David Cameron bizarrely thinks the crisis was caused by too much government rather than too little but because Boris Johnson is actively lobbying on behalf of City hedge funds and private equity firms to block tougher European regulation.

3) Option three is business as usual plus extras. This recognises that there has been a systemic problem in the financial sector but sees the answer as tighter supervision, better surveillance of the global economy from the International Monetary Fund, changes to capital adequacy rules to ensure that banks can't lend as freely during booms, and new incentive structures for financiers that will favour long-term growth of the business over short-term speculative activity. This, no prizes for guessing, is where you would find Gordon Brown and Barack Obama.

But there is a motley band of discontents for whom business as usual, in whatever form, means that another crisis will erupt before too long. They argue that the exiguous nature of current reform proposals is explained by the institutional capture of governments by the investment banks, the world's most powerful lobbying groups.

4) Finally, there are those who believe that any conventional reform is doomed because any growth-based model is at odds with the viability of the planet. (My favourite)

Where is the political centre of gravity now? Somewhere between option two and three. That represents not just a missed opportunity but a profound lack of judgment.
The seeds of the next crisis are being sown. Right here, right now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/03/banking-rbs-lloyds-darling
What this is really about is preserving the government's exit strategy. By taking Lloyds out of the APS, it can avoid more swingeing punishment from Brussels and keep the government's stake below 50%. By keeping RBS in the APS, it can maintain the appearance that this bank is still in the private sector and is not entirely a bottomless pit.

But is this really the only option?
Had the government had the courage to bite the bullet last autumn and admit that both banks were, in effect, fully nationalised, it is possible to envisage an alternative scenario.
The improved trading conditions would have fed directly through to increased value for taxpayers (rather than leaking out to other investors).
We would have avoided hundreds of millions in fees to the advisers who dreamt up all these convoluted schemes.
And it would still have been possible to consider privatisating them both (ideally in smaller bits),l when conditions improved.

Unfortunately, this would have flown in the face of Treasury orthodoxy that insists the stockmarket is the only judge of long-term value and reliable source of capital.
Neither seem to be case at the moment, and instead, the taxpayer is paying a high price to preserve the fiction that British banking is back on its own two feet.

BNP

No doubt everyone is aware of the recent controversy regarding the BNP on Question Time. The reason they were on the program is because they gained over one million votes at the recent European election. In my opinion most people in the UK are neither fascist nor racist. So the question really is, why?

Cameron's achilles heel, again?

While everyone is talking about the laughable Nick Griffin and BNP, the Tories seem to be worrying about UKIP, who are planning to stand in constituencies where the Tory candidate does not want to back the Lisbon treaty (on EU reform) - http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/25/ukip-cameron-election-threat

Is this the only bit of good news Gordon is likely to have before the election?

Privatisation a further threat to public sector?

The CBI published a report yesterday suggesting Government needs to make yet deeper cuts from the public sector and look at a round of privatisation and out-sourcing to improve productivity. Well they would say that, wouldn't they... http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/19/beware-zealots-selling-miracle-cures

Low carbon - vote winner?

The rhetoric around low carbon economies and climate change action seems to have died down as the main parties continue to fight on spending issues. As a bit of relief from these issues this is just to let you all know about the 350 campaign, which is hosting a series of events all round the world next weekend - you can view more here http://www.350.org/

Worth a shot for an atheist?

Come the revolution can my religion/defence be Enviromentalism too please? http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/07/climate-change-industrial-tribunal

Does it matter who funds the Taxpayers Alliance?

The Guardian has been crusading against the TPA over the last few days - http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/11/prescott-says-tax-group-tory - with some of the Labour Party saying the 'low taxes, low spending' campaign group should declare itself as a Tory front. One of the TPA directors also doesn't pay tax in England, but does any of this matter?

Cut the cuts

The media reports "Tough choices" from the Tories and "Savage cuts" from Nick Clegg. Labour won't admit to it but seem to be planning to slash spending in the same way.

Is this necessary or are we being scared into the removal of public services by neoliberals?

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-britains-not-bust-so-dont-use-it-as-an-excuse-to-impose-cuts-1799217.html

Or from a more left wing perspective

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2009/10/selling-furniture.html

The Mess

Conservatives on the left

It's been confusing enough having to suffer a Labour government with Conservative policies and aspirations - now it looks like we are going to have the reverse. Does anyone believe any of Cameron's protestations in his speech? Are they really interested in poverty? http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/08/david-cameron-conservative-conference

Life under the Tories

The Guardian has run a feature on this today - http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/08/conservative-conference-cameron. Trying to look for some positives but failing...

Can we have a large portion of honesty please?

So what does David Cameron and the Conservatives have to do today to cement their chance for the next term? Quite frankly, in my opinion, some honesty would be a welcome change compared to the half truths or just plain secrative nature of the party heard at yesterday's conference. George Osborne outlined savings of £7billion's a year should they get elected, but this just baffels me. Was George not aware of the £175billion borrowing this year and next? Quite frankly I see this as dishonesty - do the conservatives not realise that what the Bristish people want is some honest, open and forthright truth? Tell it like it is please; express the issues we face as a country and be confident in your abilities to change this around.

My feelings are that they have more plans than they are letting on and that many policy decisions and full cuts will remain secret until enforced. If they were more honest and open, maybe more voters would turn out for the election, because they would have some real decisions to make.

If they don't, I think the Conservatives won't win the election, but instead the Labour party will lose it!

Is gloom the new boom?

Vote for us and we'll freeze your pay, cut your benefits, not cut your tax...Tories now seem convinced that gloom is a vote-winner because we're all convinced that the country's in such chaos http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009/oct/07/pensions-crisis-analysis But will people really vote for less than they have now. And seeing as this is politically rather than economically motivated, hasn't the left's battle-ground now opened up before it? "It doesn't have to be that bad."

Labour need more vote winners...

...George Osbourne should help http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8292680.stm. Any other candidates?

The endless cycle of false hope

I feel that trying to find reasons to support Labour under Brown at the moment is a bit like going to your family for Christmas dinner.
You really want to enjoy yourself but inevitably, as the dry turkey is served and the limp party hats come out, you realise that it's going to be the exactly the same as it was every year before and you'd rather be doing something else.
By the time next year comes around, you've sort of forgotten and hope surges again...
This is how I feel every week about Labour.
And then I see Gordon on the news ....

Cameron v Blair

Has Cameron's dithering over the Lisbon Treaty exposed again his party's achilles heel? See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8290150.stm

What influence will The Sun have?

This week's frantic discussions between Labour leadership and The Sun seen to have resulted in a quick change of allegiance by the newspaper and Mandy referring to them as a 'bunch of chumps', or perhaps something more viscious, depending on who you believe. The infamous 'light bulb' front page of 1992 allegedly swung the vote the way of the Tories, but what sort of a difference could the Sun make this time?

Where are the Greens?

It seems staggering that at a time when the major parties are encouraging the public to hate them, and with climate change and peak oil at the heart of the political agenda, the Green Party is apparently continuing to stare at its collective navel. Where are they?

Party conference malaise

I have been to both conferences so far, and the sense of fear and dreariness was overwhelming. The LibDems seemed determined to appear nonchalant, and came across like something out of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, while the woeful theatricality of Labour was mirth-inducing. An incredible waste of time and money.