After 12 months will Cameron finally get caught?
December 11th, 2006
-
Is Gordon’s long chase nearly over?
For the whole of the year that David Cameron has been Tory leader there has been one consistent opinion poll finding that has produced a similar outcome whenever it has been asked. To the question of how would you vote if it was Brown’s Labour against Cameron’s Tories and Ming’s Lib Dems the outcome from whichever pollster has asked the question has always been a better position for the Conservatives.
Populus for the monthly Times survey has asked this most often and, unlike other firms, applies “likelihood to vote weightings” which has tended to give higher Tory figures. But as the chart shows the Cameron margin is getting smaller and last month the party was only one point better on this than on the main voting intention question.
As can be seen after rising to a 10% margin in May the gap has been slipping ever since and by last month the Tories were just 4% ahead.
-
So what’s going to happen this month. Will the poll due tomorrow show a continuing move back to Gordon or will it have stalled?
Certainly other polls, not with this question, have shown Brown doing better. Thus a week ago just about the only thing that people focussed on in the ICM in the News of the World survey was on the 29-25 Brown-Cameron split to the question as to who would be the “best PM”. This seemed to run against most of the other findings in the survey which also saw the Tory lead on the main voting intention question increase from 5 to 8%.
For those trying to bet on and predict election outcomes my view is that the voting intention question with named leaders is a better measure than just asking “who do you think will be best PM”. It is perfectly possibly to answer Brown to the latter and still say you are voting Tory as was evident in last week’s poll. Like with other pollsters the ICM response on this and other non-voting questions also includes the views of a large number of declared non-voters which diminishes any electoral impact.
In a move that might have been helpful to Gordon the Times survey was put back a week this month in order to test reaction to Brown’s Pre-Budget Report. Given the fairly lukewarm response that this has seen then it probably won’t have much of an effect.
Populus is the first of a flood of polls we should see in the final fortnight before the Christmas. To look forward to there’s the regular Guardian survey from ICM, Communicate Research in the Independent, Mori in whichever publication is taking it this month and YouGov in the Daily Telegraph.
Mike Smithson.
Picture source - http://www.davidcameronmp.com/gallery/
MessageSpace Advertising
test
The price reflects not just uncertainty about Gordon’s chances but also, and more importantly, uncertainty about the timing, and the time value of the stake. At the extreme, this bet might not be settled until conference. People have had babies in less time than that.
During yesterday’s discussion nobody mentioned the new Scottish voting intention findings from Taylor Nelson Sofres System 3, published in the Sunday Herald. Labour are down three points on last month’s TNS System 3 poll, while the Scottish National Party are up two points.
1st vote, FPTP (change shown from 2003):
1. Labour 35% (nc)
2. SNP 32% (+8)
3. LD 14% (-1%)
4. Con 11% (-6%)
*SSP 4% (not relevant - not standing in 1st vote)
*Grn 3% (not relevant - not standing in 1st vote)
2nd vote, PR:
1. Lab 32% (+3%)
2. SNP 30% (+9%)
3. LD 15% (+3%)
4. Con 11% (-5%)
5. Grn 5% (-2%)
6. SSP 4% (-3%)
Projected seat distribution:
- no projections are provided
http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.1066494.0.0.php
As Stephen Lawther, Labour’s in-house polling expert, suggested in a recent leaked memo: “the one pollster giving Labour a lead may be getting it consistently wrong. “It’s starting to look more like the TNS System Three result should be discounted, which makes the position even bleaker.””
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/75470.shtml
Stephen Lawther’s analysis looks bang on, especially when you compare this poll with the results of real-life elections, eg Thursday’s by election in the Elderslie ward, near Paisley in Renfrewshire, which saw a 16% swing from Labour to the SNP (incidentally an historical event: probably the final ever local by election in Scotland, as none likely to be held under the new STV voting system). There have been 11 local by elections in Scotland during 2006, with an average Labour to SNP swing of 11%, and the actual votes cast have been:
Scottish local by elections, 2006
1. SNP 5,592 (35%, +6%)
2. Lab 4,162 (26%, -15%)
3. Con 2,828 (18%, +4%)
4. LD 1,770 (11%, +6%)
This makes TNS System 3’s numbers look way, way off the mark. For example, it is pretty clear to all reasonable observers that the Tory vote is holding steady in Scotland at present, and even modestly rising in places, so the TNSS3 finding of a 6% Tory plummet just looks plain daft.
The Sunday Herald says that the fieldwork “was taken after Labour’s Oban conference in November” (which was held 24-26 November). As Taylor Nelson Sofres are not a member of the British Polling Council, we will not be getting any detailed methodology or data.They are known to use face-to-face, door-to-door interviews, and do not weigh by past vote, factors which systematically depress the Tory numbers and boost Labour’s. Anthony Wells dealt with TNS System Three’s quirky methodology in detail a couple of weeks ago (UK Polling Report’s software is having a wee flakey right now, so sorry, but I cannot find the appropriate link - but it will be in his “Scotland” archive), showing how they are way out from all the other pollsters. Apparently they say that they will weigh by past vote “nearer to the election”. Why not now?
Maybe Stephen Lawther has been reading Anthony Wells analysis too?
And why are TNS allowing respondents to reply SSP or Green in the 1st vote? Neither party is standing candidates in the FPTP constituencies on the 3rd of May 2007, so the 7% SSP/Green voters are highly likely to be going elsewhere, probably mostly to the SNP, although obviously it will vary from constituency to constituency. This is just shoddy market research practice, which unfortunately other pollsters seem to be following too. Do they not know that the SSP and Greens have made it crystal clear, publicly, on several occasions, that they will not be participating in the 1st vote?
Stuart,
I presume these Scottish polls are for the Holyrood elections.
From my English Tory point of view, it suddenly occurs to me that it would be vastly helpful if the SNP took a few Labour parliamentary seats.
Do they have any prospects for Westminster gains, or is it confined to Holyrood?
4. But it won’t affect the size of our majority, it just tweaks the distribution among the opposition.
Like it did in Horsham DDC?
3. Thanks for bringing that to our attention, Stuart - and for the lucid analysis. Ever since the last General Election I have been saying (to anyone who will listen) that the next holyrood election will be both the most interesting and exciting we have seen in Britain for many years. Despite its numerous flaws, the Taylor Nelson Sofres System 3 survey supports my view.
4. commentator
Yes, I should have made it explicit that these voting intention figures are for the Scottish Parliament general election, being held on 3 May 2007. Westminster Scottish voting intention polls are pretty infrequent, although off the top of my head Labour are still miles ahead of the other parties, with the SNP a clear 2nd, and the Lib Dems falling dramatically - the last one was a couple of weeks ago (you will get the numbers from Baxter or Wells’ websites).
UK general elections in Scotland have been pretty unexciting affairs since the amazing Tory total wipeout of 1997 - very, very few seats change hands each time (incumbents tend to be unmoveable, especially in rural areas). Even boundary changes last time had very little effect (if you look at the gains/losses compared to the “nominal” 2001 results), although in practice Blair lost 10 off his majority before a single vote was cast.
With very few super-marginals, and few marginals, you are not going to see a significant change in the pattern in Scotland in 2009/2010 (although a PM Broon may go to the electorate earlier), unless of course something happens. And the only real significant “something” that could feasibly occur would be the arrival of the SNP in government in May. Even that may not actually change Westminster patterns of voting all that much (ie. Labour are still likely to dominate the key central belt areas).
This far out from a UK GE it is a bit silly to speculate - if there is an independence referendum we may never have another UK GE in Scotland
- but I would expect to see 1 or 2 gains each by the SNP, the LDs and the Tories, although the Lib Dems are actually very vulnerable to even a minor move against them in several seats (eg Argyll & Bute, and Roxburgh etc, to the Tories), so a popular Scottish Prime Minister, combined with the neutralising of the 2005 Iraq Lab to LD swing, could actually see the Lib Dems in a spot of difficulty north of the border.
Having just read last nights eulogies to Pinochet from Rik and SeanT and heard Margaret Thatcher salute “a great democrat” I was reminded what a mountain Cameron has got with the party he has inherited.
So far he’s been lucky. He throws out one message and his party a different one and no one questions the inconsistancy. But the divergence is becoming noticeable. Day by day people are understanding less and less what the Tories stand for. Is it Cameronism or is it Thatcherism?
I like Cameron and his heart seems to be in the right place. Unfortunately that doesn’t apply to his followers. And it is this fight for the soul of the Tory Party that will probably determine the next election. I’m becoming more convinced by the day that it’s a fight he’s going to lose.
“Mountain to climb” must now be the most overworked and unimaginative description of the serious challenge the Tories face in the next general election.
When its used you know the writer is on autopilot.
On autopilot, and straight into the side of the aforesaid mountain.
Now that the Tories are pushing Victorian Values and back to basics etc. Can we open a book on the name of the first Tory MP who will be found: three in a bed, caught doing strange things to a cuddly furry animal, running off with an interior decorator (whoops thats been done)standing with his wife at the garden gate with wife, Saying ‘Despite ********* relationship with Mandy the Pole dancer, I am standing by him, etc. I wait agog!
Stuart @ 3:
My servers have stopped having their “flaky” now
System Three are actually members of the BPC, so you can email Chris Enyon to get full tables, though they also go up on the TNS website (it’s quite hard to find. You need to go to TNS’s UK page, then click on Scottish Market, then there is a link to System Three polls where you’ll find the most recent tables)
12 Peter Mandelson has been working as a pole dancer?!
9 - hardly a eulogy roger!! Merely pointing out some facts to counterbalance the ravings of the left!
Ah, I hoped that at this time in the morning, no one would pick that up, I should have known better! Political Betting the site with the sharpest posters on the net.
14. He’s doing a second job to pay for his new house
16 You were lucky it was only me. Now if Jack W had been around…
What’s happening is, I think, that current voting intention is increasingly factoring in the assumption that GB will lead Labour, so the difference between real and hypothetical responses will gradually disappear. This is of course a different issue from whether there will be a bounce for GB after he takes over - neither real nor hypothetical questions can entirely anticipate how people will feel about it when it’s happened.
I thought the response to the PBR was generally fairly negative, with the focus on the green tax rises (too small for greens, too large for non-greens), so I’m not expecting an especially good poll.
Good article as ever Mike. Perhaps the story will be that the Conservative party is closing its gap with Cameron rather than Gordon closing the same gap. Perhaps the rebranding is begining to stick.
On the Brown price, there is perhaps a combination of both uncertainty and time factored into the cost.
10 I agree totally. Here is another example
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6204012.stm
As you say, the writer is on autopilot. Pathetic, isn´t it?
Morning all :).
Re: 15 - Rik, you are of course allowed to “counterbalance the ravings of the left” but that doesn’t mean there aren’t any “ravings from the right” on this either. Having watched the pictures of rioting in Santiago, I wonder just how much Pinochet should be allowed to dictate events even from beyond the grave.
Neither Pinochet nor Allende were saints. They played their role in the global power play that was the Cold War. Fear of a Marxist infiltration into mainland Latin America had always been strong in Washington - look at how Chavez is demonised today in the conservative American media -. Once Allende was in power, a reaction was inevitable.
Pinochet, like Stroessner and Galtieri, played the role of anti-Narxist strongman. There’s no doubt that human rights were abused and democracy suppressed in Chile as in many other parts of Latin America at that time. The fact that America, the so-called home of democracy, was so terrified of democracy that it encouraged and supported authoritarian dictators whose sole “virtue” was their opposition to Communism is something for which I hope sensible Americans will always feel regret.
As for Pinochet’s support during the Falklands conflict, the fact remains that there was a long-standing dispute over the Beagle Channel between Chile and Argentina. PInochet backed Britain because we were fighting Argentina in the same way, I suppose, as we were allies of Stalin’s Russia against Nazi Germany.
During the war, many conservatives were public in their praise for Stalin and the Russians because it suited them. Now, Stalin is widely and correctly denounced as a brutal dictator but the fact remains his efforts were instrumental in the defeat of Nazi Germany. Pinochet aided us in the conflict with Argentina but that shouldn’t blind us to his excesses.
RE 22, Stodge, I agree.
To see that awful woman eulogise a torturer is just gross. No wonder Thatcher is still hated. She can rot in hell with him.
15 - it might be useful to share Mr Willis’s eulogy of Pinochet…
‘SeanT I am with you totally. Many British servicemen probably owe their lives to the assistance PInochet gave the UK during the Falklands war. He also reformed the economy to make it the success it has become and removed Allende’s stupid Marxist thinking from the Govt of Chile.
He is far from “one of the most brutal dictators” that the BBC called him tonight. Many many others would be ahead of him in that queue.
And finally he handed to over to what has become a successful democracy. I wonder if Mugabe or the rulers of Burma could boast the same!?’
I’d say that goes beyond ‘counter balance’ and into the realm of tribute. So he killed thousands of his own people - not a problem British servicemen survived. He overthrew a democratically elected government - not a problem he reformed the economy.
Reminds me of the cloising lines of Some Like it Hot - ‘nobody’s perfect’.
Bearing in mind this is the man who said ‘good riddance’ on the death of Edward Heath - who at the last count wasn’t responsible for ordering the deaths and dissappearances of any UK citizen - I think it gives an interesting insight to what Mr Willis really believes…
19-Nick Palmer
With Brown’s ongoing borrowing binge how can you be surprised?
5 years ago Brown said he would borrow £ 28 billion between 2001 & 2006.So far he has taken on debts of £ 129 billion during that period,a staggering increase of £ 101 billion.
25.”Bearing in mind this is the man who said ‘good riddance’ on the death of Edward Heath ”
I think he didn’t say “good riddance”, but “he won’t be missed”. But maybe I don’t recall it well, it was long time ago.
Interesting how the death of someone like Pinochet quickly reveals the veneer behind Cameron’s ’sunshine’ Tory party. When a former leader (and not just ANY former leader but Mrs T herself) and that Lamont creature spill their crocodile tears, it just makes me want to puke. Thank God the likes of them are not in power any more.
For once, Beckett struck the right note, praising Chilie since it came out of dictatorship and only “noting” his death - pretty strong diplomatic language.
22 Stodge - That’s a calm and well-balanced posting which is very welcome this morning.
27 From memory Rik´s words were something like “Ted Heath was a disastrous Prime Minister and a bitter old man. He will not be missed!”
The extremists of left and right caused an immense amount of suffering be they Stalin, Hitler, Pinochet, Argentinian dictators or Castro.
Yes Pinochet did help UK, but he also caused immense pain to many of his people. As did the Leaders of Irish terroist groups who are now prospective “ministers”.
If we can overlook the actions of one set of terroists in return for peace we surely can overlook the actions of Pinochet because he did reinstate democracy.
27 And now I´ve found it. Really an astonishing outburst- Rik continued:
“He took us into the EEC, he messed up the counties, he abolished more grammar schools than before. He was weak and spineless. He was so bad that he canvassed from his car while getting others to door knock for him. As you may have gathered I hold him in contempt.”
Nick Palmer makes a very important point at number 19. When party leaders change we don’t really know how people factor it into their answers to voting intention questions. While the question is normally about an election tomorrow, I suspect lots of people do really look forward to the next election or just assume that in any election Blair will have been replaced by Brown.
In the 2005 polls, the David Cameron boost looks like it actually started to some extent prior to him becoming leader, but after it had become self evident that he was likely to become leader. Since baring “events” Gordon Brown is almost certain to be Labour’s leader soon, his effect on the polls will be gradual, rather than suddenly kick in on the day he takes over.
In 1990 when John Major became PM it was easy to see his effect in the polls because a fortnight before no one expected it. Because it is obvious in advance that Brown is going to take over, it will be hard to draw a line and say “his effect on the polls started here”.
10 and 21. I’m surprised that ‘the master’ (nee Pot and Kettle)should take such a dim view of his leader for using ‘Mountain to climb’. I’m sure he was just trying to use a simple form of words to describe his party’s current difficulties. If he had used a more wordy but obscure explanation I’m sure the pinkos on here would have jumped on him for being obtuse!
22&29. “That’s a calm and well-balanced posting which is very welcome this morning.” Just what to echo PtP’s comment on Stodge’s post.
Funnily enough, Ted Heath is the only Tory my mother ever admired - and my dad was a miner in the early 70’s and they lost their home when on strike! I think its because he hated Thatcher - and my enemy’s enemy is my friend and all that.
Stroessner, a man with a great collection of bandoliers & sashes. I always wondered how he got his suits so white given the blood he had on his hands.
I don’t understand why Pinochet is the first item on the news, he was long gone in practical terms. For example would Galtieri have got this kind of lead item coverage? Some ex Angolan or Mozambiquan leader? Castro maybe but Castro is a truly well known figure thus the item has popular appeal as a news story. Look at the Independent this morning. Can I point out to the useless bollocks on that paper and others that people are being killed every weekend for being in the wrong place at the wrong time,the NHS is facing a cash crisis and so on but hey lets splash over a yesterdays man. Reagans death didnt get the front page coverage that Pinochets has in some quarters.
As for the narrowing of the poll gap, its perhaps not surprising. No one knows what Cameron & his party stands for, I certainly don’t. He’s in danger of overhwleming us with vagueness (and also in the absence of strong & clear vision, if not policies, leaves a wide open space for Labour to keep banging on that its just the old Tories) and secondly the middle ground that he is fighting on may end up being on the wrong middle ground, i.e. the soft liberal ground.
32. Some of you Libdems are a bit obsessed by Rik
I see the Rik Willis hunting season has opened …. tally ho !!
But as I oppose hunting to hounds, I will leap to Rik’s defence ……eh …um…yes !! he’s a very, very, very tall chap and looks dapper in those Matalan suits and Oxfam ties.
33. Anthony, a good point about a possible Brown boost. I agree with you when you point out that “it is obvious in advance that Brown is going to take over, it will be hard to draw a line and say “his effect on the polls started here””.
I am just not sure that Brown will get the expected boost, in fact I think that boost came and went prior to the 2005 GE when people knew they were voting for Blair and would eventually get Brown. His performance and the contents of the PBR were received negatively and I think that the discussion about the state of the public finances and the continued sharp hike in taxation will do nothing to enhance his poll ratings.
[Echos comments on stodge's analysis]
Morning PtP. I was wondering what your betting strategy might suggest for this scenario. Last week, I had a few quid on Bham and Saints to win Championship, as both seemed generously priced (just under 50% that one of them would win, against my assessment of 75%). After the week-end’s action the prices look even more generous (odds suggesting only 45% that one of them wins). Do I pile more money into both, more into the now clear favourite, more into the very generously priced ‘outsider’ or none of these?
NB. Actually I had the money on Bham earlier at somewhat better odds but that detail rather spoils the example!
31. ‘If we can overlook the actions of one set of terroists in return for peace we surely can overlook the actions of Pinochet because he did reinstate democracy.’
There is precious little room in this debate for pragmatic judgements or balanced assessments, it is really about emotion and partisanship. The IRA’s cause was just in the eyes of most of the left, apparently making it easy for them to overlook the awful atrocities the provos committed. Pinochet on the other hand was one the greatest enemies of the left in history, so whatever positive things he may have done must always be entirely disregarded.
I think Stuart Dickson at 8 is over playing the strength of the SNP and underestimating both Labour and Lib Dems north of the border.
If you look at the trends in the polls it’s pretty clear there isn’t really a trend more of a stasis.
Take the polls this year (excluding MORI who haven’t polled since June)
Constituency
TNS
Con Lab Lib Nat
July 11 37 14 31
Aug(2) 12 36 17 28
Oct 12 38 14 30
Nov 11 35 14 32
YouGov
Con Lab Lib Nat
Sept 14 30 18 29
Nov 15 32 15 32
ICM
Con Lab Lib Nat
Oct 14 30 15 32
Nov 13 29 17 34
List
TNS
Con Lab Lib Nat
July 9 29 17 33
Aug(2) 11 28 19 27
Oct 9 30 17 33
Nov 11 32 15 30
YouGov
Con Lab Lib Nat
Sept 14 27 15 29
Nov 17 29 15 28
ICM
Con Lab Lib Nat
Oct 14 28 17 28
Nov 12 26 19 31
It’s pretty clear that Labour are currently ahead in the constituency polls and are neck and neck with the Nats in the lists. Opinion hasn’t really shifted over the last six months.
On these sort of figures there won’t be many constituency seats changing hands and Labour knows their job will be to hold onto as many as they can. It is almost impossible in my view for Labour not to be the largest party on these sort of numbers.
I agree with Jack. If Rik wants to eulogize Pinochet and denounce Heath that’s up to him. Like Red Flump I also liked Heath and Pinochet would have made it into my worst five anywhere anytime………But this is why I’m not nor ever have been a Thatcherite!
Interesting post Yokel and further evidence of Cameron’s difficulties. If an archetypal Tory-albeit Northern Irish- like you doesn’t know where he’s leading why should anyone else? I reckon he’s got just a few months to get into sync with his party. Not more. Populus poll. My guess 3% either way
43, Yeah what an irony about the Provos who are fantastic fascists, who would on occasions spent their time intimidating genuine socialists who tried to work across the divide. Some on the left really do pick them…
42, I just hope both of them get up…they both have Northern Ireland internationals in their starting 11’s and we could do with more playing at the top level!
45. Its getting to a tipping point Roger where the vagueness is more damaging than useful. Fine, few solid policies at this stage, thats ok for a while but the vision? Not clear and there needs to be a vision.
In that vacuum Labour could plant a flag on the ground with the ‘old Tories’ line and cement it in the public minds and they’d be stupid not to try to..
Off thread- but I always like to judge the political landsacape from dinner parties I attend. One of my old friends, an ex (but brilliant) policy worker (now columnist) for a leading Tory said that he now supported Brown, mainly because they (politicians) are all self interested, corrupt b’stds, but with Brown there is an element of well meaning earnestness about it all. Not the most committed endorsement mind.
However, I was very struck by the visceral hostility that Brown galvinised in the women around the table, many left leaning, liberal inclined. My wife herself started to put the boot in. And the consequences of these kind of conversations is that everyone in the room was starting to question the character of Brown.
My own call is that just perhaps maybe Brown’s time has come and gone-the Labour succession should have happened in 2004.
I think this kind of anecdotal feedback must be replicated across the country, must have been picked up by Labour’s focus group work, and must be extremely worrying for the party.
RE 48, Tyson, Now you know why us Conservatives really want Brown to be Labour leader
I fully agree his time has come and gone.
#40 - Agree entirely. Brown used up the remaining good will he had with the electorate saving Blair’s skin at the 2005 GE. What was remarkable about that election was the way Labour’s campaign was foundering until they brought Brown cente stage.
Unless he really does have some spectacularly popular initiatives up his sleeve, Brown will likely be seen as yesterday’s man from his first day in the top job.
49 Benedict. I couldn’t disagree more. Those who underestimate the “dour one” are likely to be in for a shock. As top dog our Gordon is IMO likely to surprise many.
I well remember the jaws dropping on day 1 in May 97 when Bank of England independence was initiated. Brown doesn’t want to be a fag end PM. He sees his legacy as PM as much more long term.
Tyson.
I think you are spot on, I’ve long reckoned that Brown is no electoral asset on a personal level (and indeed is a negative) and in the minds of the public he’s considered a known quantity so opinions on him are already fairly well set and going to be hard to change. Some serious vitriol has been thrown his from some of the public way before he even starts the big job.
I’d suggest its a kind of earnest but not very good or dynamic and in some ways theres a touch of the just not very nice with an underlying weak streak.
45. Roger,I should add that I’m that, apparently, rare breed,a genuine working class Conservative.
42 Martin
It depends how risk-averse you are. Where football is concerned, I’m very cautious, so I would lay off these two excellent bets. Form is so transitory in football, largely because of the impact injuries can have.
I think you nailed the value. Lock it in.
I disagree (obviously!!) GB knows he needs to keep hold of women voters come the next GE. Watch out for the Budget.
RE 51 JackW, I agree Brown should not be underestimated. What he did on day one may have surprised people but he is going to have a harder time impressing people when he takes over. After all if it was so great why not do it last year or the year before that.
He has the problem of having been seen as in power for so long. Still time will tell.
40 and 50- an interesting proposition that Brown spent his political capital in the 2005 GE.
Surely though Brown must be working on a 6 mth policy platform when elected to create a feeling of energy, dynamism, change, and positivity??
What I do know about the man is that people who have worked, and currently work for him (Brown) are incredibly loyal, and have the highest regard for him.
Also, after 10 years of a Lab govt no one else is getting a viable look in as a credible alternative for leader within the party.
To be such a dominant, all powerful figure with no significant rivals after 10 years in government is arguably the most significant political achievement in recent memory. Underestimate Brown at your peril.
re 53 Thanks…that may warn me off risking much more. I won’t lay off yet ’cause 1) I think Bham have the squad and manager to avoid a serious dip and something like 10 of there 11 next games are against bottom half teams. 2) Saints have drifted ridiculously based on one loss to 10.5, so I’m on a loser there at the moment.
55. The tired, hackeneyed performance at the PBR certainly suggests he is going to have to accomplish a remarkable political transformation. It doesn’t seem likely. He has run out of ideas, gimmicks, and (most importantly) money and his personal style looks to be set in stone.
I wonder just how many of the Sutton Tories share Rik´s views on the essential virtue of Pinochet….. I suspect that on the whole they are decent people and disagree thoroughly with Rik.
If that is the case, then there could be another Tory deselection in the offing…
On the other hand, what has Cameron said about Pinochet? If anything at all, I´m afraid I have missed it. If nothing, then it is no wonder that the Tories are confused about which line to take…
I agree Tyson, you can’t be in such a dominant position without having exceptional political AND personal skills. He just needs to project that side of him a bit more and he will do fine.
Then again, we are ALL clueless about what will happen really. Will GB get a bounce, won’t he? If so, how much? Snap election? Will GB renew Labour and stop DC in his tracks? Has DC got the momentum to take him to No 10? Will some ‘event’ blow either one out of the water?
2007 is going to be a very ‘exciting’ year for us all! What a year for political freaks like us!!!
So there we have it Brown disliked by the true Labourites and Cameron sneered at by the old fashioned Tory voters.
Lot of Polly’s pegs on noses next time methinks
38 Not Rik so much as the desterity in Doublethink
As others have said, Ted Heath played well in my childhood home, Pinochet (despite his assistance with the Falklands - really to be expected from any leader of Chile, if one considers their relationship with the gauchos) was less of a hit with the Pigeons.
Re GB. He is as we all know a very cautious man. I have every hope he will positively surprise us as PM. I think he will have a few big ideas up his sleeve. I suspect that a reason that he isn’t prepared to show his hand yet is for fear of upsetting TB and the the Blairites who would then be more likely to promote an alternative candidate.
Yokel and others re Pinochet.
I think it was Pablo Neruda who penned the line ‘There is nothing one man will not do to another’. I agree, except I would add that the man in question must have a Cause. Once he has a Cause which he fervently believes in, any act of cruelty becomes not only possible but perfectly normal, if not actually mandatory.
Of course it doesn’t matter what the Cause is - socialism, fascism, christianity, islam, democracy, despotism: take your pick. Once you believe in it - and I mean REALLY believe in it - any crime is permissible.
What makes you and I different is not what we believe, but the fact that we do not really deep down actually believe in our Causes and are therefore not prepared to perpetrate crimes in their names.
When you understand this, you can understand how a man like Pinochet - a perfectly reasonable, kind, sophisticated and principled individual by all accounts - could be responsible for crimes so appalling one does not even like to think about them for more than a moment.
Likewise, you can understand how the USA Government came to support such a preposterous dictator. The Cause, in this case anti-Marxism, trumped any reasonable objections to what was happening in Chile.
The world is a beautiful place. We do not need Causes. They are fantasies and their pursuit is responsible for more grief than it is possible to imagine.
Good post Redflump at 60.
I read an interesting comment a couple of weeks ago that the British public are fed up with majorities and will vote accordingly at the next election. In one sense though without the kind of preconditions that led to the 97 landslide, and the Tory aversion that this country has had ever since, a hung Parliament in 2008/9 seems almost unavoidable.
As long as Cameron goes on trying to make the Tories seem somewhat human (difficult task at best of times- but he is doing a good job), and Brown manages to keep the economy ticking along (again a difficult task- but Brown is still doing a reasonable job)
then the next election is going to be a 0-0 draw.
59 I imagine that most Tories have no strong feelings about Pinochet one way or the other.
Personally, I view him in the same way as Oliver Cromwell. A bad man, but an effective ruler.
Any predictions for the Populus poll? I’d say it’s been a good week or two for the tories, I’ll go Con 38 Lab 32
RE 66, Noisy Summer, if we are getting into that game, I say Conservative 39, Labour 32, LD’s on 20.
I have heard similar negative opinions of Brown from several women of a certain type too. The only thing I know for certain is that the dislike of Brown doesn’t register compared to the feelings Thtcher engendered in the late ’70’s.
I believe him to be a man of integrity and ideas. If this proves correct I haven’t any doubt that these ‘thinking’ women will be won over like the rest of us.
64. I agree with your last paragraph. I think Brown shores up the core Labour vote quite strongly as, despite having the integrity of a jackal and the style of a poison toad, he panders to their statist fantasies. However, I had an amazing demonstration of the penetrative power of Brand Cameron at the weekend. My Labour voting, NHS working sister announced she was redoubling her recycling efforts because she was ’saving the planet with David Cameron’!
Is Populus in the Times tomorrow?
My prediction: Con 37, Lab 32, LD 20
RE 69, Simon, Fantastic!
Re 66
Con 37
Lab 32
LD 22
69. David Cameron’s ‘green agenda’ is the single most troubling thing for me about him. If he actually doesn’t believe this anthropogenic global warming gash, and like everything else is just designed to make him seem caring, then fine. A politician’s job is to win votes after all! But hearing an interview with him last week I really started to doubt the guy’s intelligence with his tired cliches over the supposed danger to our planet. No doubt Cameron has many qualities but if he really believes this tripe, then as someone who really wants the Tories to win I’m very concerned! Thats way OT I know!
71. What was significant was how she identified personally with DC rather then the larger Conservative party. I do view her as a significant bellwether as she is a mother of two, public sector employee who voted Labour in 97,01 and 05. She is exactly the type of voter that both DC and the Jackal/Toad hybrid badly need.
48&52. I have never doubted the political skills of Gordon Brown and the power base he has built up within the Labour party which is why we will have a coronation not a leadership challenge.
We have had in effect a dual premiership with the combined team of Blair and Brown balancing each other’s strengths and weaknesses. But as with all double acts they never quite reach the same success as individuals. It is no accident that Brown remained as chancellor for as long as he did and it would have damaged Blair within the Labour party and with the electorate had he removed him.
For those reasons alone I think that we overestimate the political skills of a man who has effectively neutralised all contenders within his own party so that there is no other big beast who can balance the perceived electoral negatives of a Brown premiership.
He did not have that X factor which was so evident with Blair when he became leader and no amount of back room networking in the Labour party or with the media will change that.
Con 36 Lab 33 libdems 20
RE 73, Noisy Summer, Thatcher’s government bought into global warming over 16 years ago and started to deal with it then. Maggie has a degree in Chemistry so is at heart a scientist. Conservatives believe in conserving the planet. Period.
RE 74, Simon, I know this is the sort of voter we need, and getting the mind share in this sector has been one of Camerons best achievements so far.
RE 66. Con 39 Lab 33 LD 16
77. ‘Conservatives believe in conserving the planet. Period’ PERIOD? Personally I value debate and free speech! BTW your premise is wrong, I also believe in saving the planet. And I’m a geology student, not maybe in the same league of scientific rigour as chemistry, but one relevent to the topic nontheless!
Dear Santa
Could we have Tory party that also looks at crime and building safe and cohesive communities?
And one of those new console thingies…..
Thanks…Yokel
At the moment, the Tories have only identified ‘problems’ (or rather, problems as they see things). Still no ’solutions’ to any of these problems to hand.
Having just spent eight days as a guest of the NHS I couldn’t praise them more highly. The nurses in particular are probably the most professional group of people working for relatively little money that I’ve ever come accross.
Fortunately those that treated me struck me as too wise to buy a pig in a poke but I’m sure there are always exceptions. Cameron’s problems are not steering a toboggan with huskies around the ice-caps (though this obviously got Simons sister’s support)but answers to some tough questions.
How much would he tax petrol? How much would he tax flights? How much would he charge his party’s friends at the Countyside Alliance for driving monster 4×4’s? Unfortunately he’s going to be asked these questions and the answers are likely to be far more critical to the next election than how pretty he looks in ski pants.
Yes this governing lark is a problem isn’t it. Things cost money and if he tTories keep saying they will get the money they need by making some painless savings elsewhere then Gordon will take them apart at the election.
Wouldn’t mind hearing just how Cameron is ’saving the planet’?
Re: 83 - Roger, the depressing thing is that it may not. There are a lot of people who don’t want to think about the real issues affecting this country and the planet. They want softly-spoken reassurance and a general “it’ll be all right” smooth confidence.
Cameron provides this in spades and I suspect this is why he polls so well. He sounds soft and reassuring especially set against the harsh realpolitik of Brown and Reid.
84. “then Gordon will take them apart at the election.” This will be the artful dodger who had the cheek to try and sell us recycled investment in education as opposed to some mystical tax cuts while picking our pockets for an extra couple of billion in taxes.
66. Do I get to make a prediction with a margin of error of +/-3%?
I’d Go.. Tory 37, Lab 32, LD 21, but I can’t really think of anything really that would have shifted opinion over the last 2 weeks, definitely not from the PBR, which fell well into the worthy but dull category.
O/T but I just read Patrick’s comments last night, and found them appalling.
I’m of Irish descent and have nothing but contempt for the IRA.
The selection of female Tory candidates is doing well. According to ConHome stats, they’ve selected 38% of women (39% since the A List introduction).
Here’s a pic of some Dave’s Dolls:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/./photos/uncategorized/w2w.gif
I think Lorraine Fulbrook (the one on the right) is using a
table-cloth as a skirt….
I suppose Deborah Dunleavy has many fans in the male audience!
On Labour front, Andrew Slaughter (MP for Ealing Acton and Sheperds Bush) has been selected for Hammersmith
http://www.hammersmithandfulhamlabourparty.co.uk/?PageId=4446be98-0f44-43e4-a99d-7caa5963415d
*Yawn*
To be honest I’m getting “speculation fatique” from this blog. I’m more interested in some actual elections - shame the locals are still months away……
90 Sean, please see my post at 64 above.
Thanks
RE 80, Noisy Summer, I am pleased you accept that it is important to save the planet. We appear then to disagree about what are the threats and/or solutions.
What is your take?
RE 81, Yokel if you read the speeches rather than listen to the Labour spin that is exactly what we aim to do. (bar the console)
[90] How tall is David Cameron? Either not all that tall, or else some of those Tory PPCs are big girls
13. Anthony Wells
Ta.
44. Dan “… underestimating both Labour and Lib Dems north of the border.”
On the contrary. I have the very highest regard for the ability of the Scottish Labour electoral machine to grind into action. I have seen it working so many times before that I long ago ceased to be complacent. And the Lib Dems do obviously have patches of strength too, although their heavy targetting strategy means that they fall down very heavily on the 2nd PR vote (eg. only 11% in 2003). The Scottish Lib Dems are going to find their 8 year marriage of convenience to the Labour party rather harder to sell to the electorate than the free ride they got at the UK GE last year.
I too think that Labour are currently looking the most likely to be the largest party, but not by much, and we still have months to go. It looks highly unlikely that the Lib Dems can make enough gains to compensate for the losses of their Labour partners, so some kind of change of government composition seems inevitable, as the current Lib-Lab pact only have a majority of 5.
You have made a rather novel interpretation of recent Scottish polls. You may just want to cast your eye once more over the respective figures for Labour and the SNP. And you missed out all the Progressive Partnership/Scottish Opinion polls, and the leaked in-house Populus/Scottish Labour Party poll, all of which show the SNP ahead.
89, Sean the wee ballex has been streaming that stuff out for ages..I’ve already offered to come over and have a word at my own expense with him but he hasn’t seemed willing to take me up on it…no idea why myself, do you?
Secondly, I’m thinking he’s hammered when he comes on, its usually at night, comparatively late so maybe he’s had a few and likes to play the armchair general…..he’d be laughed at over here as a plastic Paddy.
91. Raj what we need is an election re-runs channel on digital….
Election TV Gold we’ll call it…..
89. Things got unpleasant on yesterday’s thread, with people getting excited at Andrew Turner’s stroke and revelling in the recent deaths of Friedman and Seldon. A low point for Pb.com IMHO.
OT. Another interesting piece in the Washington Post on Obama :
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/10/AR2006121000167.html
Aah,to see Portillo un-seated in Southgate,that moment was so-o good! (On the first anniversary,Channel 4 did a docu that condensed the night into one hour-it is my ‘cheer up’ videotape if I feel down)
97 As i’m Catholic and you’re Protestant,how could we ever meet in Northern Ireland??
103 But you are both human beings, aren’t you Patrick?
101 Thanks Jack. It helps to explain some shortening in his price.
100 Yes, Frequent, it did turn a bit ugly last nite. That’s why I cut out.
98 - thanks for the response Stuart. Yes I missed out some polls - I used the ones from Anthony Wells site where they had carried out more than one in recent months. I ignored the YouGov/SNP polls as I’m not convinced of their provenance (but having said that they aren’t hugely out of line with the others).
Taking the spreads of these polls, all bar one or two are in the following ranges.
Constituency
Con 11-14%
Lab 30-36%
Lib 14-17%
SNP 28-32%
List
Con 11-14%
Lab 28-32%
Lib 15-19%
SNP 29-33%
Both these ranges show significant advances for the SNP (in particular) and the Lib Dems on 2003. And they are clear that the SNP are in the lead (just) on the list vote. You may also be right that the more recent polls suggest Labour slipping back further and the SNP moving clearly into the lead.
The problem in shifting Labour is that as their vote is so concentrated in the west of Scotland they will have to be quite away behind in the constituency vote before they lose more than a handful of seats. Even where they do lose seats (like in the Lothians) they are likely to gain some back off the list where they currently have none.
I suppose the only thing that is clear at the moment is the complete lack of any progress for the Tories north of the border.
Ouch, did anyone see T Kavanagh really put the boot into Blair in today’s Sun. Not quite would the last person to leave Britain stuff but not far from it. Clearly someone has decided to let Trev off the leash.
Thanks Jack 100. My 50/1 shot is looking better and better. Nobody goes to New Hampshire at this time of year unless they are serious about running - and the more people see Barack the more they like him.
[108] Hmmm… as I read the article Osama’s wife’s far from convinced it would be a good idea. Didn’t Colin Powell’s wife talk him out of running because she didn’t want to live in daily fear of his assassination?
109. Osama bin Laden is running?????
104 PtP. Indeed. I’m watching this race closely as I’ve had a “large one” on Obama. Plenty of scope still to make the the odd penny.
Unusually for me in political betting terms this far out, I’ve taken the view that a viable non Clinton Democratic candidate has an excellent chance in 08. If Obama does stands and carries home state Illinois and what appears to be the presently Republican averse Ohio, then it’s difficult to see the GOP taking the Presidency. Hostage to fortune !!
107 Never mind Trevor Kavanagh at the Sun - did anyone else see the Page Three Stunna in the Times?
Tony Blair has not resigned either his premiership or his leadership of the labour party. He has stated he intends not to be leader of the labour party by their annual conference next September; the February conference has been cancelled. It was always a Project prime objective to decouple the premiership from the leadership of the labour party and turn the lefthand side of British politics into a democratic coalition party (much as Prodi is doing in Italy now as he decouples the ‘left’ from the former communists and their entrenched power bases).
‘Events’ may have caught up with Tony before he could carry this part of the Project forward; but Brown’s power base being exclusively inside the trades’union dominated labour party is not attractive to many voters, (not just female voters) who would welcome the releasing of the centre-left vote into a ‘democratic’, in the US meaning, grouping.
MIght Tony still try to pull the ‘democratic’ grouping off, or go to the country rather than hand a Brown-led labour party his majority for 3 free years, particularly when Brown intends to restructure the playing field levels so comprehensively in his and his union-dominated party’s favour ?
113.”(much as Prodi is doing in Italy now as he decouples the ‘left’ from the former communists and their entrenched power bases)”
Not sure if I’ve understood this part.
113. Nonsense. GB’s ‘union dominated party’ as you call it is the same as Blair’s. To imagine Blair somehow leaving the Labour party and forming a new political grouping - and THEN calling a GE (even if it were only him in this ‘new’ party? Eh???) is beyonf the realms of fantasy!
112 So, Jack, that’s you, Mike S and me all lumped on Obama at fancy prices. What a jolly threesome we shall make if he becomes next POTUS!
(But not half as jolly as Innocent Abroad if Osama makes it. What odds he must have got!)
115 Andrea, the reason you did not understand it is that it makes no sense.
Benedict - come off it Mrs T may well be a chemist (though the damage she wrought to all things sciency is why you will find bascially no scientists aged 30-50 who are Tories, and partly why you now in third place in most of the big university seats) but the Conservatives despite their name have invariably tried to frustrate any attempts to curb carbon emissions.
The acid test for Camerom will be whether he can back up the photo-shoots will policies. If you held a gun to my head I think he probably won’t… but I am prepared to be wrong.
117. PtP, I supposed she was referring to the new “Democratic Party” project that Prodi is trying to build. But I was puzzled by the “decouples the ‘left’ from the former communists and their entrenched power bases” part as the Democrats of Left (former communists) would be a major part of this project (apart the Left minority of them that don’t like it and so there would be the chance of a potential future split…as we don’t already have enough parties!).
116 PtP. Not too sure Osama will make it onto many of the ballots …. perhaps in federal hating Alabama !! Rednecks for Bin Laden.
As for Obama, I think the most difficult decision will be whether to run. Overcoming Hilary will not be an easy task and fighting the Clintons requires an opponent to get down and dirty. Not too sure that suits Obama’s style.
RE 110, yeah he figures the Yanks will never look for him in the Oval office
121 Here’s a thought, Jack.
I go into my local betting shop and mumble something about wanting to back Osama for next US President. They’ll probably offer me 100-1 just to get rid of me. A bit of dodgy handwriting on the chit should do the trick and hey presto, I’m on our man at mega-value!
Wadyareckon?
123 PtP. I fear you’d soon be posting as Peter the Punter of Parkhurst !!
RE 119, Jon, You are demonstrating a lack of knowledge of Conservative party policy over many many years.
The Stern report was delivered in a speech at the same venue where Mrs Thatcher gave a speech in 1989 on the threat of global warming and how we must deal with it.
The Conservative administration then got the 1992 UN treaty on global warming and did much of the leg work to get the 1997 Kyoto treaty as well.
Green taxes as a percentage of the tax take went up under the Conservatives and are down under Gordon Brown.
Could I suggest you do some checking before making assumptions about my party’s green credentials past and present?
the sun does seem to be shining in a different direction. This is part of what ‘The Sun Says’ online.
DAVID Cameron’s vow to adopt policies which help families stay together is one of his most important statements.
A Tory report has confirmed what most of us already know — that when parents split up, children turn to crime, yobbery, and drugs. . . . . .
Labour were quick yesterday to label his plans as a re-run of the John Major “back to basics” fiasco — which foundered on his party’s own shabby behaviour.
But Labour miss the point.
Mending our shattered society must be the number one priority of any future governement.
114. Prodi, in many ways, is a prime minister and political leader without a party; with the support of many on the centre left he is trying to make a Democratic Party out of a very disparate coalition, some of whose leaders support him in this but only some of the time. He wants a welded together party, not his current group of contending and fractious coalition parties, so that he can move forward on a united policy front that is determined by the country’s needs, not factional interest. Amato and Fassino (to a lesser degree) are with him in these complex negotiations and manoeverings; Rutelli is being particularly obstructive as the Christian Democrats are concerned they may find themselves locked into a European Union socialist grouping, for instance. What Prodi is doing is, in many ways, what is needed in this country to have a centre left party with the widest appeal and less factional interest.
Roger On a much earlier thread you said used private medicine.
More recently, you said you were using private and NHS medicine for your recent hospital stay. Now you report conversations with NHS staff during your hospital stay. So were you in a BUPA wing, as I thought the NHS no longer had beds for private patients?
126. Why shouldnt the Sun support this - its very sensible policy direction. All part of the DC striptease of forming the next manifesto - themes then policy dripped into the media over the next two years.
126. “A Tory report has confirmed what most of us already know — that when parents split up, children turn to crime, yobbery, and drugs. . . . . . ”
Nice way to offend all those divorced parents whose children didn’t turn to crime, yobbery and drugs.
And divorces can happen for all sorts of reasons…I’m a bit uncertain that Cameron can come up with a policy for every divorce reason to try to stop it.
For ex James Gray MP is divorcing, what is the Tory policy to stop this divorce (just to make sure his children won’t turn to crime, yobbery and drugs)? A chastity belt?
128. I think a much more sensible policy direction would be “putting people in condition (financial or whatever) to start a family (if they want it)” IMO
116. Brown’s party may be the same as Blair’s but, as polls have shown repeatedly, Blair’s constituency is far wider than his party and Brown’s. I merely suggested that Prodi is trying to makea political party that matches a wider constituency of the centre left as a US style Democratic party, and that were Blair not at the mercy of ‘events ‘ he could well have done the same; the Italians are doing what needs to be worked at here, in the end.
127. Interestingly as it became clear that my operation and after treatment were best done at a specialist NHS hospital I thought that was that. However I told the surgeon on first meeting that if it made any difference I was on BUPA. He said that it did.
Though he would use the same operating theatre and staff and though I would go to the NHS high dependancy unit afterwards the last few days of my stay would be in a private room.
By doing this he was able to operate on a Wednesday (his private patient’s day) and the hospital would get several thousand pounds from BUPA which otherwise they wouldn’t. In the event I spent just my last day in a private room and I didn’t care less anyway. Having now had an operation at a BUPA hospital and another at an NHS specialist hospital in many ways I prefer the NHS one.
129. That’s just the sort of argument Polly Toynbee would come up with to try to discredit the position. It’s not a question of eliminating divorce (which only happens after marriage anyway and in many of the cases the couple wouldn’t have been married to start with). The aim has to be to do with reducing family breakdown, which IDS accurately identifies as a key factor in antisocial behaviour, though it is obviously neither a necessary nor sufficient reason.
Benedict… like I say come off it. Though I of course accept that the percentage of Green Taxation has declined under Labour that hardly proves Conservative enthisiasm for the environment.
As you will no doubt be aware Conservative candidates have often been quite happy to oppose green taxation in fairly strident terms.
A few sample policy facts for you - last election the Conservatives promised a very substantial amount of roadbuilding (about half the area of greater London at one stage). The environment hardly got a mention in your campaign (not much sign of really caring there).
Conservatives repeatedly called for the scrapping of the fuel escalator which they themselves introduced. Especially when it was most unpopular at the time of the fuel revolt. Indeed one of the leaders is now a Conservative AM I believe. Bet he feels silly.
Tories have voted against tough anti-pollution legislation at EVERY level of government, from local to Brussels.
Conservatives have opposed renewable energy projects right around the country, from Cornwall to Scotland.
In my part of the world the councils with the worst recycling rates are all…. Tory.
And the less we say about the Conservative record on public transport the better.
The manifestos at the last 2 general elections were assessed by FoE for green policies. In 2001 the scores were something like Green 23.5, LD 22 Labour 17, and Tory…. 7. (can’t find the exact reference).
Before coming over all offended perhaps you should search your memory. I can well believe that many Tories do care very much about the environment for the reason of literal conservatism you suggest… but it ain’t reflected yet in your policies.
Now that the Tories have re-discovered Victorian Values, Back to Basics again, are they on a loop? Perhaps Mr Cameron to back this up, will demand that his MP’s set an example to the rest of us. May I suggest making it clear, that any Tory MP who indulges in extra-marital activities has the whip removed! No jokes about Tory MP’s and whipping please, lets try and keep this discussion out of the gutter.
Oh and I forgot virtually all the reseach funding into sustaninable energy funding was axed by the Tories too, along with funding for various environmental agencies and projects.
That was a pretty clear indication of the real seriousness Lady T attached to global warming.
Mike. Do you know why my reply to 127 is ‘awaiting moderation’?
134. That post is almost identical to one you put up earlier. As no-one considered it worthy of a response last time, what makes you think they will bother on this occasion?
127. Interestingly as it became clear that my operation and after treatment were best done at a speciali”t NHS hospital I thought that was that. However I told the surgeon on first meeting that if it made any difference I was on BUPA. He said that it did.
Though he would use the same operating theatre and staff and though I would go to the NHS high dependancy unit afterwards the last few days of my stay would be in a private room.
By doing this he was able to operate on a Wednesday (his private patient’s day) and the hospital would get several thousand pounds from BUPA which otherwise they wouldn’t. In the event I spent just my last day in a private room and I didn’t care less anyway. Having now had an operation at a BUPA hospital and another at an NHS speciali”t hospital in many ways I prefer the NHS one.
137
Cos I’m bored and I can’t work out why someone hasn’t replied I think its worthy of a reply!
p.s. I’ve also got alzheimer’s and I can’t remember what i said…..Becuase i’ve got alzheimer’s and……..I’ve got….
The whole problem with the Tory “back to basics/marriage is best” policy is that just because there may be statistics to show that children with married parents do better, it doesn’t in anyway mean that incentivising couples to marry, will improve the lot for their children.
Any policy, tax or otherwise, that seeks to promote marriage will at its best just give more to those “happily married” couples, and at worst bring couples together in marriage for the wrong reasons.
If you are in a relationship then the decision to have children probably shows a greater commitment to each other than the decision to marry.
The greatest financial incentive to staying married/together is the thought of the CSA payments.
Even more than that though is the emotional incentive of staying with your children.
This is not an area that policians should meddle in as it always back fires in the end.
132.”That’s just the sort of argument Polly Toynbee would come up with to try to discredit the position”
and so?
“It’s not a question of eliminating divorce ”
Cameron said that divorce rates should come down, because if more couples stayed together for longer, our society would be better off.
You can’t force people staying together. One thing is encouraging people to form stable couples, putting them in the right conditions to do so. But the approach IDS and DC are suggesting is a bit different IMO.
And then I think the problem is not the divorce itself, but how the parents relate to children when the couple split. Both parents can co-operate and be present in their children’s lives even after a divorce.
The issue is that because marriage generally increases the chances in life for children that the state should encourage marriage not put financial penalties upon it.
First people need to know how to improve their chances, tax policies then need to be realigned to encourage that choice. At present for people receiving state benefits some people are better off divorcing! So the State does have a hand in encouraging the right choices for people with children.
Mike, the state does have choices of how it structures its tax and payments. At present it is biased against marriage.
140. ‘If you are in a relationship then the decision to have children probably shows a greater commitment to each other than the decision to marry’
Only someone with a very narrow middle class view of the world could make that comment.
“The manifestos at the last 2 general elections were assessed by FoE for green policies. In 2001 the scores were something like Green 23.5, LD 22 Labour 17, and Tory…. 7. (can’t find the exact reference”
Glad to hear it.
143. Why James? I accept that is you are looking at “The World” there may be economic and social reasons why in some countries this may not be the case, but my comments are in relation to Tory policy in UK
Stormont vote on a motion asking to delay the implementation of Sexual Orientation Regulations in NI:
for 39 votes
against 39 votes
DUP said it was a tie just because Sinn Fein used a law which allows a party to use the vote of a deceased Assembly member if he or she has not been replaced.
144. The that shows how ineffective Labour have been in government at implementing their manifesto. Has anyone found that Carbon Neutral house yet?
WRT divorce, it is an interesting fact that the virtual abolition of legal aid for divorce work in 2005, has coincied with an 8% drop in the number of divorces. Divorce lawyers typically charge c.£200 an hour for divorce work, which does concentrate the mind wonderfully.
148. Well, they are experts at getting dead people to vote.
130
I think you’ll recall that chastity belts were fitted to women, not to men :
123.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Ask for odds on a Hussein being next the US President.. not quite as good as Osama, but means you won’t have to fiddle with the chit!
The problem with marriage as it is today is that government policy and social attitudes now devalue marriage. It is a difficult ship to turn around and it starts with a change in government policy, and the attitudes of politicians.
144. And on marriage policies. Throughout the 80’s, we had tax policies that massively favoured marriage. Result? Hugely increased divorce rates and a huge decline in marriage rates. The reason people are getting married later and less frequently are a lot more about individual earning and indepenedence than they are about Tax.
As far as the rough proposals that the Tories have put forward (transferable tax allowances)- they amount to an middle class marrieds tax cut, which I can’t see doing anything for the mentally ill, those from chaotic families, those on benefits or those with parents in prison, all of whom are supposed to be those helped by the ne policies. It’s the same old tory tax cutting in socially conscious packaging.
146 cone on Sean you are spoiling my fun and damaging your party colleagues chances of making his case. I was looking forward to getting out another list of Tory pro-environment polices if Benedict returns.
Though James Graham can do it far better than I in all probability.
155. missed out a “staying together” after that less frequently. Should make sense now!
Seeds of another Betfair row here?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6165671.stm
I don’t think that marriage was particularly favourably treated in the eighties Brit Spin (other than for CGT and IHT purposes, as now). But IHT and CGT affect relatively few people.
Divorce rates were actually pretty stable in the eighties. The big surge in divorces took place in the seventies.
RE 158, I saw that too, so I wrote this:
http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/2006/12/is-gordon-to-be-coronated.html
RE 135, Jon, Would you mind citing soem references please? Or perhaps email them to me?
Why did we not talk much about the environment last time? Simple, Tim Yeo was Shadow. He also gave me every impression of having not read the environment brief. I might did it up for you when I get home.
158 B
158 B
Noisy Summer as a geologist I can only agree with you some (not all) does sound like tired old cliches
158 Betfair is in the clear, Punter, largely on account of there being no Deputy Leader market. Hills et al, who have a book open, would simply declare the event void and refund all bets.
I don’t think it will happen though. Too many people have invested too much time already in preparing their bids. I also wonder whether the LP constitution might need to be amended if the post is to be abolished.
On the whole, I think to abolish it now would create more problems than it would solve.
Apologies for the B postings. I stammer sometimes.
160 Benedict, thanks for the reference. Once again, I had a short but enjoyable visit to your site.
I am glad to see that you too get your fair share of nutters. As a former soccer referee, may I advise that the best way to deal with nutters is to ignore them. They crave attention. Ignore them and they will soon go and annoy somebody who takes more notice of them.
159. The number of divorces almost tripled between 1970 and 1980 but hasn’t altered much since. But the number of marriages, especially first marriages, has been in decline pretty consistently since 1970.
The real issues surrounding family breakdown are not really related to divorce. They rather revolve around people at the bottom end of the social scale who have never been married at all. Making any inroads in this area will be very difficult indeed.
Re 167, Many thanks for the advice Peter the Punter
I thought the question of Turquoise Dave ‘getting caught might be more related to the actions of the boys in blue than the level he runs at in the polls. It will be interesting to see whether Cameron answers Guido Fawkes’ question on the WebCameron site before his progress gets arrested:
“Do you think it right that parties should be secretly funded by unknown and anonymous backers?”
“Why are Juniper Trading Equities Limited based in Geneva but registered in the British Virgin Islands, Lanners Services Limited, registered in the British Virgin Islands, The ‘Medlina Foundation’ of Liechtenstein and Ironmade Limited all lending millions to your party and who the hell are they?”
Then there might be the add-on: Will the Tories give ‘homeless hoodies’ loans at (hem) ‘commercial rates’ of 0.25% per annum?
158/160
If the Labour Party can’t afford the elections, perhaps there’s a something here for GB to consider. Elections for life! Cancel all future GEs. locals etc and put the some saved back into the environment. On the death on an MP/councillor his/her vote goes to back to his Party as we’ve just seen in Northern Ireland.
Only when we get down to 50% of the original members do we bother with a full election.
Just to make it fair lets have that election under STV.
Discuss.
Benedict: Just to say I visit your site occassionally. I don’t know why, I think it is because I see adverts for it somewhere, not sure where
The nutter has his/her uses - I read your blog today to see what he/she said. I’m sure my post will generate a few more visits! Don’t get put off - if other blogs are anything to go by you will get more rubbish like this.
RE 172 kjh, many thanks
160. Benedict, I was getting my deputy’s mixed up.
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=32007&SESSION=885
Where can i get more in depth % results for local council elections?
168. While of course the changes in law led to a step change in the early 70’s my reading of the attached graph says that there was a major steady, if slowing growth in the eighties, then stayed more or less static from c1990.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/12/11/ntory11.gif
On your broader point, I entirely agree, which is why a reversion to tax cuts for married couples, as the Tories seem to be suggesting (via transerable) is not even an attempt at solving the problem they describe.
Sean F. I was referrring to the married Couples Allowance which lasted all the way to ‘99, though i understand if you don’t feel that was significant!
RE 174, ChrisD, do you mean on my Blog? If so, if you want to see ..
Nah. I appreaciated that at the time. Persoanly I’d just rid of the party
130 - surely IDS is confusing cause and effect here, and handily mis-reading the stats.
His figures show that people who stay together when they have children are the same sort of people who are more likely to get married; they do NOT show that being married means it is less likely that you will break up if you have children and therefore that marriage is a better condition for starting a family (which is what he and the headlines around the story are claiming).
A nice twist on the stats to give the Tory press and traditionalists a bit of red meat, but somewhat disingenuous! Could do better!
Interestingly Labour have edged above the Tories on the seat markets for the first time in ages.
RE 178, Alex, the question is how do we get people to value marriage and stay together. Part of teh problem is a very lax and growing attitude around such old fashioned concepts such as marriage and commitment etc.
179.
Not on betfair - Lab 2.22, Con 1.85- where are yo looking ? Arb opportunity ?
Seems as though DC really is on the right road to Downing Street.
180 - No, that’s not *the* question, that’s *your* question based on what you want the statistics to prove. My instincts concur with yours in that there is a problem with people staying together, and that encouraging this to happen is worthwhile. However, we should want parents to stay together regardless of the form of the relationship (marriage, co-habitation, civil partnership etc); the stats presented by IDS do not support the idea that marriage is any better at encouraging this to happen than any other form, and this is where we differ ;-).
Just catching up with the threads - busy day down the literary saltmine.
Just for the record, Roger, at no point did I ever ‘eulogise’ Pinochet. Go on - read the posts.
I made an ironic remark that ‘I am sure we would all like to join together to honour the passing of this great leader etc etc’ - clearly I was aware, given the hysteria of the left when it comes to Pinochet, that this was the last thing someone of your ilk would ever do. It was, in other words, a joke - I never thought my own opinion of the humourless lefty would be so amply and richly fulfilled.
Happily, the less idiotic got the joke immediately - Peter the Punter, Jack W, et al.
So you didn’t. There we go.
I wouldn’t normally give a hoot what you think of my opinion in this matter, but I have just heard that my book was a question on the Weakest Link - it’s true! Ann Robinson said ‘Complete the title of Sean Thomas’s book Millions of Women are…’
So I am obviously now a public figure of enormous import, and I can’t afford to be misquoted on matters like this.
FWIW, I think Pinochet was an obviously bad man, but the alternatives to him - Marxism and leftwing dictatorship - were arguably even worse. Look at the mess Cuba is in now. Indeed Castro and Pinochet are two sides of the same coin. History will judge them, but it might take a while - the arguments are complex.
There.
Cantor Spreadfair have the following seat spreads just now:
Lab 280 - 288
Con 281 - 284.8
LD 51.5 - 58
SNP 3 - no buy offers yet
PC 1 - no buy offers yet
For comparison, the result of UK GE 2005 was:
Lab 356
Con 198
LD 62
SNP 6
PC 3
So, thus far, the market is predicting a strong Tory advance, at the expense of everyone else. But still tiny amounts on the market.
No this is the seat market on spreadfair.
It’s not an arb it just implies something about the way the possibilities are skewed.
182. You obviously haven’t heard the wriggling Chameleon on the radio today Geoffrey. He just found himself totally utterly unable to say that ‘marriage is best’, despite the fact that it was obvious that his brief was ‘marriage is best’ - especially for children.
Cameron’s ‘chicken’ soup.
“A family comes in all shapes and sizes.It can be a single mother a co-habiting couple or a married couple” Cameron’s answer to “What do you call a family?”.
Sometimes his vacuousness really pisses me off. I had just been pontificating on how he wasn’t too bad and then he ties himself up in this mush of crap! Fortunately Eddie Mayer made him sound ridiculous which in this instant was well deserved.
“Millions of Women are……..”
More attractive than Ann Robinson?
RE 183, Alex, the statistics speak for themselves. What they say is open to debate. The report as I understand it looks to find ways to support people staying together no matter what form their relationship takes when it involves children.
What I would say though is that marriage is a big commitment taht is different to having children which is also a big commitment. They former gives rights expectations and responsibilites, the latter only responsibilites.
“Millions of Women are….”
…leaving their partners and contributing to the breakdown of society?
188. If he doesn’t say this he gets hit with a DC bashes single mothers headline - which you would be masticating over with a similar amount of glee. He can’t win - its the nature of soundbite journalism.
Sorry Sean. If I’d realized you were now a celebrity writer I would treat you with the respect I would normally reserve for Jeffrey Archer.
(Only joking! Congratulations on the publicity.It’s worth having)
Heh. Millions of Women are About to Move Right and vote Tory.
At the risk of kicking the fallen wasp’s nest of the Pinochet debate (and yes Roger, I still think he was a BAD MAN), there’s an intriguing analysis by the BBC of Pinochet’s economic legacy, here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6167941.stm
“Millions of Women are….”
Attracted to John Prescott.
152.”I think you’ll recall that chastity belts were fitted to women, not to men : ”
There were (and according to wikipedia are) versions for men too.
Exactly Jamie! He must learn that if he has nothing to say then say nothing. It’s too easy to fall for the soap opera of politics and very quickly no-one will be interested in anything he has to say
196 Andrea, I think you are unwise to disclose a knowledge of this subject.
196. Catheters?
(Don’t worry, Roger, you’ve had the operation now!)
197. Spot on, Roger.
It’s more of the “Goodness me, there is a problem. Do I have any reasonable ideas to address the problem? Er….please go away now thankyou.” school of politics, which Cameron is leading these days.
103. Patrick has officially become a Plastic Paddy. A man with no understanding at all about Northern Ireland and probably even less about the Republic of Ireland.
Patrick in his infinite ignorance believes that people of different religions don’t socialise. Every day thousands upon thousands of them do, in bars, at clubs, playing sport, in their work, some go to school together……….
Well done Patrick you’ve shown yerself up. Case closed.
179. Time to play the market then.
195. Well thats Prescott’s reasoning & excuse…pathetic lil lump.
201. Would you prefer the make policies up in a weekend approach or a considered method using experts over a longer period of time but still in plenty of time for the next election ?
198. PtP
I just followed a link on wikipedia.
I Think you miss the point Jamie. He was invited on to the programme to discuss IDS’s paper on social deprivation and the family. He opened by saying “I believe we should give all the support we can to families”.
“What do you call ‘a family’?” asked Eddie……cont…188
….Eddie then said so a family is everyone who isn’t a single person who lives on their own?
206. Roger i heard the interview and anyone can see where Mair was going. Its Mair’s job but jaysus it makes for stinking radio.
On another note, this kind of thing is a vote winner ’supporting families’. What Cameron needs to do, however, is actually put some actual policy ideas behind it.
Being a leader sometimes invoves being courageous. If he thinks marriage is better than cohabitation-as IDS said in his paper-then he has to say so. Mumbling wont get him through. Why is he so feeble?
202. You seem to forget, Jamie, that the said David Cameron penned all sorts of policies about virtually every aspect of human life only 18 months ago. It was called the Conservative manifesto and presumably he believed in what he was peddling? So no, I do not think he should need too long to make any ‘tweaks’ in his existing policies. And if he has nothing to say, he should avoid creating a fanfare of trumpets for… er…. having nothing to say.
Cameron reminds me a bit of the Bishop of Southwark. (No, I do not mean Simon Hughes!) “I do not really understand why I was there or what I was doing or saying….”
208. zeb - he could turn up at your house and bake you a cake and you’d still say he was a twat.
209 Jamie, if he turned up at my place and baked me a cake I should said he must be aq twat! Surely he’s got better things to do.
And I don’t like cake either.
159 In one respect it was better to cohabit until the late 1980s: you could get two servings of MIRAS (Mortgage Interest Relief). But the idea that tweaking tax and benefits will make people live together in enduring family units is a chimera (in my view anyway).
203 If that’s the best alibi you can come up with, Andrea, I suggest you seek legal advice right now.
do they still have the Inquisition in Italy?
The problem with the kind of argument being put forward by the IDS report - indeed, of any argument that says system A is generally better than systems B, C or D - is that opponents twist it to say “that means you disapprove of systems B, C and D, but there are examples of these working, therefore your analysis is worthless”. In human activity, pretty much any generalisation can be disproved by specific examples.
Probably more important than the focus on marriage is the research digging deeper into why relationships break down. Dealing with consumer debt, for example, is something politicians can do something about.
But the main reason why more relationships break up these days is because they can. Women can work and bring up kids; men can work and run a household. Up until not that long ago, if it wasn’t impossible, then it was certainly difficult: very few childcare facilities, especially for the lower income groups, shops shutting at 5pm, no instant microwavable food and so on. And it was also much less socially acceptable.
None of the changes that have ended that situation are bad for society of themselves but one of the unintended consequences is that it has made it easier for couples to split. However, that doesn’t mean there aren’t some things that can be done, and the report doesn’t sound to be a bad starting point.
212.”do they still have the Inquisition in Italy? ”
I was already suggested here that I can become a good Inquisitor.
213.”But the main reason why more relationships break up these days is because they can. Women can work and bring up kids; men can work and run a household. Up until not that long ago, if it wasn’t impossible, then it was certainly difficult: very few childcare facilities, especially for the lower income groups, shops shutting at 5pm, no instant microwavable food and so on. And it was also much less socially acceptable”
and yes, people were staying together because they didn’t have other solutions. But maybe spending lots of time arguing with each other, shouting at each other, throwing dishes at each other….would it be better than a divorce? I don’t think so.
210. “David Cameron has got something better to do than bake a cake.” Discuss.
What?. . . you’ve finished already, Mr Davis??
195. In his dreams.
How about the franchised versions:
Of gas fire sales-women:
“Millions of women are waiting to heat you”
The restauranteurs guide:
“Millions of women are waiting to seat you”
For the S&M inclined:
“Millions of women are waiting to beat you”
Of cannibals:
“Millions of women are waiting to eat you”
Of the impotent….
“Millions of women are waiting…and waiting….
214. “spending lots of time arguing with each other, shouting at each other, throwing dishes at each other….would it be better than a divorce?”
The question is why do all those precious egos have to think it’s any sense at all to shout and stomp - and go off ‘in search of something better’ when the problem in the relationship might well be…. shock…. horror…. something to do with themselves as much as anything, which they will continue to ignore and hence repeat again and again, to the cost of self, kids, spouse andd society if they are lucky/unlucky enough to find themselves in another relationship.
133 Thank Roger. I was interested in this as I had been told that specialists were not allowed ‘private days’ and private beds in NHS hospitals.
I am all for private medicine and private hospitals but am dead against private treatment in NHS hospitals that make it possible for private patients to get more prompt attention than the non-private patient. After all the facilities and staff are NHS staff, taxpayers staff and facilities.
Consultants that do private treatment in NHS hospitals seem to have the best of both worlds, private fees and public salaries. If they were really free agents engaged by a hospital for specific services it wouldn’t matter, but the current arrangement stinks in my opinion.
No wonder they drive Bentleys.
217.
“Millions of women are waiting…and waiting….”
She’ll be coming round the mountain when she comes…….
218. I don’t think you can solve ego-problems through political initiatives (especially as some politicians have quite big egos)
Re 214, Andrea, maybe some were throwing dishes at each other, whilst others realised they had to like or lump it and ended up working through things in a vaguely civil fashion.
220. I would agree, Andrea, that the collective narcissisisation of our society cannot be addressed by any politically-initiated processes which will impact in much less than a couple of decades. Consequently, such issues/processes will be of little interest to short-term politicians and so. . . . we’re all doomed!?!
Yes, people from broken homes are getting a bad start in life. But this sounds like two symptoms of the same cause. If children have feckless parents, they’ll get a bad start in life whether those parents are together or not. If children have parents who’ll take a bit of responsibility, they’ll have a good start in life whether they’re parents are together or not. It’s just that feckless parents are a lot less likely to stay together - not that their fecklessness is only caused by them splitting up. So children from single parent families are more likely to be the children of feckless parents.
I’m not convinced that encouraging these people to stay together is going to have any benefit at all.
As I strongly suspect I’m probably the only long term married person who regularly uses this site: married 1970, two children. Marriage blissfully happy, two boys both went onto higher education, both have degrees. It worked for me, but I can’t say because it worked for me, its going to work for everybody! Politicans are the last ones to preach to the rest of us about marriage, most of them don’t ever seem to stay the course. When ever any political party, starts to dabble in this area, you can bet your life, nemesis is not far away.
Re 218, Zebidee spot on.
If David Cameron thinks it is any part of his job description to keep people married-because married couples produce the best behaved children-I could give him several suggestions. Muslims are many times less likely to divorce than non Muslims. Devout ones even less. So perhaps DC should advocate the veil. That’ll cut down on temptation. Orthodox Jews hardly ever divorce…..now there’s a thought…….
If people have children they have created responsibilities that they cannot escape and must accept.
Whether this is within marriage or within a ‘partnership’ or from a one night stand or as adoptive parents (of different or the same sex) the resonsibility to the child and to the rest of us still exists.
What seems to happen, and this to me is the core of the IDS research effort and as the CSA records show, is too many men (and it is usually men) try to escape the responsibilities their sperm has given them.They drop the problem and the consequences on the rest of us. That is unacceptable.
The children from broken homes and single parents ( and I am one myself) do suffer in a way that children from a stable parental relationship do not.
Do I vilify my mother because she was a single parent? Of course not. She tries her best to do what was right by me.
Have I the wit to see that a stable parental relationship allows children a better developmental opportunity? Of course I do.
So please cut out the silly propaganda and witter about Victorian values and look at what is happening. We all have a responsibility to do something, if only accept there is a problem and a solution must be found.
224. Coldstone, it’s true that politicians neglect and exploitation of their spouses and families is legendary - at all levels. There is a collective guilt, rarely spoken of openly. Some spouses are more absorbent of this abuse than others. Some kids survive. others are not so lucky. I count Carol Thatcher as a survivor but, though ‘damaged’ by her parents strange life she is still a lot nicer than her brother, father and mother.
I was intrigued at Tony Blair’s recent “You’ve got to adopt our culture if you come over here” speech. While agreeing fully with the basic premise I consider that I, and a large chunk of Britons share no culture at all with anyone who calls a vicious selfish murdering dictator a friend (Thatcher) or someone who can consign hundreds of thousands to death on the back of irrational falsehoods which stoke-up his own ego (Blair).
“What seems to happen, and this to me is the core of the IDS research effort and as the CSA records show, is too many men (and it is usually men) try to escape the responsibilities their sperm has given them.They drop the problem and the consequences on the rest of us. That is unacceptable.”
There is considerable truth in that. However, if we are to insist on fathers fulfilling their obligations to their children, we must also insist on family courts behaving rather more impartially towards them as well.
227. Goodness me, it’s broken clock time. I agree totally with ‘the Master’. It’ll be Melanie Phillips next!
RE 227, The master, Your post seems to imply that men not only leave but are responsible for the breakup. That is not the case. We already now know that half of actual domestic violence is perpetrated by women.
229. No, it wasn’t Melanie Phillips, it was Sean Fear! Next best thing?
231. Benedict, Women have as great a propensity towards unrealistic expectations and selfishness in a relationship as do men. Their reactions, violent or otherwise, are as likely to cause marital or relationship break-up as are men. Normally, though, it is a hand-over-hand two-to-tango thing. Few relationships ‘just snap’ over one incident.
It is, however, true, that men are more likely to ‘flee the nest’ and rationalise their irresponsibility, whatever you may think of the arguments about the general ‘biological inevitability’ of the ’seed-spreader’ moving on. The CSA and more particularly the family courts, in which i work from time to time, have a lot to answer. in particular Justice Butler-Sloss, who I would have happily preferred to have devoted her entire legal life to the death of Diana - she would have done a lot less harm that way.
When Martin Luther came up with the concept of predestination, it was to explain why, if we are all created in God’s image, some people behave and some people don’t. The people who use this site, are I’m sure well educated, responsible people, the people out there who behave in a manner which most people find frustrating and annoying, won’t care. They will not care about what the church says, or the government, or newspapers, they will carry on doing what people like them have always done, and people like us will tut-tut like we always have. Politicians will come up with so called solutions, which will always fail: and so on and so on etc etc,
Re 233, I agree Zebidee. The system is inherently predujiced against men in the sense of the assumptions made about who can and should look after the kids. Lots of men will assume they have lost and b*gger off to rationalise it later in what ever way gets them through the night.
Lord, Coldstone, you are a sad so and so! I thought I was pretty miserable till I saw your posting. Yes, people will carry on doing what they do, but since what they do changes all the time, albeit slowly, both individually and collectively, then things ARE changed. If you think the reasons for such changes are purely random, then run off and leave others to try to ‘make a difference’. This may be via ‘art’ (in its widest sense), media politics, whatever. Sometimes it will become obvious that the proposed effect is the opposite of what was originally hoped for. So, should we all give up forever?
Re 236, Zebidee, Would you agree it would be a good idea to find a way to encourage marriage and stable family life in the long term?
Is the IDS report a good wy to kick off the debate?
What would you look to do?
236
Get a book on chaos theory zebidee
All life is chaotic, attempts to bring order will be frustrated.
The more you attempt to bring order, the more certain is destruction: look at the Fascists/Nazis/Communists.
The only thing you can be certain of, is decent people will always be decent, the rest not! Why? dunno, could be genetic!
Just thought I would wade into the debate about IDS’s social justice report. We all seem to know what the problems are and what we should not do to solve them. David Cameron will get a verbal rocket what ever he suggests but the fact remains that we have to do something other than start issuing asbo’s before kids are even born or tinkering with the tax/welfare system.
The previous tory government penalised single parents and this Labour government has penalised marriage and the problems are still there getting worse.
One of the reasons I haven’t married my partner, with whom I have a lovely daughter, is because I refuse to honour an institution which is now so absurdly biassed against my gender.
If we marry then get divorced, she’ll get the kids. She’ll also get the house. She’ll get half my money or more. She’ll also get a chunk of my future earnings, maybe my pension, and the rest. And all this even if it is her that causes the break up, and is unfaithful, or whatever.
One of my seminal experiences was watching a guy on a New Age therapy course in Greece (I was doing an article!) nearly break down as he described how his wife started bonking the fitness instructor, the wife then kicked her husband out, sued for divorce, kept the house, the car and the kids and the cash that HE had earned (he was a famous photographer, she earned nothing); then she moved the fitness instructor in to the old family home. One day the photographer rang the house and the fitness guy answered, in this bloke’s old house, with this bloke’s kids playing in the background… the poor man snapped and went to live in Greece and be a Buddhist.
Marriage has become a means by which the state enforces payment and support from men for women. Men are regarded as peripheral in almost all other ways. We are even expected to cough up money if a woman tricks us into impregnating her.
To hell with marriage. I know many men that agree with me. If the Tories want to rebuild marriage they could start by balancing it, and making it more attractive for men. Then men might not feel cheated by the system.
218 “Of the impotent”
Men don’t get impotent. Women get ugly…
…one way or another.
Heather Mills Mac. Pretty woman and yet very ugly at the same time.
242 Beats me why any man gets married, Sean T. I’m no expert but I have the impression that recent Court decisions have tipped the balance of advantages heavily in favour of wives. I also doubt whether in doing so it does anything at all to rein in husbands who shirk their responsibilities or simply cut and run.
It’s a mess. Don’t blame you for avoiding it.
Poor Sean, shall I tell you now that recent law changes mean that your liabilities to your ‘partner’ if you split up and have shared a house together as a ‘family home’, will not be much different than if you were ‘married’, especially if you shared the home for a good while? And yes, if the court determined that the female partner should be ‘resident parent’ for your child(ren), and she asks to keep them ‘unsettled’ in the family home, it will probably move you out and, if she has a fitness instructor, she can move him (or her!) in.
The whole point of marriage is meant to be that you each make an assessment that the other partner will stick with you before you finally decide to stick with them, and you work from that moment on to make sure that you are right. For some, these days, there is a reasonable argument that if you choose to have a child together then the child deserves the assumption that you have both determined this level of mutual trust before conception - ie you should be treated as ‘married’ irrespective of whether you have been bothered with the ceremonial stuff. Of course, you may fail - and things, as they stand, can seem particularly unfair, especially if you have teamed up with a manipulative deceitful woman who pretended for years that she was all sorts of things so beautifully in order to get you where she wanted you.
So, may all your problems be little ones!
245 Zeb
Isn’t part of the problem that the current system encourages deception and manipulation?
242
I must say sean I find your reasoning rather strange. When I married my wife, I did so because (sentimental fool) I loved her, (still do) I didn’t think of the financial consequences of breaking up, they were never a consideration. They were never a consideration, because I never thought we would break up! Apart from loving her, I recognised her as a truely honest and decent person.
239. Frankly, Benedict, I am more with IDS than with Cameron - since IDS really just summarises much of what I have thought all along and many have said before, some rather better. Still, it keeps him off the streets? Cameron just ducks the issue in my view -gives IDS faint praise then. . . . .
Maybe we should all just adopt Coldstone’s view of the inevitability of a planet ruined by India/China/Russia and America (the Axis of CO2 Evil) and go and get blotto while we wait for oblivion? I’ve an idea that is what George Osborne does, anyway, for all the use he’s been in the past few years!
245 - I’d forgotten about that. That was a really, really stupid piece of government legislation which irritated me no end. How dare the government refuse me theright to choose to remain unmarried?
To add to which, ex-husbands can be and are chased very hard for maintenance payments, whereas access rights are much more difficult to enforce - not least because money doesn’t have feelings but kids do, so there’s a moral responsibility not to be seen to argue too strongly over them.
Dealing with it will mean taking on the feminist/PC lobby, which will not be pretty, and even then there’s no guarentee that whatever emerges as a result will be any better.
246 - And you’ve been lucky enough to have your trust honoured, Coldstone. But I’d suggest that - although not uncommon - it is your reasoning that is strange - “I marry her because I love her”. I’dsuggest a rational cost benefit analysis of th situation showed you had little to gain and plenty to lose. I recognise that those of us in love (or indeed humankind in general) aren’t the best at applying logic to the situation, but surely Sean’s is the mre rational position?
Excellent bit of spin by Labour…
“Unmarried couples will have the same rights as married couples”
Very professional propaganda machine. 10 out of 10.
RE 245, Zebidee, my understanding is that if two people cohabit then there are no special rights at the moment. A law commision report may lead to new law but that has not as yet happened.
If a man owns a house in his sole name and there is no equitable share owned by the “partner” then said partner can be thrown out on a whim. The Matrimonial clauses act 1973 does not come into play as there is no marriage.
RE 249, As I undertsnad it no law has yet been passed to that effect.
Doesn’t the problem really revolve around the way in which relationships are formed in the first place?
Working class women used to marry men for security for themselves and their children. The need for security meant that a degree of care was required in their choice of partner - it was a pretty good idea to pick someone who was likely to hold down a steady job and not do a runner for example.
Now the pressure to pick a ‘winner’ is much lower. A lone young woman with a child will be housed and provided with an income regardless of circumstances. Indeed, she may even be materially better off on her own than with a partner due to the perversities of the tax & benefit system. In this situation, partners can be chosen and then discarded pretty much at will.
Male incentives to choose a partner with care have also been eroded. Exit from relationships, even those where children have been conceived, is relatively easy. The hapless CSA is no threat, especially if the man is not working anyway. Society (or your mates at least) does not censure him for neglecting his children in the way it once did. The door is open for men to get their end away for a while with minimal consequences, then move on.
Social change and perverse economic incentives have infantilised many young working class people and encouraged irresponsibility. This is one the main sources of the growing underclass.
253 Benedict, while the property rights element may not have been ’sorted’ (sic) yet, I was advised about five years ago that Family Courts can (and do) direct that a child may not be thrown out of the ‘family home’ and which parent shall live there with them until they come of age/finish full-time education. This may also, in some cases, be the only way that a non-resident parent can fulfil financial obligations to maintain the child and (usually) mother, as any other arrangement leaves the father on Income Support levels.
Children are supposed to have parents and uncles and aunties and cousins and grandparents and brothers and sisters and lots of homes they’re welcome in and they should have a nice clear civil code setting out everybody’s dues and duties and claims and statuses; then if one of their parents is not up to scratch everyone knows the score and the children may miss a parent, at times, on a personal level, but that isn’t confused with where they stand and all their available love and support, both emotional and financial. The state does it differently in Italy, not just hands out means-tested benefits and horrible housing.
255. Indeed, ‘Voice’, and the CSA jurisdiction does not reach the jurisdiction of ‘foreign countries, such as the Republic of Ireland. Also our armed forces (and merchant marine) are not covered in the same way as ordinary men and women, and servicemen can sometimes get away with ‘murder’ if their regiment feel that it would cause ‘undue hardhip’ for them to pay the same as antone else on the same income.
RE 256, Zebidee, a family court may have no juridiction to do any such thing. For example person A may be the sole Assured tenent of a property. That tenancy can not be transferred to a “partner” except by use of the Matrimonial clauses act.
A court can’t also decide that a tenent can’t enjoy his tenency. (So they either transfer the tenency or they don’t)
If you have any reference to back up what you have said I would be very interested to hear.
It may well be the case that the court decides the kids get the house when the other partner has some equitable stake, but can’t do so other wise.
(I don’t think the law commission are planning on changing that part of the law either)
Coldstone
I could have written with complete honesty every single word of your post 242 because it applies every bit as much to me and my now ex wife as it does to you.
When we agreed to separate after many years together, it was as a result of a civilized discussion and we agreed between us an equitable solution and mutually acceptable way forward. Everything went fine until she consulted a lawyer. Her view of what was equitable changed immediately.
I am afraid my view of the way in which the law operates is a little jaundiced.
Coldstone. Like you, I too love my partner (and my child), I am sure a few decades ago we would have married. I also trust and respect my partner; if we do break up - I hope not - I shall support her as I can, and I am sure she will play fair by me.
I just refuse to hand over the happiness and future of me and my family to a legal institution which is now so decomposed, so ludicrous unbalanced, so vitiated by feminist caveats, PC confusions, and bits of dodgy social engineering, it seems to be expressly designed to humiliate men and catch them out.
Quite frankly it amazes me why any man gets married these days, but love conquers most, I guess.
In a way my position is that of a feminist in the 1900s, say, one of those women who refused to marry as they saw it as an institution, at the time, for enslaving women (and they had a point).
The pendulum has now swung way too far the other way. Hence my stance.
Unmarried woman wins share of former partner’s home
Date: 27 May 2004
Source: Divorce-Online Ltd
A judge has awarded a woman a £100,000 share of her former partner’s home even though the couple were not married and she made no financial contribution to the mortgage.
The ruling could benefit thousands of other unmarried couples who under the current law have no special rights to each other’s property when a relationship breaks down.
Elayne Oxley, 51, shared a home in Kent with Allan Hiscock, 54, for 16 years before she claimed a share of the property when he ended the relationship.
In a complex 50-page judgment Lord Justice Chadwick ruled that Ms Oxley is entitled to a 40 per cent share of Mr Hiscock’s £232,000 home in Hartley, near Dartford.
Ms Oxley told the court that although she had not paid the mortgage she had contributed towards food and utility bills. She hailed the ruling a victory for unmarried women.
“Women who live with their partners assume they are protected but the law doesn’t recognise the term ‘common-law wife’. My case will prevent other women enduring the anguish I have been put through,” she said.
Family law experts were more cautious. Nigel Shepherd, a spokesman for the Family Solicitors Law Association, said: “The case does not alter the fact that you do not get an entitlement to a property owned by your partner simply by virtue of living with them. There is still no such thing as a common-law marriage.”
But he added: “Although not a landmark decision as such, the judgment clarifies the approach to be taken in this type of case and represents a more generous and fairer interpretation of what remains an extremely complex area of law.”
Ms Oxley was working with social services when she met Mr Hiscock, an engineer at Dartford power station. “I wanted to be married to him but he didn’t want to for tax reasons,” she said.
Mr Shepherd said the case showed that there was a real need for a change in the law reflecting the rights of unmarried couples who lived together.
Funny thread.
Imagine a spoilt child. Eating what it wants. Screaming to get its own way. Spoilt children rarely have any friends.
Apparently there are women who cannot find a man. Apparently they are afraid to commit.
It is of course men’s fault. They are just not man enough to handle a real woman.
263 Ocaral, is there some language of which I am not aware in which your name translates as misogynist?
I gotta go watch David Starkey. But let’s not forget the Parlour case:
“Ray Parlour married his wife Karen in 1998; the couple had three children before separating in 2001. In July 2004, they agreed a divorce settlement which set a legal precedent; the settlement awarded Karen Parlour two houses, a £250,000 lump sum and £406,500 a year for child maintenance for four years (after which the case will be reviewed). The precedent is in relation to the maintenance payments; at first Parlour was willing to give Karen £120,000 a year, but she wanted more. So the appeal court awarded her £250,000 a year, but she still wanted more. Then the Court of Appeal increased Karen’s award to £406,500 for annual maintenance; the increase was made as under the original arrangements, although they met Karen’s needs, still meant there was still a large disparity in income between both parties.”
In other words the only reason she was given this was not because she would have been poor - the settlement was already massive - but because, after the divorce, he would still have been richer than her (because he is a fine footballer and she’s a housewife); so the court gave her a chunk of his FUTURE earnings after the divorce.
Sheesh.
By the way, my official domicile is not the same as my partner’s, we don’t even officially live together. Down with marriage! Kick out the lawyers! Let people love each other and live together fairly and decently! Now I’m off to put my Superman costume on.
Re 262, Zebidee, that seems to me to be a peculiar and one off judgement. I also suspect that it has not been taken to appeal and so is not binding, hence the law commission.
Further more there may have been reasons to imply an equitable stake, and I could not comment with out seeing the jusdgement in full.
(Email address on my blog if you like, benedictmpwhite at gmail dhat com)
Have just caught up with the thread.
The ONS has a neat graph showing the number of divorces in the last 50 odd years
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=170
The divorce rate climbed in the 70’s after the Divorce Reform Act, and then makes a peak just after the early 80’s recession, then makes an all-time high of 180,018 divoprces in 1993, and then drops steadily under New Labour. The rate in 2005 was 155,052, a 14% drop from the all-time high.
Nothing makes couples fight as much as money worries, which is why the peaks in the divorce rates come hard on the heels of recessions. Therefore the best way to keep marriages intact is to run a steady economy. (You’ll all be pleased to know that marriage rates are also rising: there were 270,700 marriages in England and Wales in 2004, which is a rise of 590 from the figures in 2003, and 15,100 greater than 2002 - and yup, it’s happening under New Labour.)
As for David Cameron blaming drug addiction on parenting - he should be ashamed of himself for blaming his parents for his own experiments with the forbidden stuff. Not everything is the parents’ fault you know. Sometimes it’s just down to hedonism and recklessness in the character of the individual, who does have a choice about whether they take drugs or not.
259 - Benedict I don’t want want to be picky but it’s the Matriminal Causes Act 1973 and also you need to bear in mind some of the strange terms of the Matrimonial Homes Act 1983 (and the 1967 one). My knowledge of these comes from my days at the land registry and are a bit rusty but a share in the equitable estate in real property can be demonstrated by living in it and contributing to the running of a household.
I am amazed that in this thread as well as the usual stuff from zebidee the post at 219 is spot on and I hope it will be around an awareness of this type of thinking that future tory policy will be built. The fact that 70% of divorce filings come from women and that so many unmarried couple split before their chidren have even reached school age is a national tragedy but unlike coldstone I don’t think it is sensible to ignore it.
268 if your going to be picky you should spell things properly Matrimonial Causes Act
doh your = you’re
266. What I have picked up, Benedict, is that there is, (AS YET!) no RIGHT for an unmarried partner, but there is indeed a right to argue, based upon this:
“An implied trust is not expressly created, but arises by means of implication from particular circumstances. It can take one of two forms, a resulting trust or a constructive trust:
A constructive trust is implied to give effect to the “common intention” of persons, typically where there is an agreement, arrangement or understanding between them that a property should be shared beneficially on which agreement one person relies to his or her detriment.”
“Proprietary estoppel is a doctrine applicable where a person has been encouraged or allowed to believe by an owner of land that he or she has certain rights in or over it. That person then acts to his or her detriment in reliance on this belief. If it is unconscionable for the owner to deny the claimant the rights in question, the court may grant relief to give effect to the expectation which has been engendered. The relief may or may not comprise the grant of an interest in property.”
And in the other issue, regarding occupation, the scope for argument depends upon the circumstances. For instance if a male owner of a house who has been violent to his wife runs off for 6 months with another woman, leaving his wife and kids with no income, then returns, I think a family court will not allow him to turf his wife out unless/until the court is totally satisfied he has provided adequately for them, which he may not be able to do other than leaving them be. His conduct may have been such as to deprive him of a right to share (any part of) the property - indeed he might find himself injuncted to stay away.
I think you are right about the Court of Appeal on Oxley-Hiscock, but I reckon it is probably un-appealed because Hiscock has been advised he would lose. I am not sure of how many other similar cases there might be. Sean T seems safe though, provided his (to be???!) ex-partner can’t persuade a court that really they had an implied agreement to jointly share both homes, regardless of which one they lived in most of the time.
No wonder Cameron is so totally vague on family law (most of which the judges just overturn anyway - and get away with it!)
Snowflake, you are the Queen of Geeks, the political anorak-ess par excellence. You are also a bit of a spinner - you don’t mention that by far the most dramatic acceleration in the graph, in the divorce rates, occurs under Labour in the 60s.
You probably know this is a subject I am passionate about, and am extremely critical of my own party’s lack of will to take family seriously, for risk of offending those who choose alternative lifestyles, and are seen as likely LD voters. While one of the key reasons I joined the party was their prioritising of social justice, maintaining family really has to be at the heart of any community agenda.
I have long had respect for IDS; although he possessed precious little leadership ability, he has carried the torch on social justice within the Conservatives for so long, and I am pleased to see him making hay on an area so close to his heart. This report is good stuff, and we need more people saying simply that marriage works. Yes, there are many exceptions, of marriages breaking down, and heroic single parents, but let’s not pretend for a second that they are the majority.
Benedict White hits the nail on the head right back at 154, by saying that society devalues commitment and that a massive change in culture is needed. While I applauded Blair’s intention of creating a respect agenda in his third term, I knew it was doomed within a day when he promoted David Blunkett back into the cabinet. (And was unsurprised by the reality that it was just a new batch of criminal offences demonising young people.) It’s on issues like this that politicians cannot merely be policy makers, or managers if they want to effect change; they have to be national leaders. Is it really that extreme to say today that senior politicians’ private lives have no bearing on their jobs? If a politician displays poor conduct in their personal affairs, however you judge that, surely this calls into question their ability to run an office of state? If you’re having an affair behind your partner’s back, and are deceiving those closest to you, can you really be trusted with a senior role in Government? These are forbidden questions currently, but if we are to see a seismic shift in attitudes to commitment and relationships, there is no other place to start than the top.
Let’s start with education: we need relationship education, and I agree with my party’s call for it to be compulsory, which puts young people in an informed position about monogamy/promiscuity, and in particular parenthood. We need to include not only the biological, but also hear of people’s experience of parenthood, from the perspective of within a married couple, an unmarried one, and as a single parent. In particular, young men need to learn about the CSA or whatever will replace it before it affects them, and that parenthood is a lifelong commitment in financial terms at least. Finally, and admittedly controversially, I would like to see marriage being promoted in terms of stability and commitment.
Let’s go forward a few years. The age of consent is a legal barrier, but it is used more today to decide whether there should be a rape prosecution when one partner in a sexual relationship is oler than the other. Where in current sex education/PSHE is it emphasized that having sex before the age of 16 is against the law? When young teenagers become pregnant, is prosecution ever considered? If the age of consent is to be taken seriously as a way to encourage younger teenagers to wait before having sex, some effort needs to be made to enforce it. I have read of studies finding, unsurprisingly that the younger people are when they first have sex, the more partners they have, and the less likely they are to form stable relationships as adults.
Many people, particularly teenagers, simply make terrible parents. While they make their own choices, and almost always want to do the best for their children, parents often need real help. If we are serious about as many children as possible being raised in 2-parent families, we need to encourage parents to stay together. The previously tried solution is to encourage parents to commit to each other through marriage, and to offer tax breaks as a result. However this famously did not work, and I am not surprised to learn of this. When a relationship has broken down, it takes far more than some financial assistance to keep the couple together.
A far more effective solution is in relationship enrichment courses. My main experience of these has been around churches, however I took some time to look through the material for one when I was working for a church earlier in the year. There was very little material that could have been described as religious in tone, and it would be extremely easy to gloss it out. In fact, I know of several people who have been on such courses who have no faith, but found it invaluable to their relationships. I can’t remember the figures, but the divorce/separation rates for couples who have been on such courses is much lower, and the average length of relationship is much higher. I see no reason why either a)churches should carry out such a high proportion of relationship guidance
b) relationship help should be reserved for those who are experiencing real difficulties.
I know less of parenting courses, but I suspect many similar principles apply. Let’s get these as a high priority, funded centrally and administered by local councils, in the areas with the highest occurrences of single parenthood and relationship breakdown.
Next, what about divorce? The sad fact is that relationships do break down, and that children are often caught in the middle. It does no-one any good to demonise parents in such a position, we should be offering support and compassion rather than judgement. If court action is necessary, make the judgements fair, and based on need rather than previous standard of living; perhaps a flat rate. No-one but no-one needs millions of their partner’s income, and when divorce settlements are seized upon in the media as being disproportionate, it only serves to discourage marriage in the first place. As for the children, parents locked in a custody battle tells them that they are yet another object being fought over. We should encourage parting parents to sort this themselves, and have an extremly high legal cost payable by both if the courts have to make the decisions.
Lastly, let’s start to challenge the media establishment on family issues. Every celebrity divorce cheapens marriage. So if we are serious about promoting stability in families, let’s not fawn over someone famous’s latest marriage, and start to criticise them for seeking publicity rather than having any intention of honouring the commitments they are making.
A bit of a thesis, but there are so many points here that are being said so rarely, it is worth celebrating when senior politicians dare to believe in real change in society around the family. So I applaud IDS and wish him well taking his policy paper to the party and to the country. And I also hope that the Lib Dems, as well as Labour, will take a good look at this and that there will be enough opinion within both parties to take the family seriously. As this has turned into such a substantial piece, I will forward to both IDS and Annette Brooke, LD Family Spokesperson, and will let you know if I receive a response from either.
Ah, Kingbongo the unfortunate pedant
(I would say there but for the grace of God go I, but I frequently also ham a *cough* few posts!)
However you quote acts which deal with the property of the married rather than unmarried as I understand it.
Are you suggesting, Snowflake(267), that Cameron D. is both hedonistic and reckless? Our Tory friends won´t like that…………
I wonder if there is any evidence to back up what you say - apart from the drug semi-demial, of course…
What we seldom hear in the debate about marriage is that the nuclear family is a construct of the industrial age, when small families detatched from wider relations became possible*. For most of the rest of human history, the nature of a “family” had a much looser definition.
In many parts of the country this looser, more extended family is the norm. Politicians are on dangerous ground when they get prescritive about how people should arrange their relationships.
* - because of imporvements to health and transportation.
RE 271, Zebidee, the first para deals with ways that a party can establish a share at the court of equity, which is certainly the case.
Reading this thread I see Dan Falchikov and his other identities were out in force this morning!! And he managed his usual quote of distortions and misquote! For a PR man he really is lame
I make no apology for my measured comments about Pinochet or Heath. Pinochet was the architect of an economic revolution that saw living standards in Chile soar by some 15% a year for several years. He was also a good friend of the UK when we needed it. Unlike some of the left wing Britain haters like Dan, I will speak well of this countries friends but also not be afraid to criticise when they are wrong. Pinochet did many terrible things, no doubt, but he also did much good for his country and mine. Judging him by 21st Century Western European standards is ludicrous when he was a 20th Century South American ruler. I dont hear much criticism of Castro, Mugabe and Burma from the Pinochet haters!
Heath was a disastrous Prime Minister and did massive damage to this country that we still suffer from today.
I make no apology for being a patriot. I just wish those on the left who have done so much to run down this country and its institutions would have the honesty to admit their aims.
Oh and Sutton and Cheam will not be “deselecting” me as after the last election I ceased to be the candidate!
Re 273, tpfkar, Excelent post. (Also thanks to Zebidee for clarifying the position in that other case as it covers the law as I understand it.)
272. SeanT, have you looked at the graph I linked to? The divorce rate in the 60’s was mild. At the end of the 60’s it was still under 50k. There is almost a vertical climb upwards in the 70’s (due to teh Divorce Reform Act coming into effect and loads of unhappy people seizing their chance to split). Thereafter, it peaks and troughs with the economy.
People marry for better or worse, but they always find worse (particularly financial worse) hard to stomach. Financial worries really kill marriages (esp if the wife is supporting an unemployed husband: he feels useless and she feels resentful and that he’s dossing).
The best way to reduce the divorce rate is to make sure the economy grows steadily. That means a New Labour government. Gideon “Graphology” Osborne is unlikely to make anything grow, what with his treasury crawling with graphologists and other quacks.
Snowflake at 267,
When you say “[divorce] drops steadily under New Labour”, you seem to be implying that there is a steady drop under Labour.
Well, actually, you’re outright claiming that.
That graph you cite, shows a steady drop from 1993 through to 2000. Which does chime with your claim of an economic link (after all, as we all know, the golden economy began under Ken Clarke’s stewardship).
However, from 2000 to 2002, the divorce rate climbs steeply by a total of 12%, back to 177,223 - just 1.5% below the 1993 peak. It then slides slightly, before a sudden fall from 2004 to 2005 - a 9.3% fall in one year. Without that year, your stats don’t look so great.
And its a bit dubious to (effectively) base your argument on that one datum.
So, in essence - divorce rates rose savagely under Labour, Tory and Labour administrations, topped out under the Tories, began to decline under the Tories, had another slight uptick, and then started a long steady decline under the Tories first and then New Labour, before another rise under New Labour and a sudden fall last year.
More honest, but doesn’t support your contention, I’m afraid.
“Drunkard and lamppost” style argument?
Benedict, as I leave for my supper and bed, I have found that Oxley vs Hiscock is indeed Appealed (Chadwick LJ). The bottom line was that the primary court agreed her assertion that there had been an intent to share, which the Appeal Court confirmed but, in the absence of any evidence of agreement to share EQUALLY, the Appeal Court knocked the share from 50:50 down to 60:40 which they thought was more equitable given the relative contributions as they saw it. All a bit ‘iffy’. But now law.
Dammit, didn’t close the Italics tag!
In essence, there does seem some correlation with economic states - but with too many anomalies (should therefore have been higher 1979-1982 (the uptick around 1984 onwards is too late and coincides with better economic behaviour; the 2000-2003 increase should therefore not have happened, and I don’t think that the economy was that much better in 2005 than 2004 and preceding years.
278 Rik Pinochet was the architect of an economic revolution that saw living standards in Chile soar by some 15% a year for several years.
Hitler got the trains running on time but that doesn’t balance the fact that he was an evil dictator who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people.
And of course a thread about Pinochet doesn’t involve criticism of Mugabe and the Burmese regime - it was about Pinochet. I will happily condemn them just as much as Pinochet.
Nothing, economic or otherwise, excuses Pinochet of the evil things he presided over. And he is just as evil by the standards of thirty years ago.
Rik (278) - That is terrible news from you and for you. I felt sure that both you and Marcus had been re-selected for your respective consituencies within weeks of the 2005 election. What seat are they going to find for you?
On the other hand, you are quite wrong in your assessment. Liberal Democrats do not hate our country. That is why one of the Tory leaders that we most loathe and despise is the one who did most to destroy not only “society” but also communities - Thatcher, of course.
Heath was a very minor disaster in comparison.
And now we have Blair, following in Thatcher´s footsteps, in trumps, as it were.
258 - “them Kray brothers, they loved their mum, they did.”
273 Fine, thoughtful post, tpfkar. I wish you well with it.
“I dont hear much criticism of Castro, Mugabe and Burma from the Pinochet haters”
‘cos they’ve better things to do with their criticism of these so-and-sos than share it with pompous prats? In Sutton the ‘last refuge’ is the ‘first refuge’, I see!
And who hates Pinochet? Just a pile of dead flesh.
Get out the truck batteries and bedsteads in Sutton?
Well, as I said earlier, the sharp drop in divorces in 2005 coincides with the withdrawal of legal aid for divorce cases - a rare sensible move by this government.
It’s clear the marriage contract is one that one can break - and be rewarded for breaking it. Our laws on divorce reward bad behaviour.
Our family law has become riddled with the feminist dogma that fathers aren’t important to child-rearing (but are important in terms of being chased for money). You see it in the small things, as well as the large - for example, the government’s proposal to remove “the need for a father” when considering IVF.
285. Chile’s government has announced that in tribute to his years of rule, Pinochet will not now have a military funeral but will simply disappear.
Just caught the end of a news broadcast on SKY not sure but think they said Tories 34% Labour 33% didn’t catch libdems in tomorrow’s Times anyone confirm!!
285.
Who’s this ‘Rik Pinochet’?
Case for a Safe Seat or Bum’s Rush?
290, Sean Fear.
In which case, it seems that IDS could be genuinely on to something. On snowflakes graph, that seems to be the biggest one-year drop since 1974. The trend seemed to be heading back upwards until then.
264 Spoilt children usually end up friendless. There are no surveys to quote but you can take it as read.
Misogynists are normally men no?
286. Margeret Thatcher, along with Ronald Reagan, ended the Cold War are freed millions of people from Soviet Occupation. To the people of the East, she will for ever be a hero, regardless of what western socialists say. To the people of the East, Western socialists are inexplicable, treacherous fools.
The truth of the very special hatred the left have for Margeret Thatcher is because she ended the Soviet Occupations.
She was also a woman. Socialists hate being ruled by a woman.
Just noticed the arm of the PC at the left of the top photo - seems about to give DC ‘the push’. Is David Davies a master of disguise?
Taken up from 289… ““I dont hear much criticism of Castro, Mugabe and Burma from the Pinochet haters”
‘cos they’ve better things to do with their criticism of these so-and-sos than share it with pompous prats?”
There is absolutely nothing to be said in favour of “Mugabe and Burma”, though Castro is probably a bit more debatable.
So what is the point of criticising Mugabe, where everybody agrees. That is simply talking to the converted. In such cases, our Government ought to be doing something, because in such cases it would count on the support of 100% of the population - though it would depend a bit, I suppose, on precisely what it decided to do.
Presumably - since they were cases cited by Rik - the Tories are not in favour of these regimes? But I don´t remember hearing much about them from Cameron, D. - so perhaps the Tories are not quite sure yet where they are being taken on these issues.
Snowflake.. you argue correctly in my view that money troubles are a principal cause of people splitting up. So are you not arguing that the Conservatives are right to want to use financial inducements to preserve partnerships?
Andy Cooke, the economy did slow in 2001 (worldwide recession, though Britain continued to grow, albeit slowly that year, but teh IT sector suffered). Economic stress does affect marriages. And therefore massive credit goes to New Labour for smoothing the peaks and especially the troughs of the economy.
And it was New Labour that removed legal aid for divorce cases.
I’m glad people on this thread are starting to realise that tax incentives don’t prevent divorces (tried and failed with that in the 70’s and 80’s), it’s the general level of the economy coupled with other measures.
If you want to see the divorce rate continue to drop, then you shouldn’t vote Tory (especially with Osborne as shadow chancellor) as they will reverse all the good work this government has done.
297. Nobody marries or stays married for a piddly couple of hundred in tax breaks.
It’s preventing dramatic drops in income that’s important - i.e. avoiding a recession, where people lose their entire incomes.
I’d like to point out that what should be blindingly obvious - when you are unemployed you don’t qualify for tax breaks as you don’t earn anything to pay tax on. So no amount of tax breaks are going to prevent financially distressed couples in the midst of a recession.
297 - Jon, then surely that is irrational behaviour? Divorce makes things worse on the financial front - two of everything to support, and there’s the cost of the legal fees.
278 - Rik, I made a comment on yesterday’s thread drawing an explicit parallel between apologists for Pinochet and for Castro. In my view both positions unacceptably cheapen human rights for utilitarian concerns. You boast about Chile’s economic growth, as it happens, much in the way that Castro’s admirers do about Cuba’s health service.
Park Town Boy and Tressage have covered Mugabe and Burma.
301 - I’ve lost my sunglasses. Expensive, too. American - Oakleys.
302 Tabman. Best get a new pair … all that Orange Book bright thinking.
BTW thanks for the e-mail …. If I may I’ll reply after I return from the quack tomorrow !!
303 - nothing remiss I trust. I’m just worried whether the new gaff might be covered in a periodic pall of havana smoke!
298, snowflake -
If the British economy did not suffer (except for IT professionals), then why the increase in divorces? They can’t all be unhappy computer programmers.
All stresses affect marriages, including economic - but the correlation is far too loose to support your contention.
The biggest single effect that New Labour have had on the divorce rate is the removal of legal aid for divorce cases - without that, the rate would be damn near identical to that under the last few years of Major.
There is no real correlation between flavours of Government and divorce rate, or the economy and divorce rates. The largest single influence was the Divorce Reform Act 1969 (positive on divorce rates) and there appears to have been an influence reducing rates caused by the removal of legal aid for divorces.
304 Tabman. Our Ken hasn’t been for dinner yet !! …. and rather more importantly the gaff remains “under offer”. It’s a complete mystery quite why my generous offer of 250 guineas and an annual haunch of venison from the estate wasn’t immediately accepted.
278 - they say Rik that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.
306 - try a bottle something from the cellar to get things moving
I don’t think you have any evidence for that contention. It is certainly worth exploring whether marginal drops in income increase the likelihood of splits. Very difficult to separate out all the noise in the statistics though.. you would have to do it all at one point in time.
307 Dan. Those scoundrels that say it should stay in the refuge !
308 Tabman. Denude my cellar for a pile of expensive bricks !! I think not !!
307. I would say resorting to tired cliches like that is far worse.
Tabman… you would think it would be that way but my anecdotal knowledge tends to support Snowflake.
As a man I can easily see how doing a runner would be financially attractive if you are a bit on the feckless side. After all the CSA isn’t much of a threat is it?
I also think lack of money leads to rows which lead to irreconcilable differences… which remain irreconcilable even if a split would make the original problem worse. A marvellous unstable equilibrium in an economic system for an Orange Booker such as yourself!
310 - fair point. I think it was the thought of the venison being washed down by something smooth, aged and robust from your cellar … made me lose my faculties
312 - that’s the “beauty” of human relationships … they aren’t rational. I can add that rows in a marriage aren’t solely the preserve of a lack money …
There are some ridiculous postings on here today!
285 - Is Gerry Adams “evil” in your eyes? Are Tony Blair and George Bush? By the standards of South America Pinochet was a very mild ‘dictator’ indeed. To compare him with Hitler is simply pathetic. Hitler presided over the systematic elimination of millions, based on their ethnicity, sexuality or other reasons. Pinochet had a few thousand opponents eliminated. Wrong yes, but small beer compared to most South American, African or Asian leaders in the last 100 years (also about the same number that died in NI during “the troubles”). A vast swathe of the population of Chile have NOT died from ill health or poverty, due to his economic reforms. He then voluntarily handed over to a democratic govt after a referendum.
286 - Tressage, once again you are wrong! I was not reselected straight after the 2005 election. There is now a selection process underway and we will see who is selected.
289/293 - Dan you really should take the pills!
301 - not at all. Castro has almost bankrupted Cuba. Even the USSR boasted about its health service. By contrast Chile is a prosperous free market democracy, thanks to Pinochet! Castro’s legacy will be similar to other Socialist regimes.
307 - some do Dan Falchikov. Is that why you and so many like you are so ashamed of this country?
313 Tabman. “…. smooth, aged and robust..”
That reminds me … it’s time Lord Matlock came out to play !!
307. Dan. “They” of course was Dr Johnson. Best bloke ever in my book.
My particular favourite of many:
No man will be a sailor who will have contrivance enough to get himself into a jail: for being in a ship is being in jail, with the chance of being drowned… A man in a jail has more room, better food and commonly better company.
316 - Rik is in the RAF, not the Navy
309, Jon.
That contention comes from the graph at National Statistics, linked by snowflake: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=170
On the “party in power” front, I stand by my earlier comment that:
“divorce rates rose savagely under Labour, Tory and Labour administrations, topped out under the Tories, began to decline under the Tories, had another slight uptick, and then started a long steady decline under the Tories first and then New Labour, before another rise under New Labour and a sudden fall last year.”
On the economic front, the contention of correlation with the general economic state of the country has too many disagreements:
- too low 1978-1983 (should have been rising rather than static),
- too high 1984-1988 (should have been falling instead of rising),
- good correlation 1989-1999,
- too high 2000-2003 (should have been falling rather than rising),
- too low 2004-2005 (should have been level rather than falling)
It was a nice try, and chimes intuitively, but the facts don’t match up well enough.
I’d say that economic stresses add to other stresses, but don’t outweigh them to a degree sufficient to cause a decent correlation. So, with the data on that link, I disagree that New Labour have presided over a steady fall in divorce rates and that nothing is as influential as a steady economy.
Pinochet - a nasty man. He also invented the personal pension in Peru, which later reared its ugly head in the UK in the summer of 1988 and led to much “opting out” and “transferring out” by financial advisers - leading to a huge mis-selling scandal. In fact, between them Pinochet, Maxwell and Brown have wrecked confidence in pensions in this country.
Divorce rate - surely one of the reasons the divorce rate has dropped in recent years, it that the marriage rate dropped in the 1980s and 1990s. Fewer married couples around to get divorced. By its nature, the divorce trend will have a time delay after any drop in marriages.
tpfkar - you advocate adding something compulsory to the commitment to educate teenagers that pregnancy is a lifelong financial commitment. But would it not be simpler to stop paying people to have babies? We can tell teenagers as often as we like that babies are expensive and difficult, but if they look arounnd and see other teenage mums doing ok, what are they going to conclude? We basically have a very expensive system of encouraging people to have babies they can’t afford.
Anyone see newsnight Scotland tonight and if so what did they think of Nicola Sturgeon’s performance?
320 - damn - I meant “something compulsory to the syllabus”
321. Chris, what did she do?!
321 She wasn’t on Newsnight Scotland- is there a different edition for Aberdeenshire? I saw wee Wendy Alexander the other half of the Alexander Bros instead.
“Support for the Tories has been level since the summer at 36 per cent, but has fallen by two points over the past month. Labour is unchanged on 33 per cent, with the Liberal Democrats down a point at 19 per cent.
But support for other parties has risen by three points to 14 per cent, the highest in any Populus poll since the last election. The main beneficiaries of the gain have been the Greens, on 4 per cent, and the UKIP on 2 per cent. While the numbers of voters here are very small, the drift away from the main parties is potentially significant.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-2500055,00.html
324. You are right Marcia, it was Wendy Alexander not Nicola Sturgeon. I always get them mixed up because I think they sound alike.
Why is it always when you think the Tories might be changing that they bring up something like this marriage stuff which shows that underneath it all they havent changed at all. I’m just waiting for the Peter Lilley choir to do some excercises on the vocal chords!
323. Andrea, she was talking about the Union and why Scotland should remain in it. A very bad performance.
326 - that’s will disappoint Andrea.
Wasn’t too impressed with her but then I am a teeny bit biased. Two economist three opinions. Ya Boo politics turn me off.
In one sense I agree with IDS. I think marriage is important.
However, the idea that if all these unmarried couples who split up had got round to getting married they would have stayed together ( - forgive the clumsy phrase - ) is rubbish!
I also think the idea of a tax break for married couples is daft too. This government was very sensible to identify that it was those with children who needed the break.
Finally on marriage, I think it was extremely weak-kneed of this government not to allow proper gay marriage. This civil partnership compromise is a load of tosh. Now the unmarried heterosexuals want to have civil partnerships too. By bringing in civil partnerships the government has managed to discriminate against heterosexuals and homosexuals at the same time.
But I guess that’s what happens when you are run by a load of Catholic, Satanist, Zionist freemasons of the 33rd degree, eh Francis?
328 - why roger? It all makes sense!
Populus
Con 34 (-2)
Lab 32 (unchanged)
LD 19 (-1)
Greens 4
UKIP 2
With Brown
Con 39 (38 last month)
Lab 32 (34 last month)
Good for Labour in the headline figures. Not good for GB (after a reduction in DC lead last month).
57% thinks GB has been a good chancellor, but just 40% thinks he’ll be a good PM. 34% think that he has been a good Chancellor and will be a good leader. 23% think that he has been a good Chancellor but will not be a good prime minister. 6% think he has not been a good Chancellor but believe that he will be a good PM.
327.”Why is it always when you think the Tories might be changing that they bring up something like this marriage stuff which shows that underneath it all they havent changed at all.” Roger to be fair there was little bit more being discussed than just marriage. If we don’t start talking about it and the fact that children within marriage seem to do better and the reasons for why that is, how can we improve things for our kids.
328. Chris, if she was talking about Scotland remainingg in the Union, how did you managed to confuse her with Sturgeon? Or were you asking us if we thought she was gone mad?
So it’s back to level pegging.I guess people are getting bored of the stunts and want to see some vision. His USP is that opinion polls show him ahead. When he loses that his party will turn on him like they always do.
333 Chris, a very good comment indeed.
Goodnight all.
Interesting poll and not nearly as good for the Tories as any of us were predicting. Who was it that has promised to eat his hat if the Tories drop under 32% in an ICM poll before the summer?
Brown-haters will note the 39-32 Tory lead on the hypothetical question, which contradicts my earlier ‘convergence’ thesis, but as usual I think the concrete figure is more significant than the hypothetical one. What I think has happened over the last few weeks is that the perception that the Tories are vacuous has strengthened (hence the small drift downwards) and the PBR didn’t go down particularly well (hence the modest widening of the hypothetical gap). All movements are within the MOE but the Tories do seem to have gone off the boil.
I’m with snowflake on marriage and tax breaks - it just isn’t a significant factor. Politicians need to recognise that we can’t easily change this sort of social trend by twiddling with financial incentives and laws. Reminds me of when we were debating the Tory rule on teaching about homosexuality in school lessons (section 18 or whatever it was called): a teacher said ruefully: “I wish I could influence my class to pay attention at all, let alone change their sexual orientation…”
332. Strange for Conservative lead to narrow in the headline numbers but to widen in the Brown question.
Implication would appear to be that the public’s view of Brown has become even more negative.
338. Last month the opposite happened. Brown reduced COn lead from 8 to 4, whilst the headline figure showed Con lead going from 1 to 3. Now headline lead is back to 1 and Con with GB lead is back at 7.
Nick it is a Populus poll - about as credible as MORI.
If YouGOv and ICM have the lead down that could be of concern!
So that’s greens 4, UKIP 2, Nats we can guess 4, that still leaves 4 for respect/BNP etc.
The two fingers up to all main parties continues.
337.”I’m with snowflake on marriage and tax breaks - it just isn’t a significant factor.” Nick at the moment this Labour government actually penalises marriage and I accept that the previous tory government gave them an unfair tax break. How about starting on a level playing field for all.
334. I was listening rather than watching the programme. I always think that they sound alike and got my SNP/Lab power women mixed up because I was so cross when typing on the keyboard. It is not often I get this irate but remind the Scottish Labour party not to put Wendy Alexander up as a salesperson for Scotland again any time soon.
Fame at last
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-2500056,00.html
All polls are totally meaningless at the moment, particularly in the depths of winter when large numbers of Tory voters are residing in sunnier climes, or out doing the Christmas shopping or loading a freshly cut tree into the back of the Chelsea Tractor. Meanwhile, Labour voters are all sat at home watching QVC and ordering inflatable santas, and hence around when the pollsters call.
I don’t take notice of any polls right now - unless the Tories happen to have a 7-10 point lead.
318. Andy Cooke, the divorce comes after the angst over money - sometimes two years later, due to the whole attempt at reconciliation business. So the divorce statistics will lag the economic effects.
You are contending falsely, that if you have a quarter of economic contraction and bang! a divorce takes place that very quarter. Actually it will lag by about two years. Think about it. Look at the divorce graph in a lagging sense, and it trails the economic cycle perfectly.
peter the punter, Benedict White: thank you for your kind words earlier. I was anticipating a barrage when I returned, so I’m very grateful for your posts.
Cookie@320: I can see what you are getting at. However if the Government were to cut benefits for teenage mums, my thinking is that it would give the children even less chance of a healthy start, work against challenging the underclass IDS spoke of, and create an even larger hurdle for the single mothers and children who succeed at the moment.
I spoke more of social than financial ways of encouraging family stability above as there are many other posts on this thread discussing that already; however I agree with Nick Palmer’s sentiment at 337 that it’s not legislation and financial incentives that are needed here; I believe it’s effective programmes on the ground combined with different messages in the media.
In terms of discouraging teenagers influenced by young mothers around them, I can’t say I’ve got any easy answers, but I believe young people realise that having children will get in the way of their careers. If they think that the best way of receiving money is to have a baby, what does that say about their self-esteem and confidence about their chances of holding down a good job with career development opportunities?
The Green party’s ratings are interesting. Someone pointed out the other day (I can’t remember who) that when the mainstream parties tried the green business in the late 80’s the chief beneficiary was the Green party which surged. Looks like the same thing is happening again.
Andrea, any news on Silvio Berlusconi and his trial? Have not heard anything since his collapse.
340: Populus and ICM are now very similar in methodology, Rik - Populus is marginally more favourable to Labour, but not a lot in it. But hey, it’s only one poll.
344: Well done Anthony!
348,Evening,all.
I realise one or two posts I made last night were slightly inflammatory.Two points; (a)We do live in democracy,and have the right to offemnd and be offended-I generaly enjoy this site,and hope I can play a positive role in its future
(a) (ii)For what its worth,my more fruity remarks are,almost always,toned-down versions of real-life conversations-I’m sorry,genuinely if that puts peoples’ noses out of joint,but,wahey,how far do you take the PC,’Lets not offend anyone ‘ mindset?
2nd,substantive point:I cannot help but feel,especially with what has been said since last week,that whilst the Tories have amodest lead,whatever transpires from GB’s ascension to the top post will negate this,and that the concept of an early general election in spring 2008,looks to this Labour poster,quite tasty.
(Remembering from my year as a student,a book was written;’Must Labour lose?’ in 1959- as I recall this was re-written during the 1987-1992 parlaiment,when Labour did looked doomed;is it possible that one day an equivalent book will be published-’Must the Toriea lose?’-maybe Snowflake 5 and I could edit! :lol:)
344. Very well deserved Anthony.
I am going to stick my neck out and say that this poll does not feel right. I better not say more than that because I have already got my deputy leaders and senior SNP/Lab female politicians muddled.
RE 282, Zebidee, I am sorry, but if the appeal court said so, it is law.
What they found was an intent to share which creates an equitable interest. There need not be any other relationship other than that and the fact of cohabiting is totally irrelevent.
But thanks for the clarification, I thought for a moment that my basis for legal advice had shifted without me noticing in which case I would have had to have got me coat!
332. How can men marry other men? It is a union between a man and a woman. What about people who may wish to marry their pet or even a car?
Yes civil partnerships for those who want them be they hetro, homo or metro but marridge must not be undermined anymore by this government that oversees ever more family breakdown.
Re 339, Nick Palmer, there is a thing called leadership. It influences opinions and moves the debate without the need for laws.
Over many many years the institution of marriage has been attacked and seen as unimportant. Changes in laws and the removal of perverse incentives will help, but leadership and moving the debate is the real issue.
Perhaps IDS will have his final Triumph! (I have not had mine yet, I am still on the look out for a Mark II Triumph PU estate)
Re my 357 That should of course be a Triumph 2500 PI MKii estate.
RE 346 Anthony Well done!
:)
348, snowflake,
Actually, I am not contending anything - rather, disagreeing with your contention.
There is no specific lag that would tie in the economic cycle with the divorce rate properly.
Two years lag (taken from the late seventies, on the assumption that about a decade after the Divorce Reform Act gives time for the rates to settle down) would give:
1977-1981 - economy fine (no real increase in divorce rates two years later. I don’t think this marches with the real economic state at the time)
)
1982-1986 - economy goes south (the recovery began in 1983, as I recall, rather than getting worse).
1987-1990 - Economy at worst ebb (valid for 1990; not so for 1987-1989)
1991-1997 - Smooth, steady economic recovery (some unexpected late good news for Norman Lamont at the start of that phase …)
1998-2001 - Economic problems rear their ugly head (Must have been the election of New Labour
Sorry, I still disagree with your contention. There doesn’t seem to be any specific time transformation that you can apply to get correlation.
I do, as I have said, agree that the economic stresses add to other marital stresses, but disagree that the data supports that the economic stresses are overwhelming in comparison to other stresses.
Andy… I was not saying you had no evidence but snowflake on the subject of whether only big changes in income cause divorce - didn’t label my post sorry.
Rows about money? Perhaps Tony Blair and new Labour will have to divorce?
“Rik is in the RAF, not the Navy” Easy mistake: forever all at sea!
But patriotism is usually his first refuge, rather than his last, hence obviously not ‘a scoundrel’. So might make an ‘Honourable (sic) gentleman’ yet?
The double standards Rik offered over dictators/regimes tells much. Economic hero of the right? Then murder and torture are sanitised as just ‘wrong’. And, of course, any economic problems in Cuba are NOTHING to do with the US Trade embargo. Saint Margaret said so!
362 - NO double standards old boy! ALL murder and torture is wrong and that word does not sanitise it. BUt the likes of you and Dan Falchikov like to scream from the roof tops and pursue one old man who crimes pale into insignificance compared to some of the heroes of the left. I will happily describe all murderers in the same way but why do you single out Pinochet and ignore all the others?
Rik - i think some of our sillier posters have been in their element but your comments seem emminently reasonable to me
How goes your re-reselection, is it hotly contested? Best of luck
H
Poor Rik.
When we went to Moscow with our Solidarity banners and T-shirts I seem to have missed you. Similarly in the Western Sahara and on the visit to Palestine refugee camps/Holocaust museum and meeting with presidents of Israel. No doubt too busy with refinements to paper planes? And of course there were no TV cameras present.
Why hasn’t Cameron gone to Zimbabwe yet I wonder?
365 - Zebidee - do you have nothing better to do? What about your protests in Cuba, Zimbabwe, Burma, Kashmir, China, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Sudan or Nigeria?
Oh havent you been? Of course not because most of them are dangerous!
Poor Rik. When I was in Western Sahara, there was a real war going on there. Ditto Palestine, or had you not noticed? When I dined with the former president of Pakistan recently, she was a major terrorist target.
As for Cuba, it is somewhere I have yet to visit. Global warming may prevent me from ever getting there, unlike the Honorable Member for Ribble Valley, whose youthful and artificially-enhanced exploits on the state-sponsored freebie, I am told, are talked of whenever two or more NUS hacks are gathered together.