YES! No more public sector job ads in the Grauniad!

[longfingernails]

www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2010/jul/06/advertising-local-newspapers

Public sector vacancies should be on a .gov site. Of course if a private company runs the website more cheaply than the civil service, it is OK to contract out the operation of the website - but not to waste money paying for ads themselves.

Anyway, an excellent move. It will save money, and lead to more scrutiny of the hordes of non-jobs which abound so plentifully. Destroying just about the only income stream the Guardian has, given its tiny circulation, is just a pleasant side effect!

Well done Eric Pickles!

LFN did you actually read the Lib Dem manifesto? I have to assume you didn't as it was more left wing than Labours. I also don't know a single Lib Dem voter who would choose a Tory Gov over a Labour one.

Hassled I agree. (not about any duplicated word, but your original post!)

BecauseImWorthIt

Intellectually, I welcome left-wing organisations if they can fund themselves. I resent paying for them through my taxes.

I have no choice but to pay for the BBC. Until Eric Pickles' excellent move, I had no choice but to pay to put ads in the Guardian. I have no choice but to pay for the trades union modernisation fund.

I also believe in liberty and broadly, libertarianism. Labour are simply far too authoritarian in my opinion, and so I want a country where both main parties have a political consensus on civil liberties. That alone is reason enough to wish ill of Labour.

Ultimately, politics is also about emotion though. On a gut level, I am happy when Labour (as a movement) do badly, because it means my own political ideas are more likely to be succeeding. I imagine those of you in Labour had a similar reaction when Tony Woodley did this:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZatq52abJw

pocketmonster

You obviously haven't heard of Orange Book Lib Dems.

Errr, longfingernails, the Labour Party have won a greater share of the popular vote the same number of times since WWII as the Conservatives.

And there have been 9 Conservative Governments and 9 Labour Governments since 1945.

In the 70 years since WWII, 30 of those were under a Labour government.

So not sure what you mean about Labour interludes...

Given that the Labour Party is only 110 years old, this is not a bad achievement.

Admittedly, the Conservative Party have more consistently won more than 40% of the vote throughout the 20thC; but that's because right-wing loons have only really ever had the Cons to vote for. Sadly, the Left has always managed to split itself.

CON LAB
2010 36.1% 29.1%
2005 32.4% 35.3%
2001 31.7% 40.7%
1997 30.7% 43.2%
1992 41.9% 34.4%
1987 42.2% 30.8%
1983 42.4% 27.6%
1979 43.9% 39.2%
October 1974 35.8% 39.2%
February 1974 37.9% 37.2%
1970 46.4% 43.1%
1966 41.9% 48.0%
1964 43.4% 44.1%
1959 49.4% 43.8%
1955 49.7% 46.4%
1951 48.0% 48.8%
1950 40.0% 46.1%
1945 36.2% 49.7%

Or do you think all the votes cast in favour of the Labour Party don't count for anything. How democratic you are.

At least get your facts right.

LFN yes I have, but not too many Lib Dem voters have. As you have said, politics is emotion and also habit - people often sleepwalk into their vote.

If you looked at the main manifesto pledges there were not many where the Lib Dems and Torys were on the same page and often they were diametrically opposed.

70 years? Duuurrrrrr (irony of fact mud slinging [shame]). 65, of course.

Penthesileia Perhaps if you want to berate someone else for getting their facts wrong, perhaps you should take extra care to get your own facts right.

Why arbitarily start at WW2? In my post I very clearly said "the 20th century".

Ok. Fair enough.

WWII isn't that arbitrary, really. It's living voting memory, if you like (few people around who voted in elections prior to 1945). And given the collapse of the Liberal Party in the early 20thC, you could argue that it is the point at which modern British politics began.

Anyway, so, going back to 1900, yes, the Cons have, I think, an additional 4 governments, or 7, if you count those in which they were also the majority party.

Still not the overwhelming Conservative picture you're painting, IMO.

Penthesileia Oh - I agree that 1900 is just as arbitrary as 1945.

Ultimately, it boils down to this. Is Britain, long-term, going to be a right-wing country, or a left-wing country?

It is pretty clear on individual policy positions.

In terms of the EU I think the answer is settled, and pretty obvious. Similarly, in terms of the NHS.

In the final decades of the 20th century, though, Reagan and Thatcher exposed communism for what it truly was, Tony Blair accepted Margaret Thatcher's market reforms in full, and capitalism comprehensively defeated socialism.

The economic disputes between left and right now are generally less pronounced now than ever before, because on the big economic arguments the left totally conceded. Remember there isn't much difference really, in macroeconomic terms, between Labour's plans and the Tory plans - though they will both dispute this for political purposes.

Similarly the right has had to concede pretty much entirely on social policy, but I happen to agree with most of these concessions as I am a social liberal.

The credit crunch had in it the potential to be a global rebirth of the left, but instead, the left is getting smashed all over the world as people realise the consequences of debt, and the importance of sound public finances. If the crucial importance of the little-c conservative notion of balancing the budget can be firmly instilled in the current generation of young people, it will be a big strategic victory for the right.

What are your feelings wrt the "Working poor" LF?As an aside?

More specifically those in public sector jobs with a postgraduate degree?

LFA - I am a Tory by inclination but TeachFirst is truly one of the most spectacular wastes of money I have ever come across. Please can you explain the merits of Teach First. Of course it does get unqualified bodies in schools but that was always Labour;s thing!

I see your point(s), although I interpret the historical events you describe differently. E.g. I am not interested in analysis which argues that the left has failed because the USSR did.

However, I'm confused by what you imply here:
"In terms of the EU I think the answer is settled, and pretty obvious. Similarly, in terms of the NHS."

I understand from this remark that you believe the EU to be a left-wing mistake which is, fundamentally, rejected by the UK. Ok.

But the NHS?

MavisEnderby

The working poor are the group who I believe the government has to encourage more than any other in society.

By making it worthwhile to get into work - even part-time, low-paid work - we give people dignity and make them more responsible for their own circumstances.

That's why the Lib Dem commitment to raise the income tax threshold to £10k was brilliant, and I am very glad the coalition is committed to it.

On a narrow political point, the "working-class" are the bedrock of Tory support but are also the voters who switched most readily to Labour in the Blair years. Their values and aspirations - the dream of buying a nice house, owning cars, taking holidays, and to provide for their children - are fundamentally Conservative values. Blair recognised this and consequently, firmly planted himself in the central aspirational ground of politics. Brown did not.

Penthesileia

I mean that the left has comprehensively won the argument for the foreseeable future on the NHS, in the same way that the right, for example, has comprehensively won the argument on why the Euro would be a disaster.

I would prefer a more flexible national heatlh structure - still paid for by the State, but not run by the State - but there can only be minor progress in that direction because of the long-term political consensus.

londonone I am sure that Teach First could be better run - I don't doubt there is oodles of waste there.

However on pricinple, I don't think we should judge the quality of teachers purely by the length of the training courses they have done.

I am not convinced that the current standard teacher training programmes are particularly effective either.

Of course teachers should have a minimum competence in the subject they are teaching, and get initial training on how to plan and structure lessons, keeping discipline, organise schedules, and (small) amounts of academic theory on teaching. They should also some general academic ability , infectious enthusiasm, a strong sense of personal motivation, and a real passion for their subject. Those things can't be taught, but the brightest graduates possess them naturally.

I see.

Then, I must admit, I'm mystified as to why you think the Conservative Party is best set to realise the socially liberal goals (with emphasis on the socially, I suppose) you seem to value. Historically (and I mean this, as you made a point of celebrating the Conservative 20thC), the Conservative Party have not espoused or practised these.

Admittedly, time will tell wrt to Cameron and his influence on Conservatism, particularly in conjunction with the Liberal Democrats. We live in interesting times, in this respect.

But the "history" of the Conservative Party does little to reassure me that they will act in the manner you imply.

Moreover, I am a little doubtful about your assertion about the "working class" voting for the Conservatives. Undoubtedly some/many did. As a group, I would imagine they - historically - voted for Labour (given Labour's dominance in the urban centres of the UK). Do you mean that the group previously described as the "petite bourgeoisie" voted en masse for the Conservatives? That seems demographically likely. However, I do not know the figures, so am prepared to be corrected.

Longfingernails - triumphalism is very unattractive, and makes it difficult for people to achnowledge when you have a point.

I think radical reform of the NHS is inevitable. We can't afford what we are doing now let alone what will be asked for in the future. I don't think the left can avoid this.

I don't think the EU was ever a left/right issue - it's about the role of the nation state.

Putting the jobs online was pretty much a no brainer - any kudos Pickles gets for that he loses for has Anglicanist comments on Sunday.

Penthesileia Obviously it depends who you define as working-class.

I am talking about the group that pollsters call C2s. They are not ideologically committed to any party or policy - they are the swing voters. However, my contention is that fundamentally they are conservative if not Conservative.

I agree that in the distant past, especially with the unionised heavy manufacturing industries, many or most "working-class" people voted Labour - but there has always been a strong working-class Tory tradition. Margaret Thatcher really cultivated this voter bloc. Cameron has to do the same if he is to strategically position the Tories as the governing party of the 21st century.

Labour's support amongst the "middle-class" is remarkably resilient, as any quick trawl of Mumsnet will show. The "underclass" will never vote Tory, if they vote at all.

It is low to middle income people that decide the shape of our politics.

TheCoalitionNeedsYou Oh - but all the regulars here, myself included, are utterly convinced of the correctness of their own position. I'm not going to convince anyone; I'm just entertaining myself in debate because I can't sleep

Gloating isn't pleasant, of course, but I am willing to be mildly unpleasant sometimes. I would be concerned if it was a business whose staff were on the breadline, but pretty much all of their regular contributors are trustafarian champagne-socialist types who want to deny opportunity to others, and I'm not going to go out of my way to sympathise with them.

Ahh, the C2s... Ok, yes.

Yes, I think that - to employ obsolete terminology - they would, traditionally, have been part of the petite bourgeoisie (hence C1 and C2). But the split implies the larger socioeconomic trend of the 20thC which was to erode downwards the financial and lifestyle distinctions between the "middle" and "working" classes (exactly the trend which the pb/C1s & 2s so feared and hoped to avoid).

You're wrong, though, I think. Low to middle income people don't decide the shape of our politics. They really don't. They may be able every 5 years to vote for a group of people. But at the moment a cabinet composed of (I think) 21 millionaires is deciding the shape of our politics. Not very low or middle, IMO.

I can't sleep either. And arguing debating with you here isn't helping.

Sigh. I wish @ trustfarian champagne socialists. I have to work for a living, more's the pity.

My champagne socialist grandparents (Scottish textile factory owners) sold up and blew my inheritance their money on the gee-gees. Literally. It was apparently a wild decade for them.

I don't mind millionaires in the Cabinet but I do think it is important to have a range of people there.

There are too many from the same background; I agree. Part of that is due to the Lib Dems - they are even more upper-middle class than the Tories.

I would prefer more women and more from a "working-class" background - though certainly not non-millionaires. I have nothing but respect for millionaires who have made their fortune from scratch like William Hague and Philip Hammond. If they are competent at managing their own affairs, that will help them in managing the affairs of the nation.

As for those who have inherited wealth - well, they have to prove themselves, the same as any other politician. I don't think there is anything inherently good or bad about them.

Incidentally I wasn't talking about people here when I mentioned champagne socialists - I meant the Guardian writers!

No, nothing inherently "good" or "bad" about them, if we are to use moral terms.

But I think the profound danger of having a government composed of the rich, even the self-made rich (and this pertains to the Labour Party, the Lib Dems, whomever), is that the tendency is to assume that everyone is "like you". So if you are a self-made millionaire, you are bemused by the idea that everyone else doesn't seem to manage to do the same. And that leads to a pretty incompassionate brand of politics (I mean, look at the spectacular foot-in-mouth remarks - albeit metaphorical - of Redwood re: people tightening their belts - serious demonstration of how out of touch he now is). I am doubtful that those who have inherited wealth would ever manage to remove themselves from this mindset. Even if they prove to be decent politicians in the sense that they determine foreign policy well, or legislate reasonably successfully, when it comes to understanding how the vast majority of people in this country live, that is - as you say - the low to middle income people, they have no idea. And thus I disagree with you when you say that low to middle income people shape our politics. That is just not historically the case (even taking into account the undoubtedly lower-middle class Thatcher & Major). And it looks unlikely to be the case during this government.

You insult the Tories, btw. Of course they are not upper-middle class. They are upper class.

Oh @ the Guardian writers. My tired eyes assumed you meant MNers.

The BBC is a massive British success story. If you are a business type person, you should be glad that we have a British 'brand' that is known around the world for quality and imaginative broadcasting, earning tens of billions. As a viewer and listener, I'm certainly glad I have access to unbiased journalism. Unbridled commercialism gives you those rabid 'news' presenters at Fox in the US.