Lifted from Guido, so don't know if it is accurate:
UKIP have found the perfect man to run in the Wythenshawe and Sale East by-election. John Bickley is ex-Labour, grew up in the constituency, is a self-made businessman and the son of a trade unionist
Yep it is accurate.
Do you know anything about him, beyond that brief description?
Lifted from Guido, so don't know if it is accurate:
UKIP have found the perfect man to run in the Wythenshawe and Sale East by-election. John Bickley is ex-Labour, grew up in the constituency, is a self-made businessman and the son of a trade unionist
Yep it is accurate.
Do you know anything about him, beyond that brief description?
I think UKIP would have a good chance of winning Portsmouth South in a by-election which is why there probably won't be one. The Labour vote would be slightly higher than in Eastleigh last year which would probably make the difference.
I expect UKIP to top the poll in the whole of the Portsmouth council area in this year's Euro election (which is how the results are declared). Last time the result was as follows:
Can you see yourself trudging off to the polling booth and voting Lib Dem right now if you're a Labour voter ?
Mind you they did in Eastleigh. ...
Did they? The Lib Dems didn't do that well squeezing the Labour vote in Eastleigh. From the by-election in 1994, when the Lib Dems won, and Labour took 27.6% of the vote, the Labour shares at the next three general elections were 26.8, 21.9 and 20.6 (for contrast, the Labour share in 1992 was 20.7). Only in 2010 did it fall off a cliff, with the Lib Dems being the big gainers. That *may* have been an anti-Tory tactical vote but if so, why didn't it make itself felt earlier? It may have been down to local conditions, councillor effectiveness and so on. Or it may have just been an anti-Labour swing going to a convenient alternative.
Come the by-election, Labour didn't get those votes back but with the UKIP surge, it's far from clear who did. If there were Labour-identifying anti-Tory tactical voters in Eastleigh, they only switched in small numbers and may not have held with the Lib Dems after 2010.
Does anyone seriously expect Mike Hancock to fall on Nick Clegg's sword? He has resisted all temptation to walk so far and frankly why should he. Not as if he is being promised a peerage. To suggest UKIP would have any chance is just fanciful. Its a straight Coalition battle.
Depends on the BBC and Channel 4. Has Crick given Hancock the Bloom treatment yet?
This may have already been posted but this is a link to the annual Bill Gates letter where he refutes (very effectively in my view) some of the myths about aid and improving the lives those less fortunate than ourselves. Very well worth reading and certainly inspiring. It would be nice to see some of this used to counter the arguments about overseas aid being 'wasteful'
Agreed. I hope a few backbench Tory MPs will read it.
There are plenty of us in UKIP who are hoping our own leadership will read it as well.
I certainly don't think the government should be increasing the overseas aid budget, at the same time that we're trying to eliminate a very large public sector deficit.
This may have already been posted but this is a link to the annual Bill Gates letter where he refutes (very effectively in my view) some of the myths about aid and improving the lives those less fortunate than ourselves. Very well worth reading and certainly inspiring. It would be nice to see some of this used to counter the arguments about overseas aid being 'wasteful'
Agreed. I hope a few backbench Tory MPs will read it.
There are plenty of us in UKIP who are hoping our own leadership will read it as well.
I certainly don't think the government should be increasing the overseas aid budget, at the same time that we're trying to eliminate a very large public sector deficit.
Given that a properly directed aid budget will save thousands of lives whilst making very little difference to the deficit reduction targets here, I have to disagree with you. There are far larger savings to be made by reforming our own very generous welfare systems that will not threaten lives. Certainly there are areas where our overseas aid programme needs overhauling (it should not be so controlled by the EU for example, nor should it be giving money to countries with, for example, their own space programmes).
But the basic principle of targeted health aid as a means of raising the standard of living for the whole world as articulated by Gates is, to my mind, something that all first world countries can afford and should aspire to.
There is no mechanism for Hancock to be out as an MP other than
a) Jail b) His own moral code
So he will be MP until May 2015.
I doubt he will stand again - his pension will be nicely topped up from all those jobs he has had.
Parliament can expel members, if it so chooses and has done so in the past, though rarely. Usually, the provisions relating to jail terms are sufficient.
It could be argued that a member could be appointed to the Chiltern Hundreds / Manorship of Northstead without his or her consent and so create a vacancy. Whether such a move would be legal is questionable, it certainly wouldn't be ethical.
I see that Avery, having already included the Royal Mail pension fund assets as negative borrowing whilst ignoring Royal Mail pension liabilities, is now treating items from a cash flow statement as balance sheet.
Let us remember the government's borrowing plans:
"As a result of the measures I will announce today, public sector net borrowing will be: £149 billion this year, falling to £116 billion next year, then £89 billion in 2012-13, and then £60 billion in 2013-14. By 2014-15 borrowing reaches £37 billion, exactly half the amount forecast in the March Budget."
I'm offering evens that government borrowing is over £500bn for those five years. That's more than 10% higher than what Osborne promised.
Are the Osborne fans willing to put their money where their keyboards are or are they conceding that their hero has failed on his main target ?
If you want to play that game, go and look at Labour's projections and assumption from 2006-8. Or are you saying the government should have cut more? Perhaps you'd criticise Osborne for under-predicting growth too. Stuff happens and economic prediction isn't an exact science. getting the big policy framework right is the important thing.
It was me who first pointed out the increase in government borrowing of HALF A TRILLION between the budgets of 2008 and 2009.
And Osborne OVER-PREDICTED growth in his 2010 budget.
I think I'm being fair - I'm giving him his full five years as a comparison.
You can only judge someone by what he predicted and the actual outturn, that's what I'm doing.
And do you think the 'big policy framework' is being done right ? How much 'economic rebalancing' has occurred.
Now its work for me.
An excellent post, Richard. Osborne has made a pig's ear of it – why he chose to make himself a hostage to fortune by a) making such forecasts and b) telling the public he was reducing the DEBT is beyond me.
A nasty surprise for the public when the realise that Ozzy has prescided over a massive increase in debt despite telling them he was paying it off.
I thought the government missed a trick in the last few years by not giving some on the overseas aid budget to the MOD for their operations in Afghanistan. Surely building up a nations security forces is aid.
This may have already been posted but this is a link to the annual Bill Gates letter where he refutes (very effectively in my view) some of the myths about aid and improving the lives those less fortunate than ourselves. Very well worth reading and certainly inspiring. It would be nice to see some of this used to counter the arguments about overseas aid being 'wasteful'
Agreed. I hope a few backbench Tory MPs will read it.
There are plenty of us in UKIP who are hoping our own leadership will read it as well.
I certainly don't think the government should be increasing the overseas aid budget, at the same time that we're trying to eliminate a very large public sector deficit.
Given that a properly directed aid budget will save thousands of lives whilst making very little difference to the deficit reduction targets here, I have to disagree with you. There are far larger savings to be made by reforming our own very generous welfare systems that will not threaten lives. Certainly there are areas where our overseas aid programme needs overhauling (it should not be so controlled by the EU for example, nor should it be giving money to countries with, for example, their own space programmes).
But the basic principle of targeted health aid as a means of raising the standard of living for the whole world as articulated by Gates is, to my mind, something that all first world countries can afford and should aspire to.
There's certainly a lot fat that can be cut out of government. But, I think there's little doubt that cuts in public spending do cause hardship to some people in this country.
To take one example, my brother-in-law is having to tell members of his regiment, this morning, which of them are being made redundant, in order to meet the cuts in defence expenditure.
I think it is positively wrong to be making people redundant, in this country, while prioritising an increase in overseas aid.
Kellner wrote an article in Standpoint Magazine about a year ago predicting such an outcome.
It looks like a lot of people in Con/Lab/LD have decided the best strategy with regard to the Euros is to give the impression a UKIP win is the most likely result and then hope they just fall short (maybe due to a few more mini-scandals for instance) so that what would still be a pretty remarkable result would seem like a bit of a disappointment for the purples by comparison to expectations. It's an old trick of course but still a popular one.
This may have already been posted but this is a link to the annual Bill Gates letter where he refutes (very effectively in my view) some of the myths about aid and improving the lives those less fortunate than ourselves. Very well worth reading and certainly inspiring. It would be nice to see some of this used to counter the arguments about overseas aid being 'wasteful'
Agreed. I hope a few backbench Tory MPs will read it.
There are plenty of us in UKIP who are hoping our own leadership will read it as well.
I certainly don't think the government should be increasing the overseas aid budget, at the same time that we're trying to eliminate a very large public sector deficit.
Given that a properly directed aid budget will save thousands of lives whilst making very little difference to the deficit reduction targets here, I have to disagree with you. There are far larger savings to be made by reforming our own very generous welfare systems that will not threaten lives. Certainly there are areas where our overseas aid programme needs overhauling (it should not be so controlled by the EU for example, nor should it be giving money to countries with, for example, their own space programmes).
The foreign aid budget is £12 bn. That would make a noticeable impact in the budget deficit.
Lifted from Guido, so don't know if it is accurate:
UKIP have found the perfect man to run in the Wythenshawe and Sale East by-election. John Bickley is ex-Labour, grew up in the constituency, is a self-made businessman and the son of a trade unionist
Yep it is accurate.
Do you know anything about him, beyond that brief description?
I wouldn't bet on Hancock going quietly in 2015. He's clearly a stubborn campaigner, not having been demoralised by being defeated twice by 200 votes in 1987 and 1992.
Does anyone remember the drink Castaway from the 1990s? Like alcoholic Lilt. I'm being accused of being mad because no-one else in the office remembers it.
A Google search confirms it existed but there appears to be no image of a Castaway bottle (1990s vintage) in existence on the internet!! This can't be, surely. Perhaps my Google-fu is weak, or perhaps I am mad, after all. Nurse!
Lifted from Guido, so don't know if it is accurate:
UKIP have found the perfect man to run in the Wythenshawe and Sale East by-election. John Bickley is ex-Labour, grew up in the constituency, is a self-made businessman and the son of a trade unionist
Yep it is accurate.
Do you know anything about him, beyond that brief description?
This may have already been posted but this is a link to the annual Bill Gates letter where he refutes (very effectively in my view) some of the myths about aid and improving the lives those less fortunate than ourselves. Very well worth reading and certainly inspiring. It would be nice to see some of this used to counter the arguments about overseas aid being 'wasteful'
Agreed. I hope a few backbench Tory MPs will read it.
There are plenty of us in UKIP who are hoping our own leadership will read it as well.
I certainly don't think the government should be increasing the overseas aid budget, at the same time that we're trying to eliminate a very large public sector deficit.
Given that a properly directed aid budget will save thousands of lives whilst making very little difference to the deficit reduction targets here, I have to disagree with you. There are far larger savings to be made by reforming our own very generous welfare systems that will not threaten lives. Certainly there are areas where our overseas aid programme needs overhauling (it should not be so controlled by the EU for example, nor should it be giving money to countries with, for example, their own space programmes).
But the basic principle of targeted health aid as a means of raising the standard of living for the whole world as articulated by Gates is, to my mind, something that all first world countries can afford and should aspire to.
There's certainly a lot fat that can be cut out of government. But, I think there's little doubt that cuts in public spending do cause hardship to some people in this country.
To take one example, my brother-in-law is having to tell members of his regiment, this morning, which of them are being made redundant, in order to meet the cuts in defence expenditure.
I think it is positively wrong to be making people redundant, in this country, while prioritising an increase in overseas aid.
Do you have any idea how many of them are being sacked before qualifying for a pension? Press coverage implies that there is a minimum service period - which seems very unfair in thos modern era, especially when the MoD can sack someone, for instance, 3 days before the qualifying date (which I am told happened lately). I find this hard to believe, so if anyone knows the truth?
Kellner wrote an article in Standpoint Magazine about a year ago predicting such an outcome.
It looks like a lot of people in Con/Lab/LD have decided the best strategy with regard to the Euros is to give the impression a UKIP win is the most likely result and then hope they just fall short (maybe due to a few more mini-scandals for instance) so that what would still be a pretty remarkable result would seem like a bit of a disappointment for the purples by comparison to expectations. It's an old trick of course but still a popular one.
This week's Speccy has an article on sexual harassment of men in Westminster.
There's certainly a lot fat that can be cut out of government. But, I think there's little doubt that cuts in public spending do cause hardship to some people in this country.
To take one example, my brother-in-law is having to tell members of his regiment, this morning, which of them are being made redundant, in order to meet the cuts in defence expenditure.
I think it is positively wrong to be making people redundant, in this country, while prioritising an increase in overseas aid.
But you can make that point about any piece of spending, taking from your bête noire and giving to your favourites. "Why do we need so many people in the military, when there's still poverty at home?" or "Why do we need to give to the arts and libraries, when there are redundancies in the military?"
We also have to ask if we have a moral imperative to help, not just our own people, but others from around the world, especially when the bang-for-the-buck may be much higher.
I quite like living in a country which chooses of its own free will to spend a little of it's treasure on helping others.
Does anyone remember the drink Castaway from the 1990s? Like alcoholic Lilt. I'm being accused of being mad because no-one else in the office remembers it.
A Google search confirms it existed but there appears to be no image of a Castaway bottle (1990s vintage) in existence on the internet!! This can't be, surely. Perhaps my Google-fu is weak, or perhaps I am mad, after all. Nurse!
It was a prototype alky-pop - fruit juice and white wine. Like an entry level taboo and mirage.
This may have already been posted but this is a link to the annual Bill Gates letter where he refutes (very effectively in my view) some of the myths about aid and improving the lives those less fortunate than ourselves. Very well worth reading and certainly inspiring. It would be nice to see some of this used to counter the arguments about overseas aid being 'wasteful'
Agreed. I hope a few backbench Tory MPs will read it.
There are plenty of us in UKIP who are hoping our own leadership will read it as well.
I certainly don't think the government should be increasing the overseas aid budget, at the same time that we're trying to eliminate a very large public sector deficit.
Given that a properly directed aid budget will save thousands of lives whilst making very little difference to the deficit reduction targets here, I have to disagree with you. There are far larger savings to be made by reforming our own very generous welfare systems that will not threaten lives. Certainly there are areas where our overseas aid programme needs overhauling (it should not be so controlled by the EU for example, nor should it be giving money to countries with, for example, their own space programmes).
But the basic principle of targeted health aid as a means of raising the standard of living for the whole world as articulated by Gates is, to my mind, something that all first world countries can afford and should aspire to.
There's certainly a lot fat that can be cut out of government. But, I think there's little doubt that cuts in public spending do cause hardship to some people in this country.
To take one example, my brother-in-law is having to tell members of his regiment, this morning, which of them are being made redundant, in order to meet the cuts in defence expenditure.
I think it is positively wrong to be making people redundant, in this country, while prioritising an increase in overseas aid.
They're not really "prioritising" overseas aid though, are they?
Health spending is ringfenced, and that's roughly - what, 12 times? - the size of overseas aid spending. A far bigger priority I would say.
(they've broken their promise on health spending of course, but that's neither here nor there...)
It will increase by 40% in real terms, over the course of the Parliament.
There's certainly a lot fat that can be cut out of government. But, I think there's little doubt that cuts in public spending do cause hardship to some people in this country.
To take one example, my brother-in-law is having to tell members of his regiment, this morning, which of them are being made redundant, in order to meet the cuts in defence expenditure.
I think it is positively wrong to be making people redundant, in this country, while prioritising an increase in overseas aid.
I quite like living in a country which chooses of its own free will to spend a little of it's treasure on helping others.
Charitable giving already happens. The objection is to taxation revenue, taken on threat of imprisonment, being used for foreign charity.
There's certainly a lot fat that can be cut out of government. But, I think there's little doubt that cuts in public spending do cause hardship to some people in this country.
To take one example, my brother-in-law is having to tell members of his regiment, this morning, which of them are being made redundant, in order to meet the cuts in defence expenditure.
I think it is positively wrong to be making people redundant, in this country, while prioritising an increase in overseas aid.
But you can make that point about any piece of spending, taking from your bête noire and giving to your favourites. "Why do we need so many people in the military, when there's still poverty at home?" or "Why do we need to give to the arts and libraries, when there are redundancies in the military?"
We also have to ask if we have a moral imperative to help, not just our own people, but others from around the world, especially when the bang-for-the-buck may be much higher.
I quite like living in a country which chooses of its own free will to spend a little of it's treasure on helping others.
In general, I view government as a trustee for its own people. I believe it should prioritise the interests of its own people.
There is no moral merit in borrowing to be charitable.
Do you have any idea how many of them are being sacked before qualifying for a pension? Press coverage implies that there is a minimum service period - which seems very unfair in thos modern era, especially when the MoD can sack someone, for instance, 3 days before the qualifying date (which I am told happened lately). I find this hard to believe, so if anyone knows the truth?
According to my brother-in-law, there's a definite bias towards sacking people before they qualify for a pension.
Kellner wrote an article in Standpoint Magazine about a year ago predicting such an outcome.
It looks like a lot of people in Con/Lab/LD have decided the best strategy with regard to the Euros is to give the impression a UKIP win is the most likely result and then hope they just fall short (maybe due to a few more mini-scandals for instance) so that what would still be a pretty remarkable result would seem like a bit of a disappointment for the purples by comparison to expectations. It's an old trick of course but still a popular one.
This week's Speccy has an article on sexual harassment of men in Westminster.
Westminster sleaze could easily provide four months of mini-scandals that would drown out any off key UKIP councillor quotes.
In the Eighties, a friend of mine was at the bar at the YCs' conference, and felt someone stroking his bottom. He turned round to discover it was a prominent minister who was doing the stroking.
There's certainly a lot fat that can be cut out of government. But, I think there's little doubt that cuts in public spending do cause hardship to some people in this country.
To take one example, my brother-in-law is having to tell members of his regiment, this morning, which of them are being made redundant, in order to meet the cuts in defence expenditure.
I think it is positively wrong to be making people redundant, in this country, while prioritising an increase in overseas aid.
But you can make that point about any piece of spending, taking from your bête noire and giving to your favourites. "Why do we need so many people in the military, when there's still poverty at home?" or "Why do we need to give to the arts and libraries, when there are redundancies in the military?"
We also have to ask if we have a moral imperative to help, not just our own people, but others from around the world, especially when the bang-for-the-buck may be much higher.
I quite like living in a country which chooses of its own free will to spend a little of it's treasure on helping others.
Well said.
The Government's Overseas Aid policy is the one and only thing I admire them for.
I wonder how much it was due to the Lib Dem influence, mind you...
The Conservative 2010 Manifesto apparently said "increase foreign aid to 0.7% of Gross National Income by 2013". According to the BBC, at least.
So it looks like it's good, old-fashioned Conservative philanthropy. ;-)
Romilly Weeks @romillyweeks 55 mins Mike Hancock's adult son taken away by police after attacking photographer outside the family home
Nice family...
Given the behaviour of some photographers and journalists, I might be tempted to hit them if they took an interest in me outside my home.
And I'm a gentle, even-headed soul. ;-)
If we think the behaviour of Unison 'thugs' outside management homes in Grangemouth was terrible, then the behaviour of some of these 'journalists' should be seen in a similar manner.
I am not sure that the flipside of reduced unemployment is poor productivity.
If you truly understood why productivity has fallen both before, through and after the recession then you would have a very well paid job awaiting you at the Treasury or Bank of England.
If you had 1000 jobs, 300 low productivity but 150 officially unemployed and off the books in the shadow economy and then the extra 150 was chivied back onto the books (which i approve of btw) then your ratio of low productivity jobs would go from 150/850 (18%) to 300/1000 (30%).
I don't know if that is what is happening but based on some of the areas i used to work it is possible.
It would be easy to test. You'd look for areas with unusually high unemployment next door to areas of high unemployment and see if the higher level area was drifting down to the same level as the lower level area.
Kellner wrote an article in Standpoint Magazine about a year ago predicting such an outcome.
It looks like a lot of people in Con/Lab/LD have decided the best strategy with regard to the Euros is to give the impression a UKIP win is the most likely result and then hope they just fall short (maybe due to a few more mini-scandals for instance) so that what would still be a pretty remarkable result would seem like a bit of a disappointment for the purples by comparison to expectations. It's an old trick of course but still a popular one.
This week's Speccy has an article on sexual harassment of men in Westminster.
Westminster sleaze could easily provide four months of mini-scandals that would drown out any off key UKIP councillor quotes.
Maybe in order to be taken more seriously by the Westminster bubble, ukip politicians need to do something that would get them put in jail/ cause actual harm, rather than say politically incorrect stuff now and then?
There's certainly a lot fat that can be cut out of government. But, I think there's little doubt that cuts in public spending do cause hardship to some people in this country.
To take one example, my brother-in-law is having to tell members of his regiment, this morning, which of them are being made redundant, in order to meet the cuts in defence expenditure.
I think it is positively wrong to be making people redundant, in this country, while prioritising an increase in overseas aid.
But you can make that point about any piece of spending, taking from your bête noire and giving to your favourites. "Why do we need so many people in the military, when there's still poverty at home?" or "Why do we need to give to the arts and libraries, when there are redundancies in the military?"
We also have to ask if we have a moral imperative to help, not just our own people, but others from around the world, especially when the bang-for-the-buck may be much higher.
I quite like living in a country which chooses of its own free will to spend a little of it's treasure on helping others.
In general, I view government as a trustee for its own people. I believe it should prioritise the interests of its own people.
There is no moral merit in borrowing to be charitable.
But we are prioritising our own people - 0.7% spent on international aid (some of which comes back to the UK) is hardly a priority.
I do not come at this from a religious viewpoint - in fact, religions cause more trouble than pain IMHO. But saving lives can only be good, even if they are foreigners.
It seems I would not want to live in your vision of the UK.
Kellner wrote an article in Standpoint Magazine about a year ago predicting such an outcome.
It looks like a lot of people in Con/Lab/LD have decided the best strategy with regard to the Euros is to give the impression a UKIP win is the most likely result and then hope they just fall short (maybe due to a few more mini-scandals for instance) so that what would still be a pretty remarkable result would seem like a bit of a disappointment for the purples by comparison to expectations. It's an old trick of course but still a popular one.
Downplay first and if that doesn't work, the opposite.
There's certainly a lot fat that can be cut out of government. But, I think there's little doubt that cuts in public spending do cause hardship to some people in this country.
To take one example, my brother-in-law is having to tell members of his regiment, this morning, which of them are being made redundant, in order to meet the cuts in defence expenditure.
I think it is positively wrong to be making people redundant, in this country, while prioritising an increase in overseas aid.
But you can make that point about any piece of spending, taking from your bête noire and giving to your favourites. "Why do we need so many people in the military, when there's still poverty at home?" or "Why do we need to give to the arts and libraries, when there are redundancies in the military?"
We also have to ask if we have a moral imperative to help, not just our own people, but others from around the world, especially when the bang-for-the-buck may be much higher.
I quite like living in a country which chooses of its own free will to spend a little of it's treasure on helping others.
In general, I view government as a trustee for its own people. I believe it should prioritise the interests of its own people.
There is no moral merit in borrowing to be charitable.
But we are prioritising our own people - 0.7% spent on international aid (some of which comes back to the UK) is hardly a priority.
I do not come at this from a religious viewpoint - in fact, religions cause more trouble than pain IMHO. But saving lives can only be good, even if they are foreigners.
It seems I would not want to live in your vision of the UK.
There's certainly a lot fat that can be cut out of government. But, I think there's little doubt that cuts in public spending do cause hardship to some people in this country.
To take one example, my brother-in-law is having to tell members of his regiment, this morning, which of them are being made redundant, in order to meet the cuts in defence expenditure.
I think it is positively wrong to be making people redundant, in this country, while prioritising an increase in overseas aid.
But you can make that point about any piece of spending, taking from your bête noire and giving to your favourites. "Why do we need so many people in the military, when there's still poverty at home?" or "Why do we need to give to the arts and libraries, when there are redundancies in the military?"
We also have to ask if we have a moral imperative to help, not just our own people, but others from around the world, especially when the bang-for-the-buck may be much higher.
I quite like living in a country which chooses of its own free will to spend a little of it's treasure on helping others.
In general, I view government as a trustee for its own people. I believe it should prioritise the interests of its own people.
There is no moral merit in borrowing to be charitable.
But we are prioritising our own people - 0.7% spent on international aid (some of which comes back to the UK) is hardly a priority.
I do not come at this from a religious viewpoint - in fact, religions cause more trouble than pain IMHO. But saving lives can only be good, even if they are foreigners.
It seems I would not want to live in your vision of the UK.
Nor I yours.
That's a shame. I want a country where everyone's excellent to each other.
Kellner wrote an article in Standpoint Magazine about a year ago predicting such an outcome.
It looks like a lot of people in Con/Lab/LD have decided the best strategy with regard to the Euros is to give the impression a UKIP win is the most likely result and then hope they just fall short (maybe due to a few more mini-scandals for instance) so that what would still be a pretty remarkable result would seem like a bit of a disappointment for the purples by comparison to expectations. It's an old trick of course but still a popular one.
This week's Speccy has an article on sexual harassment of men in Westminster.
Westminster sleaze could easily provide four months of mini-scandals that would drown out any off key UKIP councillor quotes.
In the Eighties, a friend of mine was at the bar at the YCs' conference, and felt someone stroking his bottom. He turned round to discover it was a prominent minister who was doing the stroking.
Was that the "noted pederast" Peter Morrison? (As Edwina Currie wrote in her diaries)
If i was senior plod and had a load of detectives sitting round because most of the actual crime officially isn't allowed to exist and so couldn't be investigated I'd set them to look at how and where that foreign aid money gets spent
cos
the political class liking expenses so much and the political class liking lobbyists so much and the political class being so comfortable with covering up MP misdeeds
doesn't fit with the political class being so keen on foreign aid
Kellner wrote an article in Standpoint Magazine about a year ago predicting such an outcome.
It looks like a lot of people in Con/Lab/LD have decided the best strategy with regard to the Euros is to give the impression a UKIP win is the most likely result and then hope they just fall short (maybe due to a few more mini-scandals for instance) so that what would still be a pretty remarkable result would seem like a bit of a disappointment for the purples by comparison to expectations. It's an old trick of course but still a popular one.
This week's Speccy has an article on sexual harassment of men in Westminster.
Westminster sleaze could easily provide four months of mini-scandals that would drown out any off key UKIP councillor quotes.
In the Eighties, a friend of mine was at the bar at the YCs' conference, and felt someone stroking his bottom. He turned round to discover it was a prominent minister who was doing the stroking.
Finally someone gives me a good reason to join a political party.
Kellner wrote an article in Standpoint Magazine about a year ago predicting such an outcome.
It looks like a lot of people in Con/Lab/LD have decided the best strategy with regard to the Euros is to give the impression a UKIP win is the most likely result and then hope they just fall short (maybe due to a few more mini-scandals for instance) so that what would still be a pretty remarkable result would seem like a bit of a disappointment for the purples by comparison to expectations. It's an old trick of course but still a popular one.
This week's Speccy has an article on sexual harassment of men in Westminster.
Westminster sleaze could easily provide four months of mini-scandals that would drown out any off key UKIP councillor quotes.
In the Eighties, a friend of mine was at the bar at the YCs' conference, and felt someone stroking his bottom. He turned round to discover it was a prominent minister who was doing the stroking.
Was that the "noted pederast" Peter Morrison? (As Edwina Currie wrote in her diaries)
No.
Peter Morrison was, however, notorious. Throughout the YCs and FCS he was seen as a pederastic version of Nicholas Fairbairn. One was always warned never to be alone with him.
Kellner wrote an article in Standpoint Magazine about a year ago predicting such an outcome.
It looks like a lot of people in Con/Lab/LD have decided the best strategy with regard to the Euros is to give the impression a UKIP win is the most likely result and then hope they just fall short (maybe due to a few more mini-scandals for instance) so that what would still be a pretty remarkable result would seem like a bit of a disappointment for the purples by comparison to expectations. It's an old trick of course but still a popular one.
This week's Speccy has an article on sexual harassment of men in Westminster.
Westminster sleaze could easily provide four months of mini-scandals that would drown out any off key UKIP councillor quotes.
In the Eighties, a friend of mine was at the bar at the YCs' conference, and felt someone stroking his bottom. He turned round to discover it was a prominent minister who was doing the stroking.
Finally someone gives me a good reason to join a political party.
LOL! I really don't think this minister would have been your type.
If i was senior plod and had a load of detectives sitting round because most of the actual crime officially isn't allowed to exist and so couldn't be investigated I'd set them to look at how and where that foreign aid money gets spent
cos
the political class liking expenses so much and the political class liking lobbyists so much and the political class being so comfortable with covering up MP misdeeds
doesn't fit with the political class being so keen on foreign aid
Surely you should investigate why the BCS also finds falling crime rates.
Kellner wrote an article in Standpoint Magazine about a year ago predicting such an outcome.
It looks like a lot of people in Con/Lab/LD have decided the best strategy with regard to the Euros is to give the impression a UKIP win is the most likely result and then hope they just fall short (maybe due to a few more mini-scandals for instance) so that what would still be a pretty remarkable result would seem like a bit of a disappointment for the purples by comparison to expectations. It's an old trick of course but still a popular one.
This week's Speccy has an article on sexual harassment of men in Westminster.
Westminster sleaze could easily provide four months of mini-scandals that would drown out any off key UKIP councillor quotes.
In the Eighties, a friend of mine was at the bar at the YCs' conference, and felt someone stroking his bottom. He turned round to discover it was a prominent minister who was doing the stroking.
Finally someone gives me a good reason to join a political party.
There's certainly a lot fat that can be cut out of government. But, I think there's little doubt that cuts in public spending do cause hardship to some people in this country.
To take one example, my brother-in-law is having to tell members of his regiment, this morning, which of them are being made redundant, in order to meet the cuts in defence expenditure.
I think it is positively wrong to be making people redundant, in this country, while prioritising an increase in overseas aid.
But you can make that point about any piece of spending, taking from your bête noire and giving to your favourites. "Why do we need so many people in the military, when there's still poverty at home?" or "Why do we need to give to the arts and libraries, when there are redundancies in the military?"
We also have to ask if we have a moral imperative to help, not just our own people, but others from around the world, especially when the bang-for-the-buck may be much higher.
I quite like living in a country which chooses of its own free will to spend a little of it's treasure on helping others.
In general, I view government as a trustee for its own people. I believe it should prioritise the interests of its own people.
There is no moral merit in borrowing to be charitable.
But we are prioritising our own people - 0.7% spent on international aid (some of which comes back to the UK) is hardly a priority.
I do not come at this from a religious viewpoint - in fact, religions cause more trouble than pain IMHO. But saving lives can only be good, even if they are foreigners.
It seems I would not want to live in your vision of the UK.
Nor I yours.
Assuming annual aid to India is 300 million GBP a year, and assuming an Indian population of 1 billion, that works out at an eye-watering 30p per Indian per year...
Does anyone remember the drink Castaway from the 1990s? Like alcoholic Lilt. I'm being accused of being mad because no-one else in the office remembers it.
A Google search confirms it existed but there appears to be no image of a Castaway bottle (1990s vintage) in existence on the internet!! This can't be, surely. Perhaps my Google-fu is weak, or perhaps I am mad, after all. Nurse!
It was a prototype alky-pop - fruit juice and white wine. Like an entry level taboo and mirage.
Taboo and Mirage. Sheesh. Blast from the past. Not drinks for a gentleman, if I recall.
The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) this time with their full year 2013 report.
The key development is that the UK is now the second largest market for motor vehicles in Europe and is poised to take over this year from France as the second largest manufacturer in the region.
The key statistics:
• 2,264,737 cars registered in 2013, up 10.8% on 2012 and exceeding SMMT’s 2.25 million forecast for the year.
• 2013 hits highest annual registration total since 2007 as December achieves 22nd consecutive monthly rise.
• On average, an additional 600 extra cars registered per day in 2013 than in the previous year.
• UK firmly secured as Europe’s second largest car market and only one to grow consistently throughout 2013.
A cautionary note though on growth expectations in 2014. With most of the boost in sales coming from the private sector in 2013, car traders will be looking for the fleet sector to pick up the slack in 2014. Still forecasts are for a reversion to 'sustainable' steady growth rather than the acceleration from the red-lights we saw last year.
• 2014 market expected to stabilise with sustainable growth of around 1% over the year.
And now for international comparisons:
• The UK has been a key market in an otherwise subdued European economic marketplace. In 2013, the UK consolidated its position as the second largest market in Europe (after Germany).
• Data to November shows the UK market up 9.9%, or over 190,000 units. The EU27 market as whole was down 2.7% or over 300,000 units.
And finally one for rcs1000:
• The Spanish market, supported by its own scrappage scheme, saw volumes rise 2.1% in 2013, while the German market was down almost 5% and France and Italy by over 7%.
Even another richard should be satisfied as the growth in the UK car manufacturing and registration market far exceeded any numbers that George Osborne even dreamt of in 2010.
There's certainly a lot fat that can be cut out of government. But, I think there's little doubt that cuts in public spending do cause hardship to some people in this country.
To take one example, my brother-in-law is having to tell members of his regiment, this morning, which of them are being made redundant, in order to meet the cuts in defence expenditure.
I think it is positively wrong to be making people redundant, in this country, while prioritising an increase in overseas aid.
But you can make that point about any piece of spending, taking from your bête noire and giving to your favourites. "Why do we need so many people in the military, when there's still poverty at home?" or "Why do we need to give to the arts and libraries, when there are redundancies in the military?"
We also have to ask if we have a moral imperative to help, not just our own people, but others from around the world, especially when the bang-for-the-buck may be much higher.
I quite like living in a country which chooses of its own free will to spend a little of it's treasure on helping others.
Well said.
The Government's Overseas Aid policy is the one and only thing I admire them for.
I wonder how much it was due to the Lib Dem influence, mind you...
The Conservative 2010 Manifesto apparently said "increase foreign aid to 0.7% of Gross National Income by 2013". According to the BBC, at least.
So it looks like it's good, old-fashioned Conservative philanthropy. ;-)
Good old-fashioned Cameron's detoxification strategy.
If i was senior plod and had a load of detectives sitting round because most of the actual crime officially isn't allowed to exist and so couldn't be investigated I'd set them to look at how and where that foreign aid money gets spent
cos
the political class liking expenses so much and the political class liking lobbyists so much and the political class being so comfortable with covering up MP misdeeds
doesn't fit with the political class being so keen on foreign aid
Surely you should investigate why the BCS also finds falling crime rates.
As the police's falling crime stats have been decreed dodgy that does imply further thought on the BCS.
(Although as crime is going down in the majority of areas through a drop in the numbers of young men aged 14-24 it's easy to see how sampling errors could slip in - especially if a lot of any increase in victims of crime (edit: in other areas) was concentrated in the 11-24 age group and even more so the 11-19 age group.)
Kellner wrote an article in Standpoint Magazine about a year ago predicting such an outcome.
It looks like a lot of people in Con/Lab/LD have decided the best strategy with regard to the Euros is to give the impression a UKIP win is the most likely result and then hope they just fall short (maybe due to a few more mini-scandals for instance) so that what would still be a pretty remarkable result would seem like a bit of a disappointment for the purples by comparison to expectations. It's an old trick of course but still a popular one.
It should be noted just how remarkable a UKIP win would be. To compare and contrast with the Liberals' / Lib Dems' performance post-1945, to put it in context, the Lib Dems have:
- never won any general election, nor finished second. - never won any European election, nor finished second. They haven't finished third this century. - never won a May round of local elections on national equivalent vote share. They have finished second, most recently in 2009. - never won a regional election in Wales or Scotland. In fact, they've never done better than fourth in either. - never won the London mayorality, nor finished second. - never won any London Assembly seat. - as far as I know, never won any regional constituency in the top-up sections in the Welsh or Scottish elections, though they have won the constituencies section of the Highlands and Islands region in the past. - not won any PCC election, nor finished second in any PCC election.
As far as I can tell, the Lib Dems - comfortably secured for decades in the public and media's minds as the third national 'big' party - haven't won any election bigger than Devon County Council. By contrast, we're talking here about UKIP, a party which barely existed twenty years ago, winning a full national poll. It would be a quite amazing achievement were they to do it (and I think they may well). Even if they don't, just comparing it against the list above shows how strong a performance a near-miss would be.
Kellner wrote an article in Standpoint Magazine about a year ago predicting such an outcome.
It looks like a lot of people in Con/Lab/LD have decided the best strategy with regard to the Euros is to give the impression a UKIP win is the most likely result and then hope they just fall short (maybe due to a few more mini-scandals for instance) so that what would still be a pretty remarkable result would seem like a bit of a disappointment for the purples by comparison to expectations. It's an old trick of course but still a popular one.
It should be noted just how remarkable a UKIP win would be. To compare and contrast with the Liberals' / Lib Dems' performance post-1945, to put it in context, the Lib Dems have:
- never won any general election, nor finished second. - never won any European election, nor finished second. They haven't finished third this century. - never won a May round of local elections on national equivalent vote share. They have finished second, most recently in 2009. - never won a regional election in Wales or Scotland. In fact, they've never done better than fourth in either. - never won the London mayorality, nor finished second. - never won any London Assembly seat. - as far as I know, never won any regional constituency in the top-up sections in the Welsh or Scottish elections, though they have won the constituencies section of the Highlands and Islands region in the past. - not won any PCC election, nor finished second in any PCC election.
As far as I can tell, the Lib Dems - comfortably secured for decades in the public and media's minds as the third national 'big' party - haven't won any election bigger than Devon County Council. By contrast, we're talking here about UKIP, a party which barely existed twenty years ago, winning a full national poll. It would be a quite amazing achievement were they to do it (and I think they may well). Even if they don't, just comparing it against the list above shows how strong a performance a near-miss would be.
It's not out of the question (but on balance unlikely) that UKIP could come first in terms of national equivalent vote share for the local elections, on the back of a strong performance in the EU elections.
Oh Priti Priti, just join UKIP, this bluster isn't becoming, or convincing
If that's Priti Patel what's she done now?
Andrew Neil asked her what the difference between what UKIP want and what she wants was, and she just ran around in circles without being able to say anything... (although she looked good saying it!)
Oh Priti Priti, just join UKIP, this bluster isn't becoming, or convincing
If that's Priti Patel what's she done now?
Andrew Neil asked her what the difference between what UKIP want and what she wants was, and she just ran around in circles without being able to say anything... (although she looked good saying it!)
Kellner wrote an article in Standpoint Magazine about a year ago predicting such an outcome.
It looks like a lot of people in Con/Lab/LD have decided the best strategy with regard to the Euros is to give the impression a UKIP win is the most likely result and then hope they just fall short (maybe due to a few more mini-scandals for instance) so that what would still be a pretty remarkable result would seem like a bit of a disappointment for the purples by comparison to expectations. It's an old trick of course but still a popular one.
It should be noted just how remarkable a UKIP win would be. To compare and contrast with the Liberals' / Lib Dems' performance post-1945, to put it in context, the Lib Dems have:
- never won any general election, nor finished second. - never won any European election, nor finished second. They haven't finished third this century. - never won a May round of local elections on national equivalent vote share. They have finished second, most recently in 2009. - never won a regional election in Wales or Scotland. In fact, they've never done better than fourth in either. - never won the London mayorality, nor finished second. - never won any London Assembly seat. - as far as I know, never won any regional constituency in the top-up sections in the Welsh or Scottish elections, though they have won the constituencies section of the Highlands and Islands region in the past. - not won any PCC election, nor finished second in any PCC election.
As far as I can tell, the Lib Dems - comfortably secured for decades in the public and media's minds as the third national 'big' party - haven't won any election bigger than Devon County Council. By contrast, we're talking here about UKIP, a party which barely existed twenty years ago, winning a full national poll. It would be a quite amazing achievement were they to do it (and I think they may well). Even if they don't, just comparing it against the list above shows how strong a performance a near-miss would be.
Arguably winning control of Devon County Council is a more significant achievement than topping the Euro poll.
Certainly, the 6m votes the LDs got for coming third in GE2010 is more significant than the 4m votes the Tories got for coming first in EU2009.
Does anyone remember the drink Castaway from the 1990s? Like alcoholic Lilt. I'm being accused of being mad because no-one else in the office remembers it.
A Google search confirms it existed but there appears to be no image of a Castaway bottle (1990s vintage) in existence on the internet!! This can't be, surely. Perhaps my Google-fu is weak, or perhaps I am mad, after all. Nurse!
Your Google skills are no match for the power of the Dark Side!
I am not sure that the flipside of reduced unemployment is poor productivity.
If you truly understood why productivity has fallen both before, through and after the recession then you would have a very well paid job awaiting you at the Treasury or Bank of England.
If you had 1000 jobs, 300 low productivity but 150 officially unemployed and off the books in the shadow economy and then the extra 150 was chivied back onto the books (which i approve of btw) then your ratio of low productivity jobs would go from 150/850 (18%) to 300/1000 (30%).
I don't know if that is what is happening but based on some of the areas i used to work it is possible.
It would be easy to test. You'd look for areas with unusually high unemployment next door to areas of high unemployment and see if the higher level area was drifting down to the same level as the lower level area.
Some people don't like good economic news, it doesn't fit with their political agenda. This applies equally to lefties and kipper types.
Was looking on the front page of Channel 4 new's website for anything on Hancock and see this tweet from Hague
"Concerned by latest reports from Bor of #SexualViolence in #SouthSudan crisis. Civilians should be protected"
points Government Minister Hague at the children's commissioner's report on what's happening in the gang-ruled areas of Britain.
"Sexual violence in gang neighbourhoods is 'like that in war zones' with girls as young as 11 being groomed and raped...Warning came following shocking Children's Commissioner report"
Oh Priti Priti, just join UKIP, this bluster isn't becoming, or convincing
If that's Priti Patel what's she done now?
Andrew Neil asked her what the difference between what UKIP want and what she wants was, and she just ran around in circles without being able to say anything... (although she looked good saying it!)
Obviously in the wrong party
Are you a secret lib dem?
Oh please! I've just had a shower, now I need another one!
Kellner wrote an article in Standpoint Magazine about a year ago predicting such an outcome.
It looks like a lot of people in Con/Lab/LD have decided the best strategy with regard to the Euros is to give the impression a UKIP win is the most likely result and then hope they just fall short (maybe due to a few more mini-scandals for instance) so that what would still be a pretty remarkable result would seem like a bit of a disappointment for the purples by comparison to expectations. It's an old trick of course but still a popular one.
It should be noted just how remarkable a UKIP win would be. To compare and contrast with the Liberals' / Lib Dems' performance post-1945, to put it in context, the Lib Dems have:
- never won any general election, nor finished second. - never won any European election, nor finished second. They haven't finished third this century. - never won a May round of local elections on national equivalent vote share. They have finished second, most recently in 2009. - never won a regional election in Wales or Scotland. In fact, they've never done better than fourth in either. - never won the London mayorality, nor finished second. - never won any London Assembly seat. - as far as I know, never won any regional constituency in the top-up sections in the Welsh or Scottish elections, though they have won the constituencies section of the Highlands and Islands region in the past. - not won any PCC election, nor finished second in any PCC election.
As far as I can tell, the Lib Dems - comfortably secured for decades in the public and media's minds as the third national 'big' party - haven't won any election bigger than Devon County Council. By contrast, we're talking here about UKIP, a party which barely existed twenty years ago, winning a full national poll. It would be a quite amazing achievement were they to do it (and I think they may well). Even if they don't, just comparing it against the list above shows how strong a performance a near-miss would be.
It's not out of the question (but on balance unlikely) that UKIP could come first in terms of national equivalent vote share for the local elections, on the back of a strong performance in the EU elections.
I'd be very surprised if that does happen but if it does, it won't just be the Tories with fingers hovering over the Panic button. Labour has to win the locals comfortably if it has a chance for 2015.
I am not sure that the flipside of reduced unemployment is poor productivity.
If you truly understood why productivity has fallen both before, through and after the recession then you would have a very well paid job awaiting you at the Treasury or Bank of England.
If you had 1000 jobs, 300 low productivity but 150 officially unemployed and off the books in the shadow economy and then the extra 150 was chivied back onto the books (which i approve of btw) then your ratio of low productivity jobs would go from 150/850 (18%) to 300/1000 (30%).
I don't know if that is what is happening but based on some of the areas i used to work it is possible.
It would be easy to test. You'd look for areas with unusually high unemployment next door to areas of high unemployment and see if the higher level area was drifting down to the same level as the lower level area.
Some people don't like good economic news, it doesn't fit with their political agenda. This applies equally to lefties and kipper types.
Some people don't know what 70% of the country is like.
But anyway, I'm not against it i think it's great if that is what is happening, well done IDS, i'm just saying why it might tie in with the productivity thing.
@JackW - A North-West contrast to my Brigg and Goole suggestion earlier - Blackpool North and Cleverleys - Majority of just 5% or so for the sitting Tory, with a reasonable Lib Dem vote to squeeze (13%) and the potential for a strong UKIP performance. Depends on your other seats - might be a bit too similar to (say) Hastings and Rye although at the other end of the country.
I see that Avery, having already included the Royal Mail pension fund assets as negative borrowing whilst ignoring Royal Mail pension liabilities, is now treating items from a cash flow statement as balance sheet.
Let us remember the government's borrowing plans:
"As a result of the measures I will announce today, public sector net borrowing will be: £149 billion this year, falling to £116 billion next year, then £89 billion in 2012-13, and then £60 billion in 2013-14. By 2014-15 borrowing reaches £37 billion, exactly half the amount forecast in the March Budget."
I'm offering evens that government borrowing is over £500bn for those five years. That's more than 10% higher than what Osborne promised.
Are the Osborne fans willing to put their money where their keyboards are or are they conceding that their hero has failed on his main target ?
If you want to play that game, go and look at Labour's projections and assumption from 2006-8. Or are you saying the government should have cut more? Perhaps you'd criticise Osborne for under-predicting growth too. Stuff happens and economic prediction isn't an exact science. getting the big policy framework right is the important thing.
It was me who first pointed out the increase in government borrowing of HALF A TRILLION between the budgets of 2008 and 2009.
And Osborne OVER-PREDICTED growth in his 2010 budget.
I think I'm being fair - I'm giving him his full five years as a comparison.
You can only judge someone by what he predicted and the actual outturn, that's what I'm doing.
And do you think the 'big policy framework' is being done right ? How much 'economic rebalancing' has occurred.
Now its work for me.
An excellent post, Richard. Osborne has made a pig's ear of it – why he chose to make himself a hostage to fortune by a) making such forecasts and b) telling the public he was reducing the DEBT is beyond me.
A nasty surprise for the public when the realise that Ozzy has prescided over a massive increase in debt despite telling them he was paying it off.
Silly boy, Last Boy Scout.
You are demoted to the Cub Scouts and your woggle has been confiscated.
Here is your yellow box:
====================== ONS: PSF Bulletin December 2013 ---------------------- Public Sector Net Debt as % of GDP at year end ---------------------- % 2009/10 151.7 2010/11 147.2 2011/12 139.1 2012/13 136.7 ======================
Osborne is paying down the debt as evidenced by the latest ONS figures from their December Public Sector Finances Bulletin published yesterday.
Kellner wrote an article in Standpoint Magazine about a year ago predicting such an outcome.
It should be noted just how remarkable a UKIP win would be. To compare and contrast with the Liberals' / Lib Dems' performance post-1945, to put it in context, the Lib Dems have:
- never won any general election, nor finished second. - never won any European election, nor finished second. They haven't finished third this century. - never won a May round of local elections on national equivalent vote share. They have finished second, most recently in 2009. - never won a regional election in Wales or Scotland. In fact, they've never done better than fourth in either. - never won the London mayorality, nor finished second. - never won any London Assembly seat. - as far as I know, never won any regional constituency in the top-up sections in the Welsh or Scottish elections, though they have won the constituencies section of the Highlands and Islands region in the past. - not won any PCC election, nor finished second in any PCC election.
As far as I can tell, the Lib Dems - comfortably secured for decades in the public and media's minds as the third national 'big' party - haven't won any election bigger than Devon County Council. By contrast, we're talking here about UKIP, a party which barely existed twenty years ago, winning a full national poll. It would be a quite amazing achievement were they to do it (and I think they may well). Even if they don't, just comparing it against the list above shows how strong a performance a near-miss would be.
It's not out of the question (but on balance unlikely) that UKIP could come first in terms of national equivalent vote share for the local elections, on the back of a strong performance in the EU elections.
I'd be very surprised if that does happen but if it does, it won't just be the Tories with fingers hovering over the Panic button. Labour has to win the locals comfortably if it has a chance for 2015.
I seem to recall the post-match analysis of the 2013 locals saying that UKIP had done best in Labour areas, and prevented Labour winning seats they expected/needed in the south.
It should be noted just how remarkable a UKIP win would be. To compare and contrast with the Liberals' / Lib Dems' performance post-1945, to put it in context, the Lib Dems have:
- never won any general election, nor finished second. - never won any European election, nor finished second. They haven't finished third this century. - never won a May round of local elections on national equivalent vote share. They have finished second, most recently in 2009. - never won a regional election in Wales or Scotland. In fact, they've never done better than fourth in either. - never won the London mayorality, nor finished second. - never won any London Assembly seat. - as far as I know, never won any regional constituency in the top-up sections in the Welsh or Scottish elections, though they have won the constituencies section of the Highlands and Islands region in the past. - not won any PCC election, nor finished second in any PCC election.
As far as I can tell, the Lib Dems - comfortably secured for decades in the public and media's minds as the third national 'big' party - haven't won any election bigger than Devon County Council. By contrast, we're talking here about UKIP, a party which barely existed twenty years ago, winning a full national poll. It would be a quite amazing achievement were they to do it (and I think they may well). Even if they don't, just comparing it against the list above shows how strong a performance a near-miss would be.
It's not out of the question (but on balance unlikely) that UKIP could come first in terms of national equivalent vote share for the local elections, on the back of a strong performance in the EU elections.
I'd be very surprised if that does happen but if it does, it won't just be the Tories with fingers hovering over the Panic button. Labour has to win the locals comfortably if it has a chance for 2015.
Would be very surprised given UKIP have not done historically well in London which is all-out in all Boroughs for the Locals. (and clearly would be a significant weight). UKIP winning the Locals (ex London) would be a possibility, but I don't foresee anyone bothering to do that calculation.
Oh Priti Priti, just join UKIP, this bluster isn't becoming, or convincing
If that's Priti Patel what's she done now?
Andrew Neil asked her what the difference between what UKIP want and what she wants was, and she just ran around in circles without being able to say anything... (although she looked good saying it!)
Obviously in the wrong party
Are you a secret lib dem?
Oh please! I've just had a shower, now I need another one!
I'd be very surprised if that does happen but if it does, it won't just be the Tories with fingers hovering over the Panic button. Labour has to win the locals comfortably if it has a chance for 2015.
Not necessarily. Labour were comprehensively routed at the Locals in 2008 and 2009, yet still hung onto 258 seats at GE 2010.
The most stupid plan since Baldrick solved the problem of his mother's low ceiling by cutting off her head is to go ahead. Double points for Abu Dhabi: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/25859321
It should be noted just how remarkable a UKIP win would be. To compare and contrast with the Liberals' / Lib Dems' performance post-1945, to put it in context, the Lib Dems have:
- never won any general election, nor finished second. - never won any European election, nor finished second. They haven't finished third this century. - never won a May round of local elections on national equivalent vote share. They have finished second, most recently in 2009. - never won a regional election in Wales or Scotland. In fact, they've never done better than fourth in either. - never won the London mayorality, nor finished second. - never won any London Assembly seat. - as far as I know, never won any regional constituency in the top-up sections in the Welsh or Scottish elections, though they have won the constituencies section of the Highlands and Islands region in the past. - not won any PCC election, nor finished second in any PCC election.
As far as I can tell, the Lib Dems - comfortably secured for decades in the public and media's minds as the third national 'big' party - haven't won any election bigger than Devon County Council. By contrast, we're talking here about UKIP, a party which barely existed twenty years ago, winning a full national poll. It would be a quite amazing achievement were they to do it (and I think they may well). Even if they don't, just comparing it against the list above shows how strong a performance a near-miss would be.
It's not out of the question (but on balance unlikely) that UKIP could come first in terms of national equivalent vote share for the local elections, on the back of a strong performance in the EU elections.
I'd be very surprised if that does happen but if it does, it won't just be the Tories with fingers hovering over the Panic button. Labour has to win the locals comfortably if it has a chance for 2015.
Would be very surprised given UKIP have not done historically well in London which is all-out in all Boroughs for the Locals. (and clearly would be a significant weight). UKIP winning the Locals (ex London) would be a possibility, but I don't foresee anyone bothering to do that calculation.
I was going to write something similar but it will depend on how the national equivalent shares are calculated. It may be that if UKIP do extremely well in the more rural constituencies where there are only a few elections, bulking up those results for the equivalent places not having elections will give them enough. That said, I still don't think there'll be enough Lab-UKIP switchings in the locals, either in London or the metropolitan councils, to place them first, or even second. There may well be quite a bit of Lab-local/UKIP-Euro split voting though.
Was looking on the front page of Channel 4 new's website for anything on Hancock and see this tweet from Hague
"Concerned by latest reports from Bor of #SexualViolence in #SouthSudan crisis. Civilians should be protected"
points Government Minister Hague at the children's commissioner's report on what's happening in the gang-ruled areas of Britain.
"Sexual violence in gang neighbourhoods is 'like that in war zones' with girls as young as 11 being groomed and raped...Warning came following shocking Children's Commissioner report"
So this is the same Mr Hague that told the Scots in Glasgow a few days ago that they had to stay in the union as the full clout and strength of the union was the only way to stop women and children being attacked in war zones this way?? "But we could only do so because we had the full weight of the United Kingdom, its alliances and its first-class diplomatic network behind us".
Edit 1: But we keep being told that the UK will remain the same old UK with all its international rights and treaties even if the Scots leave (all 9%-odd of the population)
Edit 2: we'd really, really like Mr Cameron to discuss this assertion n public with the First Minister (well, the first elected politician below HM the Queen level): not least the fact Mr Hague came here when he doesn't have a vote and should stay out of the debate according to Mr C. Or was Mr H on an unofficial visit?
Oh Priti Priti, just join UKIP, this bluster isn't becoming, or convincing
If that's Priti Patel what's she done now?
Andrew Neil asked her what the difference between what UKIP want and what she wants was, and she just ran around in circles without being able to say anything... (although she looked good saying it!)
Obviously in the wrong party
Are you a secret lib dem?
Oh please! I've just had a shower, now I need another one!
So you had the first shower after watching Priti?
Haha , no I'd been for a run that I thought I had done in a good time, but was actually my second worst of the year
Oh Priti Priti, just join UKIP, this bluster isn't becoming, or convincing
If that's Priti Patel what's she done now?
Andrew Neil asked her what the difference between what UKIP want and what she wants was, and she just ran around in circles without being able to say anything... (although she looked good saying it!)
Obviously in the wrong party
Are you a secret lib dem?
Oh please! I've just had a shower, now I need another one!
So you had the first shower after watching Priti?
Haha , no I'd been for a run that I thought I had done in a good time, but was actually my second worst of the year
Hmm I should go for a run at some point, rather fallen off that wagon. Doubt I could do a 5k in sub 23 minutes that I managed a coupl of years back !
The Lib Dems situation really got alot more dire. I think the chances of Clegg going have become an actual possibility now.
LD councillors got named by the victim in the Portsmouth press too.
"...the alleged victim, who cannot be named for legal reasons, focused her criticism on Portsmouth’s Lib Democrat members for not taking immediate action against Cllr Hancock and instead delaying the probe until the outcome of a civil case she has lodged against him for sexual assault.
The panel that oversaw the complaint were Liberal Dem councillors Les Stevens and Terry Hall, and while Tory councillor Donna Jones chaired proceedings, she was against any delay – but was outvoted."
Comments
Actual result: LD 32.1%, UKIP 27.8%, Con 25.4%, Lab 9.8%.
Modified: UKIP 27.8%, LD 27.1%, Con 25.4%, Lab 14.8%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastleigh_by-election,_2013
http://www.ukip.org/newsroom/news/1126-john-bickley-ukip-s-candidate-for-wythenshawe-and-sale-east
Come the by-election, Labour didn't get those votes back but with the UKIP surge, it's far from clear who did. If there were Labour-identifying anti-Tory tactical voters in Eastleigh, they only switched in small numbers and may not have held with the Lib Dems after 2010.
a) Jail
b) His own moral code
So he will be MP until May 2015.
I doubt he will stand again - his pension will be nicely topped up from all those jobs he has had.
But the basic principle of targeted health aid as a means of raising the standard of living for the whole world as articulated by Gates is, to my mind, something that all first world countries can afford and should aspire to.
It could be argued that a member could be appointed to the Chiltern Hundreds / Manorship of Northstead without his or her consent and so create a vacancy. Whether such a move would be legal is questionable, it certainly wouldn't be ethical.
A nasty surprise for the public when the realise that Ozzy has prescided over a massive increase in debt despite telling them he was paying it off.
More interesting stories from the elections could be LD wipeout and Ukip v Labour.
twitter.com/StephanShaxper/statuses/426282792897748992
To take one example, my brother-in-law is having to tell members of his regiment, this morning, which of them are being made redundant, in order to meet the cuts in defence expenditure.
I think it is positively wrong to be making people redundant, in this country, while prioritising an increase in overseas aid.
It looks like a lot of people in Con/Lab/LD have decided the best strategy with regard to the Euros is to give the impression a UKIP win is the most likely result and then hope they just fall short (maybe due to a few more mini-scandals for instance) so that what would still be a pretty remarkable result would seem like a bit of a disappointment for the purples by comparison to expectations. It's an old trick of course but still a popular one.
Does anyone remember the drink Castaway from the 1990s? Like alcoholic Lilt. I'm being accused of being mad because no-one else in the office remembers it.
A Google search confirms it existed but there appears to be no image of a Castaway bottle (1990s vintage) in existence on the internet!! This can't be, surely. Perhaps my Google-fu is weak, or perhaps I am mad, after all. Nurse!
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9122631/the-commons-touch/
Westminster sleaze could easily provide four months of mini-scandals that would drown out any off key UKIP councillor quotes.
We also have to ask if we have a moral imperative to help, not just our own people, but others from around the world, especially when the bang-for-the-buck may be much higher.
I quite like living in a country which chooses of its own free will to spend a little of it's treasure on helping others.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2011/06/tax-versus-philanthropy/
There is no moral merit in borrowing to be charitable.
Do you have any idea how many of them are being sacked before qualifying for a pension? Press coverage implies that there is a minimum service period - which seems very unfair in thos modern era, especially when the MoD can sack someone, for instance, 3 days before the qualifying date (which I am told happened lately). I find this hard to believe, so if anyone knows the truth?
According to my brother-in-law, there's a definite bias towards sacking people before they qualify for a pension.
Mike Hancock's adult son taken away by police after attacking photographer outside the family home
Nice family...
So it looks like it's good, old-fashioned Conservative philanthropy. ;-)
And I'm a gentle, even-headed soul. ;-)
If we think the behaviour of Unison 'thugs' outside management homes in Grangemouth was terrible, then the behaviour of some of these 'journalists' should be seen in a similar manner.
I don't know if that is what is happening but based on some of the areas i used to work it is possible.
It would be easy to test. You'd look for areas with unusually high unemployment next door to areas of high unemployment and see if the higher level area was drifting down to the same level as the lower level area.
I do not come at this from a religious viewpoint - in fact, religions cause more trouble than pain IMHO. But saving lives can only be good, even if they are foreigners.
It seems I would not want to live in your vision of the UK.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_yJFLvmjJY
cos
the political class liking expenses so much
and
the political class liking lobbyists so much
and
the political class being so comfortable with covering up MP misdeeds
doesn't fit with
the political class being so keen on foreign aid
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-01-23/mike-hancocks-son-in-fight-with-photographer-at-family-home/
Peter Morrison was, however, notorious. Throughout the YCs and FCS he was seen as a pederastic version of Nicholas Fairbairn. One was always warned never to be alone with him.
"Mr Hancock Jr has just been taken away by police for questioning."
He could be helping police voluntarily.
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-01-23/police-confirm-arrest-at-mp-mike-hancocks-home/
I predict the following will be all the rage:
"Cameron is not a real Tory"
"Cameroons wrecking the party"
"Referendum, referendum, referendum"
"It was only the Euros and Ukip always fall back"
"Ukip wont get that in the General Election"
"A vote for Ukip is a vote for Miliband"
"How many signatures have the 1922 comittee got on the letter?"
"Swingback"
"It's a terrrrrible night for the Conservative Party"
"Dan has just tweeted a poll from the marginals showing the Tory Party 10% ahead, so the Euros don't matter"
"The party needs to hold it's nerve".
"I expected the Tory Party to lose (put in oversteimated figure) so it has turned out not as bad as I thought"
"Labour should have been gaining (overestimated figure) so it is the Labour Party who are the biggest losers "
"What do you expect from a mid-term election"
"Labour postal fraud swung them loads of seats"
Quite possibly a full house by the end of the weekend after the results come in.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-25861012
The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) this time with their full year 2013 report.
The key development is that the UK is now the second largest market for motor vehicles in Europe and is poised to take over this year from France as the second largest manufacturer in the region.
The key statistics:
• 2,264,737 cars registered in 2013, up 10.8% on 2012 and exceeding SMMT’s 2.25 million forecast for the year.
• 2013 hits highest annual registration total since 2007 as December achieves 22nd consecutive monthly rise.
• On average, an additional 600 extra cars registered per day in 2013 than in the previous year.
• UK firmly secured as Europe’s second largest car market and only one to grow consistently throughout 2013.
A cautionary note though on growth expectations in 2014. With most of the boost in sales coming from the private sector in 2013, car traders will be looking for the fleet sector to pick up the slack in 2014. Still forecasts are for a reversion to 'sustainable' steady growth rather than the acceleration from the red-lights we saw last year.
• 2014 market expected to stabilise with sustainable growth of around 1% over the year.
And now for international comparisons:
• The UK has been a key market in an otherwise subdued European economic marketplace. In 2013, the UK consolidated its position as the second largest market in Europe (after Germany).
• Data to November shows the UK market up 9.9%, or over 190,000 units. The EU27 market as whole was down 2.7% or over 300,000 units.
And finally one for rcs1000:
• The Spanish market, supported by its own scrappage scheme, saw volumes rise 2.1% in 2013, while the German market was down almost 5% and France and Italy by over 7%.
Even another richard should be satisfied as the growth in the UK car manufacturing and registration market far exceeded any numbers that George Osborne even dreamt of in 2010.
Fantastically splendid tractor stats, Comrade Chancellor!
(Although as crime is going down in the majority of areas through a drop in the numbers of young men aged 14-24 it's easy to see how sampling errors could slip in - especially if a lot of any increase in victims of crime (edit: in other areas) was concentrated in the 11-24 age group and even more so the 11-19 age group.)
- never won any general election, nor finished second.
- never won any European election, nor finished second. They haven't finished third this century.
- never won a May round of local elections on national equivalent vote share. They have finished second, most recently in 2009.
- never won a regional election in Wales or Scotland. In fact, they've never done better than fourth in either.
- never won the London mayorality, nor finished second.
- never won any London Assembly seat.
- as far as I know, never won any regional constituency in the top-up sections in the Welsh or Scottish elections, though they have won the constituencies section of the Highlands and Islands region in the past.
- not won any PCC election, nor finished second in any PCC election.
As far as I can tell, the Lib Dems - comfortably secured for decades in the public and media's minds as the third national 'big' party - haven't won any election bigger than Devon County Council. By contrast, we're talking here about UKIP, a party which barely existed twenty years ago, winning a full national poll. It would be a quite amazing achievement were they to do it (and I think they may well). Even if they don't, just comparing it against the list above shows how strong a performance a near-miss would be.
Good to see labour haven't adopted a ''all we've got to do is turn up'' mentality.....
YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead jumps back up to eight points: CON 32%, LAB 40%, LD 8%, UKIP 12%
Obviously in the wrong party
Certainly, the 6m votes the LDs got for coming third in GE2010 is more significant than the 4m votes the Tories got for coming first in EU2009.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=castaway+drink&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=WBThUrKmHcGphAep24CYAw&sqi=2&ved=0CDQQsAQ&biw=1920&bih=935
I don't know if that is what is happening but based on some of the areas i used to work it is possible.
It would be easy to test. You'd look for areas with unusually high unemployment next door to areas of high unemployment and see if the higher level area was drifting down to the same level as the lower level area.
Some people don't like good economic news, it doesn't fit with their political agenda. This applies equally to lefties and kipper types.
"Concerned by latest reports from Bor of #SexualViolence in #SouthSudan crisis. Civilians should be protected"
points Government Minister Hague at the children's commissioner's report on what's happening in the gang-ruled areas of Britain.
"Sexual violence in gang neighbourhoods is 'like that in war zones' with girls as young as 11 being groomed and raped...Warning came following shocking Children's Commissioner report"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2513653/Sexual-violence-gang-neighbourhoods-like-war-zones-girls-young-11-groomed-raped.html
Some people don't know what 70% of the country is like.
But anyway, I'm not against it i think it's great if that is what is happening, well done IDS, i'm just saying why it might tie in with the productivity thing.
You are demoted to the Cub Scouts and your woggle has been confiscated.
Here is your yellow box: Osborne is paying down the debt as evidenced by the latest ONS figures from their December Public Sector Finances Bulletin published yesterday.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2544565/Photographer-left-bloody-nose-son-Lib-Dem-MP-Mike-Hancock-attacks-press-pack-umbrella-threatens-run-Mini.html
hahahahahahaha
*sighs*
The most stupid plan since Baldrick solved the problem of his mother's low ceiling by cutting off her head is to go ahead. Double points for Abu Dhabi:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/25859321
or simply, evidence which is not hearsay evidence R v Noakes [1917]
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/united-kingdom-stronger-and-safer-together?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=speech-united-kingdom-stronger-and-safer-together
Edit 1: But we keep being told that the UK will remain the same old UK with all its international rights and treaties even if the Scots leave (all 9%-odd of the population)
Edit 2: we'd really, really like Mr Cameron to discuss this assertion n public with the First Minister (well, the first elected politician below HM the Queen level): not least the fact Mr Hague came here when he doesn't have a vote and should stay out of the debate according to Mr C. Or was Mr H on an unofficial visit?
"...the alleged victim, who cannot be named for legal reasons, focused her criticism on Portsmouth’s Lib Democrat members for not taking immediate action against Cllr Hancock and instead delaying the probe until the outcome of a civil case she has lodged against him for sexual assault.
The panel that oversaw the complaint were Liberal Dem councillors Les Stevens and Terry Hall, and while Tory councillor Donna Jones chaired proceedings, she was against any delay – but was outvoted."
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/politics/mike-hancock-s-alleged-victim-this-has-taken-far-too-long-1-5827361