Relieved to hear Miliband has won PMQs - the polls are tilting against so perhaps some much needed morale for Labour benches.
I'm afraid not everyone agrees:
So much for Miliband's calm, reasonable approach. This sounded like business as usual. Cameron's Labour-bashing was crude and unappealing, but Miliband's attempt to skewer him with the "rule out a tax cut" challenge did not really work either, because Cameron gave what amounted to (for a question about future tax rates) a reasonably informative answer. This one felt like a loss for both sides.
Why do Labour want to bang on about the possibility of a cut to the 45p in the budget ?
It aint happening.
Every time Cameron seems to be getting on top,he shoots himself in the foot.
He's cr@p at politics.
Dave let Ed win today.
If Dave had crushed Ed again today, combined with Labour's slide in the polls, people in the Labour party may have decided to remove Ed as leader before the election.
Something which Dave doesn't want.
From Dave and The Tories perspective so it's better to lose one PMQs than to lose Ed as Leader of the Opposition.
It's bigger than that. Dave is sacrificing the next election in order to usher in a landslide in 2025. He's playing the long game ! Every failure is a success (But every success is still a success obviously).
My tongue was in the vicinity of my tongue when I posted that.
Relieved to hear Miliband has won PMQs - the polls are tilting against so perhaps some much needed morale for Labour benches.
I'm afraid not everyone agrees:
So much for Miliband's calm, reasonable approach. This sounded like business as usual. Cameron's Labour-bashing was crude and unappealing, but Miliband's attempt to skewer him with the "rule out a tax cut" challenge did not really work either, because Cameron gave what amounted to (for a question about future tax rates) a reasonably informative answer. This one felt like a loss for both sides.
Why do Labour want to bang on about the possibility of a cut to the 45p in the budget ?
It aint happening.
Every time Cameron seems to be getting on top,he shoots himself in the foot.
He's cr@p at politics.
Dave let Ed win today.
If Dave had crushed Ed again today, combined with Labour's slide in the polls, people in the Labour party may have decided to remove Ed as leader before the election.
Something which Dave doesn't want.
From Dave and The Tories perspective so it's better to lose one PMQs than to lose Ed as Leader of the Opposition.
Cameron has just given the labour party another attack angle on lowering the 45p to 40p,he better find a better answer than he did in the commons.
This will be asked of the tories now in interviews,again turning the spotlight on them.
Labour accuses Tories of planning another 'tax cut for millionaires' as George Osborne fails to rule out a cut in the top rate from 45p to 40p
Why do Labour want to bang on about the possibility of a cut to the 45p in the budget ?
It aint happening.
Every time Cameron seems to be getting on top,he shoots himself in the foot.
He's cr@p at politics.
Dave let Ed win today.
If Dave had crushed Ed again today, combined with Labour's slide in the polls, people in the Labour party may have decided to remove Ed as leader before the election.
Something which Dave doesn't want.
From Dave and The Tories perspective so it's better to lose one PMQs than to lose Ed as Leader of the Opposition.
It's bigger than that. Dave is sacrificing the next election in order to usher in a landslide in 2025. He's playing the long game ! Every failure is a success (But every success is still a success obviously).
My tongue was in the vicinity of my tongue when I posted that.
It is a vintage PB meme though, remember Save Ed? Hard to tell genuine from spoof on here
Why do Labour want to bang on about the possibility of a cut to the 45p in the budget ?
It aint happening.
Every time Cameron seems to be getting on top,he shoots himself in the foot.
He's cr@p at politics.
Dave let Ed win today.
If Dave had crushed Ed again today, combined with Labour's slide in the polls, people in the Labour party may have decided to remove Ed as leader before the election.
Something which Dave doesn't want.
From Dave and The Tories perspective so it's better to lose one PMQs than to lose Ed as Leader of the Opposition.
It's bigger than that. Dave is sacrificing the next election in order to usher in a landslide in 2025. He's playing the long game ! Every failure is a success (But every success is still a success obviously).
My tongue was in the vicinity of my tongue when I posted that.
Personally, my tongue is always in the vicinity of my tongue...
Relieved to hear Miliband has won PMQs - the polls are tilting against so perhaps some much needed morale for Labour benches.
I'm afraid not everyone agrees:
So much for Miliband's calm, reasonable approach. This sounded like business as usual. Cameron's Labour-bashing was crude and unappealing, but Miliband's attempt to skewer him with the "rule out a tax cut" challenge did not really work either, because Cameron gave what amounted to (for a question about future tax rates) a reasonably informative answer. This one felt like a loss for both sides.
Why do Labour want to bang on about the possibility of a cut to the 45p in the budget ?
It aint happening.
Every time Cameron seems to be getting on top,he shoots himself in the foot.
He's cr@p at politics.
Dave let Ed win today.
If Dave had crushed Ed again today, combined with Labour's slide in the polls, people in the Labour party may have decided to remove Ed as leader before the election.
Something which Dave doesn't want.
From Dave and The Tories perspective so it's better to lose one PMQs than to lose Ed as Leader of the Opposition.
It's bigger than that. Dave is sacrificing the next election in order to usher in a landslide in 2025. He's playing the long game ! Every failure is a success (But every success is still a success obviously).
My tongue was in the vicinity of my tongue when I posted that.
It is a vintage PB meme though, remember Save Ed? Hard to tell genuine from spoof on here
To be fair, Save Ed and Don't Underestimate Ed started elsewhere.
It's something all sides do, how can we forget some of the heroic stuff this site has seen.
Personally I'm looking forward to the Indyref hyperbole watch we're going to get.
If you vote Yes, Dragons and Somali pirates will seize Scotland's oilfields.
If You vote no, The Tories will force Scottish kids to go up chimneys and start shelling Scottish cities (though I concede with Glasgow, that may possibly improve the place)
Why do Labour want to bang on about the possibility of a cut to the 45p in the budget ?
It aint happening.
Every time Cameron seems to be getting on top,he shoots himself in the foot.
He's cr@p at politics.
Dave let Ed win today.
If Dave had crushed Ed again today, combined with Labour's slide in the polls, people in the Labour party may have decided to remove Ed as leader before the election.
Something which Dave doesn't want.
From Dave and The Tories perspective so it's better to lose one PMQs than to lose Ed as Leader of the Opposition.
It's bigger than that. Dave is sacrificing the next election in order to usher in a landslide in 2025. He's playing the long game ! Every failure is a success (But every success is still a success obviously).
My tongue was in the vicinity of my tongue when I posted that.
Personally, my tongue is always in the vicinity of my tongue...
Relieved to hear Miliband has won PMQs - the polls are tilting against so perhaps some much needed morale for Labour benches.
I'm afraid not everyone agrees:
So much for Miliband's calm, reasonable approach. This sounded like business as usual. Cameron's Labour-bashing was crude and unappealing, but Miliband's attempt to skewer him with the "rule out a tax cut" challenge did not really work either, because Cameron gave what amounted to (for a question about future tax rates) a reasonably informative answer. This one felt like a loss for both sides.
I'm never convinced by the "yes or no" insistence that Miliband adopts. I know it is supposed to try and put Cameron on the spot/make it look like he isn't giving a straight answer but it just looks a little petulant ("If you don't answer, I'll scrweam and scrweam until I make myself swick")
For Cameron to say "my priority is cutting taxes for lower and middle income earners" is a pretty clear answer to the question
Why do Labour want to bang on about the possibility of a cut to the 45p in the budget ?
It aint happening.
Every time Cameron seems to be getting on top,he shoots himself in the foot.
He's cr@p at politics.
Dave let Ed win today.
If Dave had crushed Ed again today, combined with Labour's slide in the polls, people in the Labour party may have decided to remove Ed as leader before the election.
Something which Dave doesn't want.
From Dave and The Tories perspective so it's better to lose one PMQs than to lose Ed as Leader of the Opposition.
It's bigger than that. Dave is sacrificing the next election in order to usher in a landslide in 2025. He's playing the long game ! Every failure is a success (But every success is still a success obviously).
My tongue was in the vicinity of my tongue when I posted that.
Personally, my tongue is always in the vicinity of my tongue...
Dave has been asked about the Bishop of Bath & Wells, and he said tried to get the image from Blackadder out of his head.
Gove will be highly distressed that his glorious leader's been influenced by such blatant leftist propaganda.
I know, what was Michael Gove thinking? Was he even thinking.
I always imagine Gove's internal narrative resembling John Malkovich's experience when he climbs through the tunnel into his own brain.
Being John Malkovich was a great film, at the time, I had a huge crush on Cameron Diaz, and wondering when would she make an appearance in the film, then it dawned on, she's Lotte
Why do Labour want to bang on about the possibility of a cut to the 45p in the budget ?
It aint happening.
Every time Cameron seems to be getting on top,he shoots himself in the foot.
He's cr@p at politics.
Dave let Ed win today.
If Dave had crushed Ed again today, combined with Labour's slide in the polls, people in the Labour party may have decided to remove Ed as leader before the election.
Something which Dave doesn't want.
From Dave and The Tories perspective so it's better to lose one PMQs than to lose Ed as Leader of the Opposition.
It's bigger than that. Dave is sacrificing the next election in order to usher in a landslide in 2025. He's playing the long game ! Every failure is a success (But every success is still a success obviously).
My tongue was in the vicinity of my tongue when I posted that.
It is a vintage PB meme though, remember Save Ed? Hard to tell genuine from spoof on here
To be fair, Save Ed and Don't Underestimate Ed started elsewhere.
It's something all sides do, how can we forget some of the heroic stuff this site has seen.
Personally I'm looking forward to the Indyref hyperbole watch we're going to get.
If you vote Yes, Dragons and Somali pirates will seize Scotland's oilfields.
If You vote no, The Tories will force Scottish kids to go up chimneys and start shelling Scottish cities (though I concede with Glasgow, that may possibly improve the place)
Relieved to hear Miliband has won PMQs - the polls are tilting against so perhaps some much needed morale for Labour benches.
I'm afraid not everyone agrees:
So much for Miliband's calm, reasonable approach. This sounded like business as usual. Cameron's Labour-bashing was crude and unappealing, but Miliband's attempt to skewer him with the "rule out a tax cut" challenge did not really work either, because Cameron gave what amounted to (for a question about future tax rates) a reasonably informative answer. This one felt like a loss for both sides.
@Avery is a lovely guy but so nakedly partisan that even Tories don't take his analyses seriously.
I'm sure there are Labour equivalents. Partisanship is really quite limited a world. The Tories should seek out the likes of Tyke and Charles who are more than willing to give credit to their opponents.
You don't win anything by underestimating the opposition.
Relieved to hear Miliband has won PMQs - the polls are tilting against so perhaps some much needed morale for Labour benches.
I'm afraid not everyone agrees:
So much for Miliband's calm, reasonable approach. This sounded like business as usual. Cameron's Labour-bashing was crude and unappealing, but Miliband's attempt to skewer him with the "rule out a tax cut" challenge did not really work either, because Cameron gave what amounted to (for a question about future tax rates) a reasonably informative answer. This one felt like a loss for both sides.
I don't watch the thing, I just go on other people's opinions - best way to judge a PMQs.
It wasn't so much a win per se, Dave's response that he wants to cut taxes for all people, was a good reply.
Some of us remember that the Tory polling cratered after the Omnishambles budget of 2012, when the top rate of tax was cut, the Tories didn't deal with that properly, and I'm concerned that they're making the same mistake again.
As they history repeats itself, first as tragedy then farce.
1) to keep the (unpopular) cut from 50 to 45 in the spotlight, reminding some centrist voters that they perceive them as a party who prioritise the very rich
Meanwhile Labour's policy of putting it back to 50 seems to coincide with a non-trivial narrowing in YouGov.
The situation seems to be that the voters don't like the Tories for wanting to cut taxes, and also don't like Labour for wanting to put them back up. I'm not really sure what either side should talk about. Maybe they should try to say something open-ended that causes the other guy to ramble on for a bit.
Relieved to hear Miliband has won PMQs - the polls are tilting against so perhaps some much needed morale for Labour benches.
I'm afraid not everyone agrees:
So much for Miliband's calm, reasonable approach. This sounded like business as usual. Cameron's Labour-bashing was crude and unappealing, but Miliband's attempt to skewer him with the "rule out a tax cut" challenge did not really work either, because Cameron gave what amounted to (for a question about future tax rates) a reasonably informative answer. This one felt like a loss for both sides.
I don't watch the thing, I just go on other people's opinions - best way to judge a PMQs.
It wasn't so much a win per se, Dave's response that he wants to cut taxes for all people, was a good reply.
Some of us remember that the Tory polling cratered after the Omnishambles budget of 2012, when the top rate of tax was cut, the Tories didn't deal with that properly, and I'm concerned that they're making the same mistake again.
As they history repeats itself, first as tragedy then farce.
...which tragedy's history is Cameron's premiership a repetition of then...?
Relieved to hear Miliband has won PMQs - the polls are tilting against so perhaps some much needed morale for Labour benches.
I'm afraid not everyone agrees:
So much for Miliband's calm, reasonable approach. This sounded like business as usual. Cameron's Labour-bashing was crude and unappealing, but Miliband's attempt to skewer him with the "rule out a tax cut" challenge did not really work either, because Cameron gave what amounted to (for a question about future tax rates) a reasonably informative answer. This one felt like a loss for both sides.
I'm never convinced by the "yes or no" insistence that Miliband adopts. I know it is supposed to try and put Cameron on the spot/make it look like he isn't giving a straight answer but it just looks a little petulant ("If you don't answer, I'll scrweam and scrweam until I make myself swick")
For Cameron to say "my priority is cutting taxes for lower and middle income earners" is a pretty clear answer to the question
Disagree. Looking at the politics of this the more Labour can suggest that the Tories have plans for further "tax cuts for millionaires" the more it reinforces the "whose side are they on" narrative.
Cameron was poorly prepared today. He should have foreseen that this was going to come up and had an answer. Getting him to sound evasive and in his shouty mode is exactly what the Miliband team wanted.
Avery is a lovely guy but so nakedly partisan that even Tories don't take his analyses seriously.
Rubbish of the first order. Avery's deconstructions of the UK economic data, particularly the budget numbers, are the best thing out there on that topic - and they are free.
I think today's PMQs illustrated Labour's growing problems - first they gave up on immigration; no policy on Europe; argument lost on the cuts; falling unemployment 'welcomed' with gritted teeth; economy on clear growth trend; cost of living crisis fading visibly - now we're back to higher rate tax and the miners' strike. They're on the last redoubt with little to say about anything of substance so let's flog away at the class war and wait for a scandal.
Relieved to hear Miliband has won PMQs - the polls are tilting against so perhaps some much needed morale for Labour benches.
I'm afraid not everyone agrees:
So much for Miliband's calm, reasonable approach. This sounded like business as usual. Cameron's Labour-bashing was crude and unappealing, but Miliband's attempt to skewer him with the "rule out a tax cut" challenge did not really work either, because Cameron gave what amounted to (for a question about future tax rates) a reasonably informative answer. This one felt like a loss for both sides.
I'm never convinced by the "yes or no" insistence that Miliband adopts. I know it is supposed to try and put Cameron on the spot/make it look like he isn't giving a straight answer but it just looks a little petulant ("If you don't answer, I'll scrweam and scrweam until I make myself swick")
For Cameron to say "my priority is cutting taxes for lower and middle income earners" is a pretty clear answer to the question
Disagree. Looking at the politics of this the more Labour can suggest that the Tories have plans for further "tax cuts for millionaires" the more it reinforces the "whose side are they on" narrative.
Cameron was poorly prepared today. He should have foreseen that this was going to come up and had an answer. Getting him to sound evasive and in his shouty mode is exactly what the Miliband team wanted.
Maybe if it gets onto the news clips at BBC tonight and starts to create an 'echo' the 50p tax effect will feed through to the polls after the weekend ?
(Whatever it is +ve or -ve I am not sure but could start to come through yet...)
Relieved to hear Miliband has won PMQs - the polls are tilting against so perhaps some much needed morale for Labour benches.
I'm afraid not everyone agrees:
So much for Miliband's calm, reasonable approach. This sounded like business as usual. Cameron's Labour-bashing was crude and unappealing, but Miliband's attempt to skewer him with the "rule out a tax cut" challenge did not really work either, because Cameron gave what amounted to (for a question about future tax rates) a reasonably informative answer. This one felt like a loss for both sides.
I don't watch the thing, I just go on other people's opinions - best way to judge a PMQs.
It wasn't so much a win per se, Dave's response that he wants to cut taxes for all people, was a good reply.
Some of us remember that the Tory polling cratered after the Omnishambles budget of 2012, when the top rate of tax was cut, the Tories didn't deal with that properly, and I'm concerned that they're making the same mistake again.
As they history repeats itself, first as tragedy then farce.
...which tragedy's history is Cameron's premiership a repetition of then...?
Well some would have you believe he is the Ted Heath de nos jours.
I suspect he'll go the way of Caesar, unrivalled brilliant and outstanding leadership and campaigns, crossing many Rubicons, his opponents couldn't defeat him, only a stunning act of betrayal by those who were his friends stopped his magnificence being greater.
Dave has been asked about the Bishop of Bath & Wells, and he said tried to get the image from Blackadder out of his head.
Gove will be highly distressed that his glorious leader's been influenced by such blatant leftist propaganda.
I know, what was Michael Gove thinking? Was he even thinking.
I always imagine Gove's internal narrative resembling John Malkovich's experience when he climbs through the tunnel into his own brain.
Being John Malkovich was a great film, at the time, I had a huge crush on Cameron Diaz, and wondering when would she make an appearance in the film, then it dawned on, she's Lotte
It still is a great film. The scene with the restaurant full of "Malkoviches" ordering "Malkovich" is absolutely hilarious!
Maybe if it gets onto the news clips at BBC tonight and starts to create an 'echo' the 50p tax effect will feed through to the polls after the weekend ?
Many thought the 'reckoning with the banks' would be a big populist plus for ed. Look how that turned out.
I thought that. Why doesn't Cameron say "Yes I will cut the top rate of tax to 40% while taking those on the minimum wage out of tax completely?"
That's what Farage will say I suspect, and DC will look like a ditherer
If Cameron does it he'll want to do it closer to the election.
I think this point in the electoral cycle tends to flatter the opposition, because they're starting to come out with a few eye-catching policies while the government is holding back, and nobody on the government side is able to counter the opposition with the vigour they'd like because they're not sure if they're going to end up supporting the same policy.
@Avery is a lovely guy but so nakedly partisan that even Tories don't take his analyses seriously.
I have this theory (which is almost certainly rubbish!) that Avery is none other than Our Beloved Chancellor - who else in their right mind would use a photo of Osborne as their 'avatar'?
A whole generation priced out of having anywhere decent to live. Time for the young to get their placards out.
People my age and younger don't even bother to vote though.
No wonder pensioners/pensions are so protected as well as bus passes, TV licenses and other freebies. Truly the youngsters of today are a bit dim in that respect.
"So much for Miliband's calm, reasonable approach. This sounded like business as usual. Cameron's Labour-bashing was crude and unappealing, but Miliband's attempt to skewer him with the "rule out a tax cut" challenge did not really work either, because Cameron gave what amounted to (for a question about future tax rates) a reasonably informative answer."
Relieved to hear Miliband has won PMQs - the polls are tilting against so perhaps some much needed morale for Labour benches.
I'm afraid not everyone agrees:
So much for Miliband's calm, reasonable approach. This sounded like business as usual. Cameron's Labour-bashing was crude and unappealing, but Miliband's attempt to skewer him with the "rule out a tax cut" challenge did not really work either, because Cameron gave what amounted to (for a question about future tax rates) a reasonably informative answer. This one felt like a loss for both sides.
I'm never convinced by the "yes or no" insistence that Miliband adopts. I know it is supposed to try and put Cameron on the spot/make it look like he isn't giving a straight answer but it just looks a little petulant ("If you don't answer, I'll scrweam and scrweam until I make myself swick")
For Cameron to say "my priority is cutting taxes for lower and middle income earners" is a pretty clear answer to the question
Disagree. Looking at the politics of this the more Labour can suggest that the Tories have plans for further "tax cuts for millionaires" the more it reinforces the "whose side are they on" narrative.
Cameron was poorly prepared today. He should have foreseen that this was going to come up and had an answer. Getting him to sound evasive and in his shouty mode is exactly what the Miliband team wanted.
Maybe if it gets onto the news clips at BBC tonight and starts to create an 'echo' the 50p tax effect will feed through to the polls after the weekend ?
(Whatever it is +ve or -ve I am not sure but could start to come through yet...)
On this occasion what's on the news is almost irrelevant. Being able to use as ammunition the won't rule it out line for the next 15 month is what they wanted.
Labour's electoral challenge is always firing up their base. This is the sort of sloganising that will help.
There was a better response from Cameron to the 40p question, which would have been to say something long the lines of:
"whilst the economy is improving to the point where we can give aid to the poorest workers in society through tax cuts and a hike in the minimum wage, we are not yet being advised that a cut to a 40p top rate would generate sufficient additional revenue to make that feasible. However, any responsible Government will naturally keep that under review.
This Government welcomes those who wish to come to this country to pay our competitive tax rates, whether our very attractive rates of corporation tax or income taxes - or even value added tax on what the rich wish to buy here. Whilst it pains me to see our French friends having to flee the punitive tax rates of Millibandism in practice across the Channel, my colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer is very happy to accept their contributions to the rise of the UK's economy!
I would just remind the Opposition benches that the whole of the NHS is paid for by the wealthiest 1% of taxpayers. If you want a better NHS, attract more rich people, don't scare them away with the politics of envy."
@Avery is a lovely guy but so nakedly partisan that even Tories don't take his analyses seriously.
I have this theory (which is almost certainly rubbish!) that Avery is none other than Our Beloved Chancellor - who else in their right mind would use a photo of Osborne as their 'avatar'?
Where's the link to The Guardian article this is quoted from?
I don't know where you live or what your "problem" is with immigration or immigrants.
This is my experience from where I live. Take it or leave it.
If it upsets you that not everyone swallows the UKIP line on immigration, I don't care. Doesn't make me a Grauniad reader but it also means I can see through the terms of the debate.
On this occasion what's on the news is almost irrelevant. Being able to use as ammunition the won't rule it out line for the next 15 month is what they wanted.
Labour's electoral challenge is always firing up their base. This is the sort of sloganising that will help.
But Labour can and will try to stir up class hatred, envy, and division, irrespective of anything Cameron says or does.
There was a better response from Cameron to the 40p question, which would have been to say something long the lines of:
"whilst the economy is improving to the point where we can give aid to the poorest workers in society through tax cuts and a hike in the minimum wage, we are not yet being advised that a cut to a 40p top rate would generate sufficient additional revenue to make that feasible. However, any responsible Government will naturally keep that under review.
This Government welcomes those who wish to come to this country to pay our competitive tax rates, whether our very attractive rates of corporation tax or income taxes - or even value added tax on what the rich wish to buy here. Whilst it pains me to see our French friends having to flee the punitive tax rates of Millibandism in practice across the Channel, my colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer is very happy to accept their contributions to the rise of the UK's economy!
I would just remind the Opposition benches that the whole of the NHS is paid for by the wealthiest 1% of taxpayers. If you want a better NHS, attract more rich people, don't scare them away with the politics of envy."
Much better answer,that's why Cameron is crap at politics ;-)
He's left the tories now going into interviews with Questions to be answered and gave the labour party another angle of attack.
@Avery is a lovely guy but so nakedly partisan that even Tories don't take his analyses seriously.
I have this theory (which is almost certainly rubbish!) that Avery is none other than Our Beloved Chancellor - who else in their right mind would use a photo of Osborne as their 'avatar'?
Does that mean that tim was Cameron?
Yebbut Tim "doctored" Dave's image... giving him a bald pate IIRC.
Dave has been asked about the Bishop of Bath & Wells, and he said tried to get the image from Blackadder out of his head.
Gove will be highly distressed that his glorious leader's been influenced by such blatant leftist propaganda.
I know, what was Michael Gove thinking? Was he even thinking.
I always imagine Gove's internal narrative resembling John Malkovich's experience when he climbs through the tunnel into his own brain.
Being John Malkovich was a great film, at the time, I had a huge crush on Cameron Diaz, and wondering when would she make an appearance in the film, then it dawned on, she's Lotte
It still is a great film. The scene with the restaurant full of "Malkoviches" ordering "Malkovich" is absolutely hilarious!
One of my fav scenes ever! when he orders 'Malkovich' and the waiter replies 'Malkovich' as if to say, 'an excellent choice sir'
Much better answer,that's why Cameron is crap at politics ;-)
He's left the tories now going into interviews with Questions to be answered and gave the labour party another angle of attack.
What 'questions to be answered'?
"Will you rule out reducing the top rate of tax?"
"No, of course we won't rule it out. When the finances allow and we have finished the job of clearing up Labour's mess, we would like to reduce taxes for everyone."
Throughout the Tatcher years there were a dozen or so Tory MPs in Scotland, it was in 1997 that the number dropped to near zero, under John Major. Once more the Thatcher myth exceeds reality!
I cannot see that refighting the Miners strike 30 years on would be useful for Labour. Even at the time it was seen as a politically motivated strike to attempt to bring down a government. Political strikes will always get a political response. Associating the Labour party with the Scargillite tendency will not win many votes !
The miners, of course, were overwhelmingly white and working class.
Is this " dig up the past" exercise a panic measure to counteract Ukip ?
I suspect not. It's a pretty harmless bit of gesture politics. But it does target a demographic that a few UKIPers on here state Labour is not interested in representing. What do the UKIP leadership and activist base think about the miners and Maggie's smashing of the overwhelmingly white, working class Old Labour trades unions?
Probably that it's an issue from decades ago that nobody is going to vote on any more?
Is it really? The reactions to her funeral recently might suggest otherwise, as does the panda-level population of Tory MPs in Scotland and much of the North and Wales. (Not a personal sentiment of mine either way; and indeed it would surprise me a little bit if this anti-Mrs T factor is still significantly active.)
Where's the link to The Guardian article this is quoted from?
I don't know where you live or what your "problem" is with immigration or immigrants.
This is my experience from where I live. Take it or leave it.
If it upsets you that not everyone swallows the UKIP line on immigration, I don't care. Doesn't make me a Grauniad reader but it also means I can see through the terms of the debate.
Doesnt upset me at all, everyone's entitled to their opinion. I just thought it was funny that English being spoken as the main language in England was now something to celebrate rather than be expected.
But overall I was just mucking about, we obviously wildly differ on this subject, and if the area you live in is just as you like it then you're a lucky man, all the best.
Much better answer,that's why Cameron is crap at politics ;-)
He's left the tories now going into interviews with Questions to be answered and gave the labour party another angle of attack.
What 'questions to be answered'?
"Will you rule out reducing the top rate of tax?"
"No, of course we won't rule it out. When the finances allow and we have finished the job of clearing up Labour's mess, we would like to reduce taxes for everyone."
He can't say that, Richard.
The press would just interpret it as a signal that he intends to cut the rate.
Refuse to answer and respond with an upbeat and quotable (but irrelevant) statement of achievement or an equally quotable negative attack on Labour.
If it were the truth game, then the answer should be; "the top rate will be set at a level which yields the highest amount of tax paid by this income group".
Politics over recent years (particularly since Blair stood firmly in the middle ground) has been about shades of grey, much less polarised and as a result the share of the vote split between Lab and Tories has reduced, as well as a reduction in turnout.
Ed looks to be widening the gap again, and politics is becoming more polarised (and interesting). Will we see a move back to a larger share split between the big 2, and an upswing in the turnout %age?
Are UKIP and others over represented in the current Westminster VI polls?
Relieved to hear Miliband has won PMQs - the polls are tilting against so perhaps some much needed morale for Labour benches.
I'm afraid not everyone agrees:
So much for Miliband's calm, reasonable approach. This sounded like business as usual. Cameron's Labour-bashing was crude and unappealing, but Miliband's attempt to skewer him with the "rule out a tax cut" challenge did not really work either, because Cameron gave what amounted to (for a question about future tax rates) a reasonably informative answer. This one felt like a loss for both sides.
I'm never convinced by the "yes or no" insistence that Miliband adopts. I know it is supposed to try and put Cameron on the spot/make it look like he isn't giving a straight answer but it just looks a little petulant ("If you don't answer, I'll scrweam and scrweam until I make myself swick")
For Cameron to say "my priority is cutting taxes for lower and middle income earners" is a pretty clear answer to the question
Disagree. Looking at the politics of this the more Labour can suggest that the Tories have plans for further "tax cuts for millionaires" the more it reinforces the "whose side are they on" narrative.
Cameron was poorly prepared today. He should have foreseen that this was going to come up and had an answer. Getting him to sound evasive and in his shouty mode is exactly what the Miliband team wanted.
He wasn't evasive. He gave a very very clear answer: 'my priority is cutting taxes for people on low and middle incomes'.
I think a cut to 40% prior to the election is very very unlikely. The interesting question is what "middle incomes" means. I could see them doing something on the 40% rate as well as pushing up the personal allowance (although maybe just a pledge in the manifesto, because I doubt the LDs would let it happen in the budget). Sadly, for me at least, they'd probably do something to make sure that the additional rate payers don't benefit from the cut in the higher rate. But, whatever. That's a sacrifice I'm willing to make in the national interest ;-)
Relieved to hear Miliband has won PMQs - the polls are tilting against so perhaps some much needed morale for Labour benches.
I'm afraid not everyone agrees:
So much for Miliband's calm, reasonable approach. This sounded like business as usual. Cameron's Labour-bashing was crude and unappealing, but Miliband's attempt to skewer him with the "rule out a tax cut" challenge did not really work either, because Cameron gave what amounted to (for a question about future tax rates) a reasonably informative answer. This one felt like a loss for both sides.
I'm never convinced by the "yes or no" insistence that Miliband adopts. I know it is supposed to try and put Cameron on the spot/make it look like he isn't giving a straight answer but it just looks a little petulant ("If you don't answer, I'll scrweam and scrweam until I make myself swick")
For Cameron to say "my priority is cutting taxes for lower and middle income earners" is a pretty clear answer to the question
Disagree. Looking at the politics of this the more Labour can suggest that the Tories have plans for further "tax cuts for millionaires" the more it reinforces the "whose side are they on" narrative.
Cameron was poorly prepared today. He should have foreseen that this was going to come up and had an answer. Getting him to sound evasive and in his shouty mode is exactly what the Miliband team wanted.
He wasn't evasive. He gave a very very clear answer: 'my priority is cutting taxes for people on low and middle incomes'.
I think a cut to 40% prior to the election is very very unlikely. The interesting question is what "middle incomes" means. I could see them doing something on the 40% rate as well as pushing up the personal allowance (although maybe just a pledge in the manifesto, because I doubt the LDs would let it happen in the budget). Sadly, for me at least, they'd probably do something to make sure that the additional rate payers don't benefit from the cut in the higher rate. But, whatever. That's a sacrifice I'm willing to make in the national interest ;-)
Will be cunning if they can cut the 40p rate to say 38p.
If Ed comes out against that he really will be against "hard working families"
F1: from the BBC livefeed: "It would seem Sebastian Vettel's day might be over, with Bild reporter Bianco Garloff reporting that the Red Bull's 'turbo caught fire.'"
On topic, the issues tracker is almost certainly driven by the Romanian/Bulgarian immigration stories over the new year. No-one really knows how many have arrived here yet (it seems fewer than thought, but no-one can be sure) and it's raised the salience of the fact that the government can't really control its own borders.
People will be sceptical of any official numbers because they remember the previous government estimating
DOA. Eastern Europeans leaders would be queuing up to veto an amendment to reduce freedom of movement. And the Eurozone can work around Britain and just pass their own treaty in any case, in the event that they actually manage to agree to one among themselves.
That said, the voters won't necessarily know this, and Labour will have hard time explaining it to them without looking weedy and defeatist. Labour really need to get Farage into the debates to make these points for them.
Sorry EiT, I don't buy that. If the UK can negotiate some reforms bilaterally with Germany (and to a lesser extent, France) - that they also have sympathy with - that gives them something in return and gives a medium-term EU settlement that keeps the UK 'in' but addresses some key UK concerns, then I think they'd bite.
I also don't agree the eastern Europeans would veto anything and everything related to freedom of movement. There have been plenty of opt-outs, opt-ins and other flexible deals negotiated in the past. The EU works on real-politik, like everything else.
You seem to think EU integration can only go one way.
He gives the impression he is reading a speech written by a third party.
And the text is so dense and full of the jargon and assumptions of economics that it is far better read than listened to.
How many speeches of this type have we all sat through at conferences? Best either to sleep and pick up the speech afterwards or while away the time people watching the audience.
To add to my last point, Cameron would also need to side-step any other immigration 'spikes' from either mass-acceptance of refugees, further additional accession countries (Croatia?) and the net immigration rate to drop even further before it dropped in salience and he got some credit for it.
It's not impossible. Thatcher did manage to neutralise immigration as a major issue in the 1980s - it's just Cameron has to contend with the EU and himself. He's doing it begrudgingly, rather than through convinction, as she did, and people have picked up on that.
Maggie and Major paved the way for free movement of goods and people inside the single market. But it was a very different market. I suspect that had member states known what they know now they would not have done what they did. But they did because they didn't. The problem is that to make a change you need unanimous agreement - and that just is not going to happen. Here UKIP is absolutely bang on the money. The only chance of being able to control UK borders fully is to leave the EU.
That unanimous agreement was also needed for the EU constitution. The EU member states found a way around that - through the Lisbon Treaty. It croaked and it groaned, but it eventually passed through all EU member states.
If the EU big member states really want the UK to stay (I think they do) and to stabilise the political structure of EU in the medium-term, then they'll be willing to discuss and trade some reforms and some options will be put on the table. I don't actually agree with this, but I think the smaller EU countries will probably have even less of a say/ability to influence this than before (pre-Eurozone crisis) as so much of their prosperity is now 'locked-in' to the Eurozone (and the EU) and its recent fiscal reforms.
The biggest thing Cameron could do to "win" on this point would be to get some kind of immigration reform into his EU renegotiation package. The only way I can see to get something substantive on this is to 'trade' it for UK acquiescence/support for a future EU treaty/eurozone treaty and stick it in as an amending clause to the treaties of european union. Perhaps they could keep it for schengen but not non-schengen zones.
DOA. Eastern Europeans leaders would be queuing up to veto an amendment to reduce freedom of movement. And the Eurozone can work around Britain and just pass their own treaty in any case, in the event that they actually manage to agree to one among themselves.
That said, the voters won't necessarily know this, and Labour will have hard time explaining it to them without looking weedy and defeatist. Labour really need to get Farage into the debates to make these points for them.
Sorry EiT, I don't buy that. If the UK can negotiate some reforms bilaterally with Germany (and to a lesser extent, France) - that they also have sympathy with - that gives them something in return and gives a medium-term EU settlement that keeps the UK 'in' but addresses some key UK concerns, then I think they'd bite.
I also don't agree the eastern Europeans would veto anything and everything related to freedom of movement. There have been plenty of opt-outs, opt-ins and other flexible deals negotiated in the past. The EU works on real-politik, like everything else.
You seem to think EU integration can only go one way.
Free movement is an absolutely core principle of the EU. Treaties are very hard to pass because everyone has a veto. There are some weird British fantasies about Germany controlling everything, but the reality is that 28 countries all have their own politics. I suppose in theory the British could give some kind of huge concession to persuade Eastern European PMs to take the bullet from their own voters, but what are they going to offer them? Wales?
He gives the impression he is reading a speech written by a third party.
And the text is so dense and full of the jargon and assumptions of economics that it is far better read than listened to.
How many speeches of this type have we all sat through at conferences? Best either to sleep and pick up the speech afterwards or while away the time people watching the audience.
Surely Carney is a banker and therefore not expected to be a great public speaker
There was a better response from Cameron to the 40p question, which would have been to say something long the lines of:
"whilst the economy is improving to the point where we can give aid to the poorest workers in society through tax cuts and a hike in the minimum wage, we are not yet being advised that a cut to a 40p top rate would generate sufficient additional revenue to make that feasible. However, any responsible Government will naturally keep that under review.
This Government welcomes those who wish to come to this country to pay our competitive tax rates, whether our very attractive rates of corporation tax or income taxes - or even value added tax on what the rich wish to buy here. Whilst it pains me to see our French friends having to flee the punitive tax rates of Millibandism in practice across the Channel, my colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer is very happy to accept their contributions to the rise of the UK's economy!
I would just remind the Opposition benches that the whole of the NHS is paid for by the wealthiest 1% of taxpayers. If you want a better NHS, attract more rich people, don't scare them away with the politics of envy."
Much better answer,that's why Cameron is crap at politics ;-)
He's left the tories now going into interviews with Questions to be answered and gave the labour party another angle of attack.
Dude, even the Guardian live blog said Cameron gave a sufficient answer and that Ed looked like a fool prattling on about it after he had done so.
From the link. Which I assume you haven't read, because otherwise your posting is very disingenuous.
"decided that as a publicity stunt we would drive up to the gates at Chequers and use it as a photo opportunity"
Hmmh. Big, unexpected, lorry drives up to the gates of Chequers. Police not happy. I wonder why?
However, Mr Adams said: “I then received a phone call from the police asking the lorry to stop and wait for us so we pulled over in Walton Court.”
Forty minutes later the police finally arrived and said the driver had an issue which his licence which meant he was not allowed to continue
Hmmh. Driving without a licence. Police not happy. I wonder why?
Mr Adams said: “I asked the police if I could take over driving the vehicle and they said no. I then said that there was another driver from the company 30 minutes away who could take over but again the officer said no.
I am assuming that Mr Adams would not be insured to drive a rented van. The last bit is the most tricky, but I assume the police believed there was a reasonable chance that either the original driver or Mr. Adams would choose to driver the lorry despite them not having the proper licence/insurance. And given he was (presumably) from the Chequers team he had better things to do than wait 30 mins (or more) for a new driver to arrive.
There was a better response from Cameron to the 40p question, which would have been to say something long the lines of:
"whilst the economy is improving to the point where we can give aid to the poorest workers in society through tax cuts and a hike in the minimum wage, we are not yet being advised that a cut to a 40p top rate would generate sufficient additional revenue to make that feasible. However, any responsible Government will naturally keep that under review.
This Government welcomes those who wish to come to this country to pay our competitive tax rates, whether our very attractive rates of corporation tax or income taxes - or even value added tax on what the rich wish to buy here. Whilst it pains me to see our French friends having to flee the punitive tax rates of Millibandism in practice across the Channel, my colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer is very happy to accept their contributions to the rise of the UK's economy!
I would just remind the Opposition benches that the whole of the NHS is paid for by the wealthiest 1% of taxpayers. If you want a better NHS, attract more rich people, don't scare them away with the politics of envy."
Much better answer,that's why Cameron is crap at politics ;-)
He's left the tories now going into interviews with Questions to be answered and gave the labour party another angle of attack.
Dude, even the Guardian live blog said Cameron gave a sufficient answer and that Ed looked like a fool prattling on about it after he had done so.
To add to my last point, Cameron would also need to side-step any other immigration 'spikes' from either mass-acceptance of refugees, further additional accession countries (Croatia?) and the net immigration rate to drop even further before it dropped in salience and he got some credit for it.
It's not impossible. Thatcher did manage to neutralise immigration as a major issue in the 1980s - it's just Cameron has to contend with the EU and himself. He's doing it begrudgingly, rather than through convinction, as she did, and people have picked up on that.
Maggie and Major paved the way for free movement of goods and people inside the single market. But it was a very different market. I suspect that had member states known what they know now they would not have done what they did. But they did because they didn't. The problem is that to make a change you need unanimous agreement - and that just is not going to happen. Here UKIP is absolutely bang on the money. The only chance of being able to control UK borders fully is to leave the EU.
That unanimous agreement was also needed for the EU constitution. The EU member states found a way around that - through the Lisbon Treaty. It croaked and it groaned, but it eventually passed through all EU member states.
If the EU big member states really want the UK to stay (I think they do) and to stabilise the political structure of EU in the medium-term, then they'll be willing to discuss and trade some reforms and some options will be put on the table. I don't actually agree with this, but I think the smaller EU countries will probably have even less of a say/ability to influence this than before (pre-Eurozone crisis) as so much of their prosperity is now 'locked-in' to the Eurozone (and the EU) and its recent fiscal reforms.
The constituition died on its arse despite nearly all the governments wanting it. The institutional reforms that were barely enough to keep the EU functioning, which nearly everyone agreed with, barely passed. That was with fewer members, and a vastly netter disposed electorate. The current EU wouldn't be able to pass a treaty advocating motherhood and apple pie given the mood the voters are in. The idea that the expanded, seriously cheezed-off EU will pass a bunch of provisions nearly everyone disagrees with for nothing much in return is not serious.
The biggest thing Cameron could do to "win" on this point would be to get some kind of immigration reform into his EU renegotiation package. The only way I can see to get something substantive on this is to 'trade' it for UK acquiescence/support for a future EU treaty/eurozone treaty and stick it in as an amending clause to the treaties of european union. Perhaps they could keep it for schengen but not non-schengen zones.
DOA. Eastern Europeans leaders would be queuing up to veto an amendment to reduce freedom of movement. And the Eurozone can work around Britain and just pass their own treaty in any case, in the event that they actually manage to agree to one among themselves.
That said, the voters won't necessarily know this, and Labour will have hard time explaining it to them without looking weedy and defeatist. Labour really need to get Farage into the debates to make these points for them.
Sorry EiT, I don't buy that. If the UK can negotiate some reforms bilaterally with Germany (and to a lesser extent, France) - that they also have sympathy with - that gives them something in return and gives a medium-term EU settlement that keeps the UK 'in' but addresses some key UK concerns, then I think they'd bite.
I also don't agree the eastern Europeans would veto anything and everything related to freedom of movement. There have been plenty of opt-outs, opt-ins and other flexible deals negotiated in the past. The EU works on real-politik, like everything else.
You seem to think EU integration can only go one way.
Free movement is an absolutely core principle of the EU. Treaties are very hard to pass because everyone has a veto. There are some weird British fantasies about Germany controlling everything, but the reality is that 28 countries all have their own politics. I suppose in theory the British could give some kind of huge concession to persuade Eastern European PMs to take the bullet from their own voters, but what are they going to offer them? Wales?
If it were the truth game, then the answer should be; "the top rate will be set at a level which yields the highest amount of tax paid by this income group".
Where does the concept of fairness fit in with that statement? The government should not be maximising tax from any group - in my opinion. I'm fully on-board with a progressive taxation regime, but that should include consideration of what is, and what is not, fair.
I can't help but feel optimistic as I realise I'm looking at a new British generation (note not English) emerging.
Stodge, I think that goes to the very heart of many peoples concerns about immigration in England: the fear that 'Englishness' is slowly disappearing from some areas.
Britishness has always been a bit more of a mix, and a bit harder to define, and it is therefore naturally a little easier to remould as a identity so it's inclusive of newcomers.
I imagine most (English) see change in major towns and cities (including places like new towns in the home counties, midlands and northern cities) Because it's highly noticeable, and rapid, they therefore become worried by it. They fear it might continue to the point where English is just one of many cultures in 'England', leading to the two disconnecting.
Whatever you think of immigration, I think it's hard to reject this outright as a legitimate concern, whether or not you feel it's warranted.
There was a better response from Cameron to the 40p question, which would have been to say something long the lines of:
"whilst the economy is improving to the point where we can give aid to the poorest workers in society through tax cuts and a hike in the minimum wage, we are not yet being advised that a cut to a 40p top rate would generate sufficient additional revenue to make that feasible. However, any responsible Government will naturally keep that under review.
This Government welcomes those who wish to come to this country to pay our competitive tax rates, whether our very attractive rates of corporation tax or income taxes - or even value added tax on what the rich wish to buy here. Whilst it pains me to see our French friends having to flee the punitive tax rates of Millibandism in practice across the Channel, my colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer is very happy to accept their contributions to the rise of the UK's economy!
I would just remind the Opposition benches that the whole of the NHS is paid for by the wealthiest 1% of taxpayers. If you want a better NHS, attract more rich people, don't scare them away with the politics of envy."
Much better answer,that's why Cameron is crap at politics ;-)
He's left the tories now going into interviews with Questions to be answered and gave the labour party another angle of attack.
Dude, even the Guardian live blog said Cameron gave a sufficient answer and that Ed looked like a fool prattling on about it after he had done so.
I like the Conservative poster. By making Ed Balls the central element of attack it reinforces the fact that Miliband needs to keep him.
Now that is a powerful clear poster!
A darn sight better than the crap magician cartoon thing they put out last year.
It's good, but I like it from a betting perspective (I need Ed Balls tied to the Labour ship some sink or swim) too as it is clear that Cameron will completely demolish Miliband should he get rid of Ed Balls.
Balls is the weak flank of the Labour operation, the Tories have decided to go after it.
I can't help but feel optimistic as I realise I'm looking at a new British generation (note not English) emerging.
Stodge, I think that goes to the very heart of many peoples concerns about immigration in England: the fear that 'Englishness' is slowly disappearing from some areas.
Britishness has always been a bit more of a mix, and a bit harder to define, and it is therefore naturally a little easier to remould as a identity so it's inclusive of newcomers.
I imagine most (English) see change in major towns and cities (including places like new towns in the home counties, midlands and northern cities) Because it's highly noticeable, and rapid, they therefore become worried by it. They fear it might continue to the point where English is just one of many cultures in 'England', leading to the two disconnecting.
Whatever you think of immigration, I think it's hard to reject this outright as a legitimate concern, whether or not you feel it's warranted.
Comments
Was wholly unconscious of smells.
Throughout the whole Diocese,
No whiff was as high as his;
The odour of sanctity tells.
This will be asked of the tories now in interviews,again turning the spotlight on them.
Labour accuses Tories of planning another 'tax cut for millionaires' as George Osborne fails to rule out a cut in the top rate from 45p to 40p
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-accuses-tories-of-planning-another-tax-cut-for-millionaires-as-george-osborne-fails-to-rule-out-a-cut-in-the-top-rate-from-45p-to-40p-9091687.html
I have an Auntie* who is a lot like Lady Whiteadder.
She did once called me a wicked child** and slapped me across the face.
*Not an actual auntie, Auntie in the Pakistani sense, where anyone who is your Mum and Dad's friends, you call them Auntie or Uncle
**She didn't say wicked child, she said something in Urdu, which is a lot stronger.
If I was working for the company that owned the Titanic, I would have spun it as
"A truly terrible night for the iceberg, as our ship smashed it into a thousand pieces"
I don't watch the thing, I just go on other people's opinions - best way to judge a PMQs.
Miliband is safe as houses comparitively.
It's something all sides do, how can we forget some of the heroic stuff this site has seen.
Personally I'm looking forward to the Indyref hyperbole watch we're going to get.
If you vote Yes, Dragons and Somali pirates will seize Scotland's oilfields.
If You vote no, The Tories will force Scottish kids to go up chimneys and start shelling Scottish cities (though I concede with Glasgow, that may possibly improve the place)
For Cameron to say "my priority is cutting taxes for lower and middle income earners" is a pretty clear answer to the question
If nothing is covered then it is a no-score draw.
Usually it will just be one soundbite versus another.
Poise and control is almost more important than content.
I await the verdict of the BBC's 6 o'clock news.
They are the party of low taxes. For everybody.
I'm sure there are Labour equivalents. Partisanship is really quite limited a world. The Tories should seek out the likes of Tyke and Charles who are more than willing to give credit to their opponents.
You don't win anything by underestimating the opposition.
Some of us remember that the Tory polling cratered after the Omnishambles budget of 2012, when the top rate of tax was cut, the Tories didn't deal with that properly, and I'm concerned that they're making the same mistake again.
As they history repeats itself, first as tragedy then farce.
The situation seems to be that the voters don't like the Tories for wanting to cut taxes, and also don't like Labour for wanting to put them back up. I'm not really sure what either side should talk about. Maybe they should try to say something open-ended that causes the other guy to ramble on for a bit.
Cameron was poorly prepared today. He should have foreseen that this was going to come up and had an answer. Getting him to sound evasive and in his shouty mode is exactly what the Miliband team wanted.
Rubbish of the first order. Avery's deconstructions of the UK economic data, particularly the budget numbers, are the best thing out there on that topic - and they are free.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/5190402/PMQs-verdict.html
That's what Farage will say I suspect, and DC will look like a ditherer
(Whatever it is +ve or -ve I am not sure but could start to come through yet...)
A whole generation priced out of having anywhere decent to live. Time for the young to get their placards out.
I suspect he'll go the way of Caesar, unrivalled brilliant and outstanding leadership and campaigns, crossing many Rubicons, his opponents couldn't defeat him, only a stunning act of betrayal by those who were his friends stopped his magnificence being greater.
So in some ways, Cameron is the new Thatcher.
Bingo to the labour party and another tax to millionaires election slogan
Good luck with that.
Many thought the 'reckoning with the banks' would be a big populist plus for ed. Look how that turned out.
I think this point in the electoral cycle tends to flatter the opposition, because they're starting to come out with a few eye-catching policies while the government is holding back, and nobody on the government side is able to counter the opposition with the vigour they'd like because they're not sure if they're going to end up supporting the same policy.
No rent/mortgage and associated costs to pay.
More money to spend on things that you like.
Cameron does not have to say or do anything. Not with better weather and tax cuts for low and middle ranking workers on the way.
No wonder pensioners/pensions are so protected as well as bus passes, TV licenses and other freebies. Truly the youngsters of today are a bit dim in that respect.
How very LD....
Audioboo (via Speccie)
PMQs: Cameron and Miliband – Labour is the ‘anti-jobs, anti-business, anti-growth party’
"So much for Miliband's calm, reasonable approach. This sounded like business as usual. Cameron's Labour-bashing was crude and unappealing, but Miliband's attempt to skewer him with the "rule out a tax cut" challenge did not really work either, because Cameron gave what amounted to (for a question about future tax rates) a reasonably informative answer."
Labour's electoral challenge is always firing up their base. This is the sort of sloganising that will help.
No wonder the birth rate is going down.
"whilst the economy is improving to the point where we can give aid to the poorest workers in society through tax cuts and a hike in the minimum wage, we are not yet being advised that a cut to a 40p top rate would generate sufficient additional revenue to make that feasible. However, any responsible Government will naturally keep that under review.
This Government welcomes those who wish to come to this country to pay our competitive tax rates, whether our very attractive rates of corporation tax or income taxes - or even value added tax on what the rich wish to buy here. Whilst it pains me to see our French friends having to flee the punitive tax rates of Millibandism in practice across the Channel, my colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer is very happy to accept their contributions to the rise of the UK's economy!
I would just remind the Opposition benches that the whole of the NHS is paid for by the wealthiest 1% of taxpayers. If you want a better NHS, attract more rich people, don't scare them away with the politics of envy."
I guess I'm fortunate, as I willingly moved back in with my parents last summer.
'Worth a thousand words'.
This is my experience from where I live. Take it or leave it.
If it upsets you that not everyone swallows the UKIP line on immigration, I don't care. Doesn't make me a Grauniad reader but it also means I can see through the terms of the debate.
We should meet up !
Typing this from my office in Burngreave ;p
He's left the tories now going into interviews with Questions to be answered and gave the labour party another angle of attack.
But would love to meet up again.
Or work from home a fair bit ?
"Will you rule out reducing the top rate of tax?"
"No, of course we won't rule it out. When the finances allow and we have finished the job of clearing up Labour's mess, we would like to reduce taxes for everyone."
Sure it's nice to have the option of moving back with your parents, but that doesn't mean pricing people out isn't a problem.
But overall I was just mucking about, we obviously wildly differ on this subject, and if the area you live in is just as you like it then you're a lucky man, all the best.
The Manchester Airport Service and the Norwich to Liverpool services take 50mins, and only stop at Stockport and Occasionally at Dore and Totley.
The press would just interpret it as a signal that he intends to cut the rate.
Refuse to answer and respond with an upbeat and quotable (but irrelevant) statement of achievement or an equally quotable negative attack on Labour.
If it were the truth game, then the answer should be; "the top rate will be set at a level which yields the highest amount of tax paid by this income group".
But PMQs isn't a truth game.
Politics over recent years (particularly since Blair stood firmly in the middle ground) has been about shades of grey, much less polarised and as a result the share of the vote split between Lab and Tories has reduced, as well as a reduction in turnout.
Ed looks to be widening the gap again, and politics is becoming more polarised (and interesting). Will we see a move back to a larger share split between the big 2, and an upswing in the turnout %age?
Are UKIP and others over represented in the current Westminster VI polls?
James Cook @BBCJamesCook 1m
Mark Carney arguing that "a durable, successful, currency union requires some ceding of national sovereignty." #indyref
I think a cut to 40% prior to the election is very very unlikely. The interesting question is what "middle incomes" means. I could see them doing something on the 40% rate as well as pushing up the personal allowance (although maybe just a pledge in the manifesto, because I doubt the LDs would let it happen in the budget). Sadly, for me at least, they'd probably do something to make sure that the additional rate payers don't benefit from the cut in the higher rate. But, whatever. That's a sacrifice I'm willing to make in the national interest ;-)
Will be cunning if they can cut the 40p rate to say 38p.
If Ed comes out against that he really will be against "hard working families"
"It would seem Sebastian Vettel's day might be over, with Bild reporter Bianco Garloff reporting that the Red Bull's 'turbo caught fire.'"
I also don't agree the eastern Europeans would veto anything and everything related to freedom of movement. There have been plenty of opt-outs, opt-ins and other flexible deals negotiated in the past. The EU works on real-politik, like everything else.
You seem to think EU integration can only go one way.
Labour's priority is the top rate of tax.
The government's priority is the rate of tax that ordinary people pay.
He gives the impression he is reading a speech written by a third party.
And the text is so dense and full of the jargon and assumptions of economics that it is far better read than listened to.
How many speeches of this type have we all sat through at conferences? Best either to sleep and pick up the speech afterwards or while away the time people watching the audience.
http://m.thametoday.co.uk/news/local-news/ukip-left-furious-after-police-derail-hs2-protest-1-5841355#.Uuj9B9-RHRQ.twitter
If the EU big member states really want the UK to stay (I think they do) and to stabilise the political structure of EU in the medium-term, then they'll be willing to discuss and trade some reforms and some options will be put on the table. I don't actually agree with this, but I think the smaller EU countries will probably have even less of a say/ability to influence this than before (pre-Eurozone crisis) as so much of their prosperity is now 'locked-in' to the Eurozone (and the EU) and its recent fiscal reforms.
http://twitpic.com/dtr8mz
http://travelandmixpix.smugmug.com/Rail/Indi/Class-37/i-Sfv2VdS/0/M/37093-M.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgUemV4brDU
"decided that as a publicity stunt we would drive up to the gates at Chequers and use it as a photo opportunity"
Hmmh. Big, unexpected, lorry drives up to the gates of Chequers. Police not happy. I wonder why?
However, Mr Adams said: “I then received a phone call from the police asking the lorry to stop and wait for us so we pulled over in Walton Court.”
Forty minutes later the police finally arrived and said the driver had an issue which his licence which meant he was not allowed to continue
Hmmh. Driving without a licence. Police not happy. I wonder why?
Mr Adams said: “I asked the police if I could take over driving the vehicle and they said no. I then said that there was another driver from the company 30 minutes away who could take over but again the officer said no.
I am assuming that Mr Adams would not be insured to drive a rented van. The last bit is the most tricky, but I assume the police believed there was a reasonable chance that either the original driver or Mr. Adams would choose to driver the lorry despite them not having the proper licence/insurance. And given he was (presumably) from the Chequers team he had better things to do than wait 30 mins (or more) for a new driver to arrive.
Britishness has always been a bit more of a mix, and a bit harder to define, and it is therefore naturally a little easier to remould as a identity so it's inclusive of newcomers.
I imagine most (English) see change in major towns and cities (including places like new towns in the home counties, midlands and northern cities) Because it's highly noticeable, and rapid, they therefore become worried by it. They fear it might continue to the point where English is just one of many cultures in 'England', leading to the two disconnecting.
Whatever you think of immigration, I think it's hard to reject this outright as a legitimate concern, whether or not you feel it's warranted.
A darn sight better than the crap magician cartoon thing they put out last year.
The Labour Party ✔ @UKLabour
Say NO to another tax cut for millionaires: http://labour.tw/L696HL #pmqs pic.twitter.com/8TFel6m4rC
Balls is the weak flank of the Labour operation, the Tories have decided to go after it.
Wonder what Labour will come out with ?
NHS reorganisation, 50p tax...
Or gym memberships