Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » So far, at least, the intense Daily Mail campaign against H

SystemSystem Posts: 12,214
edited February 2014 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » So far, at least, the intense Daily Mail campaign against Harriet Harman is not being reflected in the daily YouGov figures

Today’s YouGov poll for the Sun sees LAB back at 39% the share at which it has been getting for months as the YouGov weekly average trend chart above shows.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,320
    edited February 2014
    After all the angst and reaction created due to Benedict Brogan's article in the Telegraph on this site over the last 24 hours... I decided to get around to reading the actual article he penned rather than the spin on here, and I am deeply unimpressed with the response and whole spin on the actual contents of this article on the site.
    Here is the article, and its really worth reading if you haven't already bothered to do so already.
    Benedict Brogan in the Telegraph - David Cameron’s election gamble could electrify British politics

    "On welfare reform and education, the other great construction sites – as the French would call them – of this administration, radical progress was possible because the two parties co-operated. These days, the Coalition’s achievements are often likened to a glass half empty. It is worth recalling, though, that it used to be half full. Two parties that disagreed on plenty were able to agree sweeping changes to the way benefits are administered and our children are taught. In other areas too – the NHS, police, migrants – the Coalition achieved change that Labour never dared and even Mrs Thatcher could not deliver.

    Yet with little left to trouble with in legislative terms, and the parties scrabbling for advantage as an election looms into view, the Coalition is seen increasingly as an obstacle. On the Lib Dem side, plenty of activists and MPs wish it had never happened. The discipline required by government is not to their liking – and they see in their single-figure poll ratings the terrible price they have paid for riding the Tory tiger. They fear a wipeout in the European elections in May, and devastation next year."
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    Why would it make the slightest bit of difference either way? Everybody knows that the Daily Mail is institutionally mega-booliakterous, and anybody with more than two braincells will be wondering why it's all being dredged up decades after the events concerned were already public knowledge.
  • I suspect there are a large numnber of "shy" daily mail readers just like the shy tories of yore. Everybody reads the Mail, especially online. 95% of their traffic comes via links in the Guardian (OK I made up the last bit. But I am sure the Guardian online and Mail online audiences are in no way mutually exclusive)
  • Harman is one of those classic old-fashioned Marmite politicians. There used to be quite a lot of them (Norman Tebbit and Michael Forsyth spring to mind). I just wonder if she is part of a dying breed of political dynasaur? Which, if true, is probably a good thing.

    Of course, the Daily Mail is also a classic old-fashioned Marmite product. They are becoming increasingly rare in the newspaper business (the News of the World is no more, although The Scotsman is still fighting a collapsing rearguard action).

    Looks like Blair McDougall is turning himself into the Marmite of the IndyRef campaign. The Betory Together campaign director led the No debating team at the Prestwick Academy referendum debate, and he managed to turn an 11 point No lead before the debate into an 11 point Yes lead after the debate. Not only did the DKs all go Yes, but McDougall even managed to convince a significant chunk of No supporters to change to Yes. He is a real asset to the movement for self-government.

  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,320
    edited February 2014
    Really surprised anyone would link tonight's YouGov to the Harriet Harman story? Here is a far more interesting wee twitter debate on polling that might have some impact on betting in the run up to the next GE from a few days ago. Especially considering how front and centre the party Leaders will become in the GE campaign. We well remember Mike noting the way that the Conservatives received a boost when David Cameron was in the media spotlight as LotO, and also the way that the Cleggism polling bounce after the Leadership debate didn't translate into gains for the Libdems, quite the opposite in fact.

    Out of interest, it will be well worth watching Alex Salmond's personal polling in the run up to the Indy Referendum as well as a post result analysis for the next GE and Holyrood to get a real feel of how the SNP might perform in both elections.

    I suspect there are a large numnber of "shy" daily mail readers just like the shy tories of yore. Everybody reads the Mail, especially online. 95% of their traffic comes via links in the Guardian (OK I made up the last bit. But I am sure the Guardian online and Mail online audiences are in no way mutually exclusive)

    Twitter
    Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB Feb 20
    EdM gets a 28% YouGov rating as best PM - the highest ever. He's still some way behind Cameron's 37% pic.twitter.com/alxl4ezPBY

    Ben Page, Ipsos MORI ‏@benatipsosmori Feb 20
    @MSmithsonPB I sometimes think the less he says the better he does. Must do analysis of ratings vs press coverage

    ChristinaD ‏@fitalass Feb 20
    @benatipsosmori @MSmithsonPB Be good to see analysis of ratings vs press coverage Raised issue on PB as opposite of DC LotO ratings/coverage

  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,320
    edited February 2014
    Can I just point out that most non political voters in Scotland will not have a clue who Blair McDougall is, and in much the same way they won't know who the Chairman/President of any of the current political parties are despite their names being regularly taken in vein on this site no matter how visible online to us political anoraks

    I know that SNP supporters on this site are now scrabbling around looking for individual school Indy debate votes to use as a comfort blanket, but it might have been more convincing if they didn't ignore or seek to undermine other larger school mock Indy Referendums or University debates and votes. I note also the use of the new 'Betory' nickname for the Better Together campaign instead of Bitter Together or Project Fear in this post. Fitaloon and I had an enjoyable discussion on the 'fed' SNP Independence lines that been repeatedly used over the last year, and that the attempts to dress up the Better Together campaign as a Tory effort is now gathering pace and shows real desperation on the part of the SNP/Yes campaign. How soon they forget that the Conservatives appear to be benefiting from the Indy campaign in Scottish by elections while the SNP are not.

    Its interesting how the old line of 'too wee, too stupid and too poor' hit the dust on here after I pointed out the fact that the only posters who used this term were Nationalists on the site.

    Harman is one of those classic old-fashioned Marmite politicians. There used to be quite a lot of them (Norman Tebbit and Michael Forsyth spring to mind). I just wonder if she is part of a dying breed of political dynasaur? Which, if true, is probably a good thing.

    Of course, the Daily Mail is also a classic old-fashioned Marmite product. They are becoming increasingly rare in the newspaper business (the News of the World is no more, although The Scotsman is still fighting a collapsing rearguard action).

    Looks like Blair McDougall is turning himself into the Marmite of the IndyRef campaign. The Betory Together campaign director led the No debating team at the Prestwick Academy referendum debate, and he managed to turn an 11 point No lead before the debate into an 11 point Yes lead after the debate. Not only did the DKs all go Yes, but McDougall even managed to convince a significant chunk of No supporters to change to Yes. He is a real asset to the movement for self-government.

  • fitalass said:

    How soon they forget that the Conservatives appear to be benefiting from the Indy campaign in Scottish by elections while the SNP are not.

    Harman is one of those classic old-fashioned Marmite politicians. There used to be quite a lot of them (Norman Tebbit and Michael Forsyth spring to mind). I just wonder if she is part of a dying breed of political dynasaur? Which, if true, is probably a good thing.

    Of course, the Daily Mail is also a classic old-fashioned Marmite product. They are becoming increasingly rare in the newspaper business (the News of the World is no more, although The Scotsman is still fighting a collapsing rearguard action).

    Looks like Blair McDougall is turning himself into the Marmite of the IndyRef campaign. The Betory Together campaign director led the No debating team at the Prestwick Academy referendum debate, and he managed to turn an 11 point No lead before the debate into an 11 point Yes lead after the debate. Not only did the DKs all go Yes, but McDougall even managed to convince a significant chunk of No supporters to change to Yes. He is a real asset to the movement for self-government.

    Ho ho. Latest Westminster voting intention in Scotland (+/- change from UK GE 2010):

    SNP 38% (+18)
    Lab 33% (-9)
    Con 14% (-3)
    LD 7% (-12)
    Grn 3% (+2)
    UKIP 3% (+2)
    oth 2%

    http://www.statgeek.co.uk/polling/recent-voting-intention/
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,320
    edited February 2014
    It was you who first started to report a slight up tick in the Scottish Tory vote on this site, by the way, how is the weather in Sweden? Despite huge snow fall here in our Scottish ski resorts, barely enough on lower ground to build a snow man let alone a straw Independence surge among us female Scottish voters at home.

    fitalass said:

    How soon they forget that the Conservatives appear to be benefiting from the Indy campaign in Scottish by elections while the SNP are not.

    Harman is one of those classic old-fashioned Marmite politicians. There used to be quite a lot of them (Norman Tebbit and Michael Forsyth spring to mind). I just wonder if she is part of a dying breed of political dynasaur? Which, if true, is probably a good thing.

    Of course, the Daily Mail is also a classic old-fashioned Marmite product. They are becoming increasingly rare in the newspaper business (the News of the World is no more, although The Scotsman is still fighting a collapsing rearguard action).

    Looks like Blair McDougall is turning himself into the Marmite of the IndyRef campaign. The Betory Together campaign director led the No debating team at the Prestwick Academy referendum debate, and he managed to turn an 11 point No lead before the debate into an 11 point Yes lead after the debate. Not only did the DKs all go Yes, but McDougall even managed to convince a significant chunk of No supporters to change to Yes. He is a real asset to the movement for self-government.

    Ho ho. Latest Westminster voting intention in Scotland (+/- change from UK GE 2010):

    SNP 38% (+18)
    Lab 33% (-9)
    Con 14% (-3)
    LD 7% (-12)
    Grn 3% (+2)
    UKIP 3% (+2)
    oth 2%

    http://www.statgeek.co.uk/polling/recent-voting-intention/
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    I'd have thought the main effect, if any, would be on Harman personally
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514

    Harman is one of those classic old-fashioned Marmite politicians. There used to be quite a lot of them (Norman Tebbit and Michael Forsyth spring to mind). I just wonder if she is part of a dying breed of political dynasaur? Which, if true, is probably a good thing.

    Of course, the Daily Mail is also a classic old-fashioned Marmite product. They are becoming increasingly rare in the newspaper business (the News of the World is no more, although The Scotsman is still fighting a collapsing rearguard action).

    Looks like Blair McDougall is turning himself into the Marmite of the IndyRef campaign. The Betory Together campaign director led the No debating team at the Prestwick Academy referendum debate, and he managed to turn an 11 point No lead before the debate into an 11 point Yes lead after the debate. Not only did the DKs all go Yes, but McDougall even managed to convince a significant chunk of No supporters to change to Yes. He is a real asset to the movement for self-government.

    Salmond's a Marmite politician, so sounds as if you'll be glad when he goes.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042
    15% of Daily Mail readers who voted went Lib Dem? What odd people.
  • fitalass said:

    How soon they forget that the Conservatives appear to be benefiting from the Indy campaign in Scottish by elections while the SNP are not.

    Harman is one of those classic old-fashioned Marmite politicians. There used to be quite a lot of them (Norman Tebbit and Michael Forsyth spring to mind). I just wonder if she is part of a dying breed of political dynasaur? Which, if true, is probably a good thing.

    Of course, the Daily Mail is also a classic old-fashioned Marmite product. They are becoming increasingly rare in the newspaper business (the News of the World is no more, although The Scotsman is still fighting a collapsing rearguard action).

    Looks like Blair McDougall is turning himself into the Marmite of the IndyRef campaign. The Betory Together campaign director led the No debating team at the Prestwick Academy referendum debate, and he managed to turn an 11 point No lead before the debate into an 11 point Yes lead after the debate. Not only did the DKs all go Yes, but McDougall even managed to convince a significant chunk of No supporters to change to Yes. He is a real asset to the movement for self-government.

    Ho ho. Latest Westminster voting intention in Scotland (+/- change from UK GE 2010):

    SNP 38% (+18)
    Lab 33% (-9)
    Con 14% (-3)
    LD 7% (-12)
    Grn 3% (+2)
    UKIP 3% (+2)
    oth 2%

    http://www.statgeek.co.uk/polling/recent-voting-intention/
    How many of Labour's Clydeside seats would fall to the SNP on these numbers? (Since that's where support for secession from the UK seems to be strongest.)

  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    Wouldn't Labour's falling vote share be better shown in a PIE chart?
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    edited February 2014
    fitalass said:

    It was you who first started to report a slight up tick in the Scottish Tory vote on this site, by the way, how is the weather in Sweden? Despite huge snow fall here in our Scottish ski resorts, barely enough on lower ground to build a snow man let alone a straw Independence surge among us female Scottish voters at home.

    fitalass said:

    How soon they forget that the Conservatives appear to be benefiting from the Indy campaign in Scottish by elections while the SNP are not.

    SNIP
    Looks like Blair McDougall is turning himself into the Marmite of the IndyRef campaign. The Betory Together campaign director led the No debating team at the Prestwick Academy referendum debate, and he managed to turn an 11 point No lead before the debate into an 11 point Yes lead after the debate. Not only did the DKs all go Yes, but McDougall even managed to convince a significant chunk of No supporters to change to Yes. He is a real asset to the movement for self-government.

    Ho ho. Latest Westminster voting intention in Scotland (+/- change from UK GE 2010):

    SNP 38% (+18)
    Lab 33% (-9)
    Con 14% (-3)
    LD 7% (-12)
    Grn 3% (+2)
    UKIP 3% (+2)
    oth 2%

    http://www.statgeek.co.uk/polling/recent-voting-intention/
    Fair point, it was (probably) me, a few months ago. Your team certainly did well in the recent Scottish parliamentary by-elections. It is never easy for small-party candidates to resist "the big squeeze" in straight Lab/SNP contests, which the Tory candidates did very well, in contrast to the SLD collapses. I see that as solid evidence of firmness in the SCon core vote. Please also note that (-3) is irrelevant. It in MoE stuff. What is mildly interesting is that there are small but clear indications of a SLab to SCon swing taking place. It is early days yet, but you never know...

    Regarding skiing, the 3 year old managed to make it all the way down a red run without a harness, a couple of weeks ago. My sister and one of her sons who were with us were more used to the Scottish ski resorts and were suitably impressed. Evidence of the great snow in Scotland is that that nephew recently fell off a Scottish chairlift, 4 metres above the ground. He was completely unhurt due to the deep soft snow below him, and simply skied away. Now that's what I call lucky!

    Regarding Scottish womens' voting behaviour, Sturgeon wiped the floor with Lamont last night. It won't shift many Undecideds, but it was a huge boost to Yes canvassers' morale. The Slabbers must be filling their breeks at the hopeless Lamont.
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    edited February 2014

    fitalass said:

    How soon they forget that the Conservatives appear to be benefiting from the Indy campaign in Scottish by elections while the SNP are not.

    Harman is one of those classic old-fashioned Marmite politicians. There used to be quite a lot of them (Norman Tebbit and Michael Forsyth spring to mind). I just wonder if she is part of a dying breed of political dynasaur? Which, if true, is probably a good thing.

    Of course, the Daily Mail is also a classic old-fashioned Marmite product. They are becoming increasingly rare in the newspaper business (the News of the World is no more, although The Scotsman is still fighting a collapsing rearguard action).

    Looks like Blair McDougall is turning himself into the Marmite of the IndyRef campaign. The Betory Together campaign director led the No debating team at the Prestwick Academy referendum debate, and he managed to turn an 11 point No lead before the debate into an 11 point Yes lead after the debate. Not only did the DKs all go Yes, but McDougall even managed to convince a significant chunk of No supporters to change to Yes. He is a real asset to the movement for self-government.

    Ho ho. Latest Westminster voting intention in Scotland (+/- change from UK GE 2010):

    SNP 38% (+18)
    Lab 33% (-9)
    Con 14% (-3)
    LD 7% (-12)
    Grn 3% (+2)
    UKIP 3% (+2)
    oth 2%

    http://www.statgeek.co.uk/polling/recent-voting-intention/
    How many of Labour's Clydeside seats would fall to the SNP on these numbers? (Since that's where support for secession from the UK seems to be strongest.)

    I think you are confusing "Clydesdale" with "Clydeside". Clydesdale is a large rural district in southern South Lanarkshire (the Southern Uplands). It is a very different place, psephologically and demographically, from Clydeside, which is the entire strath (Inverclyde, W Dunb, E Dunb, Glasgow, Renfr, E Renf, N Lan, S Lan).

    See you fixed it.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,449

    I suspect there are a large numnber of "shy" daily mail readers just like the shy tories of yore. Everybody reads the Mail, especially online. 95% of their traffic comes via links in the Guardian (OK I made up the last bit. But I am sure the Guardian online and Mail online audiences are in no way mutually exclusive)

    Correct. I often read both when a major politics story breaks, on the basis that the true story will be the "average" of the two articles!
  • No move in the vote share over allegations that Harperson is a paedophile by association? And that's a surprise? Even the mail don't think the mad Hatter has anything to do with Paedophilia, its just that the establishment needs a further distraction after its past distractions in the war to cover up the establishment paedophile ring have mysteriously been acquitted.
  • JohnLoony said:

    Why would it make the slightest bit of difference either way? Everybody knows that the Daily Mail is institutionally mega-booliakterous, and anybody with more than two braincells will be wondering why it's all being dredged up decades after the events concerned were already public knowledge.

    Any body with one brain cell, and who actually bothered to read the whole story, would know that it has been dredged up because PIE are currently being investigated under Operation Fernbridge, instigated by Tom Watson.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    JohnLoony said:

    Why would it make the slightest bit of difference either way? Everybody knows that the Daily Mail is institutionally mega-booliakterous, and anybody with more than two braincells will be wondering why it's all being dredged up decades after the events concerned were already public knowledge.

    Any body with one brain cell, and who actually bothered to read the whole story, would know that it has been dredged up because PIE are currently being investigated under Operation Fernbridge, instigated by Tom Watson.
    Come on nigel.

    I read the first article (on my second time of reading the Mail as I skipped over it the first time). My immediate reaction was that it is a complete smear.

    It's clear that Harmon was not a supporter of PIE. At the most she may not have fought against it hard enough. Additionally she probably believed some odd things in the 1970s which would be complete outside of the pale these days (although am sure that some of here written arguments were negotiating positions rather than a true statement of belief). But that was nearly 40 years ago!

    This is unlikely to move anything from a VI perspective. I avidly dislike Harman - something about her just grates - but the Mail is being truly nasty at the moment to try and associate her with paedophillia
  • When even the Daily Mail itself now admits that Harman has not been colluding with paedophiles I think we can safely say that this is yet another nasty non-story, as many wiser Conservatives and right wingers on here said from the very beginning. All credit to Carlotta, Richard T, Richard N, David L, HYUFD and others like them for doing so. Nasty smears have no place in politics.

    In other news, today will be my final day of posting on PB, which is fantastic site with great brains of all political stripes spoiled by a very odd certain few who make sinister personal digs, coupled with others (many of them the same people) who very depressingly seemed to want the Harman story to be more than it was.

    As Richard T said yesterday: it is a shame some people cannot place common decency above partisan politics. Hear hear.

    I will post today but this will be my final day on here - too many loud, unpleasant voices drowning out the brighter, better ones.
  • Charles said:

    JohnLoony said:

    Why would it make the slightest bit of difference either way? Everybody knows that the Daily Mail is institutionally mega-booliakterous, and anybody with more than two braincells will be wondering why it's all being dredged up decades after the events concerned were already public knowledge.

    Any body with one brain cell, and who actually bothered to read the whole story, would know that it has been dredged up because PIE are currently being investigated under Operation Fernbridge, instigated by Tom Watson.
    Come on nigel.

    I read the first article (on my second time of reading the Mail as I skipped over it the first time). My immediate reaction was that it is a complete smear.

    It's clear that Harmon was not a supporter of PIE. At the most she may not have fought against it hard enough. Additionally she probably believed some odd things in the 1970s which would be complete outside of the pale these days (although am sure that some of here written arguments were negotiating positions rather than a true statement of belief). But that was nearly 40 years ago!

    This is unlikely to move anything from a VI perspective. I avidly dislike Harman - something about her just grates - but the Mail is being truly nasty at the moment to try and associate her with paedophillia
    I would add Charles to my list of honour above. All credit to you sir.
  • When even the Daily Mail itself now admits that Harman has not been colluding with paedophiles I think we can safely say that this is yet another nasty non-story, as many wiser Conservatives and right wingers on here said from the very beginning. All credit to Carlotta, Richard T, Richard N, David L, HYUFD and others like them for doing so. Nasty smears have no place in politics.

    In other news, today will be my final day of posting on PB, which is fantastic site with great brains of all political stripes spoiled by a very odd certain few who make sinister personal digs, coupled with others (many of them the same people) who very depressingly seemed to want the Harman story to be more than it was.

    As Richard T said yesterday: it is a shame some people cannot place common decency above partisan politics. Hear hear.

    I will post today but this will be my final day on here - too many loud, unpleasant voices drowning out the brighter, better ones.

    The last day of the lastboyscout. The end of an era.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    Must be a concerted campaign to get Harman tried in The People's Court of Public Opinion.

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/labour-partys-paedogeddon-theyre-never-3182595

    PIE's objectives in the 70s had apologists, who didn't look beyond the simplistic Make Children Happy slogan. Harman could have chosen to have been more forthright, but would she have been able to rock the boat at NCCL and keep her job? A more contrite tone yesterday might have worked in her favour.

    The coverage in the media until Sunday was muted, BBC seemed to be unwilling to show Mail front pages on its website for 3 days, then Observer and Guardian print articles wondering why Harman hasn't acted, sued. She goes to Newsnight, avoids saying anything on prime time tv on Monday. Ends up trying to whine her way through radio interviews on Tuesday.

  • When even the Daily Mail itself now admits that Harman has not been colluding with paedophiles I think we can safely say that this is yet another nasty non-story, as many wiser Conservatives and right wingers on here said from the very beginning. All credit to Carlotta, Richard T, Richard N, David L, HYUFD and others like them for doing so. Nasty smears have no place in politics.

    In other news, today will be my final day of posting on PB, which is fantastic site with great brains of all political stripes spoiled by a very odd certain few who make sinister personal digs, coupled with others (many of them the same people) who very depressingly seemed to want the Harman story to be more than it was.

    As Richard T said yesterday: it is a shame some people cannot place common decency above partisan politics. Hear hear.

    I will post today but this will be my final day on here - too many loud, unpleasant voices drowning out the brighter, better ones.

    The last day of the lastboyscout. The end of an era.
    Hardly. I have only been on here a couple of months!
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,759
    The Daily Fail quickly dropped it`s headlines about Paedophilia once Harman drew attention to the paper sexualising children as young as twelve and below.This episode will have no effect on VI and if anything increase support for Harman in the Labour party.

    Interestingly classic Mail distraction yesterday.It tried to bully Harman for 4 days,then changes track in today`s headline and pretends it is a protector of vulnerable people.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    edited February 2014
    We

    When even the Daily Mail itself now admits that Harman has not been colluding with paedophiles I think we can safely say that this is yet another nasty non-story, as many wiser Conservatives and right wingers on here said from the very beginning. All credit to Carlotta, Richard T, Richard N, David L, HYUFD and others like them for doing so. Nasty smears have no place in politics.

    In other news, today will be my final day of posting on PB, which is fantastic site with great brains of all political stripes spoiled by a very odd certain few who make sinister personal digs, coupled with others (many of them the same people) who very depressingly seemed to want the Harman story to be more than it was.

    As Richard T said yesterday: it is a shame some people cannot place common decency above partisan politics. Hear hear.

    I will post today but this will be my final day on here - too many loud, unpleasant voices drowning out the brighter, better ones.

    The last day of the lastboyscout. The end of an era.
    Hardly. I have only been on here a couple of months!
    We should award you a blogging BaJ before you go. :-)
  • MillsyMillsy Posts: 900
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2568023/Blow-Cameron-half-Ukip-voters-say-NEVER-Tories.html

    Do we know anything about this apparent Ipsos Mori poll, or is it a rehash of an old one, or rewriting something read elsewhere?

    Almost half of Ukip supporters would never vote Tory, a poll reveals today.

    It found Liberal Democrat voters were more likely to switch to the Conservatives.

    The Ipsos MORI survey casts serious doubt on David Cameron’s attempts to win over Ukip supporters, with 48 per cent of them saying they would not back the Tories, compared with 43 per cent of Lib Dems.


    Not surprising though, as less than 50% of Ukip supporters voted Tory in 2010. I think the Conservatives will be happy if they can nab 50% of Ukip's vote!
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    SMukesh said:

    The Daily Fail quickly dropped it`s headlines about Paedophilia once Harman drew attention to the paper sexualising children as young as twelve and below.This episode will have no effect on VI and if anything increase support for Harman in the Labour party.

    Interestingly classic Mail distraction yesterday.It tried to bully Harman for 4 days,then changes track in today`s headline and pretends it is a protector of vulnerable people.

    I somehow doubt the DM were scared off by one of their own pictures.
  • AveryLP said:

    Wouldn't Labour's falling vote share be better shown in a PIE chart?

    The comment of the day so far

  • When even the Daily Mail itself now admits that Harman has not been colluding with paedophiles I think we can safely say that this is yet another nasty non-story, as many wiser Conservatives and right wingers on here said from the very beginning. All credit to Carlotta, Richard T, Richard N, David L, HYUFD and others like them for doing so. Nasty smears have no place in politics.

    In other news, today will be my final day of posting on PB, which is fantastic site with great brains of all political stripes spoiled by a very odd certain few who make sinister personal digs, coupled with others (many of them the same people) who very depressingly seemed to want the Harman story to be more than it was.

    As Richard T said yesterday: it is a shame some people cannot place common decency above partisan politics. Hear hear.

    I will post today but this will be my final day on here - too many loud, unpleasant voices drowning out the brighter, better ones.

    The last day of the lastboyscout. The end of an era.
    Hardly. I have only been on here a couple of months!
    I wonder what the shortest ever era was?

    I shall miss you, LBS, though I must admit to feeling much the same way as you. Site moderation (which I have done elsewhere) is one of those things that only looks easy...
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,759

    SMukesh said:

    The Daily Fail quickly dropped it`s headlines about Paedophilia once Harman drew attention to the paper sexualising children as young as twelve and below.This episode will have no effect on VI and if anything increase support for Harman in the Labour party.

    Interestingly classic Mail distraction yesterday.It tried to bully Harman for 4 days,then changes track in today`s headline and pretends it is a protector of vulnerable people.

    I somehow doubt the DM were scared off by one of their own pictures.
    Ofcourse the Mail are as guilty as every other tabloid in this but with the Owen Jones campaign against the Mail sexualising children gathering a few thousand signatures,you never knew where this would go.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,173

    When even the Daily Mail itself now admits that Harman has not been colluding with paedophiles I think we can safely say that this is yet another nasty non-story, as many wiser Conservatives and right wingers on here said from the very beginning. All credit to Carlotta, Richard T, Richard N, David L, HYUFD and others like them for doing so. Nasty smears have no place in politics.

    In other news, today will be my final day of posting on PB, which is fantastic site with great brains of all political stripes spoiled by a very odd certain few who make sinister personal digs, coupled with others (many of them the same people) who very depressingly seemed to want the Harman story to be more than it was.

    As Richard T said yesterday: it is a shame some people cannot place common decency above partisan politics. Hear hear.

    I will post today but this will be my final day on here - too many loud, unpleasant voices drowning out the brighter, better ones.

    Too busy polishing your halo?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    SMukesh said:

    SMukesh said:

    The Daily Fail quickly dropped it`s headlines about Paedophilia once Harman drew attention to the paper sexualising children as young as twelve and below.This episode will have no effect on VI and if anything increase support for Harman in the Labour party.

    Interestingly classic Mail distraction yesterday.It tried to bully Harman for 4 days,then changes track in today`s headline and pretends it is a protector of vulnerable people.

    I somehow doubt the DM were scared off by one of their own pictures.
    Ofcourse the Mail are as guilty as every other tabloid in this but with the Owen Jones campaign against the Mail sexualising children gathering a few thousand signatures,you never knew where this would go.
    With Owen Jones heading it you sort of do - Nowhere.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,173

    AveryLP said:

    Wouldn't Labour's falling vote share be better shown in a PIE chart?

    The comment of the day so far


    Oh for a like button - ALP - winning here!
  • Charles said:

    JohnLoony said:

    Why would it make the slightest bit of difference either way? Everybody knows that the Daily Mail is institutionally mega-booliakterous, and anybody with more than two braincells will be wondering why it's all being dredged up decades after the events concerned were already public knowledge.

    Any body with one brain cell, and who actually bothered to read the whole story, would know that it has been dredged up because PIE are currently being investigated under Operation Fernbridge, instigated by Tom Watson.
    Come on nigel.

    I read the first article (on my second time of reading the Mail as I skipped over it the first time). My immediate reaction was that it is a complete smear.

    It's clear that Harmon was not a supporter of PIE. At the most she may not have fought against it hard enough. Additionally she probably believed some odd things in the 1970s which would be complete outside of the pale these days (although am sure that some of here written arguments were negotiating positions rather than a true statement of belief). But that was nearly 40 years ago!

    This is unlikely to move anything from a VI perspective. I avidly dislike Harman - something about her just grates - but the Mail is being truly nasty at the moment to try and associate her with paedophillia
    I have never said it would change VI and nor have I said she was a supporter of PIE.

    All I did was give an answer to why it has been dredged up, though I will admit the frantic posts of our Left leaning friends are highly amusing!
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,759
    "Who's the model now?" the Daily Mail noted recently. "Mum's not the only leggy beauty in the family." About an eight-year-old. It should be ashamed; it never is; the fight has to be bolder.

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/25/harriet-harman-daily-mail

    There must be innumerable instances of indiscrete comments by the Mail which can be dredged up once there was a furore.I am not surprised the Mail changed it`s tack before the hunter became the hunted.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Matt has a lovely take on the Harman affair

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014
    Much more significant for voting intention that the Harman non story is the fact that yet another month of falling unemployment, falling inflation, rising real wages and increased growth forecasts to the best in Europe (by a distance) have made no difference at all.

    How do the tories change this? Clearly the budget next month is an opportunity but the number of opportunities left are diminishing. Osborne has done an excellent job (as has Alexander) but neither of them are ever going to be Mr popular. With Osborne still as Chancellor the tories need more prominent, ideally female, spokespeople out front repeating all the good news until it actually impinges on an electorate who clearly find politics boring.

    Yesterday's issues sample may have simply been a random selection of shiny, happy people but if the mood is lifting then the tories have got to capitalise. At the moment they are not.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    JohnLoony said:

    Why would it make the slightest bit of difference either way? Everybody knows that the Daily Mail is institutionally mega-booliakterous, and anybody with more than two braincells will be wondering why it's all being dredged up decades after the events concerned were already public knowledge.

    Any body with one brain cell, and who actually bothered to read the whole story, would know that it has been dredged up because PIE are currently being investigated under Operation Fernbridge, instigated by Tom Watson.
    Come on nigel.

    I read the first article (on my second time of reading the Mail as I skipped over it the first time). My immediate reaction was that it is a complete smear.

    It's clear that Harmon was not a supporter of PIE. At the most she may not have fought against it hard enough. Additionally she probably believed some odd things in the 1970s which would be complete outside of the pale these days (although am sure that some of here written arguments were negotiating positions rather than a true statement of belief). But that was nearly 40 years ago!

    This is unlikely to move anything from a VI perspective. I avidly dislike Harman - something about her just grates - but the Mail is being truly nasty at the moment to try and associate her with paedophillia
    I have never said it would change VI and nor have I said she was a supporter of PIE.

    All I did was give an answer to why it has been dredged up, though I will admit the frantic posts of our Left leaning friends are highly amusing!
    Didn't mean to imply that you had. My point was that your reason is the barest of feeble excuses (by the Mail). It's a classic smear story that they have tried to find a hook as an excuse to publish. Fernbridge is nothing more than that.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    DavidL said:

    Much more significant for voting intention that the Harman non story is the fact that yet another month of falling unemployment, falling inflation, rising real wages and increased growth forecasts to the best in Europe (by a distance) have made no difference at all.

    How do the tories change this? Clearly the budget next month is an opportunity but the number of opportunities left are diminishing. Osborne has done an excellent job (as has Alexander) but neither of them are ever going to be Mr popular. With Osborne still as Chancellor the tories need more prominent, ideally female, spokespeople out front repeating all the good news until it actually impinges on an electorate who clearly find politics boring.

    Yesterday's issues sample may have simply been a random selection of shiny, happy people but if the mood is lifting then the tories have got to capitalise. At the moment they are not.

    The Tories needed to move Osborne but it's almost too late to do so.
  • DavidL said:

    Much more significant for voting intention that the Harman non story is the fact that yet another month of falling unemployment, falling inflation, rising real wages and increased growth forecasts to the best in Europe (by a distance) have made no difference at all.

    How do the tories change this? Clearly the budget next month is an opportunity but the number of opportunities left are diminishing. Osborne has done an excellent job (as has Alexander) but neither of them are ever going to be Mr popular. With Osborne still as Chancellor the tories need more prominent, ideally female, spokespeople out front repeating all the good news until it actually impinges on an electorate who clearly find politics boring.

    Yesterday's issues sample may have simply been a random selection of shiny, happy people but if the mood is lifting then the tories have got to capitalise. At the moment they are not.

    The Tories needed to move Osborne but it's almost too late to do so.
    Phew! We need him there until September. We should get our way, cos as you say: it is too late now.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    When even the Daily Mail itself now admits that Harman has not been colluding with paedophiles I think we can safely say that this is yet another nasty non-story, as many wiser Conservatives and right wingers on here said from the very beginning. All credit to Carlotta, Richard T, Richard N, David L, HYUFD and others like them for doing so. Nasty smears have no place in politics.

    In other news, today will be my final day of posting on PB, which is fantastic site with great brains of all political stripes spoiled by a very odd certain few who make sinister personal digs, coupled with others (many of them the same people) who very depressingly seemed to want the Harman story to be more than it was.

    As Richard T said yesterday: it is a shame some people cannot place common decency above partisan politics. Hear hear.

    I will post today but this will be my final day on here - too many loud, unpleasant voices drowning out the brighter, better ones.

    Great news!
  • felix said:

    When even the Daily Mail itself now admits that Harman has not been colluding with paedophiles I think we can safely say that this is yet another nasty non-story, as many wiser Conservatives and right wingers on here said from the very beginning. All credit to Carlotta, Richard T, Richard N, David L, HYUFD and others like them for doing so. Nasty smears have no place in politics.

    In other news, today will be my final day of posting on PB, which is fantastic site with great brains of all political stripes spoiled by a very odd certain few who make sinister personal digs, coupled with others (many of them the same people) who very depressingly seemed to want the Harman story to be more than it was.

    As Richard T said yesterday: it is a shame some people cannot place common decency above partisan politics. Hear hear.

    I will post today but this will be my final day on here - too many loud, unpleasant voices drowning out the brighter, better ones.

    Too busy polishing your halo?
    Oh dear. QED
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514

    DavidL said:

    Much more significant for voting intention that the Harman non story is the fact that yet another month of falling unemployment, falling inflation, rising real wages and increased growth forecasts to the best in Europe (by a distance) have made no difference at all.

    How do the tories change this? Clearly the budget next month is an opportunity but the number of opportunities left are diminishing. Osborne has done an excellent job (as has Alexander) but neither of them are ever going to be Mr popular. With Osborne still as Chancellor the tories need more prominent, ideally female, spokespeople out front repeating all the good news until it actually impinges on an electorate who clearly find politics boring.

    Yesterday's issues sample may have simply been a random selection of shiny, happy people but if the mood is lifting then the tories have got to capitalise. At the moment they are not.

    The Tories needed to move Osborne but it's almost too late to do so.
    Phew! We need him there until September. We should get our way, cos as you say: it is too late now.
    Speaks volumes Stuart, you can't carry an economic case yourselves so you need to wheel out the bogeyman. SNP Project Fear .
  • Charles said:

    JohnLoony said:

    Why would it make the slightest bit of difference either way? Everybody knows that the Daily Mail is institutionally mega-booliakterous, and anybody with more than two braincells will be wondering why it's all being dredged up decades after the events concerned were already public knowledge.

    Any body with one brain cell, and who actually bothered to read the whole story, would know that it has been dredged up because PIE are currently being investigated under Operation Fernbridge, instigated by Tom Watson.
    Come on nigel.

    I read the first article (on my second time of reading the Mail as I skipped over it the first time). My immediate reaction was that it is a complete smear.

    It's clear that Harmon was not a supporter of PIE. At the most she may not have fought against it hard enough. Additionally she probably believed some odd things in the 1970s which would be complete outside of the pale these days (although am sure that some of here written arguments were negotiating positions rather than a true statement of belief). But that was nearly 40 years ago!

    This is unlikely to move anything from a VI perspective. I avidly dislike Harman - something about her just grates - but the Mail is being truly nasty at the moment to try and associate her with paedophillia
    To me the bigger question is 'why now'? This story could have been dug up any time over the past 4 decades - though with the revelations of a well known deceased TV personality, a couple of years ago might have been more newsworthy - I wonder if the Mail has got wind of a forthcoming arrest of either a government ('they're all as bad as each other') or Labour ("further pressure on Miliband') supporter? Or perhaps its just random nastiness.

    In any case, while it might damage Harman (poorly handled response, not the story itself) I have not seen anything which suggests it should damage Labour.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,046

    DavidL said:

    Much more significant for voting intention that the Harman non story is the fact that yet another month of falling unemployment, falling inflation, rising real wages and increased growth forecasts to the best in Europe (by a distance) have made no difference at all.

    How do the tories change this? Clearly the budget next month is an opportunity but the number of opportunities left are diminishing. Osborne has done an excellent job (as has Alexander) but neither of them are ever going to be Mr popular. With Osborne still as Chancellor the tories need more prominent, ideally female, spokespeople out front repeating all the good news until it actually impinges on an electorate who clearly find politics boring.

    Yesterday's issues sample may have simply been a random selection of shiny, happy people but if the mood is lifting then the tories have got to capitalise. At the moment they are not.

    The Tories needed to move Osborne but it's almost too late to do so.
    No.

    That wouldn't do it; it has nothing to do with personalities.

    The Tories are, were and will be the nasty party. That much is obvious and improving economic prospects don't seem to be able to shake off the perception that it is a "mates" recovery with everyone else brought along grudgingly and incidentally.

    Second, we are only a few years' hiatus away from "the good times". The Cons did such a good job of recovery and restoration that perhaps people want those good times back again believing that the scare stories were overdone. And we know that Lab know how to spend and make those good times reeaaaallly good.

    So what's to be done?

    Well more normal people front and centre for the Cons would help. Having said it's not about personalities, they just have too many OEs for their own good (I don't care how capable they are). Maybe those people aren't there but I feel like a stuck record when I say they must be able to find bright, articulate people from Barnsley (and no EPickles doesn't cut it).

    They need to hold their nerve vs UKIP. People like me wince when they address another UKIP demand as that, naturally enough, emboldens UKIP.

    And also, they need to whip in and I mean whip in no rebels their backbenchers. Rumbling along in the background is the perception that the Cons are fighting like ferrets in a sack. A serene, united, purposeful party with every soundbite "on message" would give a great impression to the voters.

    Beyond that, they are fighting human nature with all its frailties and that is a near-insuperable challenge.
  • Charles said:

    JohnLoony said:

    Why would it make the slightest bit of difference either way? Everybody knows that the Daily Mail is institutionally mega-booliakterous, and anybody with more than two braincells will be wondering why it's all being dredged up decades after the events concerned were already public knowledge.

    Any body with one brain cell, and who actually bothered to read the whole story, would know that it has been dredged up because PIE are currently being investigated under Operation Fernbridge, instigated by Tom Watson.
    Come on nigel.

    I read the first article (on my second time of reading the Mail as I skipped over it the first time). My immediate reaction was that it is a complete smear.

    It's clear that Harmon was not a supporter of PIE. At the most she may not have fought against it hard enough. Additionally she probably believed some odd things in the 1970s which would be complete outside of the pale these days (although am sure that some of here written arguments were negotiating positions rather than a true statement of belief). But that was nearly 40 years ago!

    This is unlikely to move anything from a VI perspective. I avidly dislike Harman - something about her just grates - but the Mail is being truly nasty at the moment to try and associate her with paedophillia
    I have never said it would change VI and nor have I said she was a supporter of PIE.

    All I did was give an answer to why it has been dredged up, though I will admit the frantic posts of our Left leaning friends are highly amusing!
    Yes how hilarious it is to connect a person with this most vile of crimes. How we all larfed.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,046

    Charles said:

    JohnLoony said:

    Why would it make the slightest bit of difference either way? Everybody knows that the Daily Mail is institutionally mega-booliakterous, and anybody with more than two braincells will be wondering why it's all being dredged up decades after the events concerned were already public knowledge.

    Any body with one brain cell, and who actually bothered to read the whole story, would know that it has been dredged up because PIE are currently being investigated under Operation Fernbridge, instigated by Tom Watson.
    Come on nigel.

    I read the first article (on my second time of reading the Mail as I skipped over it the first time). My immediate reaction was that it is a complete smear.

    It's clear that Harmon was not a supporter of PIE. At the most she may not have fought against it hard enough. Additionally she probably believed some odd things in the 1970s which would be complete outside of the pale these days (although am sure that some of here written arguments were negotiating positions rather than a true statement of belief). But that was nearly 40 years ago!

    This is unlikely to move anything from a VI perspective. I avidly dislike Harman - something about her just grates - but the Mail is being truly nasty at the moment to try and associate her with paedophillia
    I have never said it would change VI and nor have I said she was a supporter of PIE.

    All I did was give an answer to why it has been dredged up, though I will admit the frantic posts of our Left leaning friends are highly amusing!
    Yes how hilarious it is to connect a person with this most vile of crimes. How we all larfed.
    Is this going to be the longest goodbye in history?

    If you dislike the site to the point whereby it is intolerable for you then I don't get why you are hanging around? Surely you should just leave now rather than "one last day".

    If you like the site on account of its cut & thrust debate then hang around and debate.
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,759
    Looks like some in the media are calling it as it is.

    `The attacks on Harriet Harman are a load of bull`

    `
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4016234.ece
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,173

    felix said:

    When even the Daily Mail itself now admits that Harman has not been colluding with paedophiles I think we can safely say that this is yet another nasty non-story, as many wiser Conservatives and right wingers on here said from the very beginning. All credit to Carlotta, Richard T, Richard N, David L, HYUFD and others like them for doing so. Nasty smears have no place in politics.

    In other news, today will be my final day of posting on PB, which is fantastic site with great brains of all political stripes spoiled by a very odd certain few who make sinister personal digs, coupled with others (many of them the same people) who very depressingly seemed to want the Harman story to be more than it was.

    As Richard T said yesterday: it is a shame some people cannot place common decency above partisan politics. Hear hear.

    I will post today but this will be my final day on here - too many loud, unpleasant voices drowning out the brighter, better ones.

    Too busy polishing your halo?
    Oh dear. QED
    Oh dear. We feel your pain. Of course Harriet would never snoop to nastiness - just ask "ginger rodent" Danny Alexander.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    Charles said:

    JohnLoony said:

    Why would it make the slightest bit of difference either way? Everybody knows that the Daily Mail is institutionally mega-booliakterous, and anybody with more than two braincells will be wondering why it's all being dredged up decades after the events concerned were already public knowledge.

    Any body with one brain cell, and who actually bothered to read the whole story, would know that it has been dredged up because PIE are currently being investigated under Operation Fernbridge, instigated by Tom Watson.
    Come on nigel.

    I read the first article (on my second time of reading the Mail as I skipped over it the first time). My immediate reaction was that it is a complete smear.

    It's clear that Harmon was not a supporter of PIE. At the most she may not have fought against it hard enough. Additionally she probably believed some odd things in the 1970s which would be complete outside of the pale these days (although am sure that some of here written arguments were negotiating positions rather than a true statement of belief). But that was nearly 40 years ago!

    This is unlikely to move anything from a VI perspective. I avidly dislike Harman - something about her just grates - but the Mail is being truly nasty at the moment to try and associate her with paedophillia
    I have never said it would change VI and nor have I said she was a supporter of PIE.

    All I did was give an answer to why it has been dredged up, though I will admit the frantic posts of our Left leaning friends are highly amusing!
    Yes how hilarious it is to connect a person with this most vile of crimes. How we all larfed.
    Laughing at you not the story if you read what he said
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    Much more significant for voting intention that the Harman non story is the fact that yet another month of falling unemployment, falling inflation, rising real wages and increased growth forecasts to the best in Europe (by a distance) have made no difference at all.


    Yesterday's issues sample may have simply been a random selection of shiny, happy people but if the mood is lifting then the tories have got to capitalise. At the moment they are not.

    The Tories needed to move Osborne but it's almost too late to do so.
    No.

    That wouldn't do it; it has nothing to do with personalities.

    The Tories are, were and will be the nasty party. That much is obvious and improving economic prospects don't seem to be able to shake off the perception that it is a "mates" recovery with everyone else brought along grudgingly and incidentally.

    Second, we are only a few years' hiatus away from "the good times". The Cons did such a good job of recovery and restoration that perhaps people want those good times back again believing that the scare stories were overdone. And we know that Lab know how to spend and make those good times reeaaaallly good.

    So what's to be done?

    Well more normal people front and centre for the Cons would help. Having said it's not about personalities, they just have too many OEs for their own good (I don't care how capable they are). Maybe those people aren't there but I feel like a stuck record when I say they must be able to find bright, articulate people from Barnsley (and no EPickles doesn't cut it).

    They need to hold their nerve vs UKIP. People like me wince when they address another UKIP demand as that, naturally enough, emboldens UKIP.

    And also, they need to whip in and I mean whip in no rebels their backbenchers. Rumbling along in the background is the perception that the Cons are fighting like ferrets in a sack. A serene, united, purposeful party with every soundbite "on message" would give a great impression to the voters.

    Beyond that, they are fighting human nature with all its frailties and that is a near-insuperable challenge.
    Osborne's only advantage is that Balls is more odious.

    I agree with your suggestion that the blues need to put more human faces to the fore, which is why I think GO should be moved. A brighter face moving into an election would help lift the economic message.

    GO just reminds me of Capt. Darling from Blackadder.
  • It hadn't crossed my mind that this would affect voting intentions. Isn't this just the Mail doing what the Mail does?
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,759
    felix said:

    felix said:

    When even the Daily Mail itself now admits that Harman has not been colluding with paedophiles I think we can safely say that this is yet another nasty non-story, as many wiser Conservatives and right wingers on here said from the very beginning. All credit to Carlotta, Richard T, Richard N, David L, HYUFD and others like them for doing so. Nasty smears have no place in politics.

    In other news, today will be my final day of posting on PB, which is fantastic site with great brains of all political stripes spoiled by a very odd certain few who make sinister personal digs, coupled with others (many of them the same people) who very depressingly seemed to want the Harman story to be more than it was.

    As Richard T said yesterday: it is a shame some people cannot place common decency above partisan politics. Hear hear.

    I will post today but this will be my final day on here - too many loud, unpleasant voices drowning out the brighter, better ones.

    Too busy polishing your halo?
    Oh dear. QED
    Oh dear. We feel your pain. Of course Harriet would never snoop to nastiness - just ask "ginger rodent" Danny Alexander.
    So an amusing comment about Danny Alexander`s hair is being equated to colluding with Paedophilia.

    Get a sense of proportion mate.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,173
    TOPPING said:

    Charles said:

    JohnLoony said:

    Why would it make the slightest bit of difference either way? Everybody knows that the Daily Mail is institutionally mega-booliakterous, and anybody with more than two braincells will be wondering why it's all being dredged up decades after the events concerned were already public knowledge.

    Any body with one brain cell, and who actually bothered to read the whole story, would know that it has been dredged up because PIE are currently being investigated under Operation Fernbridge, instigated by Tom Watson.
    Come on nigel.

    I read the first article (on my second time of reading the Mail as I skipped over it the first time). My immediate reaction was that it is a complete smear.

    It's clear that Harmon was not a supporter of PIE. At the most she may not have fought against it hard enough. Additionally she probably believed some odd things in the 1970s which would be complete outside of the pale these days (although am sure that some of here written arguments were negotiating positions rather than a true statement of belief). But that was nearly 40 years ago!

    This is unlikely to move anything from a VI perspective. I avidly dislike Harman - something about her just grates - but the Mail is being truly nasty at the moment to try and associate her with paedophillia
    I have never said it would change VI and nor have I said she was a supporter of PIE.

    All I did was give an answer to why it has been dredged up, though I will admit the frantic posts of our Left leaning friends are highly amusing!
    Yes how hilarious it is to connect a person with this most vile of crimes. How we all larfed.
    Is this going to be the longest goodbye in history?

    If you dislike the site to the point whereby it is intolerable for you then I don't get why you are hanging around? Surely you should just leave now rather than "one last day".

    If you like the site on account of its cut & thrust debate then hang around and debate.
    Second best post of the day - after ALP's pie!
  • Good morning, everyone.

    Testing resumes tomorrow, huzzah! The Australian Grand Prix is just over a fortnight away.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,173
    SMukesh said:

    felix said:

    felix said:

    When even the Daily Mail itself now admits that Harman has not been colluding with paedophiles I think we can safely say that this is yet another nasty non-story, as many wiser Conservatives and right wingers on here said from the very beginning. All credit to Carlotta, Richard T, Richard N, David L, HYUFD and others like them for doing so. Nasty smears have no place in politics.

    In other news, today will be my final day of posting on PB, which is fantastic site with great brains of all political stripes spoiled by a very odd certain few who make sinister personal digs, coupled with others (many of them the same people) who very depressingly seemed to want the Harman story to be more than it was.

    As Richard T said yesterday: it is a shame some people cannot place common decency above partisan politics. Hear hear.

    I will post today but this will be my final day on here - too many loud, unpleasant voices drowning out the brighter, better ones.

    Too busy polishing your halo?
    Oh dear. QED
    Oh dear. We feel your pain. Of course Harriet would never snoop to nastiness - just ask "ginger rodent" Danny Alexander.
    So an amusing comment about Danny Alexander`s hair is being equated to colluding with Paedophilia.

    Get a sense of proportion mate.

    Sorry I forgot the golden leftie rule - when we do it it's all ok and just 'amusing' - hypocricy rules ok!
  • What are people's thoughts on turnout for the IndyRef? Obviously if it looks like No is running away with it it might be depressed, but generally you'd have thought an existential question such as this ought to be able to command the interest of 75%+ of a populace, no?

    That's 3/1 with betfair, but my nap would be over 66% @ 4/6 with William Hill.

    That is money for old rope. 67% return on investment in less than 7 months. But I'd be very surprised if they'll let you get much on.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,461
    SMukesh said:

    felix said:

    felix said:

    When even the Daily Mail itself now admits that Harman has not been colluding with paedophiles I think we can safely say that this is yet another nasty non-story, as many wiser Conservatives and right wingers on here said from the very beginning. All credit to Carlotta, Richard T, Richard N, David L, HYUFD and others like them for doing so. Nasty smears have no place in politics.

    In other news, today will be my final day of posting on PB, which is fantastic site with great brains of all political stripes spoiled by a very odd certain few who make sinister personal digs, coupled with others (many of them the same people) who very depressingly seemed to want the Harman story to be more than it was.

    As Richard T said yesterday: it is a shame some people cannot place common decency above partisan politics. Hear hear.

    I will post today but this will be my final day on here - too many loud, unpleasant voices drowning out the brighter, better ones.

    Too busy polishing your halo?
    Oh dear. QED
    Oh dear. We feel your pain. Of course Harriet would never snoop to nastiness - just ask "ginger rodent" Danny Alexander.
    So an amusing comment about Danny Alexander`s hair is being equated to colluding with Paedophilia.

    Get a sense of proportion mate.
    "Amusing comment"?

    It was a scripted piece of nastiness that was roundly condemned, and she apologised for., Made worse that at least one of her children is red-haired.

    Nice to know you are one of the nasty left.

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    All internet sites have a few oddballs. PB has some of the best political conversation despite, and perhaps at times because of a few, and generally good tempered.

    Why the Harman PIE affair is in the news now, having been in the news a number of times over the decades is unclear. Perhaps it has arisen out of some courtcase?.

    I do wonder if there has been a bit of dark arts, to put Harman and Dromey on the back foot, for reasons quite unrelated to pieces of PIE.

    The seventies and eighties were very different times, a curious mix of more innocent and less innocent times. We all knew what jokes about scoutmasters, vicars and choirboys were really about. This was considered suitable early evening entertainment on the achingly PC 80's Channel 4:

    http://www.80sactual.com/2009/10/1983-mini-pops-controversy-on-channel-4.html?m=1

    LBS, come back under another name, there is precedent.

    When even the Daily Mail itself now admits that Harman has not been colluding with paedophiles I think we can safely say that this is yet another nasty non-story, as many wiser Conservatives and right wingers on here said from the very beginning. All credit to Carlotta, Richard T, Richard N, David L, HYUFD and others like them for doing so. Nasty smears have no place in politics.

    In other news, today will be my final day of posting on PB, which is fantastic site with great brains of all political stripes spoiled by a very odd certain few who make sinister personal digs, coupled with others (many of them the same people) who very depressingly seemed to want the Harman story to be more than it was.

    As Richard T said yesterday: it is a shame some people cannot place common decency above partisan politics. Hear hear.

    I will post today but this will be my final day on here - too many loud, unpleasant voices drowning out the brighter, better ones.

  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    felix said:

    SMukesh said:

    felix said:

    felix said:

    When even the Daily Mail itself now admits that Harman has not been colluding with paedophiles I think we can safely say that this is yet another nasty non-story, as many wiser Conservatives and right wingers on here said from the very beginning. All credit to Carlotta, Richard T, Richard N, David L, HYUFD and others like them for doing so. Nasty smears have no place in politics.

    In other news, today will be my final day of posting on PB, which is fantastic site with great brains of all political stripes spoiled by a very odd certain few who make sinister personal digs, coupled with others (many of them the same people) who very depressingly seemed to want the Harman story to be more than it was.

    As Richard T said yesterday: it is a shame some people cannot place common decency above partisan politics. Hear hear.

    I will post today but this will be my final day on here - too many loud, unpleasant voices drowning out the brighter, better ones.

    Too busy polishing your halo?
    Oh dear. QED
    Oh dear. We feel your pain. Of course Harriet would never snoop to nastiness - just ask "ginger rodent" Danny Alexander.
    So an amusing comment about Danny Alexander`s hair is being equated to colluding with Paedophilia.

    Get a sense of proportion mate.

    Sorry I forgot the golden leftie rule - when we do it it's all ok and just 'amusing' - hypocricy rules ok!
    When tim accused another poster of "drooling "over child abuse stories apparently that was just fine... Well no left wingers criticised him anyway
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    edited February 2014
    felix said:

    SMukesh said:

    felix said:

    felix said:

    When even the Daily Mail itself now admits that Harman has not been colluding with paedophiles I think we can safely say that this is yet another nasty non-story, as many wiser Conservatives and right wingers on here said from the very beginning. All credit to Carlotta, Richard T, Richard N, David L, HYUFD and others like them for doing so. Nasty smears have no place in politics.

    In other news, today will be my final day of posting on PB, which is fantastic site with great brains of all political stripes spoiled by a very odd certain few who make sinister personal digs, coupled with others (many of them the same people) who very depressingly seemed to want the Harman story to be more than it was.

    As Richard T said yesterday: it is a shame some people cannot place common decency above partisan politics. Hear hear.

    I will post today but this will be my final day on here - too many loud, unpleasant voices drowning out the brighter, better ones.

    Too busy polishing your halo?
    Oh dear. QED
    Oh dear. We feel your pain. Of course Harriet would never snoop to nastiness - just ask "ginger rodent" Danny Alexander.
    So an amusing comment about Danny Alexander`s hair is being equated to colluding with Paedophilia.

    Get a sense of proportion mate.

    Sorry I forgot the golden leftie rule - when we do it it's all ok and just 'amusing' - hypocricy rules ok!
    Imagine the outrage from the left if Thatcher had described Kinnock as "a ginger rodent".
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,759

    SMukesh said:

    felix said:

    felix said:

    When even the Daily Mail itself now admits that Harman has not been colluding with paedophiles I think we can safely say that this is yet another nasty non-story, as many wiser Conservatives and right wingers on here said from the very beginning. All credit to Carlotta, Richard T, Richard N, David L, HYUFD and others like them for doing so. Nasty smears have no place in politics.

    In other news, today will be my final day of posting on PB, which is fantastic site with great brains of all political stripes spoiled by a very odd certain few who make sinister personal digs, coupled with others (many of them the same people) who very depressingly seemed to want the Harman story to be more than it was.

    As Richard T said yesterday: it is a shame some people cannot place common decency above partisan politics. Hear hear.

    I will post today but this will be my final day on here - too many loud, unpleasant voices drowning out the brighter, better ones.

    Too busy polishing your halo?
    Oh dear. QED
    Oh dear. We feel your pain. Of course Harriet would never snoop to nastiness - just ask "ginger rodent" Danny Alexander.
    So an amusing comment about Danny Alexander`s hair is being equated to colluding with Paedophilia.

    Get a sense of proportion mate.
    "Amusing comment"?

    It was a scripted piece of nastiness that was roundly condemned, and she apologised for., Made worse that at least one of her children is red-haired.

    Nice to know you are one of the nasty left.

    You are just in time to remind us that the right can insist on political correctness when it suits them while railing all the time against the same.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    SMukesh said:

    Looks like some in the media are calling it as it is.

    `The attacks on Harriet Harman are a load of bull`

    `
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4016234.ece

    SMukesh it's all moved on, why do you spend so much time muckraking in the past ?
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,173
    SMukesh said:

    SMukesh said:

    felix said:

    felix said:

    When even the Daily Mail itself now admits that Harman has not been colluding with paedophiles I think we can safely say that this is yet another nasty non-story, as many wiser Conservatives and right wingers on here said from the very beginning. All credit to Carlotta, Richard T, Richard N, David L, HYUFD and others like them for doing so. Nasty smears have no place in politics.

    In other news, today will be my final day of posting on PB, which is fantastic site with great brains of all political stripes spoiled by a very odd certain few who make sinister personal digs, coupled with others (many of them the same people) who very depressingly seemed to want the Harman story to be more than it was.

    As Richard T said yesterday: it is a shame some people cannot place common decency above partisan politics. Hear hear.

    I will post today but this will be my final day on here - too many loud, unpleasant voices drowning out the brighter, better ones.

    Too busy polishing your halo?
    Oh dear. QED
    Oh dear. We feel your pain. Of course Harriet would never snoop to nastiness - just ask "ginger rodent" Danny Alexander.
    So an amusing comment about Danny Alexander`s hair is being equated to colluding with Paedophilia.

    Get a sense of proportion mate.
    "Amusing comment"?

    It was a scripted piece of nastiness that was roundly condemned, and she apologised for., Made worse that at least one of her children is red-haired.

    Nice to know you are one of the nasty left.

    You are just in time to remind us that the right can insist on political correctness when it suits them while railing all the time against the same.
    Keep digging........
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited February 2014
    DavidL said:

    Much more significant for voting intention that the Harman non story is the fact that yet another month of falling unemployment, falling inflation, rising real wages and increased growth forecasts to the best in Europe (by a distance) have made no difference at all.

    How do the tories change this? Clearly the budget next month is an opportunity but the number of opportunities left are diminishing. Osborne has done an excellent job (as has Alexander) but neither of them are ever going to be Mr popular. With Osborne still as Chancellor the tories need more prominent, ideally female, spokespeople out front repeating all the good news until it actually impinges on an electorate who clearly find politics boring.

    Yesterday's issues sample may have simply been a random selection of shiny, happy people but if the mood is lifting then the tories have got to capitalise. At the moment they are not.

    Interesting ONS stats this morning, David.

    We are getting the Second Estimate of 2013 Q4 GDP; the first estimate of Business Investment for the same quarter; and the Index of Services for December 2013.

    None of these qualify for headline news as they are all rehashing previous announcements but there has been some nervousness in the markets about the direction and velocity of the UK's economic revival. It is not that anyone thinks a crisis is lurking around the corner, just that the momentum of recovery is waning relative to our main trading partners. As an economist quoted by Bloomberg stated: "the UK is ceasing to surprise on the upside" (and, yes, there is an Citicorp sponsored index to measure the degree of surprise caused by economic announcements!).

    As an example, the pound has eased a couple of cents against the dollar in the last couple of weeks (though it is still up 11% on the year against Bloomberg's trade weighted currency basket).

    So a confirmation of the 0.7% GDP Q4 growth rate is important as too are the Business Investment Figures and Services Index.

    When the news has been universally good, markets are reluctant to yield to the inevitable slowdown. The OBR has been clear in its forecasts that the (quarterly) growth rate will fall back in 2014 (their estimate is 4 quarters of 0.5% growth), but market expectations haven't yet followed.

    All eyes then on the 9:30 releases.
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,759

    SMukesh said:

    Looks like some in the media are calling it as it is.

    `The attacks on Harriet Harman are a load of bull`

    `
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4016234.ece

    SMukesh it's all moved on, why do you spend so much time muckraking in the past ?
    See thread header.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    AveryLP said:

    DavidL said:

    Much more significant for voting intention that the Harman non story is the fact that yet another month of falling unemployment, falling inflation, rising real wages and increased growth forecasts to the best in Europe (by a distance) have made no difference at all.

    How do the tories change this? Clearly the budget next month is an opportunity but the number of opportunities left are diminishing. Osborne has done an excellent job (as has Alexander) but neither of them are ever going to be Mr popular. With Osborne still as Chancellor the tories need more prominent, ideally female, spokespeople out front repeating all the good news until it actually impinges on an electorate who clearly find politics boring.

    Yesterday's issues sample may have simply been a random selection of shiny, happy people but if the mood is lifting then the tories have got to capitalise. At the moment they are not.

    Interesting ONS stats this morning, David.

    We are getting the Second Estimate of 2013 Q4 GDP; the first estimate of Business Investment for the same quarter; and the Index of Services for December 2013.

    None of these qualify for headline news as they are all rehashing previous announcements but there has been some nervousness in the markets about the direction and velocity of the UK's economic revival. It is not that anyone thinks a crisis is lurking around the corner, just that the momentum of recovery is waning relative to our main trading partners. As an economist quoted by Bloomberg stated: "the UK is ceasing to surprise on the upside" (and, yes, there is an Citicorp sponsored index to measure the degree of surprise caused by economic announcements!).

    As an example, the pound has eased a couple of cents against the dollar in the last couple of weeks (though it is still up 11% on the year against Bloomberg's trade weighted currency basket).

    So a confirmation of the 0.7% GDP Q4 growth rate is important as too are the Business Investment Figures and Services Index.

    When the news has been universally good markets are reluctant to yield to the inevitable slowdown. The OBR has been clear that the (quarterly) growth rate will fall back in 2014 (their estimate is 4 quarters of 0.5% growth), but market expectations haven't yet followed.

    All eyes then on the 9:30 releases.



    Nervous Mr P ?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014
    What Osborne is seeking to do, and we will no doubt hear a lot more about this next month, is emphasise that the job is only half done at best and that it needs a grown up to do it.

    So we have seen lots of comments from him about the recovery being too much based on consumer spending, the need to increase exports and investment, the fact that we still have the largest deficit of any large country in Europe, the fact that a lot of this is structural and we need to cut public spending more etc etc.

    The risk, as @TOPPING points out, is that he just might be a victim of his own success with people believing the problem is "fixed". How anyone can think it is fixed to the extent it would be safe to let Balls and Miliband anywhere near it is beyond me but presumably people do.

    We are used to having election budgets designed to make the government in power more popular in the short term. I just wonder if we will see an austerity budget focussed on the deficit above all else (whilst acknowledging all the good news on unemployment, growth etc). I do think Osborne needs to get the focus of the discussion back to our horrendous and dangerous borrowing. It is the area that Labour is weakest.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    SMukesh said:

    SMukesh said:

    Looks like some in the media are calling it as it is.

    `The attacks on Harriet Harman are a load of bull`

    `
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4016234.ece

    SMukesh it's all moved on, why do you spend so much time muckraking in the past ?
    See thread header.
    The header's about the DM, you appear to be equating yourself with them.
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,759

    SMukesh said:

    SMukesh said:

    Looks like some in the media are calling it as it is.

    `The attacks on Harriet Harman are a load of bull`

    `
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4016234.ece

    SMukesh it's all moved on, why do you spend so much time muckraking in the past ?
    See thread header.
    The header's about the DM, you appear to be equating yourself with them.
    What a bizarre comment!
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    DavidL said:

    What Osborne is seeking to do, and we will no doubt hear a lot more about this next month, is emphasise that the job is only half done at best and that it needs a grown up to do it.

    So we have seen lots of comments from him about the recovery being too much based on consumer spending, the need to increase exports and investment, the fact that we still have the largest deficit of any large country in Europe, the fact that a lot of this is structural and we need to cut public spending more etc etc.

    The risk, as @TOPPING points out, is that he just might be a victim of his own success with people believing the problem is "fixed". How anyone can think it is fixed to the extent it would be safe to let Balls and Miliband anywhere near it is beyond me but presumably people do.

    We are used to having election budgets designed to make the government in power more popular in the short term. I just wonder if we will see an austerity budget focussed on the deficit above all else (whilst acknowledging all the good news on unemployment, growth etc). I do think Osborne needs to get the focus of the discussion back to our horrendous and dangerous borrowing. It is the area that Labour is weakest.

    If Osborne doesn't put some gimmes in the budget then he's an idiot.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    SMukesh said:

    SMukesh said:

    SMukesh said:

    Looks like some in the media are calling it as it is.

    `The attacks on Harriet Harman are a load of bull`

    `
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4016234.ece

    SMukesh it's all moved on, why do you spend so much time muckraking in the past ?
    See thread header.
    The header's about the DM, you appear to be equating yourself with them.
    What a bizarre comment!
    Why ? Looking down thread the Daily Mukesh has a similar way of reporting.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014
    AveryLP said:

    DavidL said:

    Much more significant for voting intention that the Harman non story is the fact that yet another month of falling unemployment, falling inflation, rising real wages and increased growth forecasts to the best in Europe (by a distance) have made no difference at all.

    How do the tories change this? Clearly the budget next month is an opportunity but the number of opportunities left are diminishing. Osborne has done an excellent job (as has Alexander) but neither of them are ever going to be Mr popular. With Osborne still as Chancellor the tories need more prominent, ideally female, spokespeople out front repeating all the good news until it actually impinges on an electorate who clearly find politics boring.

    Yesterday's issues sample may have simply been a random selection of shiny, happy people but if the mood is lifting then the tories have got to capitalise. At the moment they are not.

    Interesting ONS stats this morning, David.

    We are getting the Second Estimate of 2013 Q4 GDP; the first estimate of Business Investment for the same quarter; and the Index of Services for December 2013.

    None of these qualify for headline news as they are all rehashing previous announcements but there has been some nervousness in the markets about the direction and velocity of the UK's economic revival. It is not that anyone thinks a crisis is lurking around the corner, just that the momentum of recovery is waning relative to our main trading partners. As an economist quoted by Bloomberg stated: "the UK is ceasing to surprise on the upside" (and, yes, there is an Citicorp sponsored index to measure the degree of surprise caused by economic announcements!).

    As an example, the pound has eased a couple of cents against the dollar in the last couple of weeks (though it is still up 11% on the year against Bloomberg's trade weighted currency basket).

    So a confirmation of the 0.7% GDP Q4 growth rate is important as too are the Business Investment Figures and Services Index.

    When the news has been universally good, markets are reluctant to yield to the inevitable slowdown. The OBR has been clear in its forecasts that the (quarterly) growth rate will fall back in 2014 (their estimate is 4 quarters of 0.5% growth), but market expectations haven't yet followed.

    All eyes then on the 9:30 releases.
    I thought that on the back of the revised construction figures we were closer to 0.8 than 0.6.

    Did you ever do chapter 2 of what are George and Danny up to? I was really busy over the weekend. I was having trouble reconciling your figure of £40bn "hidden" expenditure with the OBR's 2.4% growth of central government spending.

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    The 1979 referendum had a 63.8% turnout in the days when turnouts were generally better.

    Bookies do not often go too far off the mark. Quite apart from the apathetic and not bothered the franchise includes a number of demographics with low turnouts.

    What are people's thoughts on turnout for the IndyRef? Obviously if it looks like No is running away with it it might be depressed, but generally you'd have thought an existential question such as this ought to be able to command the interest of 75%+ of a populace, no?

    That's 3/1 with betfair, but my nap would be over 66% @ 4/6 with William Hill.

    That is money for old rope. 67% return on investment in less than 7 months. But I'd be very surprised if they'll let you get much on.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    Dr. Sox

    It was the gharish invitations to "Tarts and Vicars" parties which so livened up the decade.

    A dog collar and subfusc suit jacket worn over two tone lamé loons was enough to pass muster.

    How it would have confused the delicate souls of SMukesh and Lost Boy Scout to see their fellow undergraduettes dressed in low cut Brownie uniforms!

    All internet sites have a few oddballs. PB has some of the best political conversation despite, and perhaps at times because of a few, and generally good tempered.

    Why the Harman PIE affair is in the news now, having been in the news a number of times over the decades is unclear. Perhaps it has arisen out of some courtcase?.

    I do wonder if there has been a bit of dark arts, to put Harman and Dromey on the back foot, for reasons quite unrelated to pieces of PIE.

    The seventies and eighties were very different times, a curious mix of more innocent and less innocent times. We all knew what jokes about scoutmasters, vicars and choirboys were really about. This was considered suitable early evening entertainment on the achingly PC 80's Channel 4:

    http://www.80sactual.com/2009/10/1983-mini-pops-controversy-on-channel-4.html?m=1

    LBS, come back under another name, there is precedent.


    When even the Daily Mail itself now admits that Harman has not been colluding with paedophiles I think we can safely say that this is yet another nasty non-story, as many wiser Conservatives and right wingers on here said from the very beginning. All credit to Carlotta, Richard T, Richard N, David L, HYUFD and others like them for doing so. Nasty smears have no place in politics.

    In other news, today will be my final day of posting on PB, which is fantastic site with great brains of all political stripes spoiled by a very odd certain few who make sinister personal digs, coupled with others (many of them the same people) who very depressingly seemed to want the Harman story to be more than it was.

    As Richard T said yesterday: it is a shame some people cannot place common decency above partisan politics. Hear hear.

    I will post today but this will be my final day on here - too many loud, unpleasant voices drowning out the brighter, better ones.

  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815

    AveryLP said:

    DavidL said:

    Much more significant for voting intention that the Harman non story is the fact that yet another month of falling unemployment, falling inflation, rising real wages and increased growth forecasts to the best in Europe (by a distance) have made no difference at all.

    How do the tories change this? Clearly the budget next month is an opportunity but the number of opportunities left are diminishing. Osborne has done an excellent job (as has Alexander) but neither of them are ever going to be Mr popular. With Osborne still as Chancellor the tories need more prominent, ideally female, spokespeople out front repeating all the good news until it actually impinges on an electorate who clearly find politics boring.

    Yesterday's issues sample may have simply been a random selection of shiny, happy people but if the mood is lifting then the tories have got to capitalise. At the moment they are not.

    Interesting ONS stats this morning, David.

    We are getting the Second Estimate of 2013 Q4 GDP; the first estimate of Business Investment for the same quarter; and the Index of Services for December 2013.

    None of these qualify for headline news as they are all rehashing previous announcements but there has been some nervousness in the markets about the direction and velocity of the UK's economic revival. It is not that anyone thinks a crisis is lurking around the corner, just that the momentum of recovery is waning relative to our main trading partners. As an economist quoted by Bloomberg stated: "the UK is ceasing to surprise on the upside" (and, yes, there is an Citicorp sponsored index to measure the degree of surprise caused by economic announcements!).

    As an example, the pound has eased a couple of cents against the dollar in the last couple of weeks (though it is still up 11% on the year against Bloomberg's trade weighted currency basket).

    So a confirmation of the 0.7% GDP Q4 growth rate is important as too are the Business Investment Figures and Services Index.

    When the news has been universally good markets are reluctant to yield to the inevitable slowdown. The OBR has been clear that the (quarterly) growth rate will fall back in 2014 (their estimate is 4 quarters of 0.5% growth), but market expectations haven't yet followed.

    All eyes then on the 9:30 releases.

    Nervous Mr P ?
    I predict St. George will navigate any storm brewing, Mr. Brooke.

    He is not one to calm the waters with "money no object" promises.

  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,759

    SMukesh said:

    SMukesh said:

    SMukesh said:

    Looks like some in the media are calling it as it is.

    `The attacks on Harriet Harman are a load of bull`

    `
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4016234.ece

    SMukesh it's all moved on, why do you spend so much time muckraking in the past ?
    See thread header.
    The header's about the DM, you appear to be equating yourself with them.
    What a bizarre comment!
    Why ? Looking down thread the Daily Mukesh has a similar way of reporting.
    What way is that?
  • felix said:

    felix said:

    When even the Daily Mail itself now admits that Harman has not been colluding with paedophiles I think we can safely say that this is yet another nasty non-story, as many wiser Conservatives and right wingers on here said from the very beginning. All credit to Carlotta, Richard T, Richard N, David L, HYUFD and others like them for doing so. Nasty smears have no place in politics.

    In other news, today will be my final day of posting on PB, which is fantastic site with great brains of all political stripes spoiled by a very odd certain few who make sinister personal digs, coupled with others (many of them the same people) who very depressingly seemed to want the Harman story to be more than it was.

    As Richard T said yesterday: it is a shame some people cannot place common decency above partisan politics. Hear hear.

    I will post today but this will be my final day on here - too many loud, unpleasant voices drowning out the brighter, better ones.

    Too busy polishing your halo?
    Oh dear. QED
    Oh dear. We feel your pain. Of course Harriet would never snoop to nastiness - just ask "ginger rodent" Danny Alexander.
    Grow up. An unpleasant comment about someone's hair colour is not akin to connecting them with this. She shouldn't have done it - and made a personal apology to Danny, which he accepted.

  • When even the Daily Mail itself now admits that Harman has not been colluding with paedophiles I think we can safely say that this is yet another nasty non-story, as many wiser Conservatives and right wingers on here said from the very beginning. All credit to Carlotta, Richard T, Richard N, David L, HYUFD and others like them for doing so. Nasty smears have no place in politics.

    In other news, today will be my final day of posting on PB, which is fantastic site with great brains of all political stripes spoiled by a very odd certain few who make sinister personal digs, coupled with others (many of them the same people) who very depressingly seemed to want the Harman story to be more than it was.

    As Richard T said yesterday: it is a shame some people cannot place common decency above partisan politics. Hear hear.

    I will post today but this will be my final day on here - too many loud, unpleasant voices drowning out the brighter, better ones.

    I presume you include me and I implore you not to leave on my account.

    If you look through my posts you will see that I too hate tribal politics, which I have often described as both childish and depressing. You will also find that even though I am a Kipper I have praised Osborne for the fantastic way he has handled the economy, the LD's for raising the personal tax allowance, I even praised Brown for keeping us out of the Euro.

    My opinion on this Harman business is that she was incredibly naive, and desperate to boost her right on credentials so did nothing to boot PIE out of the NCCL. If the NF had applied to be affiliated, or where affiliated when she joined, do you think they would have been allowed to be affiliates?

    Her arrogance is breathtaking as witnessed by her Newsnight car crash, but I do not think she in any way, shape or form supported PIE or their disgusting beliefs. She is though a seasoned politician who can look after herself, not so long ago she described Danny Alexander as a ginger rodent.

    My interest is in the work of Operation Fernbridge and Fairbanks, which already seems to have the whiff of a cover up attached to it. Harry Kasir has already been released without charge, which the detectives working on the case are allegedly very unhappy about.

    Someone mentioned earlier the continuous stories of a high powered establishment paedephilia ring, with ex-politicians from all parties allegedly involved. Tom Watson did brilliantly to raise this in the HOC, he seems to have gone quiet but he is a good man and I am hoping he will continue to raise the issue.

    Did the establishment paedephilia ring exist? We will never know unless Operations Fernbridge and Fairbanks are allowed to investigate thoroughly.

    Anyway, sorry if I have offended you in any way, as I said please do not leave because of me.
  • The 1979 referendum had a 63.8% turnout in the days when turnouts were generally better.

    Bookies do not often go too far off the mark. Quite apart from the apathetic and not bothered the franchise includes a number of demographics with low turnouts.

    What are people's thoughts on turnout for the IndyRef? Obviously if it looks like No is running away with it it might be depressed, but generally you'd have thought an existential question such as this ought to be able to command the interest of 75%+ of a populace, no?

    That's 3/1 with betfair, but my nap would be over 66% @ 4/6 with William Hill.

    That is money for old rope. 67% return on investment in less than 7 months. But I'd be very surprised if they'll let you get much on.
    The Swedish resident demographic has 0% turnout in Scottish votes.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,046

    When even the Daily Mail itself now admits that Harman has not been colluding with paedophiles I think we can safely say that this is yet another nasty non-story, as many wiser Conservatives and right wingers on here said from the very beginning. All credit to Carlotta, Richard T, Richard N, David L, HYUFD and others like them for doing so. Nasty smears have no place in politics.

    will be my final day of posting on PB, which is fantastic site with great brains of all political stripes spoiled by a very odd certain few who make sinister personal digs, coupled with others (many of them the same people) who very depressingly seemed to want the Harman story to be more than it was.

    As Richard T said yesterday: it is a shame some people cannot place common decency above partisan politics. Hear hear.

    I will post today but this will be my final day on here - too many loud, unpleasant voices drowning out the brighter, better ones.

    I presume you include me and I implore you not to leave on my account.

    If you look through my posts you will see that I too hate tribal politics, which I have often described as both childish and depressing. You will also find that even though I am a Kipper I have praised Osborne for the fantastic way he has handled the economy, the LD's for raising the personal tax allowance, I even praised Brown for keeping us out of the Euro.

    My opinion on this Harman business is that she was incredibly naive, and desperate to boost her right on credentials so did nothing to boot PIE out of the NCCL. If the NF had applied to be affiliated, or where affiliated when she joined, do you think they would have been allowed to be affiliates?

    Her arrogance is breathtaking as witnessed by her Newsnight car crash, but I do not think she in any way, shape or form supported PIE or their disgusting beliefs. She is though a seasoned politician who can look after herself, not so long ago she described Danny Alexander as a ginger rodent.

    My interest is in the work of Operation Fernbridge and Fairbanks, which already seems to have the whiff of a cover up attached to it. Harry Kasir has already been released without charge, which the detectives working on the case are allegedly very unhappy about.

    Someone mentioned earlier the continuous stories of a high powered establishment paedephilia ring, with ex-politicians from all parties allegedly involved. Tom Watson did brilliantly to raise this in the HOC, he seems to have gone quiet but he is a good man and I am hoping he will continue to raise the issue.

    Did the establishment paedephilia ring exist? We will never know unless Operations Fernbridge and Fairbanks are allowed to investigate thoroughly.

    Anyway, sorry if I have offended you in any way, as I said please do not leave because of me.
    Kipper in all round decent bloke shocker.

    :)

  • Clearly some folk on here and elsewhere would love to believe Harman colluded with paedophiles. Sadly for them it is totally clear that she did not. Obviously, the same folk will also use this story to make broad statements about how dreadful lefties and the left are. That's what they do. So, why don't we all just agree that there are certain posters on here that are just *better* than others; that anyone with left of centre views is per se an evil, unpatriotic hypocrite who just *doesn't get it*; and then move on?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    We are into more prudish times, I remember a number of similarly themed parties. Even one nymphs and shepherds party with a live sheep for entertainment! Medical students were noted for transgressing boundaries, with plenty of Rugby players dressed as nymphs. Those halcyon days pre AIDs!

    AveryLP said:

    Dr. Sox

    It was the gharish invitations to "Tarts and Vicars" parties which so livened up the decade.

    A dog collar and subfusc suit jacket worn over two tone lamé loons was enough to pass muster.

    How it would have confused the delicate souls of SMukesh and Lost Boy Scout to see their fellow undergraduettes dressed in low cut Brownie uniforms!

    All internet sites have a few oddballs. PB has some of the best political conversation despite, and perhaps at times because of a few, and generally good tempered.

    Why the Harman PIE affair is in the news now, having been in the news a number of times over the decades is unclear. Perhaps it has arisen out of some courtcase?.

    I do wonder if there has been a bit of dark arts, to put Harman and Dromey on the back foot, for reasons quite unrelated to pieces of PIE.

    The seventies and eighties were very different times, a curious mix of more innocent and less innocent times. We all knew what jokes about scoutmasters, vicars and choirboys were really about. This was considered suitable early evening entertainment on the achingly PC 80's Channel 4:

    http://www.80sactual.com/2009/10/1983-mini-pops-controversy-on-channel-4.html?m=1

    LBS, come back under another name, there is precedent.


    When even the Daily Mail itself now admits that Harman has not been colluding with paedophiles I think we can safely say that this is yet another nasty non-story, as many wiser Conservatives and right wingers on here said from the very beginning. All credit to Carlotta, Richard T, Richard N, David L, HYUFD and others like them for doing so. Nasty smears have no place in politics.

    In other news, today will be my final day of posting on PB, which is fantastic site with great brains of all political stripes spoiled by a very odd certain few who make sinister personal digs, coupled with others (many of them the same people) who very depressingly seemed to want the Harman story to be more than it was.

    As Richard T said yesterday: it is a shame some people cannot place common decency above partisan politics. Hear hear.

    I will post today but this will be my final day on here - too many loud, unpleasant voices drowning out the brighter, better ones.

  • isam said:

    isam said:

    IndyRef betting.

    William Hill have just lengthened their No price to 2/7 (from 1/4). That is the best No price currently available. In fact, it may be the best No price since May 2013 (I would have to dig through the numbers to be certain).

    Looks like it..

    http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/scottish-independence/referendum-outcome/bet-history/no-to-independence/today

    Bit of indecision from Hillbillys on April 12th 2013... or a lot of two way business!!

    I don't think you can read too much into the betting here.. such low liquidity on Betfair at the moment, and the people who price it up for the bookies are usually traders of other sports or risk managers who just move illiquid markets on a tenner
    A bit more than a tenner. I have put on much larger stakes than that (on the Yes side) without any effect on prices. So, the market seems to be a bit more sturdy than you depict it.
    Actually Betfair is a little more liquid now.. 166k matched (which of course means 83k has been bet).. still not much on a market that has been up 3 years

    2/9 No
    9/2 Yes

    All I can say is, having worked in the industry 20 years, odds compilers don't really know anything about political betting, and when there is a bet on markets like this they tend to move it sharpish, on any money really

    You say you haven't moved the odds, but the odds have moved your way as Malcomg says.. all Im saying is it wont be because shrewd odds compilers are sitting there thinking "hmm Im not impressed with Osborne", or "I am really impressed with Salmond, I better Cut Yes, and push No out.." it will be someone having a smallish bet on Yes

    - "... still not much on a market that has been up 3 years"

    That cant' be right. The last Scottish general election, when the SNP won the overall majority, was only 2 years and 9 months ago, and IIRC it was a long time after that that Betfair opened their IndyRef market. So, I would guess that the market is about 2 years old. Unless there is a way of actually seeing the start date?
  • felix said:

    felix said:

    When even the Daily Mail itself now admits that Harman has not been colluding with paedophiles I think we can safely say that this is yet another nasty non-story, as many wiser Conservatives and right wingers on here said from the very beginning. All credit to Carlotta, Richard T, Richard N, David L, HYUFD and others like them for doing so. Nasty smears have no place in politics.

    In other news, today will be my final day of posting on PB, which is fantastic site with great brains of all political stripes spoiled by a very odd certain few who make sinister personal digs, coupled with others (many of them the same people) who very depressingly seemed to want the Harman story to be more than it was.

    As Richard T said yesterday: it is a shame some people cannot place common decency above partisan politics. Hear hear.

    I will post today but this will be my final day on here - too many loud, unpleasant voices drowning out the brighter, better ones.

    Too busy polishing your halo?
    Oh dear. QED
    Oh dear. We feel your pain. Of course Harriet would never snoop to nastiness - just ask "ginger rodent" Danny Alexander.
    Grow up. An unpleasant comment about someone's hair colour is not akin to connecting them with this. She shouldn't have done it - and made a personal apology to Danny, which he accepted.

    You are better off not engaging with those whose visceral hatred of anyone or anything they deem left-wing leaves them incapable of seeing the difference.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    AveryLP said:

    AveryLP said:

    DavidL said:

    Much more significant for voting intention that the Harman non story is the fact that yet another month of falling unemployment, falling inflation, rising real wages and increased growth forecasts to the best in Europe (by a distance) have made no difference at all.

    How do the tories change this? Clearly the budget next month is an opportunity but the number of opportunities left are diminishing. Osborne has done an excellent job (as has Alexander) but neither of them are ever going to be Mr popular. With Osborne still as Chancellor the tories need more prominent, ideally female, spokespeople out front repeating all the good news until it actually impinges on an electorate who clearly find politics boring.

    Yesterday's issues sample may have simply been a random selection of shiny, happy people but if the mood is lifting then the tories have got to capitalise. At the moment they are not.

    Interesting ONS stats this morning, David.

    We are getting the Second Estimate of 2013 Q4 GDP; the first estimate of Business Investment for the same quarter; and the Index of Services for December 2013.

    None of these qualify for headline news as they are all rehashing previous announcements but there has been some nervousness in the markets about the direction and velocity of the UK's economic revival. It is not that anyone thinks a crisis is lurking around the corner, just that the momentum of recovery is waning relative to our main trading partners. As an economist quoted by Bloomberg stated: "the UK is ceasing to surprise on the upside" (and, yes, there is an Citicorp sponsored index to measure the degree of surprise caused by economic announcements!).

    As an example, the pound has eased a couple of cents against the dollar in the last couple of weeks (though it is still up 11% on the year against Bloomberg's trade weighted currency basket).

    So a confirmation of the 0.7% GDP Q4 growth rate is important as too are the Business Investment Figures and Services Index.

    When the news has been universally good markets are reluctant to yield to the inevitable slowdown. The OBR has been clear that the (quarterly) growth rate will fall back in 2014 (their estimate is 4 quarters of 0.5% growth), but market expectations haven't yet followed.

    All eyes then on the 9:30 releases.

    Nervous Mr P ?
    I predict St. George will navigate any storm brewing, Mr. Brooke.

    He is not one to calm the waters with "money no object" promises.

    Why on earth not ? He's borrowing enough of it.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    AveryLP said:

    Wouldn't Labour's falling vote share be better shown in a PIE chart?

    The comment of the day so far

    Excuse me .... I have copyright on pie jokes on PB !!

  • @Isam

    Are you sure it wasn't you who was laughing? After all, you have a low opinion of me as you said yourself yesterday for reasons which completely baffled me.
  • Charles said:

    JohnLoony said:

    Why would it make the slightest bit of difference either way? Everybody knows that the Daily Mail is institutionally mega-booliakterous, and anybody with more than two braincells will be wondering why it's all being dredged up decades after the events concerned were already public knowledge.

    Any body with one brain cell, and who actually bothered to read the whole story, would know that it has been dredged up because PIE are currently being investigated under Operation Fernbridge, instigated by Tom Watson.
    Come on nigel.

    I read the first article (on my second time of reading the Mail as I skipped over it the first time). My immediate reaction was that it is a complete smear.

    It's clear that Harmon was not a supporter of PIE. At the most she may not have fought against it hard enough. Additionally she probably believed some odd things in the 1970s which would be complete outside of the pale these days (although am sure that some of here written arguments were negotiating positions rather than a true statement of belief). But that was nearly 40 years ago!

    This is unlikely to move anything from a VI perspective. I avidly dislike Harman - something about her just grates - but the Mail is being truly nasty at the moment to try and associate her with paedophillia
    To me the bigger question is 'why now'? This story could have been dug up any time over the past 4 decades - though with the revelations of a well known deceased TV personality, a couple of years ago might have been more newsworthy - I wonder if the Mail has got wind of a forthcoming arrest of either a government ('they're all as bad as each other') or Labour ("further pressure on Miliband') supporter? Or perhaps its just random nastiness.

    In any case, while it might damage Harman (poorly handled response, not the story itself) I have not seen anything which suggests it should damage Labour.
    How many more times do I have to post the reason as to why now?
  • felix said:

    felix said:

    When even the Daily Mail itself now admits that Harman has not been colluding with paedophiles I think we can safely say that this is yet another nasty non-story, as many wiser Conservatives and right wingers on here said from the very beginning. All credit to Carlotta, Richard T, Richard N, David L, HYUFD and others like them for doing so. Nasty smears have no place in politics.

    In other news, today will be my final day of posting on PB, which is fantastic site with great brains of all political stripes spoiled by a very odd certain few who make sinister personal digs, coupled with others (many of them the same people) who very depressingly seemed to want the Harman story to be more than it was.

    As Richard T said yesterday: it is a shame some people cannot place common decency above partisan politics. Hear hear.

    I will post today but this will be my final day on here - too many loud, unpleasant voices drowning out the brighter, better ones.

    Too busy polishing your halo?
    Oh dear. QED
    Oh dear. We feel your pain. Of course Harriet would never snoop to nastiness - just ask "ginger rodent" Danny Alexander.
    Grow up. An unpleasant comment about someone's hair colour is not akin to connecting them with this. She shouldn't have done it - and made a personal apology to Danny, which he accepted.

    You are better off not engaging with those whose visceral hatred of anyone or anything they deem left-wing leaves them incapable of seeing the difference.

    That's a fair point, SO.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    felix said:

    felix said:

    When even the Daily Mail itself now admits that Harman has not been colluding with paedophiles I think we can safely say that this is yet another nasty non-story, as many wiser Conservatives and right wingers on here said from the very beginning. All credit to Carlotta, Richard T, Richard N, David L, HYUFD and others like them for doing so. Nasty smears have no place in politics.

    In other news, today will be my final day of posting on PB, which is fantastic site with great brains of all political stripes spoiled by a very odd certain few who make sinister personal digs, coupled with others (many of them the same people) who very depressingly seemed to want the Harman story to be more than it was.

    As Richard T said yesterday: it is a shame some people cannot place common decency above partisan politics. Hear hear.

    I will post today but this will be my final day on here - too many loud, unpleasant voices drowning out the brighter, better ones.

    Too busy polishing your halo?
    Oh dear. QED
    Oh dear. We feel your pain. Of course Harriet would never snoop to nastiness - just ask "ginger rodent" Danny Alexander.
    Grow up. An unpleasant comment about someone's hair colour is not akin to connecting them with this. She shouldn't have done it - and made a personal apology to Danny, which he accepted.

    You are better off not engaging with those whose visceral hatred of anyone or anything they deem left-wing leaves them incapable of seeing the difference.

    That's a fair point, SO.
    Just a I urge Scottish voters, I say to you :

    "Stay"

  • DavidL said:

    What Osborne is seeking to do, and we will no doubt hear a lot more about this next month, is emphasise that the job is only half done at best and that it needs a grown up to do it.

    So we have seen lots of comments from him about the recovery being too much based on consumer spending, the need to increase exports and investment, the fact that we still have the largest deficit of any large country in Europe, the fact that a lot of this is structural and we need to cut public spending more etc etc.

    The risk, as @TOPPING points out, is that he just might be a victim of his own success with people believing the problem is "fixed". How anyone can think it is fixed to the extent it would be safe to let Balls and Miliband anywhere near it is beyond me but presumably people do.

    We are used to having election budgets designed to make the government in power more popular in the short term. I just wonder if we will see an austerity budget focussed on the deficit above all else (whilst acknowledging all the good news on unemployment, growth etc). I do think Osborne needs to get the focus of the discussion back to our horrendous and dangerous borrowing. It is the area that Labour is weakest.

    If Osborne doesn't put some gimmes in the budget then he's an idiot.
    Some gimmes, yes, but what he can't afford to do is a wholesale giveaway, both literally and politically.

    Literally, there isn't the money for it and it'd just be increasing the structural deficit, but politically the costs would be even worse, as it'd both imply that the deficit problem was sorted and that it must have been made out as worse than it was if there's now scope for significant goodies / tax cuts - which itself implies that the cuts were either ideological or cynical (so as to provide a pre-election slush fund).

    The political strategy for the Conservatives has to be that they - and only they - can be trusted to run the economy. That means ensuring the public believe that there's still a job to be done there, which has the advantage of being true. Some dividend from the work already done might be justified, but not at the cost of undermining the whole.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,461
    SMukesh said:

    SMukesh said:

    felix said:

    felix said:

    When even the Daily Mail itself now admits that Harman has not been colluding with paedophiles I think we can safely say that this is yet another nasty non-story, as many wiser Conservatives and right wingers on here said from the very beginning. All credit to Carlotta, Richard T, Richard N, David L, HYUFD and others like them for doing so. Nasty smears have no place in politics.

    In other news, today will be my final day of posting on PB, which is fantastic site with great brains of all political stripes spoiled by a very odd certain few who make sinister personal digs, coupled with others (many of them the same people) who very depressingly seemed to want the Harman story to be more than it was.

    As Richard T said yesterday: it is a shame some people cannot place common decency above partisan politics. Hear hear.

    I will post today but this will be my final day on here - too many loud, unpleasant voices drowning out the brighter, better ones.

    Too busy polishing your halo?
    Oh dear. QED
    Oh dear. We feel your pain. Of course Harriet would never snoop to nastiness - just ask "ginger rodent" Danny Alexander.
    So an amusing comment about Danny Alexander`s hair is being equated to colluding with Paedophilia.

    Get a sense of proportion mate.
    "Amusing comment"?

    It was a scripted piece of nastiness that was roundly condemned, and she apologised for., Made worse that at least one of her children is red-haired.

    Nice to know you are one of the nasty left.

    You are just in time to remind us that the right can insist on political correctness when it suits them while railing all the time against the same.
    So you and your ilk get to define what can and cannot be said?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,564



    In other news, today will be my final day of posting on PB, which is fantastic site with great brains of all political stripes spoiled by a very odd certain few who make sinister personal digs, coupled with others (many of them the same people) who very depressingly seemed to want the Harman story to be more than it was.

    I will post today but this will be my final day on here - too many loud, unpleasant voices drowning out the brighter, better ones.

    Sorry to hear that - you'll note that the nastiest posters are delighted, the civlised ones are disappointed. I believe that Edmund in Tokyo has a small browser mod that enables you to screen out people - perhaps something to check out? In general if agreeble posters from left and right leave the forum, it increases the proportion of disagreeable ones and gives them a small win.

    Personally I just skim the threads, reading anything from the pleasanter posters and skipping comments stuffed with silly nicknames, abuse etc. In the last resort, if some anonymous person is nasty, who cares really? Do reconsider.

  • JackW said:

    felix said:

    felix said:

    When even the Daily Mail itself now admits that Harman has not been colluding with paedophiles I think we can safely say that this is yet another nasty non-story, as many wiser Conservatives and right wingers on here said from the very beginning. All credit to Carlotta, Richard T, Richard N, David L, HYUFD and others like them for doing so. Nasty smears have no place in politics.

    In other news, today will be my final day of posting on PB, which is fantastic site with great brains of all political stripes spoiled by a very odd certain few who make sinister personal digs, coupled with others (many of them the same people) who very depressingly seemed to want the Harman story to be more than it was.

    As Richard T said yesterday: it is a shame some people cannot place common decency above partisan politics. Hear hear.

    I will post today but this will be my final day on here - too many loud, unpleasant voices drowning out the brighter, better ones.

    Too busy polishing your halo?
    Oh dear. QED
    Oh dear. We feel your pain. Of course Harriet would never snoop to nastiness - just ask "ginger rodent" Danny Alexander.
    Grow up. An unpleasant comment about someone's hair colour is not akin to connecting them with this. She shouldn't have done it - and made a personal apology to Danny, which he accepted.

    You are better off not engaging with those whose visceral hatred of anyone or anything they deem left-wing leaves them incapable of seeing the difference.

    That's a fair point, SO.
    Just a I urge Scottish voters, I say to you :

    "Stay"

    Your "stay" plea might carry more weight if Scottish voters understood what they were staying in. A post-No Scotland is not going to be a very attractive proposition for you lot to sell. Not unless you are going to actually spell out what a No vote will lead to. Are BT going to do that?
  • Interesting figures from the Co-Op, where the restructures required to sort out the consequences of a £2bn loss puts further pressure on its relationship with Labour:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26350008
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,461



    In other news, today will be my final day of posting on PB, which is fantastic site with great brains of all political stripes spoiled by a very odd certain few who make sinister personal digs, coupled with others (many of them the same people) who very depressingly seemed to want the Harman story to be more than it was.

    I will post today but this will be my final day on here - too many loud, unpleasant voices drowning out the brighter, better ones.

    Sorry to hear that - you'll note that the nastiest posters are delighted, the civlised ones are disappointed. I believe that Edmund in Tokyo has a small browser mod that enables you to screen out people - perhaps something to check out? In general if agreeble posters from left and right leave the forum, it increases the proportion of disagreeable ones and gives them a small win.

    Personally I just skim the threads, reading anything from the pleasanter posters and skipping comments stuffed with silly nicknames, abuse etc. In the last resort, if some anonymous person is nasty, who cares really? Do reconsider.

    Nick, who do you define as the 'nastiest' posters, and who are the civilised ones?
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited February 2014
    @DavidL

    I thought that on the back of the revised construction figures we were closer to 0.8 than 0.6.

    Did you ever do chapter 2 of what are George and Danny up to? I was really busy over the weekend. I was having trouble reconciling your figure of £40bn "hidden" expenditure with the OBR's 2.4% growth of central government spending.



    I am still working on Chapter 2 of the George and Danny story, probably getting so involved with the detail that wood and trees are merging.

    The way in which financial figures are presented to Parliament is archaic and simply obfuscatory.

    My two big bugbears are the practice of netting income off expenses (i.e. treating departmental income as negative spending and, even worse, treating sales of assets as negative capital investment) and the exclusion of costs and revenues associated with the financial interventions into the banking sector.

    The two practices above allow massive distortions to the headline figures which can only be understood with painstaking research and reconstruction.

    At the weekend I will be posting Chapter 2 which will focus on Treasury spending as this is where most of the massive revised transactions are 'hidden'.

    As an interim taster, the headline 'cut' in capital spending is not a cut at all. What it represents is a massive inflow of capital from liquidated assets. We all know about the sale of Lloyds shares but a far bigger impact has been made by RBoS, Northern Rock, B&B etc. repaying loans earlier than scheduled (some £7 billion of cash as 'negative capital spending').

    On the spending side the single biggest change is a "mend the roof while the sun shines" provision taken by 'marking to market' the value of the APF assets held by the BoE as part of the QE programme. A single write down of just under £14 billion is being taken this year as a provision against future losses (i.e. non-cash). Even the OBR doesn't think these losses will start crystallising until 2017 and then will be incurred over a long taper.

    What all this shows is the flexibility George and Danny have as a result of inbound cash flows as the financial interventions unwind. It is clear that the Treasury are managing the public finances to fit within a falling Net Cash Requirement measure.

    As the NCR is massively below the PSNBex figures used as headlines by the media and even the ONS, this gives George and Danny enormous space for electoral manoeuvre. And the public "deficit" figures are there to hide what is going on.

    Anyway more to come on this as George and Danny story gets developed into Yellow Boxes.
This discussion has been closed.