Mr. Financier, I suspect Blair will be the most reviled PM of modern times (Brown will have leftwing supporters). Having his son as an MP or high profile candidate would give the press an excuse to rehash all Blair's many failures and cast an eye over how well he's doing.
Gordon Brown was firmly on the right, not the left, of the Labour Party, but was at least seen as being a party man, whereas even at his height, Blair was always regarded, rightly or wrongly, as being detached from (and even contemptuous of) the rest of the party. Even many Tories wondered if Blair was not in the wrong party.
But the most reviled PM is surely Mrs Thatcher, although some might demand a recount once Scotland is independent.
Try to find anyone with a good word to say about Heath.
Heath was a great man.
Howls of derisive laughter. What on earth did Heath do that marks him out as a great man?
I absolutely agree that Brown is more popular than Blair among the Labour grassroots. Partly because of as has been said Brown didn't go out of his way to antagonise the party, and partly because he's been a lot more dignified in retirement.
Frankly, even among the public I think Brown will be better regarded than Blair. Despite what the tory media thinks, people never really bought into the spin of him being some evil dictator who spent everyone's money and left us on the brink of bankruptcy. Don't get me wrong, most people do think he was a boring, dishonest, weak idiot, and people wouldn't want him back in frontline politics, but I really don't sense there's any visceral loathing for him; in the long run, I don't think people will have any strong opinions on him at all. Whereas Blair will always be remembered for lying to us and taking us into an illegal war.
Mr. Financier, I suspect Blair will be the most reviled PM of modern times (Brown will have leftwing supporters). Having his son as an MP or high profile candidate would give the press an excuse to rehash all Blair's many failures and cast an eye over how well he's doing.
Gordon Brown was firmly on the right, not the left, of the Labour Party, but was at least seen as being a party man, whereas even at his height, Blair was always regarded, rightly or wrongly, as being detached from (and even contemptuous of) the rest of the party. Even many Tories wondered if Blair was not in the wrong party.
But the most reviled PM is surely Mrs Thatcher, although some might demand a recount once Scotland is independent.
Try to find anyone with a good word to say about Heath.
Heath was a great man.
Howls of derisive laughter. What on earth did Heath do that marks him out as a great man?
He had the vision and tenacity to take us into the EU. A great Tory achievement - something over which the party should feel very proud.
@voteYES 54m "It's time for independence! We have an opportunity to re-energise these islands! - Brian Cox pic.twitter.com/BXCbTjxoG3
... who is clearly standing in Regent's Park Road, Primrose Hill, 3 minutes from my flat
He's just the same as those leftist frauds like old Ralph Miliband who praised the Soviet Union but preferred to live the bourgeois life in England and the US. Nauseating.
I 'd suggest that you have perhaps misunderstood what he is about. He is actually saying "those islands" and strongly suggests that he is actually of the view that an indy yes vote would be a big boot up the backside for the rest of the UK in a way which would lead to a shakeup of the political system. [Edit:] In other words, he is talking about exactly where he is standing. Now I won't comment on that for obvious reasons, but it is not an uncommon view.
Cabinet Members suffering Electoral Defeat while holding Office Parliament Date Minister Notes --------------------------------------------------------------- 1906-1910 Apr-08 Winston Churchill (1);(2) 1910-1918 Feb-14 Charles Masterman (2) 1910-1918 May-14 Charles Masterman (3) 1918-1922 Mar-21 Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen (2) 1918-1922 Nov-22 Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen 1922-1923 Mar-23 Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen (4); (3) 1922-1923 Dec-23 Sir Anderson Montague-Barlow 1922-1923 Dec-23 Sir Robert Sanders 1923-1924 Oct-24 Frederick Jowett 1924-1929 May-29 Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland 1931-1935 Nov-35 Ramsay MacDonald (2) 1931-1935 Nov-35 Malcolm MacDonald (2) 1935-1945 Jul-45 Leo Amery 1935-1945 Jul-45 Brendan Bracken 1935-1945 Jul-45 Sir Percy James Grigg 1935-1945 Jul-45 Harold Macmillan 1935-1945 Jul-45 Sir Donald Somervell 1945-1950 Feb-50 Arthur Creech Jones 1959-1965 Oct-64 Anthony Barber 1959-1964 Oct-64 Geoffrey Rippon 1964-1966 Jan-65 Patrick Gordon-Walker (3) 1966-1970 Jun-70 John Diamond 1970-1974 Feb-74 Gordon Campbell 1974-1979 May-79 Shirley Williams 1987-1992 Apr-92 Chris Patten 1992-1997 May-97 Michael Forsyth 1992-1997 May-97 Roger Freeman 1992-1997 May-97 Ian Lang 1992-1997 May-97 Tony Newton 1992-1997 May-97 Michael Portillo 1992-1997 May-97 Malcolm Rifkind 1992-1997 May-97 William Waldegrave
(1) Entered cabinet and lost by-election (2) Sought another seat and continued in office (3) By-election defeat followed by resignation (4) Retained ministerial post following defeat
Until the passage of the Re-election of Ministers Act 1926, any Member admitted into the Cabinet other than at a general election was obliged to resign his or her seat and contest a by-election.
Mr. Financier, I suspect Blair will be the most reviled PM of modern times (Brown will have leftwing supporters). Having his son as an MP or high profile candidate would give the press an excuse to rehash all Blair's many failures and cast an eye over how well he's doing.
Gordon Brown was firmly on the right, not the left, of the Labour Party, but was at least seen as being a party man, whereas even at his height, Blair was always regarded, rightly or wrongly, as being detached from (and even contemptuous of) the rest of the party. Even many Tories wondered if Blair was not in the wrong party.
But the most reviled PM is surely Mrs Thatcher, although some might demand a recount once Scotland is independent.
Try to find anyone with a good word to say about Heath.
Heath was a great man.
Howls of derisive laughter. What on earth did Heath do that marks him out as a great man?
Heath had a blinkered view on Europe and could not stand any criticism on that subject which was his life's work.
Even though he had many prominent lady friends, he was at misogynist at times and believed that women should know their place.
Mr. Financier, I suspect Blair will be the most reviled PM of modern times (Brown will have leftwing supporters). Having his son as an MP or high profile candidate would give the press an excuse to rehash all Blair's many failures and cast an eye over how well he's doing.
Gordon Brown was firmly on the right, not the left, of the Labour Party, but was at least seen as being a party man, whereas even at his height, Blair was always regarded, rightly or wrongly, as being detached from (and even contemptuous of) the rest of the party. Even many Tories wondered if Blair was not in the wrong party.
But the most reviled PM is surely Mrs Thatcher, although some might demand a recount once Scotland is independent.
Try to find anyone with a good word to say about Heath.
Heath was a great man.
Howls of derisive laughter. What on earth did Heath do that marks him out as a great man?
He had the vision and tenacity to take us into the EU. A great Tory achievement - something over which the party should feel very proud.
He took you into the EEC. The EU was yet to be hatched.
Mr. Financier, I suspect Blair will be the most reviled PM of modern times (Brown will have leftwing supporters). Having his son as an MP or high profile candidate would give the press an excuse to rehash all Blair's many failures and cast an eye over how well he's doing.
Gordon Brown was firmly on the right, not the left, of the Labour Party, but was at least seen as being a party man, whereas even at his height, Blair was always regarded, rightly or wrongly, as being detached from (and even contemptuous of) the rest of the party. Even many Tories wondered if Blair was not in the wrong party.
But the most reviled PM is surely Mrs Thatcher, although some might demand a recount once Scotland is independent.
Try to find anyone with a good word to say about Heath.
Heath was a great man.
Howls of derisive laughter. What on earth did Heath do that marks him out as a great man?
He had the vision and tenacity to take us into the EU. A great Tory achievement - something over which the party should feel very proud.
He also had the vision and tenacity to vandalise almost a millenium of proud English and Scottish civic institutions with his smashing of the shires, burghs and counties.
Wasn't Shirley Williams in the Cabinet when she lost her seat?
Several Labour former ministers lost their seats in the 2011 landslide:
Sarah Boyack (Edinburgh Central) Andy Kerr (East Kilbride) Frank McAveety (Glasgow Shettleston) Tom McCabe (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) Lewis Macdonald (Aberdeen Central) Des McNulty (Clydebank and Milngavie) Mary Mulligan (Linlithgow)
I don't think the original question was about council elections, Stuart.
@voteYES 54m "It's time for independence! We have an opportunity to re-energise these islands! - Brian Cox pic.twitter.com/BXCbTjxoG3
... who is clearly standing in Regent's Park Road, Primrose Hill, 3 minutes from my flat
He's just the same as those leftist frauds like old Ralph Miliband who praised the Soviet Union but preferred to live the bourgeois life in England and the US. Nauseating.
I 'd suggest that you have perhaps misunderstood what he is about. He is actually saying "those islands" and strongly suggests that he is actually of the view that an indy yes vote would be a big boot up the backside for the rest of the UK in a way which would lead to a shakeup of the political system. [Edit:] In other words, he is talking about exactly where he is standing. Now I won't comment on that for obvious reasons, but it is not an uncommon view.
I never disliked him, and I certainly didn't have deep seated hatred for him. Unlike many other Tories that followed.
Mr. Smarmeron, I don't think you not hating a chap counts as him being a "great man". I don't hate the fellow at the end of my road but I am not sure that qualifies him for the 21st century pantheon of great people.
Mr. Smithson on the other hand thinks Heath was a great man because he lied and deceived and sold the economic well being of a lot of people down the river in order to achieve an outcome that Mr. Smithson agreed with.
On topic. Its about momentum. The Tories need to get that parity first just to boost their own morale and stir confusion amongst their opponents.
Off Topic:
Syria. No doubt its been missed but there is strong evidence of at least two chemical weapons attacks in Syria in recent days and weeks. Certainly very credible intelligence has been passed on by 3rd parties to the US, who haven't said a thing.
Ukraine: Russia has effectively been running military operations in Eastern Ukraine for two weeks but particularly within the last 7 days. In particular some of the GRU teams that kicked things off in Crimea are now in Eastern Ukraine. The Ukrainian government however seems to loathe to be outright decisive whilst actions are essentially a series of local events and therefore manageable. They know that if move firmly to seize back Ukrainian govt facilities they'll end up shooting Russian troops. Who is advising the Ukrainian government? Whoever it is seems to be preaching a passive approach a guaranteed fail against someone like Putin.
Mr. Financier, I suspect Blair will be the most reviled PM of modern times (Brown will have leftwing supporters). Having his son as an MP or high profile candidate would give the press an excuse to rehash all Blair's many failures and cast an eye over how well he's doing.
Gordon Brown was firmly on the right, not the left, of the Labour Party, but was at least seen as being a party man, whereas even at his height, Blair was always regarded, rightly or wrongly, as being detached from (and even contemptuous of) the rest of the party. Even many Tories wondered if Blair was not in the wrong party.
But the most reviled PM is surely Mrs Thatcher, although some might demand a recount once Scotland is independent.
Try to find anyone with a good word to say about Heath.
Heath was a great man.
Howls of derisive laughter. What on earth did Heath do that marks him out as a great man?
The original out of touch luvvie wasn't he? Sacked the man who accurately predicted what mass immigration would do to England and took us into a project that made it much much much worse
Mr. Financier, I suspect Blair will be the most reviled PM of modern times (Brown will have leftwing supporters). Having his son as an MP or high profile candidate would give the press an excuse to rehash all Blair's many failures and cast an eye over how well he's doing.
Gordon Brown was firmly on the right, not the left, of the Labour Party, but was at least seen as being a party man, whereas even at his height, Blair was always regarded, rightly or wrongly, as being detached from (and even contemptuous of) the rest of the party. Even many Tories wondered if Blair was not in the wrong party.
But the most reviled PM is surely Mrs Thatcher, although some might demand a recount once Scotland is independent.
Try to find anyone with a good word to say about Heath.
But the most reviled PM is surely Mrs Thatcher, although some might demand a recount once Scotland is independent.
Don't agree with that. You can find people who loathe or love Thatcher in equal measure. With the exception of John Rentoul, is Blair not now hated by anyone?
Remember David Cameron's detoxification strategy? Now remember which Prime Minister "toxified" the party. There are vast numbers of voters, now middle-aged, who on demographic grounds "ought" to support the Conservatives but who cannot bring themselves to do so. Look at Scotland where Conservatives could count on two dozen MPs before Mrs Thatcher set to work.
The Tories in Scotland under John Major in 1992 scored 0.9% higher than Ted Heath had in October 1974. So how did Thatcher "toxify" the Tory vote in Scotland? I'll grant you that she polarised the already anti-Tory vote, leading to much tactical voting.
Mr. Financier, I suspect Blair will be the most reviled PM of modern times (Brown will have leftwing supporters). Having his son as an MP or high profile candidate would give the press an excuse to rehash all Blair's many failures and cast an eye over how well he's doing.
Gordon Brown was firmly on the right, not the left, of the Labour Party, but was at least seen as being a party man, whereas even at his height, Blair was always regarded, rightly or wrongly, as being detached from (and even contemptuous of) the rest of the party. Even many Tories wondered if Blair was not in the wrong party.
But the most reviled PM is surely Mrs Thatcher, although some might demand a recount once Scotland is independent.
Try to find anyone with a good word to say about Heath.
Heath was a great man.
Howls of derisive laughter. What on earth did Heath do that marks him out as a great man?
The original out of touch luvvie wasn't he? Sacked the man who accurately predicted what mass immigration would do to England and took us into a project that made it much much much worse
Immigration makes us all richer and underpins our standard of living.
"Whoever it is seems to be preaching a passive approach a guaranteed fail against someone like Putin. "
I am not sure acting aggressively and shooting at them would be a whole lot more successful.
It is still Ukrainian territory and no one,not even the Russians, officially deny that. You can't expect a state (whether we like that state or not) to tolerate armed people on the streets and taking over government facilities. Whats more if those doing the taking over are largely from another country then you really can't stand idly by.
They are potentially damned if they do but certainly damned if they don't. So they might as well do.
Mr. Financier, I suspect Blair will be the most reviled PM of modern times (Brown will have leftwing supporters). Having his son as an MP or high profile candidate would give the press an excuse to rehash all Blair's many failures and cast an eye over how well he's doing.
Gordon Brown was firmly on the right, not the left, of the Labour Party, but was at least seen as being a party man, whereas even at his height, Blair was always regarded, rightly or wrongly, as being detached from (and even contemptuous of) the rest of the party. Even many Tories wondered if Blair was not in the wrong party.
But the most reviled PM is surely Mrs Thatcher, although some might demand a recount once Scotland is independent.
Try to find anyone with a good word to say about Heath.
Heath was a great man.
Howls of derisive laughter. What on earth did Heath do that marks him out as a great man?
The original out of touch luvvie wasn't he? Sacked the man who accurately predicted what mass immigration would do to England and took us into a project that made it much much much worse
Immigration makes us all richer and underpins our standard of living.
Mike, please will you amplify that statement and explain how it makes us ALL richer, as it is apparent that the VI would not agree with you.
Ted Heath? Working-class Tory leader who fought for his country, making the case to stay in the EU. With Mr Farage about, perhaps the Tories could do with some of that now.
Mr. Smithson, isn't that based on whether you're nearer the top or the bottom?
The nation as a whole may today benefit from increased tax revenues, but it also has to pay for the education of immigrant children and healthcare. In the future the immigrants will need pensions and care homes. Today they often undercut British traders, saving the upper middle class money when they need a carpenter or plasterer but making life harder for British traders. They're also willing to do poorly paid jobs Britons won't (very much a two-way thing, it must be said).
If you're nearer the bottom end of society immigrants can make it harder to find a job because they're just as hungry for work, if not more so, as Britons, quite possibly depressing wages.
Then there's the social aspect, with enclaves and some who are not merely isolated from mainstream British society but actively hostile towards it.
Immigration = good is as simplistic and wrong as immigration = bad.
If we ignore the vexed question of Europe, I think Heath tried to do three things that were absolutely right:
1. He tried to sort out Northern Ireland. What he attempted to do is pretty much what we have now, unfortunately the Unionists at the time weren't ready for power sharing, and so we ended up with another 15 years of bombing and violence.
2. He attempted to sort out the unions. Like with Northern Ireland, he was before his time. It took the winter of discontent under the next Labour government before there was the political will to go through with what were - pretty much in their entirety - Heath's planned reforms.
3. He wanted to privatise state owned businesses, and stop the culture of subsidy and bail out. As with Northern Ireland and the unions, this was ultimately a failure (the bailing out of Rolls Royce being the most obvious example). But, as with the others, it failed not because Heath's instincts were wrong, but because the country simply wasn't ready for it yet. It took ever escalating costs of bailing out British Leyland to make it clear that the government was not a great owner and manager of businesses.
Three attempts, three failures. But in each case, Heath was on the side of right, it was just that he was before his time.
Mr. Financier, I suspect Blair will be the most reviled PM of modern times (Brown will have leftwing supporters). Having his son as an MP or high profile candidate would give the press an excuse to rehash all Blair's many failures and cast an eye over how well he's doing.
Gordon Brown was firmly on the right, not the left, of the Labour Party, but was at least seen as being a party man, whereas even at his height, Blair was always regarded, rightly or wrongly, as being detached from (and even contemptuous of) the rest of the party. Even many Tories wondered if Blair was not in the wrong party.
But the most reviled PM is surely Mrs Thatcher, although some might demand a recount once Scotland is independent.
Try to find anyone with a good word to say about Heath.
Heath was a great man.
Howls of derisive laughter. What on earth did Heath do that marks him out as a great man?
The original out of touch luvvie wasn't he? Sacked the man who accurately predicted what mass immigration would do to England and took us into a project that made it much much much worse
Immigration makes us all richer and underpins our standard of living.
Sorry Mike but that simply isn't true. After the Black Death, when populations declined, the workers who survived could command higher salaries. Laws were passed to try and stop them.
Consider if 10% of the population left the UK tomorrow, house prices would dive (the biggest costs for most workers) and everyone would be better off.
The only thing that actually underpins our standard of living is technology and innovation which makes life increasing better for everyone. Without that, everyone is poorer with more people competing for the same resources and jobs.
Mr. Financier, I suspect Blair will be the most reviled PM of modern times (Brown will have leftwing supporters). Having his son as an MP or high profile candidate would give the press an excuse to rehash all Blair's many failures and cast an eye over how well he's doing.
Gordon Brown was firmly on the right, not the left, of the Labour Party, but was at least seen as being a party man, whereas even at his height, Blair was always regarded, rightly or wrongly, as being detached from (and even contemptuous of) the rest of the party. Even many Tories wondered if Blair was not in the wrong party.
But the most reviled PM is surely Mrs Thatcher, although some might demand a recount once Scotland is independent.
Try to find anyone with a good word to say about Heath.
Heath was a great man.
Howls of derisive laughter. What on earth did Heath do that marks him out as a great man?
The original out of touch luvvie wasn't he? Sacked the man who accurately predicted what mass immigration would do to England and took us into a project that made it much much much worse
Immigration makes us all richer and underpins our standard of living.
Actually, no.
Mass immigration is a stealth tax on the wages and living standards of the working class, and a tax break for the rich.
Mr. Financier, I suspect Blair will be the most reviled PM of modern times (Brown will have leftwing supporters). Having his son as an MP or high profile candidate would give the press an excuse to rehash all Blair's many failures and cast an eye over how well he's doing.
Gordon Brown was firmly on the right, not the left, of the Labour Party, but was at least seen as being a party man, whereas even at his height, Blair was always regarded, rightly or wrongly, as being detached from (and even contemptuous of) the rest of the party. Even many Tories wondered if Blair was not in the wrong party.
But the most reviled PM is surely Mrs Thatcher, although some might demand a recount once Scotland is independent.
Try to find anyone with a good word to say about Heath.
Heath was a great man.
Howls of derisive laughter.
Are your shoulders shaking, Mr. Llama?
They are indeed, Mr. P. The idea that Heath, the man who gave us not only massive inflation but also the three-day week, should be regarded as a great man is truly laughable.
Sorry Mike but that simply isn't true. After the Black Death, when populations declined, the workers who survived could command higher salaries. Laws were passed to try and stop them.
Consider if 10% of the population left the UK tomorrow, house prices would dive (the biggest costs for most workers) and everyone would be better off.
The only thing that actually underpins our standard of living is technology and innovation which makes life increasing better for everyone. Without that, everyone is poorer with more people competing for the same resources and jobs.
Leaving aside the question of immigration generally, and just concentrating on your assertion that we'd *all* be better off with lower house prices...
If house prices dived, it would not reduce the size of people's mortgages.
What would actually happen - if house prices dived - is that lots of people would have negative equity, and labour mobility would be seriously constrained, as people would not be able to move.
Mr. Financier, I suspect Blair will be the most reviled PM of modern times (Brown will have leftwing supporters). Having his son as an MP or high profile candidate would give the press an excuse to rehash all Blair's many failures and cast an eye over how well he's doing.
Gordon Brown was firmly on the right, not the left, of the Labour Party, but was at least seen as being a party man, whereas even at his height, Blair was always regarded, rightly or wrongly, as being detached from (and even contemptuous of) the rest of the party. Even many Tories wondered if Blair was not in the wrong party.
But the most reviled PM is surely Mrs Thatcher, although some might demand a recount once Scotland is independent.
Try to find anyone with a good word to say about Heath.
Heath was a great man.
Howls of derisive laughter. What on earth did Heath do that marks him out as a great man?
The original out of touch luvvie wasn't he? Sacked the man who accurately predicted what mass immigration would do to England and took us into a project that made it much much much worse
Immigration makes us all richer and underpins our standard of living.
Immigration makes the rich richer and the poor poorer.
Allowing labour to move to wherever it can find the highest return is good for skilled labour and good for businesses.
It is bad for people who don't have valuable skills.
We can always try and prop up the price of labour by restricting its movement. But the effect of this will - of course - be to encourage companies reduce costs by transferring work overseas wholesale. So, as an example, a software development company will start a subsidiary in Krakow, rather than hiring a mixed bunch of people in the UK.
Sorry Mike but that simply isn't true. After the Black Death, when populations declined, the workers who survived could command higher salaries. Laws were passed to try and stop them.
Consider if 10% of the population left the UK tomorrow, house prices would dive (the biggest costs for most workers) and everyone would be better off.
The only thing that actually underpins our standard of living is technology and innovation which makes life increasing better for everyone. Without that, everyone is poorer with more people competing for the same resources and jobs.
Leaving aside the question of immigration generally, and just concentrating on your assertion that we'd *all* be better off with lower house prices...
If house prices dived, it would not reduce the size of people's mortgages.
What would actually happen - if house prices dived - is that lots of people would have negative equity, and labour mobility would be seriously constrained, as people would not be able to move.
That is the state in which GB's false house bubble has left us in, with the result that people are staying in areas where there are no jobs and getting used to living off the state and setting that example to their children and grandchildren.
Heaths problem was that he was better at recognising the problems and coming up with solutions, than the practical politics of implementing them.
He recognised that the old Conservative party of MacMillan, Douglas-Home etc needed bringing into the modern age, and that Britains empire was over, with the future being in Europe.
Party Leaders and Deputy Leaders losing seat at General Elections Constituency Election MP Position Party Belfast East 2010 Peter Robinson Leader DUP Upper Bann 2005 David Trimble Leader UUP North Down 2001 Robert McCartney Leader UK Unionist Belfast West 1992 Gerry Adams Leader Sinn Féin Glasgow Govan 1992 Jim Sillars Deputy SNP Dundee East 1987 Gordon Wilson Leader SNP Carmarthen 1979 Gwynfor Evans Leader Plaid Cymru Cornwall North 1979 John Pardoe Deputy Liberal Ferm. & S. Tyrone 1974/O Harry West Leader UUP Belper 1970 George Brown Deputy Labour Carmarthen 1970 Gwynfor Evans Leader Plaid Cymru Huddersfield W. 1964 Donald Wade Deputy Liberal Anglesey 1951 Megan Lloyd George Deputy Liberal Caith. & Suth. 1945 Archibald Sinclair Leader Liberal Edinburgh Leith 1945 Ernest Brown Leader Liberal Nat. Darwen 1935 Herbert Samuel Leader Liberal Seaham 1935 Ramsay MacDonald Leader Nat. Labour Burnley 1931 Arthur Henderson Leader Labour ManchesteR Platt. 1931 John Robert Clynes Deputy Labour Paisley 1924 H. H. Asquith Leader Liberal East Fife 1918 H. H. Asquith Leader Liberal East Mayo 1918 John Dillon Leader Irish Parl. Manchester East 1906 Arthur Balfour Leader Conservative West Ham South 1895 Keir Hardie Leader Ind. Labour Londonderry City 1892 Justin McCarthy Leader Ir.Nat.Fed. South Lancashire 1868 William Gladstone Leader Liberal
Immigration has always taken place, how else can you explain the mass immigration of Huguenots, black Caribbeans, Ugandan Asians and a million others arriving in the UK before signing up to the EEC.
The difference is they arrived at our invitation, not as a decree from a foreign undemocratic power.
Sorry Mike but that simply isn't true. After the Black Death, when populations declined, the workers who survived could command higher salaries. Laws were passed to try and stop them.
Consider if 10% of the population left the UK tomorrow, house prices would dive (the biggest costs for most workers) and everyone would be better off.
The only thing that actually underpins our standard of living is technology and innovation which makes life increasing better for everyone. Without that, everyone is poorer with more people competing for the same resources and jobs.
Leaving aside the question of immigration generally, and just concentrating on your assertion that we'd *all* be better off with lower house prices...
If house prices dived, it would not reduce the size of people's mortgages.
What would actually happen - if house prices dived - is that lots of people would have negative equity, and labour mobility would be seriously constrained, as people would not be able to move.
Alright, how about: In general most workers would be financially better off with lower house prices. Although were it to happen suddenly there may be short term difficulties for some.
@AveryLP Sinclair is correct but was noted earlier.
@RodCrosby MacDonald correct but noted earlier as indeed I thought Gordon Wilson was but not so. Gold star Rod .... but not the candidate I have in mind.
Sorry Mike but that simply isn't true. After the Black Death, when populations declined, the workers who survived could command higher salaries. Laws were passed to try and stop them.
Consider if 10% of the population left the UK tomorrow, house prices would dive (the biggest costs for most workers) and everyone would be better off.
The only thing that actually underpins our standard of living is technology and innovation which makes life increasing better for everyone. Without that, everyone is poorer with more people competing for the same resources and jobs.
Leaving aside the question of immigration generally, and just concentrating on your assertion that we'd *all* be better off with lower house prices...
If house prices dived, it would not reduce the size of people's mortgages.
What would actually happen - if house prices dived - is that lots of people would have negative equity, and labour mobility would be seriously constrained, as people would not be able to move.
That is the state in which GB's false house bubble has left us in, with the result that people are staying in areas where there are no jobs and getting used to living off the state and setting that example to their children and grandchildren.
I agree that the house price bubble has left us in this state.
But a sudden house price crash - while being good for people at the start of the housing ladder - would be bad for an awful lot of people.
The air needs to be let out of the bubble slowly; ideally by a combination of new building stock (construction jobs), plus modest inflation (so that we avoid too much negative equity).
It is also worth remembering that a house price crash could precipitate another banking crisis, as so many loans are secured on property, and many covenants (on real estate companies, developers, etc.) require certain levels of coverage. And, of course, that people who lost their jobs would find unsympathetic bank managers, given they would no longer have any equity in their house.
The problem seems to be that in some parts, the locals are at worst ambivalent to EU and the west in general?
I don't think its anything to do with the EU really or the West. There was never really a notable Russian integration movement within Eastern Ukraine in recent years, more a sense that they had traditionally looked to Russia as the big brother and the usual regional politics. A lot of people in Eastern Ukraine who voted Yanukovych in are somewhat annoyed their man got ousted in a coup. Doesn't mean though its an absolute one or the other scenario, Russia or the West. The person who made it a binary decision was Putin a number of months back.
Take Yanukovych, many people suggest he was just some Russian lackey but his policies to begin with were very much trying to get a balance between Russia and the EU. Compared to the Timoshenko leadership that may have seemed to tilt a little bit more east but it wasn't an outright swing, until Putin turned the thumbscrews.
The problem with Yanukovych was the internally the guy was working his way to an elected dictatorship. The dramatic swing to eschew the EU for Russia was pushed on him by Russia, if it hadn't been, I doubt he'd have chucked the EU out the door.
Just read a weird story in the Mail about Miliband. Says he doesn't believe in God (fine, neither do I), but that he has faith.
Hmm. If he were a Buddhist, I could see that. But he isn't. He's self-described as an atheist.
And he reckons he'll be the first Jewish PM. In religious terms, he won't. Not a Jew myself, but I'm reasonably sure believing in God is relatively important (someone should read Miliband the Ten Commandments). He also won't in ethnic terms, as Disraeli was first.
Heaths problem was that he was better at recognising the problems and coming up with solutions, than the practical politics of implementing them.
He recognised that the old Conservative party of MacMillan, Douglas-Home etc needed bringing into the modern age, and that Britains empire was over, with the future being in Europe.
It was A.D-H that brought in the election of a party leader - rather than the form of mumbo-jumbo that had been used previously. Heath was too ready to discard the trading links with the Commonwealth and neglected to use that as a bargaining point with Europe - France still has formal trading links with its overseas departements and brought them into association with Europe.
I really hope there is an afterlife because then I can spend eternity doing two things:
1. Kicking the shit of Edward Heath for the damage he did to the people and institutions of my country
2. Taking the piss out of Fermat because he never did have a solution to his theorem that a^n + b^n = c^n has no solutions in positive integers if n is an integer greater than 2.
Heaths problem was that he was better at recognising the problems and coming up with solutions, than the practical politics of implementing them.
He recognised that the old Conservative party of MacMillan, Douglas-Home etc needed bringing into the modern age, and that Britains empire was over, with the future being in Europe.
It was A.D-H that brought in the election of a party leader - rather than the form of mumbo-jumbo that had been used previously. Heath was too ready to discard the trading links with the Commonwealth and neglected to use that as a bargaining point with Europe - France still has formal trading links with its overseas departements and brought them into association with Europe.
Sorry Mike but that simply isn't true. After the Black Death, when populations declined, the workers who survived could command higher salaries. Laws were passed to try and stop them.
That is the state in which GB's false house bubble has left us in, with the result that people are staying in areas where there are no jobs and getting used to living off the state and setting that example to their children and grandchildren.
I agree that the house price bubble has left us in this state.
But a sudden house price crash - while being good for people at the start of the housing ladder - would be bad for an awful lot of people.
The air needs to be let out of the bubble slowly; ideally by a combination of new building stock (construction jobs), plus modest inflation (so that we avoid too much negative equity).
It is also worth remembering that a house price crash could precipitate another banking crisis, as so many loans are secured on property, and many covenants (on real estate companies, developers, etc.) require certain levels of coverage. And, of course, that people who lost their jobs would find unsympathetic bank managers, given they would no longer have any equity in their house.
Robert
Current house price inflation is definitely being driven by a reluctance of existing owners to sell. Demand for property exceeds supply by nearly eight times. No feasible rate of new house building is going to close this gap in the short to medium term.
This is a hangover from the 20% cross the board falls in house prices following the financial crisis. London (excl. prime central which is a special case) and the South East have only recovered to 2008 nominal values over the past year. Most of the rest of the country are only now getting there and some areas (e.g NI) may take another couple of years.
So house owners are just coming out of negative equity and are seeing on the telly and papers that prices are rising by "8% per month" and that another bubble is being blown. This is causing them to hold when they should be selling.
What is needed is the threat of another mini-crash of house prices mid-2015 to get the property sales moving. Given that the GE is getting in the way, this won't be any part of George's plans. I expect Carney and the BoE will start talking up measures to curb excessive price rises towards the end of this year, but nothing real will happen (nor really needs to happen) until late 2015.
Mr. Llama, I'm surprised that you think you'll end up in the same place as Heath.
Well, obviously I shall be in the first class area with all the cats and the better sort of of dogs but I'll be able to pop downstairs to beat up on Heath and take the piss out of Fermat by way of hobby time.
Apologies to all re: the earlier quiz question - as Mr Cooke, doyen of counterfactual history and all-round good egg, has wisely pointed out, there are only seven answers to my question, not eight.
I'm afraid I fell into the GW trap - not Global Warming, but Gordon-Walker.
Anyone want to explain how I made my mistake, what makes Gordon-Walker unique and the two constituencies involved.....
Apologies to all re: the earlier quiz question - as Mr Cooke, doyen of counterfactual history and all-round good egg, has wisely pointed out, there are only seven answers to my question, not eight.
I'm afraid I fell into the GW trap - not Global Warming, but Gordon-Walker.
Anyone want to explain how I made my mistake, what makes Gordon-Walker unique and the two constituencies involved.....
Patrick Gordon-Walker was expected to become Foreign Secretary in Harold Wilson’s first Labour cabinet. Unfortunately he lost his constituency of Smethwick seat but was still appointed Foreign Secretary. A by-election was hastily arranged for the supposedly safe Labour seat of Leyton but he lost this election as well. He resigned as Foreign Secretary and his political career never recovered.
Apologies to all re: the earlier quiz question - as Mr Cooke, doyen of counterfactual history and all-round good egg, has wisely pointed out, there are only seven answers to my question, not eight.
I'm afraid I fell into the GW trap - not Global Warming, but Gordon-Walker.
Anyone want to explain how I made my mistake, what makes Gordon-Walker unique and the two constituencies involved.....
Can of worms there, Stodge.
Not very 'neighbourly'.
Indeed not, arguably one of the worst election campaigns of recent times. Believe me, when the victor of Smethwick in 1964 was turfed out of his later constituency in 1997, I cheered as I suspect did many others far more loudly than, for example, the demise of Michael Portillo.
That reference is very misleading and has been written in a way that does not portray what happened. The electorate were sold a Common Trading Market and not any relinquishment of self-determination. Giving up fishing rights was not mentioned by Heath and the others.
Heaths problem was that he was better at recognising the problems and coming up with solutions, than the practical politics of implementing them.
He recognised that the old Conservative party of MacMillan, Douglas-Home etc needed bringing into the modern age, and that Britains empire was over, with the future being in Europe.
It was A.D-H that brought in the election of a party leader - rather than the form of mumbo-jumbo that had been used previously. Heath was too ready to discard the trading links with the Commonwealth and neglected to use that as a bargaining point with Europe - France still has formal trading links with its overseas departements and brought them into association with Europe.
67% wanted to stay in, including Thatcher, Tebbit and Ridley.
That is the danger of referendums, the voting public often do not understand the issue very well. The same would be true again. Just because a vocal minority want to secede, does not mean that the majority will vote the same way. True of both the Indyref and any BOO ref.
That reference is very misleading and has been written in a way that does not portray what happened. The electorate were sold a Common Trading Market and not any relinquishment of self-determination. Giving up fishing rights was not mentioned by Heath and the others.
Heaths problem was that he was better at recognising the problems and coming up with solutions, than the practical politics of implementing them.
He recognised that the old Conservative party of MacMillan, Douglas-Home etc needed bringing into the modern age, and that Britains empire was over, with the future being in Europe.
It was A.D-H that brought in the election of a party leader - rather than the form of mumbo-jumbo that had been used previously. Heath was too ready to discard the trading links with the Commonwealth and neglected to use that as a bargaining point with Europe - France still has formal trading links with its overseas departements and brought them into association with Europe.
Mr. Eagles, I missed the yellows being on 7%. I cannot believe that. The Euros may provide a guide as to whether or not we're seeing shy sandal-wearer syndrome.
67% wanted to stay in, including Thatcher, Tebbit and Ridley.
That is the danger of referendums, the voting public often do not understand the issue very well. The same would be true again. Just because a vocal minority want to secede, does not mean that the majority will vote the same way. True of both the Indyref and any BOO ref.
That reference is very misleading and has been written in a way that does not portray what happened. The electorate were sold a Common Trading Market and not any relinquishment of self-determination. Giving up fishing rights was not mentioned by Heath and the others.
Heaths problem was that he was better at recognising the problems and coming up with solutions, than the practical politics of implementing them.
He recognised that the old Conservative party of MacMillan, Douglas-Home etc needed bringing into the modern age, and that Britains empire was over, with the future being in Europe.
It was A.D-H that brought in the election of a party leader - rather than the form of mumbo-jumbo that had been used previously. Heath was too ready to discard the trading links with the Commonwealth and neglected to use that as a bargaining point with Europe - France still has formal trading links with its overseas departements and brought them into association with Europe.
Demand for property exceeds supply by nearly eight times.
There is no such thing as demand exceeding supply, or vice-versa, in a free market.
There is only the price at which the market clears.
Pedant.
Estate agent purchase inquiries are running at eight times completed sales. (A dubious ratio at best).
Hence the indices based on purchase inquiries and asking prices and much touted on the front pages of the Daily Express (e.g. Rightmove) showing ridiculously high levels of monthly price inflation.
Your point is reflected in the more sober price inflation figures shown by actual transaction value indices (e.g. HM Land Registry and, to a less pure extent, the ONS).
Apologies to all re: the earlier quiz question - as Mr Cooke, doyen of counterfactual history and all-round good egg, has wisely pointed out, there are only seven answers to my question, not eight.
I'm afraid I fell into the GW trap - not Global Warming, but Gordon-Walker.
Anyone want to explain how I made my mistake, what makes Gordon-Walker unique and the two constituencies involved.....
Can of worms there, Stodge.
Not very 'neighbourly'.
Indeed not, arguably one of the worst election campaigns of recent times. Believe me, when the victor of Smethwick in 1964 was turfed out of his later constituency in 1997, I cheered as I suspect did many others far more loudly than, for example, the demise of Michael Portillo.
I think the slogan "if you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote Labour" was coined by Colin Jordan, not Peter Griffiths.
Kirk Kus @KirkKus 1h @Nigel_Farage tops the Mirror poll, giving him highest rating on who is to be the next prime minister. #UKIP pic.twitter.com/ykWNaAtqlJ
That is the Lib Dems worst score in nearly six months
Ukip 18 (+3), Libs 7% (-3).
That’s the second poll since the Clegg/Farage debate that has shown a large swing directly from the LDs to UKip.– the other was +/- 4%. - I wonder if Clegg 'rues the day' he threw down the gauntlet?
Kirk Kus @KirkKus 1h @Nigel_Farage tops the Mirror poll, giving him highest rating on who is to be the next prime minister. #UKIP pic.twitter.com/ykWNaAtqlJ
"Critics said the speech revealed the First Minister's "problem" with female voters and warned that women can "spot a dodgy chat up line" when they hear one."
That is the Lib Dems worst score in nearly six months
Ukip 18 (+3), Libs 7% (-3).
That’s the second poll since the Clegg/Farage debate that has shown a large swing directly from the LDs to UKip.– the other was +/- 4%. - I wonder if Clegg 'rues the day' he threw down the gauntlet?
It could be this
Con to Kippers, who were impressed by Farage
and Lib Dems despairing of Clegg decide to back Cameron as the man best to stop Farage and UKIP.
Kirk Kus @KirkKus 1h @Nigel_Farage tops the Mirror poll, giving him highest rating on who is to be the next prime minister. #UKIP pic.twitter.com/ykWNaAtqlJ
Voodoo poll I think.
Seems they have polls on everything... 96/4 against Badgers being gassed
Kirk Kus @KirkKus 1h @Nigel_Farage tops the Mirror poll, giving him highest rating on who is to be the next prime minister. #UKIP pic.twitter.com/ykWNaAtqlJ
Voodoo poll I think.
Seems they have polls on everything... 96/4 against Badgers being gassed
That is the Lib Dems worst score in nearly six months
Ukip 18 (+3), Libs 7% (-3).
That’s the second poll since the Clegg/Farage debate that has shown a large swing directly from the LDs to UKip.– the other was +/- 4%. - I wonder if Clegg 'rues the day' he threw down the gauntlet?
And there were several other polls which didn't and the last Populus poll which "showed" a movement from UKIP to the Lib Dems . It is impossible to tell if there is a meaningful movement or just MofE and differing poll methodologies .
That is the Lib Dems worst score in nearly six months
Ukip 18 (+3), Libs 7% (-3).
That’s the second poll since the Clegg/Farage debate that has shown a large swing directly from the LDs to UKip.– the other was +/- 4%. - I wonder if Clegg 'rues the day' he threw down the gauntlet?
And there were several other polls which didn't and the last Populus poll which "showed" a movement from UKIP to the Lib Dems . It is impossible to tell if there is a meaningful movement or just MofE and differing poll methodologies .
Kirk Kus @KirkKus 1h @Nigel_Farage tops the Mirror poll, giving him highest rating on who is to be the next prime minister. #UKIP pic.twitter.com/ykWNaAtqlJ
Voodoo poll I think.
Did you hear about the psephologist from Warsaw who moved to Haiti?
If you have backed Clegg to hang onto his seat, then you should have backed Danny to hang on to his one too. Seriously, if one of them is at real risk of losing their seat, then the other one will be in for a bumpy GE night too.
Comments
Frankly, even among the public I think Brown will be better regarded than Blair. Despite what the tory media thinks, people never really bought into the spin of him being some evil dictator who spent everyone's money and left us on the brink of bankruptcy. Don't get me wrong, most people do think he was a boring, dishonest, weak idiot, and people wouldn't want him back in frontline politics, but I really don't sense there's any visceral loathing for him; in the long run, I don't think people will have any strong opinions on him at all. Whereas Blair will always be remembered for lying to us and taking us into an illegal war.
I never disliked him, and I certainly didn't have deep seated hatred for him. Unlike many other Tories that followed.
Interesting fact:
Until the passage of the Re-election of Ministers Act 1926, any Member admitted into the Cabinet other than at a general election was obliged to resign his or her seat and contest a by-election.
Even though he had many prominent lady friends, he was at misogynist at times and believed that women should know their place.
Mr. Smithson on the other hand thinks Heath was a great man because he lied and deceived and sold the economic well being of a lot of people down the river in order to achieve an outcome that Mr. Smithson agreed with.
Off Topic:
Syria. No doubt its been missed but there is strong evidence of at least two chemical weapons attacks in Syria in recent days and weeks. Certainly very credible intelligence has been passed on by 3rd parties to the US, who haven't said a thing.
Ukraine: Russia has effectively been running military operations in Eastern Ukraine for two weeks but particularly within the last 7 days. In particular some of the GRU teams that kicked things off in Crimea are now in Eastern Ukraine. The Ukrainian government however seems to loathe to be outright decisive whilst actions are essentially a series of local events and therefore manageable. They know that if move firmly to seize back Ukrainian govt facilities they'll end up shooting Russian troops. Who is advising the Ukrainian government? Whoever it is seems to be preaching a passive approach a guaranteed fail against someone like Putin.
I'll grant you that she polarised the already anti-Tory vote, leading to much tactical voting.
"Whoever it is seems to be preaching a passive approach a guaranteed fail against someone like Putin. "
I am not sure acting aggressively and shooting at them would be a whole lot more successful.
Who be you ? ....
. @ConHome is the blog most read by Conservative MPs pic.twitter.com/YZaAsWLjL3
They are potentially damned if they do but certainly damned if they don't. So they might as well do.
IMO, joining the EU was the biggest single error in British government in the post-war period.
The nation as a whole may today benefit from increased tax revenues, but it also has to pay for the education of immigrant children and healthcare. In the future the immigrants will need pensions and care homes. Today they often undercut British traders, saving the upper middle class money when they need a carpenter or plasterer but making life harder for British traders. They're also willing to do poorly paid jobs Britons won't (very much a two-way thing, it must be said).
If you're nearer the bottom end of society immigrants can make it harder to find a job because they're just as hungry for work, if not more so, as Britons, quite possibly depressing wages.
Then there's the social aspect, with enclaves and some who are not merely isolated from mainstream British society but actively hostile towards it.
Immigration = good is as simplistic and wrong as immigration = bad.
Heath did have a hidden agenda over Europe and did not realise til all was done and dusted how the EEC bureaucrats had used him.
In the right line, Jack?
1. He tried to sort out Northern Ireland. What he attempted to do is pretty much what we have now, unfortunately the Unionists at the time weren't ready for power sharing, and so we ended up with another 15 years of bombing and violence.
2. He attempted to sort out the unions. Like with Northern Ireland, he was before his time. It took the winter of discontent under the next Labour government before there was the political will to go through with what were - pretty much in their entirety - Heath's planned reforms.
3. He wanted to privatise state owned businesses, and stop the culture of subsidy and bail out. As with Northern Ireland and the unions, this was ultimately a failure (the bailing out of Rolls Royce being the most obvious example). But, as with the others, it failed not because Heath's instincts were wrong, but because the country simply wasn't ready for it yet. It took ever escalating costs of bailing out British Leyland to make it clear that the government was not a great owner and manager of businesses.
Three attempts, three failures. But in each case, Heath was on the side of right, it was just that he was before his time.
The problem seems to be that in some parts, the locals are at worst ambivalent to EU and the west in general?
Gordon Wilson of the SNP in 1987 was one,
MacDonald (as National Labour) in 1935 another...
Consider if 10% of the population left the UK tomorrow, house prices would dive (the biggest costs for most workers) and everyone would be better off.
The only thing that actually underpins our standard of living is technology and innovation which makes life increasing better for everyone. Without that, everyone is poorer with more people competing for the same resources and jobs.
Mass immigration is a stealth tax on the wages and living standards of the working class, and a tax break for the rich.
People have rumbled it, hence the rise of UKIP
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2597454/We-Residents-deprived-borough-speak-predicted-Britain-need-Manchester-absorb-immigration.html
If house prices dived, it would not reduce the size of people's mortgages.
What would actually happen - if house prices dived - is that lots of people would have negative equity, and labour mobility would be seriously constrained, as people would not be able to move.
They helped in usher 18 years of Thatcherism and a Tory government.
It is bad for people who don't have valuable skills.
We can always try and prop up the price of labour by restricting its movement. But the effect of this will - of course - be to encourage companies reduce costs by transferring work overseas wholesale. So, as an example, a software development company will start a subsidiary in Krakow, rather than hiring a mixed bunch of people in the UK.
That is the state in which GB's false house bubble has left us in, with the result that people are staying in areas where there are no jobs and getting used to living off the state and setting that example to their children and grandchildren.
Heaths problem was that he was better at recognising the problems and coming up with solutions, than the practical politics of implementing them.
He recognised that the old Conservative party of MacMillan, Douglas-Home etc needed bringing into the modern age, and that Britains empire was over, with the future being in Europe.
Source: Wikipedia
The difference is they arrived at our invitation, not as a decree from a foreign undemocratic power.
@RodCrosby MacDonald correct but noted earlier as indeed I thought Gordon Wilson was but not so. Gold star Rod .... but not the candidate I have in mind.
Clue - For a time a mine of useful information.
But a sudden house price crash - while being good for people at the start of the housing ladder - would be bad for an awful lot of people.
The air needs to be let out of the bubble slowly; ideally by a combination of new building stock (construction jobs), plus modest inflation (so that we avoid too much negative equity).
It is also worth remembering that a house price crash could precipitate another banking crisis, as so many loans are secured on property, and many covenants (on real estate companies, developers, etc.) require certain levels of coverage. And, of course, that people who lost their jobs would find unsympathetic bank managers, given they would no longer have any equity in their house.
Without grandparents and parents coming to this country, PBers would have been denied the wisdom of Sunil and myself.
Take Yanukovych, many people suggest he was just some Russian lackey but his policies to begin with were very much trying to get a balance between Russia and the EU. Compared to the Timoshenko leadership that may have seemed to tilt a little bit more east but it wasn't an outright swing, until Putin turned the thumbscrews.
The problem with Yanukovych was the internally the guy was working his way to an elected dictatorship. The dramatic swing to eschew the EU for Russia was pushed on him by Russia, if it hadn't been, I doubt he'd have chucked the EU out the door.
*blushes*
Here's the inarguable case for contraception.
Hmm. If he were a Buddhist, I could see that. But he isn't. He's self-described as an atheist.
And he reckons he'll be the first Jewish PM. In religious terms, he won't. Not a Jew myself, but I'm reasonably sure believing in God is relatively important (someone should read Miliband the Ten Commandments). He also won't in ethnic terms, as Disraeli was first.
It's just a bit odd, and wishywashy.
1. Kicking the shit of Edward Heath for the damage he did to the people and institutions of my country
2. Taking the piss out of Fermat because he never did have a solution to his theorem that a^n + b^n = c^n has no solutions in positive integers if n is an integer greater than 2.
So who is Jack's 'mine'?
A lot of people thought joining the EEC was a good idea at the time. It was the lefties that were split on the idea.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4609131.stm
Current house price inflation is definitely being driven by a reluctance of existing owners to sell. Demand for property exceeds supply by nearly eight times. No feasible rate of new house building is going to close this gap in the short to medium term.
This is a hangover from the 20% cross the board falls in house prices following the financial crisis. London (excl. prime central which is a special case) and the South East have only recovered to 2008 nominal values over the past year. Most of the rest of the country are only now getting there and some areas (e.g NI) may take another couple of years.
So house owners are just coming out of negative equity and are seeing on the telly and papers that prices are rising by "8% per month" and that another bubble is being blown. This is causing them to hold when they should be selling.
What is needed is the threat of another mini-crash of house prices mid-2015 to get the property sales moving. Given that the GE is getting in the way, this won't be any part of George's plans. I expect Carney and the BoE will start talking up measures to curb excessive price rises towards the end of this year, but nothing real will happen (nor really needs to happen) until late 2015.
A interesting blog post by John Rentoul:
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2014/04/12/labours-vanishing-lead/
But with a rider that this is not connected with the "record" result of tonight's ComRes poll.
Apologies to all re: the earlier quiz question - as Mr Cooke, doyen of counterfactual history and all-round good egg, has wisely pointed out, there are only seven answers to my question, not eight.
I'm afraid I fell into the GW trap - not Global Warming, but Gordon-Walker.
Anyone want to explain how I made my mistake, what makes Gordon-Walker unique and the two constituencies involved.....
Not very 'neighbourly'.
Being a record breaker reminds me of Roy Castle.
Lab lead back to 6 in latest Opinium/Obs poll as Ukip surges. Lab 36 (+3), Con 30 (-2), Ukip 18 (+3), Libs 7% (-3).
That reference is very misleading and has been written in a way that does not portray what happened. The electorate were sold a Common Trading Market and not any relinquishment of self-determination. Giving up fishing rights was not mentioned by Heath and the others.
I predict tears before midnight from 'pouter.
That is the danger of referendums, the voting public often do not understand the issue very well. The same would be true again. Just because a vocal minority want to secede, does not mean that the majority will vote the same way. True of both the Indyref and any BOO ref.
There is only the price at which the market clears.
Estate agent purchase inquiries are running at eight times completed sales. (A dubious ratio at best).
Hence the indices based on purchase inquiries and asking prices and much touted on the front pages of the Daily Express (e.g. Rightmove) showing ridiculously high levels of monthly price inflation.
Your point is reflected in the more sober price inflation figures shown by actual transaction value indices (e.g. HM Land Registry and, to a less pure extent, the ONS).
The principle of my post still applies!
Kirk Kus @KirkKus 1h
@Nigel_Farage tops the Mirror poll, giving him highest rating on who is to be the next prime minister. #UKIP pic.twitter.com/ykWNaAtqlJ
That’s the second poll since the Clegg/Farage debate that has shown a large swing directly from the LDs to UKip.– the other was +/- 4%. - I wonder if Clegg 'rues the day' he threw down the gauntlet?
"Critics said the speech revealed the First Minister's "problem" with female voters and warned that women can "spot a dodgy chat up line" when they hear one."
Con to Kippers, who were impressed by Farage
and Lib Dems despairing of Clegg decide to back Cameron as the man best to stop Farage and UKIP.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/badger-cull-prince-anne-gassing-3375565
Janice Atkinson @JaniceUKIP 4m
Opinium/Obs poll as Ukip surges. Lab 36 (+3), Con 30 (-2), Ukip 18 (+3), Libs 7% (-3).
He became a Voodoo Pole
The four prior polls before that one, had Labour leads of 5,5,9 and 7