Re Big Cyril: When I lived in Rochdale in the early 60's Cyril was a) a Labour Alderman, b) Chair of the Education Committee and c) very active in youth work in the Borough. As I recall he bought at least some instruments for the Youth Silver Band in which my bro-in-law played. IIRC, the latter won't hear a word said against him personally and knew nothing of any paedophilia. A friend who taught at the school of which Cyril was a governor also never said a word against him. In that connection anyway; my friend didn't like him politically! Makes you wonder, sometimes!
Not even close. Clegg wanted Farage to posture against to try and appear more reasonable and moderate. It was also primarily part of the whole masochism sand detoxification strategy whereby Clegg's ostrich faction thought that by exposing him to the public long enough and with ever more publicity (all those radio phone ins and the debates) the public would somehow forget how toxic he was and just put up with him. Needless to say that backfired spectacularly. The actual EU was well, well down the list of reasons for the debate as even among lib dems some thought it pretty damn eccentric to pointlessly pretend an election for MEPs was an IN/OUT referendum when the public knew perfectly well it wasn't. Some of those lib dems wanted a simple focus on getting a better lib dem MEP using a more local based campaign. (understandably enough)
For that matter who in their right mind would want Clegg front and centre as the voice of one side of a referendum after the AV vote?? If it was an actual EU referendum you can be 100% certain Clegg would be very firmly booted far away where he could do no harm by the likes of Cammie, little Ed and the other supporters of staying IN.
While he wanted to appear moderate and reasonable, he and the LDs know very well the EU is not popular, therefore it makes no sense for even the deluded in the LDs to believe that by taking that position so publically and unequivocally against the popular Farage, that they would appeal to the mass of the electorate. He will have hoped to be seen as the clear winner, or for Farage to implode, but at its core his message was not one that appealed to the vast majority of the electorate, and the LDs know that, they know their position on the EU is not popular. Therefore, the principle objective cannot have been to appeal to the mass electorate, but instead firm up their core vote, and hopefully secure a few more from those who don't like the EU but are wary of leaving, in order to save their MEPs.
Leaving aside the specific example of the EU (which is why I clarified it in brackets), my point about the statement being true, was in relation to that it is sometimes better to go after a minority view. When you are a small party and the others are all either in line with the majority opinion, or pretending to be (as Labour and the Tories are, by broadly being in favour of staying in the EU while trying to look as though they don't want to be), and your view is clearly not in sync with that majority, there is nothing to be gained from pretending you are. You might not gain anything extra from stating the opposite, but you've a better chance than putting forward a majority opnion at odds with your own base.
(Also no one seems to be asking why all those 100s of billions are flooding in from the BRICs.)
No one's asking because we all know the answer
That's good then. So we can expect to see some stuff in the media about how this miracle growth mostly comes from importing 100,000s more people every year and 100s of billions flooding in from BRIC oligarchs into the property market?
Question being, if they made such huge amounts of money in the BRICs why aren't they reinvesting it in the BRICs?
Though it is rather hilarious how FPTP kills them in Scotland given their adherence to the system.
Not quite as hilarious as those so out of touch they don't seem to realise that scottish voters know perfectly well it's FPTP and also how to use it most effectively.
Given all the good economic news the Tories really *should* win pretty handily next year, especially given how much of a turn off EdM is and how sparse an alternative Labour is offering. But that Labour vote share looks very solid right now. It may be worth remembering that people do not vote on statistics, they vote on experience and perception. After all, a 2% rise in average private sector earnings does not mean that most - or even close to most - are actually seeing such increses in their pay packets.
True enough. I think that's why, IIRC, the Tories did not actually take a massive hit when we entered into the now not official double dip recession - because while the stats may have said we had previously left recession, to the average person it never felt like it had.
Rationally the Tories might be expected to be doing better given the economic news, but my general feeling is that once a narrative of incompetence sets in, as did several years ago, anything good tends to be seen by many people as happening in spite of the people in charge, rather than because of them, so they may get less credit than they think they deserve. People vote with their gut, and in any case, if things are looking up in 2015, a lot of people will feel any 'risk' from Ed M and Ed B running things will be lessened, so why not kick out Cameron.
But then I think Cameron will lose not so much because he is widely hated, but because the right has split while the left unified under Labour for reasons not to do with the economy or some of his other major policies.
After all, a 2% rise in average private sector earnings does not mean that most - or even close to most - are actually seeing such increses in their pay packets.
Looking at the detailed breakdown, the only subsection of the economy seeing poor wage growth is Finance and Business services at +0.3% for February. All other subsections are seeing much higher growth eg. Retailing +3.5% q/q, Manufacturing +3.2% q/q, Construction +3.1.% q/q.
Even in the public service, if you exclude the state owned banks, the growth in February was 1.8%. Of course for this to affect the way people are feeling we probably need pay growth to stay this high for the rest of the year.
Its Wednesday, boiled eggies day. Huzzah! So I go to the cupboard to get the Marmite for my soldiers and where the jar with its colourful, cheerful logo should be is a sad (black label with beige writing), dumpy, little jar labelled, "Tesco's Yeast Extract, with added vitamins". Should I be expected to put up with this? Ever since I was a small child I have had Marmite with my eggs, in more than thirty years of married life Herself has always made sure there was a jar in the cupboard and now, suddenly, I am expected to use this Tesco's gloop. Not a word of warning, mind you. Does this not count as abuse of a pensioner? Am I not justified in displaying a certain amount of disapprobation when she gets back from the hairdressers?
Mr Lama my sympathies are totally and utterly with you re Marmite. Even though I'm a Bovril man, have been since childhood and have brought up my children and grandchildren to demand it with religious fervour I recognise the enormity of that with which you are faced.
It's almost on a level with being offered Vegemite!
Bovril? Heathen! I may be an antipodean when it comes to my yeast extract toast toppings, but Bovril is a far worse transgression than that.
Bovril also makes excellent sandwiches, on occasion combined with lettuce. There is also now a Chicken Bovril which makes a most satisfying and soporific bedtime drink.
Ed Balls, aka Toad of Toad Hall, and his motoring antics won't reflect badly on the Labour party - it just plays into the general meme of politicians and their sense of entitlement.
I listed to Simon Danczuk on 5-live yesterday and he was making an impassioned plea for justice for the alleged victims of Big Cyril. He spoke about the long history from the 60s and how Liberal politicians seemed to have turned a blind eye. They had questions to be answered, he claimed.
I think it was Sheila Fogarty (Victoria Derbyshire wouldn't have the wit) who pointed out that Cyril was a Labour politician in the 60s ... Shouldn't his campaign include the Labour party too?
He fell to bits . . blustering and dissembling. And I thought what a pity it was that just when you think there's honour among expense thieves, they go and let you let you down again.
Pity. I have been generally impressed with him. His heart seems in the right place and he has a better connection with the real world than most politicians (a low bar admittedly).
Another few points on the likely unemployment rate during the 2015 election campaign.
I think the scope and rate of fall will accelerate over the coming year but even allowing for just the present rate of fall unemployment will go below 2 million for the first time since October 2008 and will be around 500,000 fewer than when the Coalition came to office.
Things like that will seldom be uncommon. While not making any judgement on Cyril Smith, the pedophiles that "get away with it" longest will be smart enough to target only those they think most vulnerable, while keeping up a platonic friendliness with the remainder Edit.....I met Jimmy Saville on a number occasions, and can honestly say he came across to me as someone I would trust as far as I can comfortably spit a live rat.
Given all the good economic news the Tories really *should* win pretty handily next year, especially given how much of a turn off EdM is and how sparse an alternative Labour is offering.
Former shadow health minister Diane Abbott has taken to The Guardian website to launch a fairly scathing attack on the economic direction of the Labour leadership. The famously outspoken backbencher warns that if Labour “accept the coalition cuts agenda” they will not last more than a term in office. Abbott says:
“Balls has a plan. He just does not feel able to spell it out to party members. It is called embracing Tory austerity.”
Even if she is right, there is no way the leadership of a party would not take the risk they only get one term in office than try to build an alternative that might be unpopular and prevent them winning at all. Politicians will always assume that they will be able to rise to the challenge and deal with that problem once it rears its head. Let FutureMe worry about that!
Ed Balls, aka Toad of Toad Hall, and his motoring antics won't reflect badly on the Labour party - it just plays into the general meme of politicians and their sense of entitlement.
I listed to Simon Danczuk on 5-live yesterday and he was making an impassioned plea for justice for the alleged victims of Big Cyril. He spoke about the long history from the 60s and how Liberal politicians seemed to have turned a blind eye. They had questions to be answered, he claimed.
I think it was Sheila Fogarty (Victoria Derbyshire wouldn't have the wit) who pointed out that Cyril was a Labour politician in the 60s ... Shouldn't his campaign include the Labour party too?
He fell to bits . . blustering and dissembling. And I thought what a pity it was that just when you think there's honour among expense thieves, they go and let you let you down again.
Pity. I have been generally impressed with him. His heart seems in the right place and he has a better connection with the real world than most politicians (a low bar admittedly).
Really? I must admit that for reasons I find hard to articulate, I have a much mroe instinctive dislike of Ed Balls than most other politicians. He just seems to embody the worst of the aggressively partisan nonsense that pervades our political class. I may not be being entirely fair on the man, but something about him gets my back up.
Poll tax was introduced by the Tories in Scotland, as the request of the Tory party in Scotland and not the Scottish public.
Michael Gove refers to the decision as a catastrphic error.
As for the rest of your response to my earlier post, what a load of bollards. You know the Tories are hated in Scotland and that is the reason why the Tories are not taking a full part in the referendum debate.
(Also no one seems to be asking why all those 100s of billions are flooding in from the BRICs.)
No one's asking because we all know the answer
That's good then. So we can expect to see some stuff in the media about how this miracle growth mostly comes from importing 100,000s more people every year and 100s of billions flooding in from BRIC oligarchs into the property market?
Question being, if they made such huge amounts of money in the BRICs why aren't they reinvesting it in the BRICs?
Given all the good economic news the Tories really *should* win pretty handily next year, especially given how much of a turn off EdM is and how sparse an alternative Labour is offering. But that Labour vote share looks very solid right now. It may be worth remembering that people do not vote on statistics, they vote on experience and perception. After all, a 2% rise in average private sector earnings does not mean that most - or even close to most - are actually seeing such increses in their pay packets.
You're right.
Most low pay workers are seeing *larger* increases in their pay packets thanks to the Coalition policy of increasing the personal allowance
(Also no one seems to be asking why all those 100s of billions are flooding in from the BRICs.)
No one's asking because we all know the answer
That's good then. So we can expect to see some stuff in the media about how this miracle growth mostly comes from importing 100,000s more people every year and 100s of billions flooding in from BRIC oligarchs into the property market?
Question being, if they made such huge amounts of money in the BRICs why aren't they reinvesting it in the BRICs?
Ed Balls, aka Toad of Toad Hall, and his motoring antics won't reflect badly on the Labour party - it just plays into the general meme of politicians and their sense of entitlement.
I listed to Simon Danczuk on 5-live yesterday and he was making an impassioned plea for justice for the alleged victims of Big Cyril. He spoke about the long history from the 60s and how Liberal politicians seemed to have turned a blind eye. They had questions to be answered, he claimed.
I think it was Sheila Fogarty (Victoria Derbyshire wouldn't have the wit) who pointed out that Cyril was a Labour politician in the 60s ... Shouldn't his campaign include the Labour party too?
He fell to bits . . blustering and dissembling. And I thought what a pity it was that just when you think there's honour among expense thieves, they go and let you let you down again.
Pity. I have been generally impressed with him. His heart seems in the right place and he has a better connection with the real world than most politicians (a low bar admittedly).
Really? I must admit that for reasons I find hard to articulate, I have a much mroe instinctive dislike of Ed Balls than most other politicians. He just seems to embody the worst of the aggressively partisan nonsense that pervades our political class. I may not be being entirely fair on the man, but something about him gets my back up.
Sorry I was talking about Simon Danczuk not Ed Balls. Balls really annoys me because he is clever and knows that so much of what he says is dishonest or misleading. He, more than anyone else is Brown's acolyte.
(Also no one seems to be asking why all those 100s of billions are flooding in from the BRICs.)
No one's asking because we all know the answer
That's good then. So we can expect to see some stuff in the media about how this miracle growth mostly comes from importing 100,000s more people every year and 100s of billions flooding in from BRIC oligarchs into the property market?
Question being, if they made such huge amounts of money in the BRICs why aren't they reinvesting it in the BRICs?
Ed Balls, aka Toad of Toad Hall, and his motoring antics won't reflect badly on the Labour party - it just plays into the general meme of politicians and their sense of entitlement.
I listed to Simon Danczuk on 5-live yesterday and he was making an impassioned plea for justice for the alleged victims of Big Cyril. He spoke about the long history from the 60s and how Liberal politicians seemed to have turned a blind eye. They had questions to be answered, he claimed.
I think it was Sheila Fogarty (Victoria Derbyshire wouldn't have the wit) who pointed out that Cyril was a Labour politician in the 60s ... Shouldn't his campaign include the Labour party too?
He fell to bits . . blustering and dissembling. And I thought what a pity it was that just when you think there's honour among expense thieves, they go and let you let you down again.
Pity. I have been generally impressed with him. His heart seems in the right place and he has a better connection with the real world than most politicians (a low bar admittedly).
Really? I must admit that for reasons I find hard to articulate, I have a much mroe instinctive dislike of Ed Balls than most other politicians. He just seems to embody the worst of the aggressively partisan nonsense that pervades our political class. I may not be being entirely fair on the man, but something about him gets my back up.
Sorry I was talking about Simon Danczuk not Ed Balls. Balls really annoys me because he is clever and knows that so much of what he says is dishonest or misleading. He, more than anyone else is Brown's acolyte.
Though it is rather hilarious how FPTP kills them in Scotland given their adherence to the system.
Not quite as hilarious as those so out of touch they don't seem to realise that scottish voters know perfectly well it's FPTP and also how to use it most effectively.
Hence more Pandas than scottish tory MPs.
As above, this below is about Westminster and FPTP not Holyrood:
Mr @antifrank posted, in his blog, a very useful discussion of the issue in Scotland, from the SNP point of view, which shows that Labour get a significant advantage there from FPTP as they do in England (or so I gather from discussions on PB)
I have been reading it again and I think he is right to emphasis the importance of a Yes vote to the 2015 GE, at least in Scotland.
Right now, one has to add that (a) 'wasted vote' issue to (b) the fact that in a functioning UK it may make more sense to vote for a unionist party than the SNP (which is largely swamped at Westminster), even if otherwise you want to vote SNP, if the unionist party happens to have the same, e.g. social, policies that you are worried about. And add (c) that old regular NOTA. So there is huge scope, nay need, for tactical voting.
However, after a Yes, (a) the likely boost to SNP voting and reaction against Unionist parties may be seen as breaching the threshold and so reducing the wasted vote issue, (b) is obviated to a great degree, and (c) becomes totally irrelevant.
I might be tempted to keep my fortune in Russia if someone had tipped me off that London was going to be developed into a molten glass lake in the near future... (this is not investment advice) :-)
I might be tempted to keep my fortune in Russia if someone had tipped me off that London was going to be developed into a molten glass lake in the near future... (this is not investment advice) :-)
So it could be vapourised by canned sunshine in the Motherland?
> While he wanted to appear moderate and reasonable, he and the LDs know very well the EU is not popular, therefore it makes no sense for even the deluded in the LDs to believe that by taking that position so publically and unequivocally against the popular Farage, that they would appeal to the mass of the electorate. He will have hoped to be seen as the clear winner, or for Farage to implode, but at its core his message was not one that appealed to the vast majority of the electorate, and the LDs know that, they know their position on the EU is not popular. Therefore, the principle objective cannot have been to appeal to the mass electorate, but instead firm up their core vote, and hopefully secure a few more from those who don't like the EU but are wary of leaving, in order to save their MEPs.
Leaving aside the specific example of the EU (which is why I clarified it in brackets), my point about the statement being true, was in relation to that it is sometimes better to go after a minority view. When you are a small party and the others are all either in line with the majority opinion, or pretending to be (as Labour and the Tories are, by broadly being in favour of staying in the EU while trying to look as though they don't want to be), and your view is clearly not in sync with that majority, there is nothing to be gained from pretending you are. You might not gain anything extra from stating the opposite, but you've a better chance than putting forward a majority opnion at odds with your own base.
Repeating the same spin isn't going to make it more convincing or true. You keep trying to pretend Clegg was some brave lone voice standing up for unpopular EU principles when the truth is he and his spinners made it perfectly clear that they wanted this to be about staying IN or OUT of the EU. Clegg for IN Farage for OUT. Look up the polling for staying IN because Clegg certainly did and it's not some tiny minority opinion but a FAR higher percentage than the lib dems are polling. Which was the whole point. Clegg wanted to leverage that far higher percent of IN voters towards the lib dems. He certainly didn't plan on making things worse for himself and that cause but that's what he ended up doing with very recent polls of the lib dems at 7% and the cause of IN set back mightily from Clegg's debating 'skill' and his toxicity. It was a disaster which will only serve to remind unhappy lib dems that they can look forward to far more of the same in the 2015 debates.
(Also no one seems to be asking why all those 100s of billions are flooding in from the BRICs.)
No one's asking because we all know the answer
That's good then. So we can expect to see some stuff in the media about how this miracle growth mostly comes from importing 100,000s more people every year and 100s of billions flooding in from BRIC oligarchs into the property market?
Question being, if they made such huge amounts of money in the BRICs why aren't they reinvesting it in the BRICs?
Mega unemployment figures. Shame there isn't a PMQs today. Dave would have handily whooped Ed, especially now that wage growth is higher than inflation.
Key points:
Unemployment down by 77k QoQ, 320k YoY.
Employment up 239k QoQ, 691k YoY.
Total wages up by 1.7%. Private sector wage growth up by 2.0%, outstripping inflation pretty handily
Unemployment rate drops to 6.9% from 7.1% in the previous quarter and from 7.9% last year.
Absolute employment is now 72.6%.
Inactivity drops by 86k QoQ, 104k YoY.
Youth unemployment down to 19.1%, and below 900k.
Overall, a very strong set of figures for the government.
Unemployment is therefore 250,000 lower than in May 2010.
MAD....mutually assured destruction, A masterstroke of a plan.... Unfortunately, relying on it not to be implemented by some semi evolved apes, does not raise my confidence levels much.
Given all the good economic news the Tories really *should* win pretty handily next year, especially given how much of a turn off EdM is and how sparse an alternative Labour is offering. But that Labour vote share looks very solid right now. It may be worth remembering that people do not vote on statistics, they vote on experience and perception. After all, a 2% rise in average private sector earnings does not mean that most - or even close to most - are actually seeing such increses in their pay packets.
You're right.
Most low pay workers are seeing *larger* increases in their pay packets thanks to the Coalition policy of increasing the personal allowance
This is my point about stats. The take home pay of the lowest paid my have increased, but they are also most dependent on welfare top-ups and public services. Thus, even as their pay increases slightly, their overall financial situation has quite possibly got worse because they are now getting less housing benefit, say, and/or they have to pay for council services they did not have to pay for before (or those services no longer exist).
Mega unemployment figures. Shame there isn't a PMQs today. Dave would have handily whooped Ed, especially now that wage growth is higher than inflation.
Key points:
Unemployment down by 77k QoQ, 320k YoY.
Employment up 239k QoQ, 691k YoY.
Total wages up by 1.7%. Private sector wage growth up by 2.0%, outstripping inflation pretty handily
Unemployment rate drops to 6.9% from 7.1% in the previous quarter and from 7.9% last year.
Absolute employment is now 72.6%.
Inactivity drops by 86k QoQ, 104k YoY.
Youth unemployment down to 19.1%, and below 900k.
Overall, a very strong set of figures for the government.
Unemployment is therefore 250,000 lower than in May 2010.
There are suggestions that these figures are massaged to ensure that "self-employed" people on zero hours contracts are counted as employed. Whereas in fact they are worse off.
Another few points on the likely unemployment rate during the 2015 election campaign.
I think the scope and rate of fall will accelerate over the coming year but even allowing for just the present rate of fall unemployment will go below 2 million for the first time since October 2008 and will be around 500,000 fewer than when the Coalition came to office.
Various people on government schemes don't count as unemployed. I suppose we should all be thankful though that Plan A was abandoned. Radical deficit reduction being the rock on which a recovery led by a business investment boom must go down as one of the worst predictions a British chancellor has ever made.
Its Wednesday, boiled eggies day. Huzzah! So I go to the cupboard to get the Marmite for my soldiers and where the jar with its colourful, cheerful logo should be is a sad (black label with beige writing), dumpy, little jar labelled, "Tesco's Yeast Extract, with added vitamins". Should I be expected to put up with this? Ever since I was a small child I have had Marmite with my eggs, in more than thirty years of married life Herself has always made sure there was a jar in the cupboard and now, suddenly, I am expected to use this Tesco's gloop. Not a word of warning, mind you. Does this not count as abuse of a pensioner? Am I not justified in displaying a certain amount of disapprobation when she gets back from the hairdressers?
It's your own fault for letting her go to the hairdressers before she's put the Marmite on your soldiers...
Re Big Cyril: When I lived in Rochdale in the early 60's Cyril was a) a Labour Alderman, b) Chair of the Education Committee and c) very active in youth work in the Borough. As I recall he bought at least some instruments for the Youth Silver Band in which my bro-in-law played. IIRC, the latter won't hear a word said against him personally and knew nothing of any paedophilia. A friend who taught at the school of which Cyril was a governor also never said a word against him. In that connection anyway; my friend didn't like him politically! Makes you wonder, sometimes!
I don't know anything of Cyril Smith beyond press reports. In general, however, even assassins aren't assassinating all the time, and may be perfectly pleasant in between. Conversely when we discover they're assassins, it doesn't mean we should entirely discount anything good they ever did, though we might decide they were 99% bad. People give themselves a lot of grief by expecting others to be consistently the same all the time.
Do the people on "sanctions" show up on the statistics? The ones that become "self employed" at the behest of the new job finder agencies do. For the agencies to get paid, they need to find someone a job....."working the system" benefits both the parties financially....paid by the government. (setting up an online retailer is one of the better....work from home, and the tax system guarantees a wage)
Given all the good economic news the Tories really *should* win pretty handily next year, especially given how much of a turn off EdM is and how sparse an alternative Labour is offering. But that Labour vote share looks very solid right now. It may be worth remembering that people do not vote on statistics, they vote on experience and perception. After all, a 2% rise in average private sector earnings does not mean that most - or even close to most - are actually seeing such increses in their pay packets.
Pay growth in non-financial companies is significantly higher than 2%. The evidence is all there, private consumption is up, housing debt is still falling (though at a slower rate than before), the ravings ratio has stabilised as well. While the media and Labour have been reporting that people feel poorer, the economic and consumption figures say otherwise. All of the corporate indicators are positive for private consumption so it's not just government backed statistics that indicate higher than reported wage growth.
It may be a bold claim, but I honestly believe that the majority of people in work feel better off today than the same time last year and significantly better off than two years ago. It is the non-working classes on the dole who are having a tougher time and when Labour talk about people struggling to make ends meet, or bleeding heart lefties talk about food banks, fewer and fewer working people understand how this can be happening. Labour stand up for the non-working classes, as always. If they stay on this path I could see them ending up with fewer seats than the Tories in 2015.
Another few points on the likely unemployment rate during the 2015 election campaign.
I think the scope and rate of fall will accelerate over the coming year but even allowing for just the present rate of fall unemployment will go below 2 million for the first time since October 2008 and will be around 500,000 fewer than when the Coalition came to office.
Various people on government schemes don't count as unemployed. I suppose we should all be thankful though that Plan A was abandoned. Radical deficit reduction being the rock on which a recovery led by a business investment boom must go down as one of the worst predictions a British chancellor has ever made.
But, there has been a major fiscal tightening since 2010, accompanied by a significant fall in unemployment.
If there is a Yes vote in September, that's still nine months or so until the GE. If it becomes clear in that space of time that much of what was said by the SNP during the referendum campaign is not going to happen - ie, a currency union, automatic EU entry, continued ship orders from HMG etc - then that might not work in the SNP's favour at the polls come May 2015. In many ways, therefore, it is actually in the SNP's favour not to have any serious separation negotiations before the GE takes place.
Another few points on the likely unemployment rate during the 2015 election campaign.
I think the scope and rate of fall will accelerate over the coming year but even allowing for just the present rate of fall unemployment will go below 2 million for the first time since October 2008 and will be around 500,000 fewer than when the Coalition came to office.
Various people on government schemes don't count as unemployed. I suppose we should all be thankful though that Plan A was abandoned. Radical deficit reduction being the rock on which a recovery led by a business investment boom must go down as one of the worst predictions a British chancellor has ever made.
The ONS numbers are not my stats and are comparing like with like.
You floundering around trying to rubbish transparently good news is simply delusional on your part and frankly so patently a poor effort as to make me wonder why you bothered.
We might also be grateful to see that the Labour party had an economic Plan A unless their current position of left the field of play is Plan A - ie - Abandonment
Reeeally? I wonder what 'assurances' he has finally got from little Ed then. If he is so satisfied and does go then I fear Darling may start blinking furiously enough to start hovering on the spot.
Reeeally? I wonder what 'assurances' he has finally got from little Ed then. If he is so satisfied and does go then I fear Darling may start blinking furiously enough to start hovering on the spot.
He's after the job of PM of an independent Scotland.
(Also no one seems to be asking why all those 100s of billions are flooding in from the BRICs.)
No one's asking because we all know the answer
That's good then. So we can expect to see some stuff in the media about how this miracle growth mostly comes from importing 100,000s more people every year and 100s of billions flooding in from BRIC oligarchs into the property market?
Question being, if they made such huge amounts of money in the BRICs why aren't they reinvesting it in the BRICs?
There were c. 3,000 residential property transactions in the UK in 2012 with value > £2m, total value of £17bn/ I believe (from memory) around half of these were foreign investors, and they certainly weren't all oligarchs.
They are sending it over as a simple store of value. It can't be pinched by the next president of your country if you end up on his bad side. So, worst case, you still end up with a £70m house in Kensington (thinking of the Mayor of Kyiv's daughter as a random example) that you can sell and be very very rich even if your country disintegrates
Mega unemployment figures. Shame there isn't a PMQs today. Dave would have handily whooped Ed, especially now that wage growth is higher than inflation.
Key points:
Unemployment down by 77k QoQ, 320k YoY.
Employment up 239k QoQ, 691k YoY.
Total wages up by 1.7%. Private sector wage growth up by 2.0%, outstripping inflation pretty handily
Unemployment rate drops to 6.9% from 7.1% in the previous quarter and from 7.9% last year.
Absolute employment is now 72.6%.
Inactivity drops by 86k QoQ, 104k YoY.
Youth unemployment down to 19.1%, and below 900k.
Overall, a very strong set of figures for the government.
Unemployment is therefore 250,000 lower than in May 2010.
There are suggestions that these figures are massaged to ensure that "self-employed" people on zero hours contracts are counted as employed. Whereas in fact they are worse off.
Just saying!
There is no guarantee that someone in full-time work is better off than someone out of work - but that's "making work pay" and the government will not be troubled by that. I say full-time work because the ONS stats show that three quarters of created jobs are full-time and underemployment is down.
Around 'zero-hours' contract one has to be careful to define what problem is being mis-represented. It is one problem to say that, because of the nature of someone's job, despite working many hours each week he or she does not have job security, or that they must be available for work full-time but paid only part-time, and quite another to say that because of the nature of someone's job they are considered to be working when they are not. Some people on zero-hours contracts work a full-time week, and others part-time hours. There is evidence to suggest that people on zero-hours contracts actually misreport their status on the Labour Force Survey to this end.
Even the great British public are celebrating George's good news
A couple of days ago, in a discussion about whether voters are feeling the effects of economic recovery, I suggested that we wait for the results of the Markit Household Finance Index (HFI) published this morning. The index measures "overall perceptions of financial well-being" by householders and is polled by Ipsos MORI on behalf of Markit.
The HFI had stalled a bit in March and I predicted we would need to wait 'til May when the April tax changes had been seen on payslips before seeing big movements.
I was too pessimistic.
The April HFI has come in at 43.1, its highest level since the index started to be published in February 2009. It rose 1.2 points from 41.9 in March.
Underpinning the rise in well-being were easing inflation expectations (the lowest since December 2009) and both rising workplace activity and household spending.
On a year forward perspective, expectations for future finances moved past the 50 mark to yet another survey record of 51.9 (from 49.1 in March). The forward index masked wide differences between the public and private sectors, with the latter much more positive about the future, with workers in the IT/Telecomms and Manfacturing industries leading the way.
Workplace activity was up to 56.2 from 55.1 just shy of the series record high of last December. Job Security leapt a full point to 46.9, yet another (joint) series record. Household spending edged up to a four month high with a slight quickening of growth rate. Expectations for living costs over the year ahead also recorded a four year low, down to 87.7 from 89.0.
These are all small, dry and dull statistical movements, but they represent one of the few systematic measurements of the much discussed "feelgood factor". And the trend upwards has been slow but positive since this time last year.
Today is not only crossover day in wage growth and inflation. There is another important crossover to be marked: historians will look back on 16th April 2014 as the day when the "cost of living crisis" finally crossed over into the "cost of Labour crisis".
The game's afoot: Follow your spirit, and upon this change Cry 'God for Cammie, England, and Saint George!'
Repeating the same spin isn't going to make it more convincing or true.
Be careful the shadow you chase is not the one you cast,as the old saying goes. Some self awareness goes a long way.
Repeatedly and intentionally misinterpreting others' statements does not make it more convincing or true either, nor does framing every topic into some choice between two and only two options, meaning either someone agrees, or is wholly and entirely wrong, necessitating the reworking of that opinion away from its authors' intent to fit some imagine position you believe they must be holding.
I'd make the point I was actually making, rather than the point you have pretended I am making, again by making it even simpler, but I've done that enough times to know that either I have an IQ of 60, or you misinterpret it intentionally no matter how simply I try to put it, so I think I will just say that you have won the day. You are, as ever apparently, entirely correct and anyone who disagrees or even has a slightly different interpretation is not only incorrect because they are stupid, but incorrect because they have a malicious intent rather than, perhaps, they just feel your partisan bullcrap is not reflective of reality being more complex than that.
I'll put it even simpler to make you happy. Fine, you are correct, as always.
Amazing though that even though I haven't decided which way to vote in the Euros I am so dediciated to spinning for a particular party. I state I have given Cameron a lot of leeway and that I wanted him to be PM, I have defended Ed M from accusations of being crap and that I don't fear a Labour win in 2015, I feel Clegg is more toxic than his actions deserve, I have stated I like and respect Farage despite not supporting his party and I have stated I think the SNP in general and the Yes campaign is very able and will succeeed later this year. But apparently I'm just a loyalist Cleggite LD spinning stooge?
Given my consistent opinions on such subjects, I would be interested to know who I am spinning for, as it ain't any of the main parties that's for sure? I may lean toward certain parties in general, but as I have no commitment or loyalty to any of them, what purpose would my spinning have?
And yes, feel free to mock me for getting all worked up by your refutation of my statement, as though it was the logic of your argument which defeated me. I'll save you the time.
It's been delicious listening to a variety of left-wing posters desperately trying to nuance today's economic news - wrong type of jobs, not everyone benefitting from wage rises/tax cuts and the hilarious one about people losing benefits because their income rises - DUH!
Given all the good economic news the Tories really *should* win pretty handily next year, especially given how much of a turn off EdM is and how sparse an alternative Labour is offering. But that Labour vote share looks very solid right now. It may be worth remembering that people do not vote on statistics, they vote on experience and perception. After all, a 2% rise in average private sector earnings does not mean that most - or even close to most - are actually seeing such increses in their pay packets.
"It may be worth remembering that people do not vote on statistics, they vote on experience and perception."
Quite right.
That's why citing GDP figures to prove to people that their hometown changing before their eyes while their pay goes south is a good thing, coincides with a party that wants immigration controlled becoming more popular
Re Big Cyril: When I lived in Rochdale in the early 60's Cyril was a) a Labour Alderman, b) Chair of the Education Committee and c) very active in youth work in the Borough. As I recall he bought at least some instruments for the Youth Silver Band in which my bro-in-law played. IIRC, the latter won't hear a word said against him personally and knew nothing of any paedophilia. A friend who taught at the school of which Cyril was a governor also never said a word against him. In that connection anyway; my friend didn't like him politically! Makes you wonder, sometimes!
I don't know anything of Cyril Smith beyond press reports. In general, however, even assassins aren't assassinating all the time, and may be perfectly pleasant in between. Conversely when we discover they're assassins, it doesn't mean we should entirely discount anything good they ever did, though we might decide they were 99% bad. People give themselves a lot of grief by expecting others to be consistently the same all the time.
People only say Hitler was an environmentalist & a vegetarian to make him look bad?
Reeeally? I wonder what 'assurances' he has finally got from little Ed then. If he is so satisfied and does go then I fear Darling may start blinking furiously enough to start hovering on the spot.
He's after the job of PM of an independent Scotland.
Brown stayed an MP for the noblest of SLAB reasons. Spite. Those who crossed Brown (and Blair to be fair) knew they did not forgive or forget. Brown wanted to make 100% certain those who had crossed him and displeased him the most did not prosper. He has likely succeeded. He certainly didn't stay for the westminster debates and unlike Blair he didn't zoom off to incredibly lucrative banking jobs in the US and PR elsewhere.
If there is a Yes vote in September, that's still nine months or so until the GE. If it becomes clear in that space of time that much of what was said by the SNP during the referendum campaign is not going to happen - ie, a currency union, automatic EU entry, continued ship orders from HMG etc - then that might not work in the SNP's favour at the polls come May 2015. In many ways, therefore, it is actually in the SNP's favour not to have any serious separation negotiations before the GE takes place.
Interesting point. But I have a little trouble with the logic. That is because it is the unionist parties (assuming they bother to stand in Scotland in 2015) that will be on the 'other' side of the table for the self-same negotiations. So if X does not come about, despite the SNP's efforts, but precisely because of (say) the Labour efforts, who is going to attract the greater measure of blame?
I suspect it all depends on what is seen as reasonable and unreasonable by the voters. Of course, if the unionist parties evaporate after a Yes vote (or try to clothe themselves anew in a dead lamb's skin+) things would get more complex.
+local farming custom - get an ewe with a dead lamb to adopt an orphan or excess lamb by skinning the dead lamb and putting it on the orphan lamb to get her to smell the 'right' smell
"The total number of sanctions against benefit claimants in the year to September 2013 was 897,690, the highest figure for any 12-month period since jobseeker's allowance was introduced in 1996."
Another few points on the likely unemployment rate during the 2015 election campaign.
I think the scope and rate of fall will accelerate over the coming year but even allowing for just the present rate of fall unemployment will go below 2 million for the first time since October 2008 and will be around 500,000 fewer than when the Coalition came to office.
Various people on government schemes don't count as unemployed. I suppose we should all be thankful though that Plan A was abandoned. Radical deficit reduction being the rock on which a recovery led by a business investment boom must go down as one of the worst predictions a British chancellor has ever made.
The ONS numbers are not my stats and are comparing like with like.
You floundering around trying to rubbish transparently good news is simply delusional on your part and frankly so patently a poor effort as to make me wonder why you bothered.
We might also be grateful to see that the Labour party had an economic Plan A unless their current position of left the field of play is Plan A - ie - Abandonment
I'm not trying to rubbish good news just pointing out that it's a good job Osborne has abandoned his absurd Plan A. Even someone like George struggles to keep getting it wrong when the results are so awful.
The Tories have long had form when it comes to massaging unemployment numbers. Remember the 1980s? I hold no candle for Labour and was suspicious of many of their own targets that were met with a great deal of self-congratulation.
"The total number of sanctions against benefit claimants in the year to September 2013 was 897,690, the highest figure for any 12-month period since jobseeker's allowance was introduced in 1996."
Now, I have no idea how those people reflect on the statistics, but I would guess at it being measurable.
It will presumably have an impact on the claimant count, but presumably not on the count of those not employed but seeking work. Since the latter is the figure that is most-used, your concern on this front seems unfounded.
After all, a 2% rise in average private sector earnings does not mean that most - or even close to most - are actually seeing such increses in their pay packets.
Looking at the detailed breakdown, the only subsection of the economy seeing poor wage growth is Finance and Business services at +0.3% for February.
All other subsections are seeing much higher growth eg. Retailing +3.5% q/q, Manufacturing +3.2% q/q, Construction +3.1.% q/q.
Even in the public service, if you exclude the state owned banks, the growth in February was 1.8%.
Stunning numbers - the economy is BOOMING.
What does Dan Hodges think of Ed's new policies ? Not a lot !
Reeeally? I wonder what 'assurances' he has finally got from little Ed then. If he is so satisfied and does go then I fear Darling may start blinking furiously enough to start hovering on the spot.
He's after the job of PM of an independent Scotland.
Brown stayed an MP for the noblest of SLAB reasons. Spite. Those who crossed Brown (and Blair to be fair) knew they did not forgive or forget. Brown wanted to make 100% certain those who had crossed him and displeased him the most did not prosper. He has likely succeeded. He certainly didn't stay for the westminster debates and unlike Blair he didn't zoom off to incredibly lucrative banking jobs in the US and PR elsewhere.
He doesn't have the same opportunities as Mr Blair. He certainly doesn't seem to object to the lifestyle.
Another few points on the likely unemployment rate during the 2015 election campaign.
I think the scope and rate of fall will accelerate over the coming year but even allowing for just the present rate of fall unemployment will go below 2 million for the first time since October 2008 and will be around 500,000 fewer than when the Coalition came to office.
Various people on government schemes don't count as unemployed. I suppose we should all be thankful though that Plan A was abandoned. Radical deficit reduction being the rock on which a recovery led by a business investment boom must go down as one of the worst predictions a British chancellor has ever made.
The ONS numbers are not my stats and are comparing like with like.
You floundering around trying to rubbish transparently good news is simply delusional on your part and frankly so patently a poor effort as to make me wonder why you bothered.
We might also be grateful to see that the Labour party had an economic Plan A unless their current position of left the field of play is Plan A - ie - Abandonment
The Tories have long had form when it comes to massaging unemployment numbers.
Ah now its "I don't believe the official figures " ?
Poor show Frank - your guys were wrong - wrongity wrong on the economy.
After all, a 2% rise in average private sector earnings does not mean that most - or even close to most - are actually seeing such increses in their pay packets.
Looking at the detailed breakdown, the only subsection of the economy seeing poor wage growth is Finance and Business services at +0.3% for February.
All other subsections are seeing much higher growth eg. Retailing +3.5% q/q, Manufacturing +3.2% q/q, Construction +3.1.% q/q.
Even in the public service, if you exclude the state owned banks, the growth in February was 1.8%.
Stunning numbers - the economy is BOOMING.
What does Dan Hodges think of Ed's new policies ? Not a lot !
All my concerns are unfounded, but please indulge me?
Anyone undergoing repeated sanctions will look for a better way, Fortunately, it is common knowledge that becoming self employed, is no more onerous than complying with the Job Centre requirements, and pays better.(they even tell you how to make up your sheet to get the maximum)
Next time I will tell you why the disability tests have the opposite effect to that intended.
Its Wednesday, boiled eggies day. Huzzah! So I go to the cupboard to get the Marmite for my soldiers and where the jar with its colourful, cheerful logo should be is a sad (black label with beige writing), dumpy, little jar labelled, "Tesco's Yeast Extract, with added vitamins". Should I be expected to put up with this? Ever since I was a small child I have had Marmite with my eggs, in more than thirty years of married life Herself has always made sure there was a jar in the cupboard and now, suddenly, I am expected to use this Tesco's gloop. Not a word of warning, mind you. Does this not count as abuse of a pensioner? Am I not justified in displaying a certain amount of disapprobation when she gets back from the hairdressers?
Mr Lama my sympathies are totally and utterly with you re Marmite. Even though I'm a Bovril man, have been since childhood and have brought up my children and grandchildren to demand it with religious fervour I recognise the enormity of that with which you are faced.
It's almost on a level with being offered Vegemite!
Bovril? Heathen! I may be an antipodean when it comes to my yeast extract toast toppings, but Bovril is a far worse transgression than that.
Bovril also makes excellent sandwiches, on occasion combined with lettuce. There is also now a Chicken Bovril which makes a most satisfying and soporific bedtime drink.
Never tried Bovril as a spread though I do like it as a drink, very fortifying. In the days when I did such things, after a night out in The City I used to get the cab to divert to Finsbury Square where, in the North East corner, used to be a burger stand mainly frequented by cab drivers. The chap sold strong Bovril drinks with pepper and, unless you stopped him, salt. One of those combined with a late night special (double cheese burger with bacon, a fried egg and so much saturated fat you feel your arteries wince) was enough to see me safe home to Sussex after the best of city functions. Not only that, if you included him in the round, the cab driver would normally switch off the meter while we dined. I wonder if it is still there.
My thanks to those who responded to my earlier post on the Marmite issue. An update. When Herself came back from the hairdressers I, very carefully and gently (didn't want a repeat of the ironing issue), raised my concerns. It turns out that she has been feeding me the Tesco's muck for weeks (spousal abuse for sure) and not only with my weekly eggs but also with my cheese on toast and various gravies and I never noticed. So perhaps Mr. Charles had a point - same stuff just cheaper. Its has gone in the bin, though, and I bought a jar of the real thing from the village Co-Op when I went for my morning walk.
Another few points on the likely unemployment rate during the 2015 election campaign.
I think the scope and rate of fall will accelerate over the coming year but even allowing for just the present rate of fall unemployment will go below 2 million for the first time since October 2008 and will be around 500,000 fewer than when the Coalition came to office.
Various people on government schemes don't count as unemployed. I suppose we should all be thankful though that Plan A was abandoned. Radical deficit reduction being the rock on which a recovery led by a business investment boom must go down as one of the worst predictions a British chancellor has ever made.
The ONS numbers are not my stats and are comparing like with like.
You floundering around trying to rubbish transparently good news is simply delusional on your part and frankly so patently a poor effort as to make me wonder why you bothered.
We might also be grateful to see that the Labour party had an economic Plan A unless their current position of left the field of play is Plan A - ie - Abandonment
I'm not trying to rubbish good news just pointing out that it's a good job Osborne has abandoned his absurd Plan A. Even someone like George struggles to keep getting it wrong when the results are so awful.
The Tories have long had form when it comes to massaging unemployment numbers. Remember the 1980s? I hold no candle for Labour and was suspicious of many of their own targets that were met with a great deal of self-congratulation.
You are fighting old battles over massaging of unemployment figures, not even Labour is suggesting that of the ONS.
You also keep remarking on the nonsense that the Coalition abandoned Plan A. It has done no such thing as indeed Ed Balls has been constantly reminding us all for several years.
The plain unvarnished truth is that Plan A has and is continuing to work. Labour has no answer to it and all the two Ed's economic forecasts that it would fail spectacularly have turned to dust.
Repeatedly and intentionally misinterpreting others' statements does not make it more convincing or true either, nor does framing every topic into some choice between two and only two options, meaning either someone agrees, or is wholly and entirely wrong, necessitating the reworking of that opinion away from its authors' intent to fit some imagine position you believe they must be holding.
I'd make the point I was actually making, rather than the point you have pretended I am making, again by making it even simpler, but I've done that enough times to know that either I have an IQ of 60, or you misinterpret it intentionally no matter how simply I try to put it, so I think I will just say that you have won the day. You are, as ever apparently, entirely correct and anyone who disagrees or even has a slightly different interpretation is not only incorrect because they are stupid, but incorrect because they have a malicious intent rather than, perhaps, they just feel your partisan bullcrap is not reflective of reality being more complex than that.
I'll put it even simpler to make you happy. Fine, you are correct, as always.
Amazing though that even though I haven't decided which way to vote in the Euros I am so dediciated to spinning for a particular party. I state I have given Cameron a lot of leeway and that I wanted him to be PM, I have defended Ed M from accusations of being crap and that I don't fear a Labour win in 2015, I feel Clegg is more toxic than his actions deserve, I have stated I like and respect Farage despite not supporting his party and I have stated I think the SNP in general and the Yes campaign is very able and will succeeed later this year. But apparently I'm just a loyalist Cleggite LD spinning stooge?
Given my consistent opinions on such subjects, I would be interested to know who I am spinning for, as it ain't any of the main parties that's for sure? I may lean toward certain parties in general, but as I have no commitment or loyalty to any of them, what purpose would my spinning have?
And yes, feel free to mock me for getting all worked up by your refutation of my statement, as though it was the logic of your argument which defeated me.
You appear to be deliberately ignoring the argument for some reason. Which is that Clegg self-evidently made the debates about staying IN or OUT of the EU and that staying IN the EU is NOT a tiny minority opinion but one far greater than the current lib dem support. Hence the feeble Clegg spin after the fact that the debates were all about him being principled and standing up for an unpopular cause being complete and utter bullsh*t.
Feel free to ignore that reality since the point about Clegg is that he's not just toxic but as the debates have shown he is also out of touch and incompetent. Same for his ostrich faction.
Reeeally? I wonder what 'assurances' he has finally got from little Ed then. If he is so satisfied and does go then I fear Darling may start blinking furiously enough to start hovering on the spot.
He's after the job of PM of an independent Scotland.
Brown stayed an MP for the noblest of SLAB reasons. Spite. Those who crossed Brown (and Blair to be fair) knew they did not forgive or forget. Brown wanted to make 100% certain those who had crossed him and displeased him the most did not prosper. He has likely succeeded. He certainly didn't stay for the westminster debates and unlike Blair he didn't zoom off to incredibly lucrative banking jobs in the US and PR elsewhere.
He doesn't have the same opportunities as Mr Blair. He certainly doesn't seem to object to the lifestyle.
You misunderstand. I think Brown will quite likely find something along the Blair lines after he goes. You also have to factor in that such expenses behaviour among scottish labour MPs are pretty much the norm. Hence their intense fear of losing the westminster teat to suckle at.
Another few points on the likely unemployment rate during the 2015 election campaign.
I think the scope and rate of fall will accelerate over the coming year but even allowing for just the present rate of fall unemployment will go below 2 million for the first time since October 2008 and will be around 500,000 fewer than when the Coalition came to office.
Various people on government schemes don't count as unemployed. I suppose we should all be thankful though that Plan A was abandoned. Radical deficit reduction being the rock on which a recovery led by a business investment boom must go down as one of the worst predictions a British chancellor has ever made.
The ONS numbers are not my stats and are comparing like with like.
You floundering around trying to rubbish transparently good news is simply delusional on your part and frankly so patently a poor effort as to make me wonder why you bothered.
We might also be grateful to see that the Labour party had an economic Plan A unless their current position of left the field of play is Plan A - ie - Abandonment
I'm not trying to rubbish good news just pointing out that it's a good job Osborne has abandoned his absurd Plan A. Even someone like George struggles to keep getting it wrong when the results are so awful.
The Tories have long had form when it comes to massaging unemployment numbers. Remember the 1980s? I hold no candle for Labour and was suspicious of many of their own targets that were met with a great deal of self-congratulation.
You are fighting old battles over massaging of unemployment figures, not even Labour is suggesting that of the ONS.
You also keep remarking on the nonsense that the Coalition abandoned Plan A. It has done no such thing as indeed Ed Balls has been constantly reminding us all for several years.
The plain unvarnished truth is that Plan A has and is continuing to work. Labour has no answer to it and all the two Ed's economic forecasts that it would fail spectacularly have turned to dust.
Rarely have a pair of wrong uns been so wrong.
I don't care what Ed Balls says. I'm not suggesting the ONS is itself massaging figures, just that government is determined to get unemployed numbers down by any means necessary, even if that means a self-employed window cleaner works one day a week and claims benefits for the rest.
As for Plan A, here's Jonathan Portes from the NIESR.
This change over the past two weeks is a result of a significant rise in support for EPP parties in Poland, perhaps related to insecurity as a result of the crisis in Ukraine. EPP parties have also made gains in France and picked up one more seat in several other member states. Meanwhile, S&D parties have declined slightly in Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, France, and Greece.
It's been delicious listening to a variety of left-wing posters desperately trying to nuance today's economic news - wrong type of jobs, not everyone benefitting from wage rises/tax cuts and the hilarious one about people losing benefits because their income rises - DUH!
I can't speak for others but my main interest is why, despite the good economic news, the Tories are not seeing the benefits in the polls. They should be cantering to victory, but as things stand the chances of them getting a majority in 2015 are vanishingly small. There have to be reasons for that and perhaps one of them is that the statistics are not telling the full story about the recovery and people's experiences of it.
All my concerns are unfounded, but please indulge me?
Anyone undergoing repeated sanctions will look for a better way, Fortunately, it is common knowledge that becoming self employed, is no more onerous than complying with the Job Centre requirements, and pays better.(they even tell you how to make up your sheet to get the maximum)
Next time I will tell you why the disability tests have the opposite effect to that intended.
Next time you might wish to consider demonstrating the particular vector from sanctions to self-employed status. There is no immediately obvious reason why people who couldn't be bothered to turn up to an appointment at the job centre would be disproportionately likely to go self-employed, as opposed to others on the dole.
" if that means a self-employed window cleaner works one day a week and claims benefits for the rest."
Noooooo, the idea is that you are "full time", The other five days you are advertising your business, and canvassing opinions on your service. (the local pub is a good canvasing location)
I think the scope and rate of fall will accelerate over the coming year but even allowing for just the present rate of fall unemployment will go below 2 million for the first time since October 2008 and will be around 500,000 fewer than when the Coalition came to office.
Various people on government schemes don't count as unemployed. I suppose we should all be thankful though that Plan A was abandoned. Radical deficit reduction being the rock on which a recovery led by a business investment boom must go down as one of the worst predictions a British chancellor has ever made.
The ONS numbers are not my stats and are comparing like with like.
You floundering around trying to rubbish transparently good news is simply delusional on your part and frankly so patently a poor effort as to make me wonder why you bothered.
We might also be grateful to see that the Labour party had an economic Plan A unless their current position of left the field of play is Plan A - ie - Abandonment
I'm not trying to rubbish good news just pointing out that it's a good job Osborne has abandoned his absurd Plan A. Even someone like George struggles to keep getting it wrong when the results are so awful.
The Tories have long had form when it comes to massaging unemployment numbers. Remember the 1980s? I hold no candle for Labour and was suspicious of many of their own targets that were met with a great deal of self-congratulation.
You are fighting old battles over massaging of unemployment figures, not even Labour is suggesting that of the ONS.
You also keep remarking on the nonsense that the Coalition abandoned Plan A. It has done no such thing as indeed Ed Balls has been constantly reminding us all for several years.
The plain unvarnished truth is that Plan A has and is continuing to work. Labour has no answer to it and all the two Ed's economic forecasts that it would fail spectacularly have turned to dust.
Rarely have a pair of wrong uns been so wrong.
I don't care what Ed Balls says. I'm not suggesting the ONS is itself massaging figures, just that government is determined to get unemployed numbers down by any means necessary, even if that means a self-employed window cleaner works one day a week and claims benefits for the rest.
As for Plan A, here's Jonathan Portes from the NIESR.
If there is a Yes vote in September, that's still nine months or so until the GE. If it becomes clear in that space of time that much of what was said by the SNP during the referendum campaign is not going to happen - ie, a currency union, automatic EU entry, continued ship orders from HMG etc - then that might not work in the SNP's favour at the polls come May 2015. In many ways, therefore, it is actually in the SNP's favour not to have any serious separation negotiations before the GE takes place.
Interesting point. But I have a little trouble with the logic. That is because it is the unionist parties (assuming they bother to stand in Scotland in 2015) that will be on the 'other' side of the table for the self-same negotiations. So if X does not come about, despite the SNP's efforts, but precisely because of (say) the Labour efforts, who is going to attract the greater measure of blame?
I suspect it all depends on what is seen as reasonable and unreasonable by the voters. Of course, if the unionist parties evaporate after a Yes vote (or try to clothe themselves anew in a dead lamb's skin+) things would get more complex.
+local farming custom - get an ewe with a dead lamb to adopt an orphan or excess lamb by skinning the dead lamb and putting it on the orphan lamb to get her to smell the 'right' smell
If what the Better Together campaign says will happen in the event of a Yes vote does happen why would Scottish voters blame the Unionist parties for that? The SNP's case is that Better Together is Project Fear; ie, that what is predicted to happen in the event of a Yes will not transpire and that instead everything will work out just fine: there will be a currency union, there will be no flight of business or capital, pensions will be unaffected, EU entry will be automatic and immediate, the rUK government will still build ships in Scotland and so on. These things will either turn out to be true or they will not. And if they are not true, the SNP will be shown to be utterly naïve at best, unprincipled dissemblers at worst.
It's been delicious listening to a variety of left-wing posters desperately trying to nuance today's economic news - wrong type of jobs, not everyone benefitting from wage rises/tax cuts and the hilarious one about people losing benefits because their income rises - DUH!
I can't speak for others but my main interest is why, despite the good economic news, the Tories are not seeing the benefits in the polls. They should be cantering to victory, but as things stand the chances of them getting a majority in 2015 are vanishingly small. There have to be reasons for that and perhaps one of them is that the statistics are not telling the full story about the recovery and people's experiences of it.
Be patient. A year is a terribly long time in politics you know. Voters are simply not thinking about the GE now. To be a mere 3-5% adrift with a year still to go, and the economy set to expand still further, is an astonishingly good augury.
(I have put my money where my mouth is, not least with tim, on 2015).
Never tried Bovril as a spread though I do like it as a drink, very fortifying. In the days when I did such things, after a night out in The City I used to get the cab to divert to Finsbury Square where, in the North East corner, used to be a burger stand mainly frequented by cab drivers. The chap sold strong Bovril drinks with pepper and, unless you stopped him, salt. One of those combined with a late night special (double cheese burger with bacon, a fried egg and so much saturated fat you feel your arteries wince) was enough to see me safe home to Sussex after the best of city functions. Not only that, if you included him in the round, the cab driver would normally switch off the meter while we dined. I wonder if it is still there.
My thanks to those who responded to my earlier post on the Marmite issue. An update. When Herself came back from the hairdressers I, very carefully and gently (didn't want a repeat of the ironing issue), raised my concerns. It turns out that she has been feeding me the Tesco's muck for weeks (spousal abuse for sure) and not only with my weekly eggs but also with my cheese on toast and various gravies and I never noticed. So perhaps Mr. Charles had a point - same stuff just cheaper. Its has gone in the bin, though, and I bought a jar of the real thing from the village Co-Op when I went for my morning walk.
On the taxi hut at Finsbury Square (I thought it was Finsbury Circle mind), I used to use it occasionally, but it was closed during the redevelopment of the square a few years ago & I don't know if it reopened when all about was glitzed up
As for Tesco brands... what can I say? Some people pay a premium for brands. FWIW, my wife complains that Tesco's brand cornflakes are the wrong shape. Apparently they are more "round" than Kellogg's and therefore I am not permitted to purchase them.
If there is a Yes vote in September, that's still nine months or so until the GE. If it becomes clear in that space of time that much of what was said by the SNP during the referendum campaign is not going to happen - ie, a currency union, automatic EU entry, continued ship orders from HMG etc - then that might not work in the SNP's favour at the polls come May 2015. In many ways, therefore, it is actually in the SNP's favour not to have any serious separation negotiations before the GE takes place.
Interesting point. But I have a little trouble with the logic. That is because it is the unionist parties (assuming they bother to stand in Scotland in 2015) that will be on the 'other' side of the table for the self-same negotiations. So if X does not come about, despite the SNP's efforts, but precisely because of (say) the Labour efforts, who is going to attract the greater measure of blame?
I suspect it all depends on what is seen as reasonable and unreasonable by the voters. Of course, if the unionist parties evaporate after a Yes vote (or try to clothe themselves anew in a dead lamb's skin+) things would get more complex.
+local farming custom - get an ewe with a dead lamb to adopt an orphan or excess lamb by skinning the dead lamb and putting it on the orphan lamb to get her to smell the 'right' smell
If what the Better Together campaign says will happen in the event of a Yes vote does happen why would Scottish voters blame the Unionist parties for that?
Won't we all be dead when the "dark forces", earthquakes and "cataclysms" are unleashed?
It's been delicious listening to a variety of left-wing posters desperately trying to nuance today's economic news - wrong type of jobs, not everyone benefitting from wage rises/tax cuts and the hilarious one about people losing benefits because their income rises - DUH!
I can't speak for others but my main interest is why, despite the good economic news, the Tories are not seeing the benefits in the polls. They should be cantering to victory, but as things stand the chances of them getting a majority in 2015 are vanishingly small. There have to be reasons for that and perhaps one of them is that the statistics are not telling the full story about the recovery and people's experiences of it.
Fair point - more likely simply that these things filter through slowly - maybe too slowly for 2015, we will see. However, I'm unconvinced that those who try to rubbish the figures are playing good politics - I think I saw a Hopisen quote earlier suggesting it ain't gonna work.
" if that means a self-employed window cleaner works one day a week and claims benefits for the rest."
Noooooo, the idea is that you are "full time", The other five days you are advertising your business, and canvassing opinions on your service. (the local pub is a good canvasing location)
In financial terms, it is maximizing your assets.
Dunno about that, but the fellow who cleared out my gutters last week, the chaps who come round and valet the cars, the chap who cleans my windows and the bloke who is going to clean-up the patio and drives next week are all self-employed, all young (less than 25) and I have never seen any of them in the pub during the day. I guess they are all too busy earning a living, they have all certainly cottoned on to the idea that doing a good job gets recommendations which gets them more work.
Comments
When I lived in Rochdale in the early 60's Cyril was a) a Labour Alderman, b) Chair of the Education Committee and c) very active in youth work in the Borough. As I recall he bought at least some instruments for the Youth Silver Band in which my bro-in-law played. IIRC, the latter won't hear a word said against him personally and knew nothing of any paedophilia. A friend who taught at the school of which Cyril was a governor also never said a word against him. In that connection anyway; my friend didn't like him politically!
Makes you wonder, sometimes!
Leaving aside the specific example of the EU (which is why I clarified it in brackets), my point about the statement being true, was in relation to that it is sometimes better to go after a minority view. When you are a small party and the others are all either in line with the majority opinion, or pretending to be (as Labour and the Tories are, by broadly being in favour of staying in the EU while trying to look as though they don't want to be), and your view is clearly not in sync with that majority, there is nothing to be gained from pretending you are. You might not gain anything extra from stating the opposite, but you've a better chance than putting forward a majority opnion at odds with your own base.
Question being, if they made such huge amounts of money in the BRICs why aren't they reinvesting it in the BRICs?
Hence more Pandas than scottish tory MPs.
Rationally the Tories might be expected to be doing better given the economic news, but my general feeling is that once a narrative of incompetence sets in, as did several years ago, anything good tends to be seen by many people as happening in spite of the people in charge, rather than because of them, so they may get less credit than they think they deserve. People vote with their gut, and in any case, if things are looking up in 2015, a lot of people will feel any 'risk' from Ed M and Ed B running things will be lessened, so why not kick out Cameron.
But then I think Cameron will lose not so much because he is widely hated, but because the right has split while the left unified under Labour for reasons not to do with the economy or some of his other major policies.
Awesome.
Dave won't resign. If he did, however, cherchez la femme
Looking at the detailed breakdown, the only subsection of the economy seeing poor wage growth is Finance and Business services at +0.3% for February. All other subsections are seeing much higher growth eg. Retailing +3.5% q/q, Manufacturing +3.2% q/q, Construction +3.1.% q/q.
Even in the public service, if you exclude the state owned banks, the growth in February was 1.8%. Of course for this to affect the way people are feeling we probably need pay growth to stay this high for the rest of the year.
Is Balls deep in trouble?
Source: BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27048297
I think the scope and rate of fall will accelerate over the coming year but even allowing for just the present rate of fall unemployment will go below 2 million for the first time since October 2008 and will be around 500,000 fewer than when the Coalition came to office.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10604117
Things like that will seldom be uncommon.
While not making any judgement on Cyril Smith, the pedophiles that "get away with it" longest will be smart enough to target only those they think most vulnerable, while keeping up a platonic friendliness with the remainder
Edit.....I met Jimmy Saville on a number occasions, and can honestly say he came across to me as someone I would trust as far as I can comfortably spit a live rat.
Even if she is right, there is no way the leadership of a party would not take the risk they only get one term in office than try to build an alternative that might be unpopular and prevent them winning at all. Politicians will always assume that they will be able to rise to the challenge and deal with that problem once it rears its head. Let FutureMe worry about that!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfO4FmvHwi8
Brown's poster launch car crash.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/history/modern_scotland/the_poll_tax/
Poll tax was introduced by the Tories in Scotland, as the request of the Tory party in Scotland and not the Scottish public.
Michael Gove refers to the decision as a catastrphic error.
As for the rest of your response to my earlier post, what a load of bollards. You know the Tories are hated in Scotland and that is the reason why the Tories are not taking a full part in the referendum debate.
Would you keep your fortune in Russia?
"His heart seems in the right place and he has a better connection with the real world than most politicians (a low bar admittedly)."
I thought so too, so it's a pity he exposed himself as another party hack yesterday. I blame the political system ... as Larkin meant to say:
'Labour hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
And don’t join any party yourself."
Most low pay workers are seeing *larger* increases in their pay packets thanks to the Coalition policy of increasing the personal allowance
Mr @antifrank posted, in his blog, a very useful discussion of the issue in Scotland, from the SNP point of view, which shows that Labour get a significant advantage there from FPTP as they do in England (or so I gather from discussions on PB)
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/the-snps-chances-in-2015-early.html
I have been reading it again and I think he is right to emphasis the importance of a Yes vote to the 2015 GE, at least in Scotland.
Right now, one has to add that (a) 'wasted vote' issue to (b) the fact that in a functioning UK it may make more sense to vote for a unionist party than the SNP (which is largely swamped at Westminster), even if otherwise you want to vote SNP, if the unionist party happens to have the same, e.g. social, policies that you are worried about. And add (c) that old regular NOTA. So there is huge scope, nay need, for tactical voting.
However, after a Yes, (a) the likely boost to SNP voting and reaction against Unionist parties may be seen as breaching the threshold and so reducing the wasted vote issue, (b) is obviated to a great degree, and (c) becomes totally irrelevant.
(this is not investment advice) :-)
Breakdown of councillor numbers by party.
http://ukgeneralelection2015.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/may-2014-council-elections-information.html
"Grand total: Lab 1,763, C 1,535, L Dem 691, UKIP 31"
No, but seriously- do you think its sustainable?
MAD....mutually assured destruction, A masterstroke of a plan....
Unfortunately, relying on it not to be implemented by some semi evolved apes, does not raise my confidence levels much.
Just saying!
Total Lib Dem Euro seats.
0 3/1
1 7/4
2 5/2
3+ 7/2
Do the people on "sanctions" show up on the statistics? The ones that become "self employed" at the behest of the new job finder agencies do.
For the agencies to get paid, they need to find someone a job....."working the system" benefits both the parties financially....paid by the government.
(setting up an online retailer is one of the better....work from home, and the tax system guarantees a wage)
It may be a bold claim, but I honestly believe that the majority of people in work feel better off today than the same time last year and significantly better off than two years ago. It is the non-working classes on the dole who are having a tougher time and when Labour talk about people struggling to make ends meet, or bleeding heart lefties talk about food banks, fewer and fewer working people understand how this can be happening. Labour stand up for the non-working classes, as always. If they stay on this path I could see them ending up with fewer seats than the Tories in 2015.
Another trougher bails out.
You floundering around trying to rubbish transparently good news is simply delusional on your part and frankly so patently a poor effort as to make me wonder why you bothered.
We might also be grateful to see that the Labour party had an economic Plan A unless their current position of left the field of play is Plan A - ie - Abandonment
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/transactions/annual-transactions.pdf
There were c. 3,000 residential property transactions in the UK in 2012 with value > £2m, total value of £17bn/ I believe (from memory) around half of these were foreign investors, and they certainly weren't all oligarchs.
They are sending it over as a simple store of value. It can't be pinched by the next president of your country if you end up on his bad side. So, worst case, you still end up with a £70m house in Kensington (thinking of the Mayor of Kyiv's daughter as a random example) that you can sell and be very very rich even if your country disintegrates
Around 'zero-hours' contract one has to be careful to define what problem is being mis-represented. It is one problem to say that, because of the nature of someone's job, despite working many hours each week he or she does not have job security, or that they must be available for work full-time but paid only part-time, and quite another to say that because of the nature of someone's job they are considered to be working when they are not. Some people on zero-hours contracts work a full-time week, and others part-time hours. There is evidence to suggest that people on zero-hours contracts actually misreport their status on the Labour Force Survey to this end.
A couple of days ago, in a discussion about whether voters are feeling the effects of economic recovery, I suggested that we wait for the results of the Markit Household Finance Index (HFI) published this morning. The index measures "overall perceptions of financial well-being" by householders and is polled by Ipsos MORI on behalf of Markit.
The HFI had stalled a bit in March and I predicted we would need to wait 'til May when the April tax changes had been seen on payslips before seeing big movements.
I was too pessimistic.
The April HFI has come in at 43.1, its highest level since the index started to be published in February 2009. It rose 1.2 points from 41.9 in March.
Underpinning the rise in well-being were easing inflation expectations (the lowest since December 2009) and both rising workplace activity and household spending.
On a year forward perspective, expectations for future finances moved past the 50 mark to yet another survey record of 51.9 (from 49.1 in March). The forward index masked wide differences between the public and private sectors, with the latter much more positive about the future, with workers in the IT/Telecomms and Manfacturing industries leading the way.
Workplace activity was up to 56.2 from 55.1 just shy of the series record high of last December. Job Security leapt a full point to 46.9, yet another (joint) series record. Household spending edged up to a four month high with a slight quickening of growth rate. Expectations for living costs over the year ahead also recorded a four year low, down to 87.7 from 89.0.
These are all small, dry and dull statistical movements, but they represent one of the few systematic measurements of the much discussed "feelgood factor". And the trend upwards has been slow but positive since this time last year.
Today is not only crossover day in wage growth and inflation. There is another important crossover to be marked: historians will look back on 16th April 2014 as the day when the "cost of living crisis" finally crossed over into the "cost of Labour crisis".
The game's afoot:
Follow your spirit, and upon this change
Cry 'God for Cammie, England, and Saint George!'
Repeatedly and intentionally misinterpreting others' statements does not make it more convincing or true either, nor does framing every topic into some choice between two and only two options, meaning either someone agrees, or is wholly and entirely wrong, necessitating the reworking of that opinion away from its authors' intent to fit some imagine position you believe they must be holding.
I'd make the point I was actually making, rather than the point you have pretended I am making, again by making it even simpler, but I've done that enough times to know that either I have an IQ of 60, or you misinterpret it intentionally no matter how simply I try to put it, so I think I will just say that you have won the day. You are, as ever apparently, entirely correct and anyone who disagrees or even has a slightly different interpretation is not only incorrect because they are stupid, but incorrect because they have a malicious intent rather than, perhaps, they just feel your partisan bullcrap is not reflective of reality being more complex than that.
I'll put it even simpler to make you happy. Fine, you are correct, as always.
Amazing though that even though I haven't decided which way to vote in the Euros I am so dediciated to spinning for a particular party. I state I have given Cameron a lot of leeway and that I wanted him to be PM, I have defended Ed M from accusations of being crap and that I don't fear a Labour win in 2015, I feel Clegg is more toxic than his actions deserve, I have stated I like and respect Farage despite not supporting his party and I have stated I think the SNP in general and the Yes campaign is very able and will succeeed later this year. But apparently I'm just a loyalist Cleggite LD spinning stooge?
Given my consistent opinions on such subjects, I would be interested to know who I am spinning for, as it ain't any of the main parties that's for sure? I may lean toward certain parties in general, but as I have no commitment or loyalty to any of them, what purpose would my spinning have?
And yes, feel free to mock me for getting all worked up by your refutation of my statement, as though it was the logic of your argument which defeated me. I'll save you the time.
*chortle*.
Quite right.
That's why citing GDP figures to prove to people that their hometown changing before their eyes while their pay goes south is a good thing, coincides with a party that wants immigration controlled becoming more popular
I suspect it all depends on what is seen as reasonable and unreasonable by the voters. Of course, if the unionist parties evaporate after a Yes vote (or try to clothe themselves anew in a dead lamb's skin+) things would get more complex.
+local farming custom - get an ewe with a dead lamb to adopt an orphan or excess lamb by skinning the dead lamb and putting it on the orphan lamb to get her to smell the 'right' smell
"The total number of sanctions against benefit claimants in the year to September 2013 was 897,690, the highest figure for any 12-month period since jobseeker's allowance was introduced in 1996."
source http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/19/record-number-sanctions-benefits-claimants.
Now, I have no idea how those people reflect on the statistics, but I would guess at it being measurable.
The Tories have long had form when it comes to massaging unemployment numbers. Remember the 1980s? I hold no candle for Labour and was suspicious of many of their own targets that were met with a great deal of self-congratulation.
Stunning numbers - the economy is BOOMING.
What does Dan Hodges think of Ed's new policies ? Not a lot !
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100267908/those-exciting-labour-policies-you-were-waiting-for-there-arent-any/
http://order-order.com/2014/02/13/gordon-brown-office-gives-just-1-in-4-pounds-raised-to-charity-funds-globe-trotting-lifestyle-with-10000-a-week-expenses/
Poor show Frank - your guys were wrong - wrongity wrong on the economy.
All my concerns are unfounded, but please indulge me?
Anyone undergoing repeated sanctions will look for a better way,
Fortunately, it is common knowledge that becoming self employed, is no more onerous than complying with the Job Centre requirements, and pays better.(they even tell you how to make up your sheet to get the maximum)
Next time I will tell you why the disability tests have the opposite effect to that intended.
My thanks to those who responded to my earlier post on the Marmite issue. An update. When Herself came back from the hairdressers I, very carefully and gently (didn't want a repeat of the ironing issue), raised my concerns. It turns out that she has been feeding me the Tesco's muck for weeks (spousal abuse for sure) and not only with my weekly eggs but also with my cheese on toast and various gravies and I never noticed. So perhaps Mr. Charles had a point - same stuff just cheaper. Its has gone in the bin, though, and I bought a jar of the real thing from the village Co-Op when I went for my morning walk.
You also keep remarking on the nonsense that the Coalition abandoned Plan A. It has done no such thing as indeed Ed Balls has been constantly reminding us all for several years.
The plain unvarnished truth is that Plan A has and is continuing to work. Labour has no answer to it and all the two Ed's economic forecasts that it would fail spectacularly have turned to dust.
Rarely have a pair of wrong uns been so wrong.
Feel free to ignore that reality since the point about Clegg is that he's not just toxic but as the debates have shown he is also out of touch and incompetent. Same for his ostrich faction.
@MoodySlayerUK
Today at 6pm UKIP will be burning an effigy of @TimMontgomerie on a bonfire of Times newspapers. @LolitaScent @screwlabour
twitter.com/MoodySlayerUK/status/456382268064690176
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewes_Bonfire
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/3237841.stm
As for Plan A, here's Jonathan Portes from the NIESR.
http://niesr.ac.uk/blog/fiscal-policy-plan-and-recovery-explaining-economics#.U05jolVdUwA
Seems fairly clear, though it does beg the question of where HMs opposition is.
http://www.electio2014.eu/pollsandscenarios/pollsblog
" if that means a self-employed window cleaner works one day a week and claims benefits for the rest."
Noooooo, the idea is that you are "full time", The other five days you are advertising your business, and canvassing opinions on your service.
(the local pub is a good canvasing location)
In financial terms, it is maximizing your assets.
Mr. Eagles, you forgot Unite Against Fascism. Didn't they burn an effigy of a griffin?
*chortle*
You floundering around trying to rubbish transparently good news is simply delusional on your part and frankly so patently a poor effort as to make me wonder why you bothered.
We might also be grateful to see that the Labour party had an economic Plan A unless their current position of left the field of play is Plan A - ie - Abandonment
I'm not trying to rubbish good news just pointing out that it's a good job Osborne has abandoned his absurd Plan A. Even someone like George struggles to keep getting it wrong when the results are so awful.
The Tories have long had form when it comes to massaging unemployment numbers. Remember the 1980s? I hold no candle for Labour and was suspicious of many of their own targets that were met with a great deal of self-congratulation.
You are fighting old battles over massaging of unemployment figures, not even Labour is suggesting that of the ONS.
You also keep remarking on the nonsense that the Coalition abandoned Plan A. It has done no such thing as indeed Ed Balls has been constantly reminding us all for several years.
The plain unvarnished truth is that Plan A has and is continuing to work. Labour has no answer to it and all the two Ed's economic forecasts that it would fail spectacularly have turned to dust.
Rarely have a pair of wrong uns been so wrong.
I don't care what Ed Balls says. I'm not suggesting the ONS is itself massaging figures, just that government is determined to get unemployed numbers down by any means necessary, even if that means a self-employed window cleaner works one day a week and claims benefits for the rest.
As for Plan A, here's Jonathan Portes from the NIESR.
http://niesr.ac.uk/blog/fiscal-policy-plan-and-recovery-explaining-economics#.U05jolVdUwA
Seems fairly clear, though it does beg the question of where HMs opposition is.
Lol - I'd offer you a shovel but if you dig any more you might reach Australia,
"Европейский комиссар @MoodySlayerUK 2h
UKIP have declared that The Times is Haram after it insulted the prophet Nige.
Details Reply Retweet Favorite More
Erinite @LolitaScent 36m
@MoodySlayerUK @screwlabour I wonder if they're scrabbling around to make an effigy to burn in protest
Details Reply Retweet Favorite More
Европейский комиссар
@MoodySlayerUK
Today at 6pm UKIP will be burning an effigy of @TimMontgomerie on a bonfire of Times newspapers. @LolitaScent @screwlabour
Reply Retweet Favorite More
3:43 AM - 16 Apr 2014"
LOL
(I have put my money where my mouth is, not least with tim, on 2015).
As for Tesco brands... what can I say? Some people pay a premium for brands. FWIW, my wife complains that Tesco's brand cornflakes are the wrong shape. Apparently they are more "round" than Kellogg's and therefore I am not permitted to purchase them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3ZOKDmorj0
Mass Hysteria!!!
"Are UKIP confirming their a party of loonies if they're planning to burn an effigy of Tim Montgomerie"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewes_Bonfire