North London isn't code for Jewish. Its shorthand for a kind if multicultural, organic food, gastropub, cosmopolitan lifestyle that few can afford, but many Labour people aspire to while pretending to be working class. and why not? It's lovely
I have lived there and I know there are rough parts too but in the main it is a beautiful part of the world
The problem labour has is when people like @Bobafett confuse upper st, which is a great place to spend time in because of its diverse mix of culture with places like Barking which is a crap place to live for the same reason
The idea that all diverse multicultural places are like upper st is the reason north London means 'out of touch'... It's like Champagne socialism in the 80s
Mr. Observer, you were the one who said they were withdrawn and apologised for, which appears not to be the case.
But TSE was right, so I should acknowledge that. The posters were never printed and never formed part of any campaign, so there was nothing to withdraw or to apologise for. I was wrong. I remembered it being a much bigger deal than it actually was.
I think the 2015 result will be similar to 2005. Labour lost some seats in 2010 by a small margin, after 13 years in power, with a lot of negative stuff about Brown. Even with Ed Miliband, I would expect Labour to win back most seats they won in 2005.
The idea that all diverse multicultural places are like upper st is the reason north London means 'out of touch'... It's like Champagne socialism in the 80s
The thing is it is criticism based on identity - just as with the toff-bashing - and you can't criticise one without criticising the other.
Some lefties on here have made a lot of the poll results which show that Miliband leads Cameron on "understands people like me", a poll result that surely reflects a certain amount of toff-bashing from Labour. And the people who complained about toff-bashing are the same as those who go own about Miliband's identity.
Is this what democracy is reduced to? Arguing about whether a millionaire Tory toff is more or less out of touch than a millionaire North London policy wonk. Ugh.
Mr. Observer, you were the one who said they were withdrawn and apologised for, which appears not to be the case.
But TSE was right, so I should acknowledge that. The posters were never printed and never formed part of any campaign, so there was nothing to withdraw or to apologise for. I was wrong. I remembered it being a much bigger deal than it actually was.
Tbh I thought I used to pass one on the North Circular.
I throughout enjoyed my sunny afternoon in Islington yesterday. My wife did a bit of house shopping and had a family lunch in the sunshine. I was struck by just how nice the people were, from all over the world.
Sounds like a PB Tory worst nightmare.
I'd probably count as a PB Tory, but also live in North London and am generally quite happy about the internationalism of London. It makes my workplace pleasanter, I can get cheap kitchen and garden slaves, and London is more fun than it would otherwise be - in the same way that a village in the Swiss Alps is a more fun place than an otherwise similar village in Snowdonia. What was not thought through by Labour is what happens 15 or 20 years down the line after you let in five to ten million immigrants.
Our daughters can't get into the local grammar school down the road that their mother and aunts went to because it's packed out with Asians commuting from Uxbridge and Kennington; it's not Barnet's grammar school any more, it's anybody's. My other half is from a Jewish-media-Labour-luvvie background, yet I am hearing some absolutely gobsmacking sentiments expressed on this matter by that side of the family of late.
I think Livingstone's anti-semitism was a turning point for them.
We are prosperous enough to rent ourselves some insulation from this kind of consequence. Labour has yet to reap the full electoral penalty, however, for what it did to demography in 1997 to 2010. As Mrs Bond keeps saying, look at the school playground now, and that's the whole country in about 20 years' time.
I have been very riled and deeply disturbed by the Ed is Weird stuff - this was a reaction to that.
Thank you.
I'm not sure that the 'ed is weird stuff' is a party campaign
it's just lazy & underfunded journos looking for something easy to write
Either way it's pretty childish.
Although character debates are very reasonable: for me the way that Ed behaved over Syria suggests to me that he's not someone you can trust.
The way things have turned out, Ed may yet get the Nobel Peace Prize for stopping us intervening on behalf of our enemies' enemies' enemies who might not be our friends after all.
I don't think there's anything especially wrong with champagne socialism, even though it's not my scene (I'm not very interested in being rich and having stuff but it's a personal choice). It, was I think, a South African Communist who said "I'm not against people having a good time in life and I have a good time myself, I just want everyone to have a decent chance of it". That's something which reasonable Conservatives can agree with as well, and the discussion comes down to means rather than ends. It only becomes offensive when people either choose to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor or when they sneer at people from other backgrounds - which is what Owen is saying about the SWP.
I throughout enjoyed my sunny afternoon in Islington yesterday. My wife did a bit of house shopping and had a family lunch in the sunshine. I was struck by just how nice the people were, from all over the world.
Sounds like a PB Tory worst nightmare.
I'd probably count as a PB Tory, but also live in North London and am generally quite happy about the internationalism of London. It makes my workplace pleasanter, I can get cheap kitchen and garden slaves, and London is more fun than it would otherwise be - in the same way that a village in the Swiss Alps is a more fun place than an otherwise similar village in Snowdonia. What was not thought through by Labour is what happens 15 or 20 years down the line after you let in five to ten million immigrants.
Our daughters can't get into the local grammar school down the road that their mother and aunts went to because it's packed out with Asians commuting from Uxbridge and Kennington; it's not Barnet's grammar school any more, it's anybody's. My other half is from a Jewish-media-Labour-luvvie background, yet I am hearing some absolutely gobsmacking sentiments expressed on this matter by that side of the family of late.
I think Livingstone's anti-semitism was a turning point for them.
We are prosperous enough to rent ourselves some insulation from this kind of consequence. Labour has yet to reap the full electoral penalty, however, for what it did to demography in 1997 to 2010. As Mrs Bond keeps saying, look at the school playground now, and that's the whole country in about 20 years' time.
I did not initially get into the grammar school that was down the road from me in 1975 because there were so many kids commuting in from elsewhere.
DavidL says - 'Really committing to a major transport investment in the north west, forgetting about HS2 for the time being.' There is already major transport investment in the North - The Northern Hub. The Liverpool Manchester line is already being electrified. Osborne has already announced a proposal for even more transport links to unify Manchester Bradford Leeds Sheffield. HS2 is still years off, electrification of Liverpool Manchester will be complete by December 2014.
I would be interested to know what DavidL means by higher taxes for the better off - VAT has already gone up and in the main is on items which cover discretionary spending. Its broadly accepted i think that higher rate PAYE does not raise much if any extra money and leads to the widespread tax avoidance schemes by the rich which have been in the news recently.
What I have in mind is the sort of transport that creates an integrated economy between Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and possibly Sheffield. The sort of thing the tube provides in London. The sort of integrated large scale market that creates the opportunities for growth in the modern world.
The government needs more money. Lots of money. The sort of money that funds the entire National Health Service. It is completely unrealistic to think government spending can be cut by anything like enough to cover this. The last 2 years have shown that even strongish growth has minimal effects on the deficit. So they need more taxes.
My guess is that the tax allowances for pensions will be cut, specifically the tax free lump sum. As a pension is deferred income why should people avoid tax on it? I think CGT will be more closely aligned with IT. There may be a policy of bringing NI into IT which would effectively increase the tax paid by well off pensioners. Depending on how the economy goes I suspect that the UK will play a leading role in seeking to increase the tax paid by international corporations. I suspect we will continue to see fiscal drag on IT bands.
My expectation is that pretty much all of this would happen under a tory majority because there simply are no other choices. We should be repaying debt by this point in the cycle not still borrowing £100bn. It puts into perspective what is likely to happen under Labour who will be less keen on cutting spending on their supporters.
I don't think there's anything especially wrong with champagne socialism, even though it's not my scene (I'm not very interested in being rich and having stuff but it's a personal choice). It, was I think, a South African Communist who said "I'm not against people having a good time in life and I have a good time myself, I just want everyone to have a decent chance of it". That's something which reasonable Conservatives can agree with as well, and the discussion comes down to means rather than ends. It only becomes offensive when people either choose to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor or when they sneer at people from other backgrounds - which is what Owen is saying about the SWP.
Very good article. The first one Owen Jones has ever written?
On topic: Of course Mike is right to say it is dangerous to ignore the polling numbers. These are the probabilities which, based on Stephen Fisher's analysis, those polling numbers currently indicate:
Con largest party = 49% Lab largest party = 51% Con majority = 23% Lab majority = 25%
In other words, wide open: any outcome equally possible.
If we were looking at the current polling figures a few weeks before the election, it would of course be a different matter. but at this stage of the electoral cycle the polling is a fairly poor guide.
So, we know that is really quite likely that the polling will shift in the next ten months. That being the case, John Rentoul is right to use his judgement to try to assess how much it will shift and in what direction. The polling won't tell you that; there is no substitute for using your judgement, taking account of such factors as the economy, the incoherence of Labour's economic policy, and Ed Miliband.
On the narrow point of the LD -> Lab switchers, which Mike thinks is so important, it's by no means certain that their enthusisasm for Ed will survive a manifesto.
As for David Miliband, I tend to agree that he wouldn't have been much better than his brother. He's a bit more grown-up, certainly, and not so anti-business, but otherwise quite similar.
I have been very riled and deeply disturbed by the Ed is Weird stuff - this was a reaction to that.
Thank you.
I'm not sure that the 'ed is weird stuff' is a party campaign
it's just lazy & underfunded journos looking for something easy to write
Either way it's pretty childish.
Although character debates are very reasonable: for me the way that Ed behaved over Syria suggests to me that he's not someone you can trust.
The Ed is "weird" is not journo guff but derived from poll findings, the latest of which is the recent ComRes poll. Ed is a close second to Farage 32/40 as being seen as "weird".
I'm unsure the British electorate is ready for a weird PM.
Would Rentoul’s choice for LAB leader, David Miliband, have had anything like this level of appeal to the voters that matter?
Why not? How can we separate "buyers' remorse" from "Ed fandom"?
A lot of the LibDem defectors defected over Iraq. David Miliband had the unlucky job of inheriting that particular clusterfvck as foreign secretary. He may be personally implicated in illegality and human rights violations, and if he isn't he's very likely to be implicated in the subsequent cover-up. If he was currently Labour leader, the coalition would be using ongoing leaks and investigations to keep all this stuff in the news. As it is, Ed Miliband has been able to quietly hose away the worst of the war criminality sludge and everyone except Galloway has moved on.
Not to mention that the more personal criticisms of Ed also apply to David: looks weird, speaks wonkish, and is a North London intellectual son of a Marxist academic. Oh, and he ran against his own brother for the leadership.
Come to think of it, the whole package of personal abuse was probably drawn up with David in mind.
It's not personal abuse, it's a perfectly valid observation to make: if he will do that to his own brother, what will he do to the rest of us?
Complete and utter bollocks.
Why should he have stood down just because his big brother wanted to run?
David had his chance and bottled it.
I'm afraid that just shows how disconnected you are. If you think someone putting political power above family is no big deal, then I suggest you are seriously unaware of how most people think. It is precisely the same thing as an MP shagging every woman he can and then expecting us to believe anything he says to us. If someone wants to do those things, then fine, just don't expect anyone else to trust you.
That there were two Milibands in the same position simply points to the importance of family advantage in the Labour movement.
Most people don't have the sense of entitlement you appear to have. It must be nice for you to have your younger siblings giving you precedence, but it does not make you better at any given task, does it?
On topic: Of course Mike is right to say it is dangerous to ignore the polling numbers. These are the probabilities which, based on Stephen Fisher's analysis, those polling numbers currently indicate:
Con largest party = 49% Lab largest party = 51% Con majority = 23% Lab majority = 25%
In other words, wide open: any outcome equally possible.
If we were looking at the current polling figures a few weeks before the election, it would of course be a different matter. but at this stage of the electoral cycle the polling is a fairly poor guide.
So, we know that is really quite likely that the polling will shift in the next ten months. That being the case, John Rentoul is right to use his judgement to try to assess how much it will shift and in what direction. The polling won't tell you that; there is no substitute for using your judgement, taking account of such factors as the economy, the incoherence of Labour's economic policy, and Ed Miliband.
On the narrow point of the LD -> Lab switchers, which Mike thinks is so important, it's by no means certain that their enthusisasm for Ed will survive a manifesto.
As for David Miliband, I tend to agree that he wouldn't have been much better than his brother. He's a bit more grown-up, certainly, and not so anti-business, but otherwise quite similar.
It might not be certain to you Richard but it is certain to me. I live and work in an ultra marginals where I stood as LD candidate in 92. I know many and the level of switching, some of it tactical, will be large. It's the same message I'm hearing from three other super marginals where I have local contacts.
On topic: Of course Mike is right to say it is dangerous to ignore the polling numbers. These are the probabilities which, based on Stephen Fisher's analysis, those polling numbers currently indicate:
Con largest party = 49% Lab largest party = 51% Con majority = 23% Lab majority = 25%
In other words, wide open: any outcome equally possible.
Weren't you saying just last week that all the pointers were towards a positive outcome for the Tories next year?
Personally I stick with the theory that Ed did not expect to win. He wanted to come a good second so his brother could give him a top job without anyone claiming favouritism. His winning has been a bit of a disaster for the Miliband family and I cannot think of a job that would be worth my relationship with my brother. The look of shock and dismay on his face when the result was announced has always spoken volumes to me.
But it has probably been good for Labour. David was and is a wimp. Ed may be slightly weird (sorry BobaFett) but he is no wimp. He also carries slightly less baggage from the last government since most people are not even sure what the department of the environment does (or indeed why we have one). Attempts to focus on his treasury years have been largely unsuccessful.
Would Rentoul’s choice for LAB leader, David Miliband, have had anything like this level of appeal to the voters that matter?
Why not? How can we separate "buyers' remorse" from "Ed fandom"?
A lot of the LibDem defectors defected over Iraq. David Miliband had the unlucky job of inheriting that particular clusterfvck as foreign secretary. He may be personally implicated in illegality and human rights violations, and if he isn't he's very likely to be implicated in the subsequent cover-up. If he was currently Labour leader, the coalition would be using ongoing leaks and investigations to keep all this stuff in the news. As it is, Ed Miliband has been able to quietly hose away the worst of the war criminality sludge and everyone except Galloway has moved on.
Not to mention that the more personal criticisms of Ed also apply to David: looks weird, speaks wonkish, and is a North London intellectual son of a Marxist academic. Oh, and he ran against his own brother for the leadership.
Come to think of it, the whole package of personal abuse was probably drawn up with David in mind.
It's not personal abuse, it's a perfectly valid observation to make: if he will do that to his own brother, what will he do to the rest of us?
Complete and utter bollocks.
Why should he have stood down just because his big brother wanted to run?
David had his chance and bottled it.
I'm afraid that just shows how disconnected you are. If you think someone putting political power above family is no big deal, then I suggest you are seriously unaware of how most people think. It is precisely the same thing as an MP shagging every woman he can and then expecting us to believe anything he says to us. If someone wants to do those things, then fine, just don't expect anyone else to trust you.
That there were two Milibands in the same position simply points to the importance of family advantage in the Labour movement.
Total garbage.
Why should Ed have stood aside for his big brother?
David Cameron's policies, like cutting tax for millionaires or flogging massive chunks of our NHS to Tory donor big business, show that he only understands his own tiny world - that of the super rich.
Ed Miliband's policies, like the energy price freeze or cracking down on rip off rents, show a far greater understanding of what life is actually like for ordinary people.
Whether this is down to personal background or not is irrelevant.
I don't think there's anything especially wrong with champagne socialism, even though it's not my scene (I'm not very interested in being rich and having stuff but it's a personal choice). It, was I think, a South African Communist who said "I'm not against people having a good time in life and I have a good time myself, I just want everyone to have a decent chance of it". That's something which reasonable Conservatives can agree with as well, and the discussion comes down to means rather than ends. It only becomes offensive when people either choose to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor or when they sneer at people from other backgrounds - which is what Owen is saying about the SWP.
Very good article. The first one Owen Jones has ever written?
I have been very riled and deeply disturbed by the Ed is Weird stuff - this was a reaction to that.
Thank you.
I'm not sure that the 'ed is weird stuff' is a party campaign
it's just lazy & underfunded journos looking for something easy to write
Either way it's pretty childish.
Although character debates are very reasonable: for me the way that Ed behaved over Syria suggests to me that he's not someone you can trust.
The Ed is "weird" is not journo guff but derived from poll findings, the latest of which is the recent ComRes poll. Ed is a close second to Farage 32/40 as being seen as "weird".
I'm unsure the British electorate is ready for a weird PM.
The moronic and sinister weird meme is being fed by bored and stupid rightwing journalists - which Charles to his great credit recognises and which a man of your purported intellect ought to recognise too.
Personally I stick with the theory that Ed did not expect to win. He wanted to come a good second so his brother could give him a top job without anyone claiming favouritism. His winning has been a bit of a disaster for the Miliband family and I cannot think of a job that would be worth my relationship with my brother. The look of shock and dismay on his face when the result was announced has always spoken volumes to me.
But it has probably been good for Labour. David was and is a wimp. Ed may be slightly weird (sorry BobaFett) but he is no wimp. He also carries slightly less baggage from the last government since most people are not even sure what the department of the environment does (or indeed why we have one). Attempts to focus on his treasury years have been largely unsuccessful.
Have you met this very nice, witty and thoroughly decent family man whom you decry as being weird?
I have been very riled and deeply disturbed by the Ed is Weird stuff - this was a reaction to that.
Thank you.
I'm not sure that the 'ed is weird stuff' is a party campaign
it's just lazy & underfunded journos looking for something easy to write
Either way it's pretty childish.
Although character debates are very reasonable: for me the way that Ed behaved over Syria suggests to me that he's not someone you can trust.
The Ed is "weird" is not journo guff but derived from poll findings, the latest of which is the recent ComRes poll. Ed is a close second to Farage 32/40 as being seen as "weird".
I'm unsure the British electorate is ready for a weird PM.
The moronic and sinister weird meme is being fed by bored and stupid rightwing journalists - which Charles to his great credit recognises and which a man of your purported intellect ought to recognise too.
The same way the Trotskyite press hammer away at the 'posh' meme, or post BS stories that make anyone 'wealthy' appear to be sociopaths. Apart from gimps who play pro kickball. Nobody must question the wealth of the gimps.
As a pension is deferred income why should people avoid tax on it?
There needs to be an incentive to lock up resources for 30+ years. Otherwise why would people do it for anything more than the minimum amount
Well firstly this is the sort of long term thinking that politicians are really not good at.
Putting that aside it makes sense to average your income over your lifetime and reduce your marginal rate of tax as a result. It also shelters that income so it can grow without tax like an open ended ISA (or whatever they are called this week). The wealthy, as you will know better than me, also seem to see pensions as an IHT avoidance device rather than a source of income.
I am not saying it will be eliminated completely but from a government point of view this is an easy hit. If it means people do not take so much out of their pensions future dependency will also be reduced.
The government needs another £130bn a year from cuts and tax increases (so it can start paying back even modest amounts). There are no easy or pain free solutions.
David Cameron's policies, like cutting tax for millionaires or flogging massive chunks of our NHS to Tory donor big business, show that he only understands his own tiny world - that of the super rich.
Ed Miliband's policies, like the energy price freeze or cracking down on rip off rents, show a far greater understanding of what life is actually like for ordinary people.
Whether this is down to personal background or not is irrelevant.
Or the truly dreadful policy of cutting £400 plus off the tax bill of the lowest paid workers. Simply awful. You never know, flog off 'our' NHS and we might find people are treated properly and on time, and there isn't an ever growing list of misdiagnosis and death by malpractice.
I have been very riled and deeply disturbed by the Ed is Weird stuff - this was a reaction to that.
Thank you.
I'm not sure that the 'ed is weird stuff' is a party campaign
it's just lazy & underfunded journos looking for something easy to write
Either way it's pretty childish.
Although character debates are very reasonable: for me the way that Ed behaved over Syria suggests to me that he's not someone you can trust.
The Ed is "weird" is not journo guff but derived from poll findings, the latest of which is the recent ComRes poll. Ed is a close second to Farage 32/40 as being seen as "weird".
I'm unsure the British electorate is ready for a weird PM.
The moronic and sinister weird meme is being fed by bored and stupid rightwing journalists - which Charles to his great credit recognises and which a man of your purported intellect ought to recognise too.
You do talk rot sometimes - polls consistently show Ed Miliband as being generally perceived as weird, the press report it. - nothing sinister about it.
Personally I stick with the theory that Ed did not expect to win. He wanted to come a good second so his brother could give him a top job without anyone claiming favouritism. His winning has been a bit of a disaster for the Miliband family and I cannot think of a job that would be worth my relationship with my brother. The look of shock and dismay on his face when the result was announced has always spoken volumes to me.
But it has probably been good for Labour. David was and is a wimp. Ed may be slightly weird (sorry BobaFett) but he is no wimp. He also carries slightly less baggage from the last government since most people are not even sure what the department of the environment does (or indeed why we have one). Attempts to focus on his treasury years have been largely unsuccessful.
Have you met this very nice, witty and thoroughly decent family man whom you decry as being weird?
Get over it mate
I'm kind of on your side, I personally don't think he is weird, I think he is quite handsome and seems a nice guy. His first interview with Paxman as leader is a good example.
But if calling him weird helps the Tories a majority then they're going to do it, and maybe other parties would too the same if they sensed a meme to push that could be successful.
I realise how I must look banging on defending Farage from trolling pompous fake racism insults now, best to ignore it
North London isn't code for Jewish. Its shorthand for a kind if multicultural, organic food, gastropub, cosmopolitan lifestyle that few can afford, but many Labour people aspire to while pretending to be working class. and why not? It's lovely.
That was my understanding of the term. Very surprised to see others claiming it was an anti-semitic slur.
A McCarthyist tendency to see evil Tories lurking in every shadow, perhaps? [We eat babies from all races and religions, btw].
I have been very riled and deeply disturbed by the Ed is Weird stuff - this was a reaction to that.
Thank you.
I'm not sure that the 'ed is weird stuff' is a party campaign
it's just lazy & underfunded journos looking for something easy to write
Either way it's pretty childish.
Although character debates are very reasonable: for me the way that Ed behaved over Syria suggests to me that he's not someone you can trust.
The Ed is "weird" is not journo guff but derived from poll findings, the latest of which is the recent ComRes poll. Ed is a close second to Farage 32/40 as being seen as "weird".
I'm unsure the British electorate is ready for a weird PM.
The moronic and sinister weird meme is being fed by bored and stupid rightwing journalists - which Charles to his great credit recognises and which a man of your purported intellect ought to recognise too.
You do talk rot sometimes - polls consistently show Ed Miliband as being generally perceived as weird, the press report it. -nothing sinister about it.
Chicken and Egg - do people say "Ed is weird" because the rightwing echo chamber tediously repeats the mantra so often? So it gets polled and - guess what - people agree?
I have been very riled and deeply disturbed by the Ed is Weird stuff - this was a reaction to that.
Thank you.
I'm not sure that the 'ed is weird stuff' is a party campaign
it's just lazy & underfunded journos looking for something easy to write
Either way it's pretty childish.
Although character debates are very reasonable: for me the way that Ed behaved over Syria suggests to me that he's not someone you can trust.
The Ed is "weird" is not journo guff but derived from poll findings, the latest of which is the recent ComRes poll. Ed is a close second to Farage 32/40 as being seen as "weird".
I'm unsure the British electorate is ready for a weird PM.
The moronic and sinister weird meme is being fed by bored and stupid rightwing journalists - which Charles to his great credit recognises and which a man of your purported intellect ought to recognise too.
You do talk rot sometimes - polls consistently show Ed Miliband as being generally perceived as weird, the press report it. -nothing sinister about it.
Chicken and Egg - do people say "Ed is weird" because the rightwing echo chamber tediously repeats the mantra so often? So it gets polled and - guess what - people agree?
Do people say Dave is posh and out of touch because lefties troll it out repeatedly? labour believe in freedom. The freedom to smear Tories and freedom from anything even remotely negative about the dear leader. It's a nasty leftist trait seen and repeated over and over
Personally I stick with the theory that Ed did not expect to win. He wanted to come a good second so his brother could give him a top job without anyone claiming favouritism. His winning has been a bit of a disaster for the Miliband family and I cannot think of a job that would be worth my relationship with my brother. The look of shock and dismay on his face when the result was announced has always spoken volumes to me.
But it has probably been good for Labour. David was and is a wimp. Ed may be slightly weird (sorry BobaFett) but he is no wimp. He also carries slightly less baggage from the last government since most people are not even sure what the department of the environment does (or indeed why we have one). Attempts to focus on his treasury years have been largely unsuccessful.
Have you met this very nice, witty and thoroughly decent family man whom you decry as being weird?
No. But that puts me in the same category as 99.5% of those who have to decide whether to vote for him or not.
I rely on his public persona. His speeches which sound like they have been written by some undergraduate would be sociologist. His genius for photo opportunities. His inability to think on his feet in the pressure cooker of the HoC (in fairness no easy task). Fair or not the really odd point of not having his name on his children's birth certificates. His belated marriage to a partner he is obviously devoted to. His descriptions of growing up in a household full of Marxist intellectuals and his engagement in that from an early age.
Normal people generally don't become leaders of political parties. He is not atypical.
I have been very riled and deeply disturbed by the Ed is Weird stuff - this was a reaction to that.
Thank you.
I'm not sure that the 'ed is weird stuff' is a party campaign
it's just lazy & underfunded journos looking for something easy to write
Either way it's pretty childish.
Although character debates are very reasonable: for me the way that Ed behaved over Syria suggests to me that he's not someone you can trust.
The Ed is "weird" is not journo guff but derived from poll findings, the latest of which is the recent ComRes poll. Ed is a close second to Farage 32/40 as being seen as "weird".
I'm unsure the British electorate is ready for a weird PM.
The Times today say it won't be Lansley as our Euro Commissioner, because the Tories don't want another by-election and they tipped Baroness Wheatcroft and Lord Hill, you can back them at 12/1 and 20/1 respectively and will be doing so.
2-speed Europe? Well Cameron in his speech said that he and I'm sure most of the country do not want to be in ever closer union, so that will be what he would be negotiating about in 2015-17. I do not think Junker or anybody can deliver anything before 2015. In any event Junker in his 'manifesto' said he recognised the need to accommodate the UK's wishes on this. Read it. I think its not so much '2 speed' as 'associate'. It seems to me to be perfectly deliverable.
Cameron's speech and article also talked about reforming freedom to work to make sure it just covered work and not benefits tourism. I see no reasons why these rules cannot be clarified and amended and even now they seem pretty clear you can move for a job already offered but not to look for work. We could close various loopholes - around self employed for instance.
I have been very riled and deeply disturbed by the Ed is Weird stuff - this was a reaction to that.
Thank you.
I'm not sure that the 'ed is weird stuff' is a party campaign
it's just lazy & underfunded journos looking for something easy to write
Either way it's pretty childish.
Although character debates are very reasonable: for me the way that Ed behaved over Syria suggests to me that he's not someone you can trust.
The Ed is "weird" is not journo guff but derived from poll findings, the latest of which is the recent ComRes poll. Ed is a close second to Farage 32/40 as being seen as "weird".
I'm unsure the British electorate is ready for a weird PM.
On topic: Of course Mike is right to say it is dangerous to ignore the polling numbers. These are the probabilities which, based on Stephen Fisher's analysis, those polling numbers currently indicate:
Con largest party = 49% Lab largest party = 51% Con majority = 23% Lab majority = 25%
In other words, wide open: any outcome equally possible.
Weren't you saying just last week that all the pointers were towards a positive outcome for the Tories next year?
LOL.
Yes I was, and that remains the case.
The fact that so few people (even on this site which is dedicated to political betting!) seem to have such enormous difficulty understanding Stephen Fisher's perfectly clear words is quite remarkable.
I have been very riled and deeply disturbed by the Ed is Weird stuff - this was a reaction to that.
Thank you.
I'm not sure that the 'ed is weird stuff' is a party campaign
it's just lazy & underfunded journos looking for something easy to write
Either way it's pretty childish.
Although character debates are very reasonable: for me the way that Ed behaved over Syria suggests to me that he's not someone you can trust.
The Ed is "weird" is not journo guff but derived from poll findings, the latest of which is the recent ComRes poll. Ed is a close second to Farage 32/40 as being seen as "weird".
I'm unsure the British electorate is ready for a weird PM.
The moronic and sinister weird meme is being fed by bored and stupid rightwing journalists - which Charles to his great credit recognises and which a man of your purported intellect ought to recognise too.
You do talk rot sometimes - polls consistently show Ed Miliband as being generally perceived as weird, the press report it. -nothing sinister about it.
Chicken and Egg - do people say "Ed is weird" because the rightwing echo chamber tediously repeats the mantra so often? So it gets polled and - guess what - people agree?
Do people say Dave is posh and out of touch because lefties troll it out repeatedly? labour believe in freedom. The freedom to smear Tories and freedom from anything even remotely negative about the dear leader. It's a nasty leftist trait seen and repeated over and over
Because the Right never ever smears from behind its phalanx of unrepresentative and discredited newspapers or the online smear factory run by Paul Staines?!
I have been very riled and deeply disturbed by the Ed is Weird stuff - this was a reaction to that.
Thank you.
I'm not sure that the 'ed is weird stuff' is a party campaign
it's just lazy & underfunded journos looking for something easy to write
Either way it's pretty childish.
Although character debates are very reasonable: for me the way that Ed behaved over Syria suggests to me that he's not someone you can trust.
The Ed is "weird" is not journo guff but derived from poll findings, the latest of which is the recent ComRes poll. Ed is a close second to Farage 32/40 as being seen as "weird".
I'm unsure the British electorate is ready for a weird PM.
I have been very riled and deeply disturbed by the Ed is Weird stuff - this was a reaction to that.
Thank you.
I'm not sure that the 'ed is weird stuff' is a party campaign
it's just lazy & underfunded journos looking for something easy to write
Either way it's pretty childish.
Although character debates are very reasonable: for me the way that Ed behaved over Syria suggests to me that he's not someone you can trust.
The Ed is "weird" is not journo guff but derived from poll findings, the latest of which is the recent ComRes poll. Ed is a close second to Farage 32/40 as being seen as "weird".
I'm unsure the British electorate is ready for a weird PM.
The moronic and sinister weird meme is being fed by bored and stupid rightwing journalists - which Charles to his great credit recognises and which a man of your purported intellect ought to recognise too.
You do talk rot sometimes - polls consistently show Ed Miliband as being generally perceived as weird, the press report it. -nothing sinister about it.
Chicken and Egg - do people say "Ed is weird" because the rightwing echo chamber tediously repeats the mantra so often? So it gets polled and - guess what - people agree?
Do people say Dave is posh and out of touch because lefties troll it out repeatedly? labour believe in freedom. The freedom to smear Tories and freedom from anything even remotely negative about the dear leader. It's a nasty leftist trait seen and repeated over and over
Because the Right never ever smears from behind its phalanx of unrepresentative and discredited newspapers?!
They do. As do Labour and the left. Moreso the latter. It's just Labour don't like it up em
I realise it is bound to happen. I also rather like Nigel, despite not agreeing with his policies.
Shame people have to resort to childish and sinister personal attacks - shows they have run out of arguments.
You like a man who leads a party that is fighting a vital by election (he is the USP of the party in question) and on the eve he swans off to Malta and stays out drinking til 4 in the morning? Now if Cameron or Miliband or Clegg were seen doing that what do you think the reacrtion would be?
Personally I stick with the theory that Ed did not expect to win. He wanted to come a good second so his brother could give him a top job without anyone claiming favouritism. His winning has been a bit of a disaster for the Miliband family and I cannot think of a job that would be worth my relationship with my brother. The look of shock and dismay on his face when the result was announced has always spoken volumes to me.
But it has probably been good for Labour. David was and is a wimp. Ed may be slightly weird (sorry BobaFett) but he is no wimp. He also carries slightly less baggage from the last government since most people are not even sure what the department of the environment does (or indeed why we have one). Attempts to focus on his treasury years have been largely unsuccessful.
Have you met this very nice, witty and thoroughly decent family man whom you decry as being weird?
Does it matter, unless a significant percentage of the electorate has personally met him?
How can you tell someone is "thoroughly decent" just by meeting him? And what has "family man" got to do with it? It sounds like a 1950s euphemism for "not gay".
David Cameron's policies, like cutting tax for millionaires or flogging massive chunks of our NHS to Tory donor big business, show that he only understands his own tiny world - that of the super rich.
Ed Miliband's policies, like the energy price freeze or cracking down on rip off rents, show a far greater understanding of what life is actually like for ordinary people.
Whether this is down to personal background or not is irrelevant.
What part of the NHS has been "flogged off to big business"?
Well off people are generally paying more tax than in 2010.
Anyone who thinks Ed should portray himself as a decent family man, are forgetting Ed is notorious for being perceived of stabbing his brother in the back to win the Labour leadership.
According to the PB Tories he has no policies or he has a suite of dangerous Marxist policies.
Same shit, different day.
The fact that it could be either is precisely why he needs to be attacked and pursued. What dies this man want to do to us? Why does he want to be PM? So he can achieve what, exactly? The electorate have a right to know, and he won't say. That is weird. And sinister.
The level of 'debate' this morning is hardly a credit to the site. Perhaps some people need to take a time out. Or are people trolling to fill in the time until we get details of the reshuffle?
David Cameron's policies, like cutting tax for millionaires or flogging massive chunks of our NHS to Tory donor big business, show that he only understands his own tiny world - that of the super rich.
Ed Miliband's policies, like the energy price freeze or cracking down on rip off rents, show a far greater understanding of what life is actually like for ordinary people.
Whether this is down to personal background or not is irrelevant.
Ordinary people benfit from the top rate being cut to 45% where it still remains higher than Labour sought to tax it for 13 years. The NHS is not being flogged off. If receiving money from donors means you owe them a favour, as you clearly claim to believe, then where does that put labour's relationship with the unions?
David Cameron's policies, like cutting tax for millionaires or flogging massive chunks of our NHS to Tory donor big business, show that he only understands his own tiny world - that of the super rich.
Ed Miliband's policies, like the energy price freeze or cracking down on rip off rents, show a far greater understanding of what life is actually like for ordinary people.
Whether this is down to personal background or not is irrelevant.
What part of the NHS has been "flogged off to big business"?
Well off people are generally paying more tax than in 2010.
Sadly you can't debate with people who will lie rather than deal with facts.
According to the PB Tories he has no policies or he has a suite of dangerous Marxist policies.
The PB Tories, along with virtually all journalists, businessmen, political observers, and many senior Labour figures on and off the record, think that Ed Miliband has an incoherent set of largely random policies which don't address the key issues, such as the public finances, welfare and education. Those few specific policies he has come up with are damaging - I wouldn't describe them as 'Marxist', more barmily populist attempts to legislate against reality.
Absolutely. Why on earth would a sane, normal person want to work so hard to get such an awful job, to have such a precarious career, to have every foible exposed as "hypocritical", to accept the financial consequences of not building a "normal" career, to be so utterly focussed on one thing?
I love politics and find political economics and policy interesting (yes, I am weird too) but I would never be daft enough to fight and fight to get a winnable seat and then try to survive on a back bench salary away from my family or with 2 homes. The remarkable thing is that any of them come across as not weird.
"The former head of Wales’ national centre for languages believes the prospects for modern foreign languages “look decidedly grim” following a decision to slash public funding in the area.
Ceri James, whose 11-year spell as director of Cardiff-based Cilt Cymru came to an end last month, said cutting the body’s funding from just over £600,000 to £200,000 “must have felt like another nail in the coffin” for modern foreign languages (MFL) teachers.
Writing for the Guardian, Mr James said Cilt Cymru had sought innovative ways to increase MFL take-up, but “without strong strategic support from [the] Welsh Government” it had been powerless to reverse its decline and the prospects for MFL in Wales “look decidedly grim”.
The number of students taking a GCSE in foreign languages has fallen from 55% in 1995 to 22% in 2013 and Mr James believes it is “crunch-time for MFL in Wales”.
He said: “As the former director of Cilt Cymru... my sporting cliché of choice would be that of the tightrope walker. Funded by the Welsh Government on an annual basis since 2002 and with an excellent reputation for our work with schools and their pupils, we have been staring into the abyss for the past five years.
“Mass redundancy notices have become a perennial hazard. So when I was told in January that our funding was being cut and that I, along with a number of my colleagues, were being made redundant, it felt like I was in free fall.
“The Welsh Government has progressively backed away from the commitments it made in its 2002 MFL strategy document Languages Count. A six-year primary MFL pilot managed successfully by Cilt Cymru from 2003-09 was unceremoniously dumped, despite the investment of £1.5m of public money and great enthusiasm from teachers, learners, parents and school governors.”
Mr James’ comments come as MPs today warn that the UK’s reputation as a nation of “poor linguists” reluctant to value other languages must be changed.
Languages are as important to the UK’s future as science and maths-based subjects, and more needs to be done to ensure these skills are recognised and encouraged, according to an All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on the subject."
Looking at the ICM indy ref poll, The gender split is less pronounced with them.
The alarming thing for Yes would be this bit, on age group, No leads in every age group except 25-34, but the biggest leads for no is with the 18% with the 55-64s and 30% with the over 65s.
I don't need to remind PBers which demographic has the highest turnout in elections.
Anyone who thinks Ed should portray himself as a decent family man, are forgetting Ed is notorious for being perceived of stabbing his brother in the back to win the Labour leadership.
Sir Humphrey would call it a courageous strategy.
I'm not convinced that that's an issue that matters much to voters (they don't regard him highly for other reasons).
They didn't vote Labour because Labour screwed the economy. Labour need to show that they would not screw the economy again. They are not succeeding.
We are just a couple of months away from the Labour Conference, where they should be cementing their economic offering with the voters - not unveiling it.
Assuming they are going to unveil it?
Interesting piece by I Martin in today'sTelegraph about all the taxes Labour are proposing: not just the 50p rate, but an increase in NI, taxes on houses and pensions etc. I wonder how much of this the Tories will use and how much effect it is likely to have.
They didn't vote Labour because Labour screwed the economy. Labour need to show that they would not screw the economy again. They are not succeeding.
We are just a couple of months away from the Labour Conference, where they should be cementing their economic offering with the voters - not unveiling it.
Assuming they are going to unveil it?
Interesting piece by I Martin in today'sTelegraph about all the taxes Labour are proposing: not just the 50p rate, but an increase in NI, taxes on houses and pensions etc. I wonder how much of this the Tories will use and how much effect it is likely to have.
Labours tax bombshell. Happy with collateral damage. It will cost them as it always does
Anyone who thinks Ed should portray himself as a decent family man, are forgetting Ed is notorious for being perceived of stabbing his brother in the back to win the Labour leadership.
Sir Humphrey would call it a courageous strategy.
I'm not convinced that that's an issue that matters much to voters (they don't regard him highly for other reasons).
I know, but it's a bit of fun, even Dave mocked Ed over it at PMQs a few years ago.
Anyone who thinks Ed should portray himself as a decent family man, are forgetting Ed is notorious for being perceived of stabbing his brother in the back to win the Labour leadership.
Sir Humphrey would call it a courageous strategy.
I'm not convinced that that's an issue that matters much to voters (they don't regard him highly for other reasons).
If he was such a family man, why didn't he register himself as the father of his first child until the boy was 18 months old?
Why was his marriage to Justine seen as a political rather than a romantic gesture?
He doesn't seem to embody the ideal of a 'family man'
Add into this the issue of his father's politics and then the family feud the developed out of the leadership campaign and I would suggest Labour avoid any reference that links Miliband to family.
They didn't vote Labour because Labour screwed the economy. Labour need to show that they would not screw the economy again. They are not succeeding.
We are just a couple of months away from the Labour Conference, where they should be cementing their economic offering with the voters - not unveiling it.
Assuming they are going to unveil it?
Interesting piece by I Martin in today'sTelegraph about all the taxes Labour are proposing: not just the 50p rate, but an increase in NI, taxes on houses and pensions etc. I wonder how much of this the Tories will use and how much effect it is likely to have.
I wonder if Labour will be "brave" enough to offer a 1p NHS tax as their flagship policy ?
Would be an interesting clear choice then - will the electorate cast their vote for the state to spend more of their money.
Looking at the ICM indy ref poll, The gender split is less pronounced with them.
The alarming thing for Yes would be this bit, on age group, No leads in every age group except 25-34, but the biggest leads for no is with the 18% with the 55-64s and 30% with the over 65s.
I don't need to remind PBers which demographic has the highest turnout in elections.
I expect the turnout in the referendum to be much higher than for a general election making differential turnout less of an issue. The same view also suggests that the Yes reliance on a better GOTV organisation is also likely to be misplaced.
Gordon didn't become PM after an election - perhaps only weird right wingers can do so
Heath wouldn't become PM after an election now btw.
For politicians in particular, I think 'weird' comes with the territory. - As for party leaders from the past, I would suggest many would not have past muster to become PM in today's instant, TV media age and shallow attitudes based on looks. - we are where we are however, mores the pity.
Anyone who thinks Ed should portray himself as a decent family man, are forgetting Ed is notorious for being perceived of stabbing his brother in the back to win the Labour leadership.
Sir Humphrey would call it a courageous strategy.
I'm not convinced that that's an issue that matters much to voters (they don't regard him highly for other reasons).
If he was such a family man, why didn't he register himself as the father of his first child until the boy was 18 months old?
Why was his marriage to Justine seen as a political rather than a romantic gesture?
He doesn't seem to embody the ideal of a 'family man'
Add into this the issue of his father's politics and then the family feud the developed out of the leadership campaign and I would suggest Labour avoid any reference that links Miliband to family.
His excuse that politics and climate change conferences were more important just adds to his weirdness.
Nick Palmer says --- '' It, was I think, a South African Communist who said "I'm not against people having a good time in life and I have a good time myself, I just want everyone to have a decent chance of it". That's something which reasonable Conservatives can agree with as well, ''
Lets be clear - I am a lifelong conservative. I listen and read what conservatives say and one of the bedrocks of conservatism is equal opportunity. So anyone Mr Palmer who says they do not believe in that is not a conservative. I would point to the current considerable effort of the conservatives to improve education standards in the teeth of opposition from doctrinaire socialists is a good case in point. The efforts of Tristram Hunt a labour front bencher, a man born with a silver spoon in his mouth, to deny other people opportunity and perpetuate low standards and minimal choice hardly justify any claims for equal opportunity by Labour. It does however shout out their stinking hypocrisy.
Comments
My apologies. It was unnecessarily provocative.
I have been very riled and deeply disturbed by the Ed is Weird stuff - this was a reaction to that.
*Innocent Face*
Some lefties on here have made a lot of the poll results which show that Miliband leads Cameron on "understands people like me", a poll result that surely reflects a certain amount of toff-bashing from Labour. And the people who complained about toff-bashing are the same as those who go own about Miliband's identity.
Is this what democracy is reduced to? Arguing about whether a millionaire Tory toff is more or less out of touch than a millionaire North London policy wonk. Ugh.
http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/these-people-say-ed-is-weird.html
Personally I’d be nonplussed by the first, disconsolate at the second.
Our daughters can't get into the local grammar school down the road that their mother and aunts went to because it's packed out with Asians commuting from Uxbridge and Kennington; it's not Barnet's grammar school any more, it's anybody's. My other half is from a Jewish-media-Labour-luvvie background, yet I am hearing some absolutely gobsmacking sentiments expressed on this matter by that side of the family of late.
I think Livingstone's anti-semitism was a turning point for them.
We are prosperous enough to rent ourselves some insulation from this kind of consequence. Labour has yet to reap the full electoral penalty, however, for what it did to demography in 1997 to 2010. As Mrs Bond keeps saying, look at the school playground now, and that's the whole country in about 20 years' time.
I'm not sure that the 'ed is weird stuff' is a party campaign
it's just lazy & underfunded journos looking for something easy to write
Either way it's pretty childish.
Although character debates are very reasonable: for me the way that Ed behaved over Syria suggests to me that he's not someone you can trust.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/14/mocking-eton-boy-death-politics-of-envy-socialist-worker-article-polar-bear-attack
I don't think there's anything especially wrong with champagne socialism, even though it's not my scene (I'm not very interested in being rich and having stuff but it's a personal choice). It, was I think, a South African Communist who said "I'm not against people having a good time in life and I have a good time myself, I just want everyone to have a decent chance of it". That's something which reasonable Conservatives can agree with as well, and the discussion comes down to means rather than ends. It only becomes offensive when people either choose to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor or when they sneer at people from other backgrounds - which is what Owen is saying about the SWP.
The government needs more money. Lots of money. The sort of money that funds the entire National Health Service. It is completely unrealistic to think government spending can be cut by anything like enough to cover this. The last 2 years have shown that even strongish growth has minimal effects on the deficit. So they need more taxes.
My guess is that the tax allowances for pensions will be cut, specifically the tax free lump sum. As a pension is deferred income why should people avoid tax on it? I think CGT will be more closely aligned with IT. There may be a policy of bringing NI into IT which would effectively increase the tax paid by well off pensioners. Depending on how the economy goes I suspect that the UK will play a leading role in seeking to increase the tax paid by international corporations. I suspect we will continue to see fiscal drag on IT bands.
My expectation is that pretty much all of this would happen under a tory majority because there simply are no other choices. We should be repaying debt by this point in the cycle not still borrowing £100bn. It puts into perspective what is likely to happen under Labour who will be less keen on cutting spending on their supporters.
Con largest party = 49%
Lab largest party = 51%
Con majority = 23%
Lab majority = 25%
In other words, wide open: any outcome equally possible.
If we were looking at the current polling figures a few weeks before the election, it would of course be a different matter. but at this stage of the electoral cycle the polling is a fairly poor guide.
So, we know that is really quite likely that the polling will shift in the next ten months. That being the case, John Rentoul is right to use his judgement to try to assess how much it will shift and in what direction. The polling won't tell you that; there is no substitute for using your judgement, taking account of such factors as the economy, the incoherence of Labour's economic policy, and Ed Miliband.
On the narrow point of the LD -> Lab switchers, which Mike thinks is so important, it's by no means certain that their enthusisasm for Ed will survive a manifesto.
As for David Miliband, I tend to agree that he wouldn't have been much better than his brother. He's a bit more grown-up, certainly, and not so anti-business, but otherwise quite similar.
I'm unsure the British electorate is ready for a weird PM.
http://www.comres.co.uk/poll/1216/comres-battlebus-june-marginal-seats-poll.htm
That there were two Milibands in the same position simply points to the importance of family advantage in the Labour movement.
Most people don't have the sense of entitlement you appear to have.
It must be nice for you to have your younger siblings giving you precedence, but it does not make you better at any given task, does it?
The Tories, assisted by your Mr. Gove, are toxic.
LOL.
But it has probably been good for Labour. David was and is a wimp. Ed may be slightly weird (sorry BobaFett) but he is no wimp. He also carries slightly less baggage from the last government since most people are not even sure what the department of the environment does (or indeed why we have one). Attempts to focus on his treasury years have been largely unsuccessful.
Why should Ed have stood aside for his big brother?
Ed Miliband's policies, like the energy price freeze or cracking down on rip off rents, show a far greater understanding of what life is actually like for ordinary people.
Whether this is down to personal background or not is irrelevant.
Your point about the weird thing does you much credit.
Well firstly this is the sort of long term thinking that politicians are really not good at.
Putting that aside it makes sense to average your income over your lifetime and reduce your marginal rate of tax as a result. It also shelters that income so it can grow without tax like an open ended ISA (or whatever they are called this week). The wealthy, as you will know better than me, also seem to see pensions as an IHT avoidance device rather than a source of income.
I am not saying it will be eliminated completely but from a government point of view this is an easy hit. If it means people do not take so much out of their pensions future dependency will also be reduced.
The government needs another £130bn a year from cuts and tax increases (so it can start paying back even modest amounts). There are no easy or pain free solutions.
You never know, flog off 'our' NHS and we might find people are treated properly and on time, and there isn't an ever growing list of misdiagnosis and death by malpractice.
England to play Scotland in a friendly at Celtic Park on November 18th.
I'm kind of on your side, I personally don't think he is weird, I think he is quite handsome and seems a nice guy. His first interview with Paxman as leader is a good example.
But if calling him weird helps the Tories a majority then they're going to do it, and maybe other parties would too the same if they sensed a meme to push that could be successful.
I realise how I must look banging on defending Farage from trolling pompous fake racism insults now, best to ignore it
I suspect it was he was focussing upon his speech to the Labour party conference.
A McCarthyist tendency to see evil Tories lurking in every shadow, perhaps? [We eat babies from all races and religions, btw].
Show me a single post of mine where I do any of those.
Clue: you won't be able to because I haven't written any.
We'll see ;-)
labour believe in freedom. The freedom to smear Tories and freedom from anything even remotely negative about the dear leader. It's a nasty leftist trait seen and repeated over and over
I rely on his public persona. His speeches which sound like they have been written by some undergraduate would be sociologist. His genius for photo opportunities. His inability to think on his feet in the pressure cooker of the HoC (in fairness no easy task). Fair or not the really odd point of not having his name on his children's birth certificates. His belated marriage to a partner he is obviously devoted to. His descriptions of growing up in a household full of Marxist intellectuals and his engagement in that from an early age.
Normal people generally don't become leaders of political parties. He is not atypical.
That doesn't mean the people you have on your side don't. Saints sometimes hang around with real a holes
The Times today say it won't be Lansley as our Euro Commissioner, because the Tories don't want another by-election and they tipped Baroness Wheatcroft and Lord Hill, you can back them at 12/1 and 20/1 respectively and will be doing so.
http://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/2014/07/14/eu-commissioner-race-enters-final-furlong-the-latest-odds/
I realise it is bound to happen. I also rather like Nigel, despite not agreeing with his policies.
Shame people have to resort to childish and sinister personal attacks - shows they have run out of arguments.
http://t.co/6oft8a7uzX
2-speed Europe?
Well Cameron in his speech said that he and I'm sure most of the country do not want to be in ever closer union, so that will be what he would be negotiating about in 2015-17.
I do not think Junker or anybody can deliver anything before 2015. In any event Junker in his 'manifesto' said he recognised the need to accommodate the UK's wishes on this. Read it.
I think its not so much '2 speed' as 'associate'. It seems to me to be perfectly deliverable.
Cameron's speech and article also talked about reforming freedom to work to make sure it just covered work and not benefits tourism. I see no reasons why these rules cannot be clarified and amended and even now they seem pretty clear you can move for a job already offered but not to look for work. We could close various loopholes - around self employed for instance.
The fact that so few people (even on this site which is dedicated to political betting!) seem to have such enormous difficulty understanding Stephen Fisher's perfectly clear words is quite remarkable.
Because the Right never ever smears from behind its phalanx of unrepresentative and discredited newspapers or the online smear factory run by Paul Staines?!
I'm hoping we get the Guardian ICM poll either today or tomorrow.
It's just Labour don't like it up em
the later Maggie,
Gordon Brown
Being weird is absolutely no bar to being PM.
How can you tell someone is "thoroughly decent" just by meeting him? And what has "family man" got to do with it? It sounds like a 1950s euphemism for "not gay".
If and when he becomes PM and sat inside No 10, we'll all be imagining Ed singing that line from Radiohead's wonderful track from Pablo Honey
"I'm a weirdo, What the hell am I doing here? I don't belong here"
According to the PB Tories he has no policies or he has a suite of dangerous Marxist policies.
Same shit, different day.
By that token, pretty every politician is weird.
Well off people are generally paying more tax than in 2010.
Sir Humphrey would call it a courageous strategy.
The electorate have a right to know, and he won't say. That is weird. And sinister.
Gordon didn't become PM after an election - perhaps only weird right wingers can do so
Heath wouldn't become PM after an election now btw.
If receiving money from donors means you owe them a favour, as you clearly claim to believe, then where does that put labour's relationship with the unions?
This is not hard to understand, surely?
I love politics and find political economics and policy interesting (yes, I am weird too) but I would never be daft enough to fight and fight to get a winnable seat and then try to survive on a back bench salary away from my family or with 2 homes. The remarkable thing is that any of them come across as not weird.
Ceri James, whose 11-year spell as director of Cardiff-based Cilt Cymru came to an end last month, said cutting the body’s funding from just over £600,000 to £200,000 “must have felt like another nail in the coffin” for modern foreign languages (MFL) teachers.
Writing for the Guardian, Mr James said Cilt Cymru had sought innovative ways to increase MFL take-up, but “without strong strategic support from [the] Welsh Government” it had been powerless to reverse its decline and the prospects for MFL in Wales “look decidedly grim”.
The number of students taking a GCSE in foreign languages has fallen from 55% in 1995 to 22% in 2013 and Mr James believes it is “crunch-time for MFL in Wales”.
He said: “As the former director of Cilt Cymru... my sporting cliché of choice would be that of the tightrope walker. Funded by the Welsh Government on an annual basis since 2002 and with an excellent reputation for our work with schools and their pupils, we have been staring into the abyss for the past five years.
“Mass redundancy notices have become a perennial hazard. So when I was told in January that our funding was being cut and that I, along with a number of my colleagues, were being made redundant, it felt like I was in free fall.
“The Welsh Government has progressively backed away from the commitments it made in its 2002 MFL strategy document Languages Count. A six-year primary MFL pilot managed successfully by Cilt Cymru from 2003-09 was unceremoniously dumped, despite the investment of £1.5m of public money and great enthusiasm from teachers, learners, parents and school governors.”
Mr James’ comments come as MPs today warn that the UK’s reputation as a nation of “poor linguists” reluctant to value other languages must be changed.
Languages are as important to the UK’s future as science and maths-based subjects, and more needs to be done to ensure these skills are recognised and encouraged, according to an All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on the subject."
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/public-funding-languages-wales-grim-7415434
Millions and millions is pumped into children learning Welsh when the focus should be on Spanish, Arabic and Mandarin.
The alarming thing for Yes would be this bit, on age group, No leads in every age group except 25-34, but the biggest leads for no is with the 18% with the 55-64s and 30% with the over 65s.
I don't need to remind PBers which demographic has the highest turnout in elections.
http://www.icmresearch.com/data/media/pdf/2014_july_scotlandpoll8.pdf
It will cost them as it always does
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16181442
Why was his marriage to Justine seen as a political rather than a romantic gesture?
He doesn't seem to embody the ideal of a 'family man'
Add into this the issue of his father's politics and then the family feud the developed out of the leadership campaign and I would suggest Labour avoid any reference that links Miliband to family.
Would be an interesting clear choice then - will the electorate cast their vote for the state to spend more of their money.
'' It, was I think, a South African Communist who said "I'm not against people having a good time in life and I have a good time myself, I just want everyone to have a decent chance of it". That's something which reasonable Conservatives can agree with as well, ''
Lets be clear - I am a lifelong conservative. I listen and read what conservatives say and one of the bedrocks of conservatism is equal opportunity. So anyone Mr Palmer who says they do not believe in that is not a conservative.
I would point to the current considerable effort of the conservatives to improve education standards in the teeth of opposition from doctrinaire socialists is a good case in point. The efforts of Tristram Hunt a labour front bencher, a man born with a silver spoon in his mouth, to deny other people opportunity and perpetuate low standards and minimal choice hardly justify any claims for equal opportunity by Labour. It does however shout out their stinking hypocrisy.