politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How the Evening Standard is reporting the July 2014 Ipsos-M

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How the Evening Standard is reporting the July 2014 Ipsos-MORI poll which has no change in LAB lead

Evening Standard reporting Ipsos-MORI that has Gove the "most unpopular politician in Britain"
http://t.co/P8IOVtTwBu pic.twitter.com/0LhC4dNTGe

Read the full story here

JackW

Well quite ....

isam

Was the picture taken after he was told the results of the poll?

Socrates

@isam

isam said:

As it stands it's another world gone mad type story that ukip should wring as much publicity as possible from

Here are the stories if you want to pass them on to UKIP:

http://metro.co.uk/2014/07/15/petty-crooks-to-join-police-minor-offences-to-be-ignored-4798282/
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/14/met-police-ban-rec

Pulpstar

FPT:

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/103/Voting-Intention-in-Great-Britain-1976present.aspx?view=wide

17-19 July 2009 (T)
CON 35
LAB 27
LD 19

-8

Where is this 16% lead ???????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

July 2008 was a year back in the cycle.

@ThescreamingEagles Spinning here ?!

"This time it'll be different".... Indeed.

Socrates

I enjoyed this line from the Met:

‘We are saying that one minor wrongdoing should not deter you from being an effective police officer. Of course, an armed robber could not be a police officer, nor could a murderer.’

No, just wife-beaters, unarmed robbers and burglars. That's alright then.

TheScreamingEagles

Pulpstar said:

FPT:

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/103/Voting-Intention-in-Great-Britain-1976present.aspx?view=wide

17-19 July 2009 (T)
CON 35
LAB 27
LD 19

-8

Where is this 16% lead ???????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

July 2008 was a year back in the cycle.

@ThescreamingEagles Spinning here ?!

"This time it'll be different".... Indeed.

Here

Ipsos MORI’s July Political Monitor shows that among those absolutely certain to vote, the Conservative Party lead the Labour Party by 16 points. The Conservatives are on 40% (up from 38% last month), Labour is on 24% (up three points) and the Lib Dems on 18% (down one from 19%)

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/2407/Ipsos-MORI-Political-Monitor-July-2009.aspx

Cyclefree

Cameron's use of the Harman quote is, I think a precursor to what they are going to do in the election i.e. use every opportunity to point out how Labour will make people poorer through tax increases - a 2015 reprise of the 1992 "Labour's tax bombshell" campaign.

Since Labour do plan tax increases and are openly in favour of redistribution it will be interesting to see how they react. It is unrealistic of them to say that the only people who will be affected will be the rich.

TheScreamingEagles

@Pulpstar, you also missed this from your link

This page shows the voting intentions of all respondents who name a party that they say they intend to vote for, whether or not they are certain that they will vote. This is not our "headline" voting intention figure.

Edit: So my figures are correct and you're climbing up Mount Wrongness

stodge

Afternoon all

My first chance to comment for a couple of days. Arguably the biggest crisis in Education at the moment is the desperate shortage of places. Within the school construction sector, I've never known it so frantic - new schools are being built at a frenetic rate while existing ones are being extended and re-extended to try and cram in the new intake.

At the same time, local authorities are frantically scouring for new sites (and finding themselves in competition with other Agencies looking for land for new housing or new sites for residential facilities for vulnerable adults or children). The demand for land is something I've never seen working in this sector for more than twenty years and we desperately need to loosen up some of the planning constraints under which Councils and developers are forced to operate.

Successive Governments have totally failed on this and I don't recall Michael Gove saying anything constructive (so to speak). It's all very well being concerned about what goes on in the classroom but we actually need the classrooms in the first place.

The huge divergence in polls continues - it's hard to take any of them seriously when one has the LDs at 6% (about which I notice those not well disposed toward the party were having a jolly good gloat) and another at 12%. UKIP supporters have a right to feel equally baffled as might Labour supporters (33-38% ?). The Conservatives seem consistent at around 33%.

Pulpstar

TheScreamingEagles said:

@Pulpstar, you also missed this from your link

This page shows the voting intentions of all respondents who name a party that they say they intend to vote for, whether or not they are certain that they will vote. This is not our "headline" voting intention figure.

Edit: So my figures are correct and you're climbing up Mount Wrongness

Bloody hell, apologies !

SouthamObserver

Cyclefree said:

Cameron's use of the Harman quote is, I think a precursor to what they are going to do in the election i.e. use every opportunity to point out how Labour will make people poorer through tax increases - a 2015 reprise of the 1992 "Labour's tax bombshell" campaign.

Since Labour do plan tax increases and are openly in favour of redistribution it will be interesting to see how they react. It is unrealistic of them to say that the only people who will be affected will be the rich.

I don't think there is any doubt that the Tories will seek to misrepresent Labour policy, just as they did in 1992. And, of course, following the 1992 election the Tories then raised taxes themselves.

isam

Socrates said:

@isam

isam said:

As it stands it's another world gone mad type story that ukip should wring as much publicity as possible from

Here are the stories if you want to pass them on to UKIP:

http://metro.co.uk/2014/07/15/petty-crooks-to-join-police-minor-offences-to-be-ignored-4798282/
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/14/met-police-ban-rec

People with domestic violence convictions can become policeman

I've come over all Harriet Harman!

Careful typing required there!!

TheScreamingEagles

SouthamObserver said:

Cyclefree said:

Cameron's use of the Harman quote is, I think a precursor to what they are going to do in the election i.e. use every opportunity to point out how Labour will make people poorer through tax increases - a 2015 reprise of the 1992 "Labour's tax bombshell" campaign.

Since Labour do plan tax increases and are openly in favour of redistribution it will be interesting to see how they react. It is unrealistic of them to say that the only people who will be affected will be the rich.

I don't think there is any doubt that the Tories will seek to misrepresent Labour policy, just as they did in 1992. And, of course, following the 1992 election the Tories then raised taxes themselves.

To be fair, in 1992, Labour produced a Shadow Budget, which listed all their tax increases.

The Tories couldn't believe it.

edmundintokyo

SouthamObserver said:

Cyclefree said:

Cameron's use of the Harman quote is, I think a precursor to what they are going to do in the election i.e. use every opportunity to point out how Labour will make people poorer through tax increases - a 2015 reprise of the 1992 "Labour's tax bombshell" campaign.

Since Labour do plan tax increases and are openly in favour of redistribution it will be interesting to see how they react. It is unrealistic of them to say that the only people who will be affected will be the rich.

I don't think there is any doubt that the Tories will seek to misrepresent Labour policy, just as they did in 1992. And, of course, following the 1992 election the Tories then raised taxes themselves.

The best way to tell that another party would do something is if you plan to do it yourself. The classic was the VAT raise, which all the parties accused all the other parties of secretly planning to do in 2010, and they were all right.

taffys

''I don't think there is any doubt that the Tories will seek to misrepresent Labour policy, just as they did in 1992.''

How can we accuse the tories of misrepresenting labour policy when we don;t know what labour policy is.

Pulpstar

@Thescreamingeagles I'll head to Conhome for a week - Do you have a link for the Mori topline figures - I'd like to see the trend into the GE.

Socrates

isam said:

Socrates said:

@isam

isam said:

As it stands it's another world gone mad type story that ukip should wring as much publicity as possible from

Here are the stories if you want to pass them on to UKIP:

http://metro.co.uk/2014/07/15/petty-crooks-to-join-police-minor-offences-to-be-ignored-4798282/
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/14/met-police-ban-rec

People with domestic violence convictions can become policeman

I've come over all Harriet Harman!

Careful typing required there!!

It's utterly bizarre. If UKIP are looking to make more of a splash in London, they could certainly start here. It would be them, common sense and most of the public on one side, and the establishment three parties on the other.

dyedwoolie

SouthamObserver said:

Cyclefree said:

Cameron's use of the Harman quote is, I think a precursor to what they are going to do in the election i.e. use every opportunity to point out how Labour will make people poorer through tax increases - a 2015 reprise of the 1992 "Labour's tax bombshell" campaign.

Since Labour do plan tax increases and are openly in favour of redistribution it will be interesting to see how they react. It is unrealistic of them to say that the only people who will be affected will be the rich.

I don't think there is any doubt that the Tories will seek to misrepresent Labour policy, just as they did in 1992. And, of course, following the 1992 election the Tories then raised taxes themselves.

Nor any doubt that Labour will try and lie and misrepresent their way into power.
It is the nature of the beast.

TheScreamingEagles

The Ipsos MORI Political Monitor for July shows David Cameron is the most liked party leader - though all of them have a majority disliking their policies. Just over four in ten like the Prime Minister (44%), while 36% like his policies, ahead of Labour leader Ed Miliband (33% like him, 31% his policies), Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg (38% like him, 23% his policies – the lowest rated politician on policy) and UKIP leader Nigel Farage (33% like him, 27% his policies).

Satisfaction ratings for the main party leaders and government have remained stable since last month, although with a slight fall for Ed Miliband:

Satisfaction in David Cameron is at 33%, with 59% dissatisfied, giving him a net rating (% satisfied minus % dissatisfied) of -26.

One in four (23%) are satisfied with Nick Clegg’s performance as Deputy Prime Minister, with 65% dissatisfied.

Ed Miliband has a net rating of -33, with 28% satisfied and 61% dissatisfied.

Satisfaction in Nigel Farage is at 38%, with 45% dissatisfied, giving him a net rating of -7.

Net satisfaction in the performance of the government is at -26, with 33% satisfied and 59% dissatisfied.

http://ipsos-mori.co.uk/researchpublications/researcharchive/3417/Ipsos-MORI-Political-Monitor-July-2014.aspx

Grandiose

SouthamObserver said:

Cyclefree said:

Cameron's use of the Harman quote is, I think a precursor to what they are going to do in the election i.e. use every opportunity to point out how Labour will make people poorer through tax increases - a 2015 reprise of the 1992 "Labour's tax bombshell" campaign.

Since Labour do plan tax increases and are openly in favour of redistribution it will be interesting to see how they react. It is unrealistic of them to say that the only people who will be affected will be the rich.

I don't think there is any doubt that the Tories will seek to misrepresent Labour policy, just as they did in 1992. And, of course, following the 1992 election the Tories then raised taxes themselves.

If you don't want to be misrepresented, then you have to make yourself clear. Harman and Miliband's reactions were different and Miliband missed (as is missing) the opportunity to correct the record.

If Labour comes out and says that they won't raise taxes on middle earners, then it could not only cancel the negative but be a plus.

However, I doubt they feel able to do that, in which case, quote or no quote, all that has happened is that Labour party policy has been highlighted.

enfant

This Blog is fast becoming the home for deluded Tories,led by TSE.
Perhaps a spell at doing his job,I presume he is employed,will help improve impartiality on the
Blog,at the same time helping his employers receive some small return on their investment in him

dyedwoolie

Labours rumoured NHS tax hike is pretty much 'we will run it like crap as usual, see our success in Staffordshire and Wales. The great thing is, you'll pay more for our failure. Vote red.'

TheScreamingEagles

Pulpstar said:

@Thescreamingeagles I'll head to Conhome for a week - Do you have a link for the Mori topline figures - I'd like to see the trend into the GE.

Here

http://ipsos-mori.co.uk/researchspecialisms/socialresearch/specareas/politics/trends.aspx#vii

GIN1138

Pulpstar said:

@Thescreamingeagles I'll head to Conhome for a week - Do you have a link for the Mori topline figures - I'd like to see the trend into the GE.

You can see every MORI poll going back to May 2005 (with a funky trend graph as well) here;

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2/mori

Millsy

Not really surprising that Gove went when you see numbers like that.

The trouble with Gove was that, although he was overall an excellent Education Secretary, he seemed to get bogged down in the free schools policy, which although good comes across as new schools for rich people at the expense of everyone else who just wants a good local school.

And many school teachers dislike him (fairly or not), which never helps. When there is very little politics on Facebook, yesterday there were plenty of mentions on my timeline from teachers who are happy to see the back of him.

Cyclefree

SouthamObserver said:

Cyclefree said:

Cameron's use of the Harman quote is, I think a precursor to what they are going to do in the election i.e. use every opportunity to point out how Labour will make people poorer through tax increases - a 2015 reprise of the 1992 "Labour's tax bombshell" campaign.

Since Labour do plan tax increases and are openly in favour of redistribution it will be interesting to see how they react. It is unrealistic of them to say that the only people who will be affected will be the rich.

I don't think there is any doubt that the Tories will seek to misrepresent Labour policy, just as they did in 1992. And, of course, following the 1992 election the Tories then raised taxes themselves.

I fully expect there to be tax rises, whoever wins after the next election. However, I don't think that it does misrepresent Labour policy to say that they do plan more taxes: they have mentioned the 50p rate, they have talked about taxes on bankers' bonuses, they do support a mansion tax and have discussed increasing NI. They do plan a 10p tax rate but have not clarified whether this will mean that people currently paying no tax will now have to pay it.

If they believe in people paying more and redistribution, why be shy about it? Why not make a virtue out of necessity?

Pulpstar

enfant said:

This Blog is fast becoming the home for deluded Tories,led by TSE.
Perhaps a spell at doing his job,I presume he is employed,will help improve impartiality on the
Blog,at the same time helping his employers receive some small return on their investment in him

A personal attack on post 3 - must be a new record.

Pulpstar

What happened between December 2009 and January 2010 btw ? I note that was the big drop point in lead last time.

taffys

Vote red.'

Iain Martin missed a trick in that interview where Harriet spilled her guts on taxes.

She was saying that what the public really wanted was a 'really good health service'

Craven Martin should have immediately asked her if the Welsh health service was a model for what should happen in England. Is that want you would like to see here?

After all, it has been run by Labour since 1997.

dyedwoolie

Cyclefree said:

SouthamObserver said:

Cyclefree said:

Cameron's use of the Harman quote is, I think a precursor to what they are going to do in the election i.e. use every opportunity to point out how Labour will make people poorer through tax increases - a 2015 reprise of the 1992 "Labour's tax bombshell" campaign.

Since Labour do plan tax increases and are openly in favour of redistribution it will be interesting to see how they react. It is unrealistic of them to say that the only people who will be affected will be the rich.

I don't think there is any doubt that the Tories will seek to misrepresent Labour policy, just as they did in 1992. And, of course, following the 1992 election the Tories then raised taxes themselves.

I fully expect there to be tax rises, whoever wins after the next election. However, I don't think that it does misrepresent Labour policy to say that they do plan more taxes: they have mentioned the 50p rate, they have talked about taxes on bankers' bonuses, they do support a mansion tax and have discussed increasing NI. They do plan a 10p tax rate but have not clarified whether this will mean that people currently paying no tax will now have to pay it.

If they believe in people paying more and redistribution, why be shy about it? Why not make a virtue out of necessity?

Because at least 10-15% of their 'support' don't think they actually mean THEM having to pay more.
The electorate are convinced that four billionaires and a couple of corporations can cover the debt and deficit. The reality will turn them off Labour and on to the party that is delivering, slowly, on fiscal prudence and recovery.

TheScreamingEagles

Pulpstar said:

enfant said:

This Blog is fast becoming the home for deluded Tories,led by TSE.
Perhaps a spell at doing his job,I presume he is employed,will help improve impartiality on the
Blog,at the same time helping his employers receive some small return on their investment in him

A personal attack on post 3 - must be a new record.

It's ok, I've been accused at various stages of being a Labour troll, a UKIP troll, a deluded Cyber-nat, a Lib Dem.

And someone's first ever post was to call me a racist, Islamophobic twat.

SouthamObserver

Cyclefree said:

SouthamObserver said:

Cyclefree said:

Cameron's use of the Harman quote is, I think a precursor to what they are going to do in the election i.e. use every opportunity to point out how Labour will make people poorer through tax increases - a 2015 reprise of the 1992 "Labour's tax bombshell" campaign.

Since Labour do plan tax increases and are openly in favour of redistribution it will be interesting to see how they react. It is unrealistic of them to say that the only people who will be affected will be the rich.

I don't think there is any doubt that the Tories will seek to misrepresent Labour policy, just as they did in 1992. And, of course, following the 1992 election the Tories then raised taxes themselves.

I fully expect there to be tax rises, whoever wins after the next election. However, I don't think that it does misrepresent Labour policy to say that they do plan more taxes: they have mentioned the 50p rate, they have talked about taxes on bankers' bonuses, they do support a mansion tax and have discussed increasing NI. They do plan a 10p tax rate but have not clarified whether this will mean that people currently paying no tax will now have to pay it.

If they believe in people paying more and redistribution, why be shy about it? Why not make a virtue out of necessity?

I agree. But it is clearly not Labour policy to raise taxes for middle income earners. That is a misrepresentation.

taffys

Moving Gove is turning out to be a shrewd move - lots of political Ron Managering going on in newspapers and on threads..

Michael...ooh wasn't he??.....stood up to the left....passionate about his brief....most radical in decades....occasionally overstepped the mark....told the honest truth....won;t see his like again....jumpers for goalposts....

TheScreamingEagles

Pulpstar said:

What happened between December 2009 and January 2010 btw ? I note that was the big drop point in lead last time.

The Cameron posters.

JonathanD

SouthamObserver said:

Cyclefree said:

SouthamObserver said:

Cyclefree said:

Cameron's use of the Harman quote is, I think a precursor to what they are going to do in the election i.e. use every opportunity to point out how Labour will make people poorer through tax increases - a 2015 reprise of the 1992 "Labour's tax bombshell" campaign.

Since Labour do plan tax increases and are openly in favour of redistribution it will be interesting to see how they react. It is unrealistic of them to say that the only people who will be affected will be the rich.

I don't think there is any doubt that the Tories will seek to misrepresent Labour policy, just as they did in 1992. And, of course, following the 1992 election the Tories then raised taxes themselves.

I fully expect there to be tax rises, whoever wins after the next election. However, I don't think that it does misrepresent Labour policy to say that they do plan more taxes: they have mentioned the 50p rate, they have talked about taxes on bankers' bonuses, they do support a mansion tax and have discussed increasing NI. They do plan a 10p tax rate but have not clarified whether this will mean that people currently paying no tax will now have to pay it.

If they believe in people paying more and redistribution, why be shy about it? Why not make a virtue out of necessity?

I agree. But it is clearly not Labour policy to raise taxes for middle income earners. That is a misrepresentation.

From what Harman said it sounds like she is after a tax increase

"She then added: 'Yes I think people on middle incomes should contribute more through their taxes'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2694276/People-middle-incomes-contribute-tax-Harman-threats-seized-Cameron.html

SouthamObserver

dyedwoolie said:

SouthamObserver said:

Cyclefree said:

Cameron's use of the Harman quote is, I think a precursor to what they are going to do in the election i.e. use every opportunity to point out how Labour will make people poorer through tax increases - a 2015 reprise of the 1992 "Labour's tax bombshell" campaign.

Since Labour do plan tax increases and are openly in favour of redistribution it will be interesting to see how they react. It is unrealistic of them to say that the only people who will be affected will be the rich.

I don't think there is any doubt that the Tories will seek to misrepresent Labour policy, just as they did in 1992. And, of course, following the 1992 election the Tories then raised taxes themselves.

Nor any doubt that Labour will try and lie and misrepresent their way into power.
It is the nature of the beast.

Indeed, it's what all political parties do.

dyedwoolie

SouthamObserver said:

Cyclefree said:

SouthamObserver said:

Cyclefree said:

Cameron's use of the Harman quote is, I think a precursor to what they are going to do in the election i.e. use every opportunity to point out how Labour will make people poorer through tax increases - a 2015 reprise of the 1992 "Labour's tax bombshell" campaign.

Since Labour do plan tax increases and are openly in favour of redistribution it will be interesting to see how they react. It is unrealistic of them to say that the only people who will be affected will be the rich.

I don't think there is any doubt that the Tories will seek to misrepresent Labour policy, just as they did in 1992. And, of course, following the 1992 election the Tories then raised taxes themselves.

I fully expect there to be tax rises, whoever wins after the next election. However, I don't think that it does misrepresent Labour policy to say that they do plan more taxes: they have mentioned the 50p rate, they have talked about taxes on bankers' bonuses, they do support a mansion tax and have discussed increasing NI. They do plan a 10p tax rate but have not clarified whether this will mean that people currently paying no tax will now have to pay it.

If they believe in people paying more and redistribution, why be shy about it? Why not make a virtue out of necessity?

I agree. But it is clearly not Labour policy to raise taxes for middle income earners. That is a misrepresentation.

No, they have not yet confirmed in manifesto or announcement how they intend to squeeze the middle further, we just know Harriet thinks they should, as she confirmed at PMQs

TheScreamingEagles

Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 1m

@IpsosMORI chart showing how EdM compares with previous opposition leaders at this stage. Not good for @Ed_Miliband

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BsqmEGcIQAA_W3W.png

GIN1138

Pulpstar said:

What happened between December 2009 and January 2010 btw ? I note that was the big drop point in lead last time.

1. Cameron ruling out a referendum on the Lisbon treaty in November 2009 started to filter through.

2. Those silly "Cameron Will Save The Day" posters were launched in on New Years Day 2010 to widespread ridicule.

3. Mandy-Campbell started telling everyone the evil Tories would murder all first born's and civilization as we knew would end if Conservatives won the election.

Pulpstar

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

What happened between December 2009 and January 2010 btw ? I note that was the big drop point in lead last time.

The Cameron posters.

Airbrushed Dave saving the NHS - those ones ?

stodge

On the subject of a post-election Coalition (and I write as a LD Party member but only in that capacity).

After the last GE, there was in truth only one stable Government on offer and that was what we got (a Conservative minority COULD have been formed and might have survived for a while but would have been inherently unstable).

If, as seems probable, there are fewer LD MPs after the next election, the range of Coalition becomes narrower but the possibilities become greater especially if (as seems likely) any gains by the Conservatives from the LDs are likely to be balanced by losses to Labour.

If the LDs fall to 30 seats and the Conservatives finish at 300 (let's say) there could be a second Coalition - the numbers would work- but it wouldn't be the same as before as Nick Clegg would be dealing from a weaker hand. The chances are it would (rightly) be a more Conservative-dominated Government.

One of the aspects of this week's reshuffle seems to be to present a new, younger, more dynamic and arguably more right-wing Cabinet full of the children of Thatcher and Blair but that's a gamble because the gamble is the Manifesto backing that team and the team has to win a majority or very close to it.

The corollary is IF they fail, will it be possible for any LD leader (whether a damaged Nick Clegg or whoever) to support a Government running on such a Manifesto ? In 2010, as I've said before, there was a degree of convergence on some issues between the Conservatives and LDs which made the Coalition possible. That has now diverged and I suspect the Conservative Manifesto of 2015 will contain much that I (as a Liberal Democrat) could not support. That's my problem but it will be the Conservatives' problem if they try in any Coalition negotiations to insist on these policies as a red line.

TheScreamingEagles

Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 5m

Amongst all expressing a voting intention in July @IpsosMORI poll LAB had 8% lead. See chart

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BsqlZ1kIMAE7z9A.png:large

Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 20s

The trend in EdM's @IpsosMORI leader satisfaction rating

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BsqmhBuCEAEscVe.png:large

HurstLlama

@TSE

You comments on the previous thread about spent convictions now being ignored for police recruiting, rather misses the point.

If I, a chap with no criminal convictions at all not even a motoring offence against my good name, should find myself in the dock and one of my accusers is a convicted thief and a liar then I am going to make sure the jury know all about it. Is justice more or less likely to be served in such an event.

Spent convictions, as you know, are irrelevant when in comes to disclosing a witnesses previous criminal history. P.C. Smethers has a CRO number, good enough for me, get him/her in the witness box and any competent counsel will destroy his/her credibility. A police force employing criminals will ensure that the numbers of miscarriages of justice go up. Surely there must be some limit to the diversity agenda of the Met.

Pulpstar

TheScreamingEagles said:

Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 5m

Amongst all expressing a voting intention in July @IpsosMORI poll LAB had 8% lead. See chart

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BsqlZ1kIMAE7z9A.png:large

Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 20s

The trend in EdM's @IpsosMORI leader satisfaction rating

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BsqmhBuCEAEscVe.png:large

Labour voters are lazy as sin though.

Richard_Nabavi

SouthamObserver said:

I agree. But it is clearly not Labour policy to raise taxes for middle income earners. That is a misrepresentation.

No it's not. And if Labour really want people to believe it's a misrepresentation, they'd better explain what they are planning.

In contrast, Osborne has set out pretty detailed forward plans and will no doubt do so again in his final Budget, shortly before the election.

So Labour have a choice: 'fess up to what their policies are (assuming they have some idea themselves, which may be a big assumption), or let the Tories define what their policies are on their behalf. I expect they will do the latter.

Incidentally I think Cyclefree is wrong about tax rises under a future Conservative government. The direction will be towards tax cuts, albeit very modestly. Osborne has already done what he needed to do on increasing taxes - the emphasis post-2015 will be on getting spending down further.

Verulamius

Are Labour going to say that an increase in NI is not an increase in tax for the average voter?

The main category of voter not effect by this will be pensioners (although employers' NIC is still paid on salaries paid to employees over the state retirement age).

Pulpstar

GIN1138 said:

3. Mandy-Campbell started telling everyone the evil Tories would murder all first born's and civilization as we knew would end if Conservatives won the election.

I'm amazed how much that pair seemed to fool just about everyone in Labour's tenure - the media, the public, the HoC.

Slimier than a slimey slug in slimesville - the pair of 'em.

Millsy

Gove can at least console himself that he is not as unpopular as Clegg. The difference is that the Lib Dems don't have the guts to ditch their pariah before the election

isam

HurstLlama said:

@TSE

You comments on the previous thread about spent convictions now being ignored for police recruiting, rather misses the point.

If I, a chap with no criminal convictions at all not even a motoring offence against my good name, should find myself in the dock and one of my accusers is a convicted thief and a liar then I am going to make sure the jury know all about it. Is justice more or less likely to be served in such an event.

Spent convictions, as you know, are irrelevant when in comes to disclosing a witnesses previous criminal history. P.C. Smethers has a CRO number, good enough for me, get him/her in the witness box and any competent counsel will destroy his/her credibility. A police force employing criminals will ensure that the numbers of miscarriages of justice go up. Surely there must be some limit to the diversity agenda of the Met.

Criminals becoming policeman...

If only there were a saying that summed up this latest nonsense...

HurstLlama

enfant said:

This Blog is fast becoming the home for deluded Tories,led by TSE.
Perhaps a spell at doing his job,I presume he is employed,will help improve impartiality on the
Blog,at the same time helping his employers receive some small return on their investment in him

Monsieur Enfant, TSE is a lawyer and one, what is more, that can multi-task. Your comments are therefore misplaced. Mind you, I did ask on here last week how so many people in apparently well paying jobs can afford to spend so much time on here during the working day. Of answers came there none.

MikeSmithson

I've added some charts from the Ipsos-MORI poll

TheScreamingEagles

HurstLlama said:

@TSE

You comments on the previous thread about spent convictions now being ignored for police recruiting, rather misses the point.

If I, a chap with no criminal convictions at all not even a motoring offence against my good name, should find myself in the dock and one of my accusers is a convicted thief and a liar then I am going to make sure the jury know all about it. Is justice more or less likely to be served in such an event.

Spent convictions, as you know, are irrelevant when in comes to disclosing a witnesses previous criminal history. P.C. Smethers has a CRO number, good enough for me, get him/her in the witness box and any competent counsel will destroy his/her credibility. A police force employing criminals will ensure that the numbers of miscarriages of justice go up. Surely there must be some limit to the diversity agenda of the Met.

1) This is nothing to do with diversity

2) I know this may come as a shock to some (although not to you) there are people with criminal records working in the police already. (from 2012)

More than 900 serving police officers and community support officers have a criminal record, official figures show.

Forces across England and Wales employ officers with convictions for offences including burglary, causing death by careless driving, robbery, supplying drugs, domestic violence, forgery and perverting the course of justice.

Those with criminal records include senior officers, among them two detective chief inspectors and one chief inspector working for the Metropolitan police.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jan/02/police-944-officers-criminal-record

TheScreamingEagles

MikeSmithson said:

I've added some charts from the Ipsos-MORI poll

Ipsos-Mori are the best pollster for charts, you can do lots of threads based on their polls and charts.

Fenster

This Harman comment may well be gold to the Tories. Sorry, Labourites - if this catches fire in the media and Ed refuses to rule out tax rises then it is political dynamite.

Millsy

From Ipsos Mori (net numbers):

+2% David Cameron has what it takes to be a good Prime Minister
-43% Ed Miliband has what it takes to be a good Prime Minister

Richard_Nabavi

Fenster said:

This Harman comment may well be gold to the Tories. Sorry, Labourites - if this catches fire in the media and Ed refuses to rule out tax rises then it is political dynamite.

Quite. I can't believe how stupid Labour are being about this. They should have said nothing, rather than accusing Cameron of misrepresenting Harriet.

taffys

The economic figures today show the central problem for the conservatives remains. Wage growth is alarmingly slow versus prices growth and property value growth.

More people are working, only to see the things they are working for move further away into the distance.

That is not a recipe for winning a majority.

[Deleted User]

Oh dear - that Red Ed trend chart is a stinker.

Pulpstar

TheScreamingEagles said:

HurstLlama said:

@TSE

You comments on the previous thread about spent convictions now being ignored for police recruiting, rather misses the point.

If I, a chap with no criminal convictions at all not even a motoring offence against my good name, should find myself in the dock and one of my accusers is a convicted thief and a liar then I am going to make sure the jury know all about it. Is justice more or less likely to be served in such an event.

Spent convictions, as you know, are irrelevant when in comes to disclosing a witnesses previous criminal history. P.C. Smethers has a CRO number, good enough for me, get him/her in the witness box and any competent counsel will destroy his/her credibility. A police force employing criminals will ensure that the numbers of miscarriages of justice go up. Surely there must be some limit to the diversity agenda of the Met.

1) This is nothing to do with diversity

2) I know this may come as a shock to some (although not to you) there are people with criminal records working in the police already. (from 2012)

More than 900 serving police officers and community support officers have a criminal record, official figures show.

Forces across England and Wales employ officers with convictions for offences including burglary, causing death by careless driving, robbery, supplying drugs, domestic violence, forgery and perverting the course of justice.

Those with criminal records include senior officers, among them two detective chief inspectors and one chief inspector working for the Metropolitan police.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jan/02/police-944-officers-criminal-record

Some of those offences are rather more serious than being light fingered in their teens or perhaps a one off conviction for assault (You need some tough nuts in the police).

Anyone who has perverted the course of Justice should be nowhere near the police in particular, and I hope those who have caused death by careless driving are not behind the wheel of response cars.

Pulpstar

"South Yorkshire police officer convicted of fishing without a licence" - definitely shouldn't be a bar to the police, that one.

taffys

I hope those who have caused death by careless driving are not behind the wheel of response cars.

These revelations could turn into a UKIP policy. No lags in the police - period.

SouthamObserver

Richard_Nabavi said:

SouthamObserver said:

I agree. But it is clearly not Labour policy to raise taxes for middle income earners. That is a misrepresentation.

No it's not. And if Labour really want people to believe it's a misrepresentation, they'd better explain what they are planning.

In contrast, Osborne has set out pretty detailed forward plans and will no doubt do so again in his final Budget, shortly before the election.

So Labour have a choice: 'fess up to what their policies are (assuming they have some idea themselves, which may be a big assumption), or let the Tories define what their policies are on their behalf. I expect they will do the latter.

Incidentally I think Cyclefree is wrong about tax rises under a future Conservative government. The direction will be towards tax cuts, albeit very modestly. Osborne has already done what he needed to do on increasing taxes - the emphasis post-2015 will be on getting spending down further.

It is not Labour policy to increase taxes for middle income earners, so to claim that it is is clearly a misrepresentation. However, I largely agree with you. Osborne will not put up taxes after 2015, he will instead make very deep cuts to public services and to welfare.

Pulpstar

"Most of the convictions are for traffic offences such as speeding and drink-driving"

That's a horrific lumping together of offences by the Guardian.

HurstLlama

TheScreamingEagles said:

HurstLlama said:

@TSE

You comments on the previous thread about spent convictions now being ignored for police recruiting, rather misses the point.

If I, a chap with no criminal convictions at all not even a motoring offence against my good name, should find myself in the dock and one of my accusers is a convicted thief and a liar then I am going to make sure the jury know all about it. Is justice more or less likely to be served in such an event.

Spent convictions, as you know, are irrelevant when in comes to disclosing a witnesses previous criminal history. P.C. Smethers has a CRO number, good enough for me, get him/her in the witness box and any competent counsel will destroy his/her credibility. A police force employing criminals will ensure that the numbers of miscarriages of justice go up. Surely there must be some limit to the diversity agenda of the Met.

1) This is nothing to do with diversity

2) I know this may come as a shock to some (although not to you) there are people with criminal records working in the police already. (from 2012)

More than 900 serving police officers and community support officers have a criminal record, official figures show.

Forces across England and Wales employ officers with convictions for offences including burglary, causing death by careless driving, robbery, supplying drugs, domestic violence, forgery and perverting the course of justice.

Those with criminal records include senior officers, among them two detective chief inspectors and one chief inspector working for the Metropolitan police.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jan/02/police-944-officers-criminal-record

Mr. Eagles, that forces have been getting it wrong before is no excuse for a policy that will get it wrong in, even greater numbers, in the future. For goodness sake the Plod have enough of an image problem without encouraging the idea that on the off chance some one does turn up to pretend your investigate your burglary they might nick anything that the original toerag left behind.

On a different note of those 900 you mention how many are allowed to do any active coppering, of the sort that would involve arresting suspects and thus, potentially, appearing in court? Damn few I suspect, and cetrain;ly not the 2 DIs in the Met.

Our learned friend LIAMT had it right in the last thread. Put criminal coppers in the witness box and they will have a hard time to be believed.

stodge

On the question of tax and very much in the light of today's figures on wages, the key to this observer has less been the increase in personal allowances (hugely welcome and to be applauded) but the issue of the threshold at which higher rate tax is paid.

Even with sluggish wage increases (or not so sluggish depending on who you read and believe) more people are being dragged into the higher rate simply by dent of the threshold not rising.

There seem therefore to be two options - one is to reduce the higher rate of tax, the other is to raise the threshold at which said higher rate becomes payable. I would prefer the latter, I expect George Osborne to prefer the former.

If I were part of the Labour Treasury Team I would be crunching the numbers to see what an increase in the threshold to say £35k (after personal allowance) would mean.

taffys

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/ann-clwyds-verdict-welsh-nhs-7435557

The latest on that 'really good health service' that Harriett Harman was talking about in the Martin interview

A sort of neo-stalinist regime.

Pulpstar

On Daily Politics Nick Robinson says that Mr Cameron apparently told Mr Gove that he wanted him as chief whip to act like the "hand of the king" in the popular series. The character is regarded as the "most powerful person in the seven kingdoms".

Brilliant !

Scott_P

@DPJHodges: Reason HH saying Labour wants to raise middle-class taxes is a problem is because Labour does want to raise middle-class taxes.

currystar

taffys said:

The economic figures today show the central problem for the conservatives remains. Wage growth is alarmingly slow versus prices growth and property value growth.

More people are working, only to see the things they are working for move further away into the distance.

That is not a recipe for winning a majority.

Based on the construction industry in Hampshire today's wage growth figures are nonsense. To give an example an agency spark was getting 12.50 per hour in 2012, they now get 15.50 per hour. Estimators/contracts managers are being poached all the time being paid higher wages by their new firms. I just don't believe the figures.

Millsy

On Ed's satisfaction scores, he is now (-33) almost back to his low point just before conference 2013 (-36). Labour are going to have a great summer!

SouthamObserver

taffys said:

The economic figures today show the central problem for the conservatives remains. Wage growth is alarmingly slow versus prices growth and property value growth.

More people are working, only to see the things they are working for move further away into the distance.

That is not a recipe for winning a majority.

More importantly, it's not a recipe for a happy society. Unfortunately, it's a long-term problem and one that none of our political parties shows any signs of getting to grips with.

Pulpstar

currystar said:

taffys said:

The economic figures today show the central problem for the conservatives remains. Wage growth is alarmingly slow versus prices growth and property value growth.

More people are working, only to see the things they are working for move further away into the distance.

That is not a recipe for winning a majority.

Based on the construction industry in Hampshire today's wage growth figures are nonsense. To give an example an agency spark was getting 12.50 per hour in 2012, they now get 15.50 per hour. Estimators/contracts managers are being poached all the time being paid higher wages by their new firms. I just don't believe the figures.

Con gain So'ton Itchen

edmundintokyo

HurstLlama said:

Our learned friend LIAMT had it right in the last thread. Put criminal coppers in the witness box and they will have a hard time to be believed.

That would be a good thing, because the police lie all the time.

TheScreamingEagles

HurstLlama said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HurstLlama said:

@TSE

You comments on the previous thread about spent convictions now being ignored for police recruiting, rather misses the point.

If I, a chap with no criminal convictions at all not even a motoring offence against my good name, should find myself in the dock and one of my accusers is a convicted thief and a liar then I am going to make sure the jury know all about it. Is justice more or less likely to be served in such an event.

Spent convictions, as you know, are irrelevant when in comes to disclosing a witnesses previous criminal history. P.C. Smethers has a CRO number, good enough for me, get him/her in the witness box and any competent counsel will destroy his/her credibility. A police force employing criminals will ensure that the numbers of miscarriages of justice go up. Surely there must be some limit to the diversity agenda of the Met.

1) This is nothing to do with diversity

2) I know this may come as a shock to some (although not to you) there are people with criminal records working in the police already. (from 2012)

More than 900 serving police officers and community support officers have a criminal record, official figures show.

Forces across England and Wales employ officers with convictions for offences including burglary, causing death by careless driving, robbery, supplying drugs, domestic violence, forgery and perverting the course of justice.

Those with criminal records include senior officers, among them two detective chief inspectors and one chief inspector working for the Metropolitan police.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jan/02/police-944-officers-criminal-record

Mr. Eagles, that forces have been getting it wrong before is no excuse for a policy that will get it wrong in, even greater numbers, in the future. For goodness sake the Plod have enough of an image problem without encouraging the idea that on the off chance some one does turn up to pretend your investigate your burglary they might nick anything that the original toerag left behind.

On a different note of those 900 you mention how many are allowed to do any active coppering, of the sort that would involve arresting suspects and thus, potentially, appearing in court? Damn few I suspect, and cetrain;ly not the 2 DIs in the Met.

Our learned friend LIAMT had it right in the last thread. Put criminal coppers in the witness box and they will have a hard time to be believed.

IIRC most them were still serving as officers.

[Deleted User]

Mike - is there a thread to be had about Labour economic policy? The Harman comment may or may not be 'dynamite'. But there is surely a serious debate to be had between now and May on just what Labour would do to tax and spend.

WTF is Labour's economic policy? What is their intended direction of travel on the national finances?

I don't know. You don't know. Nobody knows. Spending up, down or flat? Taxes up, down or flat? It's an enigma. (I suspect we can all guess based on past performance what a Labour government would do).

Less than a year out from a GE it's astonishing that this is the case. And there will be large numbers of people for each of Up, Down or Flat who are going to be very, very disappointed when they find out that their assumption was wrong only in late April. Or is Ed's policy simply to say nothing at all about this up to and right through the GE campaign? It's THE gorilla in the corner of British politcs.

Pulpstar

How dos one make a FOI request ?, I'd like to know the updated figure of lags in the thin blue line.

Richard_Nabavi

SouthamObserver said:

It is not Labour policy to increase taxes for middle income earners, so to claim that it is is clearly a misrepresentation. However, I largely agree with you. Osborne will not put up taxes after 2015, he will instead make very deep cuts to public services and to welfare.

No, he (or his Conservative successor, if he moves to the Foreign Office) will make further cuts to public spending, not to public services. A massive distinction, and one which the Left not only don't recognise, but actively refuse to even consider might be possible or desirable.

taffys

Unfortunately, it's a long-term problem and one that none of our political parties shows any signs of getting to grips with.

One way to help would be to cut taxes, but that is rather difficult right now. The huge increases in employment don't seem to mean money cascading into the treasury.

Richard_Nabavi

Pulpstar said:

How dos one make a FOI request ?, I'd like to know the updated figure of lags in the thin blue line.

Just write a letter to the Met (or Home Office) asking them. It's not even necessary to say it's an FOI request (they are supposed to treat it as such in any case), but it's a good idea to do so. Make the question as specific as possible.

TheScreamingEagles

Right, I know I'm going to say something controversial.

Ignore the Westminster VI polling for the next 3 months.

The next couple of months are going to be a bit hectic

1) We've got the North Britain plebiscite dominating for the next two months

2) Then straight after that we go into the party conference season, when polling can be volatile.

I just have feeling we're going to have more outliers than normal between now and Mid October.

isam

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HurstLlama said:

@TSE

You comments on the previous thread about spent convictions now being ignored for police recruiting, rather misses the point.

If I, a chap with no criminal convictions at all not even a motoring offence against my good name, should find myself in the dock and one of my accusers is a convicted thief and a liar then I am going to make sure the jury know all about it. Is justice more or less likely to be served in such an event.

Spent convictions, as you know, are irrelevant when in comes to disclosing a witnesses previous criminal history. P.C. Smethers has a CRO number, good enough for me, get him/her in the witness box and any competent counsel will destroy his/her credibility. A police force employing criminals will ensure that the numbers of miscarriages of justice go up. Surely there must be some limit to the diversity agenda of the Met.

1) This is nothing to do with diversity

2) I know this may come as a shock to some (although not to you) there are people with criminal records working in the police already. (from 2012)

More than 900 serving police officers and community support officers have a criminal record, official figures show.

Forces across England and Wales employ officers with convictions for offences including burglary, causing death by careless driving, robbery, supplying drugs, domestic violence, forgery and perverting the course of justice.

Those with criminal records include senior officers, among them two detective chief inspectors and one chief inspector working for the Metropolitan police.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jan/02/police-944-officers-criminal-record

Some of those offences are rather more serious than being light fingered in their teens or perhaps a one off conviction for assault (You need some tough nuts in the police).

Anyone who has perverted the course of Justice should be nowhere near the police in particular, and I hope those who have caused death by careless driving are not behind the wheel of response cars.

Imagine a woman who has been beaten up by her other half calling the police and jim Davidson and Dennis Waterman turn up


As @taffys says, this is a free hit for ukip to present themselves as common sense option with a simple policy

No ex criminals in the police force

HurstLlama

@SouthamObserver

"Osborne will not put up taxes after 2015, he will instead make very deep cuts to public services and to welfare. "

That shows a remarkable confidence. Any actual evidence to back it up, or is it just wishful thinking?

I think the figures are so awful (£100bn a year expenditure that is in excess of tax take) that whoever gets in next time will be ramping up taxes AND making deep cuts to government expenditure.

Scott_P

@David_Cameron: Harriet Harman wants to raise taxes for 'people on middle incomes'. RT to stop Labour's plans: http://t.co/lzX9kfqOUz http://t.co/8sSZRmIpfC

Richard_Nabavi

isam said:

As @taffys says, this is a free hit for ukip to present themselves as common sense option with a simple policy

No ex criminals in the police force

I'd be a bit wary of that one if I were UKIP. It's an invitation for the media to burrow into how many ex-criminals there are in UKIP. (For the avoidance of doubt I'm not saying there are any more than in any other party, just that you don't want to give hostile media an open goal).

MarkHopkins

TheScreamingEagles said:

Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 1m

@IpsosMORI chart showing how EdM compares with previous opposition leaders at this stage. Not good for @Ed_Miliband

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BsqmEGcIQAA_W3W.png

Miliband's rating started as high as Blair's!

SouthamObserver

Richard_Nabavi said:

SouthamObserver said:

It is not Labour policy to increase taxes for middle income earners, so to claim that it is is clearly a misrepresentation. However, I largely agree with you. Osborne will not put up taxes after 2015, he will instead make very deep cuts to public services and to welfare.

No, he (or his Conservative successor, if he moves to the Foreign Office) will make further cuts to public spending, not to public services. A massive distinction, and one which the Left not only don't recognise, but actively refuse to even consider might be possible or desirable.

I certainly recognise the distinction and specifically chose the term I used. The Tories believe in a smaller state. In addition to which, I do not have confidence in the willingness of a Tory administration to hold private sector providers of public services to the highest standards.

Sean_F

1) This is nothing to do with diversity

2) I know this may come as a shock to some (although not to you) there are people with criminal records working in the police already. (from 2012)

More than 900 serving police officers and community support officers have a criminal record, official figures show.

Forces across England and Wales employ officers with convictions for offences including burglary, causing death by careless driving, robbery, supplying drugs, domestic violence, forgery and perverting the course of justice.

Those with criminal records include senior officers, among them two detective chief inspectors and one chief inspector working for the Metropolitan police.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jan/02/police-944-officers-criminal-record

TheScreamingEagles said:

HurstLlama said:

@TSE

You comments on the previous thread about spent convictions now being ignored for police recruiting, rather misses the point.

If I, a chap with no criminal convictions at all not even a motoring offence against my good name, should find myself in the dock and one of my accusers is a convicted thief and a liar then I am going to make sure the jury know all about it. Is justice more or less likely to be served in such an event.

Spent convictions, as you know, are irrelevant when in comes to disclosing a witnesses previous criminal history. P.C. Smethers has a CRO number, good enough for me, get him/her in the witness box and any competent counsel will destroy his/her credibility. A police force employing criminals will ensure that the numbers of miscarriages of justice go up. Surely there must be some limit to the diversity agenda of the Met.

1) This is nothing to do with diversity

2) I know this may come as a shock to some (although not to you) there are people with criminal records working in the police already. (from 2012)

More than 900 serving police officers and community support officers have a criminal record, official figures show.

Forces across England and Wales employ officers with convictions for offences including burglary, causing death by careless driving, robbery, supplying drugs, domestic violence, forgery and perverting the course of justice.

Those with criminal records include senior officers, among them two detective chief inspectors and one chief inspector working for the Metropolitan police.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jan/02/police-944-officers-criminal-record

I'm really not reassured by that information!

MarkHopkins

Pulpstar said:

How dos one make a FOI request ?, I'd like to know the updated figure of lags in the thin blue line.

You can do it here https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/

isam

Richard_Nabavi said:

isam said:

As @taffys says, this is a free hit for ukip to present themselves as common sense option with a simple policy

No ex criminals in the police force

I'd be a bit wary of that one if I were UKIP. It's an invitation for the media to burrow into how many ex-criminals there are in UKIP. (For the avoidance of doubt I'm not saying there are any more than in any other party, just that you don't want to give hostile media an open goal).

It's not about how many ex criminals there are in the party though is it? As you say, there maybe some in all parties, but, and I know I seem to think the modern world is completely mad, having criminals in the. Police force is completely mad!

I'm not a Nasty guy, but sometimes a man makes a mistake that can never fully be atoned.

Cyclefree

SouthamObserver said:

Cyclefree said:

SouthamObserver said:

Cyclefree said:

Cameron's use of the Harman quote is, I think a precursor to what they are going to do in the election i.e. use every opportunity to point out how Labour will make people poorer through tax increases - a 2015 reprise of the 1992 "Labour's tax bombshell" campaign.

Since Labour do plan tax increases and are openly in favour of redistribution it will be interesting to see how they react. It is unrealistic of them to say that the only people who will be affected will be the rich.

I don't think there is any doubt that the Tories will seek to misrepresent Labour policy, just as they did in 1992. And, of course, following the 1992 election the Tories then raised taxes themselves.

I fully expect there to be tax rises, whoever wins after the next election. However, I don't think that it does misrepresent Labour policy to say that they do plan more taxes: they have mentioned the 50p rate, they have talked about taxes on bankers' bonuses, they do support a mansion tax and have discussed increasing NI. They do plan a 10p tax rate but have not clarified whether this will mean that people currently paying no tax will now have to pay it.

If they believe in people paying more and redistribution, why be shy about it? Why not make a virtue out of necessity?

I agree. But it is clearly not Labour policy to raise taxes for middle income earners. That is a misrepresentation.

Really? Increasing NI will affect middle income earners. Removing or limiting the tax free lump sum affects middle income earners. Imposing a 10p tax rate on people currently not paying tax at all affects low earners. A mansion tax - depending on where the limit is - will affect middle income earners.

It is simply dishonest to pretend that only those earning over £100,000, say, will have to pay more tax to close the deficit and pay for all the things that the electorate want. Everyone will have to pay more.

SouthamObserver

HurstLlama said:

@SouthamObserver

"Osborne will not put up taxes after 2015, he will instead make very deep cuts to public services and to welfare. "

That shows a remarkable confidence. Any actual evidence to back it up, or is it just wishful thinking?

I think the figures are so awful (£100bn a year expenditure that is in excess of tax take) that whoever gets in next time will be ramping up taxes AND making deep cuts to government expenditure.

If the Tories are to go on Labour's plans to raise taxes, which they undoubtedly will, they can't then raise taxes themselves. I agree that they should, but the politics will trump that.

stodge

HurstLlama said:

@SouthamObserver

"Osborne will not put up taxes after 2015, he will instead make very deep cuts to public services and to welfare. "

That shows a remarkable confidence. Any actual evidence to back it up, or is it just wishful thinking?

I think the figures are so awful (£100bn a year expenditure that is in excess of tax take) that whoever gets in next time will be ramping up taxes AND making deep cuts to government expenditure.

I happen to know there are a number of senior Council finance officers who fully expect a major crunch on spending in the 2015-16 round irrespective of who wins the election. The problem is the demand for school places along with the continued requirements of care for the elderly and vulnerable children mean it's been very difficult to build any kind of reserve going forward.

Richard_Nabavi

SouthamObserver said:

In addition to which, I do not have confidence in the willingness of a Tory administration to hold private sector providers of public services to the highest standards.

That's a bit rich, given Labour's record in that respect, which is mind-numbingly awful. To be fair, though, they were equally poor at holding public sector providers to the highest, or even halfway decent, standards. Brown's boasts were invariably about how much money he was 'investing', a positive invitation to civil servants and to private providers to waste money. The more that was wasted, the more ammunition for Brown's boasts. Unsurprisingly, suppliers took the hint.

Sean_F

Socrates said:

I enjoyed this line from the Met:

‘We are saying that one minor wrongdoing should not deter you from being an effective police officer. Of course, an armed robber could not be a police officer, nor could a murderer.’

No, just wife-beaters, unarmed robbers and burglars. That's alright then.

The Met thought that Ali Dizaei's making death threats to his girlfriend was no bar to further promotion.

TheScreamingEagles

Sean_F said:

Socrates said:

I enjoyed this line from the Met:

‘We are saying that one minor wrongdoing should not deter you from being an effective police officer. Of course, an armed robber could not be a police officer, nor could a murderer.’

No, just wife-beaters, unarmed robbers and burglars. That's alright then.

The Met thought that Ali Dizaei's making death threats to his girlfriend was no bar to further promotion.

Sadly Socrates didn't provide the full quote

Wilkinson said only “borderline cases” would be reconsidered: “Of course, an armed robber could not be a police officer nor could a murderer but we are looking at each case. It is about the severity of that case and the length of time that has elapsed since that case,” he said.

taffys

The Met thought that Ali Dizaei's making death threats to his girlfriend was no bar to further promotion.

Given the number of lobbies that have backed the met into a corner, I'm starting to wonder if central London is policeable at all.

SouthamObserver

Richard_Nabavi said:

SouthamObserver said:

In addition to which, I do not have confidence in the willingness of a Tory administration to hold private sector providers of public services to the highest standards.

That's a bit rich, given Labour's record in that respect, which is mind-numbingly awful. To be fair, though, they were equally poor at holding public sector providers to the highest, or even halfway decent, standards. Brown's boasts were invariably about how much money he was 'investing', a positive invitation to civil servants and to private providers to waste money. The more that was wasted, the more ammunition for Brown's boasts. Unsurprisingly, suppliers took the hint.

The idea that I think Labour would be any better did not enter my head. I don't. Like the Tories they are rabbits in headlights when it comes to outsourcing of public services. My original point was about huge cuts. The Tories believe in a smaller state anyway. And if you combine that with light hand regulation of private sector public service providers who will always be looking for savings in order to drive profits the direction of travel is clear. For the likes of you and me - who do not need the state for very much - it will be business as usual. For many millions of our countrymen, perhaps less so.

isam

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

Socrates said:

I enjoyed this line from the Met:

‘We are saying that one minor wrongdoing should not deter you from being an effective police officer. Of course, an armed robber could not be a police officer, nor could a murderer.’

No, just wife-beaters, unarmed robbers and burglars. That's alright then.

The Met thought that Ali Dizaei's making death threats to his girlfriend was no bar to further promotion.

Sadly Socrates didn't provide the full quote

Wilkinson said only “borderline cases” would be reconsidered: “Of course, an armed robber could not be a police officer nor could a murderer but we are looking at each case. It is about the severity of that case and the length of time that has elapsed since that case,” he said.

But you quoted this

"Forces across England and Wales employ officers with convictions for offences including burglary, causing death by careless driving, robbery, supplying drugs, domestic violence, forgery and perverting the course of justice."

OblitusSumMe

stodge said:

In 2010, as I've said before, there was a degree of convergence on some issues between the Conservatives and LDs which made the Coalition possible. That has now diverged and I suspect the Conservative Manifesto of 2015 will contain much that I (as a Liberal Democrat) could not support. That's my problem but it will be the Conservatives' problem if they try in any Coalition negotiations to insist on these policies as a red line.

You can argue it like this.

1. In 2010, a Coalition was necessary to force Gordon Brown out of Number Ten and David Cameron in.

2. In 2015, Cameron will already be in Number Ten, so the opportunity to grandstand about manifesto commitments, Coalition negotiations and setpiece votes in Parliament as a prelude to another general election is a more realistic option for the Conservatives.

Tykejohnno

Harriet Harman has made the first major gaffe of the next election

And at PMQs he’s just ambushed Ed Miliband with it, to devastating effect. It wasn’t just the quote itself which got the Tory benches roaring. It was the reaction on the Labour side.

Ed Miliband and Ed Balls clearly had no idea Harriet Harman had even made the comment. So Miliband’s initial response was to scoff at Cameron. Until he heard his deputy leader shouting out “It’s true!”, at which point he turned and stared at her as if she’d taken leave of her senses. Which, in a political sense, she had

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100280380/harriet-harman-has-made-the-first-major-gaff-of-the-next-election/

I usually don't post hodges material,but this bit,I had to,it's gold standard ;-)