@isam The "aid" budget, is not about spending money where it will help the poor, it is a political lever. It's a kind of reverse blackmail. edit: usually known as a bribe
And yet it doesn't work. The Indian government didn't order planes from us. A bit like going to war with the Americans in Iraq and then they award the re-building contracts to Dutch firms instead of British ones. Britain is the piggy bank of the world. It's time it stopped.
"By contrast, Ed Balls has pledged that at some point by 2020, the budget - excluding capital projects (housebuilding, infrastructure spending and so on) - would be in balance."
I thought it was Labour policy to balance the overall budget. That's what Rachel Reeves said the other day wasn't it?
That balls "promise" looks like just a warmed over version of Brown's 1997 "Borrow to invest" policy. We know how that turned out.
If balls is going to put the current account into balance where is he going to find the savings or extra taxes from?
Which is even more of a reason that we don't split London off to become an island on its own any longer. It needs to be embedded back into the region and nation of which it is part.
The ONS have produced a great visualisation of commuting patterns, in particular the London magnet which is unfortunately hard to link to because it is "interactive".
There's certainly some justification for considering a super-London region that encompasses much of the Home Counties as well as the existing Greater London area, so that people who commute into London can vote on London's governance.
Exactly how I see it working, and how I want it to work. Simple, straightforward, effective - and more importantly, you could implement it next month if the will was there.
Hague needs to come back and recommend it, and Cameron needs to put it to the vote immediately. Get the Lib Dems to pick a side, and just do it.
I much prefer it when the Tories are in town, with all the well-heeled posh Tory totty on display. I've just come back from lunch after tripping over one bearded leftie after another - and that's just the women!
Exactly how I see it working, and how I want it to work. Simple, straightforward, effective - and more importantly, you could implement it next month if the will was there.
But it doesn't address any of the obvious complaints. Why is it acceptable for an Education Minister to change the English education system through non-legislative moves when they don't have an English majority? If the English majority desired a law opposed by the UK government, how would it get passed? In both situations, EV4EL gives the English substantially less voice than the Scots, Welsh or Northern Irish. Nobody on your side of the argument has provided an answer to either question.
Kellner on R4: "No party has ever won when it is behind on both leadership and the economy- Miliband needs to get ahead on at least one of them, preferably both."
No doubt true, but this isn't like any election in recent history IMHO. It's going to be about who loses least badly and can scrape together a slim coalition or a minority government.
It's surely only a matter of time before a party wins that is behind on both leadership and the economy. Given the declining share of the vote going to Labour and the Conservatives FPTP is increasingly likely to produce such a counter-intuitive result.
On topic, I can't see UKIP coming anywhere near in H&M, the seat next door to where I live.
And I don't trust any of the rubbish I read in the MEN. I don't suppose it's inconceivable that some young whippersnapper of a journo asked some local Labourite at the conference: "Is it possible that UKIP could win in Heywood & Middleton?" to which the reply came: "Er, well I guess they technically COULD win there".
Funny that nobody else seems to be reporting this. Safe Labour hold.
But it doesn't address any of the obvious complaints. Why is it acceptable for an Education Minister to change the English education system through non-legislative moves when they don't have an English majority? If the English majority desired a law opposed by the UK government, how would it get passed? In both situations, EV4EL gives the English substantially less voice than the Scots, Welsh or Northern Irish. Nobody on your side of the argument has provided an answer to either question.
The answer is that, whilst it's not perfect, it's better than any of the alternatives, or at least the politically-attainable alternatives.
Which is even more of a reason that we don't split London off to become an island on its own any longer. It needs to be embedded back into the region and nation of which it is part.
The ONS have produced a great visualisation of commuting patterns, in particular the London magnet which is unfortunately hard to link to because it is "interactive".
There's certainly some justification for considering a super-London region that encompasses much of the Home Counties as well as the existing Greater London area, so that people who commute into London can vote on London's governance.
How do I get to that London magnet?
Yes, there is absolutely no good reason at all to separate the home counties from London, other than Labour gerrymandering.
Exactly how I see it working, and how I want it to work. Simple, straightforward, effective - and more importantly, you could implement it next month if the will was there.
But it doesn't address any of the obvious complaints. Why is it acceptable for an Education Minister to change the English education system through non-legislative moves when they don't have an English majority? If the English majority desired a law opposed by the UK government, how would it get passed? In both situations, EV4EL gives the English substantially less voice than the Scots, Welsh or Northern Irish. Nobody on your side of the argument has provided an answer to either question.
Education or Health ministers behaving in ways that the majority of English MPs find objectionable could be held accountable by beefed up votes of confidence.
Well labour just traded at 1.26 in Heywood and Middleton... Only £8 mind
Mr Isam, or indeed anyone, could you explain or point to a resource that explains decimal odds and how to convert them back to old money. Old codgers like me just don't understand the like of "1.26". Thanks.
Take one off the big number and that's the "to one" odds
So 1.26 is 0.26/1 which if you can do fractions, which I'm sure you can, is roughly 1/4 as the others on here said
1.33=0.33/1 ie 1/3
3.75=2.75/1 ie 11/4 etc
Something I've always wondered: why do bookies never cancel odds of 100/30 down to 10/3? Tradition?
Exactly how I see it working, and how I want it to work. Simple, straightforward, effective - and more importantly, you could implement it next month if the will was there.
But it doesn't address any of the obvious complaints. Why is it acceptable for an Education Minister to change the English education system through non-legislative moves when they don't have an English majority? If the English majority desired a law opposed by the UK government, how would it get passed? In both situations, EV4EL gives the English substantially less voice than the Scots, Welsh or Northern Irish. Nobody on your side of the argument has provided an answer to either question.
Education or Health ministers behaving in ways that the majority of English MPs find objectionable could be held accountable by beefed up votes of confidence.
Votes of confidence in the single minister, or in the government as a whole?
But it doesn't address any of the obvious complaints. Why is it acceptable for an Education Minister to change the English education system through non-legislative moves when they don't have an English majority? If the English majority desired a law opposed by the UK government, how would it get passed? In both situations, EV4EL gives the English substantially less voice than the Scots, Welsh or Northern Irish. Nobody on your side of the argument has provided an answer to either question.
The answer is that, whilst it's not perfect, it's better than any of the alternatives, or at least the politically-attainable alternatives.
Wish there had been a "Post referendum SNP membership market" they've just gone past 50,000 members.
Even though most of these new members are just people lashing out looking for a release that's still almost £1,000,000 pounds in subs taken just before an election and if even just 10% turn out to be useful operatives then that's still a lot of new active members.
It's £12 per year minimum, and 25k new members.
True, but the default amount is £36, you'd have to actively switch to £1 a month.
What a shame that a great Victorian structure like Manchester Central is being debased by tawdry party politics. Derby engineering at its best, being threatened by a few Gigawatts of hot air ...
Exactly how I see it working, and how I want it to work. Simple, straightforward, effective - and more importantly, you could implement it next month if the will was there.
But it doesn't address any of the obvious complaints. Why is it acceptable for an Education Minister to change the English education system through non-legislative moves when they don't have an English majority? If the English majority desired a law opposed by the UK government, how would it get passed? In both situations, EV4EL gives the English substantially less voice than the Scots, Welsh or Northern Irish. Nobody on your side of the argument has provided an answer to either question.
Education or Health ministers behaving in ways that the majority of English MPs find objectionable could be held accountable by beefed up votes of confidence.
Votes of confidence in the single minister, or in the government as a whole?
@not_on_fire " why do bookies never cancel odds of 100/30 down to 10/3? " I remember listening to a detailed explanation why on the radio once. It was so thrilling, that it escapes me unfortunately.
Exactly how I see it working, and how I want it to work. Simple, straightforward, effective - and more importantly, you could implement it next month if the will was there.
But it doesn't address any of the obvious complaints. Why is it acceptable for an Education Minister to change the English education system through non-legislative moves when they don't have an English majority? If the English majority desired a law opposed by the UK government, how would it get passed? In both situations, EV4EL gives the English substantially less voice than the Scots, Welsh or Northern Irish. Nobody on your side of the argument has provided an answer to either question.
It's clearly not the optimum ideal solution, I accept it's a fudge, but past GE results show it is such a rare state of affairs that it's something of an anomaly rather than the norm, and I think it is better than what we've got. It goes some way to addressing the issue. We can't have a "government within a government", with competing interests in the handful of occasions when that would result.
But the biggest problem that any solution has to cope with is that England makes up 85/90% of the UK's population/wealth etc. That's why your federal proposal doesn't work.
Short of divvying England up into its regions, to match the size of Scotland and Wales, which I don't think anyone REALLY wants, you're left with making the status quo work or full break up of the home nations.
But it doesn't address any of the obvious complaints. Why is it acceptable for an Education Minister to change the English education system through non-legislative moves when they don't have an English majority? If the English majority desired a law opposed by the UK government, how would it get passed? In both situations, EV4EL gives the English substantially less voice than the Scots, Welsh or Northern Irish. Nobody on your side of the argument has provided an answer to either question.
The answer is that, whilst it's not perfect, it's better than any of the alternatives, or at least the politically-attainable alternatives.
So what you're basically saying is "the English will have to lump it"? That sounds rather similar to your position on most of the crap the EU does.
Is it completely unacceptable that ministers who will only be responsible for English departments get into their jobs on the backing of Scots and Welsh MPs. If a party does not have a majority in England, they should not be able to regulate English schools, the English NHS or the English system in anything else the Scots get devolved.
Well labour just traded at 1.26 in Heywood and Middleton... Only £8 mind
Mr Isam, or indeed anyone, could you explain or point to a resource that explains decimal odds and how to convert them back to old money. Old codgers like me just don't understand the like of "1.26". Thanks.
Take one off the big number and that's the "to one" odds
So 1.26 is 0.26/1 which if you can do fractions, which I'm sure you can, is roughly 1/4 as the others on here said
1.33=0.33/1 ie 1/3
3.75=2.75/1 ie 11/4 etc
Something I've always wondered: why do bookies never cancel odds of 100/30 down to 10/3? Tradition?
80 minutes? Don't forget Ed once said his favourite sporting moment was Geoffrey Boycott's century against Australia at Headingley in 1977 - personally witnessed by Ed himself.
Doing a bit of reserch on cricinfo, Boycott's 191 runs came off 471 balls in 629 minutes. Or 10 and 1/2 hours. He lives by a different time frame.
Well labour just traded at 1.26 in Heywood and Middleton... Only £8 mind
Mr Isam, or indeed anyone, could you explain or point to a resource that explains decimal odds and how to convert them back to old money. Old codgers like me just don't understand the like of "1.26". Thanks.
Take one off the big number and that's the "to one" odds
So 1.26 is 0.26/1 which if you can do fractions, which I'm sure you can, is roughly 1/4 as the others on here said
1.33=0.33/1 ie 1/3
3.75=2.75/1 ie 11/4 etc
Something I've always wondered: why do bookies never cancel odds of 100/30 down to 10/3? Tradition?
If Ed Miliband pledges to renationalise the railways i will end my agnosticism and actively campaign for the Conservatives next year.
According to the ComRes poll at the weekend (http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/Sunday_Politics_PPC_survey_results_Labour_September2014.pdf ), Labour PPCs are 81:10 in favour of nationalising the railways - and the unions are heavily in favour too. Might not be anything quite as overt as direct nationalisation, could be just a commitment not to issue any franchises to private companies.
Look forward to how many times he can spend the mansion tax - it will barely dent the £110bn NHS budget, but it's also meant to be reducing the deficit (Rachel Reeves, yesterday) and paying for the 10p income tax band (Miliband last year).
So what you're basically saying is "the English will have to lump it"? That sounds rather similar to your position on most of the crap the EU does.
Is it completely unacceptable that ministers who will only be responsible for English departments get into their jobs on the backing of Scots and Welsh MPs. If a party does not have a majority in England, they should not be able to regulate English schools, the English NHS or the English system in anything else the Scots get devolved.
I'm not saying anything of the sort. There are snags with all the other options as well, and, as TGOHF points out, it's a lot better than the status quo.
Barnett was supposed to cover the costs of the bigger geography of Scotland - not give free tuition fees and prescriptions to Scottish millionaires.
No, it wasn't. There is no measure of geographic input that factors into the Barnett formula.
How about this:
"Barnett was supposed to [insert whatever you like here] not give free tuition fees and prescriptions to Scottish millionaires."
I can think of a couple of permutations that are accurate, but I'd like to stress again that the Barnett formula was never designed with the purpose of giving Scotland more money per capita than England, for whatever reason you might make up for why that would be a good idea once it has happened by accident*. For example:
1. The Barnett formula was only ever intended to be a stop-gap measure, so we're at least three decades overdue replacing it.
2. The Barnett formula and inflation would have [almost] equalised the level of per-capita spending between the different nations of the UK, but it failed because the population of England grew more quickly than the other parts of the UK, so we should change it.
* It's possible to work out by how much Scotland's population would need to increase over a particular time frame for the Barnett formula to then give England a higher per capita level of spending, but I can't be bothered.
Well labour just traded at 1.26 in Heywood and Middleton... Only £8 mind
Mr Isam, or indeed anyone, could you explain or point to a resource that explains decimal odds and how to convert them back to old money. Old codgers like me just don't understand the like of "1.26". Thanks.
Take one off the big number and that's the "to one" odds
So 1.26 is 0.26/1 which if you can do fractions, which I'm sure you can, is roughly 1/4 as the others on here said
1.33=0.33/1 ie 1/3
3.75=2.75/1 ie 11/4 etc
Something I've always wondered: why do bookies never cancel odds of 100/30 down to 10/3? Tradition?
Exactly how I see it working, and how I want it to work. Simple, straightforward, effective - and more importantly, you could implement it next month if the will was there.
But it doesn't address any of the obvious complaints. Why is it acceptable for an Education Minister to change the English education system through non-legislative moves when they don't have an English majority? If the English majority desired a law opposed by the UK government, how would it get passed? In both situations, EV4EL gives the English substantially less voice than the Scots, Welsh or Northern Irish. Nobody on your side of the argument has provided an answer to either question.
It's clearly not the optimum ideal solution, I accept it's a fudge, but past GE results show it is such a rare state of affairs that it's something of an anomaly rather than the norm, and I think it is better than what we've got. It goes some way to addressing the issue. We can't have a "government within a government", with competing interests in the handful of occasions when that would result.
But the biggest problem that any solution has to cope with is that England makes up 85/90% of the UK's population/wealth etc. That's why your federal proposal doesn't work.
Short of divvying England up into its regions, to match the size of Scotland and Wales, which I don't think anyone REALLY wants, you're left with making the status quo work or full break up of the home nations.
England makes up 85% of the UK's population. So what? Why does that mean a federal proposal doesn't work? Having an English parliament for devolved matters won't mean English MPs dominate Scots/Welsh MPs on non-devolved matters any more. In fact, the English dominance will be worse in the EV4EL situation because the UK government could face instability and collapse on devolved bills being rejected by the English majority.
Well labour just traded at 1.26 in Heywood and Middleton... Only £8 mind
Mr Isam, or indeed anyone, could you explain or point to a resource that explains decimal odds and how to convert them back to old money. Old codgers like me just don't understand the like of "1.26". Thanks.
Take one off the big number and that's the "to one" odds
So 1.26 is 0.26/1 which if you can do fractions, which I'm sure you can, is roughly 1/4 as the others on here said
1.33=0.33/1 ie 1/3
3.75=2.75/1 ie 11/4 etc
Something I've always wondered: why do bookies never cancel odds of 100/30 down to 10/3? Tradition?
Similarly - why is it always 6/4 rather than 3/2?
I don't know that either!
Perhaps it's for marketing/psychological reasons - the higher 'big' number might make the odds look more attractive to the arithmetically challenged...
@not_on_fire@isam I seem to recall it was to do with the way the odds shifted and had to be quickly chalked on the board. It meant you only had to erase and rechalk one side of the odds.
So what you're basically saying is "the English will have to lump it"? That sounds rather similar to your position on most of the crap the EU does.
Is it completely unacceptable that ministers who will only be responsible for English departments get into their jobs on the backing of Scots and Welsh MPs. If a party does not have a majority in England, they should not be able to regulate English schools, the English NHS or the English system in anything else the Scots get devolved.
I'm not saying anything of the sort. There are snags with all the other options as well, and, as TGOHF points out, it's a lot better than the status quo.
I'm not arguing it's worse than the status quo. I'm arguing that it's a lot worse than an English parliament. The question is what you value more: less than 0.1% of government spending, or the English being allowed to govern themselves on devolved matters.
"No taxation without representation" .has some historical resonance. The English who are subject to such a tax did not have the chance to elect, and cannot sack these Scottish MPs.
But it doesn't address any of the obvious complaints. Why is it acceptable for an Education Minister to change the English education system through non-legislative moves when they don't have an English majority? If the English majority desired a law opposed by the UK government, how would it get passed? In both situations, EV4EL gives the English substantially less voice than the Scots, Welsh or Northern Irish. Nobody on your side of the argument has provided an answer to either question.
The answer is that, whilst it's not perfect, it's better than any of the alternatives, or at least the politically-attainable alternatives.
So what you're basically saying is "the English will have to lump it"? That sounds rather similar to your position on most of the crap the EU does.
Is it completely unacceptable that ministers who will only be responsible for English departments get into their jobs on the backing of Scots and Welsh MPs. If a party does not have a majority in England, they should not be able to regulate English schools, the English NHS or the English system in anything else the Scots get devolved.
Welcome, [edit] mutatis mutandis, to Scotland for much of the period before 1999 (and, in some respects, even today: Alastair Carmichael, for instance). But being the other way around doesn't make it any better for the situation you posit.
Didn't I see a report recently that the mansion tax would/couls be applied to £500,000 properties in the North. I believe it was a Labour spokesman.
Why not base it on square footage? This would ensure that someone who is colossally overhoused in the north pays more than someone packed into a 2-bedroom terrace in the south.
25 years late Labour could thereby acknowledge the inherent fairness of the Community Charge.
@MichaelPDeacon: I've seen Ed Miliband meeting people. They swore at him, called him a liar, and trapped him up against the window of Claire's Accessories
But it doesn't address any of the obvious complaints. Why is it acceptable for an Education Minister to change the English education system through non-legislative moves when they don't have an English majority? If the English majority desired a law opposed by the UK government, how would it get passed? In both situations, EV4EL gives the English substantially less voice than the Scots, Welsh or Northern Irish. Nobody on your side of the argument has provided an answer to either question.
The answer is that, whilst it's not perfect, it's better than any of the alternatives, or at least the politically-attainable alternatives.
So what you're basically saying is "the English will have to lump it"? That sounds rather similar to your position on most of the crap the EU does.
Is it completely unacceptable that ministers who will only be responsible for English departments get into their jobs on the backing of Scots and Welsh MPs. If a party does not have a majority in England, they should not be able to regulate English schools, the English NHS or the English system in anything else the Scots get devolved.
Isn't that just blatant English nationalism?
I want to keep Scotland and Wales in the UK, they are an integral part of what we have created, but they are tiny compared to England's might and dominance. The price England has to pay for that is to let them punch above their weight. There is going to have to be some sort of fudge or compromise because the one thing you can't change is the fact there are over 50m people in England, and only 10m in the other 3 nations put together.
Its not been mentioned on here I don;t thik, but Breitbart have an interesting story about UKIP and overseas aid (a 90% cut).
Say what you like, but that may well prove rather popular.
"For decades we have been told overseas aid makes the world a safer place, but ask anyone on the streets of Britain whether they think the world feels safer and you'll struggle to get any positive answers.”
Most of our aid has gone to Africa, where the level of wars has fallen precipitously. It's hardly the aid community's fault that the Middle East is a tinder box.
Yes you are right and when you look at the numbers who have been killed in wars in Africa - to the supreme indifference of people like isam (personally I think I know why) you see what a shocking place it is and has been and how much aid is needed. Betweem 2.5 and 5.5 million died in the Second Congo War. The war in Sudan about 2 million at least.
This feels really like a Kinnock 1986 or 1991 speech to me. He's focusing on the young, the poor and the cost of living - "the working people" vs. the wealthy. Undoubtedly the cost of living, commuting and renting are very important issues but i can't see how he can win over enough floating Middle class voters to win through that alone.
I'm not sure the people whose stories he tells in his anecdotes will vote in large numbers either.
David Aaronovitch@DAaronovitch·13 mins That ISIS preface to Ed Milband's speech felt utterly perfunctory to me. A real argument against memorised texts.
Owen Jones@OwenJones84·4 mins Ed Miliband has met someone called Together who sounds like a great motivational speaker #lab14
Its not been mentioned on here I don;t thik, but Breitbart have an interesting story about UKIP and overseas aid (a 90% cut).
Say what you like, but that may well prove rather popular.
"For decades we have been told overseas aid makes the world a safer place, but ask anyone on the streets of Britain whether they think the world feels safer and you'll struggle to get any positive answers.”
Most of our aid has gone to Africa, where the level of wars has fallen precipitously. It's hardly the aid community's fault that the Middle East is a tinder box.
Yes you are right and when you look at the numbers who have been killed in wars in Africa - to the supreme indifference of people like isam (personally I think I know why) you see what a shocking place it is and has been and how much aid is needed. Betweem 2.5 and 5.5 million died in the Second Congo War. The war in Sudan about 2 million at least.
Which is even more of a reason that we don't split London off to become an island on its own any longer. It needs to be embedded back into the region and nation of which it is part.
The ONS have produced a great visualisation of commuting patterns, in particular the London magnet which is unfortunately hard to link to because it is "interactive".
There's certainly some justification for considering a super-London region that encompasses much of the Home Counties as well as the existing Greater London area, so that people who commute into London can vote on London's governance.
How do I get to that London magnet?
Yes, there is absolutely no good reason at all to separate the home counties from London, other than Labour gerrymandering.
Follow link -> 2011 Census Commuting patterns flow map -> click the forward arrow on the introduction four times should get to it.
The thing with something like devolution is that if a right-wing or centre-right party does not do it at all then a left-wing or centre-left party will do it in a way that they think is sensible [or favours them], rather than a way which would be thought sensible by [or favour] a right-wing or centre-right party.
Even as a lefty I can see that governance of London is a bit insane. For example the commuters coming in to London from outside the Greater London Area are paying a large fraction of the fares and taxes that pay for transport in London, but they have no participation in the democratic oversight of the spending decisions.
Similarly, if a Mayor of London wanted to pay for particular transport improvements by increasing council tax, a lot of the improvements would accrue to commuters who would not have paid for them.
"By contrast, Ed Balls has pledged that at some point by 2020, the budget - excluding capital projects (housebuilding, infrastructure spending and so on) - would be in balance."
I thought it was Labour policy to balance the overall budget. That's what Rachel Reeves said the other day wasn't it?
I suspect that's an example of being sloppy and the general public not knowing the difference between the current budget balance (Labour's target) and the coalition's fiscal mandate. The IFS goes into the detail of published commitments here : http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7373
But yes, both Labour and LibDems have pledged to balance the current budget but they can still buy a Ferrari on the side. Main difference is that LibDems target the cyclically-adjusted version, Labour are happy to let general recovery do most of the work.
Tim Shipman@ShippersUnbound·57 secs I find myself yearning for a Gordon Brown speech....
It's pretty obvious now why Brown was sent out last week. Miliband would have bored 'No' voters into voting 'Yes' to be rid of him.
'Walking on Arthurs Seat last week, whilst writing my speech, I met 2 young men in kilts, Mick and James, accompanying their wheelchair bound grandfather Malcolm... '
1) I've worked in a few software factories in my time, and I've never worked in one where everybody said the same thing. Software engineers tend to be contrary creatures. Ahem. I'd love to know which one it was.
2) When he talks about high-tech companies and entrepreneurs, he's obviously never heard of Apple ...
Just listened to the interview with the punter who had 900,000 on No in the referendum, having missed the thread completely.
Don't know about anybody else, but he didn't pass the smell test as far as I was concerned. He took 1/4 about an outcome that was as big as 2/5 for a while; he used a Bookie, rather than Betfair, where there was ample liquidity available; he didn't sound or talk like a punter; and he got on for a mega-amount with a firm that regularly knocks back fifty pound punters.
What professional company would hire Ed Milliband as their Company representative? He is at best a back room ops person that should not be put in front of customers. To think that he is heading to be the PM and representative of the UK, is one of those scarcely believable facts.
Miliband wants to give away financial regulation to Brussels, judging by that attack on Osborne for actually standing up for British regulation of a key British industry.
Edited extra bit: more unprompted applause, though, when attacking the Conservatives. Popular in the hall and with (I would guess) core support elsewhere.
Edited extra bit 2: apparently this government is one of the worst ever.
Also, Miliband's claim of the longest decline in living standards since (I think) 1870 may be a bad one to make, as living standards declined for several years prior to 2010.
repeated "brillian NHS" as first mention didn't applaud the first time...
Michael Deacon@MichaelPDeacon·4 mins Wouldn't want to suggest the audience isn't listening, but a Labour leader has just had to say "our brilliant NHS" twice before they clapped
What professional company would hire Ed Milliband as their Company representative? He is at best a back room ops person that should not be put in front of customers. To think that he is heading to be the PM and representative of the UK, is one of those scarcely believable facts.
It's like one of those horse races where the form suggests that none of them are good enough to win, but somebody has to.
Or, as Sherlock Holmes might have said, 'When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".
Ed Is Crap is PM, however improbable that may appear.
Just listened to the interview with the punter who had 900,000 on No in the referendum, having missed the thread completely.
Don't know about anybody else, but he didn't pass the smell test as far as I was concerned. He took 1/4 about an outcome that was as big as 2/5 for a while; he used a Bookie, rather than Betfair, where there was ample liquidity available; he didn't sound or talk like a punter; and he got on for a mega-amount with a firm that regularly knocks back fifty pound punters.
We sure this wasn't just a Hills PR stunt?
Probably, although you would be amazed at how many big punters take worse odds than betfair
Why would anyone, ever take bookie odds when betfair was better?? Mystifying
Whoops. Had to cue the audience to cheer 'our brilliant national health service' there.
Can anyone on here please provide a link or list all the countries around the world outside of the UK that have copied 'our brilliant national health service'?
Comments
If balls is going to put the current account into balance where is he going to find the savings or extra taxes from?
There's certainly some justification for considering a super-London region that encompasses much of the Home Counties as well as the existing Greater London area, so that people who commute into London can vote on London's governance.
"Britain is the piggy bank of the world. It's time it stopped"
Try to look on it less as a "piggy bank" and more of an "oil can"?
Was he well enough to attend an evening meeting with fellow PBers?
:-)
And I don't trust any of the rubbish I read in the MEN. I don't suppose it's inconceivable that some young whippersnapper of a journo asked some local Labourite at the conference: "Is it possible that UKIP could win in Heywood & Middleton?" to which the reply came: "Er, well I guess they technically COULD win there".
Funny that nobody else seems to be reporting this. Safe Labour hold.
Yes, there is absolutely no good reason at all to separate the home counties from London, other than Labour gerrymandering.
Education or Health ministers behaving in ways that the majority of English MPs find objectionable could be held accountable by beefed up votes of confidence.
Oooops !
Sir John Fowler will be spinning in his grave.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Central_railway_station
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_John_Fowler,_1st_Baronet
:-)
" why do bookies never cancel odds of 100/30 down to 10/3? "
I remember listening to a detailed explanation why on the radio once.
It was so thrilling, that it escapes me unfortunately.
But the biggest problem that any solution has to cope with is that England makes up 85/90% of the UK's population/wealth etc. That's why your federal proposal doesn't work.
Short of divvying England up into its regions, to match the size of Scotland and Wales, which I don't think anyone REALLY wants, you're left with making the status quo work or full break up of the home nations.
Is it completely unacceptable that ministers who will only be responsible for English departments get into their jobs on the backing of Scots and Welsh MPs. If a party does not have a majority in England, they should not be able to regulate English schools, the English NHS or the English system in anything else the Scots get devolved.
Doing a bit of reserch on cricinfo, Boycott's 191 runs came off 471 balls in 629 minutes. Or 10 and 1/2 hours. He lives by a different time frame.
Look forward to how many times he can spend the mansion tax - it will barely dent the £110bn NHS budget, but it's also meant to be reducing the deficit (Rachel Reeves, yesterday) and paying for the 10p income tax band (Miliband last year).
Perhaps Hills knows something or can feel the wind turning.
Come on, Ed, make it so.
Oh now we are getting fake anecdotes. Again.
1. The Barnett formula was only ever intended to be a stop-gap measure, so we're at least three decades overdue replacing it.
2. The Barnett formula and inflation would have [almost] equalised the level of per-capita spending between the different nations of the UK, but it failed because the population of England grew more quickly than the other parts of the UK, so we should change it.
* It's possible to work out by how much Scotland's population would need to increase over a particular time frame for the Barnett formula to then give England a higher per capita level of spending, but I can't be bothered.
Ah ha, Miliband has commenced his speech. Might listen to it. Or I might get some work done...
Edited extra bit: is a 10 year plan a Double Stalin?
I seem to recall it was to do with the way the odds shifted and had to be quickly chalked on the board. It meant you only had to erase and rechalk one side of the odds.
I take it all back
Good luck to anyone in the conference centre.
25 years late Labour could thereby acknowledge the inherent fairness of the Community Charge.
I want to keep Scotland and Wales in the UK, they are an integral part of what we have created, but they are tiny compared to England's might and dominance. The price England has to pay for that is to let them punch above their weight. There is going to have to be some sort of fudge or compromise because the one thing you can't change is the fact there are over 50m people in England, and only 10m in the other 3 nations put together.
All you need to know about the empty shell that is the modern Labour Party
Might as well be 'goodness'.
Edited extra bit: apparently this is quite a big idea. So far, he's given us a vague word. Where's the beef?
I own a four bedroom house in London you moose
I'm not sure the people whose stories he tells in his anecdotes will vote in large numbers either.
I find myself yearning for a Gordon Brown speech....
David Aaronovitch@DAaronovitch·13 mins
That ISIS preface to Ed Milband's speech felt utterly perfunctory to me. A real argument against memorised texts.
Owen Jones@OwenJones84·4 mins
Ed Miliband has met someone called Together who sounds like a great motivational speaker #lab14
Imagine Ed Miliband coming over in a park. Imagine it.
"He's coming over."
"He's not."
"He is, too."
"He'll put us in his speech."
"Shit."
Judging by your posts, you would pay any price.
The thing with something like devolution is that if a right-wing or centre-right party does not do it at all then a left-wing or centre-left party will do it in a way that they think is sensible [or favours them], rather than a way which would be thought sensible by [or favour] a right-wing or centre-right party.
Even as a lefty I can see that governance of London is a bit insane. For example the commuters coming in to London from outside the Greater London Area are paying a large fraction of the fares and taxes that pay for transport in London, but they have no participation in the democratic oversight of the spending decisions.
Similarly, if a Mayor of London wanted to pay for particular transport improvements by increasing council tax, a lot of the improvements would accrue to commuters who would not have paid for them.
But yes, both Labour and LibDems have pledged to balance the current budget but they can still buy a Ferrari on the side. Main difference is that LibDems target the cyclically-adjusted version, Labour are happy to let general recovery do most of the work.
'Walking on Arthurs Seat last week, whilst writing my speech, I met 2 young men in kilts, Mick and James, accompanying their wheelchair bound grandfather Malcolm... '
1) I've worked in a few software factories in my time, and I've never worked in one where everybody said the same thing. Software engineers tend to be contrary creatures. Ahem. I'd love to know which one it was.
2) When he talks about high-tech companies and entrepreneurs, he's obviously never heard of Apple ...
Hopefully it will be ready for the second coat after 80 minutes of hot air.
Lab 1.22
UKIP 4
Don't know about anybody else, but he didn't pass the smell test as far as I was concerned. He took 1/4 about an outcome that was as big as 2/5 for a while; he used a Bookie, rather than Betfair, where there was ample liquidity available; he didn't sound or talk like a punter; and he got on for a mega-amount with a firm that regularly knocks back fifty pound punters.
We sure this wasn't just a Hills PR stunt?
The conference delegates are obviously deeply moved by him. They probably aren't sure he's the answer.
Edited extra bit: more unprompted applause, though, when attacking the Conservatives. Popular in the hall and with (I would guess) core support elsewhere.
Edited extra bit 2: apparently this government is one of the worst ever.
Also, Miliband's claim of the longest decline in living standards since (I think) 1870 may be a bad one to make, as living standards declined for several years prior to 2010.
No policy.
Wouldn't want to suggest the audience isn't listening, but a Labour leader has just had to say "our brilliant NHS" twice before they clapped
Or, as Sherlock Holmes might have said, 'When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".
Ed Is Crap is PM, however improbable that may appear.
Why would anyone, ever take bookie odds when betfair was better?? Mystifying