The poor bloke, is never going to forget that speech, unlike Ed Miliband who forgot the bits about the deficit and immigration, fortunately the voters don't care about the economy or immigration.
This morning a major damage limitation operation is underway here in Manchester. Shadow cabinet ministers, MPs and spin doctors are fanning out to try to salvage something from the wreckage. It was a wide-ranging speech. These things happen. We should look at the broader themes, the bigger picture.
No, we shouldn’t. What we should look at is the fact the Leader of the Opposition, in his last major address to the nation that he aspires to lead, forgot – literally forgot – the single biggest issue that will confront him were he to be elected prime minister. That is not simply a minor aberration. That is a shaming, unconscionable, disgrace from someone who aspires to the highest office in the land.
Being a right winger chastened by last night's strong labour yougov, I wonder if the commentariat is going to be likewise chastened when ed just refuses to go away.
He may be annoying everyone with a strong interest in politics, but he isn't annoying the man in the street, it seems.
Being a right winger chastened by last night's strong labour yougov, I wonder if the commentariat is going to be likewise chastened when ed just refuses to go away.
He may be annoying everyone with a strong interest in politics, but he isn't annoying the man in the street, it seems.
He isn't annoying the 'man in the street' because he simply isn't registering with them.
It's amazing how everyone Miliband talks to agrees with him.
I particularly liked the bit where he said about a software company: "But what stood out the most is that they all say the most important thing about this company is that it is based on using the talents of every single person." (*)
I'd love to know which company this is, because I've never known a software company where everyone agreed on anything. We're a contrary bunch of FOSSers, anarchists, hippies, by-the-book company men, naive undergraduates, bearded old-timers and patent-hungry scientists.
It's patently ridiculous that they would all say that, unprompted.
Either Miliband's lying, the questions were prompted, or he only hears what he wants to hear.
(*) This appears to be from the text of the speech, rather than the speech he gave.
Essentially that an English parliament with significant devolved power would become so much the focus of politics that it would drag in other powers either in terms of hard or soft power.
That an English parliament would become the main focus of politics in the country, and the UK parliament more like the Lords is now.
Week from hell,labour went from 5 to 7 % ahead in latest poll.
Even Black Wednesday took some weeks to filter through fully. http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-1992-1997 Quite amazing to think a month after the event there was still one poll showing the two parties neck and neck, and yet that single event finished the Conservatives for a generation. Look at what happened next in that link.
The picture is a bit contradictory. Labour seem to be doing OK in the polls, and yet the party is bricking itself about holding a seat i a by-election it should win at a canter if it has ambitions to govern.
Wonderful comment from marf.It reminded me of having to sit through hours of listening to some old man droning on about Wittgenstein.Though ,like Miliband's speech,Wittgenstein's theories of logic are very much still intrinsic to widespread cognition,and have meaning in that and other influences.Miliband's speech is more one for historians,not for aisle-bouncing,because it contains a dramatic change from a short-term to a long-term vision.It is a big speech but it's not a 10 year vision but a 50 year vision needed for which the answer is in ancient peoples and their wisdom.To be on a long-term road is a good start.
Essentially that an English parliament with significant devolved power would become so much the focus of politics that it would drag in other powers either in terms of hard or soft power.
That an English parliament would become the main focus of politics in the country, and the UK parliament more like the Lords is now.
It will certainly change politics, but that is sort of the point of moving to a federal system. I would imagine the UK parliament would be a lot smaller than the current Westminster one. It would have far less to do and so would command far less attention.
However, since the chances of it ever happening are so remote, it is probably not worth worrying about.
Essentially that an English parliament with significant devolved power would become so much the focus of politics that it would drag in other powers either in terms of hard or soft power.
That an English parliament would become the main focus of politics in the country, and the UK parliament more like the Lords is now.
Any more so than in Wales or Scotland? It would be exactly the same as in those nations, and you don't seem to oppose Scottish or Welsh devolution.
Burnham is a charismatic speaker, and has some very good plans for the NHS. These build on the Lansley reforms but with increased (devolved?) Local democratic accountability.
He had the backing of the audience, and will be one of very few shadow cabinet members to have a good campaign.
Mr. Dave, I think that's an indefensible position. You're arguing for devolution for all Scotland, for all Wales, but for England to be carved into pieces. I don't care about decentralisation or regional authorities, I do not want my country to be cut into little shitty regions.
How can you defend a single Scottish Parliament and oppose the same for England?
Iirc the Cornish want their own separate assembly (and a chunk of them claim themselves as a nation).
But the main reason is the idea of a destabilizing dominance. That you'd end up with an English parliament dictating everything.
How practically would this happen? We would have set powers for the UK and home national levels. On devolved matters like education, England couldn't dominate anyone else, because it would be devolved. On UK matters like economic policy and foreign policy, it would be exactly the same as now. This idea of England dominating if it had its own parliament just isn't thought through.
Spending levels.
That's not an explanation.
That a devolved England would essentially dictate the size of the budgets for education and other devolved matters.
Only if you kept the madness of the Barnett formlua. If we moved to a devolved system for all four home nations, you just come to an agreement of the first x% of each tax going to the four nations on a proportional basis.
Essentially that an English parliament with significant devolved power would become so much the focus of politics that it would drag in other powers either in terms of hard or soft power.
That an English parliament would become the main focus of politics in the country, and the UK parliament more like the Lords is now.
Any more so than in Wales or Scotland? It would be exactly the same as in those nations, and you don't seem to oppose Scottish or Welsh devolution.
I certainly don't oppose English devolution either. I am all in favour of it. I just don't think there is anything but a remote chance of an English Parliament being set up. If we are very lucky we might get some form of EVEL at Westminster but no more than that.
EV4EL isn't devolution. It's just giving an English veto over legislation. The English still don't have control of proposing legislation, and they're still at the mercy at non-legislative governance, which is a heck of a lot. It's fine as a half-way house, but utterly unacceptable as a permanent solution. We need an English parliament.
Thanks to Socrates on the previous thread for the courteous responses to a couple of posts... Having read and, in one case, re-read pieces on grooming gangs in Rotherham and elsewhere, the degree of misogyny in some cultures does make grooming and abuse more likely and, if unchecked, can result in the scale of offending seen in Rotherham.... I would still argue, nonetheless, that the reasons for the failure to check the abuse when it first started to happen are as fundamental to understanding what subsequently happened... Saying "Political correctness" just seems too simplistic to explain why certain people chose not to investigate and prosecute those responsible unless it can be backed up with specifics that can lead to future prevention.. Perhaps one day someone who was in that position will honestly and fully describe what they did and didn't do and why...
Why the perhaps self indulgent speech above... Because I felt that I had fallen in the trap of being so angry about the extremists who foster race or religious hatred that I was taking up an equally indefensible position ethnicity, race, culture was entirely absent as a factor.. And wanted to get it off my chest!
Essentially that an English parliament with significant devolved power would become so much the focus of politics that it would drag in other powers either in terms of hard or soft power.
That an English parliament would become the main focus of politics in the country, and the UK parliament more like the Lords is now.
Any more so than in Wales or Scotland? It would be exactly the same as in those nations, and you don't seem to oppose Scottish or Welsh devolution.
I certainly don't oppose English devolution either. I am all in favour of it. I just don't think there is anything but a remote chance of an English Parliament being set up. If we are very lucky we might get some form of EVEL at Westminster but no more than that.
EV4EL isn't devolution. It's just giving an English veto over legislation. The English still don't have control of proposing legislation, and they're still at the mercy at non-legislative governance, which is a heck of a lot. It's fine as a half-way house, but utterly unacceptable as a permanent solution. We need an English parliament.
Proportionality would be made as Scotland and Wales don't have the population density of England, and have many more remote areas, ergo public services are more expensive to run. The Barnett Formula is relatively small beer really.
On the English Parliament: not going to happen. Get used to it.
It's amazing how everyone Miliband talks to agrees with him.
I particularly liked the bit where he said about a software company: "But what stood out the most is that they all say the most important thing about this company is that it is based on using the talents of every single person." (*)
I'd love to know which company this is, because I've never known a software company where everyone agreed on anything. We're a contrary bunch of FOSSers, anarchists, hippies, by-the-book company men, naive undergraduates, bearded old-timers and patent-hungry scientists.
It's patently ridiculous that they would all say that, unprompted.
Either Miliband's lying, the questions were prompted, or he only hears what he wants to hear.
(*) This appears to be from the text of the speech, rather than the speech he gave.
Hear hear. Software engineering is not particularly egalitarian. The spread of expertise and competence is enormous. I think I've only encountered a similar range in teaching. The idea that it's about the talents of 'every single person' is far from the truth. The key elements are usually delivered by a few rock stars.
I expect Labour to get into power (and I've said that for a looong time). My dismay at the prospect was tempered by the expectation that the markets would pretty much enforce an Osborne-like financial regime.
I'm now genuinely horrified by the prospect of this muppet becoming PM. He's away with the fairies, and his shadow cabinet...oh dear. What's the collective noun for a bunch of mediocrities?
Essentially that an English parliament with significant devolved power would become so much the focus of politics that it would drag in other powers either in terms of hard or soft power.
That an English parliament would become the main focus of politics in the country, and the UK parliament more like the Lords is now.
Any more so than in Wales or Scotland? It would be exactly the same as in those nations, and you don't seem to oppose Scottish or Welsh devolution.
Yes much more so. Due to the size of England within the UK.
Wales/Scotland being more rural and poorer than England makes proportionally equal spending trickier than first glance.
2. Pay mortgage out of income you have paid tax on.
3. Pay Council Tax for local services.
4. Improve property, pay VAT on all items bought.
5. Hire builders, which pays income tax and NI on their work.
6. Move home, pay Stamp duty. Again.
7. Die and leave to children, pay IHT.
So all of this isn't enough for Labour? Now they want you to pay a rent to the government every single year for the privilege of living in your own home that you have already paid a lot of tax for?
It appears that the key message coming out of the Labour conference this year is NHS. Quite how this is going to attract new support to the Labour ranks from the devolved constituencies where these shiny new policies don't effect is slightly beyond me. Or does it matter? Can Labour really expect to stand on a platform of saving the English NHS in Scotland/Wales?
It's like the YESNP here tweeting the mixed messages from Labour about the state of the NHS in England under the Tories (Terrible NHS sliding backwards) versus Vote NO to ensure continued Gold Standard NHS? People here falling for the deliberate spin/conflation of the 2 disparate entities and SNP support rises as a result - See they were lying after all!!!
Essentially that an English parliament with significant devolved power would become so much the focus of politics that it would drag in other powers either in terms of hard or soft power.
That an English parliament would become the main focus of politics in the country, and the UK parliament more like the Lords is now.
Any more so than in Wales or Scotland? It would be exactly the same as in those nations, and you don't seem to oppose Scottish or Welsh devolution.
Yes much more so. Due to the size of England within the UK.
No, not at all. It would just receive the focus among more people. The Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish media would largely ignore devolved English issues for their own stories in those areas, and the media in all four areas would cover the UK issues more.
In fact, it's the current handling of English issues by the UK parliament that causes nation-wide media to cover it so much, much to the chagrin of Scots. And that would be still the case under EV4EL. In fact, under EV4EL, UK governments supported by Scots could collapse because of disputes on English devolved policy. That is far more interference of England onto UK affairs than an English parliament.
Essentially that an English parliament with significant devolved power would become so much the focus of politics that it would drag in other powers either in terms of hard or soft power.
That an English parliament would become the main focus of politics in the country, and the UK parliament more like the Lords is now.
Any more so than in Wales or Scotland? It would be exactly the same as in those nations, and you don't seem to oppose Scottish or Welsh devolution.
Yes much more so. Due to the size of England within the UK.
Wales/Scotland being more rural and poorer than England makes proportionally equal spending trickier than first glance.
2. Pay mortgage out of income you have paid tax on.
3. Pay Council Tax for local services.
4. Improve property, pay VAT on all items bought.
5. Hire builders, which pays income tax and NI on their work.
6. Move home, pay Stamp duty. Again.
7. Die and leave to children, pay IHT.
So all of this isn't enough for Labour? Now they want you to pay a rent to the government every single year for the privilege of living in your own home that you have already paid a lot of tax for?
Yeah but only if you're mega rich, they deserve it right?! Wunch of Bankers and all that...
It's amazing how everyone Miliband talks to agrees with him.
I particularly liked the bit where he said about a software company: "But what stood out the most is that they all say the most important thing about this company is that it is based on using the talents of every single person." (*)
I'd love to know which company this is, because I've never known a software company where everyone agreed on anything. We're a contrary bunch of FOSSers, anarchists, hippies, by-the-book company men, naive undergraduates, bearded old-timers and patent-hungry scientists.
It's patently ridiculous that they would all say that, unprompted.
Either Miliband's lying, the questions were prompted, or he only hears what he wants to hear.
(*) This appears to be from the text of the speech, rather than the speech he gave.
Read it again. Surely almost any company would claim to be "using the talents of every single person". It is up there with "our employees are our most important assets". Even if it is just anodyne management-speak, there is no reason to doubt it was said.
@JamesTapsfield: Oh dear. Miliband appears to have done a round of interviews from his hospital bed. Cue jokes about his leadership being on on life support
@faisalislam: The Salford Royal hospital where ed Miliband did his interviews today is a Labour signed PFI that will not be paid off till 2042..
Thanks to Socrates on the previous thread for the courteous responses to a couple of posts... Having read and, in one case, re-read pieces on grooming gangs in Rotherham and elsewhere, the degree of misogyny in some cultures does make grooming and abuse more likely and, if unchecked, can result in the scale of offending seen in Rotherham.... I would still argue, nonetheless, that the reasons for the failure to check the abuse when it first started to happen are as fundamental to understanding what subsequently happened... Saying "Political correctness" just seems too simplistic to explain why certain people chose not to investigate and prosecute those responsible unless it can be backed up with specifics that can lead to future prevention.. Perhaps one day someone who was in that position will honestly and fully describe what they did and didn't do and why...
Why the perhaps self indulgent speech above... Because I felt that I had fallen in the trap of being so angry about the extremists who foster race or religious hatred that I was taking up an equally indefensible position ethnicity, race, culture was entirely absent as a factor.. And wanted to get it off my chest!
2. Pay mortgage out of income you have paid tax on.
3. Pay Council Tax for local services.
4. Improve property, pay VAT on all items bought.
5. Hire builders, which pays income tax and NI on their work.
6. Move home, pay Stamp duty. Again.
7. Die and leave to children, pay IHT.
So all of this isn't enough for Labour? Now they want you to pay a rent to the government every single year for the privilege of living in your own home that you have already paid a lot of tax for?
Yeah but only if you're mega rich, they deserve it right?! Wunch of Bankers and all that...
2. Pay mortgage out of income you have paid tax on.
3. Pay Council Tax for local services.
4. Improve property, pay VAT on all items bought.
5. Hire builders, which pays income tax and NI on their work.
6. Move home, pay Stamp duty. Again.
7. Die and leave to children, pay IHT.
So all of this isn't enough for Labour? Now they want you to pay a rent to the government every single year for the privilege of living in your own home that you have already paid a lot of tax for?
Yeah but only if you're mega rich, they deserve it right?! Wunch of Bankers and all that...
Bankers today, everyone else tomorrow.
Taxing other people is always a good idea, just so long as they remain other... Listening to Burnham on R4 Today last night, he was dire when trying to give some detail about the tax. Shocking, but apparently it has all been thought through and definitely not in the back of a fag packet kind of way either, oh no.
Its scary stuff and the fact that Miliband forgot to/chose not to (take your pick on from this morning's rescue attempts) mention it it in his speech setting out his 10 year vision (or 50 year vision according to one poster here this morning) is quite astonishing.
2. Pay mortgage out of income you have paid tax on.
3. Pay Council Tax for local services.
4. Improve property, pay VAT on all items bought.
5. Hire builders, which pays income tax and NI on their work.
6. Move home, pay Stamp duty. Again.
7. Die and leave to children, pay IHT.
So all of this isn't enough for Labour? Now they want you to pay a rent to the government every single year for the privilege of living in your own home that you have already paid a lot of tax for?
Yeah but only if you're mega rich, they deserve it right?! Wunch of Bankers and all that...
Ironically the bankers are, on the whole, paying their full share of tax through PAYE. The whines and smears of "rich people weasel out of taxes because they can afford the lawyers" are (mostly) baseless in their case.
I'd guess that the average self-employed tradesmen avoids more tax than the average banker through the "how much for cash?" tax avoidance scheme. Doesn't really fit in with the ongoing demonisation process, though, does it.
Thanks to Socrates on the previous thread for the courteous responses to a couple of posts... Having read and, in one case, re-read pieces on grooming gangs in Rotherham and elsewhere, the degree of misogyny in some cultures does make grooming and abuse more likely and, if unchecked, can result in the scale of offending seen in Rotherham.... I would still argue, nonetheless, that the reasons for the failure to check the abuse when it first started to happen are as fundamental to understanding what subsequently happened... Saying "Political correctness" just seems too simplistic to explain why certain people chose not to investigate and prosecute those responsible unless it can be backed up with specifics that can lead to future prevention.. Perhaps one day someone who was in that position will honestly and fully describe what they did and didn't do and why...
Why the perhaps self indulgent speech above... Because I felt that I had fallen in the trap of being so angry about the extremists who foster race or religious hatred that I was taking up an equally indefensible position ethnicity, race, culture was entirely absent as a factor.. And wanted to get it off my chest!
Thanks for that - and good for you for having the strength of mind to truly examine this issue without ideological blinkers. I completely agree that there are a number of factors that have combined in this case. The main thing I have been arguing for is that culture in some of these communities is one of those factors that needs to be addressed, and that it is not getting sufficient attention in government policy. I also can't help but feel that the role culture played in these crimes is the main reason why the government is not doing something about it on a national level. And I feel that's outrageous: thousands of children have been raped, and that is a scale of horror that means concerns about sensitivities need to be put firmly to one side.
2. Pay mortgage out of income you have paid tax on.
3. Pay Council Tax for local services.
4. Improve property, pay VAT on all items bought.
5. Hire builders, which pays income tax and NI on their work.
6. Move home, pay Stamp duty. Again.
7. Die and leave to children, pay IHT.
So all of this isn't enough for Labour? Now they want you to pay a rent to the government every single year for the privilege of living in your own home that you have already paid a lot of tax for?
Yeah but only if you're mega rich, they deserve it right?! Wunch of Bankers and all that...
Ironically the bankers are, on the whole, paying their full share of tax through PAYE. The whines and smears of "rich people weasel out of taxes because they can afford the lawyers" are (mostly) baseless in their case.
I'd guess that the average self-employed tradesmen avoids more tax than the average banker through the "how much for cash?" tax avoidance scheme. Doesn't really fit in with the ongoing demonisation process, though, does it.
As a self-employed tradesman I couldn't possibly comment.
I was really replying to oxfordsimon - who believes the theory of evolution should overrule Christian belief. Very few people of any persuasion think the earth was created 6000 years ago, the comment was made only to devalue Christians. The theory of evolution led to staggering numbers of deaths in the last century, Christianity not so much.
Its scary stuff and the fact that Miliband forgot to/chose not to (take your pick on from this morning's rescue attempts) mention it it in his speech setting out his 10 year vision (or 50 year vision according to one poster here this morning) is quite astonishing.
Surely the problem for the Conservatives is they do not appear to have fixed anything.
@BannedInParis If you want originality, you will have to pay for it. Market forces and all that? Our present government is lacking in imagination, and clear thinking and has instead fallen back into the insanity that caused the crash in the first place. Many on here like to whine about "taxes" and extol the virtues of the "free market", the point you miss is that taxes are a way of trying to iron out the failures of the "market". Is there a better way of doing it? Quite probably, but then you have to let go of the slavish devotion to Hayek/Thatcherism.
I was really replying to oxfordsimon - who believes the theory of evolution should overrule Christian belief. Very few people of any persuasion think the earth was created 6000 years ago, the comment was made only to devalue Christians. The theory of evolution led to staggering numbers of deaths in the last century, Christianity not so much.
Of course the fact of evolution should overrule Christian belief.
And how on earth did the scientific breakthrough that showed evolution was at the heart of the development of life on this planet lead to a "staggering number of deaths"?
I was really replying to oxfordsimon - who believes the theory of evolution should overrule Christian belief. Very few people of any persuasion think the earth was created 6000 years ago, the comment was made only to devalue Christians. The theory of evolution led to staggering numbers of deaths in the last century, Christianity not so much.
I know I shouldn't, but can't resist... Go on, please do enlighten us how The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection led to "staggering numbers of deaths in the last century"...
I think the word you're looking for is Eugenics, and that has feck-all to do with Darwinian evolution.
@BannedInParis Why silence? To make more room for posts an tweets you find favour with? Learn to put up with it child, there are only a very few leftwingers on this blog, and your constant arse burps make sure we become rarer.
It's amazing how everyone Miliband talks to agrees with him.
I particularly liked the bit where he said about a software company: "But what stood out the most is that they all say the most important thing about this company is that it is based on using the talents of every single person." (*)
I'd love to know which company this is, because I've never known a software company where everyone agreed on anything. We're a contrary bunch of FOSSers, anarchists, hippies, by-the-book company men, naive undergraduates, bearded old-timers and patent-hungry scientists.
It's patently ridiculous that they would all say that, unprompted.
Either Miliband's lying, the questions were prompted, or he only hears what he wants to hear.
(*) This appears to be from the text of the speech, rather than the speech he gave.
Read it again. Surely almost any company would claim to be "using the talents of every single person". It is up there with "our employees are our most important assets". Even if it is just anodyne management-speak, there is no reason to doubt it was said.
May I suggest you read it all again, especially the "they all say ..." bit.
It's worse when you look at what he's actually meant to have said: "But everyone at the company said the same thing; you need to use the talents of everyone."
"Political correctness" just seems too simplistic to explain why certain people chose not to investigate and prosecute those responsible unless it can be backed up with specifics that can lead to future prevention.. Perhaps one day someone who was in that position will honestly and fully describe what they did and didn't do and why..."
Apart from the usual odious and indefensible political correctness itself, it seems to me that this 'defence' will often be offered in two other circumstances.
One is where the authority in question is too idle and incompetent to act as it should.
The other is when the said authority is complicit and acting in cahoots with the perpetrators.
I expect both these factors were present in Rotherham and similar fiefdoms, as well of course as the customary knuckle-headed pc for its own sake.
@JosiasJessop "you need to use the talents of everyone" The work of the best surgeon in the world will come to nothing without those below him. Does he get the best out of them by looking down on them from a lofty pedestal?
This is the bit in the Dan Hodges piece that we need to pay attention to now:
But consider this. Imagine if it came to light that in another region of the country, organised gangs of white men had been systematically engaging in the rape and abuse of black children. The local white community knew about it, but shielded the crimes behind a wall of silence. Officers in the local authority were aware of it, but were told by their political masters to keep quiet about the racial element of the crime for fear of offending their local constituency. Police officers who attempted to investigate where specifically warned by their superiors to ignore any racial aspect to the offences.
There would be a national outcry. The racism inherent in those crimes would not be pushed to the margins, but to the forefront of our enraged response. There would be a full public inquiry, along the lines of Lawrence. And that reaction would be wholly appropriate.
We're now almost a month after the Rotherham revelations came out. I appreciate that Stephen Lawrence was murdered, but surely 1400 rape victims ranks similarly in magnitude, and needs a similar response?
So I was looking at the YouGov VI poll breakdown for Scotland, is it really saying Lab 28%, SNP 38%? that's pretty apocalyptic if correct.
Sub samples should be treated with extreme caution as they are not weighted - so while the total sample will have been weighted for 'previous Labour voters', for example, the Scottish (or any other) won't - so it just may happen to have fewer previous Labour voters than are representative - hence it (as they all do) tend to jump around a bit.
That said, there does appear to have been a trend to the SNP and away from Lab post referendum - and if we are seeing a similar picture in a couple of weeks it may well be real. On the other hand, their positions could reverse, tomorrow.....
So I was looking at the YouGov VI poll breakdown for Scotland, is it really saying Lab 28%, SNP 38%? that's pretty apocalyptic if correct.
Sub samples should be treated with extreme caution as they are not weighted - so while the total sample will have been weighted for 'previous Labour voters', for example, the Scottish (or any other) won't - so it just may happen to have fewer previous Labour voters than are representative - hence it (as they all do) tend to jump around a bit.
That said, there does appear to have been a trend to the SNP and away from Lab post referendum - and if we are seeing a similar picture in a couple of weeks it may well be real. On the other hand, their positions could reverse, tomorrow.....
I for one am a former SNP voter and YES supporter who has moved away from the SNP. The divisive rhetoric from the 45 movement and talk of UDI with a parliamentary majority have horrified me. Not sure who I'm going to vote for, but it's not the SNP anymore.
So I was looking at the YouGov VI poll breakdown for Scotland, is it really saying Lab 28%, SNP 38%? that's pretty apocalyptic if correct.
Sub samples should be treated with extreme caution as they are not weighted - so while the total sample will have been weighted for 'previous Labour voters', for example, the Scottish (or any other) won't - so it just may happen to have fewer previous Labour voters than are representative - hence it (as they all do) tend to jump around a bit.
That said, there does appear to have been a trend to the SNP and away from Lab post referendum - and if we are seeing a similar picture in a couple of weeks it may well be real. On the other hand, their positions could reverse, tomorrow.....
The vast majority of the Scottish subsamples have the Lib Dems near rock-bottom in Scotland, and there's fairly good corroborating evidence for that being accurate.
Pretty much you want to aggregate the sub-samples from at least a week's worth of polls before getting excited about any change, and possibly even longer. Would be interesting to keep track of, though.
Its scary stuff and the fact that Miliband forgot to/chose not to (take your pick on from this morning's rescue attempts) mention it it in his speech setting out his 10 year vision (or 50 year vision according to one poster here this morning) is quite astonishing.
Surely the problem for the Conservatives is they do not appear to have fixed anything.
I would tend to agree with that. They have grabbed the easy wins, which has made the situation a bit better, but ducked making the serious decisions that are necessary to get a grip on the situation. Probably, the next government, of whatever stripe, will do the same thing and for the same reasons. However, every year that goes past makes the situation worse and the required solutions harder but we cannot carry on like this indefinitely.
@JosiasJessop "you need to use the talents of everyone" The work of the best surgeon in the world will come to nothing without those below him. Does he get the best out of them by looking down on them from a lofty pedestal?
No, but that's irrelevant.
What is relevant is the laughable idea that everyone in the company said the same thing. For instance, if asked I'd say making customers happy is just, if not more, important than using all the talents of every employee. For if customers are unhappy, it makes getting the vital next contract much harder.
Although it looks as though they are more web application and web design than 'proper' software.
Burnham is a charismatic speaker, and has some very good plans for the NHS. These build on the Lansley reforms but with increased (devolved?) Local democratic accountability.
He had the backing of the audience, and will be one of very few shadow cabinet members to have a good campaign.
Charismatic speaker in his own comfort zone, under pressure in the Commons he is a stuttering ranter, Hunt wipes the floor with him and barely conceals his enjoyment.
Miliband should have moved Burnham and put Liz Kendall in his place, one of the very few in the shadow cabinet who is knowledgeable and interesting to listen to. Whether he likes it or not Staffs will stain Burnham forever. Miliband may regret that decision.
Burnham is not the man to front a campaign on the NHS. The Tories only have to mention Flower Vases and the not to distant memories come easily back.
I was really replying to oxfordsimon - who believes the theory of evolution should overrule Christian belief. Very few people of any persuasion think the earth was created 6000 years ago, the comment was made only to devalue Christians. The theory of evolution led to staggering numbers of deaths in the last century, Christianity not so much.
Of course the fact of evolution should overrule Christian belief.
And how on earth did the scientific breakthrough that showed evolution was at the heart of the development of life on this planet lead to a "staggering number of deaths"?
Its scary stuff and the fact that Miliband forgot to/chose not to (take your pick on from this morning's rescue attempts) mention it it in his speech setting out his 10 year vision (or 50 year vision according to one poster here this morning) is quite astonishing.
Surely the problem for the Conservatives is they do not appear to have fixed anything.
Nothing was ever going to be fixed easily, what the Tories may claim is they have pointed the ship in the right direction.
Thanks to Socrates on the previous thread for the courteous responses to a couple of posts... Having read and, in one case, re-read pieces on grooming gangs in Rotherham and elsewhere, the degree of misogyny in some cultures does make grooming and abuse more likely and, if unchecked, can result in the scale of offending seen in Rotherham.... I would still argue, nonetheless, that the reasons for the failure to check the abuse when it first started to happen are as fundamental to understanding what subsequently happened... Saying "Political correctness" just seems too simplistic to explain why certain people chose not to investigate and prosecute those responsible unless it can be backed up with specifics that can lead to future prevention.. Perhaps one day someone who was in that position will honestly and fully describe what they did and didn't do and why...
Why the perhaps self indulgent speech above... Because I felt that I had fallen in the trap of being so angry about the extremists who foster race or religious hatred that I was taking up an equally indefensible position ethnicity, race, culture was entirely absent as a factor.. And wanted to get it off my chest!
Looking forward to next year's Irish election you could do worse than take S/F to top the poll on seat numbers at 5-1 with PP.The 6-4 on 2nd is the bet though,taking on the 10-11 3rd place.A straight dutch pays 76%.For a lower return have more at 6-4,for greater risk have more on 5-1.S/F are on a rising curve and just might be unstoppable. It may be the most significant hand-shake in recent history,the one between Queen Elizabeth The Second and Martin McGuiness,one effect of which was to detoxify S/F and allow supporters to come out and publicly support a party of peace and reconciliation.S/F in government has shown increasing maturity.The dream of one Ireland is one step further. The lesson of Greece was the rise of Syriza.Ireland has Syrisa+ in S/F and like the Yes campaign,has a lot of energetic young campaigners.
Have you looked at Shadsy's market on the UKIP vote share in Clacton? For once it looks to me as though he's priced it wrongly. I don't want to say in what way, because I'd be interested in an unprompted assessment.
This is the bit in the Dan Hodges piece that we need to pay attention to now:
But consider this. Imagine if it came to light that in another region of the country, organised gangs of white men had been systematically engaging in the rape and abuse of black children. The local white community knew about it, but shielded the crimes behind a wall of silence. Officers in the local authority were aware of it, but were told by their political masters to keep quiet about the racial element of the crime for fear of offending their local constituency. Police officers who attempted to investigate where specifically warned by their superiors to ignore any racial aspect to the offences.
There would be a national outcry. The racism inherent in those crimes would not be pushed to the margins, but to the forefront of our enraged response. There would be a full public inquiry, along the lines of Lawrence. And that reaction would be wholly appropriate.
We're now almost a month after the Rotherham revelations came out. I appreciate that Stephen Lawrence was murdered, but surely 1400 rape victims ranks similarly in magnitude, and needs a similar response?
Hodges is bang on the money. A big part of racism is allowing decisions to be altered depending on race. There is no doubt in my mind that the hypothetical case in Hodges article would not have been swept under the carpet, and if it had that would have been as, no more, no less, but as disgraceful as what has been allowed to happen in Rotherham and the other places where it occurred.
Just one poster, an individual who calls himself ScottP, was found to have retweeted 146,265 tweets in a single year about the Labour Party. 0% were positive.
@BannedInParis Why silence? To make more room for posts an tweets you find favour with? Learn to put up with it child, there are only a very few leftwingers on this blog, and your constant arse burps make sure we become rarer.
There seems to a bizarre group of Tory posters on here which believe that the site will benefit from even more Tories and even fewer lefties. This is by no means all Tories on here, yet that bizarre grouping certainly exists.
Just one poster, an individual who calls himself ScottP, was found to have retweeted 146,265 tweets in a single year about the Labour Party. 0% were positive.
Have you looked at Shadsy's market on the UKIP vote share in Clacton? For once it looks to me as though he's priced it wrongly. I don't want to say in what way, because I'd be interested in an unprompted assessment.
Its scary stuff and the fact that Miliband forgot to/chose not to (take your pick on from this morning's rescue attempts) mention it it in his speech setting out his 10 year vision (or 50 year vision according to one poster here this morning) is quite astonishing.
Surely the problem for the Conservatives is they do not appear to have fixed anything.
Nothing was ever going to be fixed easily, what the Tories may claim is they have pointed the ship in the right direction.
Looking at POTUS betting for 2016,Hilary Clinton is nailed on at 5-4.Elizabeth Warren has said she's not standing but would give her a good run for her money if she did.For 2020 onwards,like seeing a 2 year old first time out like Frankel,one for the future,Zephyr Teachout is an unpriced outsider.Timeform would mark her with a P.
I was really replying to oxfordsimon - who believes the theory of evolution should overrule Christian belief. Very few people of any persuasion think the earth was created 6000 years ago, the comment was made only to devalue Christians. The theory of evolution led to staggering numbers of deaths in the last century, Christianity not so much.
Of course the fact of evolution should overrule Christian belief.
And how on earth did the scientific breakthrough that showed evolution was at the heart of the development of life on this planet lead to a "staggering number of deaths"?
You are clearly a fool and/or a troll.
Very few Christians don't accept evolution.
Darwin explains how. Faith explains why.
Two different questions, two different answers.
Faith cannot explain anything. It is an irrational position where you accept the existence of something for which there is absolutely no evidence and use the existence of that 'being' as the basis for a belief system.
There is no question that can ever be answered by Faith.
Looking at POTUS betting for 2016,Hilary Clinton is nailed on at 5-4.Elizabeth Warren has said she's not standing but would give her a good run for her money if she did.For 2020 onwards,like seeing a 2 year old first time out like Frankel,one for the future,Zephyr Teachout is an unpriced outsider.Timeform would mark her with a P.
You mean "nailed on as the Democrat candidate", not POTUS, surely?
You have to go back to FDR for the last time the Dems had 3-in-a-row (and then to well before Lincoln for another example).
Its scary stuff and the fact that Miliband forgot to/chose not to (take your pick on from this morning's rescue attempts) mention it it in his speech setting out his 10 year vision (or 50 year vision according to one poster here this morning) is quite astonishing.
Surely the problem for the Conservatives is they do not appear to have fixed anything.
Nothing was ever going to be fixed easily, what the Tories may claim is they have pointed the ship in the right direction.
Week from hell,labour went from 5 to 7 % ahead in latest poll.
Even Black Wednesday took some weeks to filter through fully. http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-1992-1997 Quite amazing to think a month after the event there was still one poll showing the two parties neck and neck, and yet that single event finished the Conservatives for a generation. Look at what happened next in that link.
The meme is cast.
Miliband is useless and they won't win.
Labour ought to get some kind of temporary boost from conference week.
There was no more disastrous conference than the Conservatives' in 2003, yet Yougov bizarrely put them 5% ahead in a poll taken straight afterwards.
Its scary stuff and the fact that Miliband forgot to/chose not to (take your pick on from this morning's rescue attempts) mention it it in his speech setting out his 10 year vision (or 50 year vision according to one poster here this morning) is quite astonishing.
Surely the problem for the Conservatives is they do not appear to have fixed anything.
Nothing was ever going to be fixed easily, what the Tories may claim is they have pointed the ship in the right direction.
And then stopped.
Tell that to the economy.
Who was talking about the economy? We were talking about the Nation's finances as reported in this article:
Its scary stuff and the fact that Miliband forgot to/chose not to (take your pick on from this morning's rescue attempts) mention it it in his speech setting out his 10 year vision (or 50 year vision according to one poster here this morning) is quite astonishing.
The scary thing in this situation is always the growth in interest payments which has been very rapid, so that's a notable absence from an otherwise interesting and sobering article.
The budget 2014 estimate for 2014-15 was £53bn on debt interest payments. The government's income from council tax and business rates combined is £54bn, so pretty much those two taxes are required to fund our debt interest payments.
Looking at POTUS betting for 2016,Hilary Clinton is nailed on at 5-4.Elizabeth Warren has said she's not standing but would give her a good run for her money if she did.For 2020 onwards,like seeing a 2 year old first time out like Frankel,one for the future,Zephyr Teachout is an unpriced outsider.Timeform would mark her with a P.
East Coast Establishment.
Will go down like a lead-balloon in West Virginia.
Mr. Me, quite so, and that's why reducing the deficit quickly, and then running surpluses, is so important.
Remember how much Labour loved Keynes due to his support for maximum borrowing and spending in a downturn/recession? If memory serves, he advocated minimal spending and running a surplus in a growing economy. Suddenly, Labour don't love him anymore.
Labour has abandoned Keynesianism, not unlike its pledge for a free owl.
Mr. Me, quite so, and that's why reducing the deficit quickly, and then running surpluses, is so important.
Remember how much Labour loved Keynes due to his support for maximum borrowing and spending in a downturn/recession? If memory serves, he advocated minimal spending and running a surplus in a growing economy. Suddenly, Labour don't love him anymore.
Labour has abandoned Keynesianism, not unlike its pledge for a free owl.
Looking at POTUS betting for 2016,Hilary Clinton is nailed on at 5-4.Elizabeth Warren has said she's not standing but would give her a good run for her money if she did.For 2020 onwards,like seeing a 2 year old first time out like Frankel,one for the future,Zephyr Teachout is an unpriced outsider.Timeform would mark her with a P.
You mean "nailed on as the Democrat candidate", not POTUS, surely?
You have to go back to FDR for the last time the Dems had 3-in-a-row (and then to well before Lincoln for another example).
Warren has repeatedly said she won't run, but I worry that the lady doth protest too much. ('Worry' because my money's on Hillary.)
Not sure Warren would beat Clinton anyway. I think the 2/1 on Hillary as nominee is about right.
@BannedInParis If you want originality, you will have to pay for it. Market forces and all that? Our present government is lacking in imagination, and clear thinking and has instead fallen back into the insanity that caused the crash in the first place. Many on here like to whine about "taxes" and extol the virtues of the "free market", the point you miss is that taxes are a way of trying to iron out the failures of the "market". Is there a better way of doing it? Quite probably, but then you have to let go of the slavish devotion to Hayek/Thatcherism.
Oh Smarmy, unfortunately, you don't seem to understand that there aren't any failures in a "free market"
Compare and contrast with the state command and control economy. The main reason for using Trussell Trust foodbanks is because the state failed to follow their own rules with the benefits system.
Looking at POTUS betting for 2016,Hilary Clinton is nailed on at 5-4.Elizabeth Warren has said she's not standing but would give her a good run for her money if she did.For 2020 onwards,like seeing a 2 year old first time out like Frankel,one for the future,Zephyr Teachout is an unpriced outsider.Timeform would mark her with a P.
East Coast Establishment.
Will go down like a lead-balloon in West Virginia.
West Virginia has little/no importance to the Democracts anymore when it comes to Presidential Elections. Add it to Tennessee, Arkansas and Kentucky in that category.
Its scary stuff and the fact that Miliband forgot to/chose not to (take your pick on from this morning's rescue attempts) mention it it in his speech setting out his 10 year vision (or 50 year vision according to one poster here this morning) is quite astonishing.
The scary thing in this situation is always the growth in interest payments which has been very rapid, so that's a notable absence from an otherwise interesting and sobering article.
The budget 2014 estimate for 2014-15 was £53bn on debt interest payments. The governments income from council tax and business rates combined is £54bn, so pretty much those two taxes are required to fund our debt interest payments.
Indeed, Mr. Me. I think the estimate for next year was £65bn. That is more than 10% of all tax receipts, and of course every year until the deficit is eliminated we will be spending more and more on interest payments. Even with HMG's creative accounting it is not a situation that can go on indefinitely.
..The SNP are now favourites to win Argyll & Bute, a seat in which they actually came fourth last time. We also now make them favourites to turn over Danny Alexander’s sizeable majority in Inverness. He could be the highest profile cabinet casualty in 2015.'
Comments
Brilliant, but also tragic. That he might even come close to Prime Minister is shocking enough.
http://order-order.com/2014/09/24/burnhams-barnstorming-leadership-bid/
He may be annoying everyone with a strong interest in politics, but he isn't annoying the man in the street, it seems.
Not going to go away
That is far worse
I particularly liked the bit where he said about a software company: "But what stood out the most is that they all say the most important thing about this company is that it is based on using the talents of every single person." (*)
I'd love to know which company this is, because I've never known a software company where everyone agreed on anything. We're a contrary bunch of FOSSers, anarchists, hippies, by-the-book company men, naive undergraduates, bearded old-timers and patent-hungry scientists.
It's patently ridiculous that they would all say that, unprompted.
Either Miliband's lying, the questions were prompted, or he only hears what he wants to hear.
(*) This appears to be from the text of the speech, rather than the speech he gave.
Essentially that an English parliament with significant devolved power would become so much the focus of politics that it would drag in other powers either in terms of hard or soft power.
That an English parliament would become the main focus of politics in the country, and the UK parliament more like the Lords is now.
Quite amazing to think a month after the event there was still one poll showing the two parties neck and neck, and yet that single event finished the Conservatives for a generation. Look at what happened next in that link.
The meme is cast.
Miliband is useless and they won't win.
The picture is a bit contradictory. Labour seem to be doing OK in the polls, and yet the party is bricking itself about holding a seat i a by-election it should win at a canter if it has ambitions to govern.
'Raise your hospital flower vases to the next labour leader!'
However, since the chances of it ever happening are so remote, it is probably not worth worrying about.
He had the backing of the audience, and will be one of very few shadow cabinet members to have a good campaign.
Why the perhaps self indulgent speech above... Because I felt that I had fallen in the trap of being so angry about the extremists who foster race or religious hatred that I was taking up an equally indefensible position ethnicity, race, culture was entirely absent as a factor.. And wanted to get it off my chest!
On the English Parliament: not going to happen. Get used to it.
I expect Labour to get into power (and I've said that for a looong time). My dismay at the prospect was tempered by the expectation that the markets would pretty much enforce an Osborne-like financial regime.
I'm now genuinely horrified by the prospect of this muppet becoming PM. He's away with the fairies, and his shadow cabinet...oh dear. What's the collective noun for a bunch of mediocrities?
" What's the collective noun for a bunch of mediocrities? "
A "Cameron's cabinet"?
Wales/Scotland being more rural and poorer than England makes proportionally equal spending trickier than first glance.
1. Buy property, pay Stamp Duty.
2. Pay mortgage out of income you have paid tax on.
3. Pay Council Tax for local services.
4. Improve property, pay VAT on all items bought.
5. Hire builders, which pays income tax and NI on their work.
6. Move home, pay Stamp duty. Again.
7. Die and leave to children, pay IHT.
So all of this isn't enough for Labour? Now they want you to pay a rent to the government every single year for the privilege of living in your own home that you have already paid a lot of tax for?
Quite how this is going to attract new support to the Labour ranks from the devolved constituencies where these shiny new policies don't effect is slightly beyond me.
Or does it matter? Can Labour really expect to stand on a platform of saving the English NHS in Scotland/Wales?
It's like the YESNP here tweeting the mixed messages from Labour about the state of the NHS in England under the Tories (Terrible NHS sliding backwards) versus Vote NO to ensure continued Gold Standard NHS? People here falling for the deliberate spin/conflation of the 2 disparate entities and SNP support rises as a result - See they were lying after all!!!
In fact, it's the current handling of English issues by the UK parliament that causes nation-wide media to cover it so much, much to the chagrin of Scots. And that would be still the case under EV4EL. In fact, under EV4EL, UK governments supported by Scots could collapse because of disputes on English devolved policy. That is far more interference of England onto UK affairs than an English parliament.
@faisalislam: The Salford Royal hospital where ed Miliband did his interviews today is a Labour signed PFI that will not be paid off till 2042..
Listening to Burnham on R4 Today last night, he was dire when trying to give some detail about the tax. Shocking, but apparently it has all been thought through and definitely not in the back of a fag packet kind of way either, oh no.
"I know you are, you said you are, but what am I?" transposed to the internet.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11117335/Just-how-big-is-Britains-debt-mountain.html
Its scary stuff and the fact that Miliband forgot to/chose not to (take your pick on from this morning's rescue attempts) mention it it in his speech setting out his 10 year vision (or 50 year vision according to one poster here this morning) is quite astonishing.
I'd guess that the average self-employed tradesmen avoids more tax than the average banker through the "how much for cash?" tax avoidance scheme. Doesn't really fit in with the ongoing demonisation process, though, does it.
I was really replying to oxfordsimon - who believes the theory of evolution should overrule Christian belief. Very few people of any persuasion think the earth was created 6000 years ago, the comment was made only to devalue Christians. The theory of evolution led to staggering numbers of deaths in the last century, Christianity not so much.
If you want originality, you will have to pay for it.
Market forces and all that?
Our present government is lacking in imagination, and clear thinking and has instead fallen back into the insanity that caused the crash in the first place.
Many on here like to whine about "taxes" and extol the virtues of the "free market", the point you miss is that taxes are a way of trying to iron out the failures of the "market".
Is there a better way of doing it? Quite probably, but then you have to let go of the slavish devotion to Hayek/Thatcherism.
And how on earth did the scientific breakthrough that showed evolution was at the heart of the development of life on this planet lead to a "staggering number of deaths"?
You are clearly a fool and/or a troll.
Go on, please do enlighten us how The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection led to "staggering numbers of deaths in the last century"...
I think the word you're looking for is Eugenics, and that has feck-all to do with Darwinian evolution.
Why silence? To make more room for posts an tweets you find favour with?
Learn to put up with it child, there are only a very few leftwingers on this blog, and your constant arse burps make sure we become rarer.
It's worse when you look at what he's actually meant to have said: "But everyone at the company said the same thing; you need to use the talents of everyone."
Shows that you absolutely do not understand either.
But given your obvious ignorance, I fear it is too late for you to see the world as it really is.
"Political correctness" just seems too simplistic to explain why certain people chose not to investigate and prosecute those responsible unless it can be backed up with specifics that can lead to future prevention.. Perhaps one day someone who was in that position will honestly and fully describe what they did and didn't do and why..."
Apart from the usual odious and indefensible political correctness itself, it seems to me that this 'defence' will often be offered in two other circumstances.
One is where the authority in question is too idle and incompetent to act as it should.
The other is when the said authority is complicit and acting in cahoots with the perpetrators.
I expect both these factors were present in Rotherham and similar fiefdoms, as well of course as the customary knuckle-headed pc for its own sake.
"you need to use the talents of everyone"
The work of the best surgeon in the world will come to nothing without those below him.
Does he get the best out of them by looking down on them from a lofty pedestal?
This is the bit in the Dan Hodges piece that we need to pay attention to now:
But consider this. Imagine if it came to light that in another region of the country, organised gangs of white men had been systematically engaging in the rape and abuse of black children. The local white community knew about it, but shielded the crimes behind a wall of silence. Officers in the local authority were aware of it, but were told by their political masters to keep quiet about the racial element of the crime for fear of offending their local constituency. Police officers who attempted to investigate where specifically warned by their superiors to ignore any racial aspect to the offences.
There would be a national outcry. The racism inherent in those crimes would not be pushed to the margins, but to the forefront of our enraged response. There would be a full public inquiry, along the lines of Lawrence. And that reaction would be wholly appropriate.
We're now almost a month after the Rotherham revelations came out. I appreciate that Stephen Lawrence was murdered, but surely 1400 rape victims ranks similarly in magnitude, and needs a similar response?
That said, there does appear to have been a trend to the SNP and away from Lab post referendum - and if we are seeing a similar picture in a couple of weeks it may well be real. On the other hand, their positions could reverse, tomorrow.....
Nothing wrong with Tweeters, but as a self-selecting bunch they wouldn't necessarily make a great bunch of political scientists.
Pretty much you want to aggregate the sub-samples from at least a week's worth of polls before getting excited about any change, and possibly even longer. Would be interesting to keep track of, though.
What is relevant is the laughable idea that everyone in the company said the same thing. For instance, if asked I'd say making customers happy is just, if not more, important than using all the talents of every employee. For if customers are unhappy, it makes getting the vital next contract much harder.
Although it looks as though they are more web application and web design than 'proper' software.
(fx: ducks)
Miliband should have moved Burnham and put Liz Kendall in his place, one of the very few in the shadow cabinet who is knowledgeable and interesting to listen to. Whether he likes it or not Staffs will stain Burnham forever. Miliband may regret that decision.
Burnham is not the man to front a campaign on the NHS. The Tories only have to mention Flower Vases and the not to distant memories come easily back.
Darwin explains how. Faith explains why.
Two different questions, two different answers.
FPT: Mr. NorthWales, np.
Isn't it unusual for the Lib Dems to be last? I think conference season ran Labour, Lib Dem, Conservative.
It may be the most significant hand-shake in recent history,the one between Queen Elizabeth The Second and Martin McGuiness,one effect of which was to detoxify S/F and allow supporters to come out and publicly support a party of peace and reconciliation.S/F in government has shown increasing maturity.The dream of one Ireland is one step further.
The lesson of Greece was the rise of Syriza.Ireland has Syrisa+ in S/F and like the Yes campaign,has a lot of energetic young campaigners.
Have you looked at Shadsy's market on the UKIP vote share in Clacton? For once it looks to me as though he's priced it wrongly. I don't want to say in what way, because I'd be interested in an unprompted assessment.
The Lib Dem conference got bumped back by the referendum.
£28.57@5/2 40-50
£33.33@2/1 50-60
£22.22@7/2 60-70
For a combined 1/5 ukip winning but less than 70% of the vote... They are 1/50 in a place to win this
I'd say 60-70 is more likely than 40-50 so shouldn't be 7/2 as opposed to 5/2... If I had one bet it'd be that
You and Dan Hodges should get together, Socrates. You'd make a good team: two of the least accurate commentators of the current crop.
There is no question that can ever be answered by Faith.
You have to go back to FDR for the last time the Dems had 3-in-a-row (and then to well before Lincoln for another example).
There was no more disastrous conference than the Conservatives' in 2003, yet Yougov bizarrely put them 5% ahead in a poll taken straight afterwards.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11117335/Just-how-big-is-Britains-debt-mountain.html
The budget 2014 estimate for 2014-15 was £53bn on debt interest payments. The government's income from council tax and business rates combined is £54bn, so pretty much those two taxes are required to fund our debt interest payments.
Will go down like a lead-balloon in West Virginia.
Remember how much Labour loved Keynes due to his support for maximum borrowing and spending in a downturn/recession? If memory serves, he advocated minimal spending and running a surplus in a growing economy. Suddenly, Labour don't love him anymore.
Labour has abandoned Keynesianism, not unlike its pledge for a free owl.
Not sure Warren would beat Clinton anyway. I think the 2/1 on Hillary as nominee is about right.
Compare and contrast with the state command and control economy. The main reason for using Trussell Trust foodbanks is because the state failed to follow their own rules with the benefits system.
Tell that to continuity Brown George Osborne. Any tax cuts now will look like what they are. Not much more than a cheap and temporary bribe.
..The SNP are now favourites to win Argyll & Bute, a seat in which they actually came fourth last time. We also now make them favourites to turn over Danny Alexander’s sizeable majority in Inverness. He could be the highest profile cabinet casualty in 2015.'
http://tinyurl.com/pzqowgd