So were your predecessors honorary ravishers of the Anglo-Saxons?
Having nigh done our family tree, (our surname is almost unchanged Anglo-Saxon), I found (from the rolls of Canterbury Cathedral) that they were 'Northmen' who settled in what is now Normandy and having put a 'le' in front of their name, came over with William the Conq. So in effect one family of Anglo-Saxons arguing with another. Funny old world isn't it.
UKIP's Migration spokesman Steven Wolfe used a verse of this Kipling poem in his speech today and I thought given how much of UKIP's news heartlands are those where the Saxon's were prominent and is rather apt:
"My son," said the Norman Baron, "I am dying, and you will be heir To all the broad acres in England that William gave me for share When he conquered the Saxon at Hastings, and a nice little handful it is. But before you go over to rule it I want you to understand this:–
"The Saxon is not like us Normans. His manners are not so polite. But he never means anything serious till he talks about justice and right. When he stands like an ox in the furrow – with his sullen set eyes on your own, And grumbles, 'This isn't fair dealing,' my son, leave the Saxon alone.
"You can horsewhip your Gascony archers, or torture your Picardy spears; But don't try that game on the Saxon; you'll have the whole brood round your ears. From the richest old Thane in the county to the poorest chained serf in the field, They'll be at you and on you like hornets, and, if you are wise, you will yield.
"But first you must master their language, their dialect, proverbs and songs. Don't trust any clerk to interpret when they come with the tale of their wrongs. Let them know that you know what they're saying; let them feel that you know what to say. Yes, even when you want to go hunting, hear 'em out if it takes you all day.
They'll drink every hour of the daylight and poach every hour of the dark. It's the sport not the rabbits they're after (we've plenty of game in the park). Don't hang them or cut off their fingers. That's wasteful as well as unkind, For a hard-bitten, South-country poacher makes the best man- at-arms you can find.
"Appear with your wife and the children at their weddings and funerals and feasts. Be polite but not friendly to Bishops; be good to all poor parish priests. Say 'we,' 'us' and 'ours' when you're talking, instead of 'you fellows' and 'I.' Don't ride over seeds; keep your temper; and never you tell 'em a lie!"
It is one reason Miliband feels threatened by Burnham, he does not like to be overshadowed by someone competent.
I don't think Miliband does feel threatened by Burnham - what makes you think that? Burnham was the exception to the "short speech" rule at the conference - he was the only Shadow Minister plugged in Miliband's speech, building up to his lengthy and passionate speech on the NHS the next day.
First, the polls are in uncharted territory, viz:- a fixed-term Parliament. I suspect there are still a lot of floating voters out there, who may say this to a pollster or they may say that, but are a long way from feeling strongly about it.
Second, the historical record is that the Tories always campaign far better than Labour does (I think this was even true in 1997) and go up about 3 points in the polls, which Labour go down.
Third, it is hard not to see Cameron trashing Miliband in the TV debates (although also not hard to see Farage trashing the pair of them).
On point 1, I don't know if you talk to a lot of voters, but FWIW I've never in over 40 years of canvassing found so few undecided voters. The Tory and Labour blocs are seemingly immovable apart from short-term swings.
On point 2, that's not what happened in Cameron's only previous election as leader, in 2010. On the contrary, a hefty Tory lead was blown away in the final months.
On point 3, the test is how the leaders do in comparison with expectations. Cameron was expected to thrash Brown and Clegg in 2010, but the multi-party debate format doesn't lend itself to thrashings: we ended up with something like a score draw.
Are you offering a bet on your prediction of a 10-point Tory lead?
Since it's you, Nick, I'll break the habit of a lifetime and offer you £20 at evens, winnings to charity...
Was the glossed over announcement by Burnham that social care would be brought into the NHS not significant then?
Yes, it's been noted that Labour are planning another reorganisation of Everyone's NHS.
No, Andy Burnham has been clear that there will be no top-down mandate for change, just permission for health economies to reform in their own time - which is Simon Stevens' position too. The only top-down measure will be the repeal of the Act
You can't have it both ways. You can't say the Act was the biggest disaster ever to befall the NHS, risking its death within 90 days. And then also say repealing the Act will be no biggie. Everyone will take it in their stride.
I didn't say that. The point is there are no structures that will have to change as a e.
You do seem well informed. Dare I ask your background in this?
I work in commissioning, so to have any kind of future plans I need to be aware of any incoming reorganization!
Ditto, though I am on the other side of the table!
Is my impression that there is a more collaborative approach to commissioning over the last few years also your impression? Mine is based on Leics of course.
I came into commissioning post-reforms, so no personal experience of working in PCT land, but the consensus among colleagues is as you say - a few years ago if social care and health were in a room together it'd be recriminations and denial over whose responsibility delayed discharges were, for instance. Now there's a greater willingness to work together. Where that exists, shared budgets will be helpful in removing barriers, but there are probably still some basket-case health economies out there where everyone's still bashing each other over the head, in which case structures won't change anything.
I'm concerned that more political involvement at the local level might have the same effects as at the national - short term decisions, lack of direction, and pandering to the loud geographical areas! Perhaps the ideal is to have a councillor or two on governing bodies so that commissioning can be clinical, but with democratic input. Otherwise we will have councillors vetoing changes purely because a rival politician was involved...
The input of local councillors is open to abuse, but that is the problem of democracy. As I understand it they should not be the dominant voice on CCG boards.
It may even revive local democracy, if councils have a much greater input into how the NHS operates locally.
David - you make it sound like a walk in the park for Labour - It certainly won't be that .... what seems likely to win it for Labour however is Cameron's ineffectiveness, put simply, he just hasn't got it, neither has Miliband for that matter, but people don't realise that yet. Incredible as it may seem, the great British Public seems ready and prepared to forgive Labour for delivering the greatest car crash of an economy ever seen in peace time. What this proves beyond doubt is that Labour is now firmly entrenched as the natural party of Government in this country and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. God help us all.
Incumbency bonus, surely? Even if genuine it is amazing how despised the Tory brand is that such an advantage may not matter. Nothing seems to dent the labour brand in the same way even if it is not as strong as it once was.
Thanx Mrs Doubtfire@audreyanne That's interesting. The notion of isolationism whilst simultaneously wanting to be internationalist re trade just perplexes me.
That's why I feel so confused about the current Kipper brand values. I've no idea which way they'll jump on an issue. This is something Mr Cameron lost me over for a while back in about 2012. I felt I didn't know WTF was going on in his head re minimum pricing of booze etc. All very Nanny Statism thinking.
The more I think about this military intervention the more I support it - and the more I'm feeling alienated from many Ukippers that seem to be knee jerk anti-war.
Plato et. al. I think it's isolationism. That was a strong strand in the Republican right across the pond. That answers the question of coherence. Putting it less charitably than 'Isolationism' you could describe it as Little Englander or ostrich mentality.
This is the key finding from the Ashcroft marginals poll in August for me:
"Despite the 10-point Labour lead in voting intention the majority of voters in these seats said either that they were satisfied with David Cameron’s performance as Prime Minister (29%) or that they were dissatisfied but would rather he were PM than Ed Miliband (29%). Only 31% – including, as in the Labour-held seats, just two thirds of Labour voters – said they would rather see Miliband in Number 10. Nine out of ten Conservative switchers to UKIP, and 94% of those switching from the Lib Dems to the Tories, said they preferred Cameron to the alternative."
So, voters in those marginal seats prefer Cameron as PM (58%) to Miliband (31%) - a 27% lead.
I find it very hard to believe a major chunk of those won't vote that way, once they wake up to the fact there's an election on to choose the PM and the Government.
Bring on the campaign and the debates.
Didn't Ashcroft also find that most people don't vote based on their feelings about the various party leaders?
Whilst driving to the office, just listened to a programme on R4, which described the numerous layers of Parliaments in Belgium (even one of 25 for native German speakers). Apparently many people work in the administration of these Parliaments - made me wonder how do they pay for it all.
I profoundly disagree with David (and those of you who have posted comments broadly supportive of him).
First, the polls are in uncharted territory, viz:- a fixed-term Parliament. I suspect there are still a lot of floating voters out there, who may say this to a pollster or they may say that, but are a long way from feeling strongly about it.
Second, the historical record is that the Tories always campaign far better than Labour does (I think this was even true in 1997) and go up about 3 points in the polls, which Labour go down.
Third, it is hard not to see Cameron trashing Miliband in the TV debates (although also not hard to see Farage trashing the pair of them).
For this reason I predict a popular vote result (%ages) about: Con 35, Lab 25, UKIP 23, others the rest, with the SNP, standing only in Scotland of course, outpolling the Lib Dems standing throughout Britain.
That ought to produce a Tory landslide, but Electoral Calculus says it won't. I'm not sure how much faith to put in their model these days, but if it's right, then Tory activists will compare 2010 with 1983 and demand serious change in the system. And I'm not talking PR, either. Constituency boundaries based on residential property values, perhaps?
Agree with you wholeheartedly IA,
Innocent Abroad, you may have missed my post at 08.23 quoting your top post verbatim. I abbreviated you to IA which may be why you missed my acknowledging you: you did indeed say it, and with great insight.
Nick Palmer - I'll place a bet with you that the Conservatives will beat Labour by a minimum of 6%. Take it on?
Mr @david_herdson - do you think the media will give EdM a lot of scrutiny in the run up to GE2015? They gave Labour a free pass in GE2010 because they expected Gordon to lose.
This time it's much less clear cut, IMO. I hope they do as I felt it was a lazy and complacent disservice to Joe Public last time around.
I suspect that Labour noticed that 45% of Scots voted for a dream.
Keeping any populist policies up their sleeve reduces opportunity for scrutiny, whilst hiding unpopular policies avoids scaring the horses. Pretend everything will be lovely, and power awaits.
To vote for a dream, someone has to be offering one. Despite Miliband talking until Christmas and claiming to have a ten-year vision (a helpful get-out clause for 2020, by the way), there wasn't any big dream linked to the real world.
To answer my own question, yes, he can breeze though but only if the other parties don't subject him and his party's policies to much greater scrutiny. I don't think there is any big announcement waiting to be made. Sure, there'll be more detail and more padding come next year but you run with your big announcements well in advance to build that dream that people can buy into. You can't fatten a pig on market day.
@Lennon - the answer is that I see the vote fracturing. It's got some fairly wealthy pockets (nice flats and waterside developments) that might go Tory, a bit of student housing that will probably stay solidly Labour but might go Plaid or green, tribal Labour vote that will stay Labour no matter what, and a sort of drifting lower-middle class that might go UKIP. The Tories have always been the main challengers - but in a four cornered fight you never know who could win.
So my tip would be - don't bet on it. This used to be a very safe Labour seat for Alun Michael, terrible minister though he was, but the new MP hasn't had long to bed in and might well be vulnerable to a surge from any party.
A more realistic betting position, if you can find one, would be for Labour to win fewer than 25 seats in Wales. That would rely on them not winning back many seats - but as their two realistic targets are Cardiff Central on a student rebellion and Cardiff North with a retiring MP, that's hardly a problem (I don't think they'll retake South Pembs). At the same time, I could see them losing the few remaining seats they have in rural Wales (Ynys Môn could well be vulnerable depending on the Plaid candidate) and possibly also Llanelli and Cardiff South. That would take them below 25, which would certainly be an embarrassing result for Labour whatever the national outcome.
It might also have interesting implications for the Assembly elections, which are held the following year and by which time Labour will have been in power, rather ineffectually, for 17 years - but we can hopefully talk about them nearer the time!
Thanks - that's interesting and worth looking into in more detail.
This is the key finding from the Ashcroft marginals poll in August for me:
"Despite the 10-point Labour lead in voting intention the majority of voters in these seats said either that they were satisfied with David Cameron’s performance as Prime Minister (29%) or that they were dissatisfied but would rather he were PM than Ed Miliband (29%). Only 31% – including, as in the Labour-held seats, just two thirds of Labour voters – said they would rather see Miliband in Number 10. Nine out of ten Conservative switchers to UKIP, and 94% of those switching from the Lib Dems to the Tories, said they preferred Cameron to the alternative."
So, voters in those marginal seats prefer Cameron as PM (58%) to Miliband (31%) - a 27% lead.
I find it very hard to believe a major chunk of those won't vote that way, once they wake up to the fact there's an election on to choose the PM and the Government.
Bring on the campaign and the debates.
Didn't Ashcroft also find that most people don't vote based on their feelings about the various party leaders?
This isn't about feelings. This is about choosing a Prime Minister and the next government of the country. Most people take it very seriously. We have a large chunk of voters here in the marginals expressing an intent to vote (note the word: intent) non-Tory who are 'dissatisfied' with his performance, but would prefer David Cameron as PM to Ed Miliband.
Arguably, I'm one of them - except I don't live in a marginal.
We've been here before of course: April 1992, Kinnock vs. Major.
@Freggles bringing social care into the NHS would be disastrous; all the effort at the moment is going into the right thing: getting social care services properly integrated between NHS and councils. Local flexibility, local reactiveness, local control, local efficiencies etc etc are what are needed, not monolithic NHS, duplicate budgets, artificial lines between health and council services. The way the NHS funding and culture works, it's nearly all focused on treating people who are already ill or in need of treatment; councils are much more focused on keeping people well so that they don't need to go down the more expensive route of funding medicial treatment. Better for the public purse and better for the individuals. So better all round. Burnham presided over Stafford. Enough said about his credentials for being health secretary.
"Do I think the British will elect Ed Miliband to be their Prime Minister? You're 'aving a larf. "
Made yourself a bit of a hostage to fortune there, Audrey!
Or do you plan to slip quietly away like the two Stuarts - Truth and Dickson - who haven't been spotted since their hopeless prophecies reduced their credibility to zero?
I don't know if he will be the next PM or not, but unless the punters and the pollsters are very wrong indeed there has to be a good chance.
Let's discuss it again next May, if you are still around.
David - you make it sound like a walk in the park for Labour - It certainly won't be that .... what seems likely to win it for Labour however is Cameron's ineffectiveness, put simply, he just hasn't got it, neither has Miliband for that matter, but people don't realise that yet. Incredible as it may seem, the great British Public seems ready and prepared to forgive Labour for delivering the greatest car crash of an economy ever seen in peace time. What this proves beyond doubt is that Labour is now firmly entrenched as the natural party of Government in this country and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. God help us all.
Incumbency bonus, surely? Even if genuine it is amazing how despised the Tory brand is that such an advantage may not matter. Nothing seems to dent the labour brand in the same way even if it is not as strong as it once was.
David - you make it sound like a walk in the park for Labour - It certainly won't be that .... what seems likely to win it for Labour however is Cameron's ineffectiveness, put simply, he just hasn't got it, neither has Miliband for that matter, but people don't realise that yet. Incredible as it may seem, the great British Public seems ready and prepared to forgive Labour for delivering the greatest car crash of an economy ever seen in peace time. What this proves beyond doubt is that Labour is now firmly entrenched as the natural party of Government in this country and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. God help us all.
Incumbency bonus, surely? Even if genuine it is amazing how despised the Tory brand is that such an advantage may not matter. Nothing seems to dent the labour brand in the same way even if it is not as strong as it once was.
Despised Tory brand with well-liked leader - versus heart-in-the-right place Labour with inability to run a whelk stall and an unelectable dorky leader.
In match terms the impact of the fixed term parliament means we are only just starting the second half. The Tories haven't really started attacking labour yet.
Re nhs England. If Labour don't get an England majority what right have they got to change it?
Burnhams plans are devolving power to local councils. Devon councillors will sit on the commissioning boards in Devon, Leics ones in Leics CCGs etc.
The plans are highly democratic (we shall see whether councillors are up to the job...)
It's irrelevant what his plans are if England doesn't vote for it. Labour created the situation when they split the NHS responsibilities across different countries.
How many people voted for the Conservatives' plans in the first place?
They have a significant majority in England so have the right to do what's needed to save the service. Labour will have no mandate to change anything.
"Britain has been told to pay more than £10 million in unemployment benefit to eastern European migrants who have left Britain, returned home and now cannot find a job.
Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia have demanded that Iain Duncan Smith’s department funds their jobless citizens because they once worked and paid national insurance in the UK."
Surely this whole matter is getting ridiculous and needs sorting out - I am fairly sure that all nation members of the EU have different rules regarding payment of benefits to non-nationals.
In match terms the impact of the fixed term parliament means we are only just starting the second half. The Tories haven't really started attacking labour yet.
Re nhs England. If Labour don't get an England majority what right have they got to change it?
There's a long way to go yet. Most people don't even realise there's an election in 7 months time; they haven't even begun to start thinking about it.
Labour is by no means home and dry.
You're both spot on. I hope pb threads wake up to this point. It isn't like the old days ...
And indeed I said much the same at [7.32am] - but would absolutely hate it if AudreyAnne ever gave me credit for anything. Even if I said that David Cameron was William Pitt, Margaret Thatcher and Winston Churchill rolled into one (I do hope he's paying her to puff him - an MBE in the post, maybe?).
See below Innocent Abroad - I did indeed credit you
I genuinely think David Cameron is a great Prime Minister. He has led a coalition Government remarkably successfully in a way that I'm not sure many politicians could have and I think his popularity ratings are starting to show it. Those figures posted below by Casino Royale about the marginals are astonishing. Labour should be very very worried within.
Next spring the country will reawaken not merely to the sounds of birdsong but also to a General Election. Until then there is no election noise at all, no consideration of it, and therefore no thought about which way to vote. Which deals with your point Nick about 'never in 40 years … ' Yep, well, never in 40 years have we had a fixed term parliament. Think back to every other election, by now since last spring there would have been election fever in the media. There's nothing.
I profoundly disagree with David (and those of you who have posted comments broadly supportive of him).
First, the polls are in uncharted territory, viz:- a fixed-term Parliament. I suspect there are still a lot of floating voters out there, who may say this to a pollster or they may say that, but are a long way from feeling strongly about it.
Second, the historical record is that the Tories always campaign far better than Labour does (I think this was even true in 1997) and go up about 3 points in the polls, which Labour go down.
Third, it is hard not to see Cameron trashing Miliband in the TV debates (although also not hard to see Farage trashing the pair of them).
For this reason I predict a popular vote result (%ages) about: Con 35, Lab 25, UKIP 23, others the rest, with the SNP, standing only in Scotland of course, outpolling the Lib Dems standing throughout Britain.
That ought to produce a Tory landslide, but Electoral Calculus says it won't. I'm not sure how much faith to put in their model these days, but if it's right, then Tory activists will compare 2010 with 1983 and demand serious change in the system. And I'm not talking PR, either. Constituency boundaries based on residential property values, perhaps?
Agree with you wholeheartedly IA,
Innocent Abroad, you may have missed my post at 08.23 quoting your top post verbatim. I abbreviated you to IA which may be why you missed my acknowledging you: you did indeed say it, and with great insight.
Nick Palmer - I'll place a bet with you that the Conservatives will beat Labour by a minimum of 6%. Take it on?
My apologies. I get called IA, Innocent and even Mr Abroad so I don't always manage to check on all the responses I get...
EdM is clearly a major drag on the Labour vote. But then the Tory brand is a pretty significant drag on the Tory vote. There is a case for saying both parties should now be home and dry in terms of winning next year, but that the issues they have created for themselves mean that they are not. Throw in an unprecedented coalition and everything is up in the air.
What seems certain is that the election will not be decided by people switching back and forth between Labour and Tory. Instead, it will be all about how many votes the LDs, UKIP and the SNP get, and in which constituencies.
Was the glossed over announcement by Burnham that social care would be brought into the NHS not significant then?
Yes, it's been noted that Labour are planning another reorganisation of Everyone's NHS.
No, Andy Burnham has been clear that there will be no top-down mandate for change, just permission for health economies to reform in their own time - which is Simon Stevens' position too. The only top-down measure will be the repeal of the Act
You can't have it both ways. You can't say the Act was the biggest disaster ever to befall the NHS, risking its death within 90 days. And then also say repealing the Act will be no biggie. Everyone will take it in their stride.
Correct. Either they were lying then or lying now. I suppose its more than likely they are lying on both occasions. As I understand the conversation, its proposed to put politicians back in charge of commissioning. Thats good for the NHS? Its a backward step as is effectively (although allegedly) pushing out private providers. Bringing in private providers was specifically in the 2010 labour manifesto. Now they are implying its not needed. Its pretty obvious this is just base politics. Once in power private providers will be sneaked in. How can any rational person vote for such a dishonesty person.
Why should it be safe and moral to put our lives in the hands of private providers to fly the Atlantic but not in the NHS? Why do NHS providers all over the world not blanch at private supply publicly paid for- except the UK Labour party? Why is it OK for private companies to sell billions of pounds worth of equipment but wrong for them to mop the floors and serve out mashed potato?
Its political bigotry and opportunism and crass hypocrisy fed by trade union militancy and self interest.
I profoundly disagree with David (and those of you who have posted comments broadly supportive of him).
First, the polls are in uncharted territory, viz:- a fixed-term Parliament. I suspect there are still a lot of floating voters out there, who may say this to a pollster or they may say that, but are a long way from feeling strongly about it.
Second, the historical record is that the Tories always campaign far better than Labour does (I think this was even true in 1997) and go up about 3 points in the polls, which Labour go down.
Third, it is hard not to see Cameron trashing Miliband in the TV debates (although also not hard to see Farage trashing the pair of them).
For this reason I predict a popular vote result (%ages) about: Con 35, Lab 25, UKIP 23, others the rest, with the SNP, standing only in Scotland of course, outpolling the Lib Dems standing throughout Britain.
That ought to produce a Tory landslide, but Electoral Calculus says it won't. I'm not sure how much faith to put in their model these days, but if it's right, then Tory activists will compare 2010 with 1983 and demand serious change in the system. And I'm not talking PR, either. Constituency boundaries based on residential property values, perhaps?
Agree with you wholeheartedly IA,
Nick Palmer - I'll place a bet with you that the Conservatives will beat Labour by a minimum of 6%. Take it on?
YDoethur, "Ynys Môn could well be vulnerable depending on the Plaid candidate..."
Ynys Môn has never thrown out a sitting MP. Although it has changed from Liberal to Labour to Tory to Plaid Cymru to Labour, the changes always took place when the MP stood down.
So, unless Albert Owen stands down, historical precedence says that it will stay Labour.
It's instructive to see Tories on here repeat the mistakes of the Scot Nats over the last few months.
Like ScotNats claimed Salmond would thrash Darling in the debates, we hear the same about Cameron. Long term polling numbers that they don't like are simply ignored.
It's wish fulfilment, Ed Milliband can't eat a bacon sandwich properly, therefore it's impossible for him to be become PM. Anything that disagrees with preconceptions are ignored. 1992 is cast up as proof that polls can be ignored, a quarter of a century of polling methodology improvements forgotten.
The facts look quite clear, the LD -> Lab switchers aren't going anywhere, the right is split, the labour vote distribution is more effective and the left are smarter tactical voters.
It seems impossible for Labour to not be the largest party in these circumstances, Scotland being the only wildcard
"Britain has been told to pay more than £10 million in unemployment benefit to eastern European migrants who have left Britain, returned home and now cannot find a job.
Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia have demanded that Iain Duncan Smith’s department funds their jobless citizens because they once worked and paid national insurance in the UK."
Surely this whole matter is getting ridiculous and needs sorting out - I am fairly sure that all nation members of the EU have different rules regarding payment of benefits to non-nationals.
Most EU countries have contributory systems, rather than entitlement systems, so the issue doesn't come up.
Mrs @audreyanne OGH and I have a fundamentally different view of things - he told me most emphatically that "Tories Were Supplicants" to the LDs in coalition.
I didn't believe it then, and don't believe it now. I had respect for Mr Clegg's cojones at the beginning, since then he's been pushed about endlessly. And just look at his pitiful poll ratings. Poor chap is surrounded by paper-tigers like St Vince Of 2020 Hindsight agitating for his demise.
LD-Lab switching is one of the three crucial numbers for 2015. The others are, as you say (or imply), Lab-Others switching and Con-Others (mainly UKIP) switching. There's been virtually no Con-Lab movement.
At the moment, all three look good for Labour but the weakest for them is the second one. It's not just Lab to UKIP but to Green and SNP too. If Labour do lose the election, that's where it's currently most likely to happen. But as I said earlier, at the moment, it's more likely than not that Miliband will form a government after the election.
I think Mike's mantra is misguided. It's an outdated myopian static model. 'The electorate' now are fluid, dynamic and lacking loyalties. There is also a lot of anger in the mix. Relying on fixed past models is deeply flawed.
"Britain has been told to pay more than £10 million in unemployment benefit to eastern European migrants who have left Britain, returned home and now cannot find a job.
Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia have demanded that Iain Duncan Smith’s department funds their jobless citizens because they once worked and paid national insurance in the UK."
Surely this whole matter is getting ridiculous and needs sorting out - I am fairly sure that all nation members of the EU have different rules regarding payment of benefits to non-nationals.
Just tell them they have to turn up at the Job Centre every Monday, that will end it.
"If Miliband does form a government - and personally, I think it more likely than not - I'd expect Labour to be polling in the teens by 2017. Indeed, Miliband may well be Labour's last prime minister."
A while back, Henry G Manson said in one of his many insightful posts that he expected Labour to win the election and then to become very, very unpopular.
I think that is right.
The surprising thing about the Scottish referendum was the ease with which the core Labour vote was fractured in the Central Belt.
There must be a real possibility that Labour will break up, if they win.
Because that is what happened in Central Belt. The more radical or deprived part of the Labour vote detached itself and aligned with the SNP.
While it's true that certain parts of our poltical situation are unprecedented at the least in the modern experience, i'm inclined to agree more with NPSTBMPA* (that is to say,Mr Palmer) about the lack of huge blocs of undecided voters. Of course I could be wrong, but everyone just seems so set, and that people are worried aboutt Ed M does not seem to be putting them off voting Labour, Granted they do not have a barnstorming lead, but scenarios where the Tories match or exceed their 2010 vote, a remarkable achievement that they seem to be taking for granted, might not even prevent a Labour win, I'd long assumed the LDs would get 15 plus percent, but 15 now looks like the maximum they could hope for and probably closer to 10, which was the only way I could see Labour being hurt enough to not win.
At the end of the day, even though the situation is entirely new, the drivers of the votes are still capable of being predicted, and it takes a lot going their war for the Tories to win, and quite a bit going wrong for Labour not to win, How lucky are the Tories going to be? They don't seem very lucky to me.
For what it's worth though, I am still undecided though. If not independent who is even remotely presentable stands, the gods only know who I''ll vote for. Not that voting anything but Tory round this way matters.
*As I am about to head out for a walk, I guess I should confirm just in case that this of course stands for Nick Palmer soon to be MP again. Probably.
I profoundly disagree with David (and those of you who have posted comments broadly supportive of him).
First, the polls are in uncharted territory, viz:- a fixed-term Parliament. I suspect there are still a lot of floating voters out there, who may say this to a pollster or they may say that, but are a long way from feeling strongly about it.
Second, the historical record is that the Tories always campaign far better than Labour does (I think this was even true in 1997) and go up about 3 points in the polls, which Labour go down.
Third, it is hard not to see Cameron trashing Miliband in the TV debates (although also not hard to see Farage trashing the pair of them).
For this reason I predict a popular vote result (%ages) about: Con 35, Lab 25, UKIP 23, others the rest, with the SNP, standing only in Scotland of course, outpolling the Lib Dems standing throughout Britain.
That ought to produce a Tory landslide, but Electoral Calculus says it won't. I'm not sure how much faith to put in their model these days, but if it's right, then Tory activists will compare 2010 with 1983 and demand serious change in the system. And I'm not talking PR, either. Constituency boundaries based on residential property values, perhaps?
Agree with you wholeheartedly IA,
Nick Palmer - I'll place a bet with you that the Conservatives will beat Labour by a minimum of 6%. Take it on?
Nick? Care to respond?
PtP oh I'll be around all right
You willing to offer the bet to others? I'd be very interested in that. What odds and what sort of size are you thinking?
"If Miliband does form a government - and personally, I think it more likely than not - I'd expect Labour to be polling in the teens by 2017. Indeed, Miliband may well be Labour's last prime minister."
A while back, Henry G Manson said in one of his many insightful posts that he expected Labour to win the election and then to become very, very unpopular.
I think that is right.
The surprising thing about the Scottish referendum was the ease with which the core Labour vote was fractured in the Central Belt.
There must be a real possibility that Labour will break up, if they win.
Because that is what happened in Central Belt. The more radical or deprived part of the Labour vote detached itself and aligned with the SNP.
It gets you in power, and that's all that matters to any political leadership. They will be confident, perhaps unreasonably, that they can ride out any dissatisfaction.
It's instructive to see Tories on here repeat the mistakes of the Scot Nats over the last few months.
Like ScotNats claimed Salmond would thrash Darling in the debates, we hear the same about Cameron. Long term polling numbers that they don't like are simply ignored.
It's wish fulfilment, Ed Milliband can't eat a bacon sandwich properly, therefore it's impossible for him to be become PM. Anything that disagrees with preconceptions are ignored. 1992 is cast up as proof that polls can be ignored, a quarter of a century of polling methodology improvements forgotten.
The facts look quite clear, the LD -> Lab switchers aren't going anywhere, the right is split, the labour vote distribution is more effective and the left are smarter tactical voters.
It seems impossible for Labour to not be the largest party in these circumstances, Scotland being the only wildcard
Unlike the referendum, the GE in Scotland will give Labour every opportunity to demonstrate that they are not the Tories, so I am not sure that there will be the huge surge to the SNP that some predict. What the referendum may have done, though, is detoxify the Tory brand to an extent. That may affect constituencies in funny ways.
I've been very intrigued by the existential crisis about Scotland on pro-Labour websites. It's really thrown them. This isn't something I understand at all, and would really appreciate some exposition from someone who feels it.
It's a great shame that we don't have any SLABers here. There's a couple on The Times website, but they're so tribal as to be uninformative.
Morning all and a very good thread David. A dangerous strategy indeed on the part of Labour. One word could blow the whole thing apart, "Scotland". It is quite clear that the SNP aims to replace SLAB as the principal centre-left party and the election of Nicola Sturgeon will see any pretence of a centrist policy disappear as she and her Central Belt bias set out to pick off Labour MPs, starting with those in whose constituencies there was a large YES vote.
Roughly half of Scotland's Labour MPs will presumably be targeted and while their enormous majorities might suggest most are safe, after the referendum vote, surely all bets must be off. It will be interesting to hear how many more SLAB MPs decide to retire in May, starting with G Brown and A Darling.
Was the glossed over announcement by Burnham that social care would be brought into the NHS not significant then?
Yes, it's been noted that Labour are planning another reorganisation of Everyone's NHS.
No, Andy Burnham has been clear that there will be no top-down mandate for change, just permission for health economies to reform in their own time - which is Simon Stevens' position too. The only top-down measure will be the repeal of the Act
You can't have it both ways. You can't say the Act was the biggest disaster ever to befall the NHS, risking its death within 90 days. And then also say repealing the Act will be no biggie. Everyone will take it in their stride.
Correct. Either they were lying then or lying now. I suppose its more than likely they are lying on both occasions. As I understand the conversation, its proposed to put politicians back in charge of commissioning. Thats good for the NHS? SNIP
Why should it be safe and moral to put our lives in the hands of private providers to fly the Atlantic but not in the NHS? Why do NHS providers all over the world not blanch at private supply publicly paid for- except the UK Labour party? Why is it OK for private companies to sell billions of pounds worth of equipment but wrong for them to mop the floors and serve out mashed potato?
Its political bigotry and opportunism and crass hypocrisy fed by trade union militancy and self interest.
It is also past experience. I left the Labour party a decade or so ago because I could see how private providers introduced by Milburn were skimming off the lucrative work and not interested in the long term grind.
I suspect the bed reduction plans in the Better Care Together scheme, with shift to chronic care being in community services, are unrealistic. This means that there will be emergency patients in the beds needed for elective surgery, and private providers will mop up this work.
In practice, I see it as a shift back to the 1930's with the poor and chronically sick being managed in workhouse hospitals run by local councils, with a hodgepodge of private and voluntary providers caring for the rest.
While Harry Smith gave a good speech about Barnsley in the 30's, he gave a misleading impression. There was quite extensive state funding of health care in the 1930's via councils and Lloyd Georges panel doctors. Indeed the Leicester General Hospital that is threatened with closure was ironically Leicester's main workhouse hospital pre 1948.
While it's true that certain parts of our poltical situation are unprecedented at the least in the modern experience, i'm inclined to agree more with NPSTBMPA* (that is to say,Mr Palmer) about the lack of huge blocs of undecided voters. Of course I could be wrong, but everyone just seems so set, and that people are worried aboutt Ed M does not seem to be putting them off voting Labour, Granted they do not have a barnstorming lead, but scenarios where the Tories match or exceed their 2010 vote, a remarkable achievement that they seem to be taking for granted, might not even prevent a Labour win, I'd long assumed the LDs would get 15 plus percent, but 15 now looks like the maximum they could hope for and probably closer to 10, which was the only way I could see Labour being hurt enough to not win.
At the end of the day, even though the situation is entirely new, the drivers of the votes are still capable of being predicted, and it takes a lot going their war for the Tories to win, and quite a bit going wrong for Labour not to win, How lucky are the Tories going to be? They don't seem very lucky to me.
For what it's worth though, I am still undecided though. If not independent who is even remotely presentable stands, the gods only know who I''ll vote for. Not that voting anything but Tory round this way matters.
*As I am about to head out for a walk, I guess I should confirm just in case that this of course stands for Nick Palmer soon to be MP again. Probably.
" A Miliband-led Labour government elected primarily because it wasn’t the Tories could find itself in an extremely weak polling position very quickly "
And EdM's government might be a very weak position in the HoC.
An EdM government which collapses in massive unpopularity after a couple of years might face the perfect electoral storm as it fights on various electoral fronts - Con, LibDem, UKIP and SNP.
"If Miliband does form a government - and personally, I think it more likely than not - I'd expect Labour to be polling in the teens by 2017. Indeed, Miliband may well be Labour's last prime minister."
A while back, Henry G Manson said in one of his many insightful posts that he expected Labour to win the election and then to become very, very unpopular.
I think that is right.
The surprising thing about the Scottish referendum was the ease with which the core Labour vote was fractured in the Central Belt.
There must be a real possibility that Labour will break up, if they win.
Because that is what happened in Central Belt. The more radical or deprived part of the Labour vote detached itself and aligned with the SNP.
The SNP and UKIP occupy very different places on the left-right spectrum.
However, in a marriage it is the first infidelity that does the damage.
It's instructive to see Tories on here repeat the mistakes of the Scot Nats over the last few months.
Like ScotNats claimed Salmond would thrash Darling in the debates, we hear the same about Cameron. Long term polling numbers that they don't like are simply ignored.
It's wish fulfilment, Ed Milliband can't eat a bacon sandwich properly, therefore it's impossible for him to be become PM. Anything that disagrees with preconceptions are ignored. 1992 is cast up as proof that polls can be ignored, a quarter of a century of polling methodology improvements forgotten.
The facts look quite clear, the LD -> Lab switchers aren't going anywhere, the right is split, the labour vote distribution is more effective and the left are smarter tactical voters.
It seems impossible for Labour to not be the largest party in these circumstances, Scotland being the only wildcard
Well said. As unusual as the situation is, far too many are having to rely on words to the effect of 'the polls right now mean nothing because x' and reliance on predicted shifts from a very long term set of signals. While there is thepossibility those signals prove misleading, relying on ignoring evidence is risky business. At the moment the Tories are relying on even more shaky foundations than those predicting a Labour win.
Often government's abilities are judged on three things: capacity, corporate governance and capability & competence. The first two are (or should be) mainly the area of the civil service but the last is definitely in the area of the ruling political party (though some are open to bribes of all types).
To date a 2015 Labour has shown very little capability to govern from that date and the deal effectively with the home and overseas problems that beset the UK and its people. Certainly EdM has shown only the capability of fratricide and seems to be way out of touch with the rest - or does not want to acknowledge what is happening.
His team's thinking appears to be late of the 1900s, instead of looking at what is required for the 2020s. This can only be a disaster for the UK and lead to a continuing decline in its economic heath. It is the same way that EdM let Energy meander when he was in charge, instead of pursuing a defined and forward looking policy and actions. EdM may not be a leopard, but his skin colour and instincts have not and will not change.
It requires a fair degree of careful perception to undertake a good gap analysis, it takes even more perception and forward thinking to set down an action plan to fill those gaps - qualities that are evidently missing from EdM and most of his team (except a junior few), and class warfare and politics of envy are not the answer for the future.
"Britain has been told to pay more than £10 million in unemployment benefit to eastern European migrants who have left Britain, returned home and now cannot find a job.
Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia have demanded that Iain Duncan Smith’s department funds their jobless citizens because they once worked and paid national insurance in the UK."
Surely this whole matter is getting ridiculous and needs sorting out - I am fairly sure that all nation members of the EU have different rules regarding payment of benefits to non-nationals.
Most EU countries have contributory systems, rather than entitlement systems, so the issue doesn't come up.
A DWP spokesman said: "This government does not pay benefits to someone in another country when they would not have been eligible for them in the UK.
@Lennon - the answer is that I see the vote fracturing. It's got some fairly wealthy pockets (nice flats and waterside developments) that might go Tory, a bit of student housing that will probably stay solidly Labour but might go Plaid or green, tribal Labour vote that will stay Labour no matter what, and a sort of drifting lower-middle class that might go UKIP. The Tories have always been the main challengers - but in a four cornered fight you never know who could win.
So my tip would be - don't bet on it. This used to be a very safe Labour seat for Alun Michael, terrible minister though he was, but the new MP hasn't had long to bed in and might well be vulnerable to a surge from any party.
A more realistic betting position, if you can find one, would be for Labour to win fewer than 25 seats in Wales. That would rely on them not winning back many seats - but as their two realistic targets are Cardiff Central on a student rebellion and Cardiff North with a retiring MP, that's hardly a problem (I don't think they'll retake South Pembs). At the same time, I could see them losing the few remaining seats they have in rural Wales (Ynys Môn could well be vulnerable depending on the Plaid candidate) and possibly also Llanelli and Cardiff South. That would take them below 25, which would certainly be an embarrassing result for Labour whatever the national outcome.
It might also have interesting implications for the Assembly elections, which are held the following year and by which time Labour will have been in power, rather ineffectually, for 17 years - but we can hopefully talk about them nearer the time!
Cardiff Central should go Labour and the likely main cause would be the student vote ( which is significant), but that said Jenny Willott the incumbent LD voted against tuition fess, I recall, which may help her individual cause in trying to swim against the tide. Her best bet is surely to persuade the reasonably substantial Tory vote to go for her tactically. I expect Labour to win but it could be fairly tight. The identical Assembly seat was won by Labour by 100 odd ( edit: it was only 38 in fact )in 2011.
I much prefer a cricketing analogy which is Geoff Boycott's forward defensive,his best, and my only, batting stroke.Personally,I was enthralled by Geoffrey's discipline and pig-headedness and could watch his forward defensive for a full 5 day test match.That's more where Labour are,scoring the odd single,now and again-if you can't win,don't lose .The main objective is to stay at the crease.As Geoffrey says, you can't score runs back in the pavilion.
Maybe it is the beautiful autumn sunshine (always my favourite light of the year) or the fact it is my birthday but I am getting a little more optimistic for the Tories at the next election. Labour are undoubtedly in a very strong position and with a half decent leader, let alone a Blair, they would be home and hosed. But they don't have one, they have Ed.
I rate Cameron far more highly than most on these threads but even if I were wrong about that he is indisputably a different and better class of campaigner than Ed. When I looked at the Labour Conference I did not see wise caution, I saw a party paralysed under a leader that makes Gordon Brown look decisive, who is terrified of sharing the limelight with his team (700 words for the shadow cabinet ) and who cannot decide on anything other than the wonders of the NHS and how much he hates the Tories.
It is not enough and it has given the Tories a chance to once again set the agenda and the nature of the discussion over the next few months.
I profoundly disagree with David (and those of you who have posted comments broadly supportive of him).
First, the polls are in uncharted territory, viz:- a fixed-term Parliament. I suspect there are still a lot of floating voters out there, who may say this to a pollster or they may say that, but are a long way from feeling strongly about it.
Second, the historical record is that the Tories always campaign far better than Labour does (I think this was even true in 1997) and go up about 3 points in the polls, which Labour go down.
Third, it is hard not to see Cameron trashing Miliband in the TV debates (although also not hard to see Farage trashing the pair of them).
For this reason I predict a popular vote result (%ages) about: Con 35, Lab 25, UKIP 23, others the rest, with the SNP, standing only in Scotland of course, outpolling the Lib Dems standing throughout Britain.
That ought to produce a Tory landslide, but Electoral Calculus says it won't. I'm not sure how much faith to put in their model these days, but if it's right, then Tory activists will compare 2010 with 1983 and demand serious change in the system. And I'm not talking PR, either. Constituency boundaries based on residential property values, perhaps?
Agree with you wholeheartedly IA,
Nick Palmer - I'll place a bet with you that the Conservatives will beat Labour by a minimum of 6%. Take it on?
Nick? Care to respond?
PtP oh I'll be around all right
You willing to offer the bet to others? I'd be very interested in that. What odds and what sort of size are you thinking?
It is worth noting that a 6% lead for the Tories does not probably lead to a majority government, it repeats 2010. In such an election all would depend on how the other 35% vote and how this is spread geographically.
Maybe it is the beautiful autumn sunshine (always my favourite light of the year) or the fact it is my birthday but I am getting a little more optimistic for the Tories at the next election. Labour are undoubtedly in a very strong position and with a half decent leader, let alone a Blair, they would be home and hosed. But they don't have one, they have Ed.
I rate Cameron far more highly than most on these threads but even if I were wrong about that he is indisputably a different and better class of campaigner than Ed. When I looked at the Labour Conference I did not see wise caution, I saw a party paralysed under a leader that makes Gordon Brown look decisive, who is terrified of sharing the limelight with his team (700 words for the shadow cabinet ) and who cannot decide on anything other than the wonders of the NHS and how much he hates the Tories.
It is not enough and it has given the Tories a chance to once again set the agenda and the nature of the discussion over the next few months.
Thanks Plato. Good to see you posting more regularly again. Hopefully some of the other missing posters will return as the election approaches.
I was so desperate - I voted Labour. That's how bad IDS was. I was appalled when the Tories chose him. Only John Redwood in a Star Trek uniform would've been worse.
I wish PB had been around then, what a hoot those threads would've been.
Didn't Mssrs Redwood and Clarke get into bed together at the end?
Staying in Barra as the only Tory in a big house full of Labourites, it was entertaining to witness their embarrassment with Ed Miliband, It struck me they were confronted with a bullet that thankfully as a life-long Tory I had dodged - namely, could I in all conscience have voted in 2005 for Iain Duncan-Smith to be our Prime Minister?
"Britain has been told to pay more than £10 million in unemployment benefit to eastern European migrants who have left Britain, returned home and now cannot find a job.
Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia have demanded that Iain Duncan Smith’s department funds their jobless citizens because they once worked and paid national insurance in the UK."
Surely this whole matter is getting ridiculous and needs sorting out - I am fairly sure that all nation members of the EU have different rules regarding payment of benefits to non-nationals.
Most EU countries have contributory systems, rather than entitlement systems, so the issue doesn't come up.
A DWP spokesman said: "This government does not pay benefits to someone in another country when they would not have been eligible for them in the UK.
We'll see how that goes. On past form, HMG will talk tough, and cave in.
---
The Conservatives failure to address the budget deficit shows up clearly in welfare spending:
"...in Britain since 2010, when the Coalition came to power, spending on welfare as share of GDP has barely moved – falling by just a quarter of one per cent over three years, according to OECD data.
By contrast, more than a third of developed nations have cut their welfare bills steeply in that period. Germany has cut social security spending as a share of GDP by 3.4 per cent, Canada by 3 per cent, Iceland by 4.2 per cent, Switzerland by 7 per cent and Estonia by 11 per cent."
UKIP's Migration spokesman Steven Wolfe used a verse of this Kipling poem in his speech today and I thought given how much of UKIP's news heartlands are those where the Saxon's were prominent and is rather apt:
"My son," said the Norman Baron, "I am dying, and you will be heir To all the broad acres in England that William gave me for share When he conquered the Saxon at Hastings, and a nice little handful it is. But before you go over to rule it I want you to understand this:–
"The Saxon is not like us Normans. His manners are not so polite. But he never means anything serious till he talks about justice and right. When he stands like an ox in the furrow – with his sullen set eyes on your own, And grumbles, 'This isn't fair dealing,' my son, leave the Saxon alone.
"You can horsewhip your Gascony archers, or torture your Picardy spears; But don't try that game on the Saxon; you'll have the whole brood round your ears. From the richest old Thane in the county to the poorest chained serf in the field, They'll be at you and on you like hornets, and, if you are wise, you will yield.
"But first you must master their language, their dialect, proverbs and songs. Don't trust any clerk to interpret when they come with the tale of their wrongs. Let them know that you know what they're saying; let them feel that you know what to say. Yes, even when you want to go hunting, hear 'em out if it takes you all day.
They'll drink every hour of the daylight and poach every hour of the dark. It's the sport not the rabbits they're after (we've plenty of game in the park). Don't hang them or cut off their fingers. That's wasteful as well as unkind, For a hard-bitten, South-country poacher makes the best man- at-arms you can find.
"Appear with your wife and the children at their weddings and funerals and feasts. Be polite but not friendly to Bishops; be good to all poor parish priests. Say 'we,' 'us' and 'ours' when you're talking, instead of 'you fellows' and 'I.' Don't ride over seeds; keep your temper; and never you tell 'em a lie!"
Tory 'Normans' take note!
Kipling was really talking about India though, wasn't he?
In that poem? No.
Well there's a pretty damn strong subtext, coming from an Anglo-Indian as it did.
While it's true that certain parts of our poltical situation are unprecedented at the least in the modern experience, i'm inclined to agree more with NPSTBMPA* (that is to say,Mr Palmer) about the lack of huge blocs of undecided voters. Of course I could be wrong, but everyone just seems so set, and that people are worried aboutt Ed M does not seem to be putting them off voting Labour, Granted they do not have a barnstorming lead, but scenarios where the Tories match or exceed their 2010 vote, a remarkable achievement that they seem to be taking for granted, might not even prevent a Labour win, I'd long assumed the LDs would get 15 plus percent, but 15 now looks like the maximum they could hope for and probably closer to 10, which was the only way I could see Labour being hurt enough to not win.
At the end of the day, even though the situation is entirely new, the drivers of the votes are still capable of being predicted, and it takes a lot going their war for the Tories to win, and quite a bit going wrong for Labour not to win, How lucky are the Tories going to be? They don't seem very lucky to me.
For what it's worth though, I am still undecided though. If not independent who is even remotely presentable stands, the gods only know who I''ll vote for. Not that voting anything but Tory round this way matters.
*As I am about to head out for a walk, I guess I should confirm just in case that this of course stands for Nick Palmer soon to be MP again. Probably.
I think that article by James Kirkup has it's finger on the electoral pulse more than either Mike Smithson or David Herdson. Politics has moved on and is indeed fluid in a way never previously experienced. It's a pick n' mix political smorgasbord, or if you prefer something more technical from Levi-Strauss: bricolage.
It's instructive to see Tories on here repeat the mistakes of the Scot Nats over the last few months.
Like ScotNats claimed Salmond would thrash Darling in the debates, we hear the same about Cameron. Long term polling numbers that they don't like are simply ignored.
It's wish fulfilment, Ed Milliband can't eat a bacon sandwich properly, therefore it's impossible for him to be become PM. Anything that disagrees with preconceptions are ignored. 1992 is cast up as proof that polls can be ignored, a quarter of a century of polling methodology improvements forgotten.
The facts look quite clear, the LD -> Lab switchers aren't going anywhere, the right is split, the labour vote distribution is more effective and the left are smarter tactical voters.
It seems impossible for Labour to not be the largest party in these circumstances, Scotland being the only wildcard
You're making several mistakes of your own there.
Firstly, Salmond did thrash Darling in the 2nd debate. It arguably was the trigger for a substantive convergence in the polling from c. 58-42 NO to 52-48 NO. On the day, the results more or less split that difference, but it's hard to argue Salmond's campaigning had no effect. And, of course, that was a very different election.
Secondly, there is plenty of polling evidence that David Cameron is miles ahead on leadership and best PM. This matters. Particularly with the presidential style debates, which the campaign will be dominated by, and the choice being presented as one of PM.
Third, true, only a fool would ignore the polls. But there is a trend of convergence in those polls ever since 2012. The politics home marginals poll took a sample size of 35000 voters in over 200 seats in Sept 2009 - it predicted a Tory majority of 70. We know how it ended up.
Fourthly, we simply don't know about the LD > Lab switchers. But I wouldn't bet my house on them. The Lib Dem vote in the Con-Lab key marginals has basically halved. Those who have switched express a strong preference for Labour, but 40% don't know how they will vote. Labour's approach of resting on their laurels and assuming they'll carry Ed Miliband to Downing Street on their shoulders seems foolhardy.
I remember both 1987 and 1992 when Labour said they'd lost because of the SDP/Lib Dems splitting the centre-left vote. It was only when they realised they needed to make a direct appeal to soft Tories *voting for the incumbent government* that they finally starting clocking the big leads they needed, and romped home to a landslide in 1997.
I think it'll be very close in terms of votes and seats.
"...in Britain since 2010, when the Coalition came to power, spending on welfare as share of GDP has barely moved – falling by just a quarter of one per cent over three years, according to OECD data."
Employment rising, but benefit payments not falling? Still, we have the fastest growing GDP in the G8..... ..What does GDP actually measure?
Unlike the referendum, the GE in Scotland will give Labour every opportunity to demonstrate that they are not the Tories, so I am not sure that there will be the huge surge to the SNP that some predict. What the referendum may have done, though, is detoxify the Tory brand to an extent. That may affect constituencies in funny ways.
I'm not convinced, Labour will (presumably) face a Nicola led SNP with its roots in the central belt. It's an much more authentic working class party, and it can tune it's message directly to Scotland. It doesn't need to speak to people in the midlands, it has no UKIP to ward off.
If the people of Scotland are smart (and I think they are) they'll understand that having a Westminster administration relying on the SNP for confidence isn't a bad thing for them. Another CSU perhaps
I see our great stewards of the economy are now proposing to flog new builds at ever bigger discount to first time buyers. Wouldn't it be better to recognise that the housing market is utterly broken? It won't help people who have invested in their first home at over the odds and can't afford to move on up. And are these direct subsidies to the homebuilders the best use of taxpayers money. No. What they're really doing is stacking another layer on the house of cards. As Peter from Putney did say, God help us..
Agree on housing.All the parties are trying to paper over the cracks, rather than look at the structural issues behind housing demand.
Supply and demand. It's a small country and they aren't making land anymore, ergo house prices will remain high.
It ain't THAT small. When the Metropolitan Green Belt alone covers more than three times as much land than has been built on in the entire UK, we don't have a land shortage.
Correction. We DO have a land shortage. But it's one that we voluntarily impose on ourselves and is at the crux of much of spending and cost of living issues. Because the theme that the Green Belt is such a wonderful idea, with visions of idyllic green parks and forests for the public (rather than the reality that nearly all of it is unavailable to the public, the majority is under intensive agricultural techniques, and most of what is left is "in transition" (ie decaying), that more land in Surrey is under golf courses tha houses) ... is a theme that no politician will address. Because we, the public, are so bought in to that illusory vision, that we'll crucify them if they do.
Maybe it is the beautiful autumn sunshine (always my favourite light of the year) or the fact it is my birthday but I am getting a little more optimistic for the Tories at the next election. Labour are undoubtedly in a very strong position and with a half decent leader, let alone a Blair, they would be home and hosed. But they don't have one, they have Ed.
I rate Cameron far more highly than most on these threads but even if I were wrong about that he is indisputably a different and better class of campaigner than Ed. When I looked at the Labour Conference I did not see wise caution, I saw a party paralysed under a leader that makes Gordon Brown look decisive, who is terrified of sharing the limelight with his team (700 words for the shadow cabinet ) and who cannot decide on anything other than the wonders of the NHS and how much he hates the Tories.
It is not enough and it has given the Tories a chance to once again set the agenda and the nature of the discussion over the next few months.
Thanks Plato. Good to see you posting more regularly again. Hopefully some of the other missing posters will return as the election approaches.
Good article from David as ever. I'd take issue only with one point, but it's an important one: "this week was not about preparing for the election, it was about preparing for government, hence Ed Balls’ claimed commitment to clearing the deficit."
I'd say the opposite: it is very striking that Labour are not doing anything to prepare for government. Their horizon appears to be 7th May 2015 and they seem to be acting as though politics will come to an end the following day, with nothing further to do.
As for Ed Balls' comments on the deficit, I think that supports my point. All he has done is say the maximum he thinks he can get away with without alienating Labour supporters in the hope of trying to regain a smidgen of economic credibility. But that maximum is so tiny that it doesn't even begin to scratch the surface: the paucity of the ambition, and the feebleness of what he announced compared with what everyone agrees is required, were extraordinary. It is all calibrated to the pre-election period, with no care to what they might actually have to do afterwards.
75 grand in 1974 seems a lot to me, but wouldn't the mansion tax be better if it only applied to new purchases?
Fraser Nelson (@FraserNelson) 27/09/2014 10:08 Fascinating interviews with pensioners who stand to lose quarter of their income under Labour's mansion tax thetimes.co.uk/tto/life/prope…
I see our great stewards of the economy are now proposing to flog new builds at ever bigger discount to first time buyers. Wouldn't it be better to recognise that the housing market is utterly broken? It won't help people who have invested in their first home at over the odds and can't afford to move on up. And are these direct subsidies to the homebuilders the best use of taxpayers money. No. What they're really doing is stacking another layer on the house of cards. As Peter from Putney did say, God help us..
Agree on housing.All the parties are trying to paper over the cracks, rather than look at the structural issues behind housing demand.
Supply and demand. It's a small country and they aren't making land anymore, ergo house prices will remain high.
It ain't THAT small. When the Metropolitan Green Belt alone covers more than three times as much land than has been built on in the entire UK, we don't have a land shortage.
Correction. We DO have a land shortage. But it's one that we voluntarily impose on ourselves and is at the crux of much of spending and cost of living issues. Because the theme that the Green Belt is such a wonderful idea, with visions of idyllic green parks and forests for the public (rather than the reality that nearly all of it is unavailable to the public, the majority is under intensive agricultural techniques, and most of what is left is "in transition" (ie decaying), that more land in Surrey is under golf courses tha houses) ... is a theme that no politician will address. Because we, the public, are so bought in to that illusory vision, that we'll crucify them if they do.
Politicians don't address it because existing home owners (who vote) go apoplectic whenever anyone so much as suggests putting up a single bungalow for priced-out, young, first-time buyers (who don't vote) anywhere within 5 miles of them.
So were your predecessors honorary ravishers of the Anglo-Saxons?
Having nigh done our family tree, (our surname is almost unchanged Anglo-Saxon), I found (from the rolls of Canterbury Cathedral) that they were 'Northmen' who settled in what is now Normandy and having put a 'le' in front of their name, came over with William the Conq. So in effect one family of Anglo-Saxons arguing with another. Funny old world isn't it.
UKIP's Migration spokesman Steven Wolfe used a verse of this Kipling poem in his speech today and I thought given how much of UKIP's news heartlands are those where the Saxon's were prominent and is rather apt:
"My son," said the Norman Baron, "I am dying, and you will be heir To all the broad acres in England that William gave me for share When he conquered the Saxon at Hastings, and a nice little handful it is. But before you go over to rule it I want you to understand this:–
"The Saxon is not like us Normans. His manners are not so polite. But he never means anything serious till he talks about justice and right. When he stands like an ox in the furrow – with his sullen set eyes on your own, And grumbles, 'This isn't fair dealing,' my son, leave the Saxon alone.
"You can horsewhip your Gascony archers, or torture your Picardy spears; But don't try that game on the Saxon; you'll have the whole brood round your ears. From the richest old Thane in the county to the poorest chained serf in the field, They'll be at you and on you like hornets, and, if you are wise, you will yield.
"But first you must master their language, their dialect, proverbs and songs. Don't trust any clerk to interpret when they come with the tale of their wrongs. Let them know that you know what they're saying; let them feel that you know what to say. Yes, even when you want to go hunting, hear 'em out if it takes you all day.
[snip]
"Appear with your wife and the children at their weddings and funerals and feasts. Be polite but not friendly to Bishops; be good to all poor parish priests. Say 'we,' 'us' and 'ours' when you're talking, instead of 'you fellows' and 'I.' Don't ride over seeds; keep your temper; and never you tell 'em a lie!"
I profoundly disagree with David (and those of you who have posted comments broadly supportive of him).
First, the polls are in uncharted territory, viz:- a fixed-term Parliament. I suspect there are still a lot of floating voters out there, who may say this to a pollster or they may say that, but are a long way from feeling strongly about it.
Second, the historical record is that the Tories always campaign far better than Labour does (I think this was even true in 1997) and go up about 3 points in the polls, which Labour go down.
Third, it is hard not to see Cameron trashing Miliband in the TV debates (although also not hard to see Farage trashing the pair of them).
For this reason I predict a popular vote result (%ages) about: Con 35, Lab 25, UKIP 23, others the rest, with the SNP, standing only in Scotland of course, outpolling the Lib Dems standing throughout Britain.
That ought to produce a Tory landslide, but Electoral Calculus says it won't. I'm not sure how much faith to put in their model these days, but if it's right, then Tory activists will compare 2010 with 1983 and demand serious change in the system. And I'm not talking PR, either. Constituency boundaries based on residential property values, perhaps?
Agree with you wholeheartedly IA,
Nick Palmer - I'll place a bet with you that the Conservatives will beat Labour by a minimum of 6%. Take it on?
Nick? Care to respond?
PtP oh I'll be around all right
Sure! Anything from £10 to £20, you choose. I suggest we take Britain rather than the UK - neither party is standing in many N Ireland seats. You know how to reach me, and if you prefer anonymity I assume Mike knows how to reach you and if you win i can send the cheque through him.
I profoundly disagree with David (and those of you who have posted comments broadly supportive of him).
First, the polls are in uncharted territory, viz:- a fixed-term Parliament. I suspect there are still a lot of floating voters out there, who may say this to a pollster or they may say that, but are a long way from feeling strongly about it.
Second, the historical record is that the Tories always campaign far better than Labour does (I think this was even true in 1997) and go up about 3 points in the polls, which Labour go down.
Third, it is hard not to see Cameron trashing Miliband in the TV debates (although also not hard to see Farage trashing the pair of them).
For this reason I predict a popular vote result (%ages) about: Con 35, Lab 25, UKIP 23, others the rest, with the SNP, standing only in Scotland of course, outpolling the Lib Dems standing throughout Britain.
That ought to produce a Tory landslide, but Electoral Calculus says it won't. I'm not sure how much faith to put in their model these days, but if it's right, then Tory activists will compare 2010 with 1983 and demand serious change in the system. And I'm not talking PR, either. Constituency boundaries based on residential property values, perhaps?
Agree with you wholeheartedly IA,
Nick Palmer - I'll place a bet with you that the Conservatives will beat Labour by a minimum of 6%. Take it on?
Nick? Care to respond?
PtP oh I'll be around all right
You willing to offer the bet to others? I'd be very interested in that. What odds and what sort of size are you thinking?
Morning all,
Here is the argument against @Innocent_Abroad, from the Fabians:
I'm not endorsing their view, but thought it might be of interest to PBers. A good part of the argument rests on the old saw that governments don't increase their vote after a term in power. Yet, as the article points out, this has happened three times since the War. Personally, I'm just not convinced that we won't see another of these elections - exceptions that prove the rule.
In the heat of the GE, the question will boil down to who is going to make you better off, IMHO. I don't think we can say at this stage that the answer will be Ed Miliband.
Miss Plato, in one poll Labour under Brown went to 19%.
Mori on 31/5/2009 - coincident with the Euro-election campaign and the Expenses scandal - had Labour on 18%, the same as the Lib Dems, with the Tories on 40%.
The desire of Lefties to believe they're a Higher Form Of Life is remarkable.
It takes political narcissism into a whole new dimension. I flatter myself that I know making omelettes requires egg box carnage. Lefties like to think No Eggs Were Hurt During The Making Of This Omelette. I'd prefer to accept I'm a Serial Killer d'Oeuf
I mean really? It's self-delusion on an epic scale. And immensely childish or even worse, adolescent.
David - you make it sound like a walk in the park for Labour - It certainly won't be that .... what seems likely to win it for Labour however is Cameron's ineffectiveness, put simply, he just hasn't got it, neither has Miliband for that matter, but people don't realise that yet. Incredible as it may seem, the great British Public seems ready and prepared to forgive Labour for delivering the greatest car crash of an economy ever seen in peace time. What this proves beyond doubt is that Labour is now firmly entrenched as the natural party of Government in this country and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. God help us all.
Incumbency bonus, surely? Even if genuine it is amazing how despised the Tory brand is that such an advantage may not matter. Nothing seems to dent the labour brand in the same way even if it is not as strong as it once was.
Mr @david_herdson - do you think the media will give EdM a lot of scrutiny in the run up to GE2015? They gave Labour a free pass in GE2010 because they expected Gordon to lose.
This time it's much less clear cut, IMO. I hope they do as I felt it was a lazy and complacent disservice to Joe Public last time around.
I suspect that Labour noticed that 45% of Scots voted for a dream.
Keeping any populist policies up their sleeve reduces opportunity for scrutiny, whilst hiding unpopular policies avoids scaring the horses. Pretend everything will be lovely, and power awaits.
To vote for a dream, someone has to be offering one. Despite Miliband talking until Christmas and claiming to have a ten-year vision (a helpful get-out clause for 2020, by the way), there wasn't any big dream linked to the real world.
To answer my own question, yes, he can breeze though but only if the other parties don't subject him and his party's policies to much greater scrutiny. I don't think there is any big announcement waiting to be made. Sure, there'll be more detail and more padding come next year but you run with your big announcements well in advance to build that dream that people can buy into. You can't fatten a pig on market day.
Who knows? They ought to but I wouldn't bank on it.
I profoundly disagree with David (and those of you who have posted comments broadly supportive of him).
First, the polls are in uncharted territory, viz:- a fixed-term Parliament. I suspect there are still a lot of floating voters out there, who may say this to a pollster or they may say that, but are a long way from feeling strongly about it.
Second, the historical record is that the Tories always campaign far better than Labour does (I think this was even true in 1997) and go up about 3 points in the polls, which Labour go down.
Third, it is hard not to see Cameron trashing Miliband in the TV debates (although also not hard to see Farage trashing the pair of them).
For this reason I predict a popular vote result (%ages) about: Con 35, Lab 25, UKIP 23, others the rest, with the SNP, standing only in Scotland of course, outpolling the Lib Dems standing throughout Britain.
That ought to produce a Tory landslide, but Electoral Calculus says it won't. I'm not sure how much faith to put in their model these days, but if it's right, then Tory activists will compare 2010 with 1983 and demand serious change in the system. And I'm not talking PR, either. Constituency boundaries based on residential property values, perhaps?
Agree with you wholeheartedly IA,
Nick Palmer - I'll place a bet with you that the Conservatives will beat Labour by a minimum of 6%. Take it on?
Nick? Care to respond?
PtP oh I'll be around all right
Sure! Anything from £10 to £20, you choose. I suggest we take Britain rather than the UK - neither party is standing in many N Ireland seats. You know how to reach me, and if you prefer anonymity I assume Mike knows how to reach you and if you win i can send the cheque through him.
I just find British shares of the vote confusing to find and tabulate so can we just stick to UK for ease of reference?
So I bet £10 with you that Conservatives will beat Labour by at least 6.0% in the popular UK share of the vote at the 2015 May General Election. If they fail to do so you win £10, if they do so I win £10.
Peter the Punter I believe you are arbiter of these things so if you could log that it'd be great.
Nick, yes he does (know how to contact) but I won't be disappearing anywhere and I think you're fairly traceable
We all forget things. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t important. For years, friends, I forgot to get married. And Justine, quite often, forgot to tell me she didn’t mind.
Mr @david_herdson - do you think the media will give EdM a lot of scrutiny in the run up to GE2015? They gave Labour a free pass in GE2010 because they expected Gordon to lose.
This time it's much less clear cut, IMO. I hope they do as I felt it was a lazy and complacent disservice to Joe Public last time around.
I suspect that Labour noticed that 45% of Scots voted for a dream.
Keeping any populist policies up their sleeve reduces opportunity for scrutiny, whilst hiding unpopular policies avoids scaring the horses. Pretend everything will be lovely, and power awaits.
To vote for a dream, someone has to be offering one. Despite Miliband talking until Christmas and claiming to have a ten-year vision (a helpful get-out clause for 2020, by the way), there wasn't any big dream linked to the real world.
To answer my own question, yes, he can breeze though but only if the other parties don't subject him and his party's policies to much greater scrutiny. I don't think there is any big announcement waiting to be made. Sure, there'll be more detail and more padding come next year but you run with your big announcements well in advance to build that dream that people can buy into. You can't fatten a pig on market day.
Who knows? They ought to but I wouldn't bank on it.
Is this a serious question? Will the media give Ed M a lot of scrutiny? You bet they will. There is a block of newspaper people who believe he is unfit to be PM. They'll make sure we know about it.
I'm hoping you'll give me some musical suggestions. You seemed to know your onions. I'm just a collector of stuff and facts as I love Trivia [who's actually a Roman goddess].
Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia have demanded that Iain Duncan Smith’s department funds their jobless citizens because they once worked and paid national insurance in the UK."
Surely this whole matter is getting ridiculous and needs sorting out - I am fairly sure that all nation members of the EU have different rules regarding payment of benefits to non-nationals.
Most EU countries have contributory systems, rather than entitlement systems, so the issue doesn't come up.
A DWP spokesman said: "This government does not pay benefits to someone in another country when they would not have been eligible for them in the UK.
We'll see how that goes. On past form, HMG will talk tough, and cave in.
---
The Conservatives failure to address the budget deficit shows up clearly in welfare spending:
"...in Britain since 2010, when the Coalition came to power, spending on welfare as share of GDP has barely moved – falling by just a quarter of one per cent over three years, according to OECD data.
By contrast, more than a third of developed nations have cut their welfare bills steeply in that period. Germany has cut social security spending as a share of GDP by 3.4 per cent, Canada by 3 per cent, Iceland by 4.2 per cent, Switzerland by 7 per cent and Estonia by 11 per cent."
You say this as if it were something to be ashamed of. What this government has managed to do in this Parliament is restrain public spending, absorb the higher interest bill, massively reduce the public sector head count but protect the poor and the low paid by largely preserving benefits ( the relatively trivial bedroom tax and the benefit cap being exceptions) whilst significantly reducing the quantity of tax paid by the low paid.
I think that this is something the Coalition can be proud of but it also reflects the fact that the last government was so incredibly wasteful that there were billions of low hanging fruit to be harvested. I fear in the next Parliament that will no longer be the case and many more decisions will have to be made that will hurt our less well off citizens. Given their record in this Parliament I would be more confident of the Tories making those decisions compassionately than a Labour Party who are in denial and will be driven into panic moves by the markets.
75 grand in 1974 seems a lot to me, but wouldn't the mansion tax be better if it only applied to new purchases?
Fraser Nelson (@FraserNelson) 27/09/2014 10:08 Fascinating interviews with pensioners who stand to lose quarter of their income under Labour's mansion tax thetimes.co.uk/tto/life/prope…
Did Nelson suggest they sell their mansions, buy somewhere a little cheaper and free up half a million in capital for them to spend ?
There's not going to be much sympathy for self-pitying multi-millionaire pensioners when real wages for workers are falling and home ownership has been in decline for over a decade.
The irony is that Osborne and Cable had agreed to bring in a mansion tax and get rid of the 50% income tax rate but were stopped from doing so by Cameron and Clegg.
Mr @david_herdson - do you think the media will give EdM a lot of scrutiny in the run up to GE2015? They gave Labour a free pass in GE2010 because they expected Gordon to lose.
This time it's much less clear cut, IMO. I hope they do as I felt it was a lazy and complacent disservice to Joe Public last time around.
I suspect that Labour noticed that 45% of Scots voted for a dream.
Keeping any populist policies up their sleeve reduces opportunity for scrutiny, whilst hiding unpopular policies avoids scaring the horses. Pretend everything will be lovely, and power awaits.
To vote for a dream, someone has to be offering one. Despite Miliband talking until Christmas and claiming to have a ten-year vision (a helpful get-out clause for 2020, by the way), there wasn't any big dream linked to the real world.
To answer my own question, yes, he can breeze though but only if the other parties don't subject him and his party's policies to much greater scrutiny. I don't think there is any big announcement waiting to be made. Sure, there'll be more detail and more padding come next year but you run with your big announcements well in advance to build that dream that people can buy into. You can't fatten a pig on market day.
Who knows? They ought to but I wouldn't bank on it.
Is this a serious question? Will the media give Ed M a lot of scrutiny? You bet they will. There is a block of newspaper people who believe he is unfit to be PM. They'll make sure we know about it.
It is a serious question. Hague and IDS both got a right going over from the press practically from Day 1. Admittedly, they were up a against Blair (and Alistair Campbell) at the peak of their powers, but the fact that Miliband has had four years with nothing like the same level of scrutiny makes me question whether it will happen to anything like that degree. Sure, it'll ramp up a bit as polling day approaches but the media rarely hold off stories or articles that they can run now, or at least, this month, which makes me think that there really isn't all that much desire to stick the boot in.
@Plato Years ago the door lock broke on my car. I put a card on the dash saying "The sound system is lousy, and my taste in music, even worse (P.S. the door doesn"t lock)" It never got touched.
TBH, I really don't think the Tories are despised at all. It's just fashionable speak, so most pretend to be a hater to fit in. Like being at art college and pretending to go on marches, but staying in bed instead.
When it comes to the privacy of the ballot box - they apply their critical faculties and vote accordingly. There will always be the tribal and low information voter who wouldn't spot EdM if he was stood next to them. But that goes for most Parties.
David - you make it sound like a walk in the park for Labour - It certainly won't be that .... what seems likely to win it for Labour however is Cameron's ineffectiveness, put simply, he just hasn't got it, neither has Miliband for that matter, but people don't realise that yet.
Snip for space
Incumbency bonus, surely? Even if genuine it is amazing how despised the Tory brand is that such an advantage may not matter. Nothing seems to dent the labour brand in the same way even if it is not as strong as it once was.
David - you make it sound like a walk in the park for Labour - It certainly won't be that .... what seems likely to win it for Labour however is Cameron's ineffectiveness, put simply, he just hasn't got it, neither has Miliband for that matter, but people don't realise that yet. Incredible as it may seem, the great British Public seems ready and prepared to forgive Labour for delivering the greatest car crash of an economy ever seen in peace time. What this proves beyond doubt is that Labour is now firmly entrenched as the natural party of Government in this country and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. God help us all.
Incumbency bonus, surely? Even if genuine it is amazing how despised the Tory brand is that such an advantage may not matter. Nothing seems to dent the labour brand in the same way even if it is not as strong as it once was.
Despised Tory brand with well-liked leader - versus heart-in-the-right place Labour with inability to run a whelk stall and an unelectable dorky leader.
75 grand in 1974 seems a lot to me, but wouldn't the mansion tax be better if it only applied to new purchases?
Fraser Nelson (@FraserNelson) 27/09/2014 10:08 Fascinating interviews with pensioners who stand to lose quarter of their income under Labour's mansion tax thetimes.co.uk/tto/life/prope…
Did Nelson suggest they sell their mansions, buy somewhere a little cheaper and free up half a million in capital for them to spend ?
There's not going to be much sympathy for self-pitying multi-millionaire pensioners when real wages for workers are falling and home ownership has been in decline for over a decade.
The irony is that Osborne and Cable had agreed to bring in a mansion tax and get rid of the 50% income tax rate but were stopped from doing so by Cameron and Clegg.
I do wonder how sustainable it is to bring in a Mansion Tax and not simultaneously reband the Council Tax, against updated ratings.
Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia have demanded that Iain Duncan Smith’s department funds their jobless citizens because they once worked and paid national insurance in the UK."
Surely this whole matter is getting ridiculous and needs sorting out - I am fairly sure that all nation members of the EU have different rules regarding payment of benefits to non-nationals.
Most EU countries have contributory systems, rather than entitlement systems, so the issue doesn't come up.
A DWP spokesman said: "This government does not pay benefits to someone in another country when they would not have been eligible for them in the UK.
We'll see how that goes. On past form, HMG will talk tough, and cave in.
---
The Conservatives failure to address the budget deficit shows up clearly in welfare spending:
"...in Britain since 2010, when the Coalition came to power, spending on welfare as share of GDP has barely moved – falling by just a quarter of one per cent over three years, according to OECD data.
By contrast, more than a third of developed nations have cut their welfare bills steeply in that period. Germany has cut social security spending as a share of GDP by 3.4 per cent, Canada by 3 per cent, Iceland by 4.2 per cent, Switzerland by 7 per cent and Estonia by 11 per cent."
You say this as if it were something to be ashamed of. What this government has managed to do in this Parliament is restrain public spending, absorb the higher interest bill, massively reduce the public sector head count but protect the poor and the low paid by largely preserving benefits ( the relatively trivial bedroom tax and the benefit cap being exceptions) whilst significantly reducing the quantity of tax paid by the low paid.
I think that this is something the Coalition can be proud of but it also reflects the fact that the last government was so incredibly wasteful that there were billions of low hanging fruit to be harvested. I fear in the next Parliament that will no longer be the case and many more decisions will have to be made that will hurt our less well off citizens. Given their record in this Parliament I would be more confident of the Tories making those decisions compassionately than a Labour Party who are in denial and will be driven into panic moves by the markets.
Nearly 50% of the benefits bill relates to pensions. This can only grow as our population ages.
Mr @david_herdson - do you think the media will give EdM a lot of scrutiny in the run up to GE2015? They gave Labour a free pass in GE2010 because they expected Gordon to lose.
This time it's much less clear cut, IMO. I hope they do as I felt it was a lazy and complacent disservice to Joe Public last time around.
Who knows? They ought to but I wouldn't bank on it.
Is this a serious question? Will the media give Ed M a lot of scrutiny? You bet they will. There is a block of newspaper people who believe he is unfit to be PM. They'll make sure we know about it.
It is a serious question. Hague and IDS both got a right going over from the press practically from Day 1. Admittedly, they were up a against Blair (and Alistair Campbell) at the peak of their powers, but the fact that Miliband has had four years with nothing like the same level of scrutiny makes me question whether it will happen to anything like that degree. Sure, it'll ramp up a bit as polling day approaches but the media rarely hold off stories or articles that they can run now, or at least, this month, which makes me think that there really isn't all that much desire to stick the boot in.
You're beginning to worry me David. I had your card marked as the sensible thread author on here. Again, it comes back to the fact we are in a fixed term parliament. You do actually know that's the case? Unlike your pb bubble no-one out there is thinking about an election. As we draw close to the real thing, and people wake up to the GE, Miliband is going to get scrutinised to the nth. That's putting it politely. I reckon he will be ripped to shreds next spring by some of the media. He has foolishly made significant enemies, and I'm not just referring to The Sun. That he is not up to the job is by now manifestly obvious to everyone except him.
75 grand in 1974 seems a lot to me, but wouldn't the mansion tax be better if it only applied to new purchases?
Fraser Nelson (@FraserNelson) 27/09/2014 10:08 Fascinating interviews with pensioners who stand to lose quarter of their income under Labour's mansion tax thetimes.co.uk/tto/life/prope…
Did Nelson suggest they sell their mansions, buy somewhere a little cheaper and free up half a million in capital for them to spend ?
There's not going to be much sympathy for self-pitying multi-millionaire pensioners when real wages for workers are falling and home ownership has been in decline for over a decade.
The irony is that Osborne and Cable had agreed to bring in a mansion tax and get rid of the 50% income tax rate but were stopped from doing so by Cameron and Clegg.
I do wonder how sustainable it is to bring in a Mansion Tax and not simultaneously reband the Council Tax, against updated ratings.
Adding new bands to council tax would be a better solution I feel personally. For a start the money would go to local councils which are being hammered by cuts. It also removes the need to create a new class of tax, which is effectively a ground rent to the state for owning property. As I've posted before, who knows where that will take us in ten or twenty years time once the principle has been established.
TBH, I was more concerned about Rachel Reeves not knowing what the OAP was. How can ANYONE with her shadow brief not know this pertinent and essential fact?
EdM not knowing the average grocery bill doesn't matter to me. When I was very flush £300 was pocket change. Now £30 isn't. It all depends on where you stand. He's paid a lot, so is his wife - I'd expect them to spend a lot on stuff. I felt he was trying to be all parsimonious as if he wasn't - so he fell into his own trap. Silly berk.
Employment rising, but benefit payments not falling
It's a measure across the Parliament.
Osborne wasted/lost a year in 2012, and both Tories and Labour have run phoney austerity arguments, neither of them daring to tell the truth - the cuts weren't happening.
Individual benefit rates rose by over 5% in the financial year of 2012/2013 if I recall correctly because they were still linked to RPI.
Tax receipts are rising faster than benefits now, roughly 4% versus <2%. The headline YTD numbers are distorted by April 2013 tax changes; another phoney narrative is being conducted on that subject.
It took two and a half years for the government to actually make any cuts to welfare that were worthy of the name.
It's also worth noting that if you're going to increase the population by 250,000-400,000 a year, chances are benefits totals will rise.
Comments
So were your predecessors honorary ravishers of the Anglo-Saxons?
Having nigh done our family tree, (our surname is almost unchanged Anglo-Saxon), I found (from the rolls of Canterbury Cathedral) that they were 'Northmen' who settled in what is now Normandy and having put a 'le' in front of their name, came over with William the Conq. So in effect one family of Anglo-Saxons arguing with another. Funny old world isn't it.
It may even revive local democracy, if councils have a much greater input into how the NHS operates locally.
Doubtfire@audreyanne That's interesting. The notion of isolationism whilst simultaneously wanting to be internationalist re trade just perplexes me.That's why I feel so confused about the current Kipper brand values. I've no idea which way they'll jump on an issue. This is something Mr Cameron lost me over for a while back in about 2012. I felt I didn't know WTF was going on in his head re minimum pricing of booze etc. All very Nanny Statism thinking.
German efficiency?
Nick Palmer - I'll place a bet with you that the Conservatives will beat Labour by a minimum of 6%. Take it on?
This time it's much less clear cut, IMO. I hope they do as I felt it was a lazy and complacent disservice to Joe Public last time around.
It was the Sun "wot" failed to win it?
Arguably, I'm one of them - except I don't live in a marginal.
We've been here before of course: April 1992, Kinnock vs. Major.
"Do I think the British will elect Ed Miliband to be their Prime Minister? You're 'aving a larf. "
Made yourself a bit of a hostage to fortune there, Audrey!
Or do you plan to slip quietly away like the two Stuarts - Truth and Dickson - who haven't been spotted since their hopeless prophecies reduced their credibility to zero?
I don't know if he will be the next PM or not, but unless the punters and the pollsters are very wrong indeed there has to be a good chance.
Let's discuss it again next May, if you are still around.
General Election 2015: It's Alien v Predator.....
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-ed-miliband-vetoes-andy-burnhams-plot-to-hand-nhs-cash-to-councils-9129585.html
Is the sort of story that makes me think that all is not well in the relationship between Miliband, Balls and Burnham.
Burnham is one of the few shadow cabinet members who can speak with emotional intelligence.
I think that he would be a very formidable LOTO.
"Britain has been told to pay more than £10 million in unemployment benefit to eastern European migrants who have left Britain, returned home and now cannot find a job.
Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia have demanded that Iain Duncan Smith’s department funds their jobless citizens because they once worked and paid national insurance in the UK."
Yet, just over a year ago, http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/412968/No-benefits-here-for-you-Poles-tell-jobless-Briton, who had worked for many years in Poland.
Surely this whole matter is getting ridiculous and needs sorting out - I am fairly sure that all nation members of the EU have different rules regarding payment of benefits to non-nationals.
I genuinely think David Cameron is a great Prime Minister. He has led a coalition Government remarkably successfully in a way that I'm not sure many politicians could have and I think his popularity ratings are starting to show it. Those figures posted below by Casino Royale about the marginals are astonishing. Labour should be very very worried within.
Next spring the country will reawaken not merely to the sounds of birdsong but also to a General Election. Until then there is no election noise at all, no consideration of it, and therefore no thought about which way to vote. Which deals with your point Nick about 'never in 40 years … ' Yep, well, never in 40 years have we had a fixed term parliament. Think back to every other election, by now since last spring there would have been election fever in the media. There's nothing.
They've included the snippet of Miliband looking gormless as Susannah Reid calls him "out of touch" for having no idea of a family food bill.
His hopelessness is there, stuck in everyone's mind.
If Burnahm is going anywhere, it will be after a lengthy spell at "Health"
What seems certain is that the election will not be decided by people switching back and forth between Labour and Tory. Instead, it will be all about how many votes the LDs, UKIP and the SNP get, and in which constituencies.
As I understand the conversation, its proposed to put politicians back in charge of commissioning. Thats good for the NHS? Its a backward step as is effectively (although allegedly) pushing out private providers. Bringing in private providers was specifically in the 2010 labour manifesto. Now they are implying its not needed. Its pretty obvious this is just base politics. Once in power private providers will be sneaked in. How can any rational person vote for such a dishonesty person.
Why should it be safe and moral to put our lives in the hands of private providers to fly the Atlantic but not in the NHS? Why do NHS providers all over the world not blanch at private supply publicly paid for- except the UK Labour party?
Why is it OK for private companies to sell billions of pounds worth of equipment but wrong for them to mop the floors and serve out mashed potato?
Its political bigotry and opportunism and crass hypocrisy fed by trade union militancy and self interest.
PtP oh I'll be around all right
Ynys Môn has never thrown out a sitting MP. Although it has changed from Liberal to Labour to Tory to Plaid Cymru to Labour, the changes always took place when the MP stood down.
So, unless Albert Owen stands down, historical precedence says that it will stay Labour.
Like ScotNats claimed Salmond would thrash Darling in the debates, we hear the same about Cameron. Long term polling numbers that they don't like are simply ignored.
It's wish fulfilment, Ed Milliband can't eat a bacon sandwich properly, therefore it's impossible for him to be become PM. Anything that disagrees with preconceptions are ignored. 1992 is cast up as proof that polls can be ignored, a quarter of a century of polling methodology improvements forgotten.
The facts look quite clear, the LD -> Lab switchers aren't going anywhere, the right is split, the labour vote distribution is more effective and the left are smarter tactical voters.
It seems impossible for Labour to not be the largest party in these circumstances, Scotland being the only wildcard
I didn't believe it then, and don't believe it now. I had respect for Mr Clegg's cojones at the beginning, since then he's been pushed about endlessly. And just look at his pitiful poll ratings. Poor chap is surrounded by paper-tigers like St Vince Of 2020 Hindsight agitating for his demise.
I think Mike's mantra is misguided. It's an outdated myopian static model. 'The electorate' now are fluid, dynamic and lacking loyalties. There is also a lot of anger in the mix. Relying on fixed past models is deeply flawed.
At the end of the day, even though the situation is entirely new, the drivers of the votes are still capable of being predicted, and it takes a lot going their war for the Tories to win, and quite a bit going wrong for Labour not to win, How lucky are the Tories going to be? They don't seem very lucky to me.
For what it's worth though, I am still undecided though. If not independent who is even remotely presentable stands, the gods only know who I''ll vote for. Not that voting anything but Tory round this way matters.
*As I am about to head out for a walk, I guess I should confirm just in case that this of course stands for Nick Palmer soon to be MP again. Probably.
It's a great shame that we don't have any SLABers here. There's a couple on The Times website, but they're so tribal as to be uninformative.
I suspect the bed reduction plans in the Better Care Together scheme, with shift to chronic care being in community services, are unrealistic. This means that there will be emergency patients in the beds needed for elective surgery, and private providers will mop up this work.
In practice, I see it as a shift back to the 1930's with the poor and chronically sick being managed in workhouse hospitals run by local councils, with a hodgepodge of private and voluntary providers caring for the rest.
While Harry Smith gave a good speech about Barnsley in the 30's, he gave a misleading impression. There was quite extensive state funding of health care in the 1930's via councils and Lloyd Georges panel doctors. Indeed the Leicester General Hospital that is threatened with closure was ironically Leicester's main workhouse hospital pre 1948.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11118860/Voters-are-going-to-shop-around-from-now-on.html
And EdM's government might be a very weak position in the HoC.
An EdM government which collapses in massive unpopularity after a couple of years might face the perfect electoral storm as it fights on various electoral fronts - Con, LibDem, UKIP and SNP.
We managed to fit that in too, and I had been trying to recall the name of the nearby castle we photographed.
To date a 2015 Labour has shown very little capability to govern from that date and the deal effectively with the home and overseas problems that beset the UK and its people. Certainly EdM has shown only the capability of fratricide and seems to be way out of touch with the rest - or does not want to acknowledge what is happening.
His team's thinking appears to be late of the 1900s, instead of looking at what is required for the 2020s. This can only be a disaster for the UK and lead to a continuing decline in its economic heath. It is the same way that EdM let Energy meander when he was in charge, instead of pursuing a defined and forward looking policy and actions. EdM may not be a leopard, but his skin colour and instincts have not and will not change.
It requires a fair degree of careful perception to undertake a good gap analysis, it takes even more perception and forward thinking to set down an action plan to fill those gaps - qualities that are evidently missing from EdM and most of his team (except a junior few), and class warfare and politics of envy are not the answer for the future.
And I'm with you totally here, re Mr Cameron. After having a serious tiff, I'm behind him 90% between now and GE2015.
Labour to poll 19% or lower ('the teens') in any poll published by a BPC member by 2017. Bets void if they don't form the next government.
I wish PB had been around then, what a hoot those threads would've been.
Didn't Mssrs Redwood and Clarke get into bed together at the end?
---
The Conservatives failure to address the budget deficit shows up clearly in welfare spending:
"...in Britain since 2010, when the Coalition came to power, spending on welfare as share of GDP has barely moved – falling by just a quarter of one per cent over three years, according to OECD data.
By contrast, more than a third of developed nations have cut their welfare bills steeply in that period. Germany has cut social security spending as a share of GDP by 3.4 per cent, Canada by 3 per cent, Iceland by 4.2 per cent, Switzerland by 7 per cent and Estonia by 11 per cent."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10574376/Graphic-Britain-outstrips-Europe-on-welfare-spending.html
Firstly, Salmond did thrash Darling in the 2nd debate. It arguably was the trigger for a substantive convergence in the polling from c. 58-42 NO to 52-48 NO. On the day, the results more or less split that difference, but it's hard to argue Salmond's campaigning had no effect. And, of course, that was a very different election.
Secondly, there is plenty of polling evidence that David Cameron is miles ahead on leadership and best PM. This matters. Particularly with the presidential style debates, which the campaign will be dominated by, and the choice being presented as one of PM.
Third, true, only a fool would ignore the polls. But there is a trend of convergence in those polls ever since 2012. The politics home marginals poll took a sample size of 35000 voters in over 200 seats in Sept 2009 - it predicted a Tory majority of 70. We know how it ended up.
Fourthly, we simply don't know about the LD > Lab switchers. But I wouldn't bet my house on them. The Lib Dem vote in the Con-Lab key marginals has basically halved. Those who have switched express a strong preference for Labour, but 40% don't know how they will vote. Labour's approach of resting on their laurels and assuming they'll carry Ed Miliband to Downing Street on their shoulders seems foolhardy.
I remember both 1987 and 1992 when Labour said they'd lost because of the SDP/Lib Dems splitting the centre-left vote. It was only when they realised they needed to make a direct appeal to soft Tories *voting for the incumbent government* that they finally starting clocking the big leads they needed, and romped home to a landslide in 1997.
I think it'll be very close in terms of votes and seats.
"...in Britain since 2010, when the Coalition came to power, spending on welfare as share of GDP has barely moved – falling by just a quarter of one per cent over three years, according to OECD data."
Employment rising, but benefit payments not falling?
Still, we have the fastest growing GDP in the G8.....
..What does GDP actually measure?
If the people of Scotland are smart (and I think they are) they'll understand that having a Westminster administration relying on the SNP for confidence isn't a bad thing for them. Another CSU perhaps
It ain't THAT small.
When the Metropolitan Green Belt alone covers more than three times as much land than has been built on in the entire UK, we don't have a land shortage.
Correction. We DO have a land shortage.
But it's one that we voluntarily impose on ourselves and is at the crux of much of spending and cost of living issues.
Because the theme that the Green Belt is such a wonderful idea, with visions of idyllic green parks and forests for the public (rather than the reality that nearly all of it is unavailable to the public, the majority is under intensive agricultural techniques, and most of what is left is "in transition" (ie decaying), that more land in Surrey is under golf courses tha houses) ... is a theme that no politician will address.
Because we, the public, are so bought in to that illusory vision, that we'll crucify them if they do.
She puts Phidippides to shame.
I'd say the opposite: it is very striking that Labour are not doing anything to prepare for government. Their horizon appears to be 7th May 2015 and they seem to be acting as though politics will come to an end the following day, with nothing further to do.
As for Ed Balls' comments on the deficit, I think that supports my point. All he has done is say the maximum he thinks he can get away with without alienating Labour supporters in the hope of trying to regain a smidgen of economic credibility. But that maximum is so tiny that it doesn't even begin to scratch the surface: the paucity of the ambition, and the feebleness of what he announced compared with what everyone agrees is required, were extraordinary. It is all calibrated to the pre-election period, with no care to what they might actually have to do afterwards.
Fraser Nelson (@FraserNelson)
27/09/2014 10:08
Fascinating interviews with pensioners who stand to lose quarter of their income under Labour's mansion tax thetimes.co.uk/tto/life/prope…
An even tempered thread this morning and, dare I say it? Erudite at times. Nice to just lurk.
It's one of the mirrors that can't be broken, or everything falls apart and the conjurers trousers fall down.
I'm sure the Conservative supporters here will be eager to tell me.
After all they wouldn't want to do the same thing they've accused EdM of doing this week.
I'm a mongrel - part Lancs part Irish and both 100% Geordie and Sussex!
I could raise the award to 20 internetz? and perhaps a second prize as well?
Here is the argument against @Innocent_Abroad, from the Fabians:
http://www.youngfabians.org.uk/why_labour_will_win_in_2015
I'm not endorsing their view, but thought it might be of interest to PBers. A good part of the argument rests on the old saw that governments don't increase their vote after a term in power. Yet, as the article points out, this has happened three times since the War. Personally, I'm just not convinced that we won't see another of these elections - exceptions that prove the rule.
In the heat of the GE, the question will boil down to who is going to make you better off, IMHO. I don't think we can say at this stage that the answer will be Ed Miliband.
It takes political narcissism into a whole new dimension. I flatter myself that I know making omelettes requires egg box carnage. Lefties like to think No Eggs Were Hurt During The Making Of This Omelette. I'd prefer to accept I'm a Serial Killer d'Oeuf
I mean really? It's self-delusion on an epic scale. And immensely childish or even worse, adolescent.
So I bet £10 with you that Conservatives will beat Labour by at least 6.0% in the popular UK share of the vote at the 2015 May General Election. If they fail to do so you win £10, if they do so I win £10.
Peter the Punter I believe you are arbiter of these things so if you could log that it'd be great.
Nick, yes he does (know how to contact) but I won't be disappearing anywhere and I think you're fairly traceable
http://rotherhampolitics.wordpress.com/2014/08/29/labour-biraderi-corruption-and-child-sexual-abuse-joining-the-dots/
Shocking, but how many other towns has this happened in?
"Which Tory MP are UKIP going to unveil for the cameras in next 72hrs? Ladbrokes have me as 2nd favourite - but I wouldn't bet on it - or any"
I think that this is something the Coalition can be proud of but it also reflects the fact that the last government was so incredibly wasteful that there were billions of low hanging fruit to be harvested. I fear in the next Parliament that will no longer be the case and many more decisions will have to be made that will hurt our less well off citizens. Given their record in this Parliament I would be more confident of the Tories making those decisions compassionately than a Labour Party who are in denial and will be driven into panic moves by the markets.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpIwMt5JAQ8&sns=tw
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/9123806/After-40-years-why-should-I-be-forced-to-sell-my-property.html
Did Nelson suggest they sell their mansions, buy somewhere a little cheaper and free up half a million in capital for them to spend ?
There's not going to be much sympathy for self-pitying multi-millionaire pensioners when real wages for workers are falling and home ownership has been in decline for over a decade.
The irony is that Osborne and Cable had agreed to bring in a mansion tax and get rid of the 50% income tax rate but were stopped from doing so by Cameron and Clegg.
Years ago the door lock broke on my car.
I put a card on the dash saying "The sound system is lousy, and my taste in music, even worse (P.S. the door doesn"t lock)"
It never got touched.
When it comes to the privacy of the ballot box - they apply their critical faculties and vote accordingly. There will always be the tribal and low information voter who wouldn't spot EdM if he was stood next to them. But that goes for most Parties.
EdM not knowing the average grocery bill doesn't matter to me. When I was very flush £300 was pocket change. Now £30 isn't. It all depends on where you stand. He's paid a lot, so is his wife - I'd expect them to spend a lot on stuff. I felt he was trying to be all parsimonious as if he wasn't - so he fell into his own trap. Silly berk.
Osborne wasted/lost a year in 2012, and both Tories and Labour have run phoney austerity arguments, neither of them daring to tell the truth - the cuts weren't happening.
Individual benefit rates rose by over 5% in the financial year of 2012/2013 if I recall correctly because they were still linked to RPI.
Tax receipts are rising faster than benefits now, roughly 4% versus <2%. The headline YTD numbers are distorted by April 2013 tax changes; another phoney narrative is being conducted on that subject.
It took two and a half years for the government to actually make any cuts to welfare that were worthy of the name.
It's also worth noting that if you're going to increase the population by 250,000-400,000 a year, chances are benefits totals will rise.
Simple weight of numbers.
http://en.delfi.lt/central-eastern-europe/putins-former-aid-russia-has-been-preparing-for-global-war-since-2003.d?id=65957992#ixzz3EVZ5aP8U