Kieran, if the Tories had retained the 50p tax rate and introduced temporary tax increases on the rich they would have lost more than two MPs to UKIP and not achieved the remarkable return to growth we have seen. There is an object lesson for you across the Channel in France.
That said, I agree with the thrust of your analysis of today's announcements. This is extremely risky territory for the Conservatives, exposing a flank on which they are vulnerable and - crucially - driving those soft left voters closer to Labour's teat. I support what Osborne is trying to achieve; it's a slow revolution to make work more attractive and a life on benefits less attractive. It's vital for Britain's long-term interests, competitiveness, social well-being and social mobility. But the optics are dreadful and just reinforce the lazy stereotype of cruel Tories looking out for the rich and leaving the poor to suffer.
I also thought Cameron and Boris's language re Mark Reckless was disgraceful and does them no credit. Cameron in particular sounded like he had lost his grip. His tone should have been polite, confident, conciliatory towards those who are concerned but steely in its determination. Instead he has come across as angry, flustered, bitter and not in control. Must do better.
A bit like "Decide or decline"... it doesn't even really make sense: Farage wasn't the one who said it in the first place
"Decide or decline" doesn't make much sense to me, but I don't follow your follow up - if someone on the Tory or Labour front benches announced something, or indicated something was to be policy, and the Leader then shot that down, it would be portrayed as chaos in the ranks or the leader testing the waters through their subordinate and then changing their mind. Either way, to be critcised. So the only question is whether the other guy is the economy spokesman (I haven't checked yet), capable of making such an announcement for his party which one would reasonably assume the Leader would be aware of, and was he just musing about the idea or formally announcing it.
He is the economy spokesman and he said something like " I want to investigate the feasibility of introducing.. etc etc"
Farage was asked about it a couple of days later and said it wont be happening
Make of it what you will, but "Farage is making it up as he goes along" only works if it was Farage who suggested it in the first place
Or would it be better if he let rubbish ideas become party policy?
Maybe I am different to other party supporters, but I don't see how they get so animated about minor goings on in UKIP... if Diane Abbott suiggested all black shortlists, and Ed Miliband said "That aint happening" I would think it made him look strong not weak, or if Cable said he wanted a mansion tax and Cleg said no, the same.. weird
Except O'Flynn is not some backbencher. He is the economics spokesperson for the party.
Though clearly Farage thinks that he should control all policies. The role of other party members is to stand back and applaud. Something that I think Carswell will get fed up with fairly quickly.
There speaks a supporter of one of two parties who created 'the Quad'
This article is a remarkably calm look at Ashcroft's surveys. Of 20 LD seats researched 14 would be lost. This does point to LD losses in the range of 30 of their 57 seats.
But, nothing much to look at here, "incumbency will save us", except that this researches the likely result with incumbency.
What really stuck me was Populus finding that the Lib Dems have lost 72% of their support from 2010. If that's repeated on the day, they'll get a 1959 or 1970-type result.
You'd think that the remaining LDs would be resolute partisans. But today's Ashcroft poll, which has the LDs on 8%, finds only 27% of those will definitely vote LD, 73% "might end up voting differently". That's a LD core vote of 2%. twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/516605869854048256
Good point. But nay bother, they believe that they will get 40 MPs....
The sad truth is that government has shown the Lib Dems to be a party without a purpose. They contain several able individuals such as Danny Alexander and Stephen Webb but the party itself has no purpose. It is time for the more competent to find new homes and for the rest to acknowledge that they have had a good run.
There is room for a party of projection on which those so inclined can impose their wish list but UKIP have now cornered the market and there is no more room.
.... I also thought Cameron and Boris's language re Mark Reckless was disgraceful and does them no credit. Cameron in particular sounded like he had lost his grip. His tone should have been polite, confident, conciliatory towards those who are concerned but steely in its determination. Instead he has come across as angry, flustered, bitter and not in control. Must do better.
I don't get the politics of Osborne's speech today.
I understand that he wants to:
- Paint Labour as the 'welfare party' - Argue that further austerity is needed to balance the books - Show the Tories will make 'tough decisions'
The speech in political terms will help bolster these strengths. But it does nothing to address the weakness that people see the Conservatives as out of touch, only caring about the rich and as not valuing public services.
The government was popular up until the 2012 budget. Why? Because people genuinely believed the 'we're all in this together' line. They believed the national interest line. But cutting taxes for the wealthy made people think that while they were suffering the rich were not.
If the budget deficit is the most important danger facing the country then why use money providing a big tax cuts to wealthy pensioners while cutting support for young people? All it does is reinforce the Conservative's negatives.
They should look at Angela Merkel. The most successful Conservative politician in the world. She wins by dominating the centre and being seen as a leader for all Germans, not just the rich.
If the Tories hadn't cut the 50p tax rate and introduced temporary tax increases on the rich as part of a national effort to eliminate the deficit - as suggested by Tim Montgomery - they would be strolling to re-election and in a position to deliver tax cuts in a 2nd term.
Instead they have reinforced their negatives for another generation of voters. From someone who is supposedly an expert strategist I just don't get the strategy.
Fairly standard really. Since they have no chance of displacing Labour as the party of public services, they may as well reinforce their position as the party of sound finances and being tough on benefits.
This article is a remarkably calm look at Ashcroft's surveys. Of 20 LD seats researched 14 would be lost. This does point to LD losses in the range of 30 of their 57 seats.
But, nothing much to look at here, "incumbency will save us", except that this researches the likely result with incumbency.
What really stuck me was Populus finding that the Lib Dems have lost 72% of their support from 2010. If that's repeated on the day, they'll get a 1959 or 1970-type result.
You'd think that the remaining LDs would be resolute partisans. But today's Ashcroft poll, which has the LDs on 8%, finds only 27% of those will definitely vote LD, 73% "might end up voting differently". That's a LD core vote of 2%. twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/516605869854048256
Good point. But nay bother, they believe that they will get 40 MPs....
I have felt for some time that people haven't paid enough attention to the Lib Dems' potential impact on the election, except in the very narrow sense of there being a certain number of Lib Dem - Lab switchers propping up Labour's slowly deflating lead. There is an event coming, not quite a black swan - let's call it a yellow swan - that will potentially have a huge impact on the next election. It may or may not occur at the Lib Dems conference, or in the election campaign itself. But at some point the Lib Dems are going to need to address their declining vote and do something. It may well be the defenestration of Nick Clegg - or at least his resignation or agreement to step aside in the next two years. At very least I expect it to be a swerve to the left and a more prominent role for some new faces, possibly including a pledge not to renew the coalition wit the Tories (either at all or without certain red lines being adhered to. I cannot believe they are just going to sleepwalk into a dismal fourth place, polling less than a third of their vote in the last election.
A bit like "Decide or decline"... it doesn't even really make sense: Farage wasn't the one who said it in the first place
"Decide or decline" doesn't make much sense to me, but I don't follow your follow up - if someone on the Tory or Labour front benches announced something, or indicated something was to be policy, and the Leader then shot that down, it would be portrayed as chaos in the ranks or the leader testing the waters through their subordinate and then changing their mind. Either way, to be critcised. So the only question is whether the other guy is the economy spokesman (I haven't checked yet), capable of making such an announcement for his party which one would reasonably assume the Leader would be aware of, and was he just musing about the idea or formally announcing it.
He is the economy spokesman and he said something like " I want to investigate the feasibility of introducing.. etc etc"
Farage was asked about it a couple of days later and said it wont be happening
Make of it what you will, but "Farage is making it up as he goes along" only works if it was Farage who suggested it in the first place
Or would it be better if he let rubbish ideas become party policy?
Maybe I am different to other party supporters, but I don't see how they get so animated about minor goings on in UKIP... if Diane Abbott suiggested all black shortlists, and Ed Miliband said "That aint happening" I would think it made him look strong not weak, or if Cable said he wanted a mansion tax and Cleg said no, the same.. weird
Except O'Flynn is not some backbencher. He is the economics spokesperson for the party.
Though clearly Farage thinks that he should control all policies. The role of other party members is to stand back and applaud. Something that I think Carswell will get fed up with fairly quickly.
There speaks a supporter of one of two parties who created 'the Quad'
And I am broadly happy with what they have achieved.
UKIP increasingly seems to have its major objective as causing maximum discomfort to Cameron, seemingly to distract from the vacuity of its own policies.
The aptly named Bours speech on the NHS was outstanding in its superficiality last Friday. Clearly she is no threat to Farage...
Kieran, if the Tories had retained the 50p tax rate and introduced temporary tax increases on the rich they would have lost more than two MPs to UKIP and not achieved the remarkable return to growth we have seen. There is an object lesson for you across the Channel in France.
That said, I agree with the thrust of your analysis of today's announcements. This is extremely risky territory for the Conservatives, exposing a flank on which they are vulnerable and - crucially - driving those soft left voters closer to Labour's teat. I support what Osborne is trying to achieve; it's a slow revolution to make work more attractive and a life on benefits less attractive. It's vital for Britain's long-term interests, competitiveness, social well-being and social mobility. But the optics are dreadful and just reinforce the lazy stereotype of cruel Tories looking out for the rich and leaving the poor to suffer.
I also thought Cameron and Boris's language re Mark Reckless was disgraceful and does them no credit. Cameron in particular sounded like he had lost his grip. His tone should have been polite, confident, conciliatory towards those who are concerned but steely in its determination. Instead he has come across as angry, flustered, bitter and not in control. Must do better.
Nonsense. The 2012 budget dealt a blow to the Tories from which they've not recovered. A 5p tax cut has done nothing much to stimulate the economy.
Indeed who does the tax cut benefit ?
The rich and self employed manage their tax bills with their accountants so it's basically people on PAYE who pay it. That means bankers, the civil service plutocrats and plc execs who spend their time trying to avoid corporate taxes.
This article is a remarkably calm look at Ashcroft's surveys. Of 20 LD seats researched 14 would be lost. This does point to LD losses in the range of 30 of their 57 seats.
But, nothing much to look at here, "incumbency will save us", except that this researches the likely result with incumbency.
What really stuck me was Populus finding that the Lib Dems have lost 72% of their support from 2010. If that's repeated on the day, they'll get a 1959 or 1970-type result.
You'd think that the remaining LDs would be resolute partisans. But today's Ashcroft poll, which has the LDs on 8%, finds only 27% of those will definitely vote LD, 73% "might end up voting differently". That's a LD core vote of 2%. twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/516605869854048256
Good point. But nay bother, they believe that they will get 40 MPs....
The sad truth is that government has shown the Lib Dems to be a party without a purpose. They contain several able individuals such as Danny Alexander and Stephen Webb but the party itself has no purpose. It is time for the more competent to find new homes and for the rest to acknowledge that they have had a good run. There is room for a party of projection on which those so inclined can impose their wish list but UKIP have now cornered the market and there is no more room.
True about the LDs but they are smiling as they head over the cliff. Your "a party of projection on which those so inclined can impose their wish list but UKIP have now cornered the market" very accurate.
The Kippers on here need to stop and really really read about UKIP's numerous inconsistencies and faults. Just because something has a name unlike other parties does not make it a blank canvass for you to paint your wish list of dreams on.
Boris Johnson: those defecting to UKIP sort of people who go to hospital with 'barely credible injuries' caused by 'vacuum cleaners' #CPC14
Actually, that reminds me of a story a nurse told me once about the excuse a young man and his excuse for how he got the lid of a deodorant stuck..... err...... somewhere
Surely the point of Osborne's speech was to compare and contrast the reality that he is seeking to deal with and the complete fantasy of what we saw at the Labour party conference. It wasn't supposed to be uplifting, it was supposed to show that there are serious problems that only a serious party can deal with. After all when did we last have a Chancellor who, in the party conference before the election, was promising another £25bn of cuts in spending?
Whether this will work as a strategy is harder to determine. The Scottish referendum suggests that, notwithstanding our bizarre and innumerate media, there is ultimately a majority in favour of sanity and reality. Not the loudest part of the population perhaps but there none the less.
Labour's determined refusal to engage with planet earth should make Osborne's job a little easier. We shall see.
Well, according to you, 60% of the public are not "in favour of sanity and reality":
From a Lord Ashcroft poll in May.
5 years more of cuts are needed: 41% Austerity/cuts were needed at first, but we don't need another 5 years: 25% Austerity/cuts were never needed: 34%
Then yesterday another Ashcroft poll showed that people only rank the deficit as the 5th-biggest issue in their opinion (behind economic growth, immigration, cost of living and the NHS).
Kieran, if the Tories had retained the 50p tax rate and introduced temporary tax increases on the rich they would have lost more than two MPs to UKIP and not achieved the remarkable return to growth we have seen. There is an object lesson for you across the Channel in France.
That said, I agree with the thrust of your analysis of today's announcements. This is extremely risky territory for the Conservatives, exposing a flank on which they are vulnerable and - crucially - driving those soft left voters closer to Labour's teat. I support what Osborne is trying to achieve; it's a slow revolution to make work more attractive and a life on benefits less attractive. It's vital for Britain's long-term interests, competitiveness, social well-being and social mobility. But the optics are dreadful and just reinforce the lazy stereotype of cruel Tories looking out for the rich and leaving the poor to suffer.
I also thought Cameron and Boris's language re Mark Reckless was disgraceful and does them no credit. Cameron in particular sounded like he had lost his grip. His tone should have been polite, confident, conciliatory towards those who are concerned but steely in its determination. Instead he has come across as angry, flustered, bitter and not in control. Must do better.
Lol where to start with that load of dung?
It's ALL about the optics. Cameron, Gideon and IDS know that their "reforms" are doing nothing to help people. They are just lengthening foodbank queues, clobbering the most vulnerable, causing crushing misery and poverty, attempting to "balance the books" on the backs of the poorest.
They know this, they've got the data. But they don't care, they are chasing scrounger bashing headlines in the gutter Rightwing press. It's ALL about the optics, nothing to do with sound policy.
And if the Tories hadn't given millionaires a tax cut we wouldn't have had growth, years after Osborne killed the growth he inherited of course? That's a gem.
BTW there was a night walk for cancer charities in London at the weekend and a conservative counselor made quite a negative impression on those taking part.
Kieran, if the Tories had retained the 50p tax rate and introduced temporary tax increases on the rich they would have lost more than two MPs to UKIP and not achieved the remarkable return to growth we have seen. There is an object lesson for you across the Channel in France.
That said, I agree with the thrust of your analysis of today's announcements. This is extremely risky territory for the Conservatives, exposing a flank on which they are vulnerable and - crucially - driving those soft left voters closer to Labour's teat. I support what Osborne is trying to achieve; it's a slow revolution to make work more attractive and a life on benefits less attractive. It's vital for Britain's long-term interests, competitiveness, social well-being and social mobility. But the optics are dreadful and just reinforce the lazy stereotype of cruel Tories looking out for the rich and leaving the poor to suffer.
I also thought Cameron and Boris's language re Mark Reckless was disgraceful and does them no credit. Cameron in particular sounded like he had lost his grip. His tone should have been polite, confident, conciliatory towards those who are concerned but steely in its determination. Instead he has come across as angry, flustered, bitter and not in control. Must do better.
AB "Nonsense. The 2012 budget dealt a blow to the Tories from which they've not recovered. A 5p tax cut has done nothing much to stimulate the economy." The 2012 budget's pasty tax destroyed a lot of credibility. The 5p cut was at least income tax neutral. It probably helped shore up the high income groups spending within the country and attracted more of them. But it hit the party's image.
AB" The rich and self employed manage their tax bills with their accountants so it's basically people on PAYE who pay it. That means bankers, the civil service plutocrats and plc execs who spend their time trying to avoid corporate taxes." Always has been. Which is why reducing the incentive to avoid tax CAN actually bring in more tax. But I accept that you do not view economics that way.
This article is a remarkably calm look at Ashcroft's surveys. Of 20 LD seats researched 14 would be lost. This does point to LD losses in the range of 30 of their 57 seats.
But, nothing much to look at here, "incumbency will save us", except that this researches the likely result with incumbency.
What really stuck me was Populus finding that the Lib Dems have lost 72% of their support from 2010. If that's repeated on the day, they'll get a 1959 or 1970-type result.
You'd think that the remaining LDs would be resolute partisans. But today's Ashcroft poll, which has the LDs on 8%, finds only 27% of those will definitely vote LD, 73% "might end up voting differently". That's a LD core vote of 2%. twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/516605869854048256
Good point. But nay bother, they believe that they will get 40 MPs....
The sad truth is that government has shown the Lib Dems to be a party without a purpose. They contain several able individuals such as Danny Alexander and Stephen Webb but the party itself has no purpose. It is time for the more competent to find new homes and for the rest to acknowledge that they have had a good run.
There is room for a party of projection on which those so inclined can impose their wish list but UKIP have now cornered the market and there is no more room.
With respect DavidL, I disagree. You are absolutely right that Ukip has cornered the market as the party of projection (or as I have been describing them, the repository of protest votes), but that does not mean the Lib Dems have no purpose. There is at least as much space in the centre ground now as at any time since 1994 and alternatively scope for a more economically sensible social democratic party than Labour. The Lib Dems have now got experience of government, and a number of capable politicians including Clegg, Alexander, Webb, Davy and, gulp, Cable. They urgently need new direction and a new sense of purpose. Most of all they urgently need to get out on the front foot and start owning some of the successes of this government. Their biggest strategic error has been to convey the impression that they are reluctant participants in this government. They have managed to get stuck with all the bad stuff without convincingly being able to claim even a small share of the meagre credit an ungrateful electorate grudgingly concedes.
Luckyguy - this is like Labour saying lets just abandon the economy to the Tories and just go on about the NHS. It's arguably what they have ended up doing but it is through sloppiness rather than strategic errors. Labour don't want to sign up to Tory spending plans but they are doing so to try and improve their electability.
I will put another way. Why are people who would consider voting Tory not voting Tory now? What is holding them back? They already know that the Tories will focus on the deficit and make tough decisions. They are holding back because they think they are uncaring and only care about the rich. Surely the correct strategy is to think of ways to appeal to these voters and show their fears are unfounded?
Flockers - I deliberately made my post about the politics rather than the policy. I think it's bad in policy terms too but I guess anyone who frequents this site has already made their mind up about that!
I wasn't saying the Tories should adopt French levels of taxation. All they needed to do was introduce one or two small but symbolic tax increases which showed that we were truly 'all in it together'. Then in a 2nd term with the deficit falling they could move onto tax cuts.
This article is a remarkably calm look at Ashcroft's surveys. Of 20 LD seats researched 14 would be lost. This does point to LD losses in the range of 30 of their 57 seats.
But, nothing much to look at here, "incumbency will save us", except that this researches the likely result with incumbency.
What really stuck me was Populus finding that the Lib Dems have lost 72% of their support from 2010. If that's repeated on the day, they'll get a 1959 or 1970-type result.
You'd think that the remaining LDs would be resolute partisans. But today's Ashcroft poll, which has the LDs on 8%, finds only 27% of those will definitely vote LD, 73% "might end up voting differently". That's a LD core vote of 2%. twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/516605869854048256
Good point. But nay bother, they believe that they will get 40 MPs....
The sad truth is that government has shown the Lib Dems to be a party without a purpose. They contain several able individuals such as Danny Alexander and Stephen Webb but the party itself has no purpose. It is time for the more competent to find new homes and for the rest to acknowledge that they have had a good run. There is room for a party of projection on which those so inclined can impose their wish list but UKIP have now cornered the market and there is no more room.
True about the LDs but they are smiling as they head over the cliff. Your "a party of projection on which those so inclined can impose their wish list but UKIP have now cornered the market" very accurate.
The Kippers on here need to stop and really really read about UKIP's numerous inconsistencies and faults. Just because something has a name unlike other parties does not make it a blank canvass for you to paint your wish list of dreams on.
I'm happy to do that if the Tories, Lib Dems, and Labour supporters on here take a good look at the assorted career sycophants, student politicians, and congenital idiots that comprise the front benches of their own parties, and realise the only difference between these 'grown up' politicians and UKIP's are SPADs, civil service machinery, and the other accoutrements of power.
A bit like "Decide or decline"... it doesn't even really make sense: Farage wasn't the one who said it in the first place
"Decide or decline" doesn't make much sense to me, but I don't follow your follow up - if someone on the Tory or Labour front benches announced something, or indicated something was to be policy, and the Leader then shot that down, it would be portrayed as chaos in the ranks or the leader testing the waters through their subordinate and then changing their mind. Either way, to be critcised. So the only question is whether the other guy is the economy spokesman (I haven't checked yet), capable of making such an announcement for his party which one would reasonably assume the Leader would be aware of, and was he just musing about the idea or formally announcing it.
He is the economy spokesman and he said something like " I want to investigate the feasibility of introducing.. etc etc"
Farage was asked about it a couple of days later and said it wont be happening
Make of it what you will, but "Farage is making it up as he goes along" only works if it was Farage who suggested it in the first place
Or would it be better if he let rubbish ideas become party policy?
Maybe I am different to other party supporters, but I don't see how they get so animated about minor goings on in UKIP... if Diane Abbott suiggested all black shortlists, and Ed Miliband said "That aint happening" I would think it made him look strong not weak, or if Cable said he wanted a mansion tax and Cleg said no, the same.. weird
Except O'Flynn is not some backbencher. He is the economics spokesperson for the party.
Though clearly Farage thinks that he should control all policies. The role of other party members is to stand back and applaud. Something that I think Carswell will get fed up with fairly quickly.
So you keep saying
But people having been forecasting doom for UKIP and every minor infraction to be terminal for about 18 months now
Its the main reason I have a fantastic portfolio of pro UKIP bets vs PB posters for next years GE
UKIP 4/6 in Clacton
"The values with the Conservatives!" "Labour might sneak through the middle!"
The Kippers on here need to stop and really really read about UKIP's numerous inconsistencies and faults. Just because something has a name unlike other parties does not make it a blank canvass for you to paint your wish list of dreams on.
I didn't care for Suzanne Evans' welfare speech at the recent UKIP Conference, but for me their policies on the EU and energy blot out everything else.
I'm also not expecting UKIP to win the 2015 general election, so only their priorities have a hope of reaching the horse-trading sessions after the election.
Kieran, if the Tories had retained the 50p tax rate and introduced temporary tax increases on the rich they would have lost more than two MPs to UKIP and not achieved the remarkable return to growth we have seen. There is an object lesson for you across the Channel in France.
That said, I agree with the thrust of your analysis of today's announcements. This is extremely risky territory for the Conservatives, exposing a flank on which they are vulnerable and - crucially - driving those soft left voters closer to Labour's teat. I support what Osborne is trying to achieve; it's a slow revolution to make work more attractive and a life on benefits less attractive. It's vital for Britain's long-term interests, competitiveness, social well-being and social mobility. But the optics are dreadful and just reinforce the lazy stereotype of cruel Tories looking out for the rich and leaving the poor to suffer.
I also thought Cameron and Boris's language re Mark Reckless was disgraceful and does them no credit. Cameron in particular sounded like he had lost his grip. His tone should have been polite, confident, conciliatory towards those who are concerned but steely in its determination. Instead he has come across as angry, flustered, bitter and not in control. Must do better.
Nonsense. The 2012 budget dealt a blow to the Tories from which they've not recovered. A 5p tax cut has done nothing much to stimulate the economy.
Indeed who does the tax cut benefit ?
The rich and self employed manage their tax bills with their accountants so it's basically people on PAYE who pay it. That means bankers, the civil service plutocrats and plc execs who spend their time trying to avoid corporate taxes.
Ha, you've lost a plot with this one AlanB. It wasn't meant to stimulate the economy - it was a tax cut for the rich - because tories give their mates tax breaks. And PAYE >50k(I'm guessing I'll probably never get near) = bankers and civil service plutocrats???
You're getting confused - I just hope you spent the money (from the 5p tax cut) wisely.
A couple of weeks ago we were discussing rail services in Lincolnshire. It turns out that the abysmal Lincoln to Nottingham service (via Grantham) is being bolstered.
Not via Grantham (which would make no sense). Via Newark which is a straight line.
Ahem. You are, of course, correct. One of the reasons I posted it was that I believe you are from the Newark area, yet I wrote Grantham. Too little alcohol, methinks, a problem that will be easily rectified shortly ...
Funnily enough I left Newark and moved to Ancaster not too far north of Grantham a few years ago. It is strange I still think of Newark as my home town and it is my first stop for shopping even though it is further away than Grantham. It helps that so much of my archaeology work is based around Newark.
Kieran, if the Tories had retained the 50p tax rate and introduced temporary tax increases on the rich they would have lost more than two MPs to UKIP and not achieved the remarkable return to growth we have seen. There is an object lesson for you across the Channel in France.
That said, I agree with the thrust of your analysis of today's announcements. This is extremely risky territory for the Cocerned but steely in its determination. Instead he has come across as angry, flustered, bitter and not in control. Must do better.
Nonsense. The 2012 budget dealt a blow to the Tories from which they've not recovered. A 5p tax cut has done nothing much to stimulate the economy.
Indeed who does the tax cut benefit ?
The rich and self employed manage their tax bills with their accountants so it's basically people on PAYE who pay it. That means bankers, the civil service plutocrats and plc execs who spend their time trying to avoid corporate taxes.
Ha, you've lost a plot with this one AlanB. It wasn't meant to stimulate the economy - it was a tax cut for the rich - because tories give their mates tax breaks. And PAYE >50k(I'm guessing I'll probably never get near) = bankers and civil service plutocrats???
You're getting confused - I just hope you spent the money (from the 5p tax cut) wisely.
Stop celebrating the No vote it was 2 weeks ago ;-)
I didn;t say it was meant to stimulate the economy, previous poster did and as for PAYE bods that kicks in for all those leftie pig troughers on £150+k a year. So if you want to give Salmond a tax cut so be it.
Luckyguy - this is like Labour saying lets just abandon the economy to the Tories and just go on about the NHS. It's arguably what they have ended up doing but it is through sloppiness rather than strategic errors. Labour don't want to sign up to Tory spending plans but they are doing so to try and improve their electability.
I will put another way. Why are people who would consider voting Tory not voting Tory now? What is holding them back? They already know that the Tories will focus on the deficit and make tough decisions. They are holding back because they think they are uncaring and only care about the rich. Surely the correct strategy is to think of ways to appeal to these voters and show their fears are unfounded?
Flockers - I deliberately made my post about the politics rather than the policy. I think it's bad in policy terms too but I guess anyone who frequents this site has already made their mind up about that!
I wasn't saying the Tories should adopt French levels of taxation. All they needed to do was introduce one or two small but symbolic tax increases which showed that we were truly 'all in it together'. Then in a 2nd term with the deficit falling they could move onto tax cuts.
Yes, it's exactly like that. Labour can't win on the economy, so they steer clear. Tories can't win on taxing and spending more. Why would people vote Tory? Priorities. They might like lavish amounts to be spent on public services, but if they feel the economy is at risk, they may well go Tory to safeguard the economy. That's why it's important not to dilute and confuse the message.
Luckyguy - this is like Labour saying lets just abandon the economy to the Tories and just go on about the NHS. It's arguably what they have ended up doing but it is through sloppiness rather than strategic errors. Labour don't want to sign up to Tory spending plans but they are doing so to try and improve their electability.
I will put another way. Why are people who would consider voting Tory not voting Tory now? What is holding them back? They already know that the Tories will focus on the deficit and make tough decisions. They are holding back because they think they are uncaring and only care about the rich. Surely the correct strategy is to think of ways to appeal to these voters and show their fears are unfounded?
Flockers - I deliberately made my post about the politics rather than the policy. I think it's bad in policy terms too but I guess anyone who frequents this site has already made their mind up about that!
I wasn't saying the Tories should adopt French levels of taxation. All they needed to do was introduce one or two small but symbolic tax increases which showed that we were truly 'all in it together'. Then in a 2nd term with the deficit falling they could move onto tax cuts.
"We want sensible control of the number of people coming in. It is the right and the duty of every state to have some idea of how many people want to settle in its boundaries, what jobs they propose to do there and how much it is going to cost its local authorities.’"
So immigration is on Cameron's repatriation list.
At what point I wonder will he admit you can't have 'sensible control' as long as we remain inside the EU?
What if that was made part of the terms? A long shot - but Cameron etc may want to stay in power badly enough....
What you mean like the UKIP reject whose been selected to fight Farage in Thanet South?
There are many others. Farage has a high ability at falling out with people. He is better at that than the maligned Cameron.
Unfortunately very true. One reason why I will be glad when he is gone as leader.
Interestingly Campbell-Bannerman repeated a question yesterday as to whether Farage might be gone as leader in November.
His FB comment was
"Interesting that with UKIP MPs Nigel Farage may step down as Leader in November. UKIP Constitution suggests Westminster MP should be Leader"
I can't confirm if this is true but he did serve as Deputy Leader for 4 years so I assume he may know something about this.
Luckyguy - this is like Labour saying lets just abandon the economy to the Tories and just go on about the NHS. It's arguably what they have ended up doing but it is through sloppiness rather than strategic errors. Labour don't want to sign up to Tory spending plans but they are doing so to try and improve their electability.
I will put another way. Why are people who would consider voting Tory not voting Tory now? What is holding them back? They already know that the Tories will focus on the deficit and make tough decisions. They are holding back because they think they are uncaring and only care about the rich. Surely the correct strategy is to think of ways to appeal to these voters and show their fears are unfounded?
Flockers - I deliberately made my post about the politics rather than the policy. I think it's bad in policy terms too but I guess anyone who frequents this site has already made their mind up about that!
I wasn't saying the Tories should adopt French levels of taxation. All they needed to do was introduce one or two small but symbolic tax increases which showed that we were truly 'all in it together'. Then in a 2nd term with the deficit falling they could move onto tax cuts.
Yes, it's exactly like that. Labour can't win on the economy, so they steer clear. Tories can't win on taxing and spending more. Why would people vote Tory? Priorities. They might like lavish amounts to be spent on public services, but if they feel the economy is at risk, they may well go Tory to safeguard the economy. That's why it's important not to dilute and confuse the message.
Kieran, if the Tories had retained the 50p tax rate and introduced temporary tax increases on the rich they would have lost more than two MPs to UKIP and not achieved the remarkable return to growth we have seen. There is an object lesson for you across the Channel in France.
That said, I agree with the thrust of your analysis of today's announcements. This is extremely risky territory for the Cocerned but steely in its determination. Instead he has come across as angry, flustered, bitter and not in control. Must do better.
Nonsense. The 2012 budget dealt a blow to the Tories from which they've not recovered. A 5p tax cut has done nothing much to stimulate the economy.
Indeed who does the tax cut benefit ?
The rich and self employed manage their tax bills with their accountants so it's basically people on PAYE who pay it. That means bankers, the civil service plutocrats and plc execs who spend their time trying to avoid corporate taxes.
Ha, you've lost a plot with this one AlanB. It wasn't meant to stimulate the economy - it was a tax cut for the rich - because tories give their mates tax breaks. And PAYE >50k(I'm guessing I'll probably never get near) = bankers and civil service plutocrats???
You're getting confused - I just hope you spent the money (from the 5p tax cut) wisely.
Stop celebrating the No vote it was 2 weeks ago ;-)
I didn;t say it was meant to stimulate the economy, previous poster did and as for PAYE bods that kicks in for all those leftie pig troughers on £150+k a year. So if you want to give Salmond a tax cut so be it.
Oooh, I get confused. Osborne giving leftie pig troughers a tax cut doesn't have quite the same ring to it as the labour phrase though does it.
This article is a remarkably calm look at Ashcroft's surveys. Of 20 LD seats researched 14 would be lost. This does point to LD losses in the range of 30 of their 57 seats.
But, nothing much to look at here, "incumbency will save us", except that this researches the likely result with incumbency.
What really stuck me was Populus finding that the Lib Dems have lost 72% of their support from 2010. If that's repeated on the day, they'll get a 1959 or 1970-type result.
There is a real possibility that the Lib Dems could score their worst-ever share of the vote next year, when calculated in terms of votes per seat contested.
The nadir of Liberal fortunes was the 1950s, when they took 9.1, 2.5, 2.7 and 5.9 per cent of the vote across the four elections of that decade. However, those middle two results were largely the consequence of fighting so few constituencies. Their average share of the vote in the seats they stood in was about 12.0, 14.6, 15.5 and 17.2 (I've assumed equal-sized constituencies but the actual figures won't be far off). Now it's almost certainly true that had the Liberals contested every seat, their average would have fallen - you'd expect them to have picked their best bets, particularly with a threshold for holding their deposit of 12.5%. Even so, statistical quirk or not, 2015 may break new ground for them.
A bit like "Decide or decline"... it doesn't even really make sense: Farage wasn't the one who said it in the first place
"Decide or decline" doesn't make much sense to me, but I don't follow your follow up - if someone on the Tory or Labour front benches announced something, or indicated something was to be policy, and the Leader then shot that down, it would be portrayed as chaos in the ranks or the leader testing the waters through their subordinate and then changing their mind. Either way, to be critcised. So the only question is whether the other guy is the economy spokesman (I haven't checked yet), capable of making such an announcement for his party which one would reasonably assume the Leader would be aware of, and was he just musing about the idea or formally announcing it.
He is the economy spokesman and he said something like " I want to investigate the feasibility of introducing.. etc etc"
Farage was asked about it a couple of days later and said it wont be happening
Make of it what you will, but "Farage is making it up as he goes along" only works if it was Farage who suggested it in the first place
Or would it be better if he let rubbish ideas become party policy?
Maybe I am different to other party supporters, but I don't see how they get so animated about minor goings on in UKIP... if Diane Abbott suiggested all black shortlists, and Ed Miliband said "That aint happening" I would think it made him look strong not weak, or if Cable said he wanted a mansion tax and Cleg said no, the same.. weird
Except O'Flynn is not some backbencher. He is the economics spokesperson for the party.
Though clearly Farage thinks that he should control all policies. The role of other party members is to stand back and applaud. Something that I think Carswell will get fed up with fairly quickly.
So you keep saying
But people having been forecasting doom for UKIP and every minor infraction to be terminal for about 18 months now
Annoyingly UKIP's support seems to be peaking again. It's all just too vexing!
The Kippers on here need to stop and really really read about UKIP's numerous inconsistencies and faults. Just because something has a name unlike other parties does not make it a blank canvass for you to paint your wish list of dreams on.
I didn't care for Suzanne Evans' welfare speech at the recent UKIP Conference, but for me their policies on the EU and energy blot out everything else. I'm also not expecting UKIP to win the 2015 general election, so only their priorities have a hope of reaching the horse-trading sessions after the election.
Good that you are listening to all their policies. On the horse-trading sessions that would need UKIP to have 15+ seats to have any even remote chance of a voice. So what are your expectations in terms of seats? Fewest and Most?
This article is a remarkably calm look at Ashcroft's surveys. Of 20 LD seats researched 14 would be lost. This does point to LD losses in the range of 30 of their 57 seats.
But, nothing much to look at here, "incumbency will save us", except that this researches the likely result with incumbency.
What really stuck me was Populus finding that the Lib Dems have lost 72% of their support from 2010. If that's repeated on the day, they'll get a 1959 or 1970-type result.
There is a real possibility that the Lib Dems could score their worst-ever share of the vote next year, when calculated in terms of votes per seat contested.
The nadir of Liberal fortunes was the 1950s, when they took 9.1, 2.5, 2.7 and 5.9 per cent of the vote across the four elections of that decade. However, those middle two results were largely the consequence of fighting so few constituencies. Their average share of the vote in the seats they stood in was about 12.0, 14.6, 15.5 and 17.2 (I've assumed equal-sized constituencies but the actual figures won't be far off). Now it's almost certainly true that had the Liberals contested every seat, their average would have fallen - you'd expect them to have picked their best bets, particularly with a threshold for holding their deposit of 12.5%. Even so, statistical quirk or not, 2015 may break new ground for them.
I actually think the Lib Dems might not stand candidates in quite a few constituencies next time too -- so they might be flattered on that stat again.
Hugh, you're one of those depressingly myopic lefty posters who believe the other side are motivated by malice. There's little point debating you. Cameron, Osborne (not Gideon - he can choose his own name) and IDS believe fundamentally that people are best served by being in work. There is plenty of evidence to support this view. Work gives people a wage, self esteem, social interaction etc. Unfortunately our benefits system disincentivises work, in some cases even making it uneconomical to seek. That has led to a depressing spiral in which in some areas very large numbers of people are out of work and unemployment becomes entrenched and gifted from generation to generation. The standard left wing response has been to try to make those people's lives more comfortable. That is well intentioned, but I (and Cameron etc) would say, ultimately self defeating. In the long run people are better served by being nudge back into self-reliance. It is a very hard process, but it is motivated by good intentions.
Point of fact. Millionaires weren't given a tax cut. The top rate of income tax was reduced to a level above that which it was throughout Labour's tenure in government. That benefited people on high incomes, many of whom were not and are not millionaires. That cut alone did not turn round our economy, clearly. But it was an important totem that announced Britain was not going to punish the wealthy and , along with many other tax changes far too detailed to debate here, was a key part of the package that has made Britain a very attractive place to live, work and establish a business. The context has been rapidly falling unemployment, record levels of employment and strong growth, at a time when much of the Eurozone is moribund.
Your comment about Osborne killing growth borders on the specious, given all that went on in the Eurozone and broader global economy at the time.
Luckyguy - this is like Labour saying lets just abandon the economy to the Tories and just go on about the NHS. It's arguably what they have ended up doing but it is through sloppiness rather than strategic errors. Labour don't want to sign up to Tory spending plans but they are doing so to try and improve their electability.
I will put another way. Why are people who would consider voting Tory not voting Tory now? What is holding them back? They already know that the Tories will focus on the deficit and make tough decisions. They are holding back because they think they are uncaring and only care about the rich. Surely the correct strategy is to think of ways to appeal to these voters and show their fears are unfounded?
Flockers - I deliberately made my post about the politics rather than the policy. I think it's bad in policy terms too but I guess anyone who frequents this site has already made their mind up about that!
I wasn't saying the Tories should adopt French levels of taxation. All they needed to do was introduce one or two small but symbolic tax increases which showed that we were truly 'all in it together'. Then in a 2nd term with the deficit falling they could move onto tax cuts.
Yes, it's exactly like that. Labour can't win on the economy, so they steer clear. Tories can't win on taxing and spending more. Why would people vote Tory? Priorities. They might like lavish amounts to be spent on public services, but if they feel the economy is at risk, they may well go Tory to safeguard the economy. That's why it's important not to dilute and confuse the message.
the tories don't have a message
I don't agree. Don't get me wrong, I don't actually think they're effective in Government, but 'mean but economically competent' is not a bad side to pick in these difficult times.
This article is a remarkably calm look at Ashcroft's surveys. Of 20 LD seats researched 14 would be lost. This does point to LD losses in the range of 30 of their 57 seats.
But, nothing much to look at here, "incumbency will save us", except that this researches the likely result with incumbency.
What really stuck me was Populus finding that the Lib Dems have lost 72% of their support from 2010. If that's repeated on the day, they'll get a 1959 or 1970-type result.
There is a real possibility that the Lib Dems could score their worst-ever share of the vote next year, when calculated in terms of votes per seat contested.
The nadir of Liberal fortunes was the 1950s, when they took 9.1, 2.5, 2.7 and 5.9 per cent of the vote across the four elections of that decade. However, those middle two results were largely the consequence of fighting so few constituencies. Their average share of the vote in the seats they stood in was about 12.0, 14.6, 15.5 and 17.2 (I've assumed equal-sized constituencies but the actual figures won't be far off). Now it's almost certainly true that had the Liberals contested every seat, their average would have fallen - you'd expect them to have picked their best bets, particularly with a threshold for holding their deposit of 12.5%. Even so, statistical quirk or not, 2015 may break new ground for them.
The LD's polling decline seems to have accelerated in 2014. I did wonder if their 'party of in' campaign for the EU Parliament elections had lost them a new tranche of supporters, who had stayed LD in the 2010>2013 period.
A bit like "Decide or decline"... it doesn't even really make sense: Farage wasn't the one who said it in the first place
There speaks a supporter of one of two parties who created 'the Quad'
And I am broadly happy with what they have achieved.
UKIP increasingly seems to have its major objective as causing maximum discomfort to Cameron, seemingly to distract from the vacuity of its own policies.
The aptly named Bours speech on the NHS was outstanding in its superficiality last Friday. Clearly she is no threat to Farage...
No but I can see that to neurotic Tories it seems that way and they are doing a pretty good job of turning the Tory world upside down
As for Bours speech if you call these superficial
1) Replacement of the CQC and other central health quangos with county boards 2) The mandatory requirement for health insurance for Immigrant workers 3) Opposition to TTIP in The NHS 4) Introducing Licensing for NHS Bureaucrats 5) The return of matron (wasn't that a Tory policy?) 6) Plus a general commitment to keep the NHS free at the point of delivery and out of the hands of the private sector
Granted it is perhaps not as in depth as one might desire but she only had 20 minutes or so to point out the key dividing lines. Of course her presentation left a great deal to be desired though.
Anyway I thought Lansley's reform had fixed everything? So surely there isn't much to talk about? Oh wait a minute Labour want to repeal the whole lot don't they? I wonder why?
But no Bours likely won't challenge Farage but there are a good few who I think could in due course (Woolfe, Evans, Nuttall, Collins, James etc).
Luckyguy - Why is Merkel so electorally successful? Why was Blair? Why was Clinton? It's because they recognised why people did not vote for them and addressed that weakness. People care about both the economy and the NHS and if you can persuade them on both you should. It is madness to simply ignore your weaknesses and hope they will go away. Do you really think they're are a large pool of voters out there saying, "Well I'm thinking of voting Tory but I'm not sure if they'll be tough enough on the deficit or nasty enough to poor people?"
Flockers - I didn't deal with your UKIP point. If the Tories had done what I suggested and had a clear lead in the polls I very much doubt you would have seen any more defections. In any event what is driving UKIP is not fiscal policy but cultural issues like immigration. If anything UKIP has a statist streak to the left of the conservatives on some economic issues (as much as they have actual policies!)
Luckyguy - this is like Labour saying lets just abandon the economy to the Tories and just go on about the NHS. It's arguably what they have ended up doing but it is through sloppiness rather than strategic errors. Labour don't want to sign up to Tory spending plans but they are doing so to try and improve their electability.
I will put another way. Why are people who would consider voting Tory not voting Tory now? What is holding them back? They already know that the Tories will focus on the deficit and make tough decisions. They are holding back because they think they are uncaring and only care about the rich. Surely the correct strategy is to think of ways to appeal to these voters and show their fears are unfounded?
Flockers - I deliberately made my post about the politics rather than the policy. I think it's bad in policy terms too but I guess anyone who frequents this site has already made their mind up about that!
I wasn't saying the Tories should adopt French levels of taxation. All they needed to do was introduce one or two small but symbolic tax increases which showed that we were truly 'all in it together'. Then in a 2nd term with the deficit falling they could move onto tax cuts.
Yes, it's exactly like that. Labour can't win on the economy, so they steer clear. Tories can't win on taxing and spending more. Why would people vote Tory? Priorities. They might like lavish amounts to be spent on public services, but if they feel the economy is at risk, they may well go Tory to safeguard the economy. That's why it's important not to dilute and confuse the message.
the tories don't have a message
I don't agree. Don't get me wrong, I don't actually think they're effective in Government, but 'mean but economically competent' is not a bad side to pick in these difficult times.
So if I understand the situation correctly, we are playing a guessing game, and the parameters are that we're looking for a Conservative Member of the House of Lords who is prominent enough to make news headlines, and might be up for defecting to UKIP tomorrow.
Tebbitt is the obvious one but it feels to me like if he were going to do it, he'd have done it by now. For an outside bet, how about Lawson? Or for a consolation prize, Lamont.
The Kippers on here need to stop and really really read about UKIP's numerous inconsistencies and faults. Just because something has a name unlike other parties does not make it a blank canvass for you to paint your wish list of dreams on.
I didn't care for Suzanne Evans' welfare speech at the recent UKIP Conference, but for me their policies on the EU and energy blot out everything else. I'm also not expecting UKIP to win the 2015 general election, so only their priorities have a hope of reaching the horse-trading sessions after the election.
Good that you are listening to all their policies. On the horse-trading sessions that would need UKIP to have 15+ seats to have any even remote chance of a voice. So what are your expectations in terms of seats? Fewest and Most?
4-30?
But I still think the most likely result is a Labour majority government.
-------
Mr Kellner's article earlier suggested the SNP might gain 20 seats next year. (He thought 10 for UKIP)
This article is a remarkably calm look at Ashcroft's surveys. Of 20 LD seats researched 14 would be lost. This does point to LD losses in the range of 30 of their 57 seats.
But, nothing much to look at here, "incumbency will save us", except that this researches the likely result with incumbency.
What really stuck me was Populus finding that the Lib Dems have lost 72% of their support from 2010. If that's repeated on the day, they'll get a 1959 or 1970-type result.
There is a real possibility that the Lib Dems could score their worst-ever share of the vote next year, when calculated in terms of votes per seat contested.
The nadir of Liberal fortunes was the 1950s, when they took 9.1, 2.5, 2.7 and 5.9 per cent of the vote across the four elections of that decade. However, those middle two results were largely the consequence of fighting so few constituencies. Their average share of the vote in the seats they stood in was about 12.0, 14.6, 15.5 and 17.2 (I've assumed equal-sized constituencies but the actual figures won't be far off). Now it's almost certainly true that had the Liberals contested every seat, their average would have fallen - you'd expect them to have picked their best bets, particularly with a threshold for holding their deposit of 12.5%. Even so, statistical quirk or not, 2015 may break new ground for them.
The LD's polling decline seems to have accelerated in 2014. I did wonder if their 'party of in' campaign for the EU Parliament elections had lost them a new tranche of supporters, who had stayed LD in the 2010>2013 period.
Shocking as it seems, that appears to have been the case, as I don't feel they have done anything that would lead to particular condemnation this year. It seemed pretty safe they would recover something through tactical voting to perhaps the middle teens if they were lucky, but instead their support of around 9-10 just dropped even further, as if keeping the faith just became too much, and now is at the point where a decent result in incumbent seats even looks like a stretch, at least as a general rule, as it is so low even seats that would be safe on 10% nationally look under threat.
Luckyguy - this is like Labour saying lets just abandon the economy to the Tories and just go on about the NHS. It's arguably what they have ended up doing but it is through sloppiness rather than strategic errors. Labour don't want to sign up to Tory spending plans but they are doing so to try and improve their electability.
I will put another way. Why are people who would consider voting Tory not voting Tory now? What is holding them back? They already know that the Tories will focus on the deficit and make tough decisions. They are holding back because they think they are uncaring and only care about the rich. Surely the correct strategy is to think of ways to appeal to these voters and show their fears are unfounded?
Flockers - I deliberately made my post about the politics rather than the policy. I think it's bad in policy terms too but I guess anyone who frequents this site has already made their mind up about that!
I wasn't saying the Tories should adopt French levels of taxation. All they needed to do was introduce one or two small but symbolic tax increases which showed that we were truly 'all in it together'. Then in a 2nd term with the deficit falling they could move onto tax cuts.
Yes, it's exactly like that. Labour can't win on the economy, so they steer clear. Tories can't win on taxing and spending more. Why would people vote Tory? Priorities. They might like lavish amounts to be spent on public services, but if they feel the economy is at risk, they may well go Tory to safeguard the economy. That's why it's important not to dilute and confuse the message.
the tories don't have a message
I don't agree. Don't get me wrong, I don't actually think they're effective in Government, but 'mean but economically competent' is not a bad side to pick in these difficult times.
This article is a remarkably calm look at Ashcroft's surveys. Of 20 LD seats researched 14 would be lost. This does point to LD losses in the range of 30 of their 57 seats.
But, nothing much to look at here, "incumbency will save us", except that this researches the likely result with incumbency.
What really stuck me was Populus finding that the Lib Dems have lost 72% of their support from 2010. If that's repeated on the day, they'll get a 1959 or 1970-type result.
There is a real possibility that the Lib Dems could score their worst-ever share of the vote next year, when calculated in terms of votes per seat contested.
The nadir of Liberal fortunes was the 1950s, when they took 9.1, 2.5, 2.7 and 5.9 per cent of the vote across the four elections of that decade. However, those middle two results were largely the consequence of fighting so few constituencies. Their average share of the vote in the seats they stood in was about 12.0, 14.6, 15.5 and 17.2 (I've assumed equal-sized constituencies but the actual figures won't be far off). Now it's almost certainly true that had the Liberals contested every seat, their average would have fallen - you'd expect them to have picked their best bets, particularly with a threshold for holding their deposit of 12.5%. Even so, statistical quirk or not, 2015 may break new ground for them.
The LD's polling decline seems to have accelerated in 2014. I did wonder if their 'party of in' campaign for the EU Parliament elections had lost them a new tranche of supporters, who had stayed LD in the 2010>2013 period.
A mistake to reveal to their "blank sheet of canvass" dreaming voters what the Lib Dems really stood for on Europe? The infamous 2010 LD voters were almost 50/50 pro and anti Europe....
Luckyguy - this is like Labour saying lets just abandon the economy to the Tories and just go on about the NHS. It's arguably what they have ended up doing but it is through sloppiness rather than strategic errors. Labour don't want to sign up to Tory spending plans but they are doing so to try and improve their electability.
I will put another way. Why are people who would consider voting Tory not voting Tory now? What is holding them back? They already know that the Tories will focus on the deficit and make tough decisions. They are holding back because they think they are uncaring and only care about the rich. Surely the correct strategy is to think of ways to appeal to these voters and show their fears are unfounded?
Flockers - I deliberately made my post about the politics rather than the policy. I think it's bad in policy terms too but I guess anyone who frequents this site has already made their mind up about that!
I wasn't saying the Tories should adopt French levels of taxation. All they needed to do was introduce one or two small but symbolic tax increases which showed that we were truly 'all in it together'. Then in a 2nd term with the deficit falling they could move onto tax cuts.
Yes, it's exactly like that. Labour can't win on the economy, so they steer clear. Tories can't win on taxing and spending more. Why would people vote Tory? Priorities. They might like lavish amounts to be spent on public services, but if they feel the economy is at risk, they may well go Tory to safeguard the economy. That's why it's important not to dilute and confuse the message.
the tories don't have a message
I don't agree. Don't get me wrong, I don't actually think they're effective in Government, but 'mean but economically competent' is not a bad side to pick in these difficult times.
how's borrowing £100 billion a year competence ?
We're not talking about reality (where as I hope you know, I'm in complete agreement with you), we're talking about perception.
So if I understand the situation correctly, we are playing a guessing game, and the parameters are that we're looking for a Conservative Member of the House of Lords who is prominent enough to make news headlines, and might be up for defecting to UKIP tomorrow.
Tebbitt is the obvious one but it feels to me like if he were going to do it, he'd have done it by now. For an outside bet, how about Lawson? Or for a consolation prize, Lamont.
The day after tomorrow - College will go prime time!!!
A bit like "Decide or decline"... it doesn't even really make sense: Farage wasn't the one who said it in the first place
There speaks a supporter of one of two parties who created 'the Quad'
And I am broadly happy with what they have achieved.
UKIP increasingly seems to have its major objective as causing maximum discomfort to Cameron, seemingly to distract from the vacuity of its own policies.
The aptly named Bours speech on the NHS was outstanding in its superficiality last Friday. Clearly she is no threat to Farage...
No but I can see that to neurotic Tories it seems that way and they are doing a pretty good job of turning the Tory world upside down
As for Bours speech if you call these superficial
1) Replacement of the CQC and other central health quangos with county boards 2) The mandatory requirement for health insurance for Immigrant workers 3) Opposition to TTIP in The NHS 4) Introducing Licensing for NHS Bureaucrats 5) The return of matron (wasn't that a Tory policy?) 6) Plus a general commitment to keep the NHS free at the point of delivery and out of the hands of the private sector
Granted it is perhaps not as in depth as one might desire but she only had 20 minutes or so to point out the key dividing lines. Of course her presentation left a great deal to be desired though.
Anyway I thought Lansley's reform had fixed everything? So surely there isn't much to talk about? Oh wait a minute Labour want to repeal the whole lot don't they? I wonder why?
But no Bours likely won't challenge Farage but there are a good few who I think could in due course (Woolfe, Evans, Nuttall, Collins, James etc).
They are all saloon bar gimmickery. Matrons were reintroduced by new Labour some years ago. Much of the rest is just what Burnham proposed a year ago.
Its like Foot's manifesto of 83. Socialism combined with leaving the EU.
This article is a remarkably calm look at Ashcroft's surveys. Of 20 LD seats researched 14 would be lost. This does point to LD losses in the range of 30 of their 57 seats.
But, nothing much to look at here, "incumbency will save us", except that this researches the likely result with incumbency.
What really stuck me was Populus finding that the Lib Dems have lost 72% of their support from 2010. If that's repeated on the day, they'll get a 1959 or 1970-type result.
There is a real possibility that the Lib Dems could score their worst-ever share of the vote next year, when calculated in terms of votes per seat contested.
The nadir of Liberal fortunes was the 1950s, when they took 9.1, 2.5, 2.7 and 5.9 per cent of the vote across the four elections of that decade. However, those middle two results were largely the consequence of fighting so few constituencies. Their average share of the vote in the seats they stood in was about 12.0, 14.6, 15.5 and 17.2 (I've assumed equal-sized constituencies but the actual figures won't be far off). Now it's almost certainly true that had the Liberals contested every seat, their average would have fallen - you'd expect them to have picked their best bets, particularly with a threshold for holding their deposit of 12.5%. Even so, statistical quirk or not, 2015 may break new ground for them.
The LD's polling decline seems to have accelerated in 2014. I did wonder if their 'party of in' campaign for the EU Parliament elections had lost them a new tranche of supporters, who had stayed LD in the 2010>2013 period.
Shocking as it seems, that appears to have been the case, as I don't feel they have done anything that would lead to particular condemnation this year. It seemed pretty safe they would recover something through tactical voting to perhaps the middle teens if they were lucky, but instead their support of around 9-10 just dropped even further, as if keeping the faith just became too much, and now is at the point where a decent result in incumbent seats even looks like a stretch, at least as a general rule, as it is so low even seats that would be safe on 10% nationally look under threat.
About the LD, there have been constituency polls in 24 out of 57 LD seats. The average decline in those seats is 16% ( nationwide its 17% now), they are certain to lose 12 out of those 24, with another 8 to close to call, only 3 are certain LD seats for now.
I'm really beginning to think,with the right split and it is.
Many years of non tory rule,maybe even been replaced has the party of the right by UKIP.
Edward Heath as something to answer for,joining the common market was the worst thing that could have happened to the conservative party,it destroyed it.
Off topic, but an amazing video of how wolves change the environment, flora, fauna and landscape, and a reminder that we, the pathetic human race, are so far off understanding the interrelated ways of our world that scientists should all go back to school.
Hugh, you're one of those depressingly myopic lefty posters who believe the other side are motivated by malice. There's little point debating you. Cameron, Osborne (not Gideon - he can choose his own name) and IDS believe fundamentally that people are best served by being in work. There is plenty of evidence to support this view. Work gives people a wage, self esteem, social interaction etc. Unfortunately our benefits system disincentivises work, in some cases even making it uneconomical to seek. That has led to a depressing spiral in which in some areas very large numbers of people are out of work and unemployment becomes entrenched and gifted from generation to generation. The standard left wing response has been to try to make those people's lives more comfortable. That is well intentioned, but I (and Cameron etc) would say, ultimately self defeating. In the long run people are better served by being nudge back into self-reliance. It is a very hard process, but it is motivated by good intentions.
Point of fact. Millionaires weren't given a tax cut. The top rate of income tax was reduced to a level above that which it was throughout Labour's tenure in government. That benefited people on high incomes, many of whom were not and are not millionaires. That cut alone did not turn round our economy, clearly. But it was an important totem that announced Britain was not going to punish the wealthy and , along with many other tax changes far too detailed to debate here, was a key part of the package that has made Britain a very attractive place to live, work and establish a business. The context has been rapidly falling unemployment, record levels of employment and strong growth, at a time when much of the Eurozone is moribund.
Your comment about Osborne killing growth borders on the specious, given all that went on in the Eurozone and broader global economy at the time.
No, Cameron Osborne IDS and co think the poor are easy targets and will get them some good headlines in the nasty Rightwing press.
They don't give a monkey's about "making work pay". That's why so many people in work are struggling, have to choose between heating and eating, even queuing at foodbanks that are creaking at the seams under the ever increasing pressure.
If they genuinely wanted to "make work pay" they'd start by talking to employee groups - primarily Unions - about issues like zero hour contracts, ghost self employment, the living wage etc.
They aren't, and they wont, because the Tories are Governing for one group of society, the only group they understand - the rich.
Flockers - As I say there is little point in getting into a policy debate but I don't think yours or the government's argument is logically consistent.
Your position seems to be that work should be incentivised. I agree. This explains why out of work benefits would be frozen. It does not explain why in work benefits would be frozen.
To my mind there are three ways to really incentivise work:
1. Effectively starve people and force them to work because the alternative is destitution. 2. Increase the minimum wage or find some other way of increasing the wages of the low paid. 3. Introduce a universal credit with a much, much lower taper (say 20% rather than 55% as proposed by this government). This would mean people only lose a little bit of their benefits as they start to earn and they are phased out more slowly. This is very expensive but arguably worth it due to the social value of incentivising work.
What the government announced today is going to do next to nothing to incentivise work.
I think it is fair to argue that the government is clearly doing this for political reasons, to create a dividing line with Labour. I don't think they are 'evil' I just think they have very little idea what it will mean to families who are really struggling at the moment. And they certainly care much more about their own election chances.
Luckyguy - Why is Merkel so electorally successful? Why was Blair? Why was Clinton? It's because they recognised why people did not vote for them and addressed that weakness. People care about both the economy and the NHS and if you can persuade them on both you should. It is madness to simply ignore your weaknesses and hope they will go away. Do you really think they're are a large pool of voters out there saying, "Well I'm thinking of voting Tory but I'm not sure if they'll be tough enough on the deficit or nasty enough to poor people?"
Flockers - I didn't deal with your UKIP point. If the Tories had done what I suggested and had a clear lead in the polls I very much doubt you would have seen any more defections. In any event what is driving UKIP is not fiscal policy but cultural issues like immigration. If anything UKIP has a statist streak to the left of the conservatives on some economic issues (as much as they have actual policies!)
There's actually two separate points there. You're right that cultural issue like immigration are driving UKIP's support. But what is driving the defections is a different matter. Men like Reckless are rebels searching for a cause. Reckless went over immigration (he said), would have loved to have gone over Europe (arguably he has, in part), but equally would have been quite happy to defect for another legitimate reason had one presented itself. There were a lot of noises coming from the Conservative right about the 50p tax, and had Cameron and Osborne supported it they would have been in a lot of trouble very quickly and defections could well have followed. For the standard bearers on the right the problem is not immigration or Europe per se, but the nagging sense that Cameron is not a true conservative.
Clearly if the Tories had done as you suggested and got a huge lead in the polls, defections were much less likely, but the Tories were never likely to get any kind of lead in the polls until late in this parliament - as widely predicted on here in 2010.
The 50p cut budget was a spectacular own goal in political terms, but it was trivia such as the pasty tax that largely did for the Tories then. And if they can scrape together a lead in the next few months (less likely now there is splintering to the right) we might all conclude that Osborne did the right thing (politically) by taking the pain on the 50p tax cut early.
Luckyguy - this is like Labour saying lets just abandon the economy to the Tories and just go on about the NHS. It's arguably what they have ended up doing but it is through sloppiness rather than strategic errors. Labour don't want to sign up to Tory spending plans but they are doing so to try and improve their electability.
I will put another way. Why are people who would consider voting Tory not voting Tory now? What is holding them back? They already know that the Tories will focus on the deficit and make tough decisions. They are holding back because they think they are uncaring and only care about the rich. Surely the correct strategy is to think of ways to appeal to these voters and show their fears are unfounded?
Flockers - I deliberately made my post about the politics rather than the policy. I think it's bad in policy terms too but I guess anyone who frequents this site has already made their mind up about that!
I wasn't saying the Tories should adopt French levels of taxation. All they needed to do was introduce one or two small but symbolic tax increases which showed that we were truly 'all in it together'. Then in a 2nd term with the deficit falling they could move onto tax cuts.
Yes, it's exactly like that. Labour can't win on the economy, so they steer clear. Tories can't win on taxing and spending more. Why would people vote Tory? Priorities. They might like lavish amounts to be spent on public services, but if they feel the economy is at risk, they may well go Tory to safeguard the economy. That's why it's important not to dilute and confuse the message.
the tories don't have a message
I don't agree. Don't get me wrong, I don't actually think they're effective in Government, but 'mean but economically competent' is not a bad side to pick in these difficult times.
Luckyguy - this is like Labour saying lets just abandon the economy to the Tories and just go on about the NHS. It's arguably what they have ended up doing but it is through sloppiness rather than strategic errors. Labour don't want to sign up to Tory spending plans but they are doing so to try and improve their electability.
I will put another way. Why are people who would consider voting Tory not voting Tory now? What is holding them back? They already know that the Tories will focus on the deficit and make tough decisions. They are holding back because they think they are uncaring and only care about the rich. Surely the correct strategy is to think of ways to appeal to these voters and show their fears are unfounded?
Flockers - I deliberately made my post about the politics rather than the policy. I think it's bad in policy terms too but I guess anyone who frequents this site has already made their mind up about that!
I wasn't saying the Tories should adopt French levels of taxation. All they needed to do was introduce one or two small but symbolic tax increases which showed that we were truly 'all in it together'. Then in a 2nd term with the deficit falling they could move onto tax cuts.
Yes, it's exactly like that. Labour can't win on the economy, so they steer clear. Tories can't win on taxing and spending more. Why would people vote Tory? Priorities. They might like lavish amounts to be spent on public services, but if they feel the economy is at risk, they may well go Tory to safeguard the economy. That's why it's important not to dilute and confuse the message.
the tories don't have a message
I don't agree. Don't get me wrong, I don't actually think they're effective in Government, but 'mean but economically competent' is not a bad side to pick in these difficult times.
how's borrowing £100 billion a year competence ?
We're not talking about reality (where as I hope you know, I'm in complete agreement with you), we're talking about perception.
that;s what worries me Osborne actually thinks he's doing a great job.
Luckyguy - Why is Merkel so electorally successful? Why was Blair? Why was Clinton? It's because they recognised why people did not vote for them and addressed that weakness. People care about both the economy and the NHS and if you can persuade them on both you should. It is madness to simply ignore your weaknesses and hope they will go away. Do you really think they're are a large pool of voters out there saying, "Well I'm thinking of voting Tory but I'm not sure if they'll be tough enough on the deficit or nasty enough to poor people?"
Flockers - I didn't deal with your UKIP point. If the Tories had done what I suggested and had a clear lead in the polls I very much doubt you would have seen any more defections. In any event what is driving UKIP is not fiscal policy but cultural issues like immigration. If anything UKIP has a statist streak to the left of the conservatives on some economic issues (as much as they have actual policies!)
Blair, and Clinton, were elected during times of huge economic prosperity, when voters felt they could afford to vote with more of a social conscience. Don't know anything about MerkeI I'm afraid.
Hugh, you're one of those depressingly myopic lefty posters who believe the other side are motivated by malice. There's little point debating you. Cameron, Osborne (not Gideon - he can choose his own name) and IDS believe fundamentally that people are best served by being in work. There is plenty of evidence to support this view. Work gives people a wage, self esteem, social interaction etc. Unfortunately our benefits system disincentivises work, in some cases even making it uneconomical to seek. That has led to a depressing spiral in which in some areas very large numbers of people are out of work and unemployment becomes entrenched and gifted from generation to generation. The standard left wing response has been to try to make those people's lives more comfortable. That is well intentioned, but I (and Cameron etc) would say, ultimately self defeating. In the long run people are better served by being nudge back into self-reliance. It is a very hard process, but it is motivated by good intentions.
No, Cameron Osborne IDS and co think the poor are easy targets and will get them some good headlines in the nasty Rightwing press.
They don't give a monkey's about "making work pay". That's why so many people in work are struggling, have to choose between heating and eating, even queuing at foodbanks that are creaking at the seams under the ever increasing pressure.
If they genuinely wanted to "make work pay" they'd start by talking to employee groups - primarily Unions - about issues like zero hour contracts, ghost self employment, the living wage etc.
They aren't, and they wont, because the Tories are Governing for one group of society, the only group they understand - the rich.
Millions of people who are not rich vote Tory as well, even if Labour are more successful at winning seats in those areas in general. Are they just idiots, or perhaps all parties offer things for all groups in society but in different ways and with different successes, and that appeals to people rich and poor?
Not only is it stupid to pretend any one party is automatically best at a particular policy area, it is illogical that the Tories or anyone else would only govern for one group in society - it is not a recipe for electoral success, and for all the mockery at the Tories inability (ongoing, given they will lose in 2015) to get a majority across the UK as a whole in a long time, they have attempted it and won a plurality at least, and their aim if obviously to win a majority somehow.
I'm really beginning to think,with the right split and it is.
Many years of non tory rule,maybe even been replaced has the party of the right by UKIP.
Edward Heath as something to answer for,joining the common market was the worst thing that could have happened to the conservative party,it destroyed it.
Are UKIP of the right though? The NHS plans detailed below are to the left of Labour, though perhaps a little to the right of the Greens.
So if I understand the situation correctly, we are playing a guessing game, and the parameters are that we're looking for a Conservative Member of the House of Lords who is prominent enough to make news headlines, and might be up for defecting to UKIP tomorrow.
Tebbitt is the obvious one but it feels to me like if he were going to do it, he'd have done it by now. For an outside bet, how about Lawson? Or for a consolation prize, Lamont.
Hugh, you're one of those depressingly myopic lefty posters who believe the other side are motivated by malice. There's little point debating you. Cameron, Osborne (not Gideon - he can choose his own name) and IDS believe fundamentally that people are best served by being in work. There is plenty of evidence to support this view. Work gives people a wage, self esteem, social interaction etc. Unfortunately our benefits system disincentivises work, in some cases even making it uneconomical to seek. That has led to a depressing spiral in which in some areas very large numbers of people are out of work and unemployment becomes entrenched and gifted from generation to generation. The standard left wing response has been to try to make those people's lives more comfortable. That is well intentioned, but I (and Cameron etc) would say, ultimately self defeating. In the long run people are better served by being nudge back into self-reliance. It is a very hard process, but it is motivated by good intentions.
Point of fact. Millionaires weren't given a tax cut. The top rate of income tax was reduced to a level above that which it was throughout Labour's tenure in government. That benefited people on high incomes, many of whom were not and are not millionaires. That cut alone did not turn round our economy, clearly. But it was an important totem that announced Britain was not going to punish the wealthy and , along with many other tax changes far too detailed to debate here, was a key part of the package that has made Britain a very attractive place to live, work and establish a business. The context has been rapidly falling unemployment, record levels of employment and strong growth, at a time when much of the Eurozone is moribund.
Your comment about Osborne killing growth borders on the specious, given all that went on in the Eurozone and broader global economy at the time.
No, Cameron Osborne IDS and co think the poor are easy targets and will get them some good headlines in the nasty Rightwing press.
They don't give a monkey's about "making work pay". That's why so many people in work are struggling, have to choose between heating and eating, even queuing at foodbanks that are creaking at the seams under the ever increasing pressure.
If they genuinely wanted to "make work pay" they'd start by talking to employee groups - primarily Unions - about issues like zero hour contracts, ghost self employment, the living wage etc.
They aren't, and they wont, because the Tories are Governing for one group of society, the only group they understand - the rich.
No
It is the unintended consequence of the minimum wage holding the wages of the low paid down to the mininum
I'm really beginning to think,with the right split and it is.
Many years of non tory rule,maybe even been replaced has the party of the right by UKIP.
Edward Heath as something to answer for,joining the common market was the worst thing that could have happened to the conservative party,it destroyed it.
Are UKIP of the right though? The NHS plans detailed below are to the left of Labour, though perhaps a little to the left of the Greens.
Depends what Farage says is the NHS policy. It may be different Tuesday and something else Weds and then by Friday we may have an insurance scheme.... Anything is possible.
PS The UKIP 2010 GE Manifesto had 3 signatures on page 2, Farage was one of them. It had 14 pages with text and just 8,000 words. Yet Farage said he never read it all. But Farage's name was on it. Several politicians were widely derided (justifiably) for not reading the Lisbon Treaty which was considerably longer.
I'm really beginning to think,with the right split and it is.
Many years of non tory rule,maybe even been replaced has the party of the right by UKIP.
Edward Heath as something to answer for,joining the common market was the worst thing that could have happened to the conservative party,it destroyed it.
Are UKIP of the right though? The NHS plans detailed below are to the left of Labour, though perhaps a little to the right of the Greens.
Tell that to the desperate 'We must have a pact with UKIP' Tories who haven't worked up the courage to defect yet, even though UKIP have gone after the Left vote as well, and a pact would only undermine that.
I'm really beginning to think,with the right split and it is.
Many years of non tory rule,maybe even been replaced has the party of the right by UKIP.
Edward Heath as something to answer for,joining the common market was the worst thing that could have happened to the conservative party,it destroyed it.
Are UKIP of the right though? The NHS plans detailed below are to the left of Labour, though perhaps a little to the right of the Greens.
Got to win votes in labour heartlands ;-) the lib dems knew how to play that game ;-)
Mark Reckless allowed his local Tory association to spend £6,000 on personalised leaflets just a week before he defected to Ukip, activists have claimed.
Members of Mr Reckless’s Conservative association said last night that a huge amount of literature would now be wasted, including leaflets for nine local wards, which feature photographs of Mr Reckless. “It just shows that he’s a complete bastard,” said one organiser.
Andrew Mackness, a Conservative councillor on Medway council, described the MP as “utterly disloyal” and “a man of no integrity”. Craig Mackinlay, another local councillor, said that he was “absolutely disgusted” at his decision.
A bit like "Decide or decline"... it doesn't even really make sense: Farage wasn't the one who said it in the first place
There speaks a supporter of one of two parties who created 'the Quad'
And I am broadly happy with what they have achieved.
UKIP increasingly seems to have its major objective as causing maximum discomfort to Cameron, seemingly to distract from the vacuity of its own policies.
The aptly named Bours speech on the NHS was outstanding in its superficiality last Friday. Clearly she is no threat to Farage...
No but I can see that to neurotic Tories it seems that way and they are doing a pretty good job of turning the Tory world upside down
As for Bours speech if you call these superficial
1) Replacement of the CQC and other central health quangos with county boards 2) The mandatory requirement for health insurance for Immigrant workers 3) Opposition to TTIP in The NHS 4) Introducing Licensing for NHS Bureaucrats 5) The return of matron (wasn't that a Tory policy?) 6) Plus a general commitment to keep the NHS free at the point of delivery and out of the hands of the private sector
Granted it is perhaps not as in depth as one might desire but she only had 20 minutes or so to point out the key dividing lines. Of course her presentation left a great deal to be desired though.
Anyway I thought Lansley's reform had fixed everything? So surely there isn't much to talk about? Oh wait a minute Labour want to repeal the whole lot don't they? I wonder why?
But no Bours likely won't challenge Farage but there are a good few who I think could in due course (Woolfe, Evans, Nuttall, Collins, James etc).
They are all saloon bar gimmickery. Matrons were reintroduced by new Labour some years ago. Much of the rest is just what Burnham proposed a year ago.
Its like Foot's manifesto of 83. Socialism combined with leaving the EU.
Of course it is I'm sure Michael Foot would have put a Grammar School in every town, introduced Immigration controls that would actually restrict the levels of net immigration, scrapped the green energy subsidies, reformed Barnett, slashed International Aid, repealed the HRA, restricted child benefit, scrapped the 45p tax rate of income tax and the Inheritance Tax altogether.
I'm really beginning to think,with the right split and it is.
Many years of non tory rule,maybe even been replaced has the party of the right by UKIP.
Edward Heath as something to answer for,joining the common market was the worst thing that could have happened to the conservative party,it destroyed it.
Are UKIP of the right though? The NHS plans detailed below are to the left of Labour, though perhaps a little to the left of the Greens.
Depends what Farage says is the NHS policy. It may be different Tuesday and something else Weds and then by Friday we may have an insurance scheme.... Anything is possible.
PS The UKIP 2010 GE Manifesto had 3 signatures on page 2, Farage was one of them. It had 14 pages with text and just 8,000 words. Yet Farage said he never read it all. But Farage's name was on it. Several politicians were widely derided (justifiably) for not reading the Lisbon Treaty which was considerably longer.
Luckyguy - this is like Labour saying lets just abandon the economy to the Tories and just go on about the NHS. It's arguably what they have ended up doing but it is through sloppiness rather than strategic errors. Labour don't want to sign up to Tory spending plans but they are doing so to try and improve their electability.
I will put another way. Why are people who would consider voting Tory not voting Tory now? What is holding them back? They already know that the Tories will focus on the deficit and make tough decisions. They are holding back because they think they are uncaring and only care about the rich. Surely the correct strategy is to think of ways to appeal to these voters and show their fears are unfounded?
Flockers - I deliberately made my post about the politics rather than the policy. I think it's bad in policy terms too but I guess anyone who frequents this site has already made their mind up about that!
I wasn't saying the Tories should adopt French levels of taxation. All they needed to do was introduce one or two small but symbolic tax increases which showed that we were truly 'all in it together'. Then in a 2nd term with the deficit falling they could move onto tax cuts.
Yes, it's exactly like that. Labour can't win on the economy, so they steer clear. Tories can't win on taxing and spending more. Why would people vote Tory? Priorities. They might like lavish amounts to be spent on public services, but if they feel the economy is at risk, they may well go Tory to safeguard the economy. That's why it's important not to dilute and confuse the message.
the tories don't have a message
I don't agree. Don't get me wrong, I don't actually think they're effective in Government, but 'mean but economically competent' is not a bad side to pick in these difficult times.
Mean nasty party who sometimes eat babies...
Just watch the labour cuts when in Government.
Labour.....In Government......what about Swiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiingback?
And I am broadly happy with what they have achieved.
UKIP increasingly seems to have its major objective as causing maximum discomfort to Cameron, seemingly to distract from the vacuity of its own policies.
The aptly named Bours speech on the NHS was outstanding in its superficiality last Friday. Clearly she is no threat to Farage...
No but I can see that to neurotic Tories it seems that way and they are doing a pretty good job of turning the Tory world upside down
As for Bours speech if you call these superficial
1) Replacement of the CQC and other central health quangos with county boards 2) The mandatory requirement for health insurance for Immigrant workers 3) Opposition to TTIP in The NHS 4) Introducing Licensing for NHS Bureaucrats 5) The return of matron (wasn't that a Tory policy?) 6) Plus a general commitment to keep the NHS free at the point of delivery and out of the hands of the private sector
Granted it is perhaps not as in depth as one might desire but she only had 20 minutes or so to point out the key dividing lines. Of course her presentation left a great deal to be desired though.
Anyway I thought Lansley's reform had fixed everything? So surely there isn't much to talk about? Oh wait a minute Labour want to repeal the whole lot don't they? I wonder why?
But no Bours likely won't challenge Farage but there are a good few who I think could in due course (Woolfe, Evans, Nuttall, Collins, James etc).
They are all saloon bar gimmickery. Matrons were reintroduced by new Labour some years ago. Much of the rest is just what Burnham proposed a year ago.
Its like Foot's manifesto of 83. Socialism combined with leaving the EU.
Of course it is I'm sure Michael Foot would have put a Grammar School in every town, introduced Immigration controls that would actually restrict the levels of net immigration, scrapped the green energy subsidies, reformed Barnett, repealed the HRA, restricted child benefit, scrapped the 45p tax rate of income tax and the Inheritance Tax altogether.
These damn socialists!
So all rather incoherent then. Socialism for the NHS, but the axe to other bits of the welfare state.
Luckyguy - this is like Labour saying lets just abandon the economy to the Tories and just go on about the NHS. It's arguably what they have ended up doing but it is through sloppiness rather than strategic errors. Labour don't want to sign up to Tory spending plans but they are doing so to try and improve their electability.
I will put another way. Why are people who would consider voting Tory not voting Tory now? What is holding them back? They already know that the Tories will focus on the deficit and make tough decisions. They are holding back because they think they are uncaring and only care about the rich. Surely the correct strategy is to think of ways to appeal to these voters and show their fears are unfounded?
Flockers - I deliberately made my post about the politics rather than the policy. I think it's bad in policy terms too but I guess anyone who frequents this site has already made their mind up about that!
I wasn't saying the Tories should adopt French levels of taxation. All they needed to do was introduce one or two small but symbolic tax increases which showed that we were truly 'all in it together'. Then in a 2nd term with the deficit falling they could move onto tax cuts.
Yes, it's exactly like that. Labour can't win on the economy, so they steer clear. Tories can't win on taxing and spending more. Why would people vote Tory? Priorities. They might like lavish amounts to be spent on public services, but if they feel the economy is at risk, they may well go Tory to safeguard the economy. That's why it's important not to dilute and confuse the message.
the tories don't have a message
I don't agree. Don't get me wrong, I don't actually think they're effective in Government, but 'mean but economically competent' is not a bad side to pick in these difficult times.
Mean nasty party who sometimes eat babies...
Or Labour which means nasty party who let people die in hospitals and are not remotely credible on the economy to balance it out?
Flockers - As I say there is little point in getting into a policy debate but I don't think yours or the government's argument is logically consistent.
Your position seems to be that work should be incentivised. I agree. This explains why out of work benefits would be frozen. It does not explain why in work benefits would be frozen.
To my mind there are three ways to really incentivise work:
1. Effectively starve people and force them to work because the alternative is destitution. 2. Increase the minimum wage or find some other way of increasing the wages of the low paid. 3. Introduce a universal credit with a much, much lower taper (say 20% rather than 55% as proposed by this government). This would mean people only lose a little bit of their benefits as they start to earn and they are phased out more slowly. This is very expensive but arguably worth it due to the social value of incentivising work.
What the government announced today is going to do next to nothing to incentivise work.
I think it is fair to argue that the government is clearly doing this for political reasons, to create a dividing line with Labour. I don't think they are 'evil' I just think they have very little idea what it will mean to families who are really struggling at the moment. And they certainly care much more about their own election chances.
Kieran, I think it is subtler than that. You don't need to starve people; it's just a nudge here and a nudge there. The key phrase in my earlier post was "self-reliance". I define that broadly to include reliance on (principally) family members. Today's announcement is consistent with the theme that people need to become more self reliant - they can't rely on the state to fund a comfortable lifestyle because the state does not have a bottomless pit of money, and it is unhealthy to get into the habit of relying on state support. Ultimately policies like this should encourage people to work that bit harder in school, to knuckle down more at their job, to think twice about having children early, to stay at home a little longer, to push for that promotion, to look for that opportunity to train or develop skills, to move to that better paid job. None of this is easy, and it comes with no guarantees. People will suffer, some through nothing other than misfortune.
I am sure there is an element of wanting to create a dividing line in this; there almost always is. But there are lots of much easier ways to earn some good headlines, and lots of much less risky policies they could pursue. If mishandled (virtually guaranteed!) they could get slammed, even by the papers you think they are doing this for. This really is much more about trying to shape Britain's culture and ethos.
Comments
That said, I agree with the thrust of your analysis of today's announcements. This is extremely risky territory for the Conservatives, exposing a flank on which they are vulnerable and - crucially - driving those soft left voters closer to Labour's teat. I support what Osborne is trying to achieve; it's a slow revolution to make work more attractive and a life on benefits less attractive. It's vital for Britain's long-term interests, competitiveness, social well-being and social mobility. But the optics are dreadful and just reinforce the lazy stereotype of cruel Tories looking out for the rich and leaving the poor to suffer.
I also thought Cameron and Boris's language re Mark Reckless was disgraceful and does them no credit. Cameron in particular sounded like he had lost his grip. His tone should have been polite, confident, conciliatory towards those who are concerned but steely in its determination. Instead he has come across as angry, flustered, bitter and not in control. Must do better.
There is room for a party of projection on which those so inclined can impose their wish list but UKIP have now cornered the market and there is no more room.
Coolest politicospeak descriptive word Eva!!!!!!!!!!!!
Arfy arf.
UKIP increasingly seems to have its major objective as causing maximum discomfort to Cameron, seemingly to distract from the vacuity of its own policies.
The aptly named Bours speech on the NHS was outstanding in its superficiality last Friday. Clearly she is no threat to Farage...
Indeed who does the tax cut benefit ?
The rich and self employed manage their tax bills with their accountants so it's basically people on PAYE who pay it. That means bankers, the civil service plutocrats and plc execs who spend their time trying to avoid corporate taxes.
Your "a party of projection on which those so inclined can impose their wish list but UKIP have now cornered the market" very accurate.
The Kippers on here need to stop and really really read about UKIP's numerous inconsistencies and faults. Just because something has a name unlike other parties does not make it a blank canvass for you to paint your wish list of dreams on.
From a Lord Ashcroft poll in May.
5 years more of cuts are needed: 41%
Austerity/cuts were needed at first, but we don't need another 5 years: 25%
Austerity/cuts were never needed: 34%
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/ANP-summary-140527.pdf
Then yesterday another Ashcroft poll showed that people only rank the deficit as the 5th-biggest issue in their opinion (behind economic growth, immigration, cost of living and the NHS).
It's ALL about the optics. Cameron, Gideon and IDS know that their "reforms" are doing nothing to help people. They are just lengthening foodbank queues, clobbering the most vulnerable, causing crushing misery and poverty, attempting to "balance the books" on the backs of the poorest.
They know this, they've got the data. But they don't care, they are chasing scrounger bashing headlines in the gutter Rightwing press. It's ALL about the optics, nothing to do with sound policy.
And if the Tories hadn't given millionaires a tax cut we wouldn't have had growth, years after Osborne killed the growth he inherited of course? That's a gem.
The 2012 budget's pasty tax destroyed a lot of credibility. The 5p cut was at least income tax neutral. It probably helped shore up the high income groups spending within the country and attracted more of them. But it hit the party's image.
AB" The rich and self employed manage their tax bills with their accountants so it's basically people on PAYE who pay it. That means bankers, the civil service plutocrats and plc execs who spend their time trying to avoid corporate taxes." Always has been. Which is why reducing the incentive to avoid tax CAN actually bring in more tax. But I accept that you do not view economics that way.
Is there a market for Carswell re defecting?
Is that like defecating on two parties instead of one? I think he already has.....
I will put another way. Why are people who would consider voting Tory not voting Tory now? What is holding them back? They already know that the Tories will focus on the deficit and make tough decisions. They are holding back because they think they are uncaring and only care about the rich. Surely the correct strategy is to think of ways to appeal to these voters and show their fears are unfounded?
Flockers - I deliberately made my post about the politics rather than the policy. I think it's bad in policy terms too but I guess anyone who frequents this site has already made their mind up about that!
I wasn't saying the Tories should adopt French levels of taxation. All they needed to do was introduce one or two small but symbolic tax increases which showed that we were truly 'all in it together'. Then in a 2nd term with the deficit falling they could move onto tax cuts.
But people having been forecasting doom for UKIP and every minor infraction to be terminal for about 18 months now
Its the main reason I have a fantastic portfolio of pro UKIP bets vs PB posters for next years GE
UKIP 4/6 in Clacton
"The values with the Conservatives!"
"Labour might sneak through the middle!"
I'm also not expecting UKIP to win the 2015 general election, so only their priorities have a hope of reaching the horse-trading sessions after the election.
You're getting confused - I just hope you spent the money (from the 5p tax cut) wisely.
you might have a point
You must be glad you bottled the leaders debate bet now eh?
I didn;t say it was meant to stimulate the economy, previous poster did and as for PAYE bods that kicks in for all those leftie pig troughers on £150+k a year. So if you want to give Salmond a tax cut so be it.
Interestingly Campbell-Bannerman repeated a question yesterday as to whether Farage might be gone as leader in November.
His FB comment was
"Interesting that with UKIP MPs Nigel Farage may step down as Leader in November. UKIP Constitution suggests Westminster MP should be Leader"
I can't confirm if this is true but he did serve as Deputy Leader for 4 years so I assume he may know something about this.
Not you though because you bottled it..
Shrewd move
The nadir of Liberal fortunes was the 1950s, when they took 9.1, 2.5, 2.7 and 5.9 per cent of the vote across the four elections of that decade. However, those middle two results were largely the consequence of fighting so few constituencies. Their average share of the vote in the seats they stood in was about 12.0, 14.6, 15.5 and 17.2 (I've assumed equal-sized constituencies but the actual figures won't be far off). Now it's almost certainly true that had the Liberals contested every seat, their average would have fallen - you'd expect them to have picked their best bets, particularly with a threshold for holding their deposit of 12.5%. Even so, statistical quirk or not, 2015 may break new ground for them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graphical_summary
Hugh, you're one of those depressingly myopic lefty posters who believe the other side are motivated by malice. There's little point debating you. Cameron, Osborne (not Gideon - he can choose his own name) and IDS believe fundamentally that people are best served by being in work. There is plenty of evidence to support this view. Work gives people a wage, self esteem, social interaction etc. Unfortunately our benefits system disincentivises work, in some cases even making it uneconomical to seek. That has led to a depressing spiral in which in some areas very large numbers of people are out of work and unemployment becomes entrenched and gifted from generation to generation. The standard left wing response has been to try to make those people's lives more comfortable. That is well intentioned, but I (and Cameron etc) would say, ultimately self defeating. In the long run people are better served by being nudge back into self-reliance. It is a very hard process, but it is motivated by good intentions.
Point of fact. Millionaires weren't given a tax cut. The top rate of income tax was reduced to a level above that which it was throughout Labour's tenure in government. That benefited people on high incomes, many of whom were not and are not millionaires. That cut alone did not turn round our economy, clearly. But it was an important totem that announced Britain was not going to punish the wealthy and , along with many other tax changes far too detailed to debate here, was a key part of the package that has made Britain a very attractive place to live, work and establish a business. The context has been rapidly falling unemployment, record levels of employment and strong growth, at a time when much of the Eurozone is moribund.
Your comment about Osborne killing growth borders on the specious, given all that went on in the Eurozone and broader global economy at the time.
As for Bours speech if you call these superficial
1) Replacement of the CQC and other central health quangos with county boards
2) The mandatory requirement for health insurance for Immigrant workers
3) Opposition to TTIP in The NHS
4) Introducing Licensing for NHS Bureaucrats
5) The return of matron (wasn't that a Tory policy?)
6) Plus a general commitment to keep the NHS free at the point of delivery and out of the hands of the private sector
Granted it is perhaps not as in depth as one might desire but she only had 20 minutes or so to point out the key dividing lines. Of course her presentation left a great deal to be desired though.
Anyway I thought Lansley's reform had fixed everything? So surely there isn't much to talk about? Oh wait a minute Labour want to repeal the whole lot don't they? I wonder why?
But no Bours likely won't challenge Farage but there are a good few who I think could in due course (Woolfe, Evans, Nuttall, Collins, James etc).
5-10% 5/2
15-20% 11/4
Crossover imminent with Ladbrokes
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/ukip-vote-percentage
Flockers - I didn't deal with your UKIP point. If the Tories had done what I suggested and had a clear lead in the polls I very much doubt you would have seen any more defections. In any event what is driving UKIP is not fiscal policy but cultural issues like immigration. If anything UKIP has a statist streak to the left of the conservatives on some economic issues (as much as they have actual policies!)
Tebbitt is the obvious one but it feels to me like if he were going to do it, he'd have done it by now. For an outside bet, how about Lawson? Or for a consolation prize, Lamont.
But I still think the most likely result is a Labour majority government.
-------
Mr Kellner's article earlier suggested the SNP might gain 20 seats next year. (He thought 10 for UKIP)
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/09/29/ukip-snp-and-risks-parliamentary-paralysis/
June: 4.8
July: 4.25
Aug: no polls
Sept: 3.25
Its like Foot's manifesto of 83. Socialism combined with leaving the EU.
The average decline in those seats is 16% ( nationwide its 17% now), they are certain to lose 12 out of those 24, with another 8 to close to call, only 3 are certain LD seats for now.
Many years of non tory rule,maybe even been replaced has the party of the right by UKIP.
Edward Heath as something to answer for,joining the common market was the worst thing that could have happened to the conservative party,it destroyed it.
http://sfglobe.com/?id=14064&src=share_fb_new_14064
They don't give a monkey's about "making work pay". That's why so many people in work are struggling, have to choose between heating and eating, even queuing at foodbanks that are creaking at the seams under the ever increasing pressure.
If they genuinely wanted to "make work pay" they'd start by talking to employee groups - primarily Unions - about issues like zero hour contracts, ghost self employment, the living wage etc.
They aren't, and they wont, because the Tories are Governing for one group of society, the only group they understand - the rich.
Your position seems to be that work should be incentivised. I agree. This explains why out of work benefits would be frozen. It does not explain why in work benefits would be frozen.
To my mind there are three ways to really incentivise work:
1. Effectively starve people and force them to work because the alternative is destitution.
2. Increase the minimum wage or find some other way of increasing the wages of the low paid.
3. Introduce a universal credit with a much, much lower taper (say 20% rather than 55% as proposed by this government). This would mean people only lose a little bit of their benefits as they start to earn and they are phased out more slowly. This is very expensive but arguably worth it due to the social value of incentivising work.
What the government announced today is going to do next to nothing to incentivise work.
I think it is fair to argue that the government is clearly doing this for political reasons, to create a dividing line with Labour. I don't think they are 'evil' I just think they have very little idea what it will mean to families who are really struggling at the moment. And they certainly care much more about their own election chances.
Clearly if the Tories had done as you suggested and got a huge lead in the polls, defections were much less likely, but the Tories were never likely to get any kind of lead in the polls until late in this parliament - as widely predicted on here in 2010.
The 50p cut budget was a spectacular own goal in political terms, but it was trivia such as the pasty tax that largely did for the Tories then. And if they can scrape together a lead in the next few months (less likely now there is splintering to the right) we might all conclude that Osborne did the right thing (politically) by taking the pain on the 50p tax cut early.
No-one in this country needs to choose between heating and eating.
England: Tory 34, Lab 32
Not only is it stupid to pretend any one party is automatically best at a particular policy area, it is illogical that the Tories or anyone else would only govern for one group in society - it is not a recipe for electoral success, and for all the mockery at the Tories inability (ongoing, given they will lose in 2015) to get a majority across the UK as a whole in a long time, they have attempted it and won a plurality at least, and their aim if obviously to win a majority somehow.
For a real outside bet, Baroness Warsi.
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2012/08/tory-peer-lord-vinson-threatens-to-defect-to-ukip-unless-cameron-changes-europe-policy.html
Militant barstewards
It is the unintended consequence of the minimum wage holding the wages of the low paid down to the mininum
PS The UKIP 2010 GE Manifesto had 3 signatures on page 2, Farage was one of them. It had 14 pages with text and just 8,000 words. Yet Farage said he never read it all. But Farage's name was on it.
Several politicians were widely derided (justifiably) for not reading the Lisbon Treaty which was considerably longer.
The guy is being used as a segment host....have to say he's bloody good given his situation.
Note to self: Things not to type on an internet forum.
These damn socialists!
I am sure there is an element of wanting to create a dividing line in this; there almost always is. But there are lots of much easier ways to earn some good headlines, and lots of much less risky policies they could pursue. If mishandled (virtually guaranteed!) they could get slammed, even by the papers you think they are doing this for. This really is much more about trying to shape Britain's culture and ethos.