"Also 40% of the VI think that the Cons would eliminate the deficit by 2020, but only 17% believe Labour would. Is this a matter of capability or being trusted to keep promises?"
Yawn ! - yesterday's news.
It is yesterday's news, true. It's also today's news. Most importantly of all, it's tomorrow's news. If, God forbid, we get a Miliband government, it will be the main news item continuously for the entire term. What on earth would a Miliband government do about public spending? Do you Labour supporters never ask yourself that question?
More evidence that the key battleground will not be the deficit - as I forecast on here long ago and which Antifrank enthusiastically countered. Looks like I will be right and he wrong. The Tory record on the deficit is too poor to make it a battleground - and most of the public don't understand it and think we are actually paying off our debts.
We spent a considerable amount, probably incompetently, on Tamiflu.
@Richard_Nabavi " What on earth would a Miliband government do about public spending?" Have different priorities to your and Dave's idea that only those with access to capital deserve to prosper?
Just checking the live page on the BBC regarding Hong Kong. Seems Chinese publications and news agencies are now covering the protest, but parroting (unsurprisingly) the government line about how tremendously dangerous it is. New tack, after a media blackout.
I don't think taking pharmaceutical research into Public ownership is the panacea (sorry about that) you may think.
Having worked in both pharmaceutical research and the Civil Service, the only advantage would be the reduction of the need for "me-too" drugs. But a committee to decide innovation would be slow strangulation.
More evidence that the key battleground will not be the deficit - as I forecast on here long ago and which Antifrank enthusiastically countered. Looks like I will be right and he wrong. The Tory record on the deficit is too poor to make it a battleground - and most of the public don't understand it and think we are actually paying off our debts.
Ah, another Labour supporter who's forgotten the deficit. It was quite embarrassing for the last one who did so last week.
You simply aren't listening. George Osborne's speech was based around the deficit. I expect you'll hear the D word quite a bit today in David Cameron's speech.
Just because you don't like something, you can't pretend it's not being talked about.
Not sure the smoking example works. The taxes on cigarettes mean smokers are massive net contributors to the NHS (on contrast to heavy drinkers).
If everyone stopped smoking overnight, the health deficit would become worse. If everybody stopped drinking, it'd become better.
Drinking is heavily taxed.
One needs to look at the fiscal issues as a whole. People with unhealthy lifestyles have low life expectancy. That means they impose a lesser burden on the Pensions budget, as well as requiring fewer years of end of life care.
I believe the evidence suggests that healthier people have fewer years of disability at the end of life than unhealthy people, so the NHS cost will be higher for the latter. I accept your point about pensions, but pensions are increasingly a small amount relative to healthcare provision.
@OldKingCole Tamiflu and its equivalent (not sure of it's name) were very profitable. Lobbying costs money, but done well recoups exponentially more than the outlay.
The recent Tory strategy for dealing with Ukip reminds me a lot of Labour’s strategy for dealing with Militant in the early 1980s. A number of people within the party advocated tackling the entryists directly, but were consistently overruled.
It would be “divisive” people warned. The Militants were misguided, yes. But they were ideological soulmates. “Comrades”. What they were saying had resonance with sections of Labour’s base. To attack them would risk a disastrous new fracture on the Left.
It was rubbish. The divisions were already there, in plain sight. Militant were not soulmates but political terrorists, holding the Labour Party to ransom. And the threat to Labour’s base came from the weakness of leadership that failing to confront them exposed.
This week Ukip have shown themselves to be the Tory party’s very own Militant tendendcy. They do not feel ideological kinship with the modern conservatism, they revile it. They don’t want to build bridges among the Right, but demolish those bridges wherever they find them. They know they have no realistic hope of winning the next election for themselves, nor even holding the balance of power. Their mission – their sole mission – is to snatch power from the hands of David Cameron.
On topic: Given demographic and other pressures, there's no choice but to spend more on healthcare, so in a sense a promise to 'ring-fence' spending is pretty meaningless. That isn't really the issue, the key issues are how to get better value out of the money which is spent, how to achieve better quality of care in those areas where the NHS is currently weak, and whether the priorities are currently optimally set. Labour is weak on all three, mainly because they are not really interested in efficiency and are ideologically obsessed with big-state nationalised provision, even when it's demonstrably sub-optimal.
Having said that, Andy Burnham has been making some interesting proposals about one of the really crucial dilemmas, which is the interface between the NHS and care for the elderly. Currently this is an unmitigated disaster. Unfortunately, Labour have politicised the NHS so much that it's almost impossible to have a grown-up debate about areas such as this.
@Richard_Nabavi " What on earth would a Miliband government do about public spending?" Have different priorities to your and Dave's idea that only those with access to capital deserve to prosper?
Yeah yeah, I'm sure we'll hear a lot of vacuous platitudes like that. But what would they actually do? Do you have the faintest idea? Does anyone?
@OldKingCole Tamiflu and its equivalent (not sure of it's name) were very profitable. Lobbying costs money, but done well recoups exponentially more than the outlay.
Lot of public money spent unnecessarily though! (Probably!)
@OldKingCole Most definitely you mean? Both drugs later proved to be all but useless, but the panic induced meant that the government had no choice but to stockpile. The "free market" in action.
@Richard_Nabavi " What on earth would a Miliband government do about public spending?" Have different priorities to your and Dave's idea that only those with access to capital deserve to prosper?
And yet....and yet....
For 100% of this Parliament, highest rate Income Tax has been between 5% and 10% higher than it was for 99% of the last Parliament.
And then there's the people who have been taken out of income taxes altogether.
As Enoch Powell pointed out, the NHS is where infinite demand meets finite resources.
Enoch talking rubbish (again). Nothing 'infinite' about demand on the NHS. Most people hate going to the doctor.
Jonathan talking rubbish again. Try speaking to those people who can't get effective yet highly expensive drugs to prolong their life.
Modern medicine is at the point where we could extend the life of a great many of our population, through drugs and transplants, if the finance was there. It isn't.
An extension of life, which would then present its own health problems, thus further increasing the demand for healthcare. Also for more nurses and doctors to look after them, for longer, in more modern and well-equipped hospitals. Of course, they should be rewarded for their hard work as well and we should pay proper salaries to recruit, train and retain the best people to the best possible standards.
Hence healthcare demand is infinite and a bottomless pit. We could theoretically spend tens of thousands of pounds to extend the life of an ill person for a few more hours. It just makes no sense.
I was at the DoH and used to sit in on the whole Tamiflu/pandemic fears meetings every week.
The competence was very patchy. There was a lot of money being spent buying it in vast quantities and one or two people attempting to project manage it. It was ridiculous and a prime example of being neither one thing nor another. Spending money to Cover Your Arse, yet poor or invisible planning for [because it wasn't truly believed to be a threat].
I was at the Rural Payments Agency when the second Foot&Mouth outbreak occurred. Now for all it's massive faults - that organisation had learned very painful lessons from the last time and showed iron discipline/24 by 7 working to get on top of it pronto.
A small true but apochyphal sounding anecdote... during the BSE crisis, it was very likely you'd see piles of burning cattle carcasses using railway sleepers as pyre starters. Some numpty in DEFRA as was ordered several hundred thousand railway sleepers - the wrong sort, made of concrete.
@OldKingCole Tamiflu and its equivalent (not sure of it's name) were very profitable. Lobbying costs money, but done well recoups exponentially more than the outlay.
Not sure the smoking example works. The taxes on cigarettes mean smokers are massive net contributors to the NHS (on contrast to heavy drinkers).
If everyone stopped smoking overnight, the health deficit would become worse. If everybody stopped drinking, it'd become better.
Drinking is heavily taxed.
One needs to look at the fiscal issues as a whole. People with unhealthy lifestyles have low life expectancy. That means they impose a lesser burden on the Pensions budget, as well as requiring fewer years of end of life care.
I believe the evidence suggests that healthier people have fewer years of disability at the end of life than unhealthy people, so the NHS cost will be higher for the latter. I accept your point about pensions, but pensions are increasingly a small amount relative to healthcare provision.
It has been proven beyond doubt that the total burden on the NHS goes down if we 'allow' unhealthy lifestyles. The Adam Smith Institute blog has occasional excellent posts on this. Life is like a box of chococlates for fat people - it doesn't last as long. If we want to make the NHS more affordable we should encourage cheap booze, fags and pies.
The recent Tory strategy for dealing with Ukip reminds me a lot of Labour’s strategy for dealing with Militant in the early 1980s. A number of people within the party advocated tackling the entryists directly, but were consistently overruled.
It would be “divisive” people warned. The Militants were misguided, yes. But they were ideological soulmates. “Comrades”. What they were saying had resonance with sections of Labour’s base. To attack them would risk a disastrous new fracture on the Left.
It was rubbish. The divisions were already there, in plain sight. Militant were not soulmates but political terrorists, holding the Labour Party to ransom. And the threat to Labour’s base came from the weakness of leadership that failing to confront them exposed.
This week Ukip have shown themselves to be the Tory party’s very own Militant tendendcy. They do not feel ideological kinship with the modern conservatism, they revile it. They don’t want to build bridges among the Right, but demolish those bridges wherever they find them. They know they have no realistic hope of winning the next election for themselves, nor even holding the balance of power. Their mission – their sole mission – is to snatch power from the hands of David Cameron.
Militant was an entryist movement, which couldn't win elections in its own right. UKIP is a rival political party, which can.
"Quite a clever trick, politically, if he can pull it off. Cameron intends to use one of his major strengths to pull the rug from under Labour's greatest strength, and therefore make it his own."
As an ex ad man I'm surprised Cameron doesn't understand that while Labour are the market leader in health any attention that Cameron gives it will inevitably help them not the Tories.
Salmond has managed to successfully portray the SNP as the defenders of the NHS at Labour's expense. Attacking an opponent's strength is often a good strategy.
The SNP promoted independence as the best way to defend the NHS from the Tories.
I am not sure that the Tories can pull off the same trick.
The Tories don't have to. They just have to demonstrate that Labour won't have the money to deliver what they're promising, whereas the Tories will because of their long-term economic plan.
"Quite a clever trick, politically, if he can pull it off. Cameron intends to use one of his major strengths to pull the rug from under Labour's greatest strength, and therefore make it his own."
As an ex ad man I'm surprised Cameron doesn't understand that while Labour are the market leader in health any attention that Cameron gives it will inevitably help them not the Tories.
Roger, I agree it's risky. I expect Cameron is flying the flag now to see what reaction it gets. If it works, he may continue running with it. If not, he will just campaign on leadership and the economy during the election, but refer back to this speech, where necessary, to blunt any Labour attacks on the NHS.
Picking up on a point below made by the good Dr Fox (as opposed to the bad Dr Fox and the wicked Dr Fox), we need a government department to deal with the problems caused by an ageing population, spanning pensions, health and employment.
We need a proper discussion about how we are going to change society to deal with the good news that we are living longer and have new problems as a consequence.
The last election was fought with the NHS and "fairness" as key issues.
Who won? What's changed?
It is well established in the minds of the electorate that Labour promise things that they can't afford or can't competently deliver.
If the Tories lose it will be because of perceived failures relating to immigration and the economy (i.e. having failed to balance the books quickly enough leading to never ending cuts narratives)
This current Tory conference seems to be replicating the failings of the 2012 budget. Far too timid.
That leaves Osborne with two set-piece budgetary moments to move the mood before the actual campaign cranks up.
More evidence that the key battleground will not be the deficit - as I forecast on here long ago and which Antifrank enthusiastically countered. Looks like I will be right and he wrong. The Tory record on the deficit is too poor to make it a battleground - and most of the public don't understand it and think we are actually paying off our debts.
Ah, another Labour supporter who's forgotten the deficit. It was quite embarrassing for the last one who did so last week.
You simply aren't listening. George Osborne's speech was based around the deficit. I expect you'll hear the D word quite a bit today in David Cameron's speech.
Just because you don't like something, you can't pretend it's not being talked about.
I haven't forgot about it. I merely said it will not be a key election battleground. You did.
Not sure the smoking example works. The taxes on cigarettes mean smokers are massive net contributors to the NHS (on contrast to heavy drinkers).
If everyone stopped smoking overnight, the health deficit would become worse. If everybody stopped drinking, it'd become better.
Drinking is heavily taxed.
One needs to look at the fiscal issues as a whole. People with unhealthy lifestyles have low life expectancy. That means they impose a lesser burden on the Pensions budget, as well as requiring fewer years of end of life care.
I believe the evidence suggests that healthier people have fewer years of disability at the end of life than unhealthy people, so the NHS cost will be higher for the latter. I accept your point about pensions, but pensions are increasingly a small amount relative to healthcare provision.
It has been proven beyond doubt that the total burden on the NHS goes down if we 'allow' unhealthy lifestyles. The Adam Smith Institute blog has occasional excellent posts on this. Life is like a box of chococlates for fat people - it doesn't last as long. If we want to make the NHS more affordable we should encourage cheap booze, fags and pies.
More evidence that the key battleground will not be the deficit - as I forecast on here long ago and which Antifrank enthusiastically countered. Looks like I will be right and he wrong. The Tory record on the deficit is too poor to make it a battleground - and most of the public don't understand it and think we are actually paying off our debts.
Ah, another Labour supporter who's forgotten the deficit. It was quite embarrassing for the last one who did so last week.
You simply aren't listening. George Osborne's speech was based around the deficit. I expect you'll hear the D word quite a bit today in David Cameron's speech.
Just because you don't like something, you can't pretend it's not being talked about.
I haven't forgot about it. I merely said it will not be a key election battleground. You did.
I stand by my forecast. We'll see who is right.
I doubt we will, because you're determined not to see the evidence when it's right under your nose. The fact that the Labour party conference was completely derailed by the subject seems to have escaped your notice.
Thing is - it's right. And what's more, pretty much the same is true of us. What will happen to the UK when we stop being able to borrow vast amounts of money very cheaply? Answer: Things get ugly. Let's stop borrowing. Let's balance the books and slowly start to repay our debt. The one really hopeful thing for the UK vs USA is that we at least borrow long and don't have nearly the same pressure to keep rolling over short term bonds.
Lefties - read the article and engage critical thinking circuits. Your 'jam tomorrow' dreams depend on it getting this right. Everything does.
The thing is though Patrick that lefties don't believe current welfare spending is unaffordable and think that it can be maintained perpetually by taxes on other people. It only needs 35% to think this. Even if the other 65% are wholly rational, Labour's electoral advantage then delivers the rest.
More evidence that the key battleground will not be the deficit - as I forecast on here long ago and which Antifrank enthusiastically countered. Looks like I will be right and he wrong. The Tory record on the deficit is too poor to make it a battleground - and most of the public don't understand it and think we are actually paying off our debts.
Ah, another Labour supporter who's forgotten the deficit. It was quite embarrassing for the last one who did so last week.
You simply aren't listening. George Osborne's speech was based around the deficit. I expect you'll hear the D word quite a bit today in David Cameron's speech.
Just because you don't like something, you can't pretend it's not being talked about.
I haven't forgot about it. I merely said it will not be a key election battleground. You did.
I stand by my forecast. We'll see who is right.
I doubt we will, becaue you're determined not to see the evidence when it's right under your nose. The fact that the Labour party conference was completely derailed by the subject seems to have escaped your notice.
Hyperbole. And we will see when the campaign begins whether the Tories want to draw attention to the fact that they have been piling up debt and missed their deficit targets - well it's a strategy, although not one I would personally recommend.
More evidence that the key battleground will not be the deficit - as I forecast on here long ago and which Antifrank enthusiastically countered. Looks like I will be right and he wrong. The Tory record on the deficit is too poor to make it a battleground - and most of the public don't understand it and think we are actually paying off our debts.
Ah, another Labour supporter who's forgotten the deficit. It was quite embarrassing for the last one who did so last week.
You simply aren't listening. George Osborne's speech was based around the deficit. I expect you'll hear the D word quite a bit today in David Cameron's speech.
Just because you don't like something, you can't pretend it's not being talked about.
I haven't forgot about it. I merely said it will not be a key election battleground. You did.
I stand by my forecast. We'll see who is right.
I doubt we will, becaue you're determined not to see the evidence when it's right under your nose. The fact that the Labour party conference was completely derailed by the subject seems to have escaped your notice.
Hyperbole. And we will see when the campaign begins whether the Tories want to draw attention to the fact that they have been piling up debt and missed their deficit targets - well it's a strategy, although not one I would personally recommend.
We shall soon see.
Right, that would be the piles of debt Labour criticised them for not making bigger.
I'm not exactly an Osborne fan but Labour claiming they would have done better is frankly risible.
I actually think that this conference is turning out to be a good one for the Tories.
Like or not, Osborne has been clear about what happens if the Tories win - compare and contrast with EdM and Labour.
On the NHS, the Tories can say they are able to make commitments to extra spending as they are prepared to make cuts elsewhere. Can Labour match that? Nope.
And having the party's right wing consistently linked to UKIP and in rebellion against the leadership is hardly the worst thing if you want people to believe the Tories are no longer the baby-eating party.
Now, I don't like the choices that Osborne has made, I think the NHS stuff is more gimmick than substance and I like headlines about Tories defecting to UKIP as much as the next anti-Tory; but when I compare and contrast with what happened last week, I see one party that is serious about governing and another one that is trying to replace it on a wing and a prayer. Obviously, I am not the world's greatest soothsayer; but, I can't help feeling that in the run up to May that is going to benefit the Tories and disadvantage Labour.
Innocent - yes, happy to bet £20 that the Tories won't lead by 10%, to charity or not as you prefer. Let me know!
Need to get to work, but a passing note: Labour's lead in England is now significantly higher than it has been - 14 points clear in London today, 6 points clear in the marginal-rich Midlands - balanced by the serious SNP surge at Labour's expense in Scotland, where the Tories are just 6 points behind Labour. On these figures, EV4EL wouldn't have any party bonus for anyone, which should help encourage a rational discussion.
Not sure the smoking example works. The taxes on cigarettes mean smokers are massive net contributors to the NHS (on contrast to heavy drinkers).
If everyone stopped smoking overnight, the health deficit would become worse. If everybody stopped drinking, it'd become better.
Drinking is heavily taxed.
One needs to look at the fiscal issues as a whole. People with unhealthy lifestyles have low life expectancy. That means they impose a lesser burden on the Pensions budget, as well as requiring fewer years of end of life care.
I believe the evidence suggests that healthier people have fewer years of disability at the end of life than unhealthy people, so the NHS cost will be higher for the latter. I accept your point about pensions, but pensions are increasingly a small amount relative to healthcare provision.
It has been proven beyond doubt that the total burden on the NHS goes down if we 'allow' unhealthy lifestyles. The Adam Smith Institute blog has occasional excellent posts on this. Life is like a box of chococlates for fat people - it doesn't last as long. If we want to make the NHS more affordable we should encourage cheap booze, fags and pies.
Legalising murder will also help !
I'm a libertarian. I don't believe the state has any business telling people how to live their lives or making certain lifestyles more expensive - especially if those lifestyles will save the rest of us money. Let them eat cake. And deep fried Mars Bars. And Special Brew. And smack.
Ms Plato wrote "I was at the DoH and used to sit in on the whole Tamiflu/pandemic fears meetings every week.
The competence was very patchy. There was a lot of money being spent buying it in vast quantities and one or two people attempting to project manage it. It was ridiculous and a prime example of being neither one thing nor another. Spending money to Cover Your Arse, yet poor or invisible planning for [because it wasn't truly believed to be a threat].”
Fortunately for me I was out of practice by then or I could have been involved at the sharp end. I’m grateful for the post Ms Plato because that’s precisely the impression that colleagues on the ground had.
I actually think that this conference is turning out to be a good one for the Tories.
Like or not, Osborne has been clear about what happens if the Tories win - compare and contrast with EdM and Labour.
On the NHS, the Tories can say they are able to make commitments to extra spending as they are prepared to make cuts elsewhere. Can Labour match that? Nope.
And having the party's right wing consistently linked to UKIP and in rebellion against the leadership is hardly the worst thing if you want people to believe the Tories are no longer the baby-eating party.
Now, I don't like the choices that Osborne has made, I think the NHS stuff is more gimmick than substance and I like headlines about Tories defecting to UKIP as much as the next anti-Tory; but when I compare and contrast with what happened last week, I see one party that is serious about governing and another one that is trying to replace it on a wing and a prayer. Obviously, I am not the world's greatest soothsayer; but, I can't help feeling that in the run up to May that is going to benefit the Tories and disadvantage Labour.
Southam: your soothsaying powers have diminished somewhat in recent years !
If UKIP secured a defection from Labour, with an announcement just before Cameron starts speech, a Tory defection during with a walk out to the press, then a one after he sits down.
That could be a nightmare scenario, spin out of that...
Meanwhile, Brown apparently thinks it's a trap for Scottish MPs to be allowed to vote on their own income tax but not that of England...
"In a letter to his Constituency Labour Party in Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, he wrote: "The Tory trap that we are in danger of falling into is to devolve all decisions on Scotland's income tax rates away from Westminster and then to deny Scotland representation in votes on budget decisions on income tax rates."
I think it's nuts to give over full taxation powers. But there we are.
I think most Scots will spot that strop a mile off. That's quite transparently a whinge that the Labour Party would be partisanly disadvantaged by this proposal. Nothing more.
As Enoch Powell pointed out, the NHS is where infinite demand meets finite resources.
Enoch talking rubbish (again). Nothing 'infinite' about demand on the NHS. Most people hate going to the doctor.
There is an element of truth here, in that I will not get my hip replaced simply because it is free and no wait!
Rationing in the NHS has always been fairly covert, often under the mechanism of waiting lists and times. This is now unpopular but we do have rationing via NICE and rather Orwellian named "referal centres" (whose role is to not refer) and "patient access policies" ((which function to deny patients access to the hospital).
What we need is a system of "Speedy Boarding" where co-payments fund the extra costs of providing services out of hours. So GPs remain free if you want to see them 0830-1800, but cost £20 at weekends for example. For many of us the cost of the co-payment would be less than the cost of time off work. This is a fairly established business practice in many markets, so pubs transport and barbers all have cheap deals at off peak times. The NHS could and should do the same.
I use the NHS about once every two years. Last time I had bad tonsillitis and wanted to see someone about it to get some antibiotics (out of hours) I had to phone a 'patient access' line. I was interrogated about it by some battleaxe and made to feel like I was being unreasonable to see someone. I did eventually see someone at the A&E (why there?) at about 9pm, but I found most staff surly and unhelpful along the way.
Picking up on a point below made by the good Dr Fox (as opposed to the bad Dr Fox and the wicked Dr Fox), we need a government department to deal with the problems caused by an ageing population, spanning pensions, health and employment.
We need a proper discussion about how we are going to change society to deal with the good news that we are living longer and have new problems as a consequence.
If UKIP secured a defection from Labour, with an announcement just before Cameron starts speech, a Tory defection during with a walk out to the press, then a one after he sits down.
That could be a nightmare scenario, spin out of that...
Defections during someones conference speech.. it just isn't cricket.
Not sure the smoking example works. The taxes on cigarettes mean smokers are massive net contributors to the NHS (on contrast to heavy drinkers).
If everyone stopped smoking overnight, the health deficit would become worse. If everybody stopped drinking, it'd become better.
Drinking is heavily taxed.
One needs to look at the fiscal issues as a whole. People with unhealthy lifestyles have low life expectancy. That means they impose a lesser burden on the Pensions budget, as well as requiring fewer years of end of life care.
I believe the evidence suggests that healthier people have fewer years of disability at the end of life than unhealthy people, so the NHS cost will be higher for the latter. I accept your point about pensions, but pensions are increasingly a small amount relative to healthcare provision.
It has been proven beyond doubt that the total burden on the NHS goes down if we 'allow' unhealthy lifestyles. The Adam Smith Institute blog has occasional excellent posts on this. Life is like a box of chococlates for fat people - it doesn't last as long. If we want to make the NHS more affordable we should encourage cheap booze, fags and pies.
Legalising murder will also help !
I'm a libertarian. I don't believe the state has any business telling people how to live their lives or making certain lifestyles more expensive - especially if those lifestyles will save the rest of us money. Let them eat cake. And deep fried Mars Bars. And Special Brew. And smack.
A libertarian lets them. You want to encourage them. Big difference.
Just checking the live page on the BBC regarding Hong Kong. Seems Chinese publications and news agencies are now covering the protest, but parroting (unsurprisingly) the government line about how tremendously dangerous it is. New tack, after a media blackout.
The Chinese are in a hole - they hate the demonstration, but they can't crack down too hard as it will drive money and investment out of Hong Kong and towards Singapore. What they have going for them is that there is an ever-growing mainland population in HK whose first loyalty is to Beijing and the general conservatism of HK society as a whole - stability is treasured because that's the best way to make money. Against that, these are big demonstrations and the people demonstrating are the sons and daughters of middle class, affluent Hong Kongers who are highly westernised, have been exposed throughout their lives to western culture and many of whom have lived for a time at least in western countries. They are the future of the place and are going to be hard to buy off with a gesture or two. This one could run and run.
Innocent - yes, happy to bet £20 that the Tories won't lead by 10%, to charity or not as you prefer. Let me know!
Need to get to work, but a passing note: Labour's lead in England is now significantly higher than it has been - 14 points clear in London today, 6 points clear in the marginal-rich Midlands - balanced by the serious SNP surge at Labour's expense in Scotland, where the Tories are just 6 points behind Labour. On these figures, EV4EL wouldn't have any party bonus for anyone, which should help encourage a rational discussion.
Did AudreyAnne ever close that bet with you about the Tory 8pt lead. If she is around I have £50 to stake with her on a similar wager.
My preferred charities are Amnesty and Shelter Audrey.
Casino Royale, as we all know every so often one meets someone in a service industry who is having some sort of bad hair day and on occasion a whole team of them!
I can see a time - not any time soon, but before the end of this century - when we as a society agree we need to take a fundamentally different view on near-end-of-life health. At some point, we are going to have to address many hundreds of millions of thousands, maybe millions, of dementia sufferers, with a very low quality of life who will require an army of millions of carers.
Losing the right to automatically continue your life will be the most potent political decision our Government will ever face. It will have to be undertaken by referendum. And the passions that will arouse will make the Scot Nats look utterly indifferent by comparison.
The only thing that will avoid this if there is a disease that disproportionately hits the elderly and infirm and dementia-ridden. Cue Tapestry to say that the Govt. is secretly working on just such a plague.....
I actually think that this conference is turning out to be a good one for the Tories.
Like or not, Osborne has been clear about what happens if the Tories win - compare and contrast with EdM and Labour.
On the NHS, the Tories can say they are able to make commitments to extra spending as they are prepared to make cuts elsewhere. Can Labour match that? Nope.
And having the party's right wing consistently linked to UKIP and in rebellion against the leadership is hardly the worst thing if you want people to believe the Tories are no longer the baby-eating party.
Now, I don't like the choices that Osborne has made, I think the NHS stuff is more gimmick than substance and I like headlines about Tories defecting to UKIP as much as the next anti-Tory; but when I compare and contrast with what happened last week, I see one party that is serious about governing and another one that is trying to replace it on a wing and a prayer. Obviously, I am not the world's greatest soothsayer; but, I can't help feeling that in the run up to May that is going to benefit the Tories and disadvantage Labour.
Southam: your soothsaying powers have diminished somewhat in recent years !
Not really - I have always been pretty crap ;-)
I have been saying we'll have a Hung Parliament after the next GE since the summer of 20I0 and I don't see a reason to change my view. But Labour are deeply unimpressive. That's not a prediction, that's just a fact.
I actually think that this conference is turning out to be a good one for the Tories.
Like or not, Osborne has been clear about what happens if the Tories win - compare and contrast with EdM and Labour.
On the NHS, the Tories can say they are able to make commitments to extra spending as they are prepared to make cuts elsewhere. Can Labour match that? Nope.
And having the party's right wing consistently linked to UKIP and in rebellion against the leadership is hardly the worst thing if you want people to believe the Tories are no longer the baby-eating party.
Now, I don't like the choices that Osborne has made, I think the NHS stuff is more gimmick than substance and I like headlines about Tories defecting to UKIP as much as the next anti-Tory; but when I compare and contrast with what happened last week, I see one party that is serious about governing and another one that is trying to replace it on a wing and a prayer. Obviously, I am not the world's greatest soothsayer; but, I can't help feeling that in the run up to May that is going to benefit the Tories and disadvantage Labour.
Southam: your soothsaying powers have diminished somewhat in recent years !
Not really - I have always been pretty crap ;-)
I have been saying we'll have a Hung Parliament after the next GE since the summer of 20I0 and I don't see a reason to change my view. But Labour are deeply unimpressive. That's not a prediction, that's just a fact.
Stick at it, lad. You've got to get one right one day....
Picking up on a point below made by the good Dr Fox (as opposed to the bad Dr Fox and the wicked Dr Fox), we need a government department to deal with the problems caused by an ageing population, spanning pensions, health and employment.
We need a proper discussion about how we are going to change society to deal with the good news that we are living longer and have new problems as a consequence.
I agree with this. It's particularly important because we are not only behind the curve at the moment, but it is possible that medical advances in the next couple of decades will extend lifespan quite dramatically.
If that does happen then the other thing it does is to completely blow out of the water any hope that the global population will stabilise this century.
As Enoch Powell pointed out, the NHS is where infinite demand meets finite resources.
Enoch talking rubbish (again). Nothing 'infinite' about demand on the NHS. Most people hate going to the doctor.
You assume a stable population.
If you import people from poor countries with bad public health, give them free housing, education, healthcare, and an unearned income, bleat about poverty and thereby collect a lot of postal votes, you alter the balance.
I merely said that deficit reduction will not be a key Tory election campaign focus.
It really is that simple.
Really BaJ, I think you need to work through the consequences of what you're saying. The Tories will hammer on about economic competence and Labour will have nothing to respond with.
Also concerning for Labour should be the Q2 data showing for the first time wages rising faster than prices.
What economic story is Labour going to tell ? " We really fked it up the last time, let us do it again"
Not sure the smoking example works. The taxes on cigarettes mean smokers are massive net contributors to the NHS (on contrast to heavy drinkers).
If everyone stopped smoking overnight, the health deficit would become worse. If everybody stopped drinking, it'd become better.
Drinking is heavily taxed.
One needs to look at the fiscal issues as a whole. People with unhealthy lifestyles have low life expectancy. That means they impose a lesser burden on the Pensions budget, as well as requiring fewer years of end of life care.
I believe the evidence suggests that healthier people have fewer years of disability at the end of life than unhealthy people, so the NHS cost will be higher for the latter. I accept your point about pensions, but pensions are increasingly a small amount relative to healthcare provision.
It has been proven beyond doubt that the total burden on the NHS goes down if we 'allow' unhealthy lifestyles. The Adam Smith Institute blog has occasional excellent posts on this. Life is like a box of chococlates for fat people - it doesn't last as long. If we want to make the NHS more affordable we should encourage cheap booze, fags and pies.
Legalising murder will also help !
I'm a libertarian. I don't believe the state has any business telling people how to live their lives or making certain lifestyles more expensive - especially if those lifestyles will save the rest of us money. Let them eat cake. And deep fried Mars Bars. And Special Brew. And smack.
A libertarian lets them. You want to encourage them. Big difference.
You're projecting. I never said that did I? Let people live their lives with minimal interference from the state. Don't tax things you disapprove of. Don't pay for things the state sholdn't be involved in. If people have a blast and die young - that's their call.
Just checking the live page on the BBC regarding Hong Kong. Seems Chinese publications and news agencies are now covering the protest, but parroting (unsurprisingly) the government line about how tremendously dangerous it is. New tack, after a media blackout.
The Chinese are in a hole - they hate the demonstration, but they can't crack down too hard as it will drive money and investment out of Hong Kong and towards Singapore. What they have going for them is that there is an ever-growing mainland population in HK whose first loyalty is to Beijing and the general conservatism of HK society as a whole - stability is treasured because that's the best way to make money. Against that, these are big demonstrations and the people demonstrating are the sons and daughters of middle class, affluent Hong Kongers who are highly westernised, have been exposed throughout their lives to western culture and many of whom have lived for a time at least in western countries. They are the future of the place and are going to be hard to buy off with a gesture or two. This one could run and run.
I genuinely can't see how it gets resolved. The government will clearly not be willing to give any clear concessions because of how it could cause protests everywhere else in China. The protesters won't accept anything less than a genuine movement back to democracy. There's not a middle ground here.
@election_data (@election_data) 01/10/2014 09:14 I don't do compliments but this is quite good :-) Nigel Farage is outflanking the Tories gu.com/p/423xa/tw by @GoodwinMJ
Off topic, but re-watched the original House of Cards the other day, and was struck by how much Geoffrey Booza-Pit in the final installment reminded me of Grant Shapps!
Are they pretending it isn't happening? 2nd Rochester councillor follows Reckless out the door
Cllr Paul Monck (@The_Monck) 01/10/2014 08:44 No reply to my resignation from Rochester & Strood Conservative Association, yet the chairman has time to unfollow me on Twitter #Shambles
Not sure the smoking example works. The taxes on cigarettes mean smokers are massive net contributors to the NHS (on contrast to heavy drinkers).
If everyone stopped smoking overnight, the health deficit would become worse. If everybody stopped drinking, it'd become better.
Drinking is heavily taxed.
One needs to look at the fiscal issues as a whole. People with unhealthy lifestyles have low life expectancy. That means they impose a lesser burden on the Pensions budget, as well as requiring fewer years of end of life care.
I believe the evidence suggests that healthier people have fewer years of disability at the end of life than unhealthy people, so the NHS cost will be higher for the latter. I accept your point about pensions, but pensions are increasingly a small amount relative to healthcare provision.
Completely wrong every study done has shown that the total life healthcare costs of smokers, drinkers and the obese are less than that of "healthy people". From memory an article I linked before the healthy person cost a total of 260000 over a lifetime whereas the smoker cost 220000. This is before you factor in the costs reductions of dying younger on pension costs and social care
Are we seeing a Headlineless Conference season in the run up to a vital GE?
It appears that way to date. Nothing radical or different from either Labour or the Cons on Immigration, Human Rights Act, Child Abuse, EV4EL, forms of Devomax to Scotland, Wales and NI, etc etc.
Yes the LD conference starts this weekend, but seriously, will anyone take any notice unless Clegg or Cable resign?
Are they pretending it isn't happening? 2nd Rochester councillor follows Reckless out the door
Cllr Paul Monck (@The_Monck) 01/10/2014 08:44 No reply to my resignation from Rochester & Strood Conservative Association, yet the chairman has time to unfollow me on Twitter #Shambles
What does he want - a begging letter ? Spoilt nobody crying as he isn't getting the attention he thought his feet stamping would get...
@Scott_P How is the "march of the makers" coming on? Are we well on the way to balancing imports/exports, or did Osbourne forget about that bit of the economic puzzle? Or, to put it in simpler terms, how much of the GDP increase is fueled by borrowing for household consumption?
Not sure the smoking example works. The taxes on cigarettes mean smokers are massive net contributors to the NHS (on contrast to heavy drinkers).
If everyone stopped smoking overnight, the health deficit would become worse. If everybody stopped drinking, it'd become better.
Drinking is heavily taxed.
One needs to look at the fiscal issues as a whole. People with unhealthy lifestyles have low life expectancy. That means they impose a lesser burden on the Pensions budget, as well as requiring fewer years of end of life care.
I believe the evidence suggests that healthier people have fewer years of disability at the end of life than unhealthy people, so the NHS cost will be higher for the latter. I accept your point about pensions, but pensions are increasingly a small amount relative to healthcare provision.
Completely wrong every study done has shown that the total life healthcare costs of smokers, drinkers and the obese are less than that of "healthy people". From memory an article I linked before the healthy person cost a total of 260000 over a lifetime whereas the smoker cost 220000. This is before you factor in the costs reductions of dying younger on pension costs and social care
Results: Annual direct and indirect costs of ever-smokers were higher than for never-smokers in all age groups of both genders. The direct and indirect cost ratios were highest at age 45 for women, and at age 35 and 40 for men, respectively. Taking life expectancy differences into account, direct and indirect lifetime health costs for men aged 35, discounted by 5% per year were 66% and 83% higher in ever-smokers than in never-smokers.
@Scott_P How is the "march of the makers" coming on? Are we well on the way to balancing imports/exports, or did Osbourne forget about that bit of the economic puzzle? Or, to put it in simpler terms, how much of the GDP increase is fueled by borrowing for household consumption?
If the only defector today is a donor nobody's ever heard of, I think the Tories will be relieved, LOL!
Rumour of UKIP press conference at 11am.
Could you imagine if it were another Tory MP who jumped ship just before Camerons conference speech. I think they would be given a rougher ride than Reckless.
Not sure the smoking example works. The taxes on cigarettes mean smokers are massive net contributors to the NHS (on contrast to heavy drinkers).
If everyone stopped smoking overnight, the health deficit would become worse. If everybody stopped drinking, it'd become better.
Drinking is heavily taxed.
One needs to look at the fiscal issues as a whole. People with unhealthy lifestyles have low life expectancy. That means they impose a lesser burden on the Pensions budget, as well as requiring fewer years of end of life care.
I believe the evidence suggests that healthier people have fewer years of disability at the end of life than unhealthy people, so the NHS cost will be higher for the latter. I accept your point about pensions, but pensions are increasingly a small amount relative to healthcare provision.
Completely wrong every study done has shown that the total life healthcare costs of smokers, drinkers and the obese are less than that of "healthy people". From memory an article I linked before the healthy person cost a total of 260000 over a lifetime whereas the smoker cost 220000. This is before you factor in the costs reductions of dying younger on pension costs and social care
That study says nothing about the lifetime healthcare costs overall it justs shows that those who live unhealthily and survive have a higher incidence of disability.
For lifetime health care costs here is an article for the layman
Mr. 67, obviously it would piss off Conservatives but I wonder how it would be taken by vaguely rightwing and floating voters. It does seem like silly buggers and stunts rather than anything else (to me, at least). There's a risk it'll backfire.
Arron Banks, latest Ukip switcher, hasn't donated to the Tories for five years they say. Anticlimactic.
Tory activists are so wound up now, I foresee a proper lynch mob forming complete with burning torches and pitchforks. Farage will be forced to hide in Stewart Wheelers Jacobean castle, whilst Reckless boils up cauldrons of snake oil.
Results: Annual direct and indirect costs of ever-smokers were higher than for never-smokers in all age groups of both genders. The direct and indirect cost ratios were highest at age 45 for women, and at age 35 and 40 for men, respectively. Taking life expectancy differences into account, direct and indirect lifetime health costs for men aged 35, discounted by 5% per year were 66% and 83% higher in ever-smokers than in never-smokers.
Socrates - you miss the point. Costs are higher for the unhealthy WHILE THEY ARE STILL ALIVE. But overall the fat bastards snuff it way early and save us money. You missed the zero cost of servicing the health needs of the dead. (Let alone their other benefits).
@TGOHF I wouldn't buy that bullshit, but you seem keen. Wages are falling behind inflation, house prices are rising, but we have less debt and are spending more?
Are they pretending it isn't happening? 2nd Rochester councillor follows Reckless out the door
Cllr Paul Monck (@The_Monck) 01/10/2014 08:44 No reply to my resignation from Rochester & Strood Conservative Association, yet the chairman has time to unfollow me on Twitter #Shambles
What does he want - a begging letter ? Spoilt nobody crying as he isn't getting the attention he thought his feet stamping would get...
Haha someone replied to his tweet 'what do you want, a medal?' And he said 'yes please!'
Seems closer to the truth that the Tories are trying to pretend everyone's angry with Reckless so don't mention two councillors have quit with him
Comments
" What on earth would a Miliband government do about public spending?"
Have different priorities to your and Dave's idea that only those with access to capital deserve to prosper?
I don't think taking pharmaceutical research into Public ownership is the panacea (sorry about that) you may think.
Having worked in both pharmaceutical research and the Civil Service, the only advantage would be the reduction of the need for "me-too" drugs. But a committee to decide innovation would be slow strangulation.
You simply aren't listening. George Osborne's speech was based around the deficit. I expect you'll hear the D word quite a bit today in David Cameron's speech.
Just because you don't like something, you can't pretend it's not being talked about.
Tamiflu and its equivalent (not sure of it's name) were very profitable.
Lobbying costs money, but done well recoups exponentially more than the outlay.
Having said that, Andy Burnham has been making some interesting proposals about one of the really crucial dilemmas, which is the interface between the NHS and care for the elderly. Currently this is an unmitigated disaster. Unfortunately, Labour have politicised the NHS so much that it's almost impossible to have a grown-up debate about areas such as this.
Are you working on a line that links Labour to the outbreak of ebola yet?
Most definitely you mean? Both drugs later proved to be all but useless, but the panic induced meant that the government had no choice but to stockpile.
The "free market" in action.
For 100% of this Parliament, highest rate Income Tax has been between 5% and 10% higher than it was for 99% of the last Parliament.
And then there's the people who have been taken out of income taxes altogether.
Tell me again, what were Labour's priorities?
Hence healthcare demand is infinite and a bottomless pit. We could theoretically spend tens of thousands of pounds to extend the life of an ill person for a few more hours. It just makes no sense.
The competence was very patchy. There was a lot of money being spent buying it in vast quantities and one or two people attempting to project manage it. It was ridiculous and a prime example of being neither one thing nor another. Spending money to Cover Your Arse, yet poor or invisible planning for [because it wasn't truly believed to be a threat].
I was at the Rural Payments Agency when the second Foot&Mouth outbreak occurred. Now for all it's massive faults - that organisation had learned very painful lessons from the last time and showed iron discipline/24 by 7 working to get on top of it pronto.
A small true but apochyphal sounding anecdote... during the BSE crisis, it was very likely you'd see piles of burning cattle carcasses using railway sleepers as pyre starters. Some numpty in DEFRA as was ordered several hundred thousand railway sleepers - the wrong sort, made of concrete.
I'll be back after breakfast.....
We need a proper discussion about how we are going to change society to deal with the good news that we are living longer and have new problems as a consequence.
Who won? What's changed?
It is well established in the minds of the electorate that Labour promise things that they can't afford or can't competently deliver.
If the Tories lose it will be because of perceived failures relating to immigration and the economy (i.e. having failed to balance the books quickly enough leading to never ending cuts narratives)
This current Tory conference seems to be replicating the failings of the 2012 budget. Far too timid.
That leaves Osborne with two set-piece budgetary moments to move the mood before the actual campaign cranks up.
Another one whose mental baggage handlers have gone on strike.......
I stand by my forecast. We'll see who is right.
@_James_Lyons_
Posted at 09:26
tweets: All sorts of rumours about another defection at #CPC14
(take with appropriate quantities of sodium chloride)
We shall soon see.
I'm saying they won't. That's my clear forecast. Your forecast is?
I'm not exactly an Osborne fan but Labour claiming they would have done better is frankly risible.
Like or not, Osborne has been clear about what happens if the Tories win - compare and contrast with EdM and Labour.
On the NHS, the Tories can say they are able to make commitments to extra spending as they are prepared to make cuts elsewhere. Can Labour match that? Nope.
And having the party's right wing consistently linked to UKIP and in rebellion against the leadership is hardly the worst thing if you want people to believe the Tories are no longer the baby-eating party.
Now, I don't like the choices that Osborne has made, I think the NHS stuff is more gimmick than substance and I like headlines about Tories defecting to UKIP as much as the next anti-Tory; but when I compare and contrast with what happened last week, I see one party that is serious about governing and another one that is trying to replace it on a wing and a prayer. Obviously, I am not the world's greatest soothsayer; but, I can't help feeling that in the run up to May that is going to benefit the Tories and disadvantage Labour.
Need to get to work, but a passing note: Labour's lead in England is now significantly higher than it has been - 14 points clear in London today, 6 points clear in the marginal-rich Midlands - balanced by the serious SNP surge at Labour's expense in Scotland, where the Tories are just 6 points behind Labour. On these figures, EV4EL wouldn't have any party bonus for anyone, which should help encourage a rational discussion.
"I was at the DoH and used to sit in on the whole Tamiflu/pandemic fears meetings every week.
The competence was very patchy. There was a lot of money being spent buying it in vast quantities and one or two people attempting to project manage it. It was ridiculous and a prime example of being neither one thing nor another. Spending money to Cover Your Arse, yet poor or invisible planning for [because it wasn't truly believed to be a threat].”
Fortunately for me I was out of practice by then or I could have been involved at the sharp end. I’m grateful for the post Ms Plato because that’s precisely the impression that colleagues on the ground had.
I claimed no such thing.
I merely said that deficit reduction will not be a key Tory election campaign focus.
It really is that simple.
That could be a nightmare scenario, spin out of that...
"Under Labour there will be no money for your operation" - has potential - and Wales as proof.
Ukip keen to show they can snare fat cat lobbyists - perhaps they may want to start being choosy at some point..
I like your speedy boarding idea. Yes.
God bless you sir!, A left wing victory nailed on. :-)
Big difference.
2) Has anyone else had any problems with the ladbrokes website, it seems to crash every browser I use?
My preferred charities are Amnesty and Shelter Audrey.
Lol, good luck with that.
Planning to use his son again in his "promise", according to the BBC report on it.
Bit of a nostalgia trip. It's like watching politics on Dave.
Losing the right to automatically continue your life will be the most potent political decision our Government will ever face. It will have to be undertaken by referendum. And the passions that will arouse will make the Scot Nats look utterly indifferent by comparison.
The only thing that will avoid this if there is a disease that disproportionately hits the elderly and infirm and dementia-ridden. Cue Tapestry to say that the Govt. is secretly working on just such a plague.....
Is "Shelter Audrey" a recognized charity, or have you missed a comma?
I'm relatively confident that if there is another defection they will wait until hacks have stopped speculating about it to make the reveal.
I have been saying we'll have a Hung Parliament after the next GE since the summer of 20I0 and I don't see a reason to change my view. But Labour are deeply unimpressive. That's not a prediction, that's just a fact.
2. Yes.
1. QTWTAIN
2. QTWTAIY
:')
If that does happen then the other thing it does is to completely blow out of the water any hope that the global population will stabilise this century.
If you import people from poor countries with bad public health, give them free housing, education, healthcare, and an unearned income, bleat about poverty and thereby collect a lot of postal votes, you alter the balance.
Also concerning for Labour should be the Q2 data showing for the first time wages rising faster than prices.
What economic story is Labour going to tell ? " We really fked it up the last time, let us do it again"
The "stabilization" of global population appears to be off trend even without that, according to one piece of research anyway.
Not a bad strapline for the Reds - should resonate with those that don't understand economics.
Tories increased NHS spending in England
Labour cur NHS spending in Wales
Is that a campaign about the NHS, or economic competence and the deficit?
01/10/2014 09:14
I don't do compliments but this is quite good :-) Nigel Farage is outflanking the Tories gu.com/p/423xa/tw by @GoodwinMJ
Cllr Paul Monck (@The_Monck)
01/10/2014 08:44
No reply to my resignation from Rochester & Strood Conservative Association, yet the chairman has time to unfollow me on Twitter #Shambles
It appears that way to date. Nothing radical or different from either Labour or the Cons on Immigration, Human Rights Act, Child Abuse, EV4EL, forms of Devomax to Scotland, Wales and NI, etc etc.
Yes the LD conference starts this weekend, but seriously, will anyone take any notice unless Clegg or Cable resign?
Mr. Eagles, the other day I seemed to have that issue.
How is the "march of the makers" coming on?
Are we well on the way to balancing imports/exports, or did Osbourne forget about that bit of the economic puzzle?
Or, to put it in simpler terms, how much of the GDP increase is fueled by borrowing for household consumption?
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/aug/21/uk-car-industry-exporting-record-rate
in all age groups of both genders. The direct and indirect cost ratios were highest at age 45 for women, and at age 35 and 40 for men, respectively. Taking life expectancy differences into account, direct and indirect lifetime health costs for men aged 35, discounted by 5% per year were 66% and 83% higher in ever-smokers than in never-smokers.
http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/1/95.full.pdf
Jim Pickard @PickardJE
Arron Banks, latest Ukip switcher, hasn't donated to the Tories for five years they say. Anticlimactic.
http://www.libdemvoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Screen-Shot-2014-02-09-at-13.57.54.jpg
I wouldn't buy that sort of fuel.
Well, that's the balance of payments back in the black again.
Three cheers for Osbourne.
How many cars do we import by the way?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/11131885/Kim-Jong-un-so-fat-he-has-fractured-his-ankles.html
The Nork NHS about to be saved alot of money?
Could you imagine if it were another Tory MP who jumped ship just before Camerons conference speech. I think they would be given a rougher ride than Reckless.
This man is rapidly becoming UKIP's dan hodges meanwhile.
Matthew Goodwin @GoodwinMJ
Nigel Farage is outflanking Cameron and Crosby, and they have no answer | my latest for @commentisfree http://bit.ly/1rEGxm6 #cpc14
For lifetime health care costs here is an article for the layman
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/22/alcohol-obesity-and-smoking-do-not-cost-health-care-systems-money/
written based on this study amongst others
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029
I think David Cameron should stand up and announce he's defecting to Ukip, just to mess with Nigel Farage's head.
I wouldn't buy that bullshit, but you seem keen.
Wages are falling behind inflation, house prices are rising, but we have less debt and are spending more?
Seems closer to the truth that the Tories are trying to pretend everyone's angry with Reckless so don't mention two councillors have quit with him