The part of the speech preceding it did speak about the necessity of things being paid for, and nice things being contingent on the deficit being reduced.
"Miliband suffered a memory lapse in Manchester. In his look-ma-no-autocue speech, he forgot to mention the deficit. That was seized upon as hard evidence that Labour has nothing to say on the economy, that both Miliband and his subconscious are in denial about the gap in the public finances. And behind this denial, or so the argument runs, is guilt: guilt for the Labour profligacy that created the mess the coalition have spent four years clearing up.
Since Miliband built no defences against this line of attack last week, Cameron could roam freely across the battlefield, saying whatever he liked. Conscious that polls put the Tories ahead on economic competence, the prime minister could dismiss Labour as a “high-spending, high-taxing, deficit-ballooning shower”.
But the hole predates Miliband’s lapse into amnesia. The truth is, Labour has never fully rebutted the claim that has served as the foundation stone of this government: that it was Labour’s failings, Labour’s fiscal incontinence, that caused economic ruin. Distracted by a leadership contest, the party spent five months in 2010 looking inward while the Conservatives and Lib Dems were busy sealing into the public’s cerebral cortex the notion that it was all Labour’s fault.
Never mind that the crash that shook Britain in 2008 convulsed the entire world, never mind that the economy was in fact recovering in Labour’s final six months. Cameron knows all that cuts no ice with a public that still blames Labour.
So in Birmingham he could cheerfully say, because he knows Labour rarely contradicts him: “You were the people who left Britain with the biggest peacetime deficit in history, who gave us the deepest recession since the war, who destroyed our pensions system, bust our banking system” and more. And every time he says it, he robs Labour of the right to answer back."
If you and Freedland don't think a gigantic unfunded tax cut doesn't indicate a change in focus from deficit reduction there is nothing else I can do for you.
But it isn't unfunded, it is set to be put in place after 17/18 once the budget is balanced. Do you not understand basic maths?
So, to be clear, if William Hague had said 'Arron Banks is a splended fellow, he was perhaps the most distinguished Vice Chairman the Basingstoke Tories have ever had", would Mr Banks have given a million quid to the Tories instead?
LOL!
I'm from Basingstoke and *I* haven't heard of him!
Just think of the fun we could have if someone made packs of cards like the US Defense Dept did for terrorists, but with notorious politically active figures instead.
I'll swap you Mr Delingpole for Ms Dorries, and raise you Gary Barlow
"Miliband suffered a memory lapse in Manchester. In his look-ma-no-autocue speech, he forgot to mention the deficit. That was seized upon as hard evidence that Labour has nothing to say on the economy, that both Miliband and his subconscious are in denial about the gap in the public finances. And behind this denial, or so the argument runs, is guilt: guilt for the Labour profligacy that created the mess the coalition have spent four years clearing up.
Since Miliband built no defences against this line of attack last week, Cameron could roam freely across the battlefield, saying whatever he liked. Conscious that polls put the Tories ahead on economic competence, the prime minister could dismiss Labour as a “high-spending, high-taxing, deficit-ballooning shower”.
But the hole predates Miliband’s lapse into amnesia. The truth is, Labour has never fully rebutted the claim that has served as the foundation stone of this government: that it was Labour’s failings, Labour’s fiscal incontinence, that caused economic ruin. Distracted by a leadership contest, the party spent five months in 2010 looking inward while the Conservatives and Lib Dems were busy sealing into the public’s cerebral cortex the notion that it was all Labour’s fault.
Never mind that the crash that shook Britain in 2008 convulsed the entire world, never mind that the economy was in fact recovering in Labour’s final six months. Cameron knows all that cuts no ice with a public that still blames Labour.
So in Birmingham he could cheerfully say, because he knows Labour rarely contradicts him: “You were the people who left Britain with the biggest peacetime deficit in history, who gave us the deepest recession since the war, who destroyed our pensions system, bust our banking system” and more. And every time he says it, he robs Labour of the right to answer back."
If you and Freedland don't think a gigantic unfunded tax cut doesn't indicate a change in focus from deficit reduction there is nothing else I can do for you.
chortle
since when have you ever worried about a massive unfunded tax cut ?
Don't know about that. There was an interesting comment/article from someone saying that Clegg did that last year, and this year he had to go beyond that to sketch out what the Lib Dems are still for.
The opinon polls seem to show that Lib Dem support has continued to fall even from their post-European election low. They need something to attract positive attention.
As I posted earlier, Labour have left the LibDems some open and potentially very desirable political territory, namely 'responsible but fair', which I expect they will make a big effort to grab. But will anyone be listening?
Will responsible but fair voters stick to their own party's losing guns, whichever it is, or vote for the best party to beat UKIP?
Don't know about that. There was an interesting comment/article from someone saying that Clegg did that last year, and this year he had to go beyond that to sketch out what the Lib Dems are still for.
The opinon polls seem to show that Lib Dem support has continued to fall even from their post-European election low. They need something to attract positive attention.
As I posted earlier, Labour have left the LibDems some open and potentially very desirable political territory, namely 'responsible but fair', which I expect they will make a big effort to grab. But will anyone be listening?
Will responsible but fair voters stick to their own party's losing guns, whichever it is, or vote for the best party to beat UKIP?
Nonetheless, the Tories seemed to have gone to much more of an effort than Labour. Even the dreadful start to their conference, thanks to the work of Brooks Newmark and Mark Reckless, was quickly forgotten. By Sunday evening the Tories seemed energised by the defection of Reckless. He is not popular with many of his former colleagues and the sense of betrayal and anger about being lied to over his planned defection is genuine. Mainstream MPs and ministers seemed liberated, in the way that the host of a party enjoys getting rid of a slightly annoying guest at the end of the evening. They also feel the Rochester and Strood by-election against Ukip's Reckless is winnable. They had better hope that it is, because if Reckless triumphs it will embolden other potential Tory defectors on the fringes of the parliamentary party and there will probably be further by-elections.
The other reason for the Tories to feel surprisingly chipper is that David Cameron's speech at Birmingham was a belter. Yes, there were flaws. The tax cuts sound a very long way off and improvements in productivity and wage growth will have to happen to make it all possible.
Has Iain Dale yet indicated how he came to be deceived and as a consequence deceived his readers?
I think he owes them an explanation.
It's old news, Peter. I learnt many years ago never to trust a tip from Iain. Nice bloke though he is.
Thanks Casino.
Yes, I've always liked Iain and his blog too. This is the first time I have been let down by him.
Of course he may have been misled by a source but then he should know which sources he can and cannot trust. As it is, he would have no defence to the charge that he made the whole thing up himself.
Mr. Me, I suspect you're right that we may end with a hung Parliament. There's a very large number of plausible results. Worth recalling that there's also nearly a year to go. Anything from ISIS to ebola to the eurozone sovereign debt crisis or something else could shake the foundations of politics. Remember 2011, when we had earthquakes, tsunamis, a near nuclear meltdown and multiple revolts in north African countries.
Is seven months "nearly a year"?
Reminds me of "mid term" being used when we were 80% through the term.
Does a tsunami, or an earthquake, or an ed miliband speech, require years or months to happen?
If you think the political landscape is so boring that ed is going to win because he has a slender lead in the polls with 7 months to go, the end, then the rational thing is to remortgage your house and put the money on a lab maj, and take a 7 month holiday from pb. It looks a bit more intereting than that to a lot of us.
From the same blogpost - this nailed EdM for me. It's so spot on.
...the dire amateurishness of the Miliband approach is actually rather insulting. The man who seeks to be Prime Minister thinks that what he is offering is good enough when it is plainly not.
And yet he seems unfazed by such criticism. In that sense, and that sense alone, you have to hand it to Miliband. He is tenacious and appears, judging by that beatific expression on his face, convinced that he deserves to triumph.
This appears to be triggering a strange side effect. As a Labour MP told me last week — after he had described his party leader's performance in extremely unflattering terms — on stage Miliband sometimes closes his eyes for a second or so after he has said something that he seems to consider especially profound, as though we are being invited to reflect on his brilliance and profundity.
In this bizarre manner, on Miliband ploughs, much to the relief of a Tory high command which wants to present next year's election as a choice between a Prime Minister and someone unsuited to national leadership. To devastating effect, David Cameron road tested this approach in his speech today and made Ed Miliband look utterly ridiculous.
I can see that the Tory fruitcakes on here are alreading popping champagne corks.
Back in the real world, Labour are about 5% ahead in the polls and on course to form the next Goverment while UKIP probabaly have 2 forthcoming by-election victories in the bag.
More importantly, the vast majority of folk are fed-up with being significantly poorer now than in 2010 and with no end to the fall in living standards, this will reflect VERY badly for the Conservatives next May.
Time will tell as ever...
PS - the October MEF (Murali Election Forecast) will be out in the next few days and early indications suggest a slight movement in favour of Labour.
Most of us have been poorer since 2007, at least those of us in the private sector.
It took the cosseted public sector about three years to catch up.
From the same blogpost - this nailed EdM for me. It's so spot on.
...the dire amateurishness of the Miliband approach is actually rather insulting. The man who seeks to be Prime Minister thinks that what he is offering is good enough when it is plainly not.
And yet he seems unfazed by such criticism. In that sense, and that sense alone, you have to hand it to Miliband. He is tenacious and appears, judging by that beatific expression on his face, convinced that he deserves to triumph.
This appears to be triggering a strange side effect. As a Labour MP told me last week — after he had described his party leader's performance in extremely unflattering terms — on stage Miliband sometimes closes his eyes for a second or so after he has said something that he seems to consider especially profound, as though we are being invited to reflect on his brilliance and profundity.
In this bizarre manner, on Miliband ploughs, much to the relief of a Tory high command which wants to present next year's election as a choice between a Prime Minister and someone unsuited to national leadership. To devastating effect, David Cameron road tested this approach in his speech today and made Ed Miliband look utterly ridiculous.
Shame ! Such a good speech, then Leader of the Oppo until the divided right through the middle party selects a right wing zealot to replace a reasonably decent chap.
Just watched the Nick Robinson report on BBC1 News on Cameron's speech. Cameron was very very impressive.
Let's be fair - this is the Prime Minister's annual speech to the friendliest audience he has to deal with a year before an election. It's not a difficult speech to make to be honest because no one is going to heckle or boo you.
Cameron is good at generalities but suffers from the politician's curse of wanting and needing to be liked. He'll say things that people want to hear or at least the people that matter to him want to hear. For those of us outside the circle, the content is more significant than the tone. It was a typical "jam tomorrow" speech full of rhetoric but short on credible answers to the nation's problems.
Like every speach at every party's Party Conference - all over the world.
Just watched the Nick Robinson report on BBC1 News on Cameron's speech. Cameron was very very impressive.
Let's be fair - this is the Prime Minister's annual speech to the friendliest audience he has to deal with a year before an election. It's not a difficult speech to make to be honest because no one is going to heckle or boo you.
Cameron is good at generalities but suffers from the politician's curse of wanting and needing to be liked. He'll say things that people want to hear or at least the people that matter to him want to hear. For those of us outside the circle, the content is more significant than the tone. It was a typical "jam tomorrow" speech full of rhetoric but short on credible answers to the nation's problems.
Like every speach at every party's Party Conference - all over the world.
Has Iain Dale yet indicated how he came to be deceived and as a consequence deceived his readers?
I think he owes them an explanation.
It's old news, Peter. I learnt many years ago never to trust a tip from Iain. Nice bloke though he is.
Thanks Casino.
Yes, I've always liked Iain and his blog too. This is the first time I have been let down by him.
Of course he may have been misled by a source but then he should know which sources he can and cannot trust. As it is, he would have no defence to the charge that he made the whole thing up himself.
I think Mike is correct. Someone got cold feet ! Having said that, in any other time, a £1m donation to a party would be big news !!
Miss Plato, play fair. It takes a moment or two for the common man to comprehend the utterances of a chap endowed with immense intellectual self-confidence.
"Miliband suffered a memory lapse in Manchester. In his look-ma-no-autocue speech, he forgot to mention the deficit. That was seized upon as hard evidence that Labour has nothing to say on the economy, that both Miliband and his subconscious are in denial about the gap in the public finances. And behind this denial, or so the argument runs, is guilt: guilt for the Labour profligacy that created the mess the coalition have spent four years clearing up.
Since Miliband built no defences against this line of attack last week, Cameron could roam freely across the battlefield, saying whatever he liked. Conscious that polls put the Tories ahead on economic competence, the prime minister could dismiss Labour as a “high-spending, high-taxing, deficit-ballooning shower”.
But the hole predates Miliband’s lapse into amnesia. The truth is, Labour has never fully rebutted the claim that has served as the foundation stone of this government: that it was Labour’s failings, Labour’s fiscal incontinence, that caused economic ruin. Distracted by a leadership contest, the party spent five months in 2010 looking inward while the Conservatives and Lib Dems were busy sealing into the public’s cerebral cortex the notion that it was all Labour’s fault.
Never mind that the crash that shook Britain in 2008 convulsed the entire world, never mind that the economy was in fact recovering in Labour’s final six months. Cameron knows all that cuts no ice with a public that still blames Labour.
So in Birmingham he could cheerfully say, because he knows Labour rarely contradicts him: “You were the people who left Britain with the biggest peacetime deficit in history, who gave us the deepest recession since the war, who destroyed our pensions system, bust our banking system” and more. And every time he says it, he robs Labour of the right to answer back."
If you and Freedland don't think a gigantic unfunded tax cut doesn't indicate a change in focus from deficit reduction there is nothing else I can do for you.
But it isn't unfunded, it is set to be put in place after 17/18 once the budget is balanced. Do you not understand basic maths?
Does this "balanced" budget have a different definition to the balanced budget we were supposed to have next year as announced in the 2010 budget ?
Has Iain Dale yet indicated how he came to be deceived and as a consequence deceived his readers?
I think he owes them an explanation.
It's old news, Peter. I learnt many years ago never to trust a tip from Iain. Nice bloke though he is.
Thanks Casino.
Yes, I've always liked Iain and his blog too. This is the first time I have been let down by him.
Of course he may have been misled by a source but then he should know which sources he can and cannot trust. As it is, he would have no defence to the charge that he made the whole thing up himself.
I think Mike is correct. Someone got cold feet ! Having said that, in any other time, a £1m donation to a party would be big news !!
That's reasonable speculation, Surbiton, but do you, Mike or anybody else have any evidence?
Absent evidence, we have to assume we were misled - and Iain Dale is in the dock, charged with the grievous offence of misleading punters.
The poor old magic money tree has taken some hammering today hasn't it.
Tax cuts to the left, tax cuts to the right. Spending increases now, spending increases to come.
Have those people who were so angered by other parties's fiscal plans been equally angry today ?
No I didn't think so either.
Lets take a look back at what George Osborne predicted the government financial position was to be:
"By 2014-15 borrowing reaches £37 billion, exactly half the amount forecast in the March Budget. In 2015-16, borrowing falls further to £20 billion. "
Only going to miss those targets by about £140bn.
" Public sector net debt as a share of GDP will be 62 per cent this year, before peaking at 70 per cent in 2013-14. Because of our action today, it then begins to fall, to 69 per cent in 2014-15 and then 67 per cent in 2015-16. "
IIRC it stands at 79.9% at the moment and is still rising.
By 2016 government debt will be 20% higher as a share of GDP than Osborne predicted.
Better get some more fertilizer on the magic money tree.
Don't know about that. There was an interesting comment/article from someone saying that Clegg did that last year, and this year he had to go beyond that to sketch out what the Lib Dems are still for.
The opinon polls seem to show that Lib Dem support has continued to fall even from their post-European election low. They need something to attract positive attention.
As I posted earlier, Labour have left the LibDems some open and potentially very desirable political territory, namely 'responsible but fair', which I expect they will make a big effort to grab. But will anyone be listening?
Will responsible but fair voters stick to their own party's losing guns, whichever it is, or vote for the best party to beat UKIP?
Oh dear poor flightpath. Now tell me as a good tory if you were in a seat where UKIP could stop Labour from winning the seat. Would you vote UKIP or vote for Ed Miliband to walk into Downing Street?
Now apply that to Labour voters in a Conservative seat...
I posted my first reaction to the UKIP debacle from my phone on the move. My view has not changed at all but it is also worth looking in a bit more detail at the possible reasons and why they do not excuse what they did this afternoon.
There are two possible explanations.
1. They always intended that this was just an announcement about the donation and were doing their best to build it up into something to try and disrupt Cameron's speech. If that is the case it was crass and infantile and undermines any claims they might make that they are 'different'.
2. They really did have a defector lined up and were going to announce them to spike Cameron's speech but the defector pulled out. This is still just as crass and infantile and also incredibly stupid. For one thing there was always a chance that the defector would get cold feet or might genuinely change their minds after Cameron's speech. We all know Cameron is at his very best doing these set piece occasions so that is always a possibility.
If that was the case then UKIP made a real error in the way they handled it. They should have been honest, admitted that their defector had had second thoughts and taken the short term hit. In the longer term the honesty and the knowledge that MPs are fickle creatures at the best of times would have held them in good stead. As it was the pretense that this was all about some donation just made them look stupid and shallow.
Bad move by UKIP, very bad move by Farage. This will have hurt them if only because it will have annoyed a lot of journalists who, like it or not, UKIP need to keep writing stories about them.
I think we can all agree that it was a well-received speech that will get lots of good media coverage. As such, it will be a good test of the solidity of the voting blocks in the polls. I was predicting last week that the Labour lead would drop to zeroish this week before recovering in October. There should be a modest bump in tomorrow's YG and the effect should peak on Saturday. Any guesses?
I posted my first reaction to the UKIP debacle from my phone on the move. My view has not changed at all but it is also worth looking in a bit more detail at the possible reasons and why they do not excuse what they did this afternoon.
There are two possible explanations.
1. They always intended that this was just an announcement about the donation and were doing their best to build it up into something to try and disrupt Cameron's speech. If that is the case it was crass and infantile and undermines any claims they might make that they are 'different'.
2. They really did have a defector lined up and were going to announce them to spike Cameron's speech but the defector pulled out. This is still just as crass and infantile and also incredibly stupid. For one thing there was always a chance that the defector would get cold feet or might genuinely change their minds after Cameron's speech. We all know Cameron is at his very best doing these set piece occasions so that is always a possibility.
If that was the case then UKIP made a real error in the way they handled it. They should have been honest, admitted that their defector had had second thoughts and taken the short term hit. In the longer term the honesty and the knowledge that MPs are fickle creatures at the best of times would have held them in good stead. As it was the pretense that this was all about some donation just made them look stupid and shallow.
Bad move by UKIP, very bad move by Farage. This will have hurt them if only because it will have annoyed a lot of journalists who, like it or not, UKIP need to keep writing stories about them.
I suspect number 2, and yes, in neither case should they have done it.
Farage needs to be 'cheif campaigner' for UKIP, not leader -he has said as much himself. This ought to happen before the election ideally, people are getting too used to him. Doesn't mean he can't still do all the TV and keep being brilliant. Bring on Suzanne Evans I say.
I think we can all agree that it was a well-received speech that will get lots of good media coverage. As such, it will be a good test of the solidity of the voting blocks in the polls. I was predicting last week that the Labour lead would drop to zeroish this week before recovering in October. There should be a modest bump in tomorrow's YG and the effect should peak on Saturday. Any guesses?
Did someone make a speech today? Everyone on here is to be bangin on about UKIP and there latest media wheeze
Er......no, "someone's* promised to give us a million over 12 months"
*someone who it was claimed gave the Tories £250,000, but they say they got £25,000.....but he does like spending £60,000 on an ad in the Telegraph with a pork pie in it.....
Mr. Richard, it's worth mentioning that the part of the speech that preceded the tax policies made it plain they were contingent on the deficit being reduced. Also, during this term there has been a bit of a eurozone sovereign debt crisis, which affected the economy a bit.
Not to say Osborne couldn't've done better. But it can also not be dismissed as irrelevant.
I think we can all agree that it was a well-received speech that will get lots of good media coverage. As such, it will be a good test of the solidity of the voting blocks in the polls. I was predicting last week that the Labour lead would drop to zeroish this week before recovering in October. There should be a modest bump in tomorrow's YG and the effect should peak on Saturday. Any guesses?
Still think it means nothing Nick. People just aren't remotely GE switched. It's all pretty meaningless. Come February / March opinion polls will start being important.
The only caveat to that is that I think Cameron tried to do a PPB for the election in a way that Miliband didn't quite manage (although he tried), so I suppose, perhaps, a few people might suddenly twig there's a vote next year but I'm not holding my breath.
It's all in a bubble, but it has been very amusing to watch how excitable kippers can get.
I think we can all agree that it was a well-received speech that will get lots of good media coverage. As such, it will be a good test of the solidity of the voting blocks in the polls. I was predicting last week that the Labour lead would drop to zeroish this week before recovering in October. There should be a modest bump in tomorrow's YG and the effect should peak on Saturday. Any guesses?
It usually takes a week or two before an effect trickles through to the polls. I would not expect a lot of effect just yet.
What we did see was a party fired up, that thinks it can win. Labour looked very flat in comparison with no clear vision for government.
Looking at today events, it feels like it's a "march to Moscow" moment for UKIP. It is a great day for the Tory party. Unfortunately we won't know the full impact in the polls until Monday night.
I posted my first reaction to the UKIP debacle from my phone on the move. My view has not changed at all but it is also worth looking in a bit more detail at the possible reasons and why they do not excuse what they did this afternoon.
Bad move by UKIP, very bad move by Farage. This will have hurt them if only because it will have annoyed a lot of journalists who, like it or not, UKIP need to keep writing stories about them.
Blimey: good sense from Richard Tyndall. The thing which they have particularly screwed up about is that the journos were knackered from two (effectively three) conferences. Bloody stupid stunt either way. As you say, it really suggests they're no different.
And, I'm sorry, but whatever you think of Reckless's right to defect, the timing was snide, cynical, underhand and demeans the whole of politics. I'd say the same if the Tories pulled such a stupid stunt. Mind you, I did once give Reg Prentice a grilling when he crossed the floor.
Has Iain Dale yet indicated how he came to be deceived and as a consequence deceived his readers?
I think he owes them an explanation.
It's old news, Peter. I learnt many years ago never to trust a tip from Iain. Nice bloke though he is.
Thanks Casino.
Yes, I've always liked Iain and his blog too. This is the first time I have been let down by him.
Of course he may have been misled by a source but then he should know which sources he can and cannot trust. As it is, he would have no defence to the charge that he made the whole thing up himself.
I think Mike is correct. Someone got cold feet ! Having said that, in any other time, a £1m donation to a party would be big news !!
That's reasonable speculation, Surbiton, but do you, Mike or anybody else have any evidence?
Absent evidence, we have to assume we were misled - and Iain Dale is in the dock, charged with the grievous offence of misleading punters.
That's a pretty serious offence around here.
I feel guilty for running a thread based on that tweet.
Apologies everyone.
My logic was Iain Dale is close to David Davis et al, so it must be true.
I can't believe UKIP would do this as a planned strategy. It seems more likely there was another defector who got cold feet, so they get their new donor to pay his planned donations early to save embarrassment.
Have to agree this seems more plausible.
Having said that I gather Aaron Banks plans to stand in Thornbury and Yate, which is near to Bristol. So maybe he really was the 'big show'.
Having paid ten times as much, does he get to stand in ten times as many constituencies?
Is that legal?
IIRC - You can stand in more than one constituency.
That has changed.
"Standing in more than one constituency 1.13 You cannot stand in more than one constituency at the same UK Parliamentary general election"
@NickPalmer It depends how many Labour and UKIP voters think that the tax announcement is fair. Headline figures of £500 for the lower paid rising to £1,313 if you earn more than £50,000 per year. This to be paid after 3 more years of austerity, and possibly only by the time of the next election after this one. Of course, the maths mean that the treasury figures are worth about the same as Dave's promises last time. The peak might not last until Saturday.
So, this weekend we’ve the LD conference.Please, pretty please, can SOMEONE find a hat*, never mind a rabbit to pull out of it. Finding a rabbit would be a bonus!
*Jeremy Thorpe, of doubtful memory, always wore a hat because one of his family had a hat-making firm, and it was good for business! And whatever can be said about JT, under his and Jo Grimond’s, leadership the Liberals did pull themselves up by their own bootstraps!
From the same blogpost - this nailed EdM for me. It's so spot on.
...the dire amateurishness of the Miliband approach is actually rather insulting. The man who seeks to be Prime Minister thinks that what he is offering is good enough when it is plainly not.
And yet he seems unfazed by such criticism. In that sense, and that sense alone, you have to hand it to Miliband. He is tenacious and appears, judging by that beatific expression on his face, convinced that he deserves to triumph.
This appears to be triggering a strange side effect. As a Labour MP told me last week — after he had described his party leader's performance in extremely unflattering terms — on stage Miliband sometimes closes his eyes for a second or so after he has said something that he seems to consider especially profound, as though we are being invited to reflect on his brilliance and profundity.
In this bizarre manner, on Miliband ploughs, much to the relief of a Tory high command which wants to present next year's election as a choice between a Prime Minister and someone unsuited to national leadership. To devastating effect, David Cameron road tested this approach in his speech today and made Ed Miliband look utterly ridiculous.
Miliband's habit of closing his eyes, smiling and nodding to himself after making a supposedly profound utterance reminds me of someone savouring the smell of their own pungent flatus.
' a modest bump in tomorrow's YG and the effect should peak on Saturday. Any guesses?
Personally I'd be looking at whether the tory conference has attracted some kippers back.
Doubt it'll affect the lab numbers either way.
Nothing is moving the figures either way. I think the fixed term Parliament has made people disengage. We may see little movement until quite close to the GE.
Cameron's unfunded splurge not looking too hot on the bulletins so far.
He'll be hoping the fawning coverage from his press corps pulls things back a bit.
The problem is that it's just two tax cuts, one for those making between 10k and 12.5k and one for those who make between 41.8k and 50k. All the other promises about millions and millions of apprenticeships and jobs for everyone is down the bin.
Has Iain Dale yet indicated how he came to be deceived and as a consequence deceived his readers?
I think he owes them an explanation.
It's old news, Peter. I learnt many years ago never to trust a tip from Iain. Nice bloke though he is.
Thanks Casino.
Yes, I've always liked Iain and his blog too. This is the first time I have been let down by him.
Of course he may have been misled by a source but then he should know which sources he can and cannot trust. As it is, he would have no defence to the charge that he made the whole thing up himself.
I think Mike is correct. Someone got cold feet ! Having said that, in any other time, a £1m donation to a party would be big news !!
That's reasonable speculation, Surbiton, but do you, Mike or anybody else have any evidence?
Absent evidence, we have to assume we were misled - and Iain Dale is in the dock, charged with the grievous offence of misleading punters.
That's a pretty serious offence around here.
I feel guilty for running a thread based on that tweet.
Apologies everyone.
My logic was Iain Dale is close to David Davis et al, so it must be true.
You have been found guilty as charged, and are hereby sentenced to wearing sandals for a week.
Has Iain Dale yet indicated how he came to be deceived and as a consequence deceived his readers?
I think he owes them an explanation.
It's old news, Peter. I learnt many years ago never to trust a tip from Iain. Nice bloke though he is.
Thanks Casino.
Yes, I've always liked Iain and his blog too. This is the first time I have been let down by him.
Of course he may have been misled by a source but then he should know which sources he can and cannot trust. As it is, he would have no defence to the charge that he made the whole thing up himself.
I think Mike is correct. Someone got cold feet ! Having said that, in any other time, a £1m donation to a party would be big news !!
That's reasonable speculation, Surbiton, but do you, Mike or anybody else have any evidence?
Absent evidence, we have to assume we were misled - and Iain Dale is in the dock, charged with the grievous offence of misleading punters.
That's a pretty serious offence around here.
I feel guilty for running a thread based on that tweet.
Apologies everyone.
My logic was Iain Dale is close to David Davis et al, so it must be true.
You have been found guilty as charged, and are hereby sentenced to wearing sandals for a week.
Nothing wrong with wearing sandals. I wear them every week to go and get my Guardian!
The Dome brings back fond memories. Remember when everyone was outraged Labour wasted a billion quid on that white elephant?
In fairness, MD, it was commissioned by the Tories (Gillian Sheppard and Michael Heseltine in particular) after an absurdly rigged process that deposited a number of viable, intelligent and indeed interesting bids from provincial cities, especially Birmingham, into the long grass because they were (and Heseltine admitted this) 'not in Greenwich'. That was in fact the reason the Tories lost Edgbaston in 1997.
With regard to Sarah Teather and singing, I think the confusion is with Lembit Opik. They don't look very similar, but they are both arrogant, unpleasant, useless and believe they are charming and sophisticated. Maybe that's close enough?
A depressingly left wing budget from a supposedly right wing party.
There should be no talk of tax cuts nor of ring fencing entire departments such as the NHS while we are still spending our childrens and grandchildrens taxes.
Politicians should be spelling out the hard choices ahead and I include all parties in this, not trying to bribe voters. It is time to send the british electorate a wake up call not pretend everything can carry on as it is.
A failure all around and absolutely nothing worth voting for from any party
The Dome brings back fond memories. Remember when everyone was outraged Labour wasted a billion quid on that white elephant?
In fairness, MD, it was commissioned by the Tories (Gillian Sheppard and Michael Heseltine in particular) after an absurdly rigged process that deposited a number of viable, intelligent and indeed interesting bids from provincial cities, especially Birmingham, into the long grass because they were (and Heseltine admitted this) 'not in Greenwich'. That was in fact the reason the Tories lost Edgbaston in 1997.
With regard to Sarah Teather and singing, I think the confusion is with Lembit Opik. They don't look very similar, but they are both arrogant, unpleasant, useless and believe they are charming and sophisticated. Maybe that's close enough?
Mr Ydoethur, that’s extremely unkind to Ms Teather.
I think we can all agree that it was a well-received speech that will get lots of good media coverage. As such, it will be a good test of the solidity of the voting blocks in the polls. I was predicting last week that the Labour lead would drop to zeroish this week before recovering in October. There should be a modest bump in tomorrow's YG and the effect should peak on Saturday. Any guesses?
Still think it means nothing Nick. People just aren't remotely GE switched. It's all pretty meaningless. Come February / March opinion polls will start being important.
The only caveat to that is that I think Cameron tried to do a PPB for the election in a way that Miliband didn't quite manage (although he tried), so I suppose, perhaps, a few people might suddenly twig there's a vote next year but I'm not holding my breath.
It's all in a bubble, but it has been very amusing to watch how excitable kippers can get.
I think it'll get a bump all right - conference speeches usually do. How big and whether it'll last are other things.
Do we have a bet, by the way? I'm only on intermittently and may have missed your confirmation? You can email me on nickmp1 at aol dot com if you prefer.
Has Iain Dale yet indicated how he came to be deceived and as a consequence deceived his readers?
I think he owes them an explanation.
It's old news, Peter. I learnt many years ago never to trust a tip from Iain. Nice bloke though he is.
Thanks Casino.
Yes, I've always liked Iain and his blog too. This is the first time I have been let down by him.
Of course he may have been misled by a source but then he should know which sources he can and cannot trust. As it is, he would have no defence to the charge that he made the whole thing up himself.
I think Mike is correct. Someone got cold feet ! Having said that, in any other time, a £1m donation to a party would be big news !!
That's reasonable speculation, Surbiton, but do you, Mike or anybody else have any evidence?
Absent evidence, we have to assume we were misled - and Iain Dale is in the dock, charged with the grievous offence of misleading punters.
That's a pretty serious offence around here.
I feel guilty for running a thread based on that tweet.
Apologies everyone.
My logic was Iain Dale is close to David Davis et al, so it must be true.
Two disaffected David's.
I do think TSE you have let short-term hype get the better of you. I've stored your thread header where you stated: 'for those who were optimistic the Tories would remain in power post May 2015 today probably extinguished those hopes.'
A week is a long time in politics, as we've just seen. 32 of them is a hell of a lot. The General Election is thirty-two weeks tomorrow.
Cameron's unfunded splurge not looking too hot on the bulletins so far.
He'll be hoping the fawning coverage from his press corps pulls things back a bit.
The problem is that it's just two tax cuts, one for those making between 10k and 12.5k and one for those who make between 41.8k and 50k. All the other promises about millions and millions of apprenticeships and jobs for everyone is down the bin.
Tax cuts which help the squeezed middle to deal with the cost of living crisis. I thought you'd be pleased.
I think we can all agree that it was a well-received speech that will get lots of good media coverage. As such, it will be a good test of the solidity of the voting blocks in the polls. I was predicting last week that the Labour lead would drop to zeroish this week before recovering in October. There should be a modest bump in tomorrow's YG and the effect should peak on Saturday. Any guesses?
Still think it means nothing Nick. People just aren't remotely GE switched. It's all pretty meaningless. Come February / March opinion polls will start being important.
The only caveat to that is that I think Cameron tried to do a PPB for the election in a way that Miliband didn't quite manage (although he tried), so I suppose, perhaps, a few people might suddenly twig there's a vote next year but I'm not holding my breath.
It's all in a bubble, but it has been very amusing to watch how excitable kippers can get.
Do we have a bet, by the way? I'm only on intermittently and may have missed your confirmation? You can email me on nickmp1 at aol dot com if you prefer.
Definitely! I'm on if you are. £10 that the Conservatives will post at least 6% ahead of Labour in the popular UK vote share. If they do I win a tenner, if they don't you do. (I stuck to UK because it's so much easier for data if that's ok?)
The poor old magic money tree has taken some hammering today hasn't it.
Tax cuts to the left, tax cuts to the right. Spending increases now, spending increases to come.
Have those people who were so angered by other parties's fiscal plans been equally angry today ?
No I didn't think so either.
Lets take a look back at what George Osborne predicted the government financial position was to be:
"By 2014-15 borrowing reaches £37 billion, exactly half the amount forecast in the March Budget. In 2015-16, borrowing falls further to £20 billion. "
Only going to miss those targets by about £140bn.
" Public sector net debt as a share of GDP will be 62 per cent this year, before peaking at 70 per cent in 2013-14. Because of our action today, it then begins to fall, to 69 per cent in 2014-15 and then 67 per cent in 2015-16. "
IIRC it stands at 79.9% at the moment and is still rising.
By 2016 government debt will be 20% higher as a share of GDP than Osborne predicted.
Better get some more fertilizer on the magic money tree.
Quite. Yet some will tell there has been no change in focus from the government.
Whether you choose to laugh or cry at their stubbornness is entirely up to you.
Mr. Pagan, my understanding is that taxes will only be cut when the deficit is eliminated (a delicious slice of cake after a strenuous workout, if you will).
Cameron's unfunded splurge not looking too hot on the bulletins so far.
He'll be hoping the fawning coverage from his press corps pulls things back a bit.
The problem is that it's just two tax cuts, one for those making between 10k and 12.5k and one for those who make between 41.8k and 50k. All the other promises about millions and millions of apprenticeships and jobs for everyone is down the bin.
Tax cuts which help the squeezed middle to deal with the cost of living crisis. I thought you'd be pleased.
Doesn’t do lot for me as a middle income pensioner. What it will do to my top-rate-paying son I’m not sure. In spite of all my educational efforts I fear he sometimes votes Tory!
The Dome brings back fond memories. Remember when everyone was outraged Labour wasted a billion quid on that white elephant?
In fairness, MD, it was commissioned by the Tories (Gillian Sheppard and Michael Heseltine in particular) after an absurdly rigged process that deposited a number of viable, intelligent and indeed interesting bids from provincial cities, especially Birmingham, into the long grass because they were (and Heseltine admitted this) 'not in Greenwich'. That was in fact the reason the Tories lost Edgbaston in 1997.
With regard to Sarah Teather and singing, I think the confusion is with Lembit Opik. They don't look very similar, but they are both arrogant, unpleasant, useless and believe they are charming and sophisticated. Maybe that's close enough?
Mr Ydoethur, that’s extremely unkind to Ms Teather.
So I would have thought also - until I worked in a state school while she was a concerned Minister.
To be fair of course, all SoS and Ministers of State have become hate figures for teachers usually by simply turning up for work (the two notable exceptions being John McGregor and Estelle Morris, neither of whom lasted long). But Teather and Gove somehow put themselves in a class apart. They even gave us fond memories of Ed Balls and Kevin Brennan!
Cameron is a good speech-maker. I also think he's a good PM from a diplomatic point of view. It's a bit odd that he seems to get such a bad press from behind the scenes.
The Conservative plan is entirely sensible.
Something is going wrong in the Conservative party though I feel - my best guess is it's something to do with the unseen forces of the whips and the like. Cameron, Hague, and Osborne are really good, capable people (particularly Hague). I am beginning to think that it's the rest of the Tory MPs that are falling short. I really don't believe that Cameron et al are playing a purely politics-for-politics-sake game.
The BBC are running this as 'tax cuts for 30m'. That may be right, but it doesn't matter. The programme is for a smaller state (bureaucracy). That really does matter.
Nice of Dave to be thinking of public sector workers by announcing tax cuts. Teachers, the police. One of them said it was for the nurses the other day. Seems I've got the Tories all wrong.
The Dome brings back fond memories. Remember when everyone was outraged Labour wasted a billion quid on that white elephant?
In fairness, MD, it was commissioned by the Tories (Gillian Sheppard and Michael Heseltine in particular) after an absurdly rigged process that deposited a number of viable, intelligent and indeed interesting bids from provincial cities, especially Birmingham, into the long grass because they were (and Heseltine admitted this) 'not in Greenwich'. That was in fact the reason the Tories lost Edgbaston in 1997.
With regard to Sarah Teather and singing, I think the confusion is with Lembit Opik. They don't look very similar, but they are both arrogant, unpleasant, useless and believe they are charming and sophisticated. Maybe that's close enough?
Mr Ydoethur, that’s extremely unkind to Ms Teather.
So I would have thought also - until I worked in a state school while she was a concerned Minister.
To be fair of course, all SoS and Ministers of State have become hate figures for teachers usually by simply turning up for work (the two notable exceptions being John McGregor and Estelle Morris, neither of whom lasted long). But Teather and Gove somehow put themselves in a class apart. They even gave us fond memories of Ed Balls and Kevin Brennan!
TBH I gained the impression from family members who are teachers that she was not badly thought of. Gove was an entirely different kettle of (stinking) fish!
The Dome brings back fond memories. Remember when everyone was outraged Labour wasted a billion quid on that white elephant?
In fairness, MD, it was commissioned by the Tories (Gillian Sheppard and Michael Heseltine in particular) after an absurdly rigged process that deposited a number of viable, intelligent and indeed interesting bids from provincial cities, especially Birmingham, into the long grass because they were (and Heseltine admitted this) 'not in Greenwich'. That was in fact the reason the Tories lost Edgbaston in 1997.
With regard to Sarah Teather and singing, I think the confusion is with Lembit Opik. They don't look very similar, but they are both arrogant, unpleasant, useless and believe they are charming and sophisticated. Maybe that's close enough?
I can't help thinking though that if the Tories had controlled the actual contents, we would have got a tump-thumping on-steroids version of the Royal Edinburgh Military Tattoo, which whilst culturally ghastly, would have been extremely popular, both with British people, and tourists, and thus would have made the project successful and profitable. It could (and should -easy to say with hindsight) have been made into essentially the O2 from the very beginning.
ZP-After Labour´s Edukashn edukashn edukashn and Labour´s bribes the electorate are not clued up enough. That the media also believes in the magic money tree does not help. Where was the critical questioning of Labour´s Mansion Tax. Where the challenge that, sadly, £2-5b is a drop in the ocean compared to what the State p!sses up against the wall. But people still think £2.5b is a big number...
Labour´s imported vote don´t care. They can´t believe there is a country that gives them free money for nothing. Although voting Labour helps.
What % of people know the difference between the deficit and debt? Even so called news presenters don´t. And I don´t mean Kay Burley either.
And it is not only in the UK. In France in 2012 one side promised (a tiny dose of) economic realism. The other the magic money tree. The French Millipede won. In Spain in 2008 one side warned of economic trouble ahead, the other promised continued good times. Mr Bean won. Even though he admitted there was trouble ahead as soon as he´d won the election. In Hungary the Socialists (there´s a trend here) were caught on tape admitting they´d lied about Hungary´s economic situation to get elected. They promptly lost the following election.
All very depressing really. Power for power´s sake rather than tackling the issues of the day.
It wasn't just me that found Hugh's comment utterly contemptible, then...
Yep, I may not have a lot of time for Cameron politically but that is just a rotten thing to claim. I don't believe for a second Cameron was being anything less than utterly sincere in that part of his speech.
Cameron is a good speech-maker. I also think he's a good PM from a diplomatic point of view. It's a bit odd that he seems to get such a bad press from behind the scenes.
The Conservative plan is entirely sensible.
Something is going wrong in the Conservative party though I feel - my best guess is it's something to do with the unseen forces of the whips and the like. Cameron, Hague, and Osborne are really good, capable people (particularly Hague). I am beginning to think that it's the rest of the Tory MPs that are falling short. I really don't believe that Cameron et al are playing a purely politics-for-politics-sake game.
The BBC are running this as 'tax cuts for 30m'. That may be right, but it doesn't matter. The programme is for a smaller state (bureaucracy). That really does matter.
How is it for a smaller state? I accept I haven't been fully focussed on the their conference but I have neither heard the cheers of approval from the right or the squeals of anguish from the left that normally accompany such commitments. If anything I got the impression that the Conservatives were going to preserve the state much as it is.....
What plans for cutting the bureaucracy have they announced?
Mr. Pagan, my understanding is that taxes will only be cut when the deficit is eliminated (a delicious slice of cake after a strenuous workout, if you will).
And you believe that? Cameron and the tories will do whatever it takes to keep power just like labour. If that means tax cuts we can't afford then you really think they will not do it?
We have had a promise of cutting the deficit when I voted for them in 2010 look how that turned out. A severe deficiency in deficit cutting, a lot of excuses made for why it wasn't possible that were complete and utter bollocks, and a load of tax cuts we couldn't afford.
Cameron's credibility is zero. He is and the tories are now as believable on fiscal competence as Ed Balls. Both parties will drive us as a country to bankruptcy because the people in those parties at the top are wealthy enough to be insulated from driving our nation into the ground and once they have achieved it they will just shrug and do a blair and become foreign nationals.
It wasn't just me that found Hugh's comment utterly contemptible, then...
Yep, I may not have a lot of time for Cameron politically but that is just a rotten thing to claim. I don't believe for a second Cameron was being anything less than utterly sincere in that part of his speech.
Cameron is a good speech-maker. I also think he's a good PM from a diplomatic point of view. It's a bit odd that he seems to get such a bad press from behind the scenes.
The Conservative plan is entirely sensible.
Something is going wrong in the Conservative party though I feel - my best guess is it's something to do with the unseen forces of the whips and the like. Cameron, Hague, and Osborne are really good, capable people (particularly Hague). I am beginning to think that it's the rest of the Tory MPs that are falling short. I really don't believe that Cameron et al are playing a purely politics-for-politics-sake game.
The BBC are running this as 'tax cuts for 30m'. That may be right, but it doesn't matter. The programme is for a smaller state (bureaucracy). That really does matter.
How is it for a smaller state? I accept I haven't been fully focussed on the their conference but I have neither heard the cheers of approval from the right or the squeals of anguish from the left that normally accompany such commitments. If anything I got the impression that the Conservatives were going to preserve the state much as it is.....
What plans for cutting the bureaucracy have they announced?
£25bn in cuts for the first two years, then a balanced budget by 2018 which implies a further 15bn cuts with nominal GDP growth of 5% pa.
ZP-After Labour´s Edukashn edukashn edukashn and Labour´s bribes the electorate are not clued up enough. That the media also believes in the magic money tree does not help. Where was the critical questioning of Labour´s Mansion Tax. Where the challenge that, sadly, £2-5b is a drop in the ocean compared to what the State p!sses up against the wall. But people still think £2.5b is a big number...
Labour´s imported vote don´t care. They can´t believe there is a country that gives them free money for nothing. Although voting Labour helps.
What % of people know the difference between the deficit and debt? Even so called news presenters don´t. And I don´t mean Kay Burley either.
And it is not only in the UK. In France in 2012 one side promised (a tiny dose of) economic realism. The other the magic money tree. The French Millipede won. In Spain in 2008 one side warned of economic trouble ahead, the other promised continued good times. Mr Bean won. Even though he admitted there was trouble ahead as soon as he´d won the election. In Hungary the Socialists (there´s a trend here) were caught on tape admitting they´d lied about Hungary´s economic situation to get elected. They promptly lost the following election.
All very depressing really. Power for power´s sake rather than tackling the issues of the day.
My point exactly. To get out of the mess we are in we almost need a party of national unity who will sit the country down and actually explain that we are armpit deep in the shit and if we don't do some radical pruning and soon that our children are going to find themselves drowning in the cesspool of debt which will be our legacy to them. Our politicians claim to be the leaders of the country. About damn time they showed some leadership rather than issuing manifesto's of soothing platitudes in return for a few more years on the gravy train. Seems to me that the parties are playing pass the parcel with the problem and all hoping not to be in power when the parcel proves to be a ticking time bomb and blows up.
Incidentally, did anyone speak about the Energy portfolio for the Tories at the conference? Have they got an energy policy?
No and no. Hopefully the Austrians come to pur rescue and scupper the stupid nuclear PWR subsidies. It's going to be awful when developing nations are investingin MSRs and using cheap thorium or nuclear waste and we are looking for expensive Uranium.
Particularly when it's lining the pockets of Tory donor Private Health companies after a multi-billion top-down reorganisation (he promised that would never happen, because he loves the NHS and it helped his poor son)
ZP-After Labour´s Edukashn edukashn edukashn and Labour´s bribes the electorate are not clued up enough. That the media also believes in the magic money tree does not help. Where was the critical questioning of Labour´s Mansion Tax. Where the challenge that, sadly, £2-5b is a drop in the ocean compared to what the State p!sses up against the wall. But people still think £2.5b is a big number...
Labour´s imported vote don´t care. They can´t believe there is a country that gives them free money for nothing. Although voting Labour helps.
What % of people know the difference between the deficit and debt? Even so called news presenters don´t. And I don´t mean Kay Burley either.
And it is not only in the UK. In France in 2012 one side promised (a tiny dose of) economic realism. The other the magic money tree. The French Millipede won. In Spain in 2008 one side warned of economic trouble ahead, the other promised continued good times. Mr Bean won. Even though he admitted there was trouble ahead as soon as he´d won the election. In Hungary the Socialists (there´s a trend here) were caught on tape admitting they´d lied about Hungary´s economic situation to get elected. They promptly lost the following election.
All very depressing really. Power for power´s sake rather than tackling the issues of the day.
My point exactly. To get out of the mess we are in we almost need a party of national unity who will sit the country down and actually explain that we are armpit deep in the shit and if we don't do some radical pruning and soon that our children are going to find themselves drowning in the cesspool of debt which will be our legacy to them. Our politicians claim to be the leaders of the country. About damn time they showed some leadership rather than issuing manifesto's of soothing platitudes in return for a few more years on the gravy train. Seems to me that the parties are playing pass the parcel with the problem and all hoping not to be in power when the parcel proves to be a ticking time bomb and blows up.
TBH, sometimes I wish I’d taken the £10 POM ticket when I was 21.
Particularly when it's lining the pockets of Tory donor Private Health companies after a multi-billion top-down reorganisation (he promised that would never happen, because he loves the NHS and it helped his poor son)
It wasn't just me that found Hugh's comment utterly contemptible, then...
Yep, I may not have a lot of time for Cameron politically but that is just a rotten thing to claim. I don't believe for a second Cameron was being anything less than utterly sincere in that part of his speech.
Very nasty comment by Hugh.
I quite agree Mr Tyndall.
Me too. I would say the same for someone from the other side. I've no doubt that part was genuinely from the heart for DC, whatever else you think of him or his politics.
Particularly when it's lining the pockets of Tory donor Private Health companies after a multi-billion top-down reorganisation (he promised that would never happen, because he loves the NHS and it helped his poor son)
Comments
The part of the speech preceding it did speak about the necessity of things being paid for, and nice things being contingent on the deficit being reduced.
I'll swap you Mr Delingpole for Ms Dorries, and raise you Gary Barlow
since when have you ever worried about a massive unfunded tax cut ?
"Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe. Learn more"
Wonder what that was?
I'm merely pointing out the huge change in message.
Really, it is that simple.
Yes, I've always liked Iain and his blog too. This is the first time I have been let down by him.
Of course he may have been misled by a source but then he should know which sources he can and cannot trust. As it is, he would have no defence to the charge that he made the whole thing up himself.
If you think the political landscape is so boring that ed is going to win because he has a slender lead in the polls with 7 months to go, the end, then the rational thing is to remortgage your house and put the money on a lab maj, and take a 7 month holiday from pb. It looks a bit more intereting than that to a lot of us.
It took the cosseted public sector about three years to catch up.
http://www.accountancyage.com/aa/blog-post/2364381/taking-stock-no-humble-pie-after-anti-pwc-newspaper-ad
http://www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=34594
Absent evidence, we have to assume we were misled - and Iain Dale is in the dock, charged with the grievous offence of misleading punters.
That's a pretty serious offence around here.
Tax cuts to the left, tax cuts to the right.
Spending increases now, spending increases to come.
Have those people who were so angered by other parties's fiscal plans been equally angry today ?
No I didn't think so either.
Lets take a look back at what George Osborne predicted the government financial position was to be:
"By 2014-15 borrowing reaches £37 billion, exactly half the amount forecast in the March Budget. In 2015-16, borrowing falls further to £20 billion. "
Only going to miss those targets by about £140bn.
" Public sector net debt as a share of GDP will be 62 per cent this year, before peaking at 70 per cent in 2013-14. Because of our action today, it then begins to fall, to 69 per cent in 2014-15 and then 67 per cent in 2015-16. "
IIRC it stands at 79.9% at the moment and is still rising.
By 2016 government debt will be 20% higher as a share of GDP than Osborne predicted.
Better get some more fertilizer on the magic money tree.
Now apply that to Labour voters in a Conservative seat...
There are two possible explanations.
1. They always intended that this was just an announcement about the donation and were doing their best to build it up into something to try and disrupt Cameron's speech. If that is the case it was crass and infantile and undermines any claims they might make that they are 'different'.
2. They really did have a defector lined up and were going to announce them to spike Cameron's speech but the defector pulled out. This is still just as crass and infantile and also incredibly stupid. For one thing there was always a chance that the defector would get cold feet or might genuinely change their minds after Cameron's speech. We all know Cameron is at his very best doing these set piece occasions so that is always a possibility.
If that was the case then UKIP made a real error in the way they handled it. They should have been honest, admitted that their defector had had second thoughts and taken the short term hit. In the longer term the honesty and the knowledge that MPs are fickle creatures at the best of times would have held them in good stead. As it was the pretense that this was all about some donation just made them look stupid and shallow.
Bad move by UKIP, very bad move by Farage. This will have hurt them if only because it will have annoyed a lot of journalists who, like it or not, UKIP need to keep writing stories about them.
Farage needs to be 'cheif campaigner' for UKIP, not leader -he has said as much himself. This ought to happen before the election ideally, people are getting too used to him. Doesn't mean he can't still do all the TV and keep being brilliant. Bring on Suzanne Evans I say.
Who want to wake up with Nigel? Take a good look at the people who want to bed him.
*someone who it was claimed gave the Tories £250,000, but they say they got £25,000.....but he does like spending £60,000 on an ad in the Telegraph with a pork pie in it.....
Not to say Osborne couldn't've done better. But it can also not be dismissed as irrelevant.
Personally I'd be looking at whether the tory conference has attracted some kippers back.
Doubt it'll affect the lab numbers either way.
The only caveat to that is that I think Cameron tried to do a PPB for the election in a way that Miliband didn't quite manage (although he tried), so I suppose, perhaps, a few people might suddenly twig there's a vote next year but I'm not holding my breath.
It's all in a bubble, but it has been very amusing to watch how excitable kippers can get.
What we did see was a party fired up, that thinks it can win. Labour looked very flat in comparison with no clear vision for government.
It is a great day for the Tory party.
Unfortunately we won't know the full impact in the polls until Monday night.
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2009/10/25/could-ukip-still-save-the-day-for-labour/
And, I'm sorry, but whatever you think of Reckless's right to defect, the timing was snide, cynical, underhand and demeans the whole of politics. I'd say the same if the Tories pulled such a stupid stunt. Mind you, I did once give Reg Prentice a grilling when he crossed the floor.
Apologies everyone.
My logic was Iain Dale is close to David Davis et al, so it must be true.
It depends how many Labour and UKIP voters think that the tax announcement is fair.
Headline figures of £500 for the lower paid rising to £1,313 if you earn more than £50,000 per year.
This to be paid after 3 more years of austerity, and possibly only by the time of the next election after this one.
Of course, the maths mean that the treasury figures are worth about the same as Dave's promises last time.
The peak might not last until Saturday.
He'll be hoping the fawning coverage from his press corps pulls things back a bit.
Finding a rabbit would be a bonus!
*Jeremy Thorpe, of doubtful memory, always wore a hat because one of his family had a hat-making firm, and it was good for business! And whatever can be said about JT, under his and Jo Grimond’s, leadership the Liberals did pull themselves up by their own bootstraps!
All the other promises about millions and millions of apprenticeships and jobs for everyone is down the bin.
You have been found guilty as charged, and are hereby sentenced to wearing sandals for a week.
http://www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=34386
"it has also emerged that Mr Banks has indicated to international insurance media ‘The Insurance Times’ that he is set to sue his regulator and the accountancy firm that stated there was inadequacy in reserving at the insurer."
Sept 2014
http://www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=34594
Messing with PWC is "brave".
"Banksy anti-immigration birds mural in Clacton-on-Sea destroyed."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-29446232
With regard to Sarah Teather and singing, I think the confusion is with Lembit Opik. They don't look very similar, but they are both arrogant, unpleasant, useless and believe they are charming and sophisticated. Maybe that's close enough?
There should be no talk of tax cuts nor of ring fencing entire departments such as the NHS while we are still spending our childrens and grandchildrens taxes.
Politicians should be spelling out the hard choices ahead and I include all parties in this, not trying to bribe voters. It is time to send the british electorate a wake up call not pretend everything can carry on as it is.
A failure all around and absolutely nothing worth voting for from any party
Do we have a bet, by the way? I'm only on intermittently and may have missed your confirmation? You can email me on nickmp1 at aol dot com if you prefer.
I do think TSE you have let short-term hype get the better of you. I've stored your thread header where you stated: 'for those who were optimistic the Tories would remain in power post May 2015 today probably extinguished those hopes.'
A week is a long time in politics, as we've just seen. 32 of them is a hell of a lot. The General Election is thirty-two weeks tomorrow.
Whether you choose to laugh or cry at their stubbornness is entirely up to you.
To be fair of course, all SoS and Ministers of State have become hate figures for teachers usually by simply turning up for work (the two notable exceptions being John McGregor and Estelle Morris, neither of whom lasted long). But Teather and Gove somehow put themselves in a class apart. They even gave us fond memories of Ed Balls and Kevin Brennan!
The Conservative plan is entirely sensible.
Something is going wrong in the Conservative party though I feel - my best guess is it's something to do with the unseen forces of the whips and the like. Cameron, Hague, and Osborne are really good, capable people (particularly Hague). I am beginning to think that it's the rest of the Tory MPs that are falling short. I really don't believe that Cameron et al are playing a purely politics-for-politics-sake game.
The BBC are running this as 'tax cuts for 30m'. That may be right, but it doesn't matter. The programme is for a smaller state (bureaucracy). That really does matter.
It wasn't just me that found Hugh's comment utterly contemptible, then...
Labour´s imported vote don´t care. They can´t believe there is a country that gives them free money for nothing. Although voting Labour helps.
What % of people know the difference between the deficit and debt? Even so called news presenters don´t. And I don´t mean Kay Burley either.
And it is not only in the UK. In France in 2012 one side promised (a tiny dose of) economic realism. The other the magic money tree. The French Millipede won. In Spain in 2008 one side warned of economic trouble ahead, the other promised continued good times. Mr Bean won. Even though he admitted there was trouble ahead as soon as he´d won the election. In Hungary the Socialists (there´s a trend here) were caught on tape admitting they´d lied about Hungary´s economic situation to get elected. They promptly lost the following election.
All very depressing really. Power for power´s sake rather than tackling the issues of the day.
Very nasty comment by Hugh.
What plans for cutting the bureaucracy have they announced?
We have had a promise of cutting the deficit when I voted for them in 2010 look how that turned out. A severe deficiency in deficit cutting, a lot of excuses made for why it wasn't possible that were complete and utter bollocks, and a load of tax cuts we couldn't afford.
Cameron's credibility is zero. He is and the tories are now as believable on fiscal competence as Ed Balls. Both parties will drive us as a country to bankruptcy because the people in those parties at the top are wealthy enough to be insulated from driving our nation into the ground and once they have achieved it they will just shrug and do a blair and become foreign nationals.
Particularly when it's lining the pockets of Tory donor Private Health companies after a multi-billion top-down reorganisation (he promised that would never happen, because he loves the NHS and it helped his poor son)
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/fury-tory-party-donors-handed-3123469
Dennis Macshane?
Damien McBride?
Dave Lee Travis?
Jim Sillars (merger with SNP)?