Bobajob We shall see, I doubt Cameron will win as big a victory as Bush Snr eventually did, having trailed Dukakis by double figures prior to the GOP convention, but this week and his speech could be the moment he secured his place in No 10
These tax changes will apparently cost £7bn a year, but how is this calculated ? The tax changes will only be done gradually and will not be fully implemented until 2020.
So I don't know what all the fuss is about really. There may be other changes to tax between 2015 and 2020 which take the money back. One hand gives it away and another takes it back ! People would only really be able to work out whether they were actually better off, when the budget measures started to show on their payslips and household budgets.
If the media was not so right wing, it might instead have headlines of Cameron scrapping human rights.
If the media had no interest in vaguely accurate headlines then they might have published that.
As it is, Cameron has decided that British courts should have the ability to determine the appropriate balance of rights between one individual and the population as a whole.
I have more faith in our British courts than some unaccountable international body stuffed with individuals with dubious legal credentials
Bobajob We shall see, I doubt Cameron will win as big a victory as Bush Snr eventually did, having trailed Dukakis by double figures prior to the GOP convention, but this week and his speech could be the moment he secured his place in No 10
What a peculiar comment. The DT haven't liked Cameron much at all in years - he's far too wet for them, ditto the Mail who have their own agenda.
I suppose the Sun was fine when it was backing Labour here?
The Times is more pro than anti Cameron - but they're pretty even handed on most stuff when it comes to knocking the Tories. They've got about a 50/50 split of Opinion writers too with David Aaronvitch [ex-Commie], Philip Collins [ex Blair speech writer], Jenni Russell [Labour flag waver], Janice Turner [lefty] - then Matthew Parris [former Tory MP], Danny Fink [Tory peer], Tim Monty [ex ConHome]. And a sprinkling of others like Libby Purves [a soft lefty] and Matt Ridley [a soft righty].
I hope that's a fair assessment of the ones we see most often.
I thought Cameron's speech was very good. He's impressive with his back to the wall.
I think he is far better suited to the role of PM than Ed MIliband. Unfortunately, I think it very likely that UKIP's vote share put Miliband into power.
There is a great irony in that. But the monomaniacs don't do irony.
If UKiP's vote does hold up and aids the landing of Ed into Number. 10, then I see a 'Yes' moment for those who vote UKIP and do indeed, unwittingly, end up with Ed. They'll be all up in arms and getting shouty - oblivious that they are too blame.
The above applies only to the unwitting, not the UKIP voters who are swell aware.
Please explain how putting a cross in the UKIP box wins it for EdM.
EdM wins by getting more crosses in the Labour boxes than the Conservatives do in their's.
And if the Conservatives can't get enough people to put a cross in their boxes then they have nobody to blame but themselves.
You've asked for an explanation so I will answer in a literal fashion.
People who planned to vote Tory decide to vote UKIP, reducing said Tory vote. Evidently, they (or some) will have voted for UKIP in the hope of pushing the even further right agenda.
All the while, with the LD vote up in smoke, Ed takes the left, and with it, the spoils.
An explanation.
Nope. Normal Tory logic fail. What you should have written was "People who planned to vote Tory decide not to vote Tory". Where they then go to vote makes no further difference to the Tory total vote. Therefore the fact that the Tory Party consequently fail to get enough votes to win a majority is entirely the fault of... you guessed it... the Tory party.
And I repeat my comment from yesterday. Since we are continually told that Cameron can only win if from the centre, how can you then claim that losing votes on the Right cost him the election. You cannot have it both ways.
If Cameron drives away a large portion of his support the only person to blame for that is Cameron.
You're wasting your time RT.
There's nothing which can deprive a PB Tory from his whining sense of self-entitlement.
I'll have a guess.....Mail,Express,Scum,Telegraph and Times front page gushing about Camerons speech......just a guess like.
He could have bent over and farted God save the Queen from his arse and the papers above would have been gushing about it.
The independent seems to have given Cameron a good front page.
Tory Majority nailed on. Basil, get ready to be rid of those goalposts forever.
For an eternity if they win next time. After introducing EVEL, excluding Wales, Ireland and Scotland from English decisions, they will alter the voting system. One Tory Two votes will the referendum they win. After eating all the socialist babies they will be a permanent government in this future Tory Utopia.
Cameron's really upset the Left with his health comments.
Labour whining as they're not being allowed sole ownership of Everyone's NHS.
He's also nicked "unaffordable promises" - that's Labour territory too!
You really think he has outmaneuvered LAB on NHS.
Lets see what the next poll says about who has most Trust on NHS.
Where are the £40BN cuts coming from
BJO, you are an expert on the NHS, can you answer a question please.
I read the other day that the Tories have ever so slightly increased NHS in real terms, but because of other factors that have increased more than inflation there may be a net reduction.
One of those factors was pensions, can you tell me how much we spend on the NHS and how much of it goes on pensions please.
NHS England has a budget of £95.6 billion.
I dont know exactly how much is spent on pensions but All NHS employers pay 14% employer contributions. So as far as I can work out staff costs in NHS are circa £64BN including ers costs so i guess about £10BN in pension costs give or take £1bn.
Big numbers this cost is going up due to changes to pension scheme in 2015 and actuarial assessment of scheme
anotherdave But the Mail has been critical of Cameron especially the likes of Heffer, Hitchens etc, it will only give credit where it thinks he deserves it and if it likes the speech its Kipperite readership will likely do so too
@Charles So we will no longer be signatories to the ECHR? Is that the first power Dave wants repatriated? his red line so to speak? (Edited for brainfart)
I thought Cameron's speech was very good. He's impressive with his back to the wall.
I think he is far better suited to the role of PM than Ed MIliband. Unfortunately, I think it very likely that UKIP's vote share put Miliband into power.
There is a great irony in that. But the monomaniacs don't do irony.
If UKiP's vote does hold up and aids the landing of Ed into Number. 10, then I see a 'Yes' moment for those who vote UKIP and do indeed, unwittingly, end up with Ed. They'll be all up in arms and getting shouty - oblivious that they are too blame.
The above applies only to the unwitting, not the UKIP voters who are swell aware.
Please explain how putting a cross in the UKIP box wins it for EdM.
EdM wins by getting more crosses in the Labour boxes than the Conservatives do in their's.
And if the Conservatives can't get enough people to put a cross in their boxes then they have nobody to blame but themselves.
You've asked for an explanation so I will answer in a literal fashion.
People who planned to vote Tory decide to vote UKIP, reducing said Tory vote. Evidently, they (or some) will have voted for UKIP in the hope of pushing the even further right agenda.
All the while, with the LD vote up in smoke, Ed takes the left, and with it, the spoils.
An explanation.
Nope. Normal Tory logic fail. What you should have written was "People who planned to vote Tory decide not to vote Tory". Where they then go to vote makes no further difference to the Tory total vote. Therefore the fact that the Tory Party consequently fail to get enough votes to win a majority is entirely the fault of... you guessed it... the Tory party.
And I repeat my comment from yesterday. Since we are continually told that Cameron can only win if from the centre, how can you then claim that losing votes on the Right cost him the election. You cannot have it both ways.
If Cameron drives away a large portion of his support the only person to blame for that is Cameron.
The votes that will decide whether Miliband or Cameron in number 10 are to be found in a few marginal constituencies mostly in the suburbs and market towns in the Midlands and North.
Cameron can afford to lose 10 000 voters in true blue Surrey in order to gain a couple of thousand in Nuneaton etc.
Cameron's interested in the voters of Cambridge and Camden not Nuneaton.
See the Matthew Parris article for an explanation.
I thought Cameron's speech was very good. He's impressive with his back to the wall.
I think he is far better suited to the role of PM than Ed MIliband. Unfortunately, I think it very likely that UKIP's vote share put Miliband into power.
There is a great irony in that. But the monomy.
If UKiP's vote does hold up and aids the landing of Ed into Number. 10, then I see a 'Yes' moment for those who vote UKIP and do indeed, unwittingly, end up with Ed. They'll be all up in arms and getting shouty - oblivious that they are too blame.
The above applies only to the unwitting, not the UKIP voters who are swell aware.
Please explain how putting a cross in the UKIP box wins it for EdM.
EdM wins by getting more crosses in the Labour boxes than the Conservatives do in their's.
And if the Conservatives can't get enough people to put a cross in their boxes then they have nobody to blame but themselves.
You've asked for an explanation so I will answer in a literal fashion.
People who planned to vote Tory decide to vote UKIP, reducing said Tory vote. Evidently, they (or some) will have voted for UKIP in the hope of pushing the even further right agenda.
All the while, with the LD vote up in smoke, Ed takes the left, and with it, the spoils.
An explanation.
Nope. Normal Tory logic fail. What you should have written was "People who planned to vote Tory decide not to vote Tory". Where they then go to vote makes no further difference to the Tory total vote. Therefore the fact that the Tory Party consequently fail to get enough votes to win a majority is entirely the fault of... you guessed it... the Tory party.
And I repeat my comment from yesterday. Since we are continually told that Cameron can only win if from the centre, how can you then claim that losing votes on the Right cost him the election. You cannot have it both ways.
If Cameron drives away a large portion of his support the only person to blame for that is Cameron.
Last time I checked, most people with Centre-Right or Right views would tend took at Tory or UKIP for their vote. Can't see a significant number of those going on to the left - that was a fail.
I don't recall being one of those saying he can only win from the Centre. I think the centre-right agenda is the best foot forward, thank you. Furthermore, the defections in themselves show votes are going to UKIP. If an MP defects to Labour, then I'll rethink that and no longer dismiss that only the Tories are truly losing some vote share to UKIP.
And if the right and centre-right vote is split, Ed will win. Simple. Irregardless of who's fault it is, we will have Milliband and Balls running the show for definite.
Cameron's really upset the Left with his health comments.
Labour whining as they're not being allowed sole ownership of Everyone's NHS.
He's also nicked "unaffordable promises" - that's Labour territory too!
You really think he has outmaneuvered LAB on NHS.
Lets see what the next poll says about who has most Trust on NHS.
Where are the £40BN cuts coming from
BJO, you are an expert on the NHS, can you answer a question please.
I read the other day that the Tories have ever so slightly increased NHS in real terms, but because of other factors that have increased more than inflation there may be a net reduction.
One of those factors was pensions, can you tell me how much we spend on the NHS and how much of it goes on pensions please.
NHS England has a budget of £95.6 billion.
I dont know exactly how much is spent on pensions but All NHS employers pay 14% employer contributions. So as far as I can work out staff costs in NHS are circa £64BN including ers costs so i guess about £10BN in pension costs give or take £1bn.
Big numbers this cost is going up due to changes to pension scheme in 2015 and actuarial assessment of scheme
Are you saying that 10% of the huge amount taxpayers fork out goes on pensions?
The votes that will decide whether Miliband or Cameron in number 10 are to be found in a few marginal constituencies mostly in the suburbs and market towns in the Midlands and North.
Cameron can afford to lose 10 000 voters in true blue Surrey in order to gain a couple of thousand in Nuneaton etc.
It makes absolutely no difference. The basic fact is that people are being driven out of the Tory party by Cameron's policies and his insane habit of insulting his core support. When you do that you have no right to complain if those voters then give you the two fingered salute.
If UKIP did not exist I would still not be voting Tory. Huge numbers of ex-Tory voters feel the same way. Insulting them or trying to claim that somehow the Tory party has an innate right to their votes is sure not going to get them back.
And clearly, given that his abandonment of his core support has not resulted in an improvement in his polling your claims are simply wishful thinking.
What a peculiar comment. The DT haven't liked Cameron much at all in years - he's far too wet for them, ditto the Mail who have their own agenda.
I suppose the Sun was fine when it was backing Labour here?
The Times is more pro than anti Cameron - but they're pretty even handed on most stuff when it comes to knocking the Tories. They've got about a 50/50 split of Opinion writers too with David Aaronvitch [ex-Commie], Philip Collins [ex Blair speech writer], Jenni Russell [Labour flag waver], Janice Turner [lefty] - then Matthew Parris [former Tory MP], Danny Fink [Tory peer], Tim Monty [ex ConHome]. And a sprinkling of others like Libby Purves [a soft lefty] and Matt Ridley [a soft righty].
I hope that's a fair assessment of the ones we see most often.
Has this report in the Telegraph been mentioned before:
' In a hearing in the European Parliament today, the Conservative peer promised MEPs that he would put EU regulation above Britain’s national interest at a time when the Government is legally contesting European financial legislation to defend the City. '
Another EU failure for Cameron.
And we're still meant to trust him in his 'great undertaking nobody to know what it is' ?
That's what they are all supposed to say. Given the alternative was having financial services portfolio stripped from his remit it makes sense.
But he will be more open to reasoned debate from people who understand the financial services industry
anotherdave But the Mail has been critical of Cameron especially the likes of Heffer, Hitchens etc, it will only give credit where it thinks he deserves it and if it likes the speech its Kipperite readership will likely do so too
You are counting your chickens before they hatch. There's nothing harmful in waiting till monday for all this "Tory landslide". If by then the polls haven't changed then it is Labour majority, since this was the Tories last chance.
' UK Labour Productivity as measured by output per hour was unchanged in the second quarter of 2014 compared with the previous quarter, and 0.3% lower than a year earlier. '
Output per hour worked is at exactly the same level now as it was when this government took office.
Looks like we'll need to give the magic money tree another shake.
Have you adjusted for the structural decline in the high productivity oil & gas & financial service sectors? Otherwise you are at risk of drawing erroneous conclusions from the data.
Last time I checked, most people with Centre-Right or Right views would tend took at Tory or UKIP for their vote. Can't see a significant number of those going on to the left - that was a fail.
I don't recall being one of those saying he can only win from the Centre. I think the centre-right agenda is the best foot forward, thank you. Furthermore, the defections in themselves show votes are going to UKIP. If an MP defects to Labour, then I'll rethink that and no longer dismiss that only the Tories are truly losing some vote share to UKIP.
And if the right and centre-right vote is split, Ed will win. Simple. Irregardless of who's fault it is, we will have Milliband and Balls running the show for definite.
Someone else who thinks the Tories have some god given right to votes.
As I said even without UKIP we will not vote for the Tory party - at least not as long as Cameron in running it. You simply don't deserve our support.
I thought Cameron's speech was very good. He's impressive with his back to the wall.
I think he is far better suited to the role of PM than Ed MIliband. Unfortunately, I think it very likely that UKIP's vote share put Miliband into power.
There is a great irony in that. But the monomaniacs don't do irony.
If UKiP's vote does hold up and aids the landing of Ed into Number. 10, then I see a 'Yes' moment for those who vote UKIP and do indeed, unwittingly, end up with Ed. They'll be all up in arms and getting shouty - oblivious that they are too blame.
The above applies only to the unwitting, not the UKIP voters who are swell aware.
Please explain how putting a cross in the UKIP box wins it for EdM.
EdM wins by getting more crosses in the Labour boxes than the Conservatives do in their's.
And if the Conservatives can't get enough people to put a cross in their boxes then they have nobody to blame but themselves.
You've asked for an explanation so I will answer in a literal fashion.
People who planned to vote Tory decide to vote UKIP, reducing said Tory vote. Evidently, they (or some) will have voted for UKIP in the hope of pushing the even further right agenda.
All the while, with the LD vote up in smoke, Ed takes the left, and with it, the spoils.
An explanation.
Nope. Normal Tory logic fail. What you should have written was "People who planned to vote Tory decide not to vote Tory". Where they then go to vote makes no further difference to the Tory total vote. Therefore the fact that the Tory Party consequently fail to get enough votes to win a majority is entirely the fault of... you guessed it... the Tory party.
And I repeat my comment from yesterday. Since we are continually told that Cameron can only win if from the centre, how can you then claim that losing votes on the Right cost him the election. You cannot have it both ways.
If Cameron drives away a large portion of his support the only person to blame for that is Cameron.
You're wasting your time RT.
There's nothing which can deprive a PB Tory from his whining sense of self-entitlement.
I've worked hard and fought tooth and nail to have what I have. It's not vast riches but it's enough to own a home and eat, I've been entitled to nothing! All earnt. And, a 'PB'Tory? Last I checked, I was but a mere poster here, that is all.
It makes absolutely no difference. The basic fact is that people are being driven out of the Tory party by Cameron's policies and his insane habit of insulting his core support. When you do that you have no right to complain if those voters then give you the two fingered salute.
If UKIP did not exist I would still not be voting Tory. Huge numbers of ex-Tory voters feel the same way. Insulting them or trying to claim that somehow the Tory party has an innate right to their votes is sure not going to get them back.
Or, to put it in plain English, you have some bizarre personal grudge against Cameron, because you feel 'insulted' for some reason.
OK, fair enough. Let's imagine, for a moment, that there is actually some reason for this bizarre sense that you've somehow been slighted.
It still remains the case that it is puerile in the extreme to let considerations like that determine a vote which will help select the government of the United Kingdom, and adversely affect the lives of millions including yourself and your family.
Last time I checked, most people with Centre-Right or Right views would tend took at Tory or UKIP for their vote. Can't see a significant number of those going on to the left - that was a fail.
I don't recall being one of those saying he can only win from the Centre. I think the centre-right agenda is the best foot forward, thank you. Furthermore, the defections in themselves show votes are going to UKIP. If an MP defects to Labour, then I'll rethink that and no longer dismiss that only the Tories are truly losing some vote share to UKIP.
And if the right and centre-right vote is split, Ed will win. Simple. Irregardless of who's fault it is, we will have Milliband and Balls running the show for definite.
Someone else who thinks the Tories have some god given right to votes.
As I said even without UKIP we will not vote for the Tory party - at least not as long as Cameron in running it. You simply don't deserve our support.
I don't see me saying we have a right to votes?
I do indicate strongly however, I don't want Milliband and Balls.
The votes that will decide whether Miliband or Cameron in number 10 are to be found in a few marginal constituencies mostly in the suburbs and market towns in the Midlands and North.
Cameron can afford to lose 10 000 voters in true blue Surrey in order to gain a couple of thousand in Nuneaton etc.
It makes absolutely no difference. The basic fact is that people are being driven out of the Tory party by Cameron's policies and his insane habit of insulting his core support. When you do that you have no right to complain if those voters then give you the two fingered salute.
If UKIP did not exist I would still not be voting Tory. Huge numbers of ex-Tory voters feel the same way. Insulting them or trying to claim that somehow the Tory party has an innate right to their votes is sure not going to get them back.
And clearly, given that his abandonment of his core support has not resulted in an improvement in his polling your claims are simply wishful thinking.
We shall see. I have no problem with people wasting votes on parties that are not going to win, I am a LibDem.
Losing Reckless to the Faragists looks like a step in the direction to me.
@Charles "But he will be more open to reasoned debate from people who understand the financial services industry " You mean those whose word is nothing as well? I can see your point.
No: he is supposed to make recommendations in the interests of Europe, not of his specific state.
But Barnier doesn't really understand financial services (the UK model is very different from the European universal bank model). Hill knows it better. Given that the City is the bulk of the industry in Europe it makes sense to have a regulator that understands the challenges.
We keep banging on about Ukip affecting the tory vote and seats,can't we have a thread on the SNP affecting labour vote/seats in Scotland.
It seems to me a lot of labour voters who voted Yes are still angry with the labour party during the independence campaign and will be voting SNP in the GE to give labour a kicking.
' UK Labour Productivity as measured by output per hour was unchanged in the second quarter of 2014 compared with the previous quarter, and 0.3% lower than a year earlier. '
Output per hour worked is at exactly the same level now as it was when this government took office.
Looks like we'll need to give the magic money tree another shake.
Have you adjusted for the structural decline in the high productivity oil & gas & financial service sectors? Otherwise you are at risk of drawing erroneous conclusions from the data.
It is the same problem everywhere in the west. It's so acute that the Economist has made many features onto the mystery of lack of productivity. They have concluded that it is the lack of technological innovation and investment that is at fault, and I agree once you look at the new iphones and social media companies.
' UK Labour Productivity as measured by output per hour was unchanged in the second quarter of 2014 compared with the previous quarter, and 0.3% lower than a year earlier. '
Output per hour worked is at exactly the same level now as it was when this government took office.
It is lower than it was SEVEN years ago.
I wonder how many of the countries Britain is competing against has lower labour productivity than they did seven years ago ?
A few other seven year comparisons:
Industrial production -12% Retail sales +10% Government debt +£900bn
Remembering also that Britain is currently running its biggest balance of payments deficit on record the answer of this government is ...
Most of the voters seemed impressed except 1 2010 LD who disliked Cameron using his child on the NHS, 1 voter switched from UKIP to Tory, 1 switched from Labour to Tory
We keep banging on about Ukip affecting the tory vote and seats,can't we have a thread on the SNP affecting labour vote/seats in Scotland.
It seems to me a lot of labour voters who voted Yes are still angry with the labour party during the independence campaign and will be voting SNP in the GE to give labour a kicking.
Lest we forget, we had the Referendum because the SNP got the majority in 2011 due to people being fed-up with Labour and gave them a kicking.
I thought Cameron's speech was very good. He's impressive with his back to the wall.
I think he is far better suited to the role of PM than Ed MIliband. Unfortunately, I think it very likely that UKIP's vote share put Miliband into power.
There is a great irony in that. But the monomaniacs don't do irony.
If UKiP's vote does hold up and aids the landing of Ed into Number. 10, then I see a 'Yes' moment for those who vote UKIP and do indeed, unwittingly, end up with Ed. They'll be all up in arms and getting shouty - oblivious that they are too blame.
The above applies only to the unwitting, not the UKIP voters who are swell aware.
Please explain how putting a cross in the UKIP box wins it for EdM.
EdM wins by getting more crosses in the Labour boxes than the Conservatives do in their's.
And if the Conservatives can't get enough people to put a cross in their boxes then they have nobody to blame but themselves.
You've asked for an explanation so I will answer in a literal fashion.
People who planned to vote Tory decide to vote UKIP, reducing said Tory vote. Evidently, they (or some) will have voted for UKIP in the hope of pushing the even further right agenda.
All the while, with the LD vote up in smoke, Ed takes the left, and with it, the spoils.
An explanation.
Nope. Normal Tory logic fail. What you should have written was "People who planned to vote Tory decide not to vote Tory". Where they then go to vote makes no further difference to the Tory total vote. Therefore the fact that the Tory Party consequently fail to get enough votes to win a majority is entirely the fault of... you guessed it... the Tory party.
And I repeat my comment from yesterday. Since we are continually told that Cameron can only win if from the centre, how can you then claim that losing votes on the Right cost him the election. You cannot have it both ways.
If Cameron drives away a large portion of his support the only person to blame for that is Cameron.
You're wasting your time RT.
There's nothing which can deprive a PB Tory from his whining sense of self-entitlement.
I've worked hard and fought tooth and nail to have what I have. It's not vast riches but it's enough to own a home and eat, I've been entitled to nothing! All earnt. And, a 'PB'Tory? Last I checked, I was but a mere poster here, that is all.
My most sincere apologies for labelling you a PB Tory.
Most of the voters seemed impressed except 1 2010 LD who disliked Cameron using his child on the NHS, 1 voter switched from UKIP to Tory, 1 switched from Labour to Tory
What an opinion poll, with a sample of 6. I told you to wait till monday.
What a peculiar comment. The DT haven't liked Cameron much at all in years - he's far too wet for them, ditto the Mail who have their own agenda.
I suppose the Sun was fine when it was backing Labour here?
The Times is more pro than anti Cameron - but they're pretty even handed on most stuff when it comes to knocking the Tories. They've got about a 50/50 split of Opinion writers too with David Aaronvitch [ex-Commie], Philip Collins [ex Blair speech writer], Jenni Russell [Labour flag waver], Janice Turner [lefty] - then Matthew Parris [former Tory MP], Danny Fink [Tory peer], Tim Monty [ex ConHome]. And a sprinkling of others like Libby Purves [a soft lefty] and Matt Ridley [a soft righty].
I hope that's a fair assessment of the ones we see most often.
But if you are going to do for God sakes do it properly. Do it now(ish). Bring it in in April so people can budget for the higher income. 2020 is the 12th of Never. I think people will get a rude awakening when they realise that this 'giveaway' is actually just in line with forecast wage growth so there will be little real terms benefit, and nothing immediately, if ever (so many caveats in the policy).
If your concern is for the less well off, why not Labour's £8 minimum wage now too?
Or is it only Tory policy that has to be implemented instantly?
You clearly didn't read my post where I also said the £8 stuff was equally shit, for the same reason.
anotherdave But the Mail has been critical of Cameron especially the likes of Heffer, Hitchens etc, it will only give credit where it thinks he deserves it and if it likes the speech its Kipperite readership will likely do so too
As I recall all the papers spent the month before the EU Parliament elections telling their readers that UKIP were the worst thing in the world. UKIP won that election.
@Charles So we will no longer be signatories to the ECHR? Is that the first power Dave wants repatriated? his red line so to speak? (Edited for brainfart)
ECHR is independent of the EU, although I think there is a wrinkle with EU membership requiring(?) ECHR membership
What a peculiar comment. The DT haven't liked Cameron much at all in years - he's far too wet for them, ditto the Mail who have their own agenda.
I suppose the Sun was fine when it was backing Labour here?
The Times is more pro than anti Cameron - but they're pretty even handed on most stuff when it comes to knocking the Tories. They've got about a 50/50 split of Opinion writers too with David Aaronvitch [ex-Commie], Philip Collins [ex Blair speech writer], Jenni Russell [Labour flag waver], Janice Turner [lefty] - then Matthew Parris [former Tory MP], Danny Fink [Tory peer], Tim Monty [ex ConHome]. And a sprinkling of others like Libby Purves [a soft lefty] and Matt Ridley [a soft righty].
I hope that's a fair assessment of the ones we see most often.
I'll have a guess.....Mail,Express,Scum,Telegraph and Times front page gushing about Camerons speech......just a guess like.
He could have bent over and farted God save the Queen from his arse and the papers above would have been gushing about it.
Collins and Aaronovitch regularly write very favourably about Cameron and are mostly negative about Rd and Labour. Times leaders parrot and praise Tory policy, as do its detailed news analysis pieces; they are always highly critical of Labour. The idea it is broadly even-handed is laughable. It was not long ago, but no longer. In fact, it's probably the most tuned into the Tory leadership of all the dailies. Unlike the Telegraph it will not give UKIP the time of day.
I'm not sure, however, that the figures by themselves tell you very much. Reducing dependence on highly-profitable financial services and increasing employment in other areas (i.e. taking people off unemployment benefits) would reduce the headline productivity figures. The reason France, for example, has such high apparent productivity is that they have such high unemployment. Is that a good thing?
I thought Cameron's speech was very good. He's impressive with his back to the wall.
I think he is far better suited to the role of PM than Ed MIliband. Unfortunately, I think
There is a great irony in that. But the monomaniacs don't do irony.
If UKiP's vote does hold
The above applies only to the unwitting, not the UKIP voters who are swell aware.
Please explain how putting a cross in the UKIP box wins it for EdM.
EdM wins by getting more crosses in the Labour boxes than the Conservatives do in their's.
And if the Conservatives can't get enough people to put a cross in their boxes then they have nobody to blame but themselves.
You've asked for an explanation so I will answer in a literal fashion.
People who planned to vote Tory decide to vote UKIP, reducing said Tory vote. Evidently, they (or some) will have voted for UKIP in the hope of pushing the even further right agenda.
All the while, with the LD vote up in smoke, Ed takes the left, and with it, the spoils.
An explanation.
Nope. Normal Tory logic fail. What you should have written was "People who planned to vote Tory decide not to vote Tory". Where they then go to vote makes no further difference to the Tory total vote. Therefore the fact that the Tory Party consequently fail to get enough votes to win a majority is entirely the fault of... you guessed it... the Tory party.
And I repeat my comment from yesterday. Since we are continually told that Cameron can only win if from the centre, how can you then claim that losing votes on the Right cost him the election. You cannot have it both ways.
If Cameron drives away a large portion of his support the only person to blame for that is Cameron.
You're wasting your time RT.
There's nothing which can deprive a PB Tory from his whining sense of self-entitlement.
I've worked hard and fought tooth and nail to have what I have. It's not vast riches but it's enough to own a home and eat, I've been entitled to nothing! All earnt. And, a 'PB'Tory? Last I checked, I was but a mere poster here, that is all.
My most sincere apologies for labelling you a PB Tory.
But beware of ever sounding like one.
Just putting my opinion across, no more no less. I enjoy debate, no more, no less as, at the end of the day, I appreciate people have their own opinions as I have mine.
Though, as I stressed strongly, I've had to fight tooth and nail 'in real life'.
anotherdave But the Mail has been critical of Cameron especially the likes of Heffer, Hitchens etc, it will only give credit where it thinks he deserves it and if it likes the speech its Kipperite readership will likely do so too
As I recall all the papers spent the month before the EU Parliament elections telling their readers that UKIP were the worst thing in the world. UKIP won that election.
I remember that too, not many people read the papers these days, and of those who do fewer believe them. For instance I don't believe the headline that the tax cuts will affect 30 million people because I've read what the tax cuts are.
Has this report in the Telegraph been mentioned before:
' In a hearing in the European Parliament today, the Conservative peer promised MEPs that he would put EU regulation above Britain’s national interest at a time when the Government is legally contesting European financial legislation to defend the City. '
Another EU failure for Cameron.
And we're still meant to trust him in his 'great undertaking nobody to know what it is' ?
That's what they are all supposed to say. Given the alternative was having financial services portfolio stripped from his remit it makes sense.
But he will be more open to reasoned debate from people who understand the financial services industry
You hope.
The tradition is for them to 'go native'.
If he "goes native" you have my blessing to criticise him
Speedy Those were only the ones who switched the others were unchanged. Newsnight does have a good record on this, it was the focus group Luntz did after Cameron's 2005 speech which first showed he had made a big impact and would overtake Davis in the leadership polls
There is a thing that hasn't been factored in, the tax cuts will not affect many voters, so despite the good press there isn't much meat in the policy.
What a peculiar comment. The DT haven't liked Cameron much at all in years - he's far too wet for them, ditto the Mail who have their own agenda.
I suppose the Sun was fine when it was backing Labour here?
The Times is more pro than anti Cameron - but they're pretty even handed on most stuff when it comes to knocking the Tories. They've got about a 50/50 split of Opinion writers too with David Aaronvitch [ex-Commie], Philip Collins [ex Blair speech writer], Jenni Russell [Labour flag waver], Janice Turner [lefty] - then Matthew Parris [former Tory MP], Danny Fink [Tory peer], Tim Monty [ex ConHome]. And a sprinkling of others like Libby Purves [a soft lefty] and Matt Ridley [a soft righty].
I hope that's a fair assessment of the ones we see most often.
I'll have a guess.....Mail,Express,Scum,Telegraph and Times front page gushing about Camerons speech......just a guess like.
He could have bent over and farted God save the Queen from his arse and the papers above would have been gushing about it.
Collins and Aaronovitch regularly write very favourably about Cameron and are mostly negative about Rd and Labour. Times leaders parrot and praise Tory policy, as do its detailed news analysis pieces; they are always highly critical of Labour. The idea it is broadly even-handed is laughable. It was not long ago, but no longer. In fact, it's probably the most tuned into the Tory leadership of all the dailies. Unlike the Telegraph it will not give UKIP the time of day.
Yep. The Times is little more than a Tory cheerleader these days, sadly - because it was an independently minded centre-right organ for a time. Mail and Telegraph much more sceptical as a rule.
Speedy Those were only the ones who switched the others were unchanged. Newsnight does have a good record on this, it was the focus group Luntz did after Cameron's 2005 speech which first showed he had made a big impact and would overtake Davis in the leadership polls
To be fair I don't think today's YG reflects the speech at all - it will have been entirely taken laast night and this morning, and all one can say is that the earlier part of the conference doesn't seem to have had an effect. The Thursday YG will reflect it (the theory that these things only work through gradually seems to be false - speeches have an immediate impact or none), and I'd expect it to have a substantial effect which will gradually decline. But we shall see, eh?
We keep banging on about Ukip affecting the tory vote and seats,can't we have a thread on the SNP affecting labour vote/seats in Scotland.
It seems to me a lot of labour voters who voted Yes are still angry with the labour party during the independence campaign and will be voting SNP in the GE to give labour a kicking.
The really interesting thing about the SNP is its surge in membership. It's more than doubled, hasn't it? The implications for future policy direction are worth thinking about. The entire demographic of the party has been reconfigured. What unites these tens of thousands of members apart from wanting an independence Scotland's voters have rejected? Old SNP hands must wonder whether they have lost their party.
The votes that will decide whether Miliband or Cameron in number 10 are to be found in a few marginal constituencies mostly in the suburbs and market towns in the Midlands and North.
Cameron can afford to lose 10 000 voters in true blue Surrey in order to gain a couple of thousand in Nuneaton etc.
Mr Cameron doesn't get to decide which constituencies are marginal. The voters do that.
In 2010 the Conservatives won 53% of the vote in Clacton. It's a safe Conservative seat. Earlier this week, a voxpop in Clacton town centre couldn't find anyone intending to vote Conservative at the by-election.
Ian Watson and Robert Ford produced a map for The Telegraph in May 2014, of constituencies where UKIP are likely to affect the result of the 2015 election.
To be fair I don't think today's YG reflects the speech at all - it will have been entirely taken laast night and this morning, and all one can say is that the earlier part of the conference doesn't seem to have had an effect. The Thursday YG will reflect it (the theory that these things only work through gradually seems to be false - speeches have an immediate impact or none), and I'd expect it to have a substantial effect which will gradually decline. But we shall see, eh?
I agree, that is why I say that everyone here should wait till monday.
' UK Labour Productivity as measured by output per hour was unchanged in the second quarter of 2014 compared with the previous quarter, and 0.3% lower than a year earlier. '
Output per hour worked is at exactly the same level now as it was when this government took office.
Looks like we'll need to give the magic money tree another shake.
Have you adjusted for the structural decline in the high productivity oil & gas & financial service sectors? Otherwise you are at risk of drawing erroneous conclusions from the data.
It is the same problem everywhere in the west. It's so acute that the Economist has made many features onto the mystery of lack of productivity. They have concluded that it is the lack of technological innovation and investment that is at fault, and I agree once you look at the new iphones and social media companies.
Part of the issue that the high productivity innovations are now employee-light. I forget which company it was but there was an article a while back about a $1bn tech company with *20* employees. So the employee productivity stats get distorted because the technological improvements are in capital intensive / labour light industries
' UK Labour Productivity as measured by output per hour was unchanged in the second quarter of 2014 compared with the previous quarter, and 0.3% lower than a year earlier. '
Output per hour worked is at exactly the same level now as it was when this government took office.
Looks like we'll need to give the magic money tree another shake.
Have you adjusted for the structural decline in the high productivity oil & gas & financial service sectors? Otherwise you are at risk of drawing erroneous conclusions from the data.
Here you are, all the data for you to have fun with:
Whichever way you look at it the UK productivity performance has been appalling in recent years.
As to the decline of North Sea Oil, it was always know that it would happen - it was only expected to last for thirty years when it first came onstream.
What you should be asking is what the establishment politicians expected to replace it with.
From what I can see they thought they could replace it with windmills for energy production and selling houses to each other for tax revenue.
And if you're saying that the decline in North Sea Oil and the City means a permanent downgrade to UK productivity and hence lower wealth then the consequence of that is the government should be spending less and/or taxing more.
Instead all we are seeing is the magic money tree being shaken and shaken and shaken and shaken.
Speedy There was only a handful in Luntz's focus group too, and I think the sample was more than 6, but all the voters seemed pretty average and fairly apolitical except for 1 LD and a cross section of Labour, Tory and UKIP voters, it may be small but nonetheless no reason to suggest the sample wrong
' UK Labour Productivity as measured by output per hour was unchanged in the second quarter of 2014 compared with the previous quarter, and 0.3% lower than a year earlier. '
Output per hour worked is at exactly the same level now as it was when this government took office.
Looks like we'll need to give the magic money tree another shake.
Have you adjusted for the structural decline in the high productivity oil & gas & financial service sectors? Otherwise you are at risk of drawing erroneous conclusions from the data.
It is the same problem everywhere in the west. It's so acute that the Economist has made many features onto the mystery of lack of productivity. They have concluded that it is the lack of technological innovation and investment that is at fault, and I agree once you look at the new iphones and social media companies.
Part of the issue that the high productivity innovations are now employee-light. I forget which company it was but there was an article a while back about a $1bn tech company with *20* employees. So the employee productivity stats get distorted because the technological improvements are in capital intensive / labour light industries
If it actually had a revenue of a billion with just 20 people that would increase the productivity figures. However most tech companies live out of the stock bubble, not actual revenue.
But if you are going to do for God sakes do it properly. Do it now(ish). Bring it in in April so people can budget for the higher income. 2020 is the 12th of Never. I think people will get a rude awakening when they realise that this 'giveaway' is actually just in line with forecast wage growth so there will be little real terms benefit, and nothing immediately, if ever (so many caveats in the policy).
If your concern is for the less well off, why not Labour's £8 minimum wage now too?
Or is it only Tory policy that has to be implemented instantly?
You clearly didn't read my post where I also said the £8 stuff was equally shit, for the same reason.
So political parties should only go into election discussing what they propose for the first of their five years?
Speedy There was only a handful in Luntz's focus group too, and I think the sample was more than 6, but all the voters seemed pretty average and fairly apolitical except for 1 LD and a cross section of Labour, Tory and UKIP voters, it may be small but nonetheless no reason to suggest the sample wrong
If that is accurate then the scottish sub-samples are the gold standard for national elections.
What a peculiar comment. The DT haven't liked Cameron much at all in years - he's far too wet for them, ditto the Mail who have their own agenda.
I suppose the Sun was fine when it was backing Labour here?
The Times is more pro than anti Cameron - but they're pretty even handed on most stuff when it comes to knocking the Tories. They've got about a 50/50 split of Opinion writers too with David Aaronvitch [ex-Commie], Philip Collins [ex Blair speech writer], Jenni Russell [Labour flag waver], Janice Turner [lefty] - then Matthew Parris [former Tory MP], Danny Fink [Tory peer], Tim Monty [ex ConHome]. And a sprinkling of others like Libby Purves [a soft lefty] and Matt Ridley [a soft righty].
I hope that's a fair assessment of the ones we see most often.
I'll have a guess.....Mail,Express,Scum,Telegraph and Times front page gushing about Camerons speech......just a guess like.
He could have bent over and farted God save the Queen from his arse and the papers above would have been gushing about it.
Collins and Aaronovitch regularly write very favourably about Cameron and are mostly negative about Rd and Labour. Times leaders parrot and praise Tory policy, as do its detailed news analysis pieces; they are always highly critical of Labour. The idea it is broadly even-handed is laughable. It was not long ago, but no longer. In fact, it's probably the most tuned into the Tory leadership of all the dailies. Unlike the Telegraph it will not give UKIP the time of day.
Yep. The Times is little more than a Tory cheerleader these days, sadly - because it was an independently minded centre-right organ for a time. Mail and Telegraph much more sceptical as a rule.
I agree. I used to get it every day. I knew where it stood politically, but it provided a range of alternative positions and never let its politics steer its news coverage. The reason its decline into Tory fandom is so depressing is that we no longer have an independently minded daily in this country. They're all hitched now.
Jonathan Indeed, both Miliband and Dukakis are basically polite but uncharismatic wonks and what Bush needed, like Cameron, was to reassure his base that he was genuinely a conservative
Dukakis got savaged via attack ads too, didn't he? Something about a murderer being freed when he was Massachusetts governor?
Willie Horton. The example that enabled the Republicans to show Dukakis as the out of touch loony lefty he was.
' UK Labour Productivity as measured by output per hour was unchanged in the second quarter of 2014 compared with the previous quarter, and 0.3% lower than a year earlier. '
Output per hour worked is at exactly the same level now as it was when this government took office.
Looks like we'll need to give the magic money tree another shake.
Have you adjusted for the structural decline in the high productivity oil & gas & financial service sectors? Otherwise you are at risk of drawing erroneous conclusions from the data.
It is the same problem everywhere in the west. It's so acute that the Economist has made many features onto the mystery of lack of productivity. They have concluded that it is the lack of technological innovation and investment that is at fault, and I agree once you look at the new iphones and social media companies.
Part of the issue that the high productivity innovations are now employee-light. I forget which company it was but there was an article a while back about a $1bn tech company with *20* employees. So the employee productivity stats get distorted because the technological improvements are in capital intensive / labour light industries
Part of the problem is excessive emailing.
I say this in all seriousness, there have been studies.
We keep banging on about Ukip affecting the tory vote and seats,can't we have a thread on the SNP affecting labour vote/seats in Scotland.
It seems to me a lot of labour voters who voted Yes are still angry with the labour party during the independence campaign and will be voting SNP in the GE to give labour a kicking.
The really interesting thing about the SNP is its surge in membership. It's more than doubled, hasn't it? The implications for future policy direction are worth thinking about. The entire demographic of the party has been reconfigured. What unites these tens of thousands of members apart from wanting an independence Scotland's voters have rejected? Old SNP hands must wonder whether they have lost their party.
Mr Southam,why don't you write a thread on my post and yours put together ;-)
I'm sure mike would have a thread on something from you ;-)
The bizarre thing regarding the Tory newspapers reaction to the Tories tax proposals is that if anything UKIP's proposals are marginally more generous to voters
Meanwhile, Francois Hollande's masterclass in what a Miliband government would look like continues. He's now at the 'panic spending cuts' stage (whilst claiming to 'reject austerity'):
Spending will be reduced by 21 billion euros ($26 billion) next year, with 16 out of 30 ministries ranging from agriculture to sports receiving smaller budgets and further savings being sought in the social security system and from local governments.
' UK Labour Productivity as measured by output per hour was unchanged in the second quarter of 2014 compared with the previous quarter, and 0.3% lower than a year earlier. '
Output per hour worked is at exactly the same level now as it was when this government took office.
Looks like we'll need to give the magic money tree another shake.
Have you adjusted for the structural decline in the high productivity oil & gas & financial service sectors? Otherwise you are at risk of drawing erroneous conclusions from the data.
It is the same problem everywhere in the west. It's so acute that the Economist has made many features onto the mystery of lack of productivity. They have concluded that it is the lack of technological innovation and investment that is at fault, and I agree once you look at the new iphones and social media companies.
Part of the issue that the high productivity innovations are now employee-light. I forget which company it was but there was an article a while back about a $1bn tech company with *20* employees. So the employee productivity stats get distorted because the technological improvements are in capital intensive / labour light industries
Part of the problem is excessive emailing.
I say this in all seriousness, there have been studies.
What a peculiar comment. The DT haven't liked Cameron much at all in years - he's far too wet for them, ditto the Mail who have their own agenda.
I suppose the Sun was fine when it was backing Labour here?
The Times is more pro than anti Cameron - but they're pretty even handed on most stuff when it comes to knocking the Tories. They've got about a 50/50 split of Opinion writers too with David Aaronvitch [ex-Commie], Philip Collins [ex Blair speech writer], Jenni Russell [Labour flag waver], Janice Turner [lefty] - then Matthew Parris [former Tory MP], Danny Fink [Tory peer], Tim Monty [ex ConHome]. And a sprinkling of others like Libby Purves [a soft lefty] and Matt Ridley [a soft righty].
I hope that's a fair assessment of the ones we see most often.
I'll have a guess.....Mail,Express,Scum,Telegraph and Times front page gushing about Camerons speech......just a guess like.
He could have bent over and farted God save the Queen from his arse and the papers above would have been gushing about it.
Collins and Aaronovitch regularly write very favourably about Cameron and are mostly negative about Rd and Labour. Times leaders parrot and praise Tory policy, as do its detailed news analysis pieces; they are always highly critical of Labour. The idea it is broadly even-handed is laughable. It was not long ago, but no longer. In fact, it's probably the most tuned into the Tory leadership of all the dailies. Unlike the Telegraph it will not give UKIP the time of day.
Yep. The Times is little more than a Tory cheerleader these days, sadly - because it was an independently minded centre-right organ for a time. Mail and Telegraph much more sceptical as a rule.
Seem to remember it was a mindless Labour cheerleader, just following the heir to Blair. Wars and immigration, always Murdoch priorities.
Speedy - I think that the ONS doesn't capture the reality of work today. Productivity in the software industry has increased leaps and bounds over the last few years - but I don't think the ONS 'sees' software. I thought it odd that security guards at the gate were part of manufacturing, but I was part of services - though the product was entirely software.
Speedy - I think that the ONS doesn't capture the reality of work today. Productivity in the software industry has increased leaps and bounds over the last few years - but I don't think the ONS 'sees' software. I thought it odd that security guards at the gate were part of manufacturing, but I was part of services - though the product was entirely software.
Software is in services, most things that don't involve production or consumption of material products are in services. Though you are right about the security guards, they should be in services too.
Speedy A small accurate cross-section of voters is more accurate than a large sample biased towards one party or another, I may be wrong, but the early indications are that this speech has made an impact and the Tory voteshare will rise as a result
I keep reading that certain people here feel slighted by Cameron with less clear explanation as to how exactly that is.
As a right winger I think this government has managed to work wonders in difficult circumstances to rebalance the economy from unsustainable welfare and public sector employees to private employment.
In other areas the intrusion of government has been pushed back. Letting people take control of their own lives.
Even in Europe the budget has been cut.
Unless you have some wildly extreme expectations I'm wondering what exactly should be expected?
Speedy A small accurate cross-section of voters is more accurate than a large sample biased towards one party or another, I may be wrong, but the early indications are that this speech has made an impact and the Tory voteshare will rise as a result
And what happens if it doesn't? That is why I urge you to wait until Monday.
What a peculiar comment. The DT haven't liked Cameron much at all in years - he's far too wet for them, ditto the Mail who have their own agenda.
I suppose the Sun was fine when it was backing Labour here?
The Times is more pro than anti Cameron - but they're pretty even handed on most stuff when it comes to knocking the Tories. They've got about a 50/50 split of Opinion writers too with David Aaronvitch [ex-Commie], Philip Collins [ex Blair speech writer], Jenni Russell [Labour flag waver], Janice Turner [lefty] - then Matthew Parris [former Tory MP], Danny Fink [Tory peer], Tim Monty [ex ConHome]. And a sprinkling of others like Libby Purves [a soft lefty] and Matt Ridley [a soft righty].
I hope that's a fair assessment of the ones we see most often.
I'll have a guess.....Mail,Express,Scum,Telegraph and Times front page gushing about Camerons speech......just a guess like.
He could have bent over and farted God save the Queen from his arse and the papers above would have been gushing about it.
Collins and Aaronovitch regularly write very favourably about Cameron and are mostly negative about Rd and Labour. Times leaders parrot and praise Tory policy, as do its detailed news analysis pieces; they are always highly critical of Labour. The idea it is broadly even-handed is laughable. It was not long ago, but no longer. In fact, it's probably the most tuned into the Tory leadership of all the dailies. Unlike the Telegraph it will not give UKIP the time of day.
Yep. The Times is little more than a Tory cheerleader these days, sadly - because it was an independently minded centre-right organ for a time. Mail and Telegraph much more sceptical as a rule.
I agree. I used to get it every day. I knew where it stood politically, but it provided a range of alternative positions and never let its politics steer its news coverage. The reason its decline into Tory fandom is so depressing is that we no longer have an independently minded daily in this country. They're all hitched now.
I used to think it the best paper, and used to really enjoy buying it and reading it. But it's so on-side now if I fancy a bit of a Tory read I prefer the Telegraph!
another_richard - I am always looking for simple applications - do you think keyword extraction, relevance rank the sentences of the email, jargon generator informed by the ranking, automatic response Outlook add-in would be saleable.
FalseFlagSoutham Indeed, but it was after Bush Snr's speech that crossover occurred, the Horton ads just cemented his lead. Dukakis also made a gaffe in the debates when he refused to show any emotion when asked how he would react if his wife had been murdered in a question on the death penalty, clip here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DF9gSyku-fc
another_richard - I am always looking for simple applications - do you think keyword extraction, relevance rank the sentences of the email, jargon generator informed by the ranking, automatic response Outlook add-in would be saleable.
First of all you have to sell a product that the customer understands what it is. I don't think people know what a jargon generator is or if it's useful.
I'm not sure, however, that the figures by themselves tell you very much. Reducing dependence on highly-profitable financial services and increasing employment in other areas (i.e. taking people off unemployment benefits) would reduce the headline productivity figures. The reason France, for example, has such high apparent productivity is that they have such high unemployment. Is that a good thing?
Italy is sinking fast. Luxemburg is more of a tax haven than a proper economy. Norway might be because of falling oil production.
The trade off between employment and productivity is an interesting discussion.
There have been times - the mid to late 1990s for example - when rapidly increasing employment happened alongside steadily rising productivity.
But what we have now seems to be a general stagnation in productivity increases.
Some of the reasons I have thought of for this include:
1) The shift of the economy towards consumer spending and wealth consumption. which have inherently lower productivity than the UK's export sectors - North Sea Oil, manufacturing, high end financial services.
2) Government subsidising wealth consumption through the magic money tree. Whenever governments start subsidising sectors of the economy you remove the need for productivity increases. Previous instances were heavy industry in the 1970s and public services in the 2000s.
3) An increase in the number of 'overhead' employees as a proportion of 'output' employees as a result of ever more regulations regarding QA, HR, H&S etc
4) Immigrants providing a low cost but willing workforce thus acting as a disincentive to capital investment in labour replacing equipment.
5) Zero interest rates allowing low productivity 'zombie' businesses to survive and so stopping their factors of production - land, labour, equipment - from being used by higher productivity alternatives.
Speedy, it wouldn't have to be jargon - initial response from FAQ, too low match responder encouraged to add to FAQ, reduce work in the future. The important thing is always to give a response. Public library catalogues do this - no matches found is useless to the searcher - something more or less apposite though less accurate is better.
Comments
You can promise the moon and starts but people will not believe a thing.
As it is, Cameron has decided that British courts should have the ability to determine the appropriate balance of rights between one individual and the population as a whole.
I have more faith in our British courts than some unaccountable international body stuffed with individuals with dubious legal credentials
I suppose the Sun was fine when it was backing Labour here?
The Times is more pro than anti Cameron - but they're pretty even handed on most stuff when it comes to knocking the Tories. They've got about a 50/50 split of Opinion writers too with David Aaronvitch [ex-Commie], Philip Collins [ex Blair speech writer], Jenni Russell [Labour flag waver], Janice Turner [lefty] - then Matthew Parris [former Tory MP], Danny Fink [Tory peer], Tim Monty [ex ConHome]. And a sprinkling of others like Libby Purves [a soft lefty] and Matt Ridley [a soft righty].
I hope that's a fair assessment of the ones we see most often.
There's nothing which can deprive a PB Tory from his whining sense of self-entitlement.
After introducing EVEL, excluding Wales, Ireland and Scotland from English decisions, they will alter the voting system. One Tory Two votes will the referendum they win. After eating all the socialist babies they will be a permanent government in this future Tory Utopia.
I dont know exactly how much is spent on pensions but All NHS employers pay 14% employer contributions.
So as far as I can work out staff costs in NHS are circa £64BN including ers costs so i guess about £10BN in pension costs give or take £1bn.
Big numbers this cost is going up due to changes to pension scheme in 2015 and actuarial assessment of scheme
So we will no longer be signatories to the ECHR? Is that the first power Dave wants repatriated? his red line so to speak?
(Edited for brainfart)
See the Matthew Parris article for an explanation.
I don't recall being one of those saying he can only win from the Centre. I think the centre-right agenda is the best foot forward, thank you. Furthermore, the defections in themselves show votes are going to UKIP. If an MP defects to Labour, then I'll rethink that and no longer dismiss that only the Tories are truly losing some vote share to UKIP.
And if the right and centre-right vote is split, Ed will win. Simple. Irregardless of who's fault it is, we will have Milliband and Balls running the show for definite.
Wow, just wow.
If UKIP did not exist I would still not be voting Tory. Huge numbers of ex-Tory voters feel the same way. Insulting them or trying to claim that somehow the Tory party has an innate right to their votes is sure not going to get them back.
And clearly, given that his abandonment of his core support has not resulted in an improvement in his polling your claims are simply wishful thinking.
Coalition maj down by 2 then?
The tradition is for them to 'go native'.
There's nothing harmful in waiting till monday for all this "Tory landslide".
If by then the polls haven't changed then it is Labour majority, since this was the Tories last chance.
As I said even without UKIP we will not vote for the Tory party - at least not as long as Cameron in running it. You simply don't deserve our support.
OK, fair enough. Let's imagine, for a moment, that there is actually some reason for this bizarre sense that you've somehow been slighted.
It still remains the case that it is puerile in the extreme to let considerations like that determine a vote which will help select the government of the United Kingdom, and adversely affect the lives of millions including yourself and your family.
I do indicate strongly however, I don't want Milliband and Balls.
Losing Reckless to the Faragists looks like a step in the direction to me.
But Barnier doesn't really understand financial services (the UK model is very different from the European universal bank model). Hill knows it better. Given that the City is the bulk of the industry in Europe it makes sense to have a regulator that understands the challenges.
It seems to me a lot of labour voters who voted Yes are still angry with the labour party during the independence campaign and will be voting SNP in the GE to give labour a kicking.
It's so acute that the Economist has made many features onto the mystery of lack of productivity.
They have concluded that it is the lack of technological innovation and investment that is at fault, and I agree once you look at the new iphones and social media companies.
A few other seven year comparisons:
Industrial production -12%
Retail sales +10%
Government debt +£900bn
Remembering also that Britain is currently running its biggest balance of payments deficit on record the answer of this government is ...
... to give the magic money tree another shake.
The difference is that the capitalist money tree dispenses "real" money (for a given definition of "real")
But beware of ever sounding like one.
I told you to wait till monday.
;-)
Italy, Luxembourg, Norway.
http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=PDB_LV
I'm not sure, however, that the figures by themselves tell you very much. Reducing dependence on highly-profitable financial services and increasing employment in other areas (i.e. taking people off unemployment benefits) would reduce the headline productivity figures. The reason France, for example, has such high apparent productivity is that they have such high unemployment. Is that a good thing?
So I believe...but I could be wrong.
Though, as I stressed strongly, I've had to fight tooth and nail 'in real life'.
For instance I don't believe the headline that the tax cuts will affect 30 million people because I've read what the tax cuts are.
In 2010 the Conservatives won 53% of the vote in Clacton. It's a safe Conservative seat. Earlier this week, a voxpop in Clacton town centre couldn't find anyone intending to vote Conservative at the by-election.
http://order-order.com/2014/09/28/listen-mark-reckless-voicemail-to-grant-shapps/
Ian Watson and Robert Ford produced a map for The Telegraph in May 2014, of constituencies where UKIP are likely to affect the result of the 2015 election.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10857198/Ukip-has-torn-up-the-map.html
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/productivity/labour-productivity/q2-2014/stbq214.html
Whichever way you look at it the UK productivity performance has been appalling in recent years.
As to the decline of North Sea Oil, it was always know that it would happen - it was only expected to last for thirty years when it first came onstream.
What you should be asking is what the establishment politicians expected to replace it with.
From what I can see they thought they could replace it with windmills for energy production and selling houses to each other for tax revenue.
And if you're saying that the decline in North Sea Oil and the City means a permanent downgrade to UK productivity and hence lower wealth then the consequence of that is the government should be spending less and/or taxing more.
Instead all we are seeing is the magic money tree being shaken and shaken and shaken and shaken.
However most tech companies live out of the stock bubble, not actual revenue.
I say this in all seriousness, there have been studies.
I'm sure mike would have a thread on something from you ;-)
Spending will be reduced by 21 billion euros ($26 billion) next year, with 16 out of 30 ministries ranging from agriculture to sports receiving smaller budgets and further savings being sought in the social security system and from local governments.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-01/france-sets-out-spending-cuts-as-hollande-girds-for-eu-criticism.html
The ONS suffers from "SISO", but it is convenient for politicians.
As a right winger I think this government has managed to work wonders in difficult circumstances to rebalance the economy from unsustainable welfare and public sector employees to private employment.
In other areas the intrusion of government has been pushed back. Letting people take control of their own lives.
Even in Europe the budget has been cut.
Unless you have some wildly extreme expectations I'm wondering what exactly should be expected?
When the original statistics were being compiled "services" could be usefully aggregated together. It is now so large that it needs split up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIyewCdXMzk
I would imagine the statistics are pretty granular, but most people only get the headline.
I don't think people know what a jargon generator is or if it's useful.
'Has any contributor said the will change their vote as a result of the speech?'
Do you think PB is at all representative of floating voters ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6tlyQ64r-o
Good heavens no! If people were to understand what they were buying, the economy would collapse.
Get a grip?
Adds? But the adds will have to show the product.
Luxemburg is more of a tax haven than a proper economy.
Norway might be because of falling oil production.
The trade off between employment and productivity is an interesting discussion.
There have been times - the mid to late 1990s for example - when rapidly increasing employment happened alongside steadily rising productivity.
But what we have now seems to be a general stagnation in productivity increases.
Some of the reasons I have thought of for this include:
1) The shift of the economy towards consumer spending and wealth consumption. which have inherently lower productivity than the UK's export sectors - North Sea Oil, manufacturing, high end financial services.
2) Government subsidising wealth consumption through the magic money tree. Whenever governments start subsidising sectors of the economy you remove the need for productivity increases. Previous instances were heavy industry in the 1970s and public services in the 2000s.
3) An increase in the number of 'overhead' employees as a proportion of 'output' employees as a result of ever more regulations regarding QA, HR, H&S etc
4) Immigrants providing a low cost but willing workforce thus acting as a disincentive to capital investment in labour replacing equipment.
5) Zero interest rates allowing low productivity 'zombie' businesses to survive and so stopping their factors of production - land, labour, equipment - from being used by higher productivity alternatives.