Good to see OGH thread has gently moved the Betfair prices on Rochester.... more power to his elbow!
TSE hasn't even finished calling everyone in the constituency to tell them about Reckless's worth either...
Wait until you see the next poll.
I'm going to ask Damian of Survation to tweak one of his questions.
Do you agree or disagree that Mark 'Judas' Reckless is a traitorous pig dog, whose betrayal is up there with Judas, Philby, Maclean, Burgess and Blunt?
And Sol.
Sol's a Tory. You have to love him now.
He may be but he's forever red now.
He's been slagging off Ed over the mansion tax
You should love him.
Come on now TSE, EVERYONE slags off both Ed's in Labour, that's hardly a scouts badge of merit.
True, I've just remembered, I did a PB thread header, which called Reckless a F*cking c*nt, who deserves a red hot poker up his arse.
Same thread header said he was ‘effing Reckless’, ‘fat arse’ and ‘dick head and Tory to UKIP defectors were the kind of people who had sex with vacuums.
Perhaps you should do a similar blog about Sol, you'll find it cathartic.
I've made comments like this a million times, but I still can't understand why the Labour leadership can't see that the main decline in their support has been caused by their embrace of austerity and Tory economic policies. They're driving more and more people who actually wanted to vote Labour to the Greens because of how dire Labour's offering is. Barely any of Labour's lost support has gone to the Tories; they're still pretty much down at core-vote levels.
Consider me stunned, I was about to embarrass myself on another site swearing blind it was an anti kipper spoof.
Read has form, once rapped at Tory conference.
UKIP do seem to be attracting former Tory fruitcakes and loons.
The interesting question is whether they were fruitcakes and loons when they were with the Tory Party, or did they only acquire that status upon joining UKIP?
This chimes with my theory that UKIP are doing the Tories a long-term favour by siphoning off the more extreme elements, councillors, MPs maybe and voters. UKIP will be the 'nasty' party, Tories will be de-toxified provided they don't follow in UKIP's wake. Of course it's not helping the Tories in the short term.
Nice theory. Fails the practical.
Carswell and Reckless - fruitcakes and loons? Tories better off without them?
Hmmmm.
To the right of the party and obsessed by Europe. Fruitcakes and loons are your words.
Watcher's words. See previous quotes.
Don't think I labelled Carswell and Reckless 'fruitcakes and loons'. How's Putney?
Seems a bit daft to look at the GB VI figures in these polls, when E&W dynamics are so different from Scotland. Ashcroft publishes an England only crossbreak which must be a better indication of the 572 English seats.
English VI figures in Ashcroft LAB – 31% CON – 30% UKIP – 20% GRN – 9% LDEM – 7%
Consider me stunned, I was about to embarrass myself on another site swearing blind it was an anti kipper spoof. Read has form, once rapped at Tory conference.
UKIP do seem to be attracting former Tory fruitcakes and loons.
The interesting question is whether they were fruitcakes and loons when they were with the Tory Party, or did they only acquire that status upon joining UKIP?
This chimes with my theory that UKIP are doing the Tories a long-term favour by siphoning off the more extreme elements, councillors, MPs maybe and voters. UKIP will be the 'nasty' party, Tories will be de-toxified provided they don't follow in UKIP's wake. Of course it's not helping the Tories in the short term.
Nice theory. Fails the practical.
Carswell and Reckless - fruitcakes and loons? Tories better off without them?
Hmmmm.
To the right of the party and obsessed by Europe. Fruitcakes and loons are your words.
Watcher's words. See previous quotes.
Don't think I labelled Carswell and Reckless 'fruitcakes and loons'. How's Putney?
No, Watcher did, and that's what I was responding to.
I've made comments like this a million times, but I still can't understand why the Labour leadership can't see that the main decline in their support has been caused by their embrace of austerity and Tory economic policies. They're driving more and more people who actually wanted to vote Labour to the Greens because of how dire Labour's offering is. Barely any of Labour's lost support has gone to the Tories; they're still pretty much down at core-vote levels.
What else can they offer? The country is £1.3 trillion in debt (or will be)? You forget that the Tory economic policy was barely different from Darling's last time around and IIRC is less austere now than Labour proposed in 2010.
No, you just indicated that the Tories were losing their 'fruitcakes and loons' to UKIP. So I kind of suggested Carswell and Reckless didn't really qualify for that tag. Now you agree, which is nice, and kind of concedes the point.
There has been no rise in Green support . In all council by elections from July to date they have polled less than 4% of the vote . Where they had contested the seat at the previous election their vote share fell in all except 2 contests .
I think alot of pople like to answer "Green" in this sort of poll but on the day they'll probably just stay at home.
Seems a bit daft to look at the GB VI figures in these polls, when E&W dynamics are so different from Scotland. Ashcroft publishes an England only crossbreak which must be a better indication of the 572 English seats.
English VI figures in Ashcroft LAB – 31% CON – 30% UKIP – 20% GRN – 9% LDEM – 7%
Nah. England and Wales next May will just be like Scotland in September 2014.
At the ballot box people will reject the politics of separatism and petty Nationalism just like the sensible Scots will.
I've made comments like this a million times, but I still can't understand why the Labour leadership can't see that the main decline in their support has been caused by their embrace of austerity and Tory economic policies. They're driving more and more people who actually wanted to vote Labour to the Greens because of how dire Labour's offering is. Barely any of Labour's lost support has gone to the Tories; they're still pretty much down at core-vote levels.
Good to see OGH thread has gently moved the Betfair prices on Rochester.... more power to his elbow!
TSE hasn't even finished calling everyone in the constituency to tell them about Reckless's worth either...
Wait until you see the next poll.
I'm going to ask Damian of Survation to tweak one of his questions.
Do you agree or disagree that Mark 'Judas' Reckless is a traitorous pig dog, whose betrayal is up there with Judas, Philby, Maclean, Burgess and Blunt?
And Sol.
Sol's a Tory. You have to love him now.
He may be but he's forever red now.
He's been slagging off Ed over the mansion tax
You should love him.
Come on now TSE, EVERYONE slags off both Ed's in Labour, that's hardly a scouts badge of merit.
True, I've just remembered, I did a PB thread header, which called Reckless a F*cking c*nt, who deserves a red hot poker up his arse.
Same thread header said he was ‘effing Reckless’, ‘fat arse’ and ‘dick head and Tory to UKIP defectors were the kind of people who had sex with vacuums.
Perhaps you should do a similar blog about Sol, you'll find it cathartic.
Funny that, I called someone a c*nt for graphically describing an abortion after I asked if he would stop using the word to describe things that went wrong, and got banned for my trouble
I've made comments like this a million times, but I still can't understand why the Labour leadership can't see that the main decline in their support has been caused by their embrace of austerity and Tory economic policies. They're driving more and more people who actually wanted to vote Labour to the Greens because of how dire Labour's offering is. Barely any of Labour's lost support has gone to the Tories; they're still pretty much down at core-vote levels.
What else can they offer? The country is £1.3 trillion in debt (or will be)?
That gets to the heart of the matter. Labour seems to have decided that the national balance sheet is more important than tackling inequality. That is the EXACT opposite of what the party was set up to do, and it means they're turning away the votes of the MANY people who believe inequality is more important -- not least, the very poorest people who couldn't give a damn about whether some random rich dude on a Shanghai trading floor gets paid back, but just want to know how their own lives are going to be improved.
I've made comments like this a million times, but I still can't understand why the Labour leadership can't see that the main decline in their support has been caused by their embrace of austerity and Tory economic policies. They're driving more and more people who actually wanted to vote Labour to the Greens because of how dire Labour's offering is. Barely any of Labour's lost support has gone to the Tories; they're still pretty much down at core-vote levels.
Where will the money come from?
The millionaires and billionaires who are raking in dosh at everyone else's expense and squirrelling it away in tax havens perhaps?
Good to see OGH thread has gently moved the Betfair prices on Rochester.... more power to his elbow!
TSE hasn't even finished calling everyone in the constituency to tell them about Reckless's worth either...
Wait until you see the next poll.
I'm going to ask Damian of Survation to tweak one of his questions.
Do you agree or disagree that Mark 'Judas' Reckless is a traitorous pig dog, whose betrayal is up there with Judas, Philby, Maclean, Burgess and Blunt?
And Sol.
Sol's a Tory. You have to love him now.
He may be but he's forever red now.
He's been slagging off Ed over the mansion tax
You should love him.
Come on now TSE, EVERYONE slags off both Ed's in Labour, that's hardly a scouts badge of merit.
True, I've just remembered, I did a PB thread header, which called Reckless a F*cking c*nt, who deserves a red hot poker up his arse.
Same thread header said he was ‘effing Reckless’, ‘fat arse’ and ‘dick head and Tory to UKIP defectors were the kind of people who had sex with vacuums.
Perhaps you should do a similar blog about Sol, you'll find it cathartic.
Funny that, I called someone a c*nt for graphically describing an abortion after I asked if he would stop using the word to describe things that went wrong, and got banned for my trouble
I remember that and I have been banned for much less, once by TSE himself.
Keen Labour score watchers will note that both Populus and YouGov now show the Lab score easing up above 35%. Hardly a rocket-like recovery but interesting nevertheless. Ashcroft has a life of its own - no-one seriously believes the Tories are on 28%
Mr. Cooke, although I'd perhaps not do this, you *can* get around the zero price issue. If you release via somewhere else (say, Smashwords) for free I think you can get Amazon to lower the price to match (to 0, in that case) if someone else gives them a nudge that other retailers have it at zero.
Personally, I'd leave it, but thought it worth mentioning.
Mike Read's Callippo is so butt-clenchingly horiffic I couldn't make it through more than 30 seconds in. It's so horrendously awful it's come full circle and turned good again, but then still had enough awful in the tank to make it sh*t. I suppose it must be difficult to refuse when some clapped out old stager who has stood by the party for a long time offers his 'magnum opus' like this. I'll credit Nigel with niceness for not telling him to p*ss off at least. That's my straw and I'm clutching it.
I've made comments like this a million times, but I still can't understand why the Labour leadership can't see that the main decline in their support has been caused by their embrace of austerity and Tory economic policies. They're driving more and more people who actually wanted to vote Labour to the Greens because of how dire Labour's offering is. Barely any of Labour's lost support has gone to the Tories; they're still pretty much down at core-vote levels.
What else can they offer? The country is £1.3 trillion in debt (or will be)?
That gets to the heart of the matter. Labour seems to have decided that the national balance sheet is more important than tackling inequality. That is the EXACT opposite of what the party was set up to do, and it means they're turning away the votes of the MANY people who believe inequality is more important -- not least, the very poorest people who couldn't give a damn about whether some random rich dude on a Shanghai trading floor gets paid back, but just want to know how their own lives are going to be improved.
Well they will give a damn if the UK defaulted on its debts and because that random rich dude on a Shanghai trading floor decided that he cannot risk lending us more money (we are still in deficit to the tune of £100 billion a year), the government has no money to pay peoples benefits and pensions.
Its very simple lives are not going to improve that much until we stop borrowing money and start paying off our debt.
Keen Labour score watchers will note that both Populus and YouGov now show the Lab score easing up above 35%. Hardly a rocket-like recovery but interesting nevertheless. Ashcroft has a life of its own - no-one seriously believes the Tories are on 28%
How many of that 35% do you really think are enthusiastic enough to go out and vote for them? What is there to be enthusiastic about?
OGH : "What will worry LAB is that the proportion of 2010 LDs voting LAB appears to have fallen as the GRN share has risen."
What should also be worrying Labour mightily is the resurgence of the Greens, not insofar that they will many seats (if any), but the damage they could inflict in the tight marginals. Labour should also worry about the spectre of the SNP winning up to 20 seats in Scotland according to the latest polling, principally at their expense. The GE outcome isn't decided yet, not by a long chalk. NOM still looks like the best bet.
I've made comments like this a million times, but I still can't understand why the Labour leadership can't see that the main decline in their support has been caused by their embrace of austerity and Tory economic policies. They're driving more and more people who actually wanted to vote Labour to the Greens because of how dire Labour's offering is. Barely any of Labour's lost support has gone to the Tories; they're still pretty much down at core-vote levels.
What else can they offer? The country is £1.3 trillion in debt (or will be)?
That gets to the heart of the matter. Labour seems to have decided that the national balance sheet is more important than tackling inequality. That is the EXACT opposite of what the party was set up to do, and it means they're turning away the votes of the MANY people who believe inequality is more important -- not least, the very poorest people who couldn't give a damn about whether some random rich dude on a Shanghai trading floor gets paid back, but just want to know how their own lives are going to be improved.
Well they will give a damn if the UK defaulted on its debts and because that random rich dude on a Shanghai trading floor deciding he cannot risk lending us more money (we are still in deficit to the tune of £100 billion a year), the government has no money to pay peoples benefits and pensions.
Its very simple lives are not going to improve that much until we stop borrowing money and start paying off our debt.
Sorry, but things like this are going to go the same way as the dire warnings given from various rich people and vested interests during the Scottish referendum campaign. People just don't trust these people anymore, it's a case of "boy who cried wolf" where we've heard it all before.
I've made comments like this a million times, but I still can't understand why the Labour leadership can't see that the main decline in their support has been caused by their embrace of austerity and Tory economic policies. They're driving more and more people who actually wanted to vote Labour to the Greens because of how dire Labour's offering is. Barely any of Labour's lost support has gone to the Tories; they're still pretty much down at core-vote levels.
What else can they offer? The country is £1.3 trillion in debt (or will be)?
That gets to the heart of the matter. Labour seems to have decided that the national balance sheet is more important than tackling inequality. That is the EXACT opposite of what the party was set up to do, and it means they're turning away the votes of the MANY people who believe inequality is more important -- not least, the very poorest people who couldn't give a damn about whether some random rich dude on a Shanghai trading floor gets paid back, but just want to know how their own lives are going to be improved.
Well they will give a damn if the UK defaulted on its debts and because that random rich dude on a Shanghai trading floor deciding he cannot risk lending us more money (we are still in deficit to the tune of £100 billion a year), the government has no money to pay peoples benefits and pensions.
Its very simple lives are not going to improve that much until we stop borrowing money and start paying off our debt.
Sorry, but things like this are going to go the same way as the dire warnings given from various rich people and vested interests during the Scottish referendum campaign. People just don't trust these people anymore, it's a case of "boy who cried wolf" where we've heard it all before.
I've made comments like this a million times, but I still can't understand why the Labour leadership can't see that the main decline in their support has been caused by their embrace of austerity and Tory economic policies. They're driving more and more people who actually wanted to vote Labour to the Greens because of how dire Labour's offering is. Barely any of Labour's lost support has gone to the Tories; they're still pretty much down at core-vote levels.
Where will the money come from?
The millionaires and billionaires who are raking in dosh at everyone else's expense and squirrelling it away in tax havens perhaps?
I think you may find the definition of a 'tax haven' is somewhere HMG can't tax.
I can't believe how much excitement Ed's reshuffle has caused...
Oh, well, back to the other Ed's cock-up of the day
@WillardFoxton: £40k earning threshold, you don't tax millionaire heirs (unless they get jobs) and *do* tax a couple both earning the average wage. #sigh
Mike Read's Callippo is so butt-clenchingly horiffic I couldn't make it through more than 30 seconds in. It's so horrendously awful it's come full circle and turned good again, but then still had enough awful in the tank to make it sh*t. I suppose it must be difficult to refuse when some clapped out old stager who has stood by the party for a long time offers his 'magnum opus' like this. I'll credit Nigel with niceness for not telling him to p*ss off at least. That's my straw and I'm clutching it.
Lol!
Never mind, Lucky, he's not the first show-biz person to embarrass his political Party. I doubt he'll be the last.
Need to be further in front. Get your finger out Ed - the planets are aligning perfectly, don't screw it up...
Populus is fine(ish) for Labour, Ashcroft isn't.
If Labour poll 36% they should be home. If they poll 31%, they have much more to worry about. Sure, if the Tories only score 28%, they might be all right - though it's a mightily weak mandate - but that Tory score is to some extent a coincidence: it's not low because Labour is low and they can't rely on it staying low.
What's strange is the combinations, with Populus giving Lab+Con at 70% and Ashcroft down at 59%. If someone said there were two polls, with a Con range of 28-34 and Lab range of 31-36, you'd expect a 36-28 and a 31-34, not what we've got.
Good to see OGH thread has gently moved the Betfair prices on Rochester.... more power to his elbow!
TSE hasn't even finished calling everyone in the constituency to tell them about Reckless's worth either...
Wait until you see the next poll.
I'm going to ask Damian of Survation to tweak one of his questions.
Do you agree or disagree that Mark 'Judas' Reckless is a traitorous pig dog, whose betrayal is up there with Judas, Philby, Maclean, Burgess and Blunt?
And Sol.
Sol's a Tory. You have to love him now.
He may be but he's forever red now.
He's been slagging off Ed over the mansion tax
You should love him.
Come on now TSE, EVERYONE slags off both Ed's in Labour, that's hardly a scouts badge of merit.
True, I've just remembered, I did a PB thread header, which called Reckless a F*cking c*nt, who deserves a red hot poker up his arse.
Same thread header said he was ‘effing Reckless’, ‘fat arse’ and ‘dick head and Tory to UKIP defectors were the kind of people who had sex with vacuums.
Perhaps you should do a similar blog about Sol, you'll find it cathartic.
Funny that, I called someone a c*nt for graphically describing an abortion after I asked if he would stop using the word to describe things that went wrong, and got banned for my trouble
Mine was merely quoting Tory MPs otherwise we'd have never been able to cover plebgate.
Seems a bit daft to look at the GB VI figures in these polls, when E&W dynamics are so different from Scotland. Ashcroft publishes an England only crossbreak which must be a better indication of the 572 English seats.
English VI figures in Ashcroft LAB – 31% CON – 30% UKIP – 20% GRN – 9% LDEM – 7%
Nah. England and Wales next May will just be like Scotland in September 2014.
At the ballot box people will reject the politics of separatism and petty Nationalism just like the sensible Scots will.
Well, if the politics of petty Nationalism are out the window - that's Labour and the Tories well and truly fu*ked!
I've made comments like this a million times, but I still can't understand why the Labour leadership can't see that the main decline in their support has been caused by their embrace of austerity and Tory economic policies. They're driving more and more people who actually wanted to vote Labour to the Greens because of how dire Labour's offering is. Barely any of Labour's lost support has gone to the Tories; they're still pretty much down at core-vote levels.
Where will the money come from?
The millionaires and billionaires who are raking in dosh at everyone else's expense and squirrelling it away in tax havens perhaps?
I think you may find the definition of a 'tax haven' is somewhere HMG can't tax.
Then ban them from living in the UK or doing business in the UK until they're willing to contribute to the public purse like the rest of us mugs.
I've made comments like this a million times, but I still can't understand why the Labour leadership can't see that the main decline in their support has been caused by their embrace of austerity and Tory economic policies. They're driving more and more people who actually wanted to vote Labour to the Greens because of how dire Labour's offering is. Barely any of Labour's lost support has gone to the Tories; they're still pretty much down at core-vote levels.
What else can they offer? The country is £1.3 trillion in debt (or will be)?
That gets to the heart of the matter. Labour seems to have decided that the national balance sheet is more important than tackling inequality. That is the EXACT opposite of what the party was set up to do, and it means they're turning away the votes of the MANY people who believe inequality is more important -- not least, the very poorest people who couldn't give a damn about whether some random rich dude on a Shanghai trading floor gets paid back, but just want to know how their own lives are going to be improved.
People that selfish and short-sighted don't deserve to be listened to and should be told so in no uncertain terms.
I've made comments like this a million times, but I still can't understand why the Labour leadership can't see that the main decline in their support has been caused by their embrace of austerity and Tory economic policies. They're driving more and more people who actually wanted to vote Labour to the Greens because of how dire Labour's offering is. Barely any of Labour's lost support has gone to the Tories; they're still pretty much down at core-vote levels.
Where will the money come from?
The millionaires and billionaires who are raking in dosh at everyone else's expense and squirrelling it away in tax havens perhaps?
If you seized every penny owned by the billionaires resident in the UK you would recover enough to cover the deficit for three years or pay the interest on the accumulated debt for maybe 5 years or pay off 1/50,000,000,000th of that debt. As a plan to fund long term growth of this country, seizing the assets of millionaires and billionaires leaves something to be desired, don't you think?
Mike Read's Callippo is so butt-clenchingly horiffic I couldn't make it through more than 30 seconds in. It's so horrendously awful it's come full circle and turned good again, but then still had enough awful in the tank to make it sh*t. I suppose it must be difficult to refuse when some clapped out old stager who has stood by the party for a long time offers his 'magnum opus' like this. I'll credit Nigel with niceness for not telling him to p*ss off at least. That's my straw and I'm clutching it.
Lol!
Never mind, Lucky, he's not the first show-biz person to embarrass his political Party. I doubt he'll be the last.
I've made comments like this a million times, but I still can't understand why the Labour leadership can't see that the main decline in their support has been caused by their embrace of austerity and Tory economic policies. They're driving more and more people who actually wanted to vote Labour to the Greens because of how dire Labour's offering is. Barely any of Labour's lost support has gone to the Tories; they're still pretty much down at core-vote levels.
What else can they offer? The country is £1.3 trillion in debt (or will be)?
That gets to the heart of the matter. Labour seems to have decided that the national balance sheet is more important than tackling inequality. That is the EXACT opposite of what the party was set up to do, and it means they're turning away the votes of the MANY people who believe inequality is more important -- not least, the very poorest people who couldn't give a damn about whether some random rich dude on a Shanghai trading floor gets paid back, but just want to know how their own lives are going to be improved.
People that selfish and short-sighted don't deserve to be listened to and should be told so in no uncertain terms.
Yeah, this is the PBTories' mantra. When the public are unhappy about immigration or Europe, it's an anti-democratic scandal for politicians not to listen to them. Yet when people are unhappy with economic policies (all polls show a majority opposed to 5 more years of spending cuts), it's just too bad because they just can't get their little heads round the economic realities, and they should leave it to the grown-ups to decide for them.
I've made comments like this a million times, but I still can't understand why the Labour leadership can't see that the main decline in their support has been caused by their embrace of austerity and Tory economic policies. They're driving more and more people who actually wanted to vote Labour to the Greens because of how dire Labour's offering is. Barely any of Labour's lost support has gone to the Tories; they're still pretty much down at core-vote levels.
Where will the money come from?
The millionaires and billionaires who are raking in dosh at everyone else's expense and squirrelling it away in tax havens perhaps?
I think you may find the definition of a 'tax haven' is somewhere HMG can't tax.
Then ban them from living in the UK or doing business in the UK until they're willing to contribute to the public purse like the rest of us mugs.
So you are going to arbitrarily close down businesses with no consideration of the jobs they bring or the business they bring to other businesses in the UK and the jobs they provide etc etc etc?
Business is a global affair these days and if the UK is not competing there are plenty of other countries will compete and welcome these business people and entrepreneurs to set up in their country.
I've made comments like this a million times, but I still can't understand why the Labour leadership can't see that the main decline in their support has been caused by their embrace of austerity and Tory economic policies. They're driving more and more people who actually wanted to vote Labour to the Greens because of how dire Labour's offering is. Barely any of Labour's lost support has gone to the Tories; they're still pretty much down at core-vote levels.
What else can they offer? The country is £1.3 trillion in debt (or will be)?
That gets to the heart of the matter. Labour seems to have decided that the national balance sheet is more important than tackling inequality. That is the EXACT opposite of what the party was set up to do, and it means they're turning away the votes of the MANY people who believe inequality is more important -- not least, the very poorest people who couldn't give a damn about whether some random rich dude on a Shanghai trading floor gets paid back, but just want to know how their own lives are going to be improved.
Well they will give a damn if the UK defaulted on its debts and because that random rich dude on a Shanghai trading floor deciding he cannot risk lending us more money (we are still in deficit to the tune of £100 billion a year), the government has no money to pay peoples benefits and pensions.
Its very simple lives are not going to improve that much until we stop borrowing money and start paying off our debt.
Sorry, but things like this are going to go the same way as the dire warnings given from various rich people and vested interests during the Scottish referendum campaign. People just don't trust these people anymore, it's a case of "boy who cried wolf" where we've heard it all before.
With the travails of FPTP with the current polling scores, and the brief plugs of books on the site earlier, I'll take the plunge meself.
Back in 2011, I wrote a novella-length alternate history story on what could have happened if UKIP had entered the 2010 General Election debates, with the 'something different' surge that actually boosted Clegg instead boosting UKIP. It was well received on the alternate history website, and I followed it up by serialising a novel-length sequel throughout 2013.
With the real-life actual boost for UKIP, I've been talked into polishing them up and releasing them on Amazon. The first, The Fourth Lectern, is available at Amazon already; the sequel (The Fifth Lectern) will be available in a week or two (I'm finishing off getting it independently editted).
Stuff like the issues of FPTP with multiple creditable challengers and multi-way marginals are in it - as well as the reactions of the main parties to the upstarts. Might be worth your time (I've priced it at 77p - Amazon wouldn't let me make it free, otherwise I would have - on the age-old philosophy of drawing you in with the first one )
Andy, I'm in the middle of writing a series of political / military alternative histories myself. Any advice / tips / introductions / contacts you're able to offer?
Sorry, but things like this are going to go the same way as the dire warnings given from various rich people and vested interests during the Scottish referendum campaign. People just don't trust these people anymore, it's a case of "boy who cried wolf" where we've heard it all before.
Hopefully the Labour Party will listen to you. Insane ideas like this will perhaps persuade more sensible kippers that Ed would be far worse than Dave.
I've made comments like this a million times, but I still can't understand why the Labour leadership can't see that the main decline in their support has been caused by their embrace of austerity and Tory economic policies. They're driving more and more people who actually wanted to vote Labour to the Greens because of how dire Labour's offering is. Barely any of Labour's lost support has gone to the Tories; they're still pretty much down at core-vote levels.
What else can they offer? The country is £1.3 trillion in debt (or will be)?
That gets to the heart of the matter. Labour seems to have decided that the national balance sheet is more important than tackling inequality. That is the EXACT opposite of what the party was set up to do, and it means they're turning away the votes of the MANY people who believe inequality is more important -- not least, the very poorest people who couldn't give a damn about whether some random rich dude on a Shanghai trading floor gets paid back, but just want to know how their own lives are going to be improved.
Well they will give a damn if the UK defaulted on its debts and because that random rich dude on a Shanghai trading floor deciding he cannot risk lending us more money (we are still in deficit to the tune of £100 billion a year), the government has no money to pay peoples benefits and pensions.
Its very simple lives are not going to improve that much until we stop borrowing money and start paying off our debt.
Sorry, but things like this are going to go the same way as the dire warnings given from various rich people and vested interests during the Scottish referendum campaign. People just don't trust these people anymore, it's a case of "boy who cried wolf" where we've heard it all before.
Is that the referendum campaign which concluded with the Scottish people rejecting those dire warnings for the rubbish they were and triumphantly voting Yes? Because there's a bit of a disconnect in your narrative otherwise.
I've made comments like this a million times, but I still can't understand why the Labour leadership can't see that the main decline in their support has been caused by their embrace of austerity and Tory economic policies. They're driving more and more people who actually wanted to vote Labour to the Greens because of how dire Labour's offering is. Barely any of Labour's lost support has gone to the Tories; they're still pretty much down at core-vote levels.
Where will the money come from?
The millionaires and billionaires who are raking in dosh at everyone else's expense and squirrelling it away in tax havens perhaps?
I think you may find the definition of a 'tax haven' is somewhere HMG can't tax.
Then ban them from living in the UK or doing business in the UK until they're willing to contribute to the public purse like the rest of us mugs.
So you are going to arbitrarily close down businesses with no consideration of the jobs they bring or the business they bring to other businesses in the UK and the jobs they provide etc etc etc?
Business is a global affair these days and if the UK is not competing there are plenty of other countries will compete and welcome these business people and entrepreneurs to set up in their country.
These are the exact same arguments that are used about immigration. Some things are more important than just maximising the GDP tractor stats.
I've made comments like this a million times, but I still can't understand why the Labour leadership can't see that the main decline in their support has been caused by their embrace of austerity and Tory economic policies. They're driving more and more people who actually wanted to vote Labour to the Greens because of how dire Labour's offering is. Barely any of Labour's lost support has gone to the Tories; they're still pretty much down at core-vote levels.
What else can they offer? The country is £1.3 trillion in debt (or will be)?
That gets to the heart of the matter. Labour seems to have decided that the national balance sheet is more important than tackling inequality. That is the EXACT opposite of what the party was set up to do, and it means they're turning away the votes of the MANY people who believe inequality is more important -- not least, the very poorest people who couldn't give a damn about whether some random rich dude on a Shanghai trading floor gets paid back, but just want to know how their own lives are going to be improved.
Well they will give a damn if the UK defaulted on its debts and because that random rich dude on a Shanghai trading floor deciding he cannot risk lending us more money (we are still in deficit to the tune of £100 billion a year), the government has no money to pay peoples benefits and pensions.
Its very simple lives are not going to improve that much until we stop borrowing money and start paying off our debt.
Sorry, but things like this are going to go the same way as the dire warnings given from various rich people and vested interests during the Scottish referendum campaign. People just don't trust these people anymore, it's a case of "boy who cried wolf" where we've heard it all before.
Is that the referendum campaign which concluded with the Scottish people rejecting those dire warnings for the rubbish they were and triumphantly voting Yes? Because there's a bit of a disconnect in your narrative otherwise.
The 45% of people who voted for independence would be enough for a massive landslide in any election.
Keen Labour score watchers will note that both Populus and YouGov now show the Lab score easing up above 35%. Hardly a rocket-like recovery but interesting nevertheless. Ashcroft has a life of its own - no-one seriously believes the Tories are on 28%
How many of that 35% do you really think are enthusiastic enough to go out and vote for them? What is there to be enthusiastic about?
If you look at populus over the past year, 35% is basically Labour's floor. So in Populus terms 36% remains below average.
Today's populus has low 2010L retention which is consistent with the past few. Similarly 2010LD to G remains high but not as high as today's ANP.
Ukip have exceeded my expectations by keeping, and being kept, in the news. What they need now is a Labour defection - especially a Northern MP. That's only likely to happen (just my guess) with EdM in power and losing support by the shed load.
Say 2017, and about the time that there should have been a referendum conducted on Cameron's terms. Perhaps they're playing the long game?
I've made comments like this a million times, but I still can't understand why the Labour leadership can't see that the main decline in their support has been caused by their embrace of austerity and Tory economic policies. They're driving more and more people who actually wanted to vote Labour to the Greens because of how dire Labour's offering is. Barely any of Labour's lost support has gone to the Tories; they're still pretty much down at core-vote levels.
What else can they offer? The country is £1.3 trillion in debt (or will be)?
That gets to the heart of the matter. Labour seems to have decided that the national balance sheet is more important than tackling inequality. That is the EXACT opposite of what the party was set up to do, and it means they're turning away the votes of the MANY people who believe inequality is more important -- not least, the very poorest people who couldn't give a damn about whether some random rich dude on a Shanghai trading floor gets paid back, but just want to know how their own lives are going to be improved.
People that selfish and short-sighted don't deserve to be listened to and should be told so in no uncertain terms.
Yeah, this is the PBTories' mantra. When the public are unhappy about immigration or Europe, it's an anti-democratic scandal for politicians not to listen to them. Yet when people are unhappy with economic policies (all polls show a majority opposed to 5 more years of spending cuts), it's just too bad because they just can't get their little heads round the economic realities, and they should leave it to the grown-ups to decide for them.
When are borrowing from someone, if you don't make good your payments, they're likely to hold it against you when you come asking for more. Economic reality really isn't difficult.
That said, I'd be delighted if Labour were to go into an election with such a programme.
£3K per year, gesture politics at its very best. Only £250 per month if your house is worth £2m or more. Might frighten some horses, but will it really bring in enough revenue? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29691283
I've made comments like this a million times, but I still can't understand why the Labour leadership can't see that the main decline in their support has been caused by their embrace of austerity and Tory economic policies. They're driving more and more people who actually wanted to vote Labour to the Greens because of how dire Labour's offering is. Barely any of Labour's lost support has gone to the Tories; they're still pretty much down at core-vote levels.
What else can they offer? The country is £1.3 trillion in debt (or will be)?
That gets to the heart of the matter. Labour seems to have decided that the national balance sheet is more important than tackling inequality. That is the EXACT opposite of what the party was set up to do, and it means they're turning away the votes of the MANY people who believe inequality is more important -- not least, the very poorest people who couldn't give a damn about whether some random rich dude on a Shanghai trading floor gets paid back, but just want to know how their own lives are going to be improved.
People that selfish and short-sighted don't deserve to be listened to and should be told so in no uncertain terms.
Yeah, this is the PBTories' mantra. When the public are unhappy about immigration or Europe, it's an anti-democratic scandal for politicians not to listen to them. Yet when people are unhappy with economic policies (all polls show a majority opposed to 5 more years of spending cuts), it's just too bad because they just can't get their little heads round the economic realities, and they should leave it to the grown-ups to decide for them.
When are borrowing from someone, if you don't make good your payments, they're likely to hold it against you when you come asking for more. Economic reality really isn't difficult.
That said, I'd be delighted if Labour were to go into an election with such a programme.
So the supposed "economic reality" is more important than democracy in your view? Just checking.
I've made comments like this a million times, but I still can't understand why the Labour leadership can't see that the main decline in their support has been caused by their embrace of austerity and Tory economic policies. They're driving more and more people who actually wanted to vote Labour to the Greens because of how dire Labour's offering is. Barely any of Labour's lost support has gone to the Tories; they're still pretty much down at core-vote levels.
Where will the money come from?
The millionaires and billionaires who are raking in dosh at everyone else's expense and squirrelling it away in tax havens perhaps?
I think you may find the definition of a 'tax haven' is somewhere HMG can't tax.
With the travails of FPTP with the current polling scores, and the brief plugs of books on the site earlier, I'll take the plunge meself.
Back in 2011, I wrote a novella-length alternate history story on what could have happened if UKIP had entered the 2010 General Election debates, with the 'something different' surge that actually boosted Clegg instead boosting UKIP. It was well received on the alternate history website, and I followed it up by serialising a novel-length sequel throughout 2013.
With the real-life actual boost for UKIP, I've been talked into polishing them up and releasing them on Amazon. The first, The Fourth Lectern, is available at Amazon already; the sequel (The Fifth Lectern) will be available in a week or two (I'm finishing off getting it independently editted).
Stuff like the issues of FPTP with multiple creditable challengers and multi-way marginals are in it - as well as the reactions of the main parties to the upstarts. Might be worth your time (I've priced it at 77p - Amazon wouldn't let me make it free, otherwise I would have - on the age-old philosophy of drawing you in with the first one )
I read Fourth Lectern over at AH back in the day and thoroughly enjoyed it. AH has some gems on it and that was one of them - although the forum is very curate's egg overall. I praised the story on that thread and am delighted to do so again here.
I've made comments like this a million times, but I still can't understand why the Labour leadership can't see that the main decline in their support has been caused by their embrace of austerity and Tory economic policies. They're driving more and more people who actually wanted to vote Labour to the Greens because of how dire Labour's offering is. Barely any of Labour's lost support has gone to the Tories; they're still pretty much down at core-vote levels.
What else can they offer? The country is £1.3 trillion in debt (or will be)?
That gets to the heart of the matter. Labour seems to have decided that the national balance sheet is more important than tackling inequality. That is the EXACT opposite of what the party was set up to do, and it means they're turning away the votes of the MANY people who believe inequality is more important -- not least, the very poorest people who couldn't give a damn about whether some random rich dude on a Shanghai trading floor gets paid back, but just want to know how their own lives are going to be improved.
Well they will give a damn if the UK defaulted on its debts and because that random rich dude on a Shanghai trading floor deciding he cannot risk lending us more money (we are still in deficit to the tune of £100 billion a year), the government has no money to pay peoples benefits and pensions.
Its very simple lives are not going to improve that much until we stop borrowing money and start paying off our debt.
Sorry, but things like this are going to go the same way as the dire warnings given from various rich people and vested interests during the Scottish referendum campaign. People just don't trust these people anymore, it's a case of "boy who cried wolf" where we've heard it all before.
Is that the referendum campaign which concluded with the Scottish people rejecting those dire warnings for the rubbish they were and triumphantly voting Yes? Because there's a bit of a disconnect in your narrative otherwise.
The 45% of people who voted for independence would be enough for a massive landslide in any election.
Even one in which the 55% (of voters, incidentally, not people) who voted against it, voted the other way?
If you aren't already on Labour's core strategic planning team, you should be.
I've made comments like this a million times, but I still can't understand why the Labour leadership can't see that the main decline in their support has been caused by their embrace of austerity and Tory economic policies. They're driving more and more people who actually wanted to vote Labour to the Greens because of how dire Labour's offering is. Barely any of Labour's lost support has gone to the Tories; they're still pretty much down at core-vote levels.
Where will the money come from?
The millionaires and billionaires who are raking in dosh at everyone else's expense and squirrelling it away in tax havens perhaps?
I think you may find the definition of a 'tax haven' is somewhere HMG can't tax.
Then ban them from living in the UK or doing business in the UK until they're willing to contribute to the public purse like the rest of us mugs.
Ah, the Labour way. Import Third World immigrants. Forbid entrance to UK citizens.
Greens are taking chunks out of potential UKIP support as are genuinely independent candidates. The reason as spotted by The Guardian is simple - there are ten new anti-fracking groups forming each week now. The Greens oppose fracking. UKIP is in favour. At byelections independent candidates are reaching 5%, which is bothering UKIP sufficiently for them to sprout a new strapline this week - UKIP The Independents. http://the-tap.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/clever-move-by-ukip-to-try-to-stop.html
I've made comments like this a million times, but I still can't understand why the Labour leadership can't see that the main decline in their support has been caused by their embrace of austerity and Tory economic policies. They're driving more and more people who actually wanted to vote Labour to the Greens because of how dire Labour's offering is. Barely any of Labour's lost support has gone to the Tories; they're still pretty much down at core-vote levels.
What else can they offer? The country is £1.3 trillion in debt (or will be)?
That gets to the heart of the matter. Labour seems to have decided that the national balance sheet is more important than tackling inequality. That is the EXACT opposite of what the party was set up to do, and it means they're turning away the votes of the MANY people who believe inequality is more important -- not least, the very poorest people who couldn't give a damn about whether some random rich dude on a Shanghai trading floor gets paid back, but just want to know how their own lives are going to be improved.
Well they will give a damn if the UK defaulted on its debts and because that random rich dude on a Shanghai trading floor deciding he cannot risk lending us more money (we are still in deficit to the tune of £100 billion a year), the government has no money to pay peoples benefits and pensions.
Its very simple lives are not going to improve that much until we stop borrowing money and start paying off our debt.
Sorry, but things like this are going to go the same way as the dire warnings given from various rich people and vested interests during the Scottish referendum campaign. People just don't trust these people anymore, it's a case of "boy who cried wolf" where we've heard it all before.
Is that the referendum campaign which concluded with the Scottish people rejecting those dire warnings for the rubbish they were and triumphantly voting Yes? Because there's a bit of a disconnect in your narrative otherwise.
The 45% of people who voted for independence would be enough for a massive landslide in any election.
Indeed - 45% is no good in a 2 horse race, but when there are 4 horses and 3 of the other horses are broadly sharing the 55%, well it is a useful starting point.
I've made comments like this a million times, but I still can't understand why the Labour leadership can't see that the main decline in their support has been caused by their embrace of austerity and Tory economic policies. They're driving more and more people who actually wanted to vote Labour to the Greens because of how dire Labour's offering is. Barely any of Labour's lost support has gone to the Tories; they're still pretty much down at core-vote levels.
What else can they offer? The country is £1.3 trillion in debt (or will be)?
That gets to the heart of the matter. Labour seems to have decided that the national balance sheet is more important than tackling inequality. That is the EXACT opposite of what the party was set up to do, and it means they're turning away the votes of the MANY people who believe inequality is more important -- not least, the very poorest people who couldn't give a damn about whether some random rich dude on a Shanghai trading floor gets paid back, but just want to know how their own lives are going to be improved.
Well they will give a damn if the UK defaulted on its debts and because that random rich dude on a Shanghai trading floor decided that he cannot risk lending us more money (we are still in deficit to the tune of £100 billion a year), the government has no money to pay peoples benefits and pensions.
Its very simple lives are not going to improve that much until we stop borrowing money and start paying off our debt.
It never ceases to amaze me how clueless Labour supporters can be about the realities of life and debt
Even one in which the 55% (of voters, incidentally, not people) who voted against it, voted the other way?
If you aren't already on Labour's core strategic planning team, you should be.
Unless you're expecting one party to unite 55% of the vote behind them, I can't see how that's relevant.
The fact is that 45% of people blew a giant raspberry at the assorted collection of big businesses and other rich people and their self-proclaimed "economic realities". Anything like that scale in an election would give a victory.
I've made comments like this a million times, but I still can't understand why the Labour leadership can't see that the main decline in their support has been caused by their embrace of austerity and Tory economic policies. They're driving more and more people who actually wanted to vote Labour to the Greens because of how dire Labour's offering is. Barely any of Labour's lost support has gone to the Tories; they're still pretty much down at core-vote levels.
What else can they offer? The country is £1.3 trillion in debt (or will be)?
That gets to the heart of the matter. Labour seems to have decided that the national balance sheet is more important than tackling inequality. That is the EXACT opposite of what the party was set up to do, and it means they're turning away the votes of the MANY people who believe inequality is more important -- not least, the very poorest people who couldn't give a damn about whether some random rich dude on a Shanghai trading floor gets paid back, but just want to know how their own lives are going to be improved.
Well they will give a damn if the UK defaulted on its debts and because that random rich dude on a Shanghai trading floor deciding he cannot risk lending us more money (we are still in deficit to the tune of £100 billion a year), the government has no money to pay peoples benefits and pensions.
Its very simple lives are not going to improve that much until we stop borrowing money and start paying off our debt.
Sorry, but things like this are going to go the same way as the dire warnings given from various rich people and vested interests during the Scottish referendum campaign. People just don't trust these people anymore, it's a case of "boy who cried wolf" where we've heard it all before.
Is that the referendum campaign which concluded with the Scottish people rejecting those dire warnings for the rubbish they were and triumphantly voting Yes? Because there's a bit of a disconnect in your narrative otherwise.
The 45% of people who voted for independence would be enough for a massive landslide in any election.
Any election? Not really. In an election with two candidates the 45% would lose quite heavily.
Ukip have exceeded my expectations by keeping, and being kept, in the news. What they need now is a Labour defection - especially a Northern MP. That's only likely to happen (just my guess) with EdM in power and losing support by the shed load.
Say 2017, and about the time that there should have been a referendum conducted on Cameron's terms. Perhaps they're playing the long game?
I've made comments like this a million times, but I still can't understand why the Labour leadership can't see that the main decline in their support has been caused by their embrace of austerity and Tory economic policies. They're driving more and more people who actually wanted to vote Labour to the Greens because of how dire Labour's offering is. Barely any of Labour's lost support has gone to the Tories; they're still pretty much down at core-vote levels.
What else can they offer? The country is £1.3 trillion in debt (or will be)?
That gets to the heart of the matter. Labour seems to have decided that the national balance sheet is more important than tackling inequality. That is the EXACT opposite of what the party was set up to do, and it means they're turning away the votes of the MANY people who believe inequality is more important -- not least, the very poorest people who couldn't give a damn about whether some random rich dude on a Shanghai trading floor gets paid back, but just want to know how their own lives are going to be improved.
People that selfish and short-sighted don't deserve to be listened to and should be told so in no uncertain terms.
Yeah, this is the PBTories' mantra. When the public are unhappy about immigration or Europe, it's an anti-democratic scandal for politicians not to listen to them. Yet when people are unhappy with economic policies (all polls show a majority opposed to 5 more years of spending cuts), it's just too bad because they just can't get their little heads round the economic realities, and they should leave it to the grown-ups to decide for them.
When are borrowing from someone, if you don't make good your payments, they're likely to hold it against you when you come asking for more. Economic reality really isn't difficult.
That said, I'd be delighted if Labour were to go into an election with such a programme.
The UK will not default.
People don't buy this scaremongering any more.
The Tories spent years saying the sky would fall in if the UK lost its credit rating. Gideon then proceeded to trash the UK's rating, nothing happened.
I've made comments like this a million times, but I still can't understand why the Labour leadership can't see that the main decline in their support has been caused by their embrace of austerity and Tory economic policies. They're driving more and more people who actually wanted to vote Labour to the Greens because of how dire Labour's offering is. Barely any of Labour's lost support has gone to the Tories; they're still pretty much down at core-vote levels.
Where will the money come from?
The millionaires and billionaires who are raking in dosh at everyone else's expense and squirrelling it away in tax havens perhaps?
I think you may find the definition of a 'tax haven' is somewhere HMG can't tax.
Then ban them from living in the UK or doing business in the UK until they're willing to contribute to the public purse like the rest of us mugs.
So you are going to arbitrarily close down businesses with no consideration of the jobs they bring or the business they bring to other businesses in the UK and the jobs they provide etc etc etc?
Business is a global affair these days and if the UK is not competing there are plenty of other countries will compete and welcome these business people and entrepreneurs to set up in their country.
These are the exact same arguments that are used about immigration. Some things are more important than just maximising the GDP tractor stats.
Its not about maximising the GDP tractor stats its about managing a very bad situation (one which Labour has much to answer for) but if you wish to remain in total denial about our economic situation be my guest because no other mainstream party is going to agree with you.
Every time you think things really can't get any worse for the Lib Dems they do.
Be careful what you wish for, as the old saying goes. Coalition government is looking seriously close to fatal for them at the moment. They deserve better but it doesn't look as if they are going to get it.
With the travails of FPTP with the current polling scores, and the brief plugs of books on the site earlier, I'll take the plunge meself.
Back in 2011, I wrote a novella-length alternate history story on what could have happened if UKIP had entered the 2010 General Election debates, with the 'something different' surge that actually boosted Clegg instead boosting UKIP. It was well received on the alternate history website, and I followed it up by serialising a novel-length sequel throughout 2013.
With the real-life actual boost for UKIP, I've been talked into polishing them up and releasing them on Amazon. The first, The Fourth Lectern, is available at Amazon already; the sequel (The Fifth Lectern) will be available in a week or two (I'm finishing off getting it independently editted).
Stuff like the issues of FPTP with multiple creditable challengers and multi-way marginals are in it - as well as the reactions of the main parties to the upstarts. Might be worth your time (I've priced it at 77p - Amazon wouldn't let me make it free, otherwise I would have - on the age-old philosophy of drawing you in with the first one )
Wow. Well done Andy! I'll definitely be buying it :-)
I've made comments like this a million times, but I still can't understand why the Labour leadership can't see that the main decline in their support has been caused by their embrace of austerity and Tory economic policies. They're driving more and more people who actually wanted to vote Labour to the Greens because of how dire Labour's offering is. Barely any of Labour's lost support has gone to the Tories; they're still pretty much down at core-vote levels.
What else can they offer? The country is £1.3 trillion in debt (or will be)?
That gets to the heart of the matter. Labour seems to have decided that the national balance sheet is more important than tackling inequality. That is the EXACT opposite of what the party was set up to do, and it means they're turning away the votes of the MANY people who believe inequality is more important -- not least, the very poorest people who couldn't give a damn about whether some random rich dude on a Shanghai trading floor gets paid back, but just want to know how their own lives are going to be improved.
Well they will give a damn if the UK defaulted on its debts and because that random rich dude on a Shanghai trading floor decided that he cannot risk lending us more money (we are still in deficit to the tune of £100 billion a year), the government has no money to pay peoples benefits and pensions.
Its very simple lives are not going to improve that much until we stop borrowing money and start paying off our debt.
It never ceases to amaze me how clueless Labour supporters can be about the realities of life and debt
Maybe they´re taking their cue from Balls. REd doesn´t even pretend. And so quite happily ignores the topic.
"(I've priced it at 77p - Amazon wouldn't let me make it free, otherwise I would have - on the age-old philosophy of drawing you in with the first one "
I tend to agree with Mr Dancer, who has more experience.
I suspect getting a publisher is a matter of luck, and even if you find a niche one, there are some disadvantages. Wild Wolf have been great and it does take the hassle away, but I wouldn't dare suggest pricing to them.
Mind you, having Ukip in charge could be "dark and edgy" (in the nicest possible way).
I've made comments like this a million times, but I still can't understand why the Labour leadership can't see that the main decline in their support has been caused by their embrace of austerity and Tory economic policies. They're driving more and more people who actually wanted to vote Labour to the Greens because of how dire Labour's offering is. Barely any of Labour's lost support has gone to the Tories; they're still pretty much down at core-vote levels.
What else can they offer? The country is £1.3 trillion in debt (or will be)?
That gets to the heart of the matter. Labour seems to have decided that the national balance sheet is more important than tackling inequality. That is the EXACT opposite of what the party was set up to do, and it means they're turning away the votes of the MANY people who believe inequality is more important -- not least, the very poorest people who couldn't give a damn about whether some random rich dude on a Shanghai trading floor gets paid back, but just want to know how their own lives are going to be improved.
People that selfish and short-sighted don't deserve to be listened to and should be told so in no uncertain terms.
Yeah, this is the PBTories' mantra. When the public are unhappy about immigration or Europe, it's an anti-democratic scandal for politicians not to listen to them. Yet when people are unhappy with economic policies (all polls show a majority opposed to 5 more years of spending cuts), it's just too bad because they just can't get their little heads round the economic realities, and they should leave it to the grown-ups to decide for them.
When are borrowing from someone, if you don't make good your payments, they're likely to hold it against you when you come asking for more. Economic reality really isn't difficult.
That said, I'd be delighted if Labour were to go into an election with such a programme.
The UK will not default.
People don't buy this scaremongering any more.
The Tories spent years saying the sky would fall in if the UK lost its credit rating. Gideon then proceeded to trash the UK's rating, nothing happened.
The policy Danny is advocating is exactly to default.
However, if you continue to run a structural deficit year after year, you will eventually default: that is simple mathematics. It can take a long time but the end result is inevitable.
I've made comments like this a million times, but I still can't understand why the Labour leadership can't see that the main decline in their support has been caused by their embrace of austerity and Tory economic policies. They're driving more and more people who actually wanted to vote Labour to the Greens because of how dire Labour's offering is. Barely any of Labour's lost support has gone to the Tories; they're still pretty much down at core-vote levels.
What else can they offer? The country is £1.3 trillion in debt (or will be)?
That gets to the heart of the matter. Labour seems to have decided that the national balance sheet is more important than tackling inequality. That is the EXACT opposite of what the party was set up to do, and it means they're turning away the votes of the MANY people who believe inequality is more important -- not least, the very poorest people who couldn't give a damn about whether some random rich dude on a Shanghai trading floor gets paid back, but just want to know how their own lives are going to be improved.
People that selfish and short-sighted don't deserve to be listened to and should be told so in no uncertain terms.
Yeah, this is the PBTories' mantra. When the public are unhappy about immigration or Europe, it's an anti-democratic scandal for politicians not to listen to them. Yet when people are unhappy with economic policies (all polls show a majority opposed to 5 more years of spending cuts), it's just too bad because they just can't get their little heads round the economic realities, and they should leave it to the grown-ups to decide for them.
When are borrowing from someone, if you don't make good your payments, they're likely to hold it against you when you come asking for more. Economic reality really isn't difficult.
That said, I'd be delighted if Labour were to go into an election with such a programme.
So the supposed "economic reality" is more important than democracy in your view? Just checking.
Why don't Labour stand on a commitment to repeal the law of gravity. Which would win, the supposed "nature of the universe" or democracy?
"I think you may find the definition of a 'tax haven' is somewhere HMG can't tax. "
It wouldn't be mine.
A tax haven to me is any jurisdiction you use for the purposes of lowering your effective tax rate. We tend to think of them as small exotic countries with nice climates but literally anywhere can be a tax haven, depending on what sorts of transactions you have in mind. For example, the UK can be a very good tax haven in some cases, especially if you are a multi-national wanting to invest inside the EU and need to maximise tax relief on business interest payments.
When I was in the biz, we used to use The Netherlands a lot, for mixing dividends. Not the first country you think of as a tax haven, eh? Singapore is useful for avoiding capital gains tax on investments in India. Cyprus is generally handy for investing in the Emirates. Nice places, but not the caribbean idylls of popular imagination.
A lot of tosh is talked about tax havens, often by politicians. You can no more get rid of them than you can abolish sin. What you can do is regulate them so that they facilitate international trade rather than harm it. A lot of good work has been done in this area in the past few decades and I guess it will carry on despite becoming something of a political football but it would be helpful if we started by acknowledging that ALL tax regimes can be used for tax avoidance purposes and that all tax avoidance is not necessarily bad.
[Note the distinction between avoidance and evasion. I am sure you appreciate it, but some use the terms as synonymous, when they are in fact as chalk and cheese.]
With the travails of FPTP with the current polling scores, and the brief plugs of books on the site earlier, I'll take the plunge meself.
Back in 2011, I wrote a novella-length alternate history story on what could have happened if UKIP had entered the 2010 General Election debates, with the 'something different' surge that actually boosted Clegg instead boosting UKIP. It was well received on the alternate history website, and I followed it up by serialising a novel-length sequel throughout 2013.
With the real-life actual boost for UKIP, I've been talked into polishing them up and releasing them on Amazon. The first, The Fourth Lectern, is available at Amazon already; the sequel (The Fifth Lectern) will be available in a week or two (I'm finishing off getting it independently editted).
Stuff like the issues of FPTP with multiple creditable challengers and multi-way marginals are in it - as well as the reactions of the main parties to the upstarts. Might be worth your time (I've priced it at 77p - Amazon wouldn't let me make it free, otherwise I would have - on the age-old philosophy of drawing you in with the first one )
Andy, I'm in the middle of writing a series of political / military alternative histories myself. Any advice / tips / introductions / contacts you're able to offer?
The best advice I can give is to head over to www.alternatehistory.com, register, and serialise a first draft in the relevant forum (Post 1900 for me, usually). The commenters are invariably pleasant and helpful, and often have an astonishing amount of relevant information and helpful feedback.
I found that the very action of committing to a weekly update schedule for new chapters was very helpful at focussing me to produce the output and the feedback definitely improved my writing.
Everyone's got their own writing strategy: mine was to work out what the broad story is first (where it'll end up and more or less why it's a story at all), have a broadbrush outline, and then just write. One thing that many have said is that one key is just to finish the first draft rather than go back again and again to perfect it.
But head on over to alternatehistory.com if you haven't already.
I've made comments like this a million times, but I still can't understand why the Labour leadership can't see that the main decline in their support has been caused by their embrace of austerity and Tory economic policies. They're driving more and more people who actually wanted to vote Labour to the Greens because of how dire Labour's offering is. Barely any of Labour's lost support has gone to the Tories; they're still pretty much down at core-vote levels.
What else can they offer? The country is £1.3 trillion in debt (or will be)?
People that selfish and short-sighted don't deserve to be listened to and should be told so in no uncertain terms.
Yeah, this is the PBTories' mantra. When the public are unhappy about immigration or Europe, it's an anti-democratic scandal for politicians not to listen to them. Yet when people are unhappy with economic policies (all polls show a majority opposed to 5 more years of spending cuts), it's just too bad because they just can't get their little heads round the economic realities, and they should leave it to the grown-ups to decide for them.
When are borrowing from someone, if you don't make good your payments, they're likely to hold it against you when you come asking for more. Economic reality really isn't difficult.
That said, I'd be delighted if Labour were to go into an election with such a programme.
The UK will not default.
People don't buy this scaremongering any more.
The Tories spent years saying the sky would fall in if the UK lost its credit rating. Gideon then proceeded to trash the UK's rating, nothing happened.
The policy Danny is advocating is exactly to default.
However, if you continue to run a structural deficit year after year, you will eventually default: that is simple mathematics. It can take a long time but the end result is inevitable.
I agree.
Which is why the country cannot afford ever-lower rates of tax, which is why Cameron's unfunded tax cut promise the other week was so desperate and irresponsible.
I've made comments like this a million times, but I still can't understand why the Labour leadership can't see that the main decline in their support has been caused by their embrace of austerity and Tory economic policies. They're driving more and more people who actually wanted to vote Labour to the Greens because of how dire Labour's offering is. Barely any of Labour's lost support has gone to the Tories; they're still pretty much down at core-vote levels.
What else can they offer? The country is £1.3 trillion in debt (or will be)?
That gets to the heart of the matter. Labour seems to have decided that the national balance sheet is more important than tackling inequality. That is the EXACT opposite of what the party was set up to do, and it means they're turning away the votes of the MANY people who believe inequality is more important -- not least, the very poorest people who couldn't give a damn about whether some random rich dude on a Shanghai trading floor gets paid back, but just want to know how their own lives are going to be improved.
People that selfish and short-sighted don't deserve to be listened to and should be told so in no uncertain terms.
Yeah, this is the PBTories' mantra. When the public are unhappy about immigration or Europe, it's an anti-democratic scandal for politicians not to listen to them. Yet when people are unhappy with economic policies (all polls show a majority opposed to 5 more years of spending cuts), it's just too bad because they just can't get their little heads round the economic realities, and they should leave it to the grown-ups to decide for them.
When are borrowing from someone, if you don't make good your payments, they're likely to hold it against you when you come asking for more. Economic reality really isn't difficult.
That said, I'd be delighted if Labour were to go into an election with such a programme.
So the supposed "economic reality" is more important than democracy in your view? Just checking.
I've no idea how you've come to that conclusion, though to be fair, I've no idea how you've rationally come to several of your conclusions.
To be clear: I'd be delighted if Labour campaigned on your platform because I have enough faith in the electorate that they would see through such nonsense.
Every time you think things really can't get any worse for the Lib Dems they do.
Be careful what you wish for, as the old saying goes. Coalition government is looking seriously close to fatal for them at the moment. They deserve better but it doesn't look as if they are going to get it.
I was thinking the other day, are there any LD posters active here any more? Or is the site a microcosm of the country?
I've made comments like this a million times, but I still can't understand why the Labour leadership can't see that the main decline in their support has been caused by their embrace of austerity and Tory economic policies. They're driving more and more people who actually wanted to vote Labour to the Greens because of how dire Labour's offering is. Barely any of Labour's lost support has gone to the Tories; they're still pretty much down at core-vote levels.
Where will the money come from?
The millionaires and billionaires who are raking in dosh at everyone else's expense and squirrelling it away in tax havens perhaps?
I think you may find the definition of a 'tax haven' is somewhere HMG can't tax.
Then ban them from living in the UK or doing business in the UK until they're willing to contribute to the public purse like the rest of us mugs.
They don't live in the UK -hence them living in the tax haven. They are allowed to visit for a certain number of days a year -not sure how you think threatening to banish them permanently to Monaco is going to have them flooding back to our rainy haven to throw their millions into the furnace of the exchequer.
What Government needs to do is stand up to multinationals, break up monopolies, and stimulate competition in every industry. Then stand back and allow small and medium sized firms to grow. Not punish personal wealth.
I've made comments like this a million times, but I still can't understand why the Labour leadership can't see that the main decline in their support has been caused by their embrace of austerity and Tory economic policies. They're driving more and more people who actually wanted to vote Labour to the Greens because of how dire Labour's offering is. Barely any of Labour's lost support has gone to the Tories; they're still pretty much down at core-vote levels.
Where will the money come from?
The millionaires and billionaires who are raking in dosh at everyone else's expense and squirrelling it away in tax havens perhaps?
I think you may find the definition of a 'tax haven' is somewhere HMG can't tax.
Then ban them from living in the UK or doing business in the UK until they're willing to contribute to the public purse like the rest of us mugs.
They don't live in the UK -hence them living in the tax haven. They are allowed to visit for a certain number of days a year -not sure how you think threatening to banish them permanently to Monaco is going to have them flooding back to our rainy haven to throw their millions into the furnace of the exchequer.
What Government needs to do is stand up to multinationals, break up monopolies, and stimulate competition in every industry. Then stand back and allow small and medium sized firms to grow. Not punish personal wealth.
Agreed. The Tories are not "Free market" advocates any more.
They are the authoritarian, corporatist political wing of anti-competitive moguls, big business, oligopolies and oligarchs.
Greens are taking chunks out of potential UKIP support as are genuinely independent candidates. The reason as spotted by The Guardian is simple - there are ten new anti-fracking groups forming each week now. The Greens oppose fracking. UKIP is in favour. At byelections independent candidates are reaching 5%, which is bothering UKIP sufficiently for them to sprout a new strapline this week - UKIP The Independents. http://the-tap.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/clever-move-by-ukip-to-try-to-stop.html
Do you think so? I've always thought (and agreed with) the anti-establishment line on greens and greenery is that they're part of the globalist agenda.
Andy, I'm in the middle of writing a series of political / military alternative histories myself. Any advice / tips / introductions / contacts you're able to offer?
Mr Cooke may have temporarily forgotten but if you go over to Alternatehistory.com you have every Conservative's nightmare "For Want of A Debate" about another different 2010 GE penned by my good self.
I've written a few over there - I tend to avoid the "big ticket" items - I leave military campaigns and wars to others as grand histories. I tend to write from the focus of individuals so it becomes a series of vignettes set against events.
As an example, I wrote about FWoAD from the perspective of a candidate, a party worker, a SPAD and a journalist among others. I also wrote in real time and in hindsight (Mike Smithson of politichat at a symposium about the election). I did an extract of five minutes from the fictional politichat from election night - the content is different but the style is a direct lift from PB (as are one or two of the "names")
If I ever get the chance to write AH again, I'd rather write a set of vignettes - a family having breakfast or a woman on a train and paint the alternate world around them in terms of the everyday changes and that's what makes you think.
I've made comments like this a million times, but I still can't understand why the Labour leadership can't see that the main decline in their support has been caused by their embrace of austerity and Tory economic policies. They're driving more and more people who actually wanted to vote Labour to the Greens because of how dire Labour's offering is. Barely any of Labour's lost support has gone to the Tories; they're still pretty much down at core-vote levels.
What else can they offer? The country is £1.3 trillion in debt (or will be)?
That gets to the heart of the matter. Labour seems to have decided that the national balance sheet is more important than tackling inequality. That is the EXACT opposite of what the party was set up to do, and it means they're turning away the votes of the MANY people who believe inequality is more important -- not least, the very poorest people who couldn't give a damn about whether some random rich dude on a Shanghai trading floor gets paid back, but just want to know how their own lives are going to be improved.
People that selfish and short-sighted don't deserve to be listened to and should be told so in no uncertain terms.
Yeah, this is the PBTories' mantra. When the public are unhappy about immigration or Europe, it's an anti-democratic scandal for politicians not to listen to them. Yet when people are unhappy with economic policies (all polls show a majority opposed to 5 more years of spending cuts), it's just too bad because they just can't get their little heads round the economic realities, and they should leave it to the grown-ups to decide for them.
When are borrowing from someone, if you don't make good your payments, they're likely to hold it against you when you come asking for more. Economic reality really isn't difficult.
That said, I'd be delighted if Labour were to go into an election with such a programme.
So the supposed "economic reality" is more important than democracy in your view? Just checking.
As a rule of thumb, reality isn't subject to a popular vote.
I've no idea how you've come to that conclusion, though to be fair, I've no idea how you've rationally come to several of your conclusions.
To be clear: I'd be delighted if Labour campaigned on your platform because I have enough faith in the electorate that they would see through such nonsense.
Except a majority of the public DON'T think that there should be more cuts, and consider "cutting the deficit" to be a lower priority than improving living standards (thus, rationally one would conclude that people would be happy with a government who made the latter their priority, even if it came at the expense of not cutting the deficit).
My point is that so many on the Right around the world now actually say that, when it comes to the economy and public spending, the public's views don't matter and it's all about what the (unelected) "markets" will allow. I mean, to state the obvious, what is actually the point in having elections if no choice on the economy is "allowed"? Elites in their ivory towers can dismiss it all they want, but the fact is there's HUGE numbers of people out there who are angry that their own elected governments refuse to actually exercise any power or put their own voters' views ahead of global "realities" (whether that's on immigration or on the economy/spending/control over businesses and rich people).
With the travails of FPTP with the current polling scores, and the brief plugs of books on the site earlier, I'll take the plunge meself.
Back in 2011, I wrote a novella-length alternate history story on what could have happened if UKIP had entered the 2010 General Election debates, with the 'something different' surge that actually boosted Clegg instead boosting UKIP. It was well received on the alternate history website, and I followed it up by serialising a novel-length sequel throughout 2013.
With the real-life actual boost for UKIP, I've been talked into polishing them up and releasing them on Amazon. The first, The Fourth Lectern, is available at Amazon already; the sequel (The Fifth Lectern) will be available in a week or two (I'm finishing off getting it independently editted).
Stuff like the issues of FPTP with multiple creditable challengers and multi-way marginals are in it - as well as the reactions of the main parties to the upstarts. Might be worth your time (I've priced it at 77p - Amazon wouldn't let me make it free, otherwise I would have - on the age-old philosophy of drawing you in with the first one )
Andy, I'm in the middle of writing a series of political / military alternative histories myself. Any advice / tips / introductions / contacts you're able to offer?
The best advice I can give is to head over to www.alternatehistory.com, register, and serialise a first draft in the relevant forum (Post 1900 for me, usually). The commenters are invariably pleasant and helpful, and often have an astonishing amount of relevant information and helpful feedback.
I found that the very action of committing to a weekly update schedule for new chapters was very helpful at focussing me to produce the output and the feedback definitely improved my writing.
Everyone's got their own writing strategy: mine was to work out what the broad story is first (where it'll end up and more or less why it's a story at all), have a broadbrush outline, and then just write. One thing that many have said is that one key is just to finish the first draft rather than go back again and again to perfect it.
But head on over to alternatehistory.com if you haven't already.
Many thanks. I'm writing a series of alternative histories rather than just one. I have checked out alternativehistory (albeit rarely), and while I've not posted there, have found it interesting and of use.
When I can drag myself away from here, I intend to wrap up WWI by the end of 1916 this evening (the starting point for which is William Howard Taft being appointed to the Supreme court in 1906, out of interest).
Every time you think things really can't get any worse for the Lib Dems they do.
Be careful what you wish for, as the old saying goes. Coalition government is looking seriously close to fatal for them at the moment. They deserve better but it doesn't look as if they are going to get it.
They should cut and run, might get some sort of dividend from bringing down an unpopular government. They have nothing left to lose. What's the point hanging around until May just to get hammered?
Every time you think things really can't get any worse for the Lib Dems they do.
Be careful what you wish for, as the old saying goes. Coalition government is looking seriously close to fatal for them at the moment. They deserve better but it doesn't look as if they are going to get it.
I was thinking the other day, are there any LD posters active here any more? Or is the site a microcosm of the country?
Mark Senior still posts. I think Foxinsox is a Lib Dem and I think Stodge is one too. Maybe also No offence Alan (or something like that)? There is also Mike of course.
Need to be further in front. Get your finger out Ed - the planets are aligning perfectly, don't screw it up...
Populus is fine(ish) for Labour, Ashcroft isn't.
If Labour poll 36% they should be home. If they poll 31%, they have much more to worry about. Sure, if the Tories only score 28%, they might be all right - though it's a mightily weak mandate - but that Tory score is to some extent a coincidence: it's not low because Labour is low and they can't rely on it staying low.
What's strange is the combinations, with Populus giving Lab+Con at 70% and Ashcroft down at 59%. If someone said there were two polls, with a Con range of 28-34 and Lab range of 31-36, you'd expect a 36-28 and a 31-34, not what we've got.
I think in May next year we could end up with something like Con 35%, Lab 30%, LD - 12%, UKIP 12%, Greens 3%.
I'm pretty close to rcs1000 prediction earlier. But I think fate may deal the Conservatives something closer to 320 seats, rather than 330.
I think they'd take a minority on that basis, with SNP abstention and DUP support for confidence and supply, that'd work.
Every time you think things really can't get any worse for the Lib Dems they do.
Be careful what you wish for, as the old saying goes. Coalition government is looking seriously close to fatal for them at the moment. They deserve better but it doesn't look as if they are going to get it.
I was thinking the other day, are there any LD posters active here any more? Or is the site a microcosm of the country?
Well, consider me a representative of the 7% or higher if you're an ICM fan. Can we take two such divergent polls seriously - Populus has the duopoly at 70%, Ashcroft has it at 59% - an absurd difference. The Conservatives are either 34% or 28% depending on who you believe.
Once again, if all people are going to do is micro-analyse every poll ad infinitum I strongly suggest they appropriate something called a life.
With the travails of FPTP with the current polling scores, and the brief plugs of books on the site earlier, I'll take the plunge meself.
Back in 2011, I wrote a novella-length alternate history story on what could have happened if UKIP had entered the 2010 General Election debates, with the 'something different' surge that actually boosted Clegg instead boosting UKIP. It was well received on the alternate history website, and I followed it up by serialising a novel-length sequel throughout 2013.
With the real-life actual boost for UKIP, I've been talked into polishing them up and releasing them on Amazon. The first, The Fourth Lectern, is available at Amazon already; the sequel (The Fifth Lectern) will be available in a week or two (I'm finishing off getting it independently editted).
Stuff like the issues of FPTP with multiple creditable challengers and multi-way marginals are in it - as well as the reactions of the main parties to the upstarts. Might be worth your time (I've priced it at 77p - Amazon wouldn't let me make it free, otherwise I would have - on the age-old philosophy of drawing you in with the first one )
Andy, I'm in the middle of writing a series of political / military alternative histories myself. Any advice / tips / introductions / contacts you're able to offer?
I'd be really interested in reading these David, if you allow any early reads What period would you focus on?
Every time you think things really can't get any worse for the Lib Dems they do.
Be careful what you wish for, as the old saying goes. Coalition government is looking seriously close to fatal for them at the moment. They deserve better but it doesn't look as if they are going to get it.
I was thinking the other day, are there any LD posters active here any more? Or is the site a microcosm of the country?
I've made comments like this a million times, but I still can't understand why the Labour leadership can't see that the main decline in their support has been caused by their embrace of austerity and Tory economic policies. They're driving more and more people who actually wanted to vote Labour to the Greens because of how dire Labour's offering is. Barely any of Labour's lost support has gone to the Tories; they're still pretty much down at core-vote levels.
What else can they offer? The country is £1.3 trillion in debt (or will be)?
That gets to the heart of the matter. Labour seems to have decided that the national balance sheet is more important than tackling inequality. That is the EXACT opposite of what the party was set up to do, and it means they're turning away the votes of the MANY people who believe inequality is more important -- not least, the very poorest people who couldn't give a damn about whether some random rich dude on a Shanghai trading floor gets paid back, but just want to know how their own lives are going to be improved.
People that selfish and short-sighted don't deserve to be listened to and should be told so in no uncertain terms.
Yeah, this is the PBTories' mantra. When the public are unhappy about immigration or Europe, it's an anti-democratic scandal for politicians not to listen to them. Yet when people are unhappy with economic policies (all polls show a majority opposed to 5 more years of spending cuts), it's just too bad because they just can't get their little heads round the economic realities, and they should leave it to the grown-ups to decide for them.
When are borrowing from someone, if you don't make good your payments, they're likely to hold it against you when you come asking for more. Economic reality really isn't difficult.
That said, I'd be delighted if Labour were to go into an election with such a programme.
So the supposed "economic reality" is more important than democracy in your view? Just checking.
I've no idea how you've come to that conclusion, though to be fair, I've no idea how you've rationally come to several of your conclusions.
To be clear: I'd be delighted if Labour campaigned on your platform because I have enough faith in the electorate that they would see through such nonsense.
Are you? 30% voted for Gordon´s madness. Up to 35% say they will vote for REd (not sure if it will be that much though).
With the travails of FPTP with the current polling scores, and the brief plugs of books on the site earlier, I'll take the plunge meself.
Back in 2011, I wrote a novella-length alternate history story on what could have happened if UKIP had entered the 2010 General Election debates, with the 'something different' surge that actually boosted Clegg instead boosting UKIP. It was well received on the alternate history website, and I followed it up by serialising a novel-length sequel throughout 2013.
With the real-life actual boost for UKIP, I've been talked into polishing them up and releasing them on Amazon. The first, The Fourth Lectern, is available at Amazon already; the sequel (The Fifth Lectern) will be available in a week or two (I'm finishing off getting it independently editted).
Stuff like the issues of FPTP with multiple creditable challengers and multi-way marginals are in it - as well as the reactions of the main parties to the upstarts. Might be worth your time (I've priced it at 77p - Amazon wouldn't let me make it free, otherwise I would have - on the age-old philosophy of drawing you in with the first one )
I read Fourth Lectern over at AH back in the day and thoroughly enjoyed it. AH has some gems on it and that was one of them - although the forum is very curate's egg overall. I praised the story on that thread and am delighted to do so again here.
Thanks :-) I did re-do it into 3rd person and align it closer with the sequel (serialised as "Maybe The Horse Will Learn To Sing"; to be made available as "The Fifth Lectern"), so it should be improved from the draft.
Every time you think things really can't get any worse for the Lib Dems they do.
Be careful what you wish for, as the old saying goes. Coalition government is looking seriously close to fatal for them at the moment. They deserve better but it doesn't look as if they are going to get it.
They should cut and run, might get some sort of dividend from bringing down an unpopular government. They have nothing left to lose. What's the point hanging around until May just to get hammered?
What's the point in not? Have you not heard of Mr McCawber?
Consider me stunned, I was about to embarrass myself on another site swearing blind it was an anti kipper spoof.
Read has form, once rapped at Tory conference.
UKIP do seem to be attracting former Tory fruitcakes and loons.
The interesting question is whether they were fruitcakes and loons when they were with the Tory Party, or did they only acquire that status upon joining UKIP?
This chimes with my theory that UKIP are doing the Tories a long-term favour by siphoning off the more extreme elements, councillors, MPs maybe and voters. UKIP will be the 'nasty' party, Tories will be de-toxified provided they don't follow in UKIP's wake. Of course it's not helping the Tories in the short term.
Nice theory. Fails the practical.
Carswell and Reckless - fruitcakes and loons? Tories better off without them?
Hmmmm.
To the right of the party and obsessed by Europe. Fruitcakes and loons are your words.
Watcher's words. See previous quotes.
I suppose in much the same way the Labour Party were doing the Liberals a long-term favour by siphoning off their core voters in Scotland, Wales, and the urban North after 1918.
Comments
Same thread header said he was ‘effing Reckless’, ‘fat arse’ and ‘dick head and Tory to UKIP defectors were the kind of people who had sex with vacuums.
Perhaps you should do a similar blog about Sol, you'll find it cathartic.
English VI figures in Ashcroft LAB – 31% CON – 30% UKIP – 20% GRN – 9% LDEM – 7%
It's the real thing.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/20/ukip-calypso-song-number-one-nigel-farage-mike-read
Consider me stunned, I was about to embarrass myself on another site swearing blind it was an anti kipper spoof.
Read has form, once rapped at Tory conference.
UKIP do seem to be attracting former Tory fruitcakes and loons.
The interesting question is whether they were fruitcakes and loons when they were with the Tory Party, or did they only acquire that status upon joining UKIP?
This chimes with my theory that UKIP are doing the Tories a long-term favour by siphoning off the more extreme elements, councillors, MPs maybe and voters. UKIP will be the 'nasty' party, Tories will be de-toxified provided they don't follow in UKIP's wake. Of course it's not helping the Tories in the short term.
Nice theory. Fails the practical.
Carswell and Reckless - fruitcakes and loons? Tories better off without them?
Hmmmm.
To the right of the party and obsessed by Europe. Fruitcakes and loons are your words.
Watcher's words. See previous quotes.
Don't think I labelled Carswell and Reckless 'fruitcakes and loons'. How's Putney?
No, Watcher did, and that's what I was responding to.
Putney fine. How you?
No, you just indicated that the Tories were losing their 'fruitcakes and loons' to UKIP. So I kind of suggested Carswell and Reckless didn't really qualify for that tag. Now you agree, which is nice, and kind of concedes the point.
This is getting boring.
Real life: Mike Read renders satire unnecessary.
Pat McFadden in as Shadow Europe Minister. Three other changes due
At the ballot box people will reject the politics of separatism and petty Nationalism just like the sensible Scots will.
Need to be further in front. Get your finger out Ed - the planets are aligning perfectly, don't screw it up...
Double standards and all that..............
Its very simple lives are not going to improve that much until we stop borrowing money and start paying off our debt.
What should also be worrying Labour mightily is the resurgence of the Greens, not insofar that they will many seats (if any), but the damage they could inflict in the tight marginals. Labour should also worry about the spectre of the SNP winning up to 20 seats in Scotland according to the latest polling, principally at their expense.
The GE outcome isn't decided yet, not by a long chalk. NOM still looks like the best bet.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins
Oh, well, back to the other Ed's cock-up of the day
@WillardFoxton: £40k earning threshold, you don't tax millionaire heirs (unless they get jobs) and *do* tax a couple both earning the average wage. #sigh
Never mind, Lucky, he's not the first show-biz person to embarrass his political Party. I doubt he'll be the last.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsokGIeQFFI
If Labour poll 36% they should be home. If they poll 31%, they have much more to worry about. Sure, if the Tories only score 28%, they might be all right - though it's a mightily weak mandate - but that Tory score is to some extent a coincidence: it's not low because Labour is low and they can't rely on it staying low.
What's strange is the combinations, with Populus giving Lab+Con at 70% and Ashcroft down at 59%. If someone said there were two polls, with a Con range of 28-34 and Lab range of 31-36, you'd expect a 36-28 and a 31-34, not what we've got.
You should be civil to other posters.
Business is a global affair these days and if the UK is not competing there are plenty of other countries will compete and welcome these business people and entrepreneurs to set up in their country.
It is a work of sheer genius. Please can it be as widely disseminated as possible, ideally get to No 1, and be given the widest possible exposure?
If someone in UKIP thinks it will help them, then they're a bigger bunch of fruitcakes and loonies than I feared!
Double Agent Mike Read - I salute you, I am sure you will get a knighthood for your services to the Tory Party and the nation....
"You should be civil to other posters."
All of them?
Really? Even SeanT? That's going to be tough.
Today's populus has low 2010L retention which is consistent with the past few. Similarly 2010LD to G remains high but not as high as today's ANP.
Say 2017, and about the time that there should have been a referendum conducted on Cameron's terms. Perhaps they're playing the long game?
That said, I'd be delighted if Labour were to go into an election with such a programme.
£3K per year, gesture politics at its very best. Only £250 per month if your house is worth £2m or more. Might frighten some horses, but will it really bring in enough revenue? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29691283
If you aren't already on Labour's core strategic planning team, you should be.
Ah, the Labour way.
Import Third World immigrants.
Forbid entrance to UK citizens.
The fact is that 45% of people blew a giant raspberry at the assorted collection of big businesses and other rich people and their self-proclaimed "economic realities". Anything like that scale in an election would give a victory.
http://www.itv.com/news/granada/2014-10-20/ukip-deputy-leader-paul-nuttall-im-not-bungle/
People don't buy this scaremongering any more.
The Tories spent years saying the sky would fall in if the UK lost its credit rating. Gideon then proceeded to trash the UK's rating, nothing happened.
Be careful what you wish for, as the old saying goes. Coalition government is looking seriously close to fatal for them at the moment. They deserve better but it doesn't look as if they are going to get it.
Maybe they´re taking their cue from Balls.
REd doesn´t even pretend. And so quite happily ignores the topic.
"(I've priced it at 77p - Amazon wouldn't let me make it free, otherwise I would have - on the age-old philosophy of drawing you in with the first one
I tend to agree with Mr Dancer, who has more experience.
I suspect getting a publisher is a matter of luck, and even if you find a niche one, there are some disadvantages. Wild Wolf have been great and it does take the hassle away, but I wouldn't dare suggest pricing to them.
Mind you, having Ukip in charge could be "dark and edgy" (in the nicest possible way).
However, if you continue to run a structural deficit year after year, you will eventually default: that is simple mathematics. It can take a long time but the end result is inevitable.
@MShapland: We need an anti Calypso song, Perhaps 'Relax, don't do it, when you want to vote UKIP'
Just checking.
"I think you may find the definition of a 'tax haven' is somewhere HMG can't tax. "
It wouldn't be mine.
A tax haven to me is any jurisdiction you use for the purposes of lowering your effective tax rate. We tend to think of them as small exotic countries with nice climates but literally anywhere can be a tax haven, depending on what sorts of transactions you have in mind. For example, the UK can be a very good tax haven in some cases, especially if you are a multi-national wanting to invest inside the EU and need to maximise tax relief on business interest payments.
When I was in the biz, we used to use The Netherlands a lot, for mixing dividends. Not the first country you think of as a tax haven, eh? Singapore is useful for avoiding capital gains tax on investments in India. Cyprus is generally handy for investing in the Emirates. Nice places, but not the caribbean idylls of popular imagination.
A lot of tosh is talked about tax havens, often by politicians. You can no more get rid of them than you can abolish sin. What you can do is regulate them so that they facilitate international trade rather than harm it. A lot of good work has been done in this area in the past few decades and I guess it will carry on despite becoming something of a political football but it would be helpful if we started by acknowledging that ALL tax regimes can be used for tax avoidance purposes and that all tax avoidance is not necessarily bad.
[Note the distinction between avoidance and evasion. I am sure you appreciate it, but some use the terms as synonymous, when they are in fact as chalk and cheese.]
The commenters are invariably pleasant and helpful, and often have an astonishing amount of relevant information and helpful feedback.
I found that the very action of committing to a weekly update schedule for new chapters was very helpful at focussing me to produce the output and the feedback definitely improved my writing.
Everyone's got their own writing strategy: mine was to work out what the broad story is first (where it'll end up and more or less why it's a story at all), have a broadbrush outline, and then just write. One thing that many have said is that one key is just to finish the first draft rather than go back again and again to perfect it.
But head on over to alternatehistory.com if you haven't already.
LOL! LOL! LOL!
Which is why the country cannot afford ever-lower rates of tax, which is why Cameron's unfunded tax cut promise the other week was so desperate and irresponsible.
To be clear: I'd be delighted if Labour campaigned on your platform because I have enough faith in the electorate that they would see through such nonsense.
What Government needs to do is stand up to multinationals, break up monopolies, and stimulate competition in every industry. Then stand back and allow small and medium sized firms to grow. Not punish personal wealth.
They are the authoritarian, corporatist political wing of anti-competitive moguls, big business, oligopolies and oligarchs.
I've written a few over there - I tend to avoid the "big ticket" items - I leave military campaigns and wars to others as grand histories. I tend to write from the focus of individuals so it becomes a series of vignettes set against events.
As an example, I wrote about FWoAD from the perspective of a candidate, a party worker, a SPAD and a journalist among others. I also wrote in real time and in hindsight (Mike Smithson of politichat at a symposium about the election). I did an extract of five minutes from the fictional politichat from election night - the content is different but the style is a direct lift from PB (as are one or two of the "names")
If I ever get the chance to write AH again, I'd rather write a set of vignettes - a family having breakfast or a woman on a train and paint the alternate world around them in terms of the everyday changes and that's what makes you think.
My point is that so many on the Right around the world now actually say that, when it comes to the economy and public spending, the public's views don't matter and it's all about what the (unelected) "markets" will allow. I mean, to state the obvious, what is actually the point in having elections if no choice on the economy is "allowed"? Elites in their ivory towers can dismiss it all they want, but the fact is there's HUGE numbers of people out there who are angry that their own elected governments refuse to actually exercise any power or put their own voters' views ahead of global "realities" (whether that's on immigration or on the economy/spending/control over businesses and rich people).
When I can drag myself away from here, I intend to wrap up WWI by the end of 1916 this evening (the starting point for which is William Howard Taft being appointed to the Supreme court in 1906, out of interest).
Apologies if I have got any of these wrong.
I'm pretty close to rcs1000 prediction earlier. But I think fate may deal the Conservatives something closer to 320 seats, rather than 330.
I think they'd take a minority on that basis, with SNP abstention and DUP support for confidence and supply, that'd work.
Did I mention I'm on a Con minority at 10/1?
Once again, if all people are going to do is micro-analyse every poll ad infinitum I strongly suggest they appropriate something called a life.
Are you?
30% voted for Gordon´s madness.
Up to 35% say they will vote for REd (not sure if it will be that much though).
I did re-do it into 3rd person and align it closer with the sequel (serialised as "Maybe The Horse Will Learn To Sing"; to be made available as "The Fifth Lectern"), so it should be improved from the draft.