Speaking of online bookies, The Daily Telegraph reports this morning that:
SKY SELLS SKY BET
The broadcaster has sold a controlling stake in its bookmaker arm to the private equity group CVC Capital as it attempts to focus on its battle with BT.
Sky Bet, which sponsors the Football League, will go for around £800m and Sky will keep a 20pc stake. It will also license the name.
Phew ..... £800m, for a relative new boy on the block, that's not so far short of Ladbrokes, that once all-conquering giant amongst bookies, currently valued at £1.017bn.
Mr. Rottenborough, a good point on the sinking ship that is the eurozone. We're not aboard, but we may get dragged down.
Mr Morris
Well when all is obviously lost then a good captain stands clear, protects his own vessel and then and only then moves in to pick up any survivors as best he / she can
@MarkitEconomics: French ILO #unemployment rate rises to 10.4% in Q3 (10.1% in Q2)
So Ed, how is France's bold new vision for the economy working out then...?
Superb
Can't wait until May when Labour get in and then we can follow France as Ed wants us too
"What President Hollande is seeking to do in France and what he is seeking to do in leading the debate in Europe is find that different way forward. We are in agreement in seeking that new way that needs to be found and I think can be found."
Labour are a party without a plan or a vision that reflects the reality of the world we live in.
As was mentioned last week, they have to decide what they are for first. Its not enough to be "not the Tories"
Disagree. It may easily be enough to be "not the Tories".
The Tories are nasty, corrupt, in it for themselves and their fat-cat bankster buddies, and don't care for the poor, sick or disabled.
Not being the Tories gets them instantly a very decent core and then if they promise to copy the Cons that will get them a few more and then if they have a moment of clarity and some fancy policy (just needs one by now) that will sweep up a few more.
Could easily do it.
Although recent experience shows Labour to be as or more corrupt, in hock to vested interests as much or more, at least as nasty in many ways, as or more duplicitous and less competent.
In spite of reality, many will see it as you describe it. Largely because Labour has ownership of friendly language and words, not because they are any better or that the motives they have are any better.
Labour are a party without a plan or a vision that reflects the reality of the world we live in.
As was mentioned last week, they have to decide what they are for first. Its not enough to be "not the Tories"
Disagree. It may easily be enough to be "not the Tories".
The Tories are nasty, corrupt, in it for themselves and their fat-cat bankster buddies, and don't care for the poor, sick or disabled.
Not being the Tories gets them instantly a very decent core and then if they promise to copy the Cons that will get them a few more and then if they have a moment of clarity and some fancy policy (just needs one by now) that will sweep up a few more.
Could easily do it.
How can they call the Cons nasty, and then promise to copy them, if the public are stupid enough to buy that double-think, they deserve a Labour government. Incidentally since you mention "corrupt" what about Dodgy Dossiers, Cash for Influence, Cash for Peerages, Cash for Honours, Falkirk etc
No mention of the Big Society on this thread, which just happened to be the centrepiece of the Tories' 2010 Election campaign.
This abysmal failure means there is no replacement for the services cut by the Tories.
Labour will easily win the next election because of this.
I disagree. The public thought The Big Society was bullshit, and it completely failed to resonate, they can hardly miss something they didn't believe in the first place.
Should OGH have any more of those books to offer as prizes, perhaps we could have a competition based on YouGov's high and low poll ratings for the Tories between now and Christmas, coupled perhaps with a suitable tie-breaker question. He could give that wonderful new competition recording software another run out.
Labour are a party without a plan or a vision that reflects the reality of the world we live in.
As was mentioned last week, they have to decide what they are for first. Its not enough to be "not the Tories"
Disagree. It may easily be enough to be "not the Tories".
The Tories are nasty, corrupt, in it for themselves and their fat-cat bankster buddies, and don't care for the poor, sick or disabled.
Not being the Tories gets them instantly a very decent core and then if they promise to copy the Cons that will get them a few more and then if they have a moment of clarity and some fancy policy (just needs one by now) that will sweep up a few more.
Could easily do it.
How can they call the Cons nasty, and then promise to copy them, if the public are stupid enough to buy that double-think, they deserve a Labour government. Incidentally since you mention "corrupt" what about Dodgy Dossiers, Cash for Influence, Cash for Peerages, Cash for Honours etc
Of course. All valid points. It's bonkers. Cutting the deficit too quickly/slowly, giving more or less unfunded money to the NHS, in/out of Europe. It's all a crock of s**t.
But it's where UK politics is at the moment.
Cons = nasty Lab = caring
but also
Cons = competent Lab = incompetent
It's only the acute self-interest of the electorate, because after all the UK is still in peril economically, that the Cons' competence may manage to win it.
Balls reminds me of those people who see a crowd chanting and joins in the chant (just to feel part of something which seems important at that moment) without having a clue about what is going on?
BTW what has happened to his flat-lining gestures at PMQs?
There will of course be more of this sort of thing as devolution deepens and broadens. Allegedly (BBC Wales news) officials in Cardiff were beavering away on stamp duty changes till yesterday and are now having a rethink and are likely to end up with something not dissimilar from England as they can see the pitfalls of getting too far out of line (ie a sucking sound as English lower taxes attract people).
I suspect income tax in Wales, were it devolved, would have to be set in the context of its next door neighbour too.
Still given Scots get all kinds of freebies (tuition fees, old age care, etc), it's revealing to see a financial "downside" to devolution north of the border for once.
Labour are a party without a plan or a vision that reflects the reality of the world we live in.
As was mentioned last week, they have to decide what they are for first. Its not enough to be "not the Tories"
Disagree. It may easily be enough to be "not the Tories".
The Tories are nasty, corrupt, in it for themselves and their fat-cat bankster buddies, and don't care for the poor, sick or disabled.
Not being the Tories gets them instantly a very decent core and then if they promise to copy the Cons that will get them a few more and then if they have a moment of clarity and some fancy policy (just needs one by now) that will sweep up a few more.
Could easily do it.
How can they call the Cons nasty, and then promise to copy them, if the public are stupid enough to buy that double-think, they deserve a Labour government. Incidentally since you mention "corrupt" what about Dodgy Dossiers, Cash for Influence, Cash for Peerages, Cash for Honours etc
Of course. All valid points. It's bonkers. Cutting the deficit too quickly/slowly, giving more or less unfunded money to the NHS, in/out of Europe. It's all a crock of s**t.
But it's where UK politics is at the moment.
Cons = nasty Lab = caring
but also
Cons = competent Lab = incompetent
It's only the acute self-interest of the electorate, because after all the UK is still in peril economically, that the Cons' competence may manage to win it.
Populus did a poll for the FT that puts that 'Conservatives perceived as competent' in doubt.
The 'long-term economic plan' is seen as being only in the interests of "people in London, Big Business, and the comfortably off".
Speaking of the UKIPalypse, got some electoral stuff from them the other day. So far, it's just (over the last few years) been the reds and blues. This may end up feeling like a three-way contest. I suspect that'll help Balls.
All those completing on their home sales in the next few days will have quite a few more pounds in their pockets - what a timely gift from HMRC.
I'm in my 70's and have bought three and sold two houses in my 50+ married years. I'm not likely to sell my present abode. The change in stamp duty will benefit my grandchildren, might benefit my children, but how will it benefit me?
Well - maybe it won't but as a pensioner, like me, unless you're a millionaire you have done extremely well over the last few years with above inflation increases. Maybe you should consider the possibility that it's not all about you?:)
Balls reminds me of those people who see a crowd chanting and joins in the chant (just to feel part of something which seems important at that moment) without having a clue about what is going on?
BTW what has happened to his flat-lining gestures at PMQs?
Now apparently with the same hand pointing at the ceiling
Oops!! sorry ....that was a previous fancy dress photo...my mistake
Speaking of the UKIPalypse, got some electoral stuff from them the other day. So far, it's just (over the last few years) been the reds and blues. This may end up feeling like a three-way contest. I suspect that'll help Balls.
Take the red pill Mr Dancer. It's a two way contest, change vs no-change.
Should OGH have any more of those books to offer as prizes, perhaps we could have a competition based on YouGov's high and low poll ratings for the Tories between now and Christmas, coupled perhaps with a suitable tie-breaker question. He could give that wonderful new competition recording software another run out.
Interesting thought. I have been trying to think of new competitions using the NoJam widget. Don't worry about prizes - I'm sure the publishers, Biteback, will donate more to PB given all the publicity the site has given them. Problem with CON hi-lo ratings is that there aren't that many combinations.
Labour are a party without a plan or a vision that reflects the reality of the world we live in.
As was mentioned last week, they have to decide what they are for first. Its not enough to be "not the Tories"
Disagree. It may easily be enough to be "not the Tories".
The Tories are nasty, corrupt, in it for themselves and their fat-cat bankster buddies, and don't care for the poor, sick or disabled.
Not being the Tories gets them instantly a very decent core and then if they promise to copy the Cons that will get them a few more and then if they have a moment of clarity and some fancy policy (just needs one by now) that will sweep up a few more.
Could easily do it.
How can they call the Cons nasty, and then promise to copy them, if the public are stupid enough to buy that double-think, they deserve a Labour government. Incidentally since you mention "corrupt" what about Dodgy Dossiers, Cash for Influence, Cash for Peerages, Cash for Honours etc
Of course. All valid points. It's bonkers. Cutting the deficit too quickly/slowly, giving more or less unfunded money to the NHS, in/out of Europe. It's all a crock of s**t.
But it's where UK politics is at the moment.
Cons = nasty Lab = caring
but also
Cons = competent Lab = incompetent
It's only the acute self-interest of the electorate, because after all the UK is still in peril economically, that the Cons' competence may manage to win it.
Populus did a poll for the FT that puts that 'Conservatives perceived as competent' in doubt.
The 'long-term economic plan' is seen as being only in the interests of "people in London, Big Business, and the comfortably off".
twitter.com/Nye_Rick/status/540067463984349184
twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/540272644655173632
Thing is, in this context people means a few tens of thousands of people in marginal seats. It doesnt really matter if thousands of left leaners in Central Birmingham, or Tower Hamlets think Osborne is an incompetent nincompoop, because a) they were never going to vote for him anyway, and b) the few that might have considered voting for him would never make any difference to the labour majority anyway.
Balls reminds me of those people who see a crowd chanting and joins in the chant (just to feel part of something which seems important at that moment) without having a clue about what is going on?
BTW what has happened to his flat-lining gestures at PMQs?
There has also been "too far too fast" Cost of living crisis" etc etc. Labour have had to invent lines of defence because Osborne was doing what they would have had to do but couldn't admit that Osborne was right.
Labour started 4-0 down at the kick off, not much has changed bar the pasty nonsense/..
So, when you win 80 seats in 2015 and become a key part of the next Coalition government, how will you reduce spending by £100 billion?
(Specifics please. And "Europe" is unrealistic - the net cost is probably about £10bn, but a it's likely that much of that spending would be replaced by UK equivalent programmes)
There are some listed on UKIP's website, it is pretty thin.
But Labour, Conservatives and LDs have proven their unwillingness to cut spending in government so UKIP win the 'fiscal conservative' contest by default.
"Reducing debts we leave to our grandchildren
– UKIP will leave the EU and save at least £8bn pa in net contributions.
– UKIP will cut the foreign aid budget by £9bn pa, prioritising disaster relief and schemes which provide water and inoculation against preventable diseases.
– UKIP will scrap the HS2 project which is uneconomical and unjustified.
– UKIP will abolish the Department of Energy and Climate Change and scrap green subsidies.
– UKIP will abolish the Department for Culture Media and Sport.
– UKIP will reduce Barnett Formula spending and give devolved parliaments and assemblies further tax powers to compensate."
A lot of the EU spending may need to be recycled (eg farming support). You may do it differently, or not at all, but it's not just as simple as "cut the EU". Let's give you a £3bn saving.
Foreign Aid has some value beyond disaster relief: it's trying to build up countries to reduce future radicalism and to make them valuable trade partners. But I'll given you £5bn
HS2 won't save much from the current deficit
Energy - not sure what the budget is, so let's give you £5bn. But I very much doubt you can cut day 1 & not cause chaos in energy security. Good that you are so keen on Putin, I guess, 'cos you'll need him when the lights go out
Culture Media & Sport - again, don't know the budget, so let's give you £5bn. I guess you can always shut the National Gallery and sell the collection - only foreigners go anyway, and who cares about all those French and Italian artists.
- Shifting tax from the UK to regional governments doesn't really count towards reducing the deficit - just shifting money around.
So that's £20bn (and I'm being generous). Where is the other £80bn coming from?
Labour are a party without a plan or a vision that reflects the reality of the world we live in.
As was mentioned last week, they have to decide what they are for first. Its not enough to be "not the Tories"
Disagree. It may easily be enough to be "not the Tories".
The Tories are nasty, corrupt, in it for themselves and their fat-cat bankster buddies, and don't care for the poor, sick or disabled.
Not being the Tories gets them instantly a very decent core and then if they promise to copy the Cons that will get them a few more and then if they have a moment of clarity and some fancy policy (just needs one by now) that will sweep up a few more.
Could easily do it.
How can they call the Cons nasty, and then promise to copy them, if the public are stupid enough to buy that double-think, they deserve a Labour government. Incidentally since you mention "corrupt" what about Dodgy Dossiers, Cash for Influence, Cash for Peerages, Cash for Honours etc
Of course. All valid points. It's bonkers. Cutting the deficit too quickly/slowly, giving more or less unfunded money to the NHS, in/out of Europe. It's all a crock of s**t.
But it's where UK politics is at the moment.
Cons = nasty Lab = caring
but also
Cons = competent Lab = incompetent
It's only the acute self-interest of the electorate, because after all the UK is still in peril economically, that the Cons' competence may manage to win it.
Populus did a poll for the FT that puts that 'Conservatives perceived as competent' in doubt.
The 'long-term economic plan' is seen as being only in the interests of "people in London, Big Business, and the comfortably off".
twitter.com/Nye_Rick/status/540067463984349184
twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/540272644655173632
Thing is, in this context people means a few tens of thousands of people in marginal seats. It doesnt really matter if thousands of left leaners in Central Birmingham, or Tower Hamlets think Osborne is an incompetent nincompoop, because a) they were never going to vote for him anyway, and b) the few that might have considered voting for him would never make any difference to the labour majority anyway.
The Conservatives have been marooned ~31% for the past year. They are not on track for a win in 2015.
Letwin has in the past told a group of business people in his West Dorset constituency that within 5 years of a Tory government the NHS will not exist.Osborne is by stealth following the 'shrink the state and any vestiges of altruism agenda.' If the Tory party come to power you will have to rely on your own resources.Sometimes 'cake'will be thrown to the masses such as the stamp duty flavour but on the whole it will be 'spend your own money on staying healthy.'Letwin is still underground planning the next round of cuts, his is the brain which shapes the agenda , George and Dave are the two puppets and mouthpieces.
No mention of the Big Society on this thread, which just happened to be the centrepiece of the Tories' 2010 Election campaign.
This abysmal failure means there is no replacement for the services cut by the Tories.
Labour will easily win the next election because of this.
I disagree. The public thought The Big Society was bullshit, and it completely failed to resonate, they can hardly miss something they didn't believe in the first place.
The Big Society has indeed proved to be bullshit.
It is the services it was supposed to provide that will be missed.
The Tories simply don't have an alternative to State Welfare and Public Services.
So Labour it is, as they actually believe in that and the public hasn't a clue about deficits.
Letwin has in the past told a group of business people in his West Dorset constituency that within 5 years of a Tory government the NHS will not exist.Osborne is by stealth following the 'shrink the state and any vestiges of altruism agenda.' If the Tory party come to power you will have to rely on your own resources.Sometimes 'cake'will be thrown to the masses such as the stamp duty flavour but on the whole it will be 'spend your own money on staying healthy.'Letwin is still underground planning the next round of cuts, his is the brain which shapes the agenda , George and Dave are the two puppets and mouthpieces.
Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay......
The lack of anything to say on the economy has the Labour loons reaching for the tin-foil....
Should OGH have any more of those books to offer as prizes, perhaps we could have a competition based on YouGov's high and low poll ratings for the Tories between now and Christmas, coupled perhaps with a suitable tie-breaker question. He could give that wonderful new competition recording software another run out.
Interesting thought. I have been trying to think of new competitions using the NoJam widget. Don't worry about prizes - I'm sure the publishers, Biteback, will donate more to PB given all the publicity the site has given them. Problem with CON hi-lo ratings is that there aren't that many combinations.
"Problem with CON hi-lo ratings is that there aren't that many combinations." True enough Mike, hence the need for an "interesting" tie-breaker. I suggested this particular competition as (1) the Tories' progress or otherwise post the Autumn Statement could prove crucial to their GE hopes and (2) I have a suspicion that there could be considerable volatility in the level of their VI support over the next three weeks.
So, when you win 80 seats in 2015 and become a key part of the next Coalition government, how will you reduce spending by £100 billion?
(Specifics please. And "Europe" is unrealistic - the net cost is probably about £10bn, but a it's likely that much of that spending would be replaced by UK equivalent programmes)
There are some listed on UKIP's website, it is pretty thin.
But Labour, Conservatives and LDs have proven their unwillingness to cut spending in government so UKIP win the 'fiscal conservative' contest by default.
"Reducing debts we leave to our grandchildren
– UKIP will leave the EU and save at least £8bn pa in net contributions.
– UKIP will cut the foreign aid budget by £9bn pa, prioritising disaster relief and schemes which provide water and inoculation against preventable diseases.
– UKIP will scrap the HS2 project which is uneconomical and unjustified.
– UKIP will abolish the Department of Energy and Climate Change and scrap green subsidies.
– UKIP will abolish the Department for Culture Media and Sport.
– UKIP will reduce Barnett Formula spending and give devolved parliaments and assemblies further tax powers to compensate."
A lot of the EU spending may need to be recycled (eg farming support). You may do it differently, or not at all, but it's not just as simple as "cut the EU". Let's give you a £3bn saving.
Foreign Aid has some value beyond disaster relief: it's trying to build up countries to reduce future radicalism and to make them valuable trade partners. But I'll given you £5bn
HS2 won't save much from the current deficit
Energy - not sure what the budget is, so let's give you £5bn. But I very much doubt you can cut day 1 & not cause chaos in energy security. Good that you are so keen on Putin, I guess, 'cos you'll need him when the lights go out
Culture Media & Sport - again, don't know the budget, so let's give you £5bn. I guess you can always shut the National Gallery and sell the collection - only foreigners go anyway, and who cares about all those French and Italian artists.
- Shifting tax from the UK to regional governments doesn't really count towards reducing the deficit - just shifting money around.
So that's £20bn (and I'm being generous). Where is the other £80bn coming from?
A lot of the EU spending may need to be recycled (eg farming support). You may do it differently, or not at all, but it's not just as simple as "cut the EU". Let's give you a £3bn saving.
Foreign Aid has some value beyond disaster relief: it's trying to build up countries to reduce future radicalism and to make them valuable trade partners. But I'll given you £5bn
HS2 won't save much from the current deficit
Energy - not sure what the budget is, so let's give you £5bn. But I very much doubt you can cut day 1 & not cause chaos in energy security. Good that you are so keen on Putin, I guess, 'cos you'll need him when the lights go out
Culture Media & Sport - again, don't know the budget, so let's give you £5bn. I guess you can always shut the National Gallery and sell the collection - only foreigners go anyway, and who cares about all those French and Italian artists.
- Shifting tax from the UK to regional governments doesn't really count towards reducing the deficit - just shifting money around.
So that's £20bn (and I'm being generous). Where is the other £80bn coming from?
.
EU, -no the figure is nett not gross. It already accounts for EU spending in the UK.
HS2 -It's avoiding another white elephant. Imagine if we'd never signed up for the Euro-fighter.
-Energy is not a government spending item. It's an end user item. Business (esp manufacturing), and consumer. Think of it as a tax cut that doesn't reduce government revenue.
- I said it was thin, but they're the only ones even trying.
39% of those who said they always knew how they were going to vote cited the pound as a top issue, longer than a year (so before Osborne's speech) is a further 37%.
Letwin has in the past told a group of business people in his West Dorset constituency that within 5 years of a Tory government the NHS will not exist.Osborne is by stealth following the 'shrink the state and any vestiges of altruism agenda.' If the Tory party come to power you will have to rely on your own resources.Sometimes 'cake'will be thrown to the masses such as the stamp duty flavour but on the whole it will be 'spend your own money on staying healthy.'Letwin is still underground planning the next round of cuts, his is the brain which shapes the agenda , George and Dave are the two puppets and mouthpieces.
The Telegraph @Telegraph 1h1 hour ago Nigel Farage wears the wrong trousers after a champagne-fulled stumble at Gogglebox guesthouse http://fw.to/SfPAoPO
The emerging back to the 1930s meme is potentially damaging.
While 1932 had grim figures, from 1933 onwards Britain had growth of 4% a year, even before re-armament, and largely based on the new industries, as well as housebuilding:
But do bear in mind that Chamberlain was a poor PM but a great CoE; so stick to what you know George!
Chamberlain as Chancellor had considerable assistance from a certain Lord Keynes who was given astonishing influence and control over economic policy.
George is a very clever boy and by far the best political operator in this country currently active. Only Mandelson has matched him in recent times. To generate so many positive headlines out of a statement that actually increased the squeeze on the state took real skill.
He also had a lot of success in framing the debate for the next election in the terms he needed. If the critique of his performance is that he has not been clear enough where the remaining 60% of cuts are to come from or that he has failed to cut the deficit aggressively enough (both true in their way) it leaves Balls with nothing to contribute to a debate to which the Labour position looks completely irrelevant.
It really didn't have to be this way but if you want a centre left critique of Osborne at the next election you will need to listen to Cable or Alexander who accept the broad direction but think tax increases should bear far more of the load than spending cuts (I largely agree with them too). Labour could and should be making that case but that would have required some serious work over the last 4 years instead of wandering about with a blank sheet of paper refusing to make choices.
Letwin has in the past told a group of business people in his West Dorset constituency that within 5 years of a Tory government the NHS will not exist.Osborne is by stealth following the 'shrink the state and any vestiges of altruism agenda.' If the Tory party come to power you will have to rely on your own resources.Sometimes 'cake'will be thrown to the masses such as the stamp duty flavour but on the whole it will be 'spend your own money on staying healthy.'Letwin is still underground planning the next round of cuts, his is the brain which shapes the agenda , George and Dave are the two puppets and mouthpieces.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab): I am absolutely delighted to be supported by the trade union movement. May I ask the Prime Minister why he has not sacked his NHS adviser, Mark Britnell, who said that the NHS would be shown “no mercy”, and that the reforms would be a “big opportunity” for private profit and would transform the NHS into an “insurance provider, not a state deliverer"?
The Prime Minister: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to clear this up. When I read about Mr Britnell being my adviser, I was slightly puzzled, because I have never heard of this person in my life, and he is not my adviser. However, I did a little research, and it turned out that he was an adviser to the previous Government. [Hon. Members: “More!”] Oh, don’t worry, there is plenty more. He helped to develop Labour’s NHS plan in 2000, which increased the role of the private sector, he was appointed by Labour as chief executive of one of the 10 strategic health authorities set up by Labour, and when the Leader of the Opposition was in the Cabinet, Mark Britnell was director general for NHS commissioning. Although I do not know him, therefore, I suspect that Labour Members know him rather well.
No mention of the Big Society on this thread, which just happened to be the centrepiece of the Tories' 2010 Election campaign.
This abysmal failure means there is no replacement for the services cut by the Tories.
Labour will easily win the next election because of this.
I disagree. The public thought The Big Society was bullshit, and it completely failed to resonate, they can hardly miss something they didn't believe in the first place.
The Big Society has indeed proved to be bullshit.
It is the services it was supposed to provide that will be missed.
The Tories simply don't have an alternative to State Welfare and Public Services.
So Labour it is, as they actually believe in that and the public hasn't a clue about deficits.
Many of the functions still go on: the churches are very active, and there is a huge upswell of innovative small organisations (we see a significant flow through our Foundation each year). Community centres are also getting much more creative about developing sustainable long-term financing sources.
But it lacks the pretty wrapper called the "Big Society" which the Guardian reading liberal lefties laughed to death. Precisely because they don't understand and don't appreciate the British culture of volunteering. It's a real shame because it was a very powerful concept that was badly marketed.
Letwin has in the past told a group of business people in his West Dorset constituency that within 5 years of a Tory government the NHS will not exist.Osborne is by stealth following the 'shrink the state and any vestiges of altruism agenda.' If the Tory party come to power you will have to rely on your own resources.Sometimes 'cake'will be thrown to the masses such as the stamp duty flavour but on the whole it will be 'spend your own money on staying healthy.'Letwin is still underground planning the next round of cuts, his is the brain which shapes the agenda , George and Dave are the two puppets and mouthpieces.
If you're going to create an evil genius, you need one who looks as though he could convey menace while stroking a white Persian, not one who looks as though he could convey haplessness while tying his own shoelaces.
The Telegraph @Telegraph 1h1 hour ago Nigel Farage wears the wrong trousers after a champagne-fulled stumble at Gogglebox guesthouse http://fw.to/SfPAoPO
The Telegraph needs some decent editors.
Looks like a great time was had by all present.
..... and drinking beer out of Champagne flutes, doesn't that tell us something about Farage?
Letwin has in the past told a group of business people in his West Dorset constituency that within 5 years of a Tory government the NHS will not exist.Osborne is by stealth following the 'shrink the state and any vestiges of altruism agenda.' If the Tory party come to power you will have to rely on your own resources.Sometimes 'cake'will be thrown to the masses such as the stamp duty flavour but on the whole it will be 'spend your own money on staying healthy.'Letwin is still underground planning the next round of cuts, his is the brain which shapes the agenda , George and Dave are the two puppets and mouthpieces.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab): I am absolutely delighted to be supported by the trade union movement. May I ask the Prime Minister why he has not sacked his NHS adviser, Mark Britnell, who said that the NHS would be shown “no mercy”, and that the reforms would be a “big opportunity” for private profit and would transform the NHS into an “insurance provider, not a state deliverer"?
The Prime Minister: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to clear this up. When I read about Mr Britnell being my adviser, I was slightly puzzled, because I have never heard of this person in my life, and he is not my adviser. However, I did a little research, and it turned out that he was an adviser to the previous Government. [Hon. Members: “More!”] Oh, don’t worry, there is plenty more. He helped to develop Labour’s NHS plan in 2000, which increased the role of the private sector, he was appointed by Labour as chief executive of one of the 10 strategic health authorities set up by Labour, and when the Leader of the Opposition was in the Cabinet, Mark Britnell was director general for NHS commissioning. Although I do not know him, therefore, I suspect that Labour Members know him rather well.
That was probably the highlight of PMQs in this Parliament. Point gun at foot and fire.
All those completing on their home sales in the next few days will have quite a few more pounds in their pockets - what a timely gift from HMRC.
I'm in my 70's and have bought three and sold two houses in my 50+ married years. I'm not likely to sell my present abode. The change in stamp duty will benefit my grandchildren, might benefit my children, but how will it benefit me?
Not everything in life needs to benefit pensioners. There are other generations. Some folk in an older generation also do care about the younger generation. Maybe that is not you?
The Telegraph @Telegraph 1h1 hour ago Nigel Farage wears the wrong trousers after a champagne-fulled stumble at Gogglebox guesthouse http://fw.to/SfPAoPO
The Telegraph needs some decent editors.
Looks like a great time was had by all present.
Where's that red button ...... hic ....... it was here ....... hic ...... a moment ago ....... hic.
The Telegraph @Telegraph 1h1 hour ago Nigel Farage wears the wrong trousers after a champagne-fulled stumble at Gogglebox guesthouse http://fw.to/SfPAoPO
The Telegraph needs some decent editors.
Looks like a great time was had by all present.
..... and drinking beer out of Champagne flutes, doesn't that tell us something about Farage?
Yep, it tells us that Nigel farage is not bothered by the shape of the vessel he is drinking from. To tell you a secret, I'm not bothered either.
What I continue to find hilarious is that Labour, the people who created the car crash, are those complaining the loudest about how Osborne isn't clearing their mess up fast enough.
This suggests to me that Balls etc really do expect to win in May, and are absolutely furious ex ante that they will inherit not a fantastic economy a la 1997, nor even a recovered economy that they can deliberately wreck again, but one that is still recovering. Hence it will require stewardship well beyond their meagre competence.
It is laughable and not a little shameful that a party that aspires to government actually tacitly recognises that it needs to lose elections, so that the Tories can get in and fix the economy again. This allows the economy to create the wealth that Labour exists to squander. Labour, ludicrously, needs episodes of Conservative government to enable its own agenda, the reverse of which is clearly not true. It's similar to the way the USSR used to bang on about the inferiority of the capitalist model while relying on supplies of American wheat.
Its R4 Woman's Hour with Jane Garvey the ardent feminist etc etc.. Straight into females in porn, female ejaculation, ethical porn, sexual stereotyping in porn, sexist porn and later we have girl guides tackling unhealthy body talk.... Now Jane has asked the interviewee to explain what BDSM is, cattle prods....etc etc
Everytime she is on, divorced and single Jane has one thing on her mind.....
George's summary of what he announced in his latest e-mail:
"Today I announced:
We will overhaul stamp duty so that 98% of stamp duty payers pay less tax when they buy their home. We will continue to back businesses to create jobs in all parts of the country - with action on business rates and more help for the high street. We will abolish the employers' jobs tax on apprenticeships for people under 25 to help more young people get the skills they need. We will raise the personal allowance, and higher rate taxpayers will also benefit - a down payment on our commitments to raise the personal allowance to £12,500 and the higher rate threshold to £50,000 in the next parliament. We will cut tax for families by abolishing the air passenger duty paid for children. And we will support savers by letting husbands and wives inherit their partner's ISA and keep its tax-free status. "
Not a bad list really, given how little he had to play with.
I thought the most telling thing yesterday was not Osborne's Statement, which was modest (but effective) in its aims, but the total absence of an alternative Labour narrative on the economy. As someone who follows politics far too closely, I genuinely don't have a clue what Labour would be doing if now in power. If I don't know, what the hell are the punters who pay bugger all attention to politics to make of it?
In four months they will be on the campaign trail. Selling what? I am not getting any hints of an alternative to the Tories' "steady as she goes".
I thought the most telling thing yesterday was not Osborne's Statement, which was modest (but effective) in its aims, but the total absence of an alternative Labour narrative on the economy. As someone who follows politics far too closely, I genuinely don't have a clue what Labour would be doing if now in power. If I don't know, what the hell are the punters who pay bugger all attention to politics to make of it?
In four months they will be on the campaign trail. Selling what? I am not getting any hints of an alternative to the Tories' "steady as she goes".
Their manifesto is going to be a bundle of laughs. As will watching Ed explaining it for a month on the telly! ;-)
I thought the most telling thing yesterday was not Osborne's Statement, which was modest (but effective) in its aims, but the total absence of an alternative Labour narrative on the economy. As someone who follows politics far too closely, I genuinely don't have a clue what Labour would be doing if now in power. If I don't know, what the hell are the punters who pay bugger all attention to politics to make of it?
In four months they will be on the campaign trail. Selling what? I am not getting any hints of an alternative to the Tories' "steady as she goes".
My understanding, such as it is, is that Labour would:
Increase the HRT to 50% for those earning over £150K. Bring in a Mansion tax for properties over £2m(I think). Abolish the bedroom tax. Freeze energy prices (that are currently falling). Seek to freeze rents in some way I don't really follow. Change the borrowing targets to the extent that it would still be ok to borrow for "investment" rather than current spending. Possibly remove the cap on benefits payable.
After that I am struggling a bit. It is so far from an economic policy as to be embarrassing. If I have missed any Labour policies that supporters want to mention I would be grateful.
Edit. I think there is also a bankers bonus tax still paying for a lot of nice things. Not clear how that is going to work and whether it is still intended.
I thought the most telling thing yesterday was not Osborne's Statement, which was modest (but effective) in its aims, but the total absence of an alternative Labour narrative on the economy. As someone who follows politics far too closely, I genuinely don't have a clue what Labour would be doing if now in power. If I don't know, what the hell are the punters who pay bugger all attention to politics to make of it?
In four months they will be on the campaign trail. Selling what? I am not getting any hints of an alternative to the Tories' "steady as she goes".
Their manifesto is going to be a bundle of laughs. As will watching Ed explaining it for a month on the telly! ;-)
The BBC (and even The Guardian, albeit to denigrate it, but still) are using the phrase:
Matthew Goodwin @GoodwinMJ · 2h 2 hours ago A local by-election today in Thurrock. Serious 2015 observers should watch. Ukip's candidate is also their PPC for Thurrock in May.
Balls reminds me of those people who see a crowd chanting and joins in the chant (just to feel part of something which seems important at that moment) without having a clue about what is going on?
BTW what has happened to his flat-lining gestures at PMQs?
What the Conservatives want is for the election campaign to be about the economy and how we need to continue to make progress on the deficit. For that reason, Labour's current line - that Osborne has failed because he hasn't cut the deficit as quickly as originally hoped - is counter-productive. It puts them into the ludicrous position of criticising the government for not doing as much of something they previously told everyone that Osborne was doing too much of. 'Too far, too fast' and 'flat-lining' is now becoming 'not fast enough despite the best growth figures in Europe'.
In that sense, yes, Osborne has succeeded in changing the narrative, back to the ground he wants to fight on. For the moment Labour, inexplicably, are enthusiastically helping him with that. Presumably they'll soon realise their mistake, and go back to making up scare stories about the NHS.
The key question is whether Labour will be able to go into an election campaign without having anything to say on the economy. Last time, Lord Mandelson did a brilliant job in deflecting scrutiny away from Labour; there's no Lord Mandelson running things this time round.
Letwin has in the past told a group of business people in his West Dorset constituency that within 5 years of a Tory government the NHS will not exist.Osborne is by stealth following the 'shrink the state and any vestiges of altruism agenda.' If the Tory party come to power you will have to rely on your own resources.Sometimes 'cake'will be thrown to the masses such as the stamp duty flavour but on the whole it will be 'spend your own money on staying healthy.'Letwin is still underground planning the next round of cuts, his is the brain which shapes the agenda , George and Dave are the two puppets and mouthpieces.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab): I am absolutely delighted to be supported by the trade union movement. May I ask the Prime Minister why he has not sacked his NHS adviser, Mark Britnell, who said that the NHS would be shown “no mercy”, and that the reforms would be a “big opportunity” for private profit and would transform the NHS into an “insurance provider, not a state deliverer"?
The Prime Minister: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to clear this up. When I read about Mr Britnell being my adviser, I was slightly puzzled, because I have never heard of this person in my life, and he is not my adviser. However, I did a little research, and it turned out that he was an adviser to the previous Government. [Hon. Members: “More!”] Oh, don’t worry, there is plenty more. He helped to develop Labour’s NHS plan in 2000, which increased the role of the private sector, he was appointed by Labour as chief executive of one of the 10 strategic health authorities set up by Labour, and when the Leader of the Opposition was in the Cabinet, Mark Britnell was director general for NHS commissioning. Although I do not know him, therefore, I suspect that Labour Members know him rather well.
That was probably the highlight of PMQs in this Parliament. Point gun at foot and fire.
Balls reminds me of those people who see a crowd chanting and joins in the chant (just to feel part of something which seems important at that moment) without having a clue about what is going on?
BTW what has happened to his flat-lining gestures at PMQs?
What the Conservatives want is for the election campaign to be about the economy and how we need to continue to make progress on the deficit. For that reason, Labour's current line - that Osborne has failed because he hasn't cut the deficit as quickly as originally hoped - is counter-productive. It puts them into the ludicrous position of criticising the government for not doing as much of something they previously told everyone that Osborne was doing too much of. 'Too far, too fast' and 'flat-lining' is now becoming 'not fast enough despite the best growth figures in Europe'.
In that sense, yes, Osborne has succeeded in changing the narrative, back to the ground he wants to fight on. For the moment Labour, inexplicably, are enthusiastically helping him with that. Presumably they'll soon realise their mistake, and go back to making up scare stories about the NHS.
The key question is whether Labour will be able to go into an election campaign without having anything to say on the economy. Last time, Lord Mandelson did a brilliant job in deflecting scrutiny away from Labour; there's no Lord Mandelson running things this time round.
The Conservatives deserve to be hung out to dry for their inflated expectations and broken promises. They promised to cut the deficit. Not only have they failed, they derided anyone who said that might not be realistic. They promised to save our credit rating and stoked fear of catastrophe if we were downgraded under Labour. We were downgraded on the Tory watch.
Their defence that global forces stopped them achieving their own objectives is pure hypocrisy.
So it is perfectly valid to point out that you can't trust Tory promises this time.
Letwin has in the past told a group of business people in his West Dorset constituency that within 5 years of a Tory government the NHS will not exist.Osborne is by stealth following the 'shrink the state and any vestiges of altruism agenda.' If the Tory party come to power you will have to rely on your own resources.Sometimes 'cake'will be thrown to the masses such as the stamp duty flavour but on the whole it will be 'spend your own money on staying healthy.'Letwin is still underground planning the next round of cuts, his is the brain which shapes the agenda , George and Dave are the two puppets and mouthpieces.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab): I am absolutely delighted to be supported by the trade union movement. May I ask the Prime Minister why he has not sacked his NHS adviser, Mark Britnell, who said that the NHS would be shown “no mercy”, and that the reforms would be a “big opportunity” for private profit and would transform the NHS into an “insurance provider, not a state deliverer"?
The Prime Minister: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to clear this up. When I read about Mr Britnell being my adviser, I was slightly puzzled, because I have never heard of this person in my life, and he is not my adviser. However, I did a little research, and it turned out that he was an adviser to the previous Government. [Hon. Members: “More!”] Oh, don’t worry, there is plenty more. He helped to develop Labour’s NHS plan in 2000, which increased the role of the private sector, he was appointed by Labour as chief executive of one of the 10 strategic health authorities set up by Labour, and when the Leader of the Opposition was in the Cabinet, Mark Britnell was director general for NHS commissioning. Although I do not know him, therefore, I suspect that Labour Members know him rather well.
That was probably the highlight of PMQs in this Parliament. Point gun at foot and fire.
I found a video of it if you want to enjoy it in its full glory youtu.be/wiKNwy_PTEs?t=44s
So, lots spend, nothing raised, lots of spiteful class-war taxes that wont actually make any money...a typical Labour budget
I don't know how well connected he is, but in today's Spectator podcast Mr Forysth said that the Conservatives are no longer pursing UKIP supporters votes, but are now hoping to win over Labour supporters votes.
So, lots spend, nothing raised, lots of spiteful class-war taxes that wont actually make any money...a typical Labour budget
I don't know how well connected he is, but in today's Spectator podcast Mr Forysth said that the Conservatives are no longer pursing UKIP supporters votes, but are now hoping to win over Labour supporters votes.
Their defence that global forces stopped them achieving their own objectives is pure hypocrisy.
Really? Care to justify that line?
You could start by listing the economic forecasts for major economies in 2010, and comparing them with the actual outcome.
Still, if Labour really want to talk about the economy, and especially the deficit: bring it on! There is little in this world that Osborne would like more than for the election campaign to be about what spending cuts Labour propose.
However, because the recession lasted longer than expected, tax revenues have fallen short of forecast. Consequently, the deficit has not been reduced in the way forecast.
To compensate for the shortfall in tax revenue by increasing taxes or slashing government spending would have been risky in a recession.
Using increased borrowing to allow time for the the recovery has probably been the right solution because of the record low interest rates. However, there is now no headroom to borrow in the next recession if it arises in the next five or ten years, which it normally would.
So democracy drives all governments who want to be re-elected to spend now pay later.
So, lots spend, nothing raised, lots of spiteful class-war taxes that wont actually make any money...a typical Labour budget
I don't know how well connected he is, but in today's Spectator podcast Mr Forysth said that the Conservatives are no longer pursing UKIP supporters votes, but are now hoping to win over Labour supporters votes.
He might mean blue labour votes, ie WVM, the people that put Thatcher in, and are currently flirting with UKIP.
I don't know. It could well be they've gone full circle and started fantasising about Guardian readers voting for nice Cameroon Conservatives again. I believe that was Plan A.
I thought the most telling thing yesterday was not Osborne's Statement, which was modest (but effective) in its aims, but the total absence of an alternative Labour narrative on the economy. As someone who follows politics far too closely, I genuinely don't have a clue what Labour would be doing if now in power. If I don't know, what the hell are the punters who pay bugger all attention to politics to make of it?
In four months they will be on the campaign trail. Selling what? I am not getting any hints of an alternative to the Tories' "steady as she goes".
Osborne's Autumn Statement is a fantasy and none of the targets in it are going to be achieved.
However, as we know, cold hard financial outturns don't turn elections - if they did the Tories would be dead and buried - it's the politics that does.
And yet again I'm forced to admire Osborne's masterful politics. He's much better at it than Brown ever was.
I think I observed Balls dumbfoundedness after he allowed Osborne to escape yet again following the £1.9bn EU payment issue, and yesterday was another easy victory for the chancellor in that battle - a bit like a full strength Man City going to Sunderland on a Wednesday night: literally playing with the opponent while smashing, chipping, dinking and lobbing goals past them.
The trouble for Labour is that I don't feel a groundswell of rebellion against all this cutting nonsense. Perhaps it might come in the next parliament as the fantasy meets reality, but even then I'm sceptical.
It's not that I think the Tories benefit greatly from this golden era (for them) of implementing ideological purity either, their own flatlining polling shows that. I remain flabbergasted as to why some of its vote has peeled off to UKIP. Those voters must be mad, or fanatics. This government is doing precisely what many of you kippers been urging Tory governments to do!
If the Tories remain at the tiller post May 2015, we will be doing this all over again in 2019 because the deficit will not have come down to the levels in this Autumn Statement fairytale by then. And perhaps some more people can delude themselves to stick with the steady-as-she-goes Tories - although the destination is clearly that of an exhausted, weak economy with a fearful populace with non existent social protection.
Ed Balls is far more qualified in economics than George Osborne. Balls graduated with a first in PPE from Oxford, ahead of Cameron? George just managed a second class degree in Modern History, how does that qualify him to be chancellor?
What is the Long Term Economic Plan other than four words?
It seems to me the LTEP is just the government muddling through and the consequence is just the result of being buffetted by activities outside of its control.
So, lots spend, nothing raised, lots of spiteful class-war taxes that wont actually make any money...a typical Labour budget
I don't know how well connected he is, but in today's Spectator podcast Mr Forysth said that the Conservatives are no longer pursing UKIP supporters votes, but are now hoping to win over Labour supporters votes.
He's well connected. But this is about messaging, nothing else.
The Tories have said what they will plan to do on immigration and Europe. They've tipped their hand on tax and the economy. There's not much more they can do (beyond flesh out the details) to win over Kippers. So now they pivot and get the media to try and reverse the "lurch to the right" message that might reduce their ability to win ex LD and increase tactical voting in the SW
Ed Balls is far more qualified in economics than George Osborne. Balls graduated with a first in PPE from Oxford, ahead of Cameron? George just managed a second class degree in Modern History, how does that qualify him to be chancellor?
That's not a great comparison for a Labourite to make, do you recall the qualifications of Mr James Gordon Brown, your sainted Iron Chancellor and Savior of the Universe ? That's right, a degree in History from University of Edinburgh.
Cameron studied Philosophy, Politics and Economics (PPE) at Brasenose College, Oxford, gaining a first-class honours degree in 1988. He was described by his tutor, Professor Vernon Bogdanor, as "one of the ablest students he has ever taught.
Ed Balls is far more qualified in economics than George Osborne. Balls graduated with a first in PPE from Oxford, ahead of Cameron? George just managed a second class degree in Modern History, how does that qualify him to be chancellor?
The only qualification he needs is the support of PM who can command a majority in the house of commons.
Besides - as a political economist from Oxford myself - I know just how much it is an art, not a science
Ed Balls is far more qualified in economics than George Osborne. Balls graduated with a first in PPE from Oxford, ahead of Cameron? George just managed a second class degree in Modern History, how does that qualify him to be chancellor?
The only qualification he needs is the support of PM who can command a majority in the house of commons.
Besides - as a political economist from Oxford myself - I know just how much it is an art, not a science
Dear Mr S - the government have been dealing with the deficit. The structural deficit. It is to Osborne's credit that when faced with outside pressures, like the Eurozone crisis, it did not increase its cuts to match an arbitary target but it extended the period to reduce the deficit. It has continued to cut its spending despite criticism from Balls and people like Cable. It is well o0n its way to meet its target.
Indeed may I add Mr S that since you are a well known LibDem then you should be full of praise for the steady measured pace of the reduction, not carping, since even now LibDem Cable says the govt (ie to him the Tory - you would never guess he was in govt) is too 'brutal'.
Balls reminds me of those people who see a crowd chanting and joins in the chant (just to feel part of something which seems important at that moment) without having a clue about what is going on?
BTW what has happened to his flat-lining gestures at PMQs?
I have a degree in Economics (and Politics come to that) and I can tell that Balls is talking rubbish most of the time.
A knowledge of economic history would certainly do Labour a world of good. No-one who had even the slightest understanding of the topic would have come out with the "abolishing boom and bust" drivel.
I am sorry @BenM but I think you have got the wrong end of the stick. The consequences of deficits that spiral out of control have been seen around the world many times and they are horrendous, not just for the property owning classes but above all for the poor. The latest example in the EU, in Greece, had pensions not paid, civil servants not paid, hospitals without medication and mass lay offs of public sector workers such as teachers.
Our debt is rising at a dangerous rate and we are very vulnerable to a downturn. The government has been brave enough to take a chance on this being a relatively long period of growth. I hope they are right but even if they are does not mean these choices can be deferred.
What are the choices? They are much less public spending, much higher taxes or a bit of both. A bit of both is the obvious answer but there is still room for significant debate about the balance and this is where Labour have failed utterly, mainly through cowardice.
Is it more important that we have a £12,500 personal allowance or that we have enough social workers to protect vulnerable kids? Is it more important that we have very competitive CT rates (possibly bringing investment and jobs here) or that we commit ourselves to real term increases in NHS spending? Is it more important that people have the right to a tax free lump sum out of a pension where they already got tax relief on the contributions or that we adequately fund our tertiary education system? Is the current policies of pretty arbitrary penalties being imposed on the feckless in our society by a self justifying bureaucracy morally justifiable as a means of pushing people off benefits and into work?
These are the real world choices. They are not based on some bizarre idea we can spend what we like. And Labour has refused to engage with the debate.
I did political economic history as a teenager and most of what Labour comes out with it is nonsense to even my limited knowledge of the subject.
What annoys me more than anything is the selective use of Keynesian theory - i.e. - only the spending bit. Without money to splash about - what are Labour for? I've no idea anymore.
I have a degree in Economics (and Politics come to that) and I can tell that Balls is talking rubbish most of the time.
A knowledge of economic history would certainly do Labour a world of good. No-one who had even the slightest understanding of the topic would have come out with the "abolishing boom and bust" drivel.
Dear Mr S - the government have been dealing with the deficit. The structural deficit. It is to Osborne's credit that when faced with outside pressures, like the Eurozone crisis, it did not increase its cuts to match an arbitary target but it extended the period to reduce the deficit. It has continued to cut its spending despite criticism from Balls and people like Cable. It is well o0n its way to meet its target.
Indeed may I add Mr S that since you are a well known LibDem then you should be full of praise for the steady measured pace of the reduction, not carping, since even now LibDem Cable says the govt (ie to him the Tory - you would never guess he was in govt) is too 'brutal'.
The economy is roaring ahead at present, forecast to grow 3% in 2014, yet the budget deficit this financial year is now forecast to fall by only £6.2bn.
If the forecasts are to be believed, the budget deficit will be cut by a whopping £35bn in 2016-17. Just like when Brown was Chancellor, cuts in the budget deficit are forecast for future years, but Osborne can't get it down now.
Were it not for the fact that the two Eds lead the weakest Opposition in my memory, perhaps even since the beginning of Unix, any chance the Conservatives had at the next election would have sunk without a trace, as their reputation for economic competence was torn to shreds.
Russell Brand has finally been granted the recognition he deserves.
Yesterday the comedian and self-styled revolutionary was honoured with an award – for speaking gobbledygook.
He won the annual Foot in Mouth prize from the Plain English campiagn, joining the likes of John Prescott and George W Bush.
Organisers said Brand – who has carved a career out of using many, often inflammatory, words when one would do – was ‘out on his own’ in the competition.
They added: ‘While we admire Russell’s determination to open up a debate about democracy and the dire state of the world, we struggle to make sense of most of his comments.’
The group’s website said that Brand’s ‘seemingly endless stream of gibberish, both written and verbal’ had clinched the award.
If the forecasts are to be believed, the budget deficit will be cut by a whopping £35bn in 2016-17. Just like when Brown was Chancellor, cuts in the budget deficit are forecast for future years, but Osborne can't get it down now.
He could get it down now, but he wants to win the election next year...
Were it not for the fact that the two Eds lead the weakest Opposition in my memory, perhaps even since the beginning of Unix, any chance the Conservatives had at the next election would have sunk without a trace, as their reputation for economic competence was torn to shreds
Its a bigger problem than that, yes the Eds are useless, but even so, Labour needs to decide what a left-wing party stands for when there is no money to spray around, and far more critically than that they need an alternative narrative, just sitting there glowering isn't going to cut the mustard, what would they do that would make things better.
Letwin has in the past told a group of business people in his West Dorset constituency that within 5 years of a Tory government the NHS will not exist.Osborne is by stealth following the 'shrink the state and any vestiges of altruism agenda.' If the Tory party come to power you will have to rely on your own resources.Sometimes 'cake'will be thrown to the masses such as the stamp duty flavour but on the whole it will be 'spend your own money on staying healthy.'Letwin is still underground planning the next round of cuts, his is the brain which shapes the agenda , George and Dave are the two puppets and mouthpieces.
Yeah, but one important factor to consider - Letwin is a complete and total idiot!
I thought the most telling thing yesterday was not Osborne's Statement, which was modest (but effective) in its aims, but the total absence of an alternative Labour narrative on the economy. As someone who follows politics far too closely, I genuinely don't have a clue what Labour would be doing if now in power. If I don't know, what the hell are the punters who pay bugger all attention to politics to make of it?
In four months they will be on the campaign trail. Selling what? I am not getting any hints of an alternative to the Tories' "steady as she goes".
Their manifesto is going to be a bundle of laughs. As will watching Ed explaining it for a month on the telly! ;-)
I still think there is a very real chance of a spectacular failure by Labour during the election campaign, when their lack of an economic offering is exposed and Ed, looking like a goldfish, going round and round in his bowl, mechanically spouts "Bedroom Tax" every six seconds....
As we meander toward the fag end of the political year perhaps PB might consider its' own Westminster political awards :
Politician of the year. Government Minister of the year - MoS and above. Shadow Minister of the year - MoS and above. Government Minister of the year - Below MoS. Shadow Minister of the year - Below MoS. Coalition Backbencher of the year. Opposition Backbencher of the year.
A genuine question for the lefties here on PB: What would you now do economically?
Ozzy has made it crystal effing clear what the Tory plan is. Keep the spending cuts going, indeed accelerate them. Tax more banks, mansions, Starbucks. Surplus in 5 or 6 years and a notably smaller state. Whatever one's view, it's completely clear.
What would you lefties suggest? BenM will say spend spend spend until the heat death of the universe. But what are you other PB lefites thinking? What will Ed n Ed propose? (Amazing that this close to the GE nobody really knows). Is the deficit / debt an issue? If so what would you do?
What are the choices? They are much less public spending, much higher taxes or a bit of both. A bit of both is the obvious answer but there is still room for significant debate about the balance and this is where Labour have failed utterly, mainly through cowardice.
Is it more important that we have a £12,500 personal allowance or that we have enough social workers to protect vulnerable kids? Is it more important that we have very competitive CT rates (possibly bringing investment and jobs here) or that we commit ourselves to real term increases in NHS spending? Is it more important that people have the right to a tax free lump sum out of a pension where they already got tax relief on the contributions or that we adequately fund our tertiary education system? Is the current policies of pretty arbitrary penalties being imposed on the feckless in our society by a self justifying bureaucracy morally justifiable as a means of pushing people off benefits and into work?
These are the real world choices. They are not based on some bizarre idea we can spend what we like. And Labour has refused to engage with the debate.
I agree pretty much entirely with this, DavidL.
Labour have been scared witless of engaging in this debate. They've ended up absenting themselves from it entirely, and the government have been given a free pass as a result.
Dear Mr S - the government have been dealing with the deficit. The structural deficit. It is to Osborne's credit that when faced with outside pressures, like the Eurozone crisis, it did not increase its cuts to match an arbitary target but it extended the period to reduce the deficit. It has continued to cut its spending despite criticism from Balls and people like Cable. It is well o0n its way to meet its target.
Indeed may I add Mr S that since you are a well known LibDem then you should be full of praise for the steady measured pace of the reduction, not carping, since even now LibDem Cable says the govt (ie to him the Tory - you would never guess he was in govt) is too 'brutal'.
The economy is roaring ahead at present, forecast to grow 3% in 2014, yet the budget deficit this financial year is now forecast to fall by only £6.2bn.
If the forecasts are to be believed, the budget deficit will be cut by a whopping £35bn in 2016-17. Just like when Brown was Chancellor, cuts in the budget deficit are forecast for future years, but Osborne can't get it down now.
Were it not for the fact that the two Eds lead the weakest Opposition in my memory, perhaps even since the beginning of Unix, any chance the Conservatives had at the next election would have sunk without a trace, as their reputation for economic competence was torn to shreds.
Mr. Me, might I suggest that if the two Eds were sufficiently competent to savage Osborne in the manner that you suggest then we would not be in this position in the first place. The two Eds, and especially Balls, were acolytes of Brown after all and, presumably believed his nonsense about abolishing boom and bust.
I'd go further and suggest that one of the reasons Labour cannot mount an effective attack is that to do so would mean that the two Eds would have to acknowledge they were so wrong for so long.
Still, I heard on the wireless this morning that a Labour government elected next year would cut current spending but do so in a way that was "different and fairer". So that's all right then.
Since the NHS, schools, international development, pensions and some defence spending are ring fenced, the savings needed from the remainder to close the deficit are unlikely to be achievable.
So Vince Cable may be right that the deficit can only be closed by much larger tax increases (in VAT, income tax and business taxes) than any of the political parties are prepared to admit. However, Vince Cable is not popular with any of the parties (including his own) for pointing this out.
A genuine question for the lefties here on PB: What would you now do economically?
Ozzy has made it crystal effing clear what the Tory plan is. Keep the spending cuts going, indeed accelerate them. Tax more banks, mansions, Starbucks. Surplus in 5 or 6 years and a notably smaller state. Whatever one's view, it's completely clear.
What would you lefties suggest? BenM will say spend spend spend until the heat death of the universe. But what are you other PB lefites thinking? What will Ed n Ed propose? (Amazing that this close to the GE nobody really knows). Is the deficit / debt an issue? If so what would you do?
They should grow the state sector (and hence union base) by offering up their "better than the private sector" administrative, management and project management skills up for hire to private companies at consultants rates.
The huge profits can then be used for the usual social justice stuff..
I thought the most telling thing yesterday was not Osborne's Statement, which was modest (but effective) in its aims, but the total absence of an alternative Labour narrative on the economy. As someone who follows politics far too closely, I genuinely don't have a clue what Labour would be doing if now in power. If I don't know, what the hell are the punters who pay bugger all attention to politics to make of it?
In four months they will be on the campaign trail. Selling what? I am not getting any hints of an alternative to the Tories' "steady as she goes".
Their manifesto is going to be a bundle of laughs. As will watching Ed explaining it for a month on the telly! ;-)
I still think there is a very real chance of a spectacular failure by Labour during the election campaign, when their lack of an economic offering is exposed and Ed, looking like a goldfish, going round and round in his bowl, mechanically spouts "Bedroom Tax" every six seconds....
I think their core vote will stay core. The only possibility to stop that would be if that core vote did not 'fear' the tories. That vote kept with Labour last time by all their scare stories. It depends if they think it has actually come to pass. I would suggest not - but the basic core labour vote has every incentive to vote Labour given all the free money promises that Miliband gives. If it thinks the scares are over done then it may just stay at home. But when push comes to shove I think it will stay with Labour, bolstered by the nutjob left who have left the LDs.
Ed Balls is far more qualified in economics than George Osborne. Balls graduated with a first in PPE from Oxford, ahead of Cameron? George just managed a second class degree in Modern History, how does that qualify him to be chancellor?
That's not a great comparison for a Labourite to make, do you recall the qualifications of Mr James Gordon Brown, your sainted Iron Chancellor and Savior of the Universe ? That's right, a degree in History from University of Edinburgh.
Oh dear, metropolitan snobbery gets everywhere nowadays. If Edinburgh was good enough for Darwin, Hume, Maxwell, Adam Smith, Simpson, RLS, Conan Doyle etc...
Unaccustomed as I am to defending Broon, he started his degree at 16 and was apparently offered a place at Oxford.
'Brown was apparently offered a place at Oxford but made the choice to go to north of the border instead. As The Telegraph’s Alan Cochrane writes in his Scottish referendum diaries, Brown confided in him, ‘I wish now that I had gone. I think I missed something by not going.’ Well, as Cochrane pointed out to Brown at the time, he made it to Prime Minister anyway, overcoming the Oxbridge dominance at the top of government.'
Patrick Posts: 1,962 12:33PM A genuine question for the lefties here on PB: What would you now do economically?
Speaking AS IF I WAS A LEFTIE"
Well we would enter government and try to repair the damage caused by the Toty baby eaters ( remember they killed your first born and raised your houses to the ground with fire) we would ensure a totalitarian government led by Marxist Ed (whose dad couldn't give a shit about this country as does his son) and we will lead you into the sunny uplands of more immigration, government handouts and ensuring that the brain drain of the 70's will pale into insignificance compared to our Labour values of a race to the bottom
Anybody know why Dr Vince remains part of the government when he disagree's with everything it's doing and hate's every minute of it?
Is the coalition like the Hotel California - You can check out anytime you like but you can never leave?
How very dare you attempt to chastise St Vince of the Cable.
Dire lickspittle fair weather supporters such as your miserable self should cower away and retire behind the sofa whilst uber Coalitionistas take the fight to Gromit and the red planet hordes.
Comments
SKY SELLS SKY BET
The broadcaster has sold a controlling stake in its bookmaker arm to the private equity group CVC Capital as it attempts to focus on its battle with BT.
Sky Bet, which sponsors the Football League, will go for around £800m and Sky will keep a 20pc stake. It will also license the name.
Phew ..... £800m, for a relative new boy on the block, that's not so far short of Ladbrokes, that once all-conquering giant amongst bookies, currently valued at £1.017bn.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/alan-titchmarsh-ukip-saying-what-4744382
Well when all is obviously lost then a good captain stands clear, protects his own vessel and then and only then moves in to pick up any survivors as best he / she can
Its not called the cruel sea for nothing.
And so it proved.
In spite of reality, many will see it as you describe it. Largely because Labour has ownership of friendly language and words, not because they are any better or that the motives they have are any better.
He could give that wonderful new competition recording software another run out.
Of course. All valid points. It's bonkers. Cutting the deficit too quickly/slowly, giving more or less unfunded money to the NHS, in/out of Europe. It's all a crock of s**t.
But it's where UK politics is at the moment.
Cons = nasty
Lab = caring
but also
Cons = competent
Lab = incompetent
It's only the acute self-interest of the electorate, because after all the UK is still in peril economically, that the Cons' competence may manage to win it.
Balls reminds me of those people who see a crowd chanting and joins in the chant (just to feel part of something which seems important at that moment) without having a clue about what is going on?
BTW what has happened to his flat-lining gestures at PMQs?
I suspect income tax in Wales, were it devolved, would have to be set in the context of its next door neighbour too.
Still given Scots get all kinds of freebies (tuition fees, old age care, etc), it's revealing to see a financial "downside" to devolution north of the border for once.
The 'long-term economic plan' is seen as being only in the interests of "people in London, Big Business, and the comfortably off".
twitter.com/Nye_Rick/status/540067463984349184
twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/540272644655173632
Oops!! sorry ....that was a previous fancy dress photo...my mistake
Labour started 4-0 down at the kick off, not much has changed bar the pasty nonsense/..
Foreign Aid has some value beyond disaster relief: it's trying to build up countries to reduce future radicalism and to make them valuable trade partners. But I'll given you £5bn
HS2 won't save much from the current deficit
Energy - not sure what the budget is, so let's give you £5bn. But I very much doubt you can cut day 1 & not cause chaos in energy security. Good that you are so keen on Putin, I guess, 'cos you'll need him when the lights go out
Culture Media & Sport - again, don't know the budget, so let's give you £5bn. I guess you can always shut the National Gallery and sell the collection - only foreigners go anyway, and who cares about all those French and Italian artists.
- Shifting tax from the UK to regional governments doesn't really count towards reducing the deficit - just shifting money around.
So that's £20bn (and I'm being generous). Where is the other £80bn coming from?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2015_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graphical_summary
It is the services it was supposed to provide that will be missed.
The Tories simply don't have an alternative to State Welfare and Public Services.
So Labour it is, as they actually believe in that and the public hasn't a clue about deficits.
The lack of anything to say on the economy has the Labour loons reaching for the tin-foil....
True enough Mike, hence the need for an "interesting" tie-breaker. I suggested this particular competition as (1) the Tories' progress or otherwise post the Autumn Statement could prove crucial to their GE hopes and (2) I have a suspicion that there could be considerable volatility in the level of their VI support over the next three weeks.
HS2 -It's avoiding another white elephant. Imagine if we'd never signed up for the Euro-fighter.
-Energy is not a government spending item. It's an end user item. Business (esp manufacturing), and consumer. Think of it as a tax cut that doesn't reduce government revenue.
- I said it was thin, but they're the only ones even trying.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/steven-woolfe/autumn-statement-george-osborne-ukip_b_6262196.html
39% of those who said they always knew how they were going to vote cited the pound as a top issue, longer than a year (so before Osborne's speech) is a further 37%.
The Telegraph @Telegraph 1h1 hour ago
Nigel Farage wears the wrong trousers after a champagne-fulled stumble at Gogglebox guesthouse http://fw.to/SfPAoPO
The Telegraph needs some decent editors.
Looks like a great time was had by all present.
George is a very clever boy and by far the best political operator in this country currently active. Only Mandelson has matched him in recent times. To generate so many positive headlines out of a statement that actually increased the squeeze on the state took real skill.
He also had a lot of success in framing the debate for the next election in the terms he needed. If the critique of his performance is that he has not been clear enough where the remaining 60% of cuts are to come from or that he has failed to cut the deficit aggressively enough (both true in their way) it leaves Balls with nothing to contribute to a debate to which the Labour position looks completely irrelevant.
It really didn't have to be this way but if you want a centre left critique of Osborne at the next election you will need to listen to Cable or Alexander who accept the broad direction but think tax increases should bear far more of the load than spending cuts (I largely agree with them too). Labour could and should be making that case but that would have required some serious work over the last 4 years instead of wandering about with a blank sheet of paper refusing to make choices.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab): I am absolutely delighted to be supported by the trade union movement. May I ask the Prime Minister why he has not sacked his NHS adviser, Mark Britnell, who said that the NHS would be shown “no mercy”, and that the reforms would be a “big opportunity” for private profit and would transform the NHS into an “insurance provider, not a state deliverer"?
The Prime Minister: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to clear this up. When I read about Mr Britnell being my adviser, I was slightly puzzled, because I have never heard of this person in my life, and he is not my adviser. However, I did a little research, and it turned out that he was an adviser to the previous Government. [Hon. Members: “More!”] Oh, don’t worry, there is plenty more. He helped to develop Labour’s NHS plan in 2000, which increased the role of the private sector, he was appointed by Labour as chief executive of one of the 10 strategic health authorities set up by Labour, and when the Leader of the Opposition was in the Cabinet, Mark Britnell was director general for NHS commissioning. Although I do not know him, therefore, I suspect that Labour Members know him rather well.
But it lacks the pretty wrapper called the "Big Society" which the Guardian reading liberal lefties laughed to death. Precisely because they don't understand and don't appreciate the British culture of volunteering. It's a real shame because it was a very powerful concept that was badly marketed.
To tell you a secret, I'm not bothered either.
This suggests to me that Balls etc really do expect to win in May, and are absolutely furious ex ante that they will inherit not a fantastic economy a la 1997, nor even a recovered economy that they can deliberately wreck again, but one that is still recovering. Hence it will require stewardship well beyond their meagre competence.
It is laughable and not a little shameful that a party that aspires to government actually tacitly recognises that it needs to lose elections, so that the Tories can get in and fix the economy again. This allows the economy to create the wealth that Labour exists to squander. Labour, ludicrously, needs episodes of Conservative government to enable its own agenda, the reverse of which is clearly not true. It's similar to the way the USSR used to bang on about the inferiority of the capitalist model while relying on supplies of American wheat.
How embarrassing, really.
Straight into females in porn, female ejaculation, ethical porn, sexual stereotyping in porn, sexist porn and later we have girl guides tackling unhealthy body talk....
Now Jane has asked the interviewee to explain what BDSM is, cattle prods....etc etc
Everytime she is on, divorced and single Jane has one thing on her mind.....
"Today I announced:
We will overhaul stamp duty so that 98% of stamp duty payers pay less tax when they buy their home.
We will continue to back businesses to create jobs in all parts of the country - with action on business rates and more help for the high street.
We will abolish the employers' jobs tax on apprenticeships for people under 25 to help more young people get the skills they need.
We will raise the personal allowance, and higher rate taxpayers will also benefit - a down payment on our commitments to raise the personal allowance to £12,500 and the higher rate threshold to £50,000 in the next parliament.
We will cut tax for families by abolishing the air passenger duty paid for children.
And we will support savers by letting husbands and wives inherit their partner's ISA and keep its tax-free status. "
Not a bad list really, given how little he had to play with.
In four months they will be on the campaign trail. Selling what? I am not getting any hints of an alternative to the Tories' "steady as she goes".
Increase the HRT to 50% for those earning over £150K.
Bring in a Mansion tax for properties over £2m(I think).
Abolish the bedroom tax.
Freeze energy prices (that are currently falling).
Seek to freeze rents in some way I don't really follow.
Change the borrowing targets to the extent that it would still be ok to borrow for "investment" rather than current spending.
Possibly remove the cap on benefits payable.
After that I am struggling a bit. It is so far from an economic policy as to be embarrassing. If I have missed any Labour policies that supporters want to mention I would be grateful.
Edit. I think there is also a bankers bonus tax still paying for a lot of nice things. Not clear how that is going to work and whether it is still intended.
"Long Term Economic Plan".
Job done, Lynton.
A local by-election today in Thurrock. Serious 2015 observers should watch. Ukip's candidate is also their PPC for Thurrock in May.
Something to look out for later.
So, lots spend, nothing raised, lots of spiteful class-war taxes that wont actually make any money...a typical Labour budget
In that sense, yes, Osborne has succeeded in changing the narrative, back to the ground he wants to fight on. For the moment Labour, inexplicably, are enthusiastically helping him with that. Presumably they'll soon realise their mistake, and go back to making up scare stories about the NHS.
The key question is whether Labour will be able to go into an election campaign without having anything to say on the economy. Last time, Lord Mandelson did a brilliant job in deflecting scrutiny away from Labour; there's no Lord Mandelson running things this time round.
Their defence that global forces stopped them achieving their own objectives is pure hypocrisy.
So it is perfectly valid to point out that you can't trust Tory promises this time.
At least they didn't sign pledges on camera.
youtu.be/wiKNwy_PTEs?t=44s
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/12/podcast-special-a-good-autumn-statement-for-george-osborne/
You could start by listing the economic forecasts for major economies in 2010, and comparing them with the actual outcome.
Still, if Labour really want to talk about the economy, and especially the deficit: bring it on! There is little in this world that Osborne would like more than for the election campaign to be about what spending cuts Labour propose.
However, because the recession lasted longer than expected, tax revenues have fallen short of forecast. Consequently, the deficit has not been reduced in the way forecast.
To compensate for the shortfall in tax revenue by increasing taxes or slashing government spending would have been risky in a recession.
Using increased borrowing to allow time for the the recovery has probably been the right solution because of the record low interest rates. However, there is now no headroom to borrow in the next recession if it arises in the next five or ten years, which it normally would.
So democracy drives all governments who want to be re-elected to spend now pay later.
However, as we know, cold hard financial outturns don't turn elections - if they did the Tories would be dead and buried - it's the politics that does.
And yet again I'm forced to admire Osborne's masterful politics. He's much better at it than Brown ever was.
I think I observed Balls dumbfoundedness after he allowed Osborne to escape yet again following the £1.9bn EU payment issue, and yesterday was another easy victory for the chancellor in that battle - a bit like a full strength Man City going to Sunderland on a Wednesday night: literally playing with the opponent while smashing, chipping, dinking and lobbing goals past them.
The trouble for Labour is that I don't feel a groundswell of rebellion against all this cutting nonsense. Perhaps it might come in the next parliament as the fantasy meets reality, but even then I'm sceptical.
It's not that I think the Tories benefit greatly from this golden era (for them) of implementing ideological purity either, their own flatlining polling shows that. I remain flabbergasted as to why some of its vote has peeled off to UKIP. Those voters must be mad, or fanatics. This government is doing precisely what many of you kippers been urging Tory governments to do!
If the Tories remain at the tiller post May 2015, we will be doing this all over again in 2019 because the deficit will not have come down to the levels in this Autumn Statement fairytale by then. And perhaps some more people can delude themselves to stick with the steady-as-she-goes Tories - although the destination is clearly that of an exhausted, weak economy with a fearful populace with non existent social protection.
It seems to me the LTEP is just the government muddling through and the consequence is just the result of being buffetted by activities outside of its control.
The Tories have said what they will plan to do on immigration and Europe. They've tipped their hand on tax and the economy. There's not much more they can do (beyond flesh out the details) to win over Kippers. So now they pivot and get the media to try and reverse the "lurch to the right" message that might reduce their ability to win ex LD and increase tactical voting in the SW
Cameron studied Philosophy, Politics and Economics (PPE) at Brasenose College, Oxford, gaining a first-class honours degree in 1988. He was described by his tutor, Professor Vernon Bogdanor, as "one of the ablest students he has ever taught.
Besides - as a political economist from Oxford myself - I know just how much it is an art, not a science
Besides - as a political economist from Oxford myself - I know just how much it is an art, not a science
Indeed may I add Mr S that since you are a well known LibDem then you should be full of praise for the steady measured pace of the reduction, not carping, since even now LibDem Cable says the govt (ie to him the Tory - you would never guess he was in govt) is too 'brutal'.
A knowledge of economic history would certainly do Labour a world of good. No-one who had even the slightest understanding of the topic would have come out with the "abolishing boom and bust" drivel.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/12/03/economy_doesnt_make_clinton_a_favorite_in_2016_124832.html
I couldn't find a graph for that, but I'm assuming GNI per capita would be a fair proxy. It looks flat.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.CD/countries/GB--XS-EU?display=graph
Our debt is rising at a dangerous rate and we are very vulnerable to a downturn. The government has been brave enough to take a chance on this being a relatively long period of growth. I hope they are right but even if they are does not mean these choices can be deferred.
What are the choices? They are much less public spending, much higher taxes or a bit of both. A bit of both is the obvious answer but there is still room for significant debate about the balance and this is where Labour have failed utterly, mainly through cowardice.
Is it more important that we have a £12,500 personal allowance or that we have enough social workers to protect vulnerable kids? Is it more important that we have very competitive CT rates (possibly bringing investment and jobs here) or that we commit ourselves to real term increases in NHS spending? Is it more important that people have the right to a tax free lump sum out of a pension where they already got tax relief on the contributions or that we adequately fund our tertiary education system? Is the current policies of pretty arbitrary penalties being imposed on the feckless in our society by a self justifying bureaucracy morally justifiable as a means of pushing people off benefits and into work?
These are the real world choices. They are not based on some bizarre idea we can spend what we like. And Labour has refused to engage with the debate.
What annoys me more than anything is the selective use of Keynesian theory - i.e. - only the spending bit. Without money to splash about - what are Labour for? I've no idea anymore.
If the forecasts are to be believed, the budget deficit will be cut by a whopping £35bn in 2016-17. Just like when Brown was Chancellor, cuts in the budget deficit are forecast for future years, but Osborne can't get it down now.
Were it not for the fact that the two Eds lead the weakest Opposition in my memory, perhaps even since the beginning of Unix, any chance the Conservatives had at the next election would have sunk without a trace, as their reputation for economic competence was torn to shreds.
Politician of the year.
Government Minister of the year - MoS and above.
Shadow Minister of the year - MoS and above.
Government Minister of the year - Below MoS.
Shadow Minister of the year - Below MoS.
Coalition Backbencher of the year.
Opposition Backbencher of the year.
Ozzy has made it crystal effing clear what the Tory plan is. Keep the spending cuts going, indeed accelerate them. Tax more banks, mansions, Starbucks. Surplus in 5 or 6 years and a notably smaller state. Whatever one's view, it's completely clear.
What would you lefties suggest? BenM will say spend spend spend until the heat death of the universe. But what are you other PB lefites thinking? What will Ed n Ed propose? (Amazing that this close to the GE nobody really knows). Is the deficit / debt an issue? If so what would you do?
Labour have been scared witless of engaging in this debate. They've ended up absenting themselves from it entirely, and the government have been given a free pass as a result.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlTggc0uBA8
Is the coalition like the Hotel California - You can check out anytime you like but you can never leave?
I'd go further and suggest that one of the reasons Labour cannot mount an effective attack is that to do so would mean that the two Eds would have to acknowledge they were so wrong for so long.
Still, I heard on the wireless this morning that a Labour government elected next year would cut current spending but do so in a way that was "different and fairer". So that's all right then.
So Vince Cable may be right that the deficit can only be closed by much larger tax increases (in VAT, income tax and business taxes) than any of the political parties are prepared to admit. However, Vince Cable is not popular with any of the parties (including his own) for pointing this out.
The huge profits can then be used for the usual social justice stuff..
The only possibility to stop that would be if that core vote did not 'fear' the tories. That vote kept with Labour last time by all their scare stories. It depends if they think it has actually come to pass. I would suggest not - but the basic core labour vote has every incentive to vote Labour given all the free money promises that Miliband gives.
If it thinks the scares are over done then it may just stay at home. But when push comes to shove I think it will stay with Labour, bolstered by the nutjob left who have left the LDs.
If Edinburgh was good enough for Darwin, Hume, Maxwell, Adam Smith, Simpson, RLS, Conan Doyle etc...
Unaccustomed as I am to defending Broon, he started his degree at 16 and was apparently offered a place at Oxford.
'Brown was apparently offered a place at Oxford but made the choice to go to north of the border instead. As The Telegraph’s Alan Cochrane writes in his Scottish referendum diaries, Brown confided in him, ‘I wish now that I had gone. I think I missed something by not going.’
Well, as Cochrane pointed out to Brown at the time, he made it to Prime Minister anyway, overcoming the Oxbridge dominance at the top of government.'
http://tinyurl.com/osa4q55
12:33PM
A genuine question for the lefties here on PB: What would you now do economically?
Speaking AS IF I WAS A LEFTIE"
Well we would enter government and try to repair the damage caused by the Toty baby eaters ( remember they killed your first born and raised your houses to the ground with fire) we would ensure a totalitarian government led by Marxist Ed (whose dad couldn't give a shit about this country as does his son) and we will lead you into the sunny uplands of more immigration, government handouts and ensuring that the brain drain of the 70's will pale into insignificance compared to our Labour values of a race to the bottom
Other than that no change really......
Dire lickspittle fair weather supporters such as your miserable self should cower away and retire behind the sofa whilst uber Coalitionistas take the fight to Gromit and the red planet hordes.