Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Is Dave in danger of facing a leadership challenge and if s
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Is Dave in danger of facing a leadership challenge and if so who do you think, if anybody, will replace him?
politicalbetting.com is proudly powered by WordPress
with "Neat!" theme. Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I also dont think there will be a contest but as EiT is always pointing out it doesnt require anyone to mount a challenge to force a vote (of confidence). It can happen accidentally (or at least without an organised campaign) if enough backbenchers write to ask for one. We could be one away from a challenge without ever knowing!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22745845
Watching this piece on MPs' expenses, I wonder if there is any way for an MP to express dissatisfaction with IPSA without soundling like bleating lambs, whining away about how unfair it is that they are not trusted to manage expenses in house anymore. There do seem to be problems with the current system, but whenever those brave enough to point out what can be valid complaints, they always seem to give away something in their attitude that shows they don't quite understand why annoyance for them is currently the preferred option.
The thing is, unfortunately, is that it is not unfair that MPs are not trusted to keep these things in house, because the prevailing attitude even at the time of the scandal appeared to be 'I'm sorry the system was too generous, but I did nothing wrong because that trouser press was within the rules. What's that, I could have chosen not to purchase it because firm creases are not essential parts of my job? Madness!' (oh, they said sorry, but the deeper meaning was very clear on such trivial spending cases). That is, most still didn't think they'd done anything wrong, instead focusing only on whether things were illegal.
The system is making MPs unhappy (I spit on the idea that it will dissuade the best people from standing for Parliament - there are thousands who could do the job just as well, and if bureaucratic annoyances are enough to force them out, unless they are being pushed to bankruptcy then they did not deserve the job in the first place) so alterations may be needed, but how can that be achieved when any suggestion comes with such baggage, and the clear implication from those complaining about how hard they have it, having to be scrutinized so? I can't really see how at the moment.
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/world_news/Europe/article1267937.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2013_06_01
'Housework to do, people to see.
Another thread; now for reality....'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h1oRP7FfBw
FG - 27%
FF - 27%
SF - 17%
Lab - 11%
Ladbrokes have the almost inconceivable grand coalition option at 6/4 strong favourite with the current FG / Lab government only 12/5 to be returned.
All right? England aren't. They have about as much chance of winning this game as an MP filing his correct expenses...
The villification continues
The Daily Mail reports that :" For legal reasons, the identities of the people involved or any details of the relationship - even its duration - cannot be disclosed."
What particular "legal reasons" are those pray? It couldn't possibly be, could it, that the Mail is simply not 100% sure of its facts?
@afneil: Only 1 in 5 Scottish teenagers eligible to vote in independence referendum supports separation, according to a new major poll. 60% against
http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/the-youth-of-today-and-youth-of.html
The Wall Street Journal should now properly be classed along side Fox News, Newsmax and the Rush Limbaugh Show as part of the hysterical Tea Party media.
"I also like being part of something bigger, Michaella, and staying united with the rest of the EU makes perfect sense to me. Unfortunately, Scotland's status as part of the parochial, right-wing UK is imperilling our continued membership of the European family of nations."
Are you trying to be serious when you write like that?
Please tell me this is satire, not saltire.
Perhaps being on the outside and not within the claustrophobic confines of the Westminster village makes it easier to realise that Cameron is PM in a coalition govt, not a Tory one. The rightwingy'ness desired by the farthest right 1/3rd of the party and UKIP-leaners is therefore never going to materialise.
Which suits me, suits Cameron, probably suits most of the Tory members of government and certainly suits anybody who has a hope of winning the next GE.
Labour: 36% (+1)
Conservative: 25% (+1)
UKIP: 20% (-2)
Others: 10% (+1)
Liberal Democrat: 10% (nc)
I have not decided how I would vote in a referendum yet, but I do know I would like the choice.
Besides, your whole premise is wrong. To describe the UK as parochial, when Britain has a world-wide opportunity and appeal, is just not credible.
Why would you choose to be on the fringes of an increasingly fractious EU, who would quite easy crap on countries like Scotland if it suited them, rather than being part of a world-beating union?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ill-scrap-winter-fuel-payouts-for-rich-pensioners-says-ed-balls-8641344.html
Thought not.
*If* there's an In-Out referendum and, as many suggest with the main parties supporting staying, it defaults to an 'In', perhaps that won't make any real difference. If it's close however, it's quite conceivable that Scotland could vote to stay while the rest of the UK votes to go. Of course it would be nicely ironic if a strong positive vote in Scotland just nudged the UK over the EU 'In' threshold.
Of course we look at all these issues but as Ed made clear twice in the interview Labour supports the Winter Fuel Allowance. Labour introduced the Winter Fuel Allowance. He made clear in his interview in January with James Landale in January that universality is “part of the bedrock” of our system. The position has not changed.
http://labourlist.org/2013/04/labours-position-on-universal-benefits-has-not-changed/
So perhaps universality was a bedrock a month ago but won't be tomorrow.
Indeed it would. I'm struggling to see how that wouldn't be an involuntary exit, though. It would be a legitimate outcome, and certainly not an indication that Dumfries and Galloway wanted to leave Scotland (any more than Scotland voting to remain in the EU would be a vote to leave the UK), but it would certainly be involuntary.
Maybe the electorate really does have the recall of a goldfish but you can't go around opposing the withdrawal of universal benefits one minute and then withdraw one of them the next.
Have they no shame? What a shower.
People will say "didn't the Cons do that recently? Shows they are on the right track."
(not that you'd notice it from the current opinion polls, mind)
Last week the OECD published their mid year Economic Outlook which contains its economic forecasts to the end of 2014 for member and key non-member countries. Their previous forecast was published in December 2012.
Much was made in the media of the OECD downgrading the UK's growth forecast for 2013 and 2014 from its previous December forecast. Indeed, had you been listening only the BBC and Sky, you might have concluded that this was more bad news solely for the UK economy.
It takes a bit of digging behind the media headlines into the OECD figures and report to reveal the true picture. And, from a global perspective, the news is indeed not good. Of the 40 countries reviewed only seven had their Real GDP growth rates revised upward and only one of these, Japan, was a G7 country.
Of the main countries the US and Germany suffered -0.2% reduction, Spain -0.4%, Canada -0.6%, Italy -1.0%, France -1.1% and even China was marked down by -1.4%. The aggregate for the OECD as a whole was -0.2% and for the Eurozone -0.8%.
So this makes the meagre adjustment of -0.1% to the UK's growth forecast rather a good performance relative to the rest of the world. It is clear the UK's economy is improving markedly when compared to its main competitors, particularly in Europe. We may not yet be thriving but we are certainly surviving.
Of all those pleased with the UK performance, Angel Gurria, OECD's Secretary-General stood out. The OECD have been key advocates and endorsers of fiscal consolidation, far more so than the wobbly US Democratic influenced IMF.
In June 2010, Gurria welcomed Osborne's first budget with a public endorsement:
“It provides the necessary degree of fiscal consolidation over the coming years to restore public finances to a sustainable path, while still supporting the recovery. The plan for a gradual reduction in the deficit over the next five years is concrete and far-reaching. It is appropriate that the bulk of the adjustments come from public expenditure restraint, and that the tax measures focus mostly on consumption.”
It was Gurria whom Ed Conway interviewed for Sky in Paris last Thursday. Gurria was the one with the smug smile on his face explaining that he had witnessed many attempts at economic turnaround in his time and the most successful ones have derived from a consistent and well-balanced plan with soft hands on the automatic stablisers. Conway remained silent looking suitably chastised.
He then went home and wrote the following in his blog:
We're so used to hearing bad news from international institutions like the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development that it might come as a surprise to hear that there's a whopping slab of good news for Britain buried away in its latest Economic Outlook.
Admittedly, the good news is tucked away in one of the more obscure tables near the back of the report, and comes alongside some more noticeable bad news. But we must cherish these moments when they come – and this news is genuinely encouraging.
It's as follows: after this crisis is through, from 2018 to 2030, Britain can enjoy stronger growth than almost any other major economy. At 2.6% the average predicted growth rate is even stronger than the United States (2.1%) and far, far stronger than Germany (0.9%). Britain's advantage will remain in place between 2031 and 2060 as well, at average growth of 2% (US: 1.7%, Germany: 0.7%).
The figures, which form part of a section on long-term growth statistics from the OECD's latest survey of the world economy, are striking, suggesting as they do that Britain is destined for generations of punchy growth.
It's as follows: after this crisis is through, from 2018 to 2030, Britain can enjoy stronger growth than almost any other major economy. At 2.6% the average predicted growth rate is even stronger than the United States (2.1%) and far, far stronger than Germany (0.9%).
Britain's advantage will remain in place between 2031 and 2060 as well, at average growth of 2% (US: 1.7%, Germany: 0.7%).
The figures, which form part of a section on long-term growth statistics from the OECD's latest survey of the world economy, are striking, suggesting as they do that Britain is destined for generations of punchy growth.
If you want the explanation for this good news you will have to go directly to Ed Conway's blog as he certainly won't be permitted to reveal such thoughts to Sky News's cameras.
Here is the link: http://www.edmundconway.com/author/admin/
Meanwhile a single person earning £10,000 with two children gets given £10,000 of benefits.
One single person earning £10,000 with two children gets a handout the same as 50 Winter Fuel allowances.
It's a complete joke.
'Haven't they announced that several times before? Admittedly they usually back-track the next day:'
If the tabloid press come out against it,it will be dropped by the end of the week.
One of the reasons Ed is still stuck with his blank piece of paper.