"That she'd been given preferential treatment because he had designs on her? "
Incredible. I bet that's never happened before in the whole history of politics. Ban 'em immediately.
Forget that story, the most shocking story about UKIP candidates this week was that they thought putting Neil Hamilton as a candidate next year was a good idea.
Why sensible Kippers like Richard Tyndall and Sean Fear could spot that was a disaster waiting to happen, and UKIP high command couldn't is worrying if you're a purple.
As someone said last night, next week they'll be putting up Jeffrey Archer and Jonathan Aitken as candidates.
I suppose the view is that Hamilton has served his time in the wilderness, and is entitled to be rehabilitated. Parties can be very loyal to long-term activists.
I still think he definitely shouldn't be a candidate.
Forget political parties altogether. The age of the independent is upon us. Local people known in the constituency will get elected, no more implants from London who care nothing apart from their rise up the greasy pole, their weird sex lives and their chance to become high level criminals beyond the reach of the law.
Forget political parties altogether. The age of the independent is upon us. Local people known in the constituency will get elected, no more implants from London who care nothing apart from their rise up the greasy pole, their weird sex lives and their chance to become high level criminals beyond the reach of the law.
Mr Jonathan Aitken (Conservative Party) is likely to be on the voting slip in May.
And as regards, Archer J, was he a fantasist before the Conservatives clutched him to their bosom, or did joining the Conservative party turn him into one?
Seems that Reckless and Carswell were relatively normal by comparison. Although Neil Hamilton would have blown away that supposition.
"That she'd been given preferential treatment because he had designs on her? "
Incredible. I bet that's never happened before in the whole history of politics. Ban 'em immediately.
Forget that story, the most shocking story about UKIP candidates this week was that they thought putting Neil Hamilton as a candidate next year was a good idea.
Why sensible Kippers like Richard Tyndall and Sean Fear could spot that was a disaster waiting to happen, and UKIP high command couldn't is worrying if you're a purple.
As someone said last night, next week they'll be putting up Jeffrey Archer and Jonathan Aitken as candidates.
I suppose the view is that Hamilton has served his time in the wilderness, and is entitled to be rehabilitated. Parties can be very loyal to long-term activists.
I still think he definitely shouldn't be a candidate.
Also I guess people with any nouse rather than being sycophantic trolls might notice that he has never been selected as a candidate, and yesterday was effectively stopped from running in the hustings
Tim Shipman @ShippersUnbound · 58s59 seconds ago "There's only one 35% strategy in British politics today," says Miliband. Tory plan to cut state to that. Good line.
Tim Shipman is wrong. Only wonks would understand the reference to a 35% strategy. The general public would be baffled. It's a line for the Westminster bubble.
Mr. Royale, if the Lib Dems demand to bugger up the Lords and inflict without a vote a new, stupid, voting system on the electorate in return for merely asking the question (which, I believe was in the 2005 or 2010 Lib Dem manifesto, I forget which) about the UK's membership of the EU the Conservatives should tell Clegg to piss off.
The constitutional settlement has been cocked up enough by Labour's half-baked, narrow-minded, short-sighted idiocy without letting the Lib Dems have one-off 15 year terms, or some such delinquent foolishness.
Correct. The Lords need reform but not the LD version. Tories were daft to veto it last time when what was more important to them was boundary reform. The Lords should be abolished. As should 'Life Peers'.
Also I guess people with any nouse rather than being sycophantic trolls might notice that he has never been selected as a candidate, and yesterday was effectively stopped from running in the hustings
Nonetheless he is a Deputy Chairman of UKIP, and one of 11 'key people' in the party (or was when I last looked yesterday - admittedly the half-life of senior UKIP figures is quite short).
Also I guess people with any nouse rather than being sycophantic trolls might notice that he has never been selected as a candidate, and yesterday was effectively stopped from running in the hustings
Nonetheless he is a Deputy Chairman of UKIP, and one of 11 'key people' in the party (or was when I last looked yesterday - admittedly the half-life of senior UKIP figures is quite short).
Yes but the truth is that Ukip are woefully short of people with any real political experience... Any new party would be... If you can make use of someone who has something to offer while keeping him away from the MP list I think they have to.
But the fact is he isn't a candidate, and wasn't even allowed to run to be one
Forget political parties altogether. The age of the independent is upon us. Local people known in the constituency will get elected, no more implants from London who care nothing apart from their rise up the greasy pole, their weird sex lives and their chance to become high level criminals beyond the reach of the law.
Independents are polling ahead of all political parties in the Republic of Ireland.
Mr. Antifrank, I concur. Much as the Hannibal-Caesar silliness is largely confined to this site alone, the '35% strategy' is known only to political anoraks.
Ms Bolter said: “I was a Labour Party activist. I joined because I supported their principles, that grew from the trade unions.
“Labour began as the party of the working class – this is not what I found.”
But the Telegraph can reveal the divorced mother-of-five was only a Labour member for a mere eight months, after June 2013 until the middle of 2014, according to sources inside the party.
Oh dear.
The way the kippers have tried to dismantle her credibilty has not exactly been edifying. I can see why women have a problem with UKIP.
Oh come off it, the Tories would have done exactly the same thing, and historically have, just look at Sara Keays. Its either that or leave your man hanging in the wind while the Guardian tips the slop bucket over him, and there is no "tried" about it, she lied, repeatedly, in stupid ways and expected her target to just sit there and take it.
UKIP, the new politics. Yeah, right.... "We're doing politics like eighties Tories did politics"
I would be fascinated to know how you think the Tories would handle it now, if a young lady went to the papers and announced that she had been harassed by a cabinet minister, and he had documentation to suggest a sexual relationship existed between them. No doubt you think he would just sit there with a stiff upper lip while the Guardian and the Independent accuse him of misconduct and scream for his resignation.
Well, maybe having another woman presenting UKIP's position might help. Oh, but UKIP don't exactly have women queuing up to represent them.
If you can't see how having a top tier of boozy white late-middle-aged lascivious men, largely at the fag ends of their careers, frequenting massage parlours, having mistresses, happy to trash the reputations of women they have slept with, might not be overly appealing to female voters, then you are beyond help.
" happy to trash the reputations of women they have slept with" oh come on Mark!
He is defending his reputation from a serious allegation.
WTF do you expect him to do, just lie back and let her trash HIS reputation?
I think in this case your hatred of UKIP is dictating your response rather than the actuality of the situation.
Also I guess people with any nouse rather than being sycophantic trolls might notice that he has never been selected as a candidate, and yesterday was effectively stopped from running in the hustings
Nonetheless he is a Deputy Chairman of UKIP, and one of 11 'key people' in the party (or was when I last looked yesterday - admittedly the half-life of senior UKIP figures is quite short).
Yes but the truth is that Ukip are woefully short of people with any real political experience... Any new party would be... If you can make use of someone who has something to offer while keeping him away from the MP list I think they have to.
But the fact is he isn't a candidate, and wasn't even allowed to run to be one
They shouldnt have touched him with a bargepole. He has nothing to offer them and a lot of baggage they didnt need.
George Eaton @georgeeaton 55s55 seconds ago City of London, London Key line from Miliband: "Tackling the cost of living crisis is in fact essential for tackling the deficit."
"That she'd been given preferential treatment because he had designs on her? "
Incredible. I bet that's never happened before in the whole history of politics. Ban 'em immediately.
Forget that story, the most shocking story about UKIP candidates this week was that they thought putting Neil Hamilton as a candidate next year was a good idea.
Why sensible Kippers like Richard Tyndall and Sean Fear could spot that was a disaster waiting to happen, and UKIP high command couldn't is worrying if you're a purple.
As someone said last night, next week they'll be putting up Jeffrey Archer and Jonathan Aitken as candidates.
I suppose the view is that Hamilton has served his time in the wilderness, and is entitled to be rehabilitated. Parties can be very loyal to long-term activists.
I still think he definitely shouldn't be a candidate.
With some professions, as per the rehab act, some convictions are never spent, and must be disclosed. The same principle should apply for Neil Hamilton.
As his transgressions were directly to do with him being an MP, that's why he never should have been anywhere near a selection shortlist.
Sporting has the Tories +1 today at 279-285 GE 2015 seats, that's just 4 seats (or one encouraging poll) behind an unchanged Labour on 283 - 289. For those looking for a credible "wisdom poll", this has to be it, where hard cash concentrates minds wonderfully.
Returning to my theme of a few days ago in attempting to seek out value in those seats currently held by the Tories, but considered hopelssly lost to Labour in the forthcoming General Election, a simple summation of where things currently stand is as follows: Starting with the 307 seats won by the Tories in 2010, if one adds to this figure say around 12 seats which they are expected to gain from the LibDems and say 4 seats they may lose to UKIP, resulting in them winning a net 315 seats. If one compares this figure with their mid-spread value of 282 seats, the conclusion appears to be that on these assumptions they will lose around 33 seats to Labour (i.e. 315 - 282 seats). This tends to support my view that the value, if such exists, is likely to be in those circa 30 seats, being between the 30th - 60th considered to be the most vulnerable to Labour. I suspect that the odds and indeed the value available across this range of seats will vary very considerably.
How ironic that as Alan Rusbridger announces he's about to step down as Guardian Editor-In-Chief, disgraced typically UKIP material ex MP Neil Hamilton pops up in the news to remind us of one of the Guardian's finest hours under his tenure.
For me, ridding us of the creepy criminal enterprise that was the News of the World remains the signal achievement.
Rubbisher has created more unemployment amongst hacks and more court cases against hacks than any other Editor. A remarkable "record".
I suppose you think Rusbridger's prime motive should have been maintaining solidarity amongst hacks in the true spirit of socialism and just ignored all the law breaking? But then The Guardian isn't really a left wing paper is it?
Now if UKIP had managed to secure Gogglebox's Sandra...
I was a bit confused by this one.
Ralph Atkinson patently isnt a local candidate, he stood for Croydon South last time around, and hasnt updated his Blog since, as one might expect of say, the new candidate http://ralphukip.blogspot.com/
Mr Jonathan Aitken (Conservative Party) is likely to be on the voting slip in May.
And as regards, Archer J, was he a fantasist before the Conservatives clutched him to their bosom, or did joining the Conservative party turn him into one?
Seems that Reckless and Carswell were relatively normal by comparison. Although Neil Hamilton would have blown away that supposition.
He had some sort of charm, he was close to three Tory leaders in a row.
Also I guess people with any nouse rather than being sycophantic trolls might notice that he has never been selected as a candidate, and yesterday was effectively stopped from running in the hustings
Nonetheless he is a Deputy Chairman of UKIP, and one of 11 'key people' in the party (or was when I last looked yesterday - admittedly the half-life of senior UKIP figures is quite short).
Yes but the truth is that Ukip are woefully short of people with any real political experience... Any new party would be... If you can make use of someone who has something to offer while keeping him away from the MP list I think they have to.
But the fact is he isn't a candidate, and wasn't even allowed to run to be one
They shouldnt have touched him with a bargepole. He has nothing to offer them and a lot of baggage they didnt need.
Many years ago when I was an Officer in a local Liberal party, a well known local councillor, who had been in both Lab & Tory parties, and also sat as an Independent, started to make noises about joining us. The Chair and I agreed that we would do all we could to prevent him doing so!
And we were seriously short of experienced candidates, let alone councillors.
Behind the bluster, the Tories and the Lib Dems are preparing for another coalition
This bit really stood out
They also acknowledge that the party’s leadership would rather continue to do business with the Tories than enter government with a Labour Party regarded as irredeemably tribal and impervious to compromise.
One MP tells me that the Lib Dems would be prepared to take the path rejected by the Liberal leader Jeremy Thorpe in 1974 and prop up a Conservative government with more votes than Miliband’s party but fewer seats. Cameron – who, as the incumbent, enjoys first preference on any future coalition – can give thanks for that.
One difference between now and 1974 is that we are due an election. In early 1974 we weren’t for another 18 months, and the Tories campaigned on the slogan “Who runs Britain”. To which the electorates answer was “Not you."
The electorate made a mistake didn't they? For 5 years we had the trade unions running the country and the rise of Arthur Scargill. Should we be surprised at the speculations from the New Statesman?
How ironic that as Alan Rusbridger announces he's about to step down as Guardian Editor-In-Chief, disgraced typically UKIP material ex MP Neil Hamilton pops up in the news to remind us of one of the Guardian's finest hours under his tenure.
For me, ridding us of the creepy criminal enterprise that was the News of the World remains the signal achievement.
Rubbisher has created more unemployment amongst hacks and more court cases against hacks than any other Editor. A remarkable "record".
I suppose you think Rusbridger's prime motive should have been maintaining solidarity amongst hacks in the true spirit of socialism and just ignored all the law breaking? But then The Guardian isn't really a left wing paper is it?
His aim has been to drive out of business right wing newspapers through half truths etc.
Behind the bluster, the Tories and the Lib Dems are preparing for another coalition
This bit really stood out
They also acknowledge that the party’s leadership would rather continue to do business with the Tories than enter government with a Labour Party regarded as irredeemably tribal and impervious to compromise.
One MP tells me that the Lib Dems would be prepared to take the path rejected by the Liberal leader Jeremy Thorpe in 1974 and prop up a Conservative government with more votes than Miliband’s party but fewer seats. Cameron – who, as the incumbent, enjoys first preference on any future coalition – can give thanks for that.
A-ha, there we have it. Conditions for 2nd Con-LD coalition: EU vote in exchange for HoL reform and PR for local elections (presumably the latter without a referendum)
As predicted by several old sages on here, I understand.
The principal beneficiaries from PR in local elections would be UKIP and the Green Party. The losers would be the Conservatives and Labour.
How about also the grossly overdue introduction of the Boundary Commission's recommendations on which the LibDems ratted on their agreement last time around. Dave got well and truly suckered on this issue ....... weak, weak, weak!
How ironic that as Alan Rusbridger announces he's about to step down as Guardian Editor-In-Chief, disgraced typically UKIP material ex MP Neil Hamilton pops up in the news to remind us of one of the Guardian's finest hours under his tenure.
For me, ridding us of the creepy criminal enterprise that was the News of the World remains the signal achievement.
Rubbisher has created more unemployment amongst hacks and more court cases against hacks than any other Editor. A remarkable "record".
I suppose you think Rusbridger's prime motive should have been maintaining solidarity amongst hacks in the true spirit of socialism and just ignored all the law breaking? But then The Guardian isn't really a left wing paper is it?
Of course, The Guardian has never broken the law to get a story has it?
Yes, I know, but I think a majority of Tory MPs would back another coalition if that's how the arithmetic works out (subject obviously to the exact deal). A substantial minority would be against the idea, though.
I was chatting to someone a few weeks ago about this, he thinks if the Tories win the popular vote next year (and most seats), but short of a majority, Tory MPs might derail a second coalition, thinking a second election in 2015 might be the way to get an overall majority.
There is a significant strand of Tory MPs who think Dave would have won a majority in a second election held in 2010.
No-one is factoring in what the Lib Dems will do. I'm amazed that Cameron and co are so unconcerned by how they appear to Lib Dems given the difficulty they will have in winning a majority. Do they think they just need to keep Clegg and Alexander onside? If so that's a big mistake. Clegg would have to get another deal through is party. Many of the party aren't keen on going into government again after 2015 and the Tories' Ukip flirtation won't be endearing them to another blue-yellow deal. You then have to factor in that Clegg has to a) hold his seat and b) hold on as leader. Neither of those things can be assumed. If the Lib Dems lose 2/3 of their votes and half their seats he could be a dead man walking.
How ironic that as Alan Rusbridger announces he's about to step down as Guardian Editor-In-Chief, disgraced typically UKIP material ex MP Neil Hamilton pops up in the news to remind us of one of the Guardian's finest hours under his tenure.
For me, ridding us of the creepy criminal enterprise that was the News of the World remains the signal achievement.
Rubbisher has created more unemployment amongst hacks and more court cases against hacks than any other Editor. A remarkable "record".
I suppose you think Rusbridger's prime motive should have been maintaining solidarity amongst hacks in the true spirit of socialism and just ignored all the law breaking? But then The Guardian isn't really a left wing paper is it?
Of course, The Guardian has never broken the law to get a story has it?
Possibly. But what are you saying. There should be no journalistic ethics? Hacking into innocent people's phones on random fishing expeditions is okay? I'm sure The Graun is far from perfect but to criticise for its phone hacking coverage says a lot about you sir.
How ironic that as Alan Rusbridger announces he's about to step down as Guardian Editor-In-Chief, disgraced typically UKIP material ex MP Neil Hamilton pops up in the news to remind us of one of the Guardian's finest hours under his tenure.
For me, ridding us of the creepy criminal enterprise that was the News of the World remains the signal achievement.
Rubbisher has created more unemployment amongst hacks and more court cases against hacks than any other Editor. A remarkable "record".
I suppose you think Rusbridger's prime motive should have been maintaining solidarity amongst hacks in the true spirit of socialism and just ignored all the law breaking? But then The Guardian isn't really a left wing paper is it?
Of course, The Guardian has never broken the law to get a story has it?
Anything the Guardian does is justified by their high moral standards and belief in a better society and indeed, world. It therefore cannot, by definition, be illegal.
Yes but the truth is that Ukip are woefully short of people with any real political experience...
Actually I don't think that is true any more, and for that matter Neil Hamilton is hardly a political whizz-kid.
He does know what it takes for major parties to lose rock solid seats to insurgent candidates though. Maybe UKIP were looking to tap into that.
Mostly it takes all the other parties withdrawing their candidates, I am not sure UKIP are going to be that lucky. If LAB and LD had stood against Hamilton, and you divided Bell's vote between them in the proportion of the previous election, Hamilton would have won.
F1: just some vague musing. Very unlikely McLaren will be able to tilt for the title in 2015. Engine may struggle to match Mercedes, but even if it did, the last two seasons have seen the car lose out aerodynamically to Red Bull and Mercedes. 2016 could be a different kettle of fish.
In 2015, Red Bull have their final Newey-designed car. I don't expect the performance in 2016 to fall off a cliff, but losing Newey will cost them relative performance. Renault will improve the engine but Mercedes aren't just going to stand still, so the car will still lose out in a straight line. Ricciardo's a great driver but he'll struggle, I think, to break the Silver Arrows.
Williams could be the closest threat to Mercedes, but I still think Hamilton and Rosberg will have a second private duel for the title.
Yes but the truth is that Ukip are woefully short of people with any real political experience...
Actually I don't think that is true any more, and for that matter Neil Hamilton is hardly a political whizz-kid.
He does know what it takes for major parties to lose rock solid seats to insurgent candidates though. Maybe UKIP were looking to tap into that.
Mostly it takes all the other parties withdrawing their candidates, I am not sure UKIP are going to be that lucky. If LAB and LD had stood against Hamilton, and you divided Bell's vote between them in the proportion of the previous election, Hamilton would have won.
Hamilton would almost certainly have lost if he faced the same parties in 1997 that he faced in 1992. But his real gift to the Labour party was in the impact he had on the course of the election outside of Tatton.
How ironic that as Alan Rusbridger announces he's about to step down as Guardian Editor-In-Chief, disgraced typically UKIP material ex MP Neil Hamilton pops up in the news to remind us of one of the Guardian's finest hours under his tenure.
For me, ridding us of the creepy criminal enterprise that was the News of the World remains the signal achievement.
Rubbisher has created more unemployment amongst hacks and more court cases against hacks than any other Editor. A remarkable "record".
I suppose you think Rusbridger's prime motive should have been maintaining solidarity amongst hacks in the true spirit of socialism and just ignored all the law breaking? But then The Guardian isn't really a left wing paper is it?
Of course, The Guardian has never broken the law to get a story has it?
Possibly. But what are you saying. There should be no journalistic ethics? Hacking into innocent people's phones on random fishing expeditions is okay? I'm sure The Graun is far from perfect but to criticise for its phone hacking coverage says a lot about you sir.
Actually the sunday guardoian was a big user of the main chap behind the hacking. Presumably all of that was quite legal and the weekday Guardian decided not to look into the Observer as they were left wing morally pure hacks....
How ironic that as Alan Rusbridger announces he's about to step down as Guardian Editor-In-Chief, disgraced typically UKIP material ex MP Neil Hamilton pops up in the news to remind us of one of the Guardian's finest hours under his tenure.
For me, ridding us of the creepy criminal enterprise that was the News of the World remains the signal achievement.
Rubbisher has created more unemployment amongst hacks and more court cases against hacks than any other Editor. A remarkable "record".
I suppose you think Rusbridger's prime motive should have been maintaining solidarity amongst hacks in the true spirit of socialism and just ignored all the law breaking? But then The Guardian isn't really a left wing paper is it?
Of course, The Guardian has never broken the law to get a story has it?
Anything the Guardian does is justified by their high moral standards and belief in a better society and indeed, world. It therefore cannot, by definition, be illegal.
I really cannot understand the right wing bitterness towards The Guardian. I'm starting to wonder if you don't think a plurality of views is a good thing in the media, that we'd be better off just having a Tory press and no alternative? Maybe it's an inferiority complex? Are you rather embarrassed about your own moral standards?
@paulwaugh: EdM vows to keep Lab cuts plans secret b4 elxn? "The right way to make these decisions is, frankly, in government".
So much like the Tories and the Lib Dems then. Thanks for your efforts and all but surely anyone who desperately wants to read tweets criticising Ed can find these on twitter themselves?
@tnewtondunn: Ed Balls coming unstuck on #r4today by attacking state shrink to 35% of GDP but refusing to say what it should be. Same as Danny Alexander.
@IanDunt: Balls sounded terrible in that interview. Stroppy, unclear, point-scoring. And nothing of any substance behind it.
What can Labour say?
Absolutely nothing, they have completely lost the economic argument again.
@paulwaugh: EdM vows to keep Lab cuts plans secret b4 elxn? "The right way to make these decisions is, frankly, in government".
So much like the Tories and the Lib Dems then. Thanks for your efforts and all but surely anyone who desperately wants to read tweets criticising Ed can find these on twitter themselves?
@paulwaugh: EdM vows to keep Lab cuts plans secret b4 elxn? "The right way to make these decisions is, frankly, in government".
So much like the Tories and the Lib Dems then. Thanks for your efforts and all but surely anyone who desperately wants to read tweets criticising Ed can find these on twitter themselves?
@tnewtondunn: Ed Balls coming unstuck on #r4today by attacking state shrink to 35% of GDP but refusing to say what it should be. Same as Danny Alexander.
@IanDunt: Balls sounded terrible in that interview. Stroppy, unclear, point-scoring. And nothing of any substance behind it.
What can Labour say?
Absolutely nothing, they have completely lost the economic argument again.
No, they havent.
I think you'll find that their approach of fewer cuts than the Tories or Lib Dems over the course of the next Parliament would poll best of all the main parties' offerings.
How ironic that as Alan Rusbridger announces he's about to step down as Guardian Editor-In-Chief, disgraced typically UKIP material ex MP Neil Hamilton pops up in the news to remind us of one of the Guardian's finest hours under his tenure.
For me, ridding us of the creepy criminal enterprise that was the News of the World remains the signal achievement.
Rubbisher has created more unemployment amongst hacks and more court cases against hacks than any other Editor. A remarkable "record".
I suppose you think Rusbridger's prime motive should have been maintaining solidarity amongst hacks in the true spirit of socialism and just ignored all the law breaking? But then The Guardian isn't really a left wing paper is it?
Of course, The Guardian has never broken the law to get a story has it?
Anything the Guardian does is justified by their high moral standards and belief in a better society and indeed, world. It therefore cannot, by definition, be illegal.
I really cannot understand the right wing bitterness towards The Guardian. I'm starting to wonder if you don't think a plurality of views is a good thing in the media, that we'd be better off just having a Tory press and no alternative? Maybe it's an inferiority complex? Are you rather embarrassed about your own moral standards?
Actually, that’s nail hit on head time. Witness the howls of rage from the right whenever the BBC has the temerity to report something which is to the Conservatives disadvantage.
@paulwaugh: EdM vows to keep Lab cuts plans secret b4 elxn? "The right way to make these decisions is, frankly, in government".
So much like the Tories and the Lib Dems then. Thanks for your efforts and all but surely anyone who desperately wants to read tweets criticising Ed can find these on twitter themselves?
Indeed, the problem is finding ones praising him
I'll find a tweet praising Ed when you find the Tories' specific plans for cuts over the next Parliament.
I can almost see what EdM is trying to communicate. But it does come across as an A level lecture. I doubt that lecturing voters is the best choice.
@DPJHodges: Ed Miliband is literally saying in the same speech "Cuts are bad. I'll cut". "Spending's bad. I'll spend".
Yes, we know that Dan Hodges doesnt like Ed Miliband. Thanks for the reminder.
I didn't like tim but he had an irritatingly good ability to put his finger on key political issues and distil them into an excellent campaign / spin message for Labour (or against the Tories).
Miliband's problem isn't Hodges, it's his incoherent message.
@Scott_P He could do what Cameron did last election and promise all sorts of goodies, then tell people that on seeing the books, they couldn't have them?
How ironic that as Alan Rusbridger announces he's about to step down as Guardian Editor-In-Chief, disgraced typically UKIP material ex MP Neil Hamilton pops up in the news to remind us of one of the Guardian's finest hours under his tenure.
For me, ridding us of the creepy criminal enterprise that was the News of the World remains the signal achievement.
Rubbisher has created more unemployment amongst hacks and more court cases against hacks than any other Editor. A remarkable "record".
I suppose you think Rusbridger's prime motive should have been maintaining solidarity amongst hacks in the true spirit of socialism and just ignored all the law breaking? But then The Guardian isn't really a left wing paper is it?
Of course, The Guardian has never broken the law to get a story has it?
Anything the Guardian does is justified by their high moral standards and belief in a better society and indeed, world. It therefore cannot, by definition, be illegal.
I really cannot understand the right wing bitterness towards The Guardian. I'm starting to wonder if you don't think a plurality of views is a good thing in the media, that we'd be better off just having a Tory press and no alternative? Maybe it's an inferiority complex? Are you rather embarrassed about your own moral standards?
Not bitterness.
More contempt for people with so little self-respect that they are willing to publish a significsnt quantity of incoherent gibberish from people without even a working knowledge of their own subjects.
King Cole, disapproval of the BBC's reporting of the yacht nonsense or the recent "back to the 1930s" propaganda is entirely legitimate. I can't recall many here complaining when the BBC rightly pointed out Cameron's damned fool immigration promise was not merely missed, but missed by a mile.
Yes, I know, but I think a majority of Tory MPs would back another coalition if that's how the arithmetic works out (subject obviously to the exact deal). A substantial minority would be against the idea, though.
I was chatting to someone a few weeks ago about this, he thinks if the Tories win the popular vote next year (and most seats), but short of a majority, Tory MPs might derail a second coalition, thinking a second election in 2015 might be the way to get an overall majority.
There is a significant strand of Tory MPs who think Dave would have won a majority in a second election held in 2010.
No-one is factoring in what the Lib Dems will do. I'm amazed that Cameron and co are so unconcerned by how they appear to Lib Dems given the difficulty they will have in winning a majority. Do they think they just need to keep Clegg and Alexander onside? If so that's a big mistake. Clegg would have to get another deal through is party. Many of the party aren't keen on going into government again after 2015 and the Tories' Ukip flirtation won't be endearing them to another blue-yellow deal. You then have to factor in that Clegg has to a) hold his seat and b) hold on as leader. Neither of those things can be assumed. If the Lib Dems lose 2/3 of their votes and half their seats he could be a dead man walking.
How exactly are the Tories flirting with UKIP? On EU immigration, they watered it down to no actual restrictions but just benefit changes. On non-EU immigration, they haven't added in any extra barriers. On the EAW, they handed powers back to Brussels without a referendum. They haven't changed any policies at all on international development or gay marriage. Where's the flirtation? I don't see it.
Can't help feeling that England should have wrapped this up by now. A wicket will really put some pressure on. Assume Root will cut loose after his century, although he's pushing it close to the line...
I'll say again: The Labour manifesto is going to be a bundle of laughs - but not nearly as funny as watching Ed on the telly for a month trying to explain it.
"That she'd been given preferential treatment because he had designs on her? "
Incredible. I bet that's never happened before in the whole history of politics. Ban 'em immediately.
Forget that story, the most shocking story about UKIP candidates this week was that they thought putting Neil Hamilton as a candidate next year was a good idea.
Why sensible Kippers like Richard Tyndall and Sean Fear could spot that was a disaster waiting to happen, and UKIP high command couldn't is worrying if you're a purple.
As someone said last night, next week they'll be putting up Jeffrey Archer and Jonathan Aitken as candidates.
I suppose the view is that Hamilton has served his time in the wilderness, and is entitled to be rehabilitated. Parties can be very loyal to long-term activists.
I still think he definitely shouldn't be a candidate.
Also I guess people with any nouse rather than being sycophantic trolls might notice that he has never been selected as a candidate, and yesterday was effectively stopped from running in the hustings
Kippers need to make their minds up - he has either 'never been found guilty of anything' 'deserves a second chance' or 'we never wanted him'. UKIP seem on total confusion over Hamilton.
"That she'd been given preferential treatment because he had designs on her? "
Incredible. I bet that's never happened before in the whole history of politics. Ban 'em immediately.
Forget that story, the most shocking story about UKIP candidates this week was that they thought putting Neil Hamilton as a candidate next year was a good idea.
Why sensible Kippers like Richard Tyndall and Sean Fear could spot that was a disaster waiting to happen, and UKIP high command couldn't is worrying if you're a purple.
As someone said last night, next week they'll be putting up Jeffrey Archer and Jonathan Aitken as candidates.
I suppose the view is that Hamilton has served his time in the wilderness, and is entitled to be rehabilitated. Parties can be very loyal to long-term activists.
I still think he definitely shouldn't be a candidate.
With some professions, as per the rehab act, some convictions are never spent, and must be disclosed. The same principle should apply for Neil Hamilton.
As his transgressions were directly to do with him being an MP, that's why he never should have been anywhere near a selection shortlist.
Has he actually been convicted on anything in a court of law ?
@paulwaugh: EdM vows to keep Lab cuts plans secret b4 elxn? "The right way to make these decisions is, frankly, in government".
So much like the Tories and the Lib Dems then. Thanks for your efforts and all but surely anyone who desperately wants to read tweets criticising Ed can find these on twitter themselves?
Indeed, the problem is finding ones praising him
I'll find a tweet praising Ed when you find the Tories' specific plans for cuts over the next Parliament.
No-one is expecting either Ed to write the 2018 Budget, but, given that Labour spend their entire time criticising Osborne's plans, and opposing nearly every concrete measure taken to save money, it's not unreasonable to ask what Labour would do differently.
The answer may well be 'Not much, Osborne was right all along, and we apologise for ever saying anything different'.
Or it might be 'We would slash the NHS budget and spend more on welfare'. Or vice versa.
The Lib Dems won't allow an EU vote. They're EU sycophants to their core.
I think they will. Why shouldn't they? You think it would be won by the Stay In side, thanks to David Cameron's uniquely powerful persuasive powers, and no doubt they would agree with you.
As long as it's on a fair basis: an agreed situation for what EU membership we're voting to be a part of or not, then we will vote to leave. Of course, David Cameron won't offer that.
The fact is that the Lib Dems, Labour and the Tories all try to dodge referenda on Europe as much as possible. They all try to promise them only for times when they won't be in power, and if they are in power, they dodge them.
You're tying yourself in absurd knots, arguing simultaneously that the 'Europhiles' (whoever they are) are terrified of an EU referendum, and that it can't be won by the Out side because Cameron will fix it. One moment you post links saying how much support there is for leaving, or how distrusted Cameron is, or how useless he is at politics, or how the renegotiation can't achieve anything, and the next moment you're saying that if he recommends staying in on the basis of a flaky renegotiation, there's nothing the BOOers and the peoples' army can do to dissuade the public from following his advice.
I'm striving hard to be polite to Kippers, so I'll refrain from saying this is fruitcake-loon bonkers, but it is, shall we say, intellectually inconsistent.
It's easy to argue with strawmen, isn't it? I have said several times in the last couple of weeks that we can win one on the basis of a flaky renegotiation, as soon as the results of the renegotiation are in. But Cameron, if he even bothers to have a referendum, will likely do it on the basis of a renegotiation yet to come. And I've never said a rigged referendum can't be won by the out side. Just that it's a lot more likely to be won if it's not rigged.
Yes, I know, but I think a majority of Tory MPs would back another coalition if that's how the arithmetic works out (subject obviously to the exact deal). A substantial minority would be against the idea, though.
I was chatting to someone a few weeks ago about this, he thinks if the Tories win the popular vote next year (and most seats), but short of a majority, Tory MPs might derail a second coalition, thinking a second election in 2015 might be the way to get an overall majority.
There is a significant strand of Tory MPs who think Dave would have won a majority in a second election held in 2010.
No-one is factoring in what the Lib Dems will do. I'm amazed that Cameron and co are so unconcerned by how they appear to Lib Dems given the difficulty they will have in winning a majority. Do they think they just need to keep Clegg and Alexander onside? If so that's a big mistake. Clegg would have to get another deal through is party. Many of the party aren't keen on going into government again after 2015 and the Tories' Ukip flirtation won't be endearing them to another blue-yellow deal. You then have to factor in that Clegg has to a) hold his seat and b) hold on as leader. Neither of those things can be assumed. If the Lib Dems lose 2/3 of their votes and half their seats he could be a dead man walking.
How exactly are the Tories flirting with UKIP? On EU immigration, they watered it down to no actual restrictions but just benefit changes. On non-EU immigration, they haven't added in any extra barriers. On the EAW, they handed powers back to Brussels without a referendum. They haven't changed any policies at all on international development or gay marriage. Where's the flirtation? I don't see it.
On actual policy you are probably right. However a lot of Lib Dems will have on their mind the Tory conference where the 'talk' was pretty Ukip friendly. Whether or not it's about Ukip, it's clear 'modernisation' is dead within the Tory party. That will make a blue-yellow deal more difficult. I think the Tories assume the Lib Dems will do anything for a seat (or two) around the cabinet table. But Clegg and Alexander don't represent the Lib Dems en masse and at least one of them is unlikely to be around post-May.
How ironic that as Alan Rusbridger announces he's about to step down as Guardian Editor-In-Chief, disgraced typically UKIP material ex MP Neil Hamilton pops up in the news to remind us of one of the Guardian's finest hours under his tenure.
For me, ridding us of the creepy criminal enterprise that was the News of the World remains the signal achievement.
Rubbisher has created more unemployment amongst hacks and more court cases against hacks than any other Editor. A remarkable "record".
Yes, I know, but I think a majority of Tory MPs would back another coalition if that's how the arithmetic works out (subject obviously to the exact deal). A substantial minority would be against the idea, though.
I was chatting to someone a few weeks ago about this, he thinks if the Tories win the popular vote next year (and most seats), but short of a majority, Tory MPs might derail a second coalition, thinking a second election in 2015 might be the way to get an overall majority.
There is a significant strand of Tory MPs who think Dave would have won a majority in a second election held in 2010.
No-one is factoring in what the Lib Dems will do. I'm amazed that Cameron and co are so unconcerned by how they appear to Lib Dems given the difficulty they will have in winning a majority. Do they think they just need to keep Clegg and Alexander onside? If so that's a big mistake. Clegg would have to get another deal through is party. Many of the party aren't keen on going into government again after 2015 and the Tories' Ukip flirtation won't be endearing them to another blue-yellow deal. You then have to factor in that Clegg has to a) hold his seat and b) hold on as leader. Neither of those things can be assumed. If the Lib Dems lose 2/3 of their votes and half their seats he could be a dead man walking.
How exactly are the Tories flirting with UKIP? On EU immigration, they watered it down to no actual restrictions but just benefit changes. On non-EU immigration, they haven't added in any extra barriers. On the EAW, they handed powers back to Brussels without a referendum. They haven't changed any policies at all on international development or gay marriage. Where's the flirtation? I don't see it.
Allowing in as many poor Europeans as possible then treating them like 2nd class citizens/slaves doesn't appeal to me... Managed immigration should try to encourage a more cohesive society not one that is more divided
Cameron doesn't understand why people vote UKIP and makes decisions based on his misunderstanding of why they do
It's easy to argue with strawmen, isn't it? I have said several times in the last couple of weeks that we can win one on the basis of a flaky renegotiation, as soon as the results of the renegotiation are in. But Cameron, if he even bothers to have a referendum, will likely do it on the basis of a renegotiation yet to come. And I've never said a rigged referendum can't be won by the out side. Just that it's a lot more likely to be won if it's not rigged.
And, as was immediately pointed out, the Out side would also be arguing on the basis of a negotiation yet to come (indeed yet to be started). Why does uncertainty on one side make the referendum 'rigged', but uncertainty on the other side doesn't?
"That she'd been given preferential treatment because he had designs on her? "
Incredible. I bet that's never happened before in the whole history of politics. Ban 'em immediately.
Forget that story, the most shocking story about UKIP candidates this week was that they thought putting Neil Hamilton as a candidate next year was a good idea.
Why sensible Kippers like Richard Tyndall and Sean Fear could spot that was a disaster waiting to happen, and UKIP high command couldn't is worrying if you're a purple.
As someone said last night, next week they'll be putting up Jeffrey Archer and Jonathan Aitken as candidates.
I suppose the view is that Hamilton has served his time in the wilderness, and is entitled to be rehabilitated. Parties can be very loyal to long-term activists.
I still think he definitely shouldn't be a candidate.
With some professions, as per the rehab act, some convictions are never spent, and must be disclosed. The same principle should apply for Neil Hamilton.
As his transgressions were directly to do with him being an MP, that's why he never should have been anywhere near a selection shortlist.
Has he actually been convicted on anything in a court of law ?
No, he did lose a libel action IIRC but he was found guilty by a Commons inquiry of accepting cash for questions.
The Lib Dems won't allow an EU vote. They're EU sycophants to their core.
I think they will. Why shouldn't they? You think it would be won by the Stay In side, thanks to David Cameron's uniquely powerful persuasive powers, and no doubt they would agree with you.
As long as it's on a fair basis: an agreed situation for what EU membership we're voting to be a part of or not, then we will vote to leave. Of course, David Cameron won't offer that.
The fact is that the Lib Dems, Labour and the Tories all try to dodge referenda on Europe as much as possible. They all try to promise them only for times when they won't be in power, and if they are in power, they dodge them.
You're tying yourself in absurd knots, arguing simultaneously that the 'Europhiles' (whoever they are) are terrified of an EU referendum, and that it can't be won by the Out side because Cameron will fix it. One moment you post links saying how much support there is for leaving, or how distrusted Cameron is, or how useless he is at politics, or how the renegotiation can't achieve anything, and the next moment you're saying that if he recommends staying in on the basis of a flaky renegotiation, there's nothing the BOOers and the peoples' army can do to dissuade the public from following his advice.
I'm striving hard to be polite to Kippers, so I'll refrain from saying this is fruitcake-loon bonkers, but it is, shall we say, intellectually inconsistent.
It's easy to argue with strawmen, isn't it? I have said several times in the last couple of weeks that we can win one on the basis of a flaky renegotiation, as soon as the results of the renegotiation are in. But Cameron, if he even bothers to have a referendum, will likely do it on the basis of a renegotiation yet to come. And I've never said a rigged referendum can't be won by the out side. Just that it's a lot more likely to be won if it's not rigged.
How you can you possibly 'rig' a referendum when the question is simply whether to stay in or leave the EU?
Well I suppose if all this nonsense pushes you back into kipper-camp then it will have been some use: I was dreading that you might be floating back to the blues based on your vituperative indignation about votes for 16 year olds.
Some fairly predictable tweets (and equally predictable re-tweets from the usual suspects) during and after Ed Milliband's speech. I don't recall George Osborne being too precise on the content of his June 2010 Emergency Budget in December 2009 yet everyone expects Ed Balls to have the 2016 Budget ready for consideration now.
It's also entirely reasonable for an incoming Government to want to look at the books or amusing letters from the outgoing Chief Secretary before making firm decisions. Given Osborne's propensity for smoke and mirrors, I suspect the public finances are much worse than he is letting on.
That said, and without reading the detailed speech, I still don't get the sense Labour are prepared to consider the inconsiderable and look at the NHS or Education Budgets for cuts. On the other hand, the Osbornian "slash and burn" approach isn't without its flaws either.
Some fairly predictable tweets (and equally predictable re-tweets from the usual suspects) during and after Ed Milliband's speech. I don't recall George Osborne being too precise on the content of his June 2010 Emergency Budget in December 2009 yet everyone expects Ed Balls to have the 2016 Budget ready for consideration now.
The economic situation, tax take, and near-term growth are much better understood, and much more stable, than in 2009. Viewing them as comparable is a little shakey, IMHO.
Ed Miliband's economic approach is the correct one for Labour to adopt. His challenge is that Labour has been spending four years giving exactly the opposite smoke signals by opposing numerous specific cuts. How is he going to persuade the public that he means what he now says?
"That she'd been given preferential treatment because he had designs on her? "
Incredible. I bet that's never happened before in the whole history of politics. Ban 'em immediately.
Forget that story, the most shocking story about UKIP candidates this week was that they thought putting Neil Hamilton as a candidate next year was a good idea.
Why sensible Kippers like Richard Tyndall and Sean Fear could spot that was a disaster waiting to happen, and UKIP high command couldn't is worrying if you're a purple.
As someone said last night, next week they'll be putting up Jeffrey Archer and Jonathan Aitken as candidates.
I suppose the view is that Hamilton has served his time in the wilderness, and is entitled to be rehabilitated. Parties can be very loyal to long-term activists.
I still think he definitely shouldn't be a candidate.
With some professions, as per the rehab act, some convictions are never spent, and must be disclosed. The same principle should apply for Neil Hamilton.
As his transgressions were directly to do with him being an MP, that's why he never should have been anywhere near a selection shortlist.
Has he actually been convicted on anything in a court of law ?
No, he did lose a libel action IIRC but he was found guilty by a Commons inquiry of accepting cash for questions.
One should be careful about starting libel actions against people with effectively bottomless wallets. To be fair to Hamilton (not something I do that often) , from his Wikipedia:
"On 14 October 1997, Hamilton made an appeal to a new committee. On 6 November, the committee only partially endorsed Downey's report, but still criticised Hamilton's behaviour whilst an MP."
@paulwaugh: EdM vows to keep Lab cuts plans secret b4 elxn? "The right way to make these decisions is, frankly, in government".
So much like the Tories and the Lib Dems then. Thanks for your efforts and all but surely anyone who desperately wants to read tweets criticising Ed can find these on twitter themselves?
Indeed, the problem is finding ones praising him
I'll find a tweet praising Ed when you find the Tories' specific plans for cuts over the next Parliament.
No-one is expecting either Ed to write the 2018 Budget, but, given that Labour spend their entire time criticising Osborne's plans, and opposing nearly every concrete measure taken to save money, it's not unreasonable to ask what Labour would do differently.
The answer may well be 'Not much, Osborne was right all along, and we apologise for ever saying anything different'.
Or it might be 'We would slash the NHS budget and spend more on welfare'. Or vice versa.
Who knows? Do Labour know?
I'm sorry, Richard. There arent the specifics I was asking about. We know what the broad borrowing plans for each of the main parties are. We know some specifics within that. But none of the parties have set out clearly what will be cut and by how much over the course of the next Parliament. You are criticising Miliband for being in the same position as Cameron.
Presumably pro porn goes down well with students...
I think the real point is it doesn't make any damn difference to porn, except it pushes a few producers offshore and forces them to give their tax to another jurisdiction, otherwise the world proceeds as before. There is only one thing worse than illiberal laws, its pointless ineffectual illiberal laws!
On the other hand, the Osbornian "slash and burn" approach isn't without its flaws either.
What slash and burn approach?
The current government has over the last five years reduced government spending by ~2%.
Indeed, Osborne cuts half in five years of what Healey cut in one year. Over the next five years if he ramps up his cuts as announced he will cut roughly the same as Healey cut in one year.
"That she'd been given preferential treatment because he had designs on her? "
Incredible. I bet that's never happened before in the whole history of politics. Ban 'em immediately.
Forget that story, the most shocking story about UKIP candidates this week was that they thought putting Neil Hamilton as a candidate next year was a good idea.
Why sensible Kippers like Richard Tyndall and Sean Fear could spot that was a disaster waiting to happen, and UKIP high command couldn't is worrying if you're a purple.
As someone said last night, next week they'll be putting up Jeffrey Archer and Jonathan Aitken as candidates.
I suppose the view is that Hamilton has served his time in the wilderness, and is entitled to be rehabilitated. Parties can be very loyal to long-term activists.
I still think he definitely shouldn't be a candidate.
With some professions, as per the rehab act, some convictions are never spent, and must be disclosed. The same principle should apply for Neil Hamilton.
As his transgressions were directly to do with him being an MP, that's why he never should have been anywhere near a selection shortlist.
Has he actually been convicted on anything in a court of law ?
No, he did lose a libel action IIRC but he was found guilty by a Commons inquiry of accepting cash for questions.
One should be careful about starting libel actions against people with effectively bottomless wallets. To be fair to Hamilton (not something I do that often) , from his Wikipedia:
"On 14 October 1997, Hamilton made an appeal to a new committee. On 6 November, the committee only partially endorsed Downey's report, but still criticised Hamilton's behaviour whilst an MP."
Neil Hamilton did bring a successful libel action in the past, back in the 80s when the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation libelled him as a far right extremist.
I think the committee did endorse the finding that Hamilton accepted cash in exchanges for asking questions.
Comments
I still think he definitely shouldn't be a candidate.
@D_Blanchflower @OborneTweets
0 replies . 3 retweets 4 favourites
Danny Blanchflower @D_Blanchflower
@steve_hawkes i never once ever said unemployment will hit 4 million repeat that libel again and take the consequences
steve hawkes @steve_hawkes 16m16 minutes ago
Sorry, you're right, you said five million http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/6224723/Tory-public-spending-cuts-could-push-unemployment-to-5-million.html …
Mr Jonathan Aitken (Conservative Party) is likely to be on the voting slip in May.
And as regards, Archer J, was he a fantasist before the Conservatives clutched him to their bosom, or did joining the Conservative party turn him into one?
Seems that Reckless and Carswell were relatively normal by comparison. Although Neil Hamilton would have blown away that supposition.
"There's only one 35% strategy in British politics today," says Miliband. Tory plan to cut state to that.
Seems Ed is more realistic about his election chances ...
"There's only one 35% strategy in British politics today," says Miliband. Tory plan to cut state to that. Good line.
Tim Shipman is wrong. Only wonks would understand the reference to a 35% strategy. The general public would be baffled. It's a line for the Westminster bubble.
The Lords should be abolished. As should 'Life Peers'.
But the fact is he isn't a candidate, and wasn't even allowed to run to be one
If you can't see how having a top tier of boozy white late-middle-aged lascivious men, largely at the fag ends of their careers, frequenting massage parlours, having mistresses, happy to trash the reputations of women they have slept with, might not be overly appealing to female voters, then you are beyond help.
" happy to trash the reputations of women they have slept with" oh come on Mark!
He is defending his reputation from a serious allegation.
WTF do you expect him to do, just lie back and let her trash HIS reputation?
I think in this case your hatred of UKIP is dictating your response rather than the actuality of the situation.
Key line from Miliband: "Tackling the cost of living crisis is in fact essential for tackling the deficit."
Don't show him the inflation figures..
As his transgressions were directly to do with him being an MP, that's why he never should have been anywhere near a selection shortlist.
Starting with the 307 seats won by the Tories in 2010, if one adds to this figure say around 12 seats which they are expected to gain from the LibDems and say 4 seats they may lose to UKIP, resulting in them winning a net 315 seats. If one compares this figure with their mid-spread value of 282 seats, the conclusion appears to be that on these assumptions they will lose around 33 seats to Labour (i.e. 315 - 282 seats).
This tends to support my view that the value, if such exists, is likely to be in those circa 30 seats, being between the 30th - 60th considered to be the most vulnerable to Labour. I suspect that the odds and indeed the value available across this range of seats will vary very considerably.
@faisalislam: Miliband says manifesto will spell out "a very limited number of other areas which will have spending protected".
..apart from anything you don't want cut
Ralph Atkinson patently isnt a local candidate, he stood for Croydon South last time around, and hasnt updated his Blog since, as one might expect of say, the new candidate
http://ralphukip.blogspot.com/
Additionally if you look at the Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/ukiphastingsrye
You can see:
UKIP Hastings & Rye
2 December
Hastings & Rye UKIP Branch last night elected their PPC, Congratulations to Gogglebox's Andrew Michael
So was he their PPC, or did he just think he should be, but didn't actually get it ?
And we were seriously short of experienced candidates, let alone councillors.
Should we be surprised at the speculations from the New Statesman?
When even Allegra is sceptical...
Dave got well and truly suckered on this issue ....... weak, weak, weak!
@tombradby: There was nothing new in that speech at all. No policy shift, no new detail.
@IanDunt: Is it performance anxiety? Came across as knowledgeable, reasonable & decisive, then fluttered it away during the money shot.
@DPJHodges: Ed said "we won't make unfunded promises", then promised to bring current account into balance. When @tombradby asked how he couldn't say.
In 2015, Red Bull have their final Newey-designed car. I don't expect the performance in 2016 to fall off a cliff, but losing Newey will cost them relative performance. Renault will improve the engine but Mercedes aren't just going to stand still, so the car will still lose out in a straight line. Ricciardo's a great driver but he'll struggle, I think, to break the Silver Arrows.
Williams could be the closest threat to Mercedes, but I still think Hamilton and Rosberg will have a second private duel for the title.
@paulwaugh: EdM vows to keep Lab cuts plans secret b4 elxn? "The right way to make these decisions is, frankly, in government".
Absolutely nothing, they have completely lost the economic argument again.
I think you'll find that their approach of fewer cuts than the Tories or Lib Dems over the course of the next Parliament would poll best of all the main parties' offerings.
We will balance the books!
How?
Um...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30420193
Miliband's problem isn't Hodges, it's his incoherent message.
He could do what Cameron did last election and promise all sorts of goodies, then tell people that on seeing the books, they couldn't have them?
More contempt for people with so little self-respect that they are willing to publish a significsnt quantity of incoherent gibberish from people without even a working knowledge of their own subjects.
And that's without starting on the hypocrisy.
EDIT: Oh dear, Ravi. Oh dear.
What media do you suggest we use for a totally unbiased and moral perspective then Matt?
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/382327/44695_Accessible.pdf
No-one is expecting either Ed to write the 2018 Budget, but, given that Labour spend their entire time criticising Osborne's plans, and opposing nearly every concrete measure taken to save money, it's not unreasonable to ask what Labour would do differently.
The answer may well be 'Not much, Osborne was right all along, and we apologise for ever saying anything different'.
Or it might be 'We would slash the NHS budget and spend more on welfare'. Or vice versa.
Who knows? Do Labour know?
Rapid rebuttal unit out in force, ScottP retweeting his little socks off.
Cameron doesn't understand why people vote UKIP and makes decisions based on his misunderstanding of why they do
Well I suppose if all this nonsense pushes you back into kipper-camp then it will have been some use: I was dreading that you might be floating back to the blues based on your vituperative indignation about votes for 16 year olds.
Some fairly predictable tweets (and equally predictable re-tweets from the usual suspects) during and after Ed Milliband's speech. I don't recall George Osborne being too precise on the content of his June 2010 Emergency Budget in December 2009 yet everyone expects Ed Balls to have the 2016 Budget ready for consideration now.
It's also entirely reasonable for an incoming Government to want to look at the books or amusing letters from the outgoing Chief Secretary before making firm decisions. Given Osborne's propensity for smoke and mirrors, I suspect the public finances are much worse than he is letting on.
That said, and without reading the detailed speech, I still don't get the sense Labour are prepared to consider the inconsiderable and look at the NHS or Education Budgets for cuts. On the other hand, the Osbornian "slash and burn" approach isn't without its flaws either.
The current government has over the last five years reduced government spending by ~2%.
"On 14 October 1997, Hamilton made an appeal to a new committee. On 6 November, the committee only partially endorsed Downey's report, but still criticised Hamilton's behaviour whilst an MP."
How's your cost of living crisis going Ed?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-30413263
'Slash and burn' in action.
I think the committee did endorse the finding that Hamilton accepted cash in exchanges for asking questions.