Worth noting that after a week of "championship quality tennis" Ed Miliband's approval rating has climbed three points to a mighty -47. One point lower than where he was two week ago. That may be priced in, but let's see whether people drag themselves out of bed for him in May.
Cracking interview of IDS on Marr. A first class minister, master of his brief, thoroughly grilled in an informative and challenging interview. The comparison to the tetchy and low quality Balls interview was stark.
This would be the very same IDS who has presided over the Universal Credit – one of the most expensive public project cockups for decades?
This attempt by rightwing newspapers and posters to show that labour also had tax evading donors not only misses the point but is actually counter productive. The voter's anger has nothing to do with who is financing which party. It is that the super rich in business big business and banking are avoiding tax.
To exaccerbate their anger this is being done while those at the bottom are being squeezed with ever tighter austerity measures. It is offensive to people's idea of fair play
The Tories WANT to be seen as the party of business and big business which they are. They also want to be seen as the party who squeeze benefit claimants which they are.
Trying to spread the manure more widely makes things worse. I wrote yesterday how Dave should get himself out of this but I suspect Grant Shapps arrogance makes this impossible
So now that plenty of Labour people have been outed as tax avoiders it is "missing the point"?
The stench of hypocrisy from unabashed Lefties like you is overwhelming.
Whether there is hypocrisy or not is not really the point. The Tories are widely seen as the party of the rich, the investment bankers, the hedge fund managers etc so in political terms (which after all is what we are discussing) all their misdeeds does the Tories far greater harm than Labour, particularly at a time of austerity for most. Remember Cameron & Osborn have told us we are all in it together!.
No, it really wont. Tory voters wont care, Labour voters weren't going to vote Tory anyway, it wont move the Tory vote at all.
Agreed but Labour doesn't need Tory votes - it is the Lib Dem, Green & SNP pools they will be fishing in between now and May and I suspect that for many of those voters their sympathies will not be with the so called 1%.
The above comments are an accurate view of events concerning Tory poll ratings. Today, commentators seem intriques by the notion of the 'voteless' recovery. In fact the country at large made its decision on the present Government at the time of the Granny Tax when the sense of disillusionment was tangible. In turn, that can be laid at the door of the LibDems who leaked the Osborne budget beforehand and who enabled the Left to prepare its response. The end of the present administration, if it does (as indeed it will) end in May, can be laid squarely with the LibDems who entered Government in order to oppose it, rather than share it. When the time comes I hope that the LibDems are consigned to the trashcan of history and that neither of the other two main parties will ever deal with them.
The 2012 budget fiasco was this governments nadir and to be honest Osborne brought it all on himself by arrogantly flitting off to America rather than concentrating on what he should have been doing.
The Lib-Dems were opportunistic and looking for revenge for the AV debacle, but Osborne's budget should have been water tight.
One fun aspect of Cameron and Osborne being kicked out in May will be that it'll be open season on Boy George. I won't be holding back, and nor' I suspect, will most people.
That will be the same Boy George that has done a superb job of getting the country back into growth without causing mass unemployment?
What will Balls do, take advice from Kruger and Blanchflower?
Osborne may or may not have done a reasonable job of getting the country back to growth (I'm not an economist) but the problem is that, like Cameron, he seems to be pretty useless at actually doing politics... Yet he think's he's some sort of "master strategist"
Anyway, this is all for after 7th May...
Some of us are thinking that getting the country back to growth is all the politics that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was required to perform!
Ed Balls' performance on Marr is the reason we Tories remain bouyant - Labour has no coherent message on the economy. And that has not yet been exposed to the voters. The more that Balls goes on making such a pitiful case, this close to the election, the more we think he really is holding nothing in reserve...
His troops are all in the battle field. Ours are still waiting, hidden in the corn fields.
Very similar to the Parisian attacks. First on a free speech issue, then an attack on a Jewish target (one Jew was killed, two more policemen on duty near the synagogue were injured).
Hammond looks a no-hoper to me – a staid, dull choice that is surely the wrong one to revive the Blues after an election defeat.
It will be Boris I assume.
Mr Hammond does seem to want the job. The problem with this contest is we have no idea what the internal alliances are within the parliamentary Conservative Party.
Nadine Dorries appears to be a popular figure with the associations, who will she back?
That will be the same Boy George that has done a superb job of getting the country back into growth without causing mass unemployment?
Whether that is down to him or just pure luck, and even with all the part time employment - it's better than nothing - and cost of living difficulties, I do feel he and the Tories can feel a little disappointed they do not seem to be getting any approbation for it. I guess people expect things to be at decent levels and so don't reward a good performance or outcome as much as, from the Tory side, might feel appropriate?
Do I take it from this thread then that the consensus is forming that the election is over and Labour won?
I'd say so, but since I thought that was very likely 4 years ago, in total opposition to my avatar, I am trying to see the other possibilities in case I have unduly dismissed Tory chances. Nothing yet.
As for who would be a good LOTO choice, I think you dismiss the technocrats a bit too quickly. People have a weird affinity for bland technocrats (the lack of 'risk' of what a charismatic, quick witted leader might do I guess), and after the supposedly flashy Cameron who people just didn't believe, the party might well stump for a boring, sensible non-etonion to give them 'credibility' perhaps.
I'm guessing it will be someone relatively new - Cameron's approach will have been seen as a total failure, a bit unfairly, the party will be mired in vicious bickering (an outsider's perspective, but for much of this parliament the party seemed consumed with its internal squabbling and that was while they were in office!) and disbelief that they still haven't won a majority in so long even with Ed M as LOTO, and I think a crunch point may have been reached that leads to as much of a break with the current leadership as they can. Too soon or not, Javid probably comes out well in that, in that while he is a part of the current leadership with strong Osborne links to appear to the continuity people, he is much more of a fresh face than if Hammond, May or Boris were to take over.
And now, must be off for a Sunday walk and then off to see Kingsman - the trailer I saw for it was bloody awful, but I'm told it is actually quite good.
Whether there is hypocrisy or not is not really the point. The Tories are widely seen as the party of the rich, the investment bankers, the hedge fund managers etc so in political terms (which after all is what we are discussing) all their misdeeds does the Tories far greater harm than Labour,'
So Labour farts don't smell.
All the party's have some donors who's financial affairs would not look good if the spotlight were shone on them. I am not interested in point scoring I am simply giving my opinion on the political impact of the issue, which, I repeat will harm the Tories far more than any other party regardless of how many examples the Mail and the Telegraph uncover from other parties. Labour has undoubtedly gained a little ground this week in the polls and tax avoidance has dominated the debate.
So that's it then. Labour has a small lead in a few polls. Quite frankly I don't know why the tories are bothering. In fact, why don;t we just skip the election and give ed the keys now?
And pay out all the lefties who are under water big time on their bets?
Skimming through the posts on here this morning it would appear that there is agreement about EdM being hypocritical re tax avoiders and that his followers support him....Strange people.
For all the noise about tax evasion, I suspect that the hypocrisy charge has the potential to be the most damaging.
Tax evasion = what rich people do. Doubt it will cut through.
Hypocrite is an insult virtually everyone has used from time to time (even if they don't quite know what it means). And it's universally seen as a negative trait.
So that's it then. Labour has a small lead in a few polls. Quite frankly I don't know why the tories are bothering. In fact, why don;t we just skip the election and give ed the keys now?
Plenty to play for yet, but given the Tories couldn't get a majority with a 7% lead in 2010 you would have to be a supreme optimist to believe things are going to plan for the Tories being a couple of points behind with 11 weeks to go. The budget could be key if it succeeds in focussing attention on the economy. I still think the Tories will win most votes but I think a majority is pretty much unattainable barring a real black swan event. If they fail to get a majority this time it will be 28 years since they won a majority by the next attempt, and that is a problem, whether Tory sympathisers accept it or not.
Worth noting that after a week of "championship quality tennis" Ed Miliband's approval rating has climbed three points to a mighty -47. One point lower than where he was two week ago. That may be priced in, but let's see whether people drag themselves out of bed for him in May.
Cracking interview of IDS on Marr. A first class minister, master of his brief, thoroughly grilled in an informative and challenging interview. The comparison to the tetchy and low quality Balls interview was stark.
This would be the very same IDS who has presided over the Universal Credit – one of the most expensive public project cockups for decades?
Being rolled out nationwide today.
But far better to fail than not to try, isn't it? Or would you rather leave the poor and jobless to rot in their sink estates?
And the beauty of it is that Tories will be blamed, even if this guy supports Labour. That's the crude politics: sorry but there it is. The voter on the Clapham omnibus just sees a whole class of rich bar stewards fiddling their taxes. It's the rich what gets the pleasure, ain't it all a bleeding shame.
And the beauty of it is that Tories will be blamed, even if this guy supports Labour. That's the crude politics: sorry but there it is. The voter on the Clapham omnibus just sees a whole class of rich bar stewards fiddling their taxes. It's the rich what gets the pleasure, ain't it all a bleeding shame.
Skimming through the posts on here this morning it would appear that there is agreement about EdM being hypocritical re tax avoiders and that his followers support him....Strange people.
For all the noise about tax evasion, I suspect that the hypocrisy charge has the potential to be the most damaging.
Tax evasion = what rich people do. Doubt it will cut through.
Hypocrite is an insult virtually everyone has used from time to time (even if they don't quite know what it means). And it's universally seen as a negative trait.
Skimming through the posts on here this morning it would appear that there is agreement about EdM being hypocritical re tax avoiders and that his followers support him....Strange people.
For all the noise about tax evasion, I suspect that the hypocrisy charge has the potential to be the most damaging.
Tax evasion = what rich people do. Doubt it will cut through.
Hypocrite is an insult virtually everyone has used from time to time (even if they don't quite know what it means). And it's universally seen as a negative trait.
Politicians are already viewed as hypocrites.
As a class, yes to an extent.
It's rare for a specific individual to be picked out and directly accused of it by multiple sources.
I still think the Tories will win most votes but I think a majority is pretty much unattainable barring a real black swan event.
The black swan event might be Greece. The idiots at the troika are allowing Syriza to maintian the fallacy that it is possible to vote yourself out of your debts.
If Mrs T (PBUH) were still in charge, she would probably be demanding that Greece be made an example of. And now.
And the beauty of it is that Tories will be blamed, even if this guy supports Labour. That's the crude politics: sorry but there it is. The voter on the Clapham omnibus just sees a whole class of rich bar stewards fiddling their taxes. It's the rich what gets the pleasure, ain't it all a bleeding shame.
Ahh, the beauty of hypocrisy
Yes no one should call you one. As you stated a poster called you one the other day.
This point has probably already been made, but surely Boris wins the member's vote with some ease if he reaches the final two. Furthermore, he is the two-time winner of the largest single election in British politics, the London Mayoralty. If the Tories do lose the 2015 election, it will have been 23 years since they last won a majority. Why turn away from a proven winner?
So the only question in my mind is whether he can win over enough Conservative MPs to get through to the member's vote. I do not have the first clue about that.
People don;t mind how rich the rich are if they themselves are feeling well off, or if they can see the chance to feel well off down the line.
Over to you, Osborne.
I kind of agree with you on that but isn't the problem for the Tories that most people aren't feeling well off. To be honest, I have some sympathy with any government trying to spread the wealth around in a globalised economy where the top 1% keep persist in taking aa ever- larger share of the pie for themselves leaving the rest with less. They can get away with in a booming global economy but it is going to cause major problems in stagnant or poorly performing economies, which is why we are starting to see the rise of the political movements we are seeing in Greece and Spain. No UK government has yet succeeded in stopping that gap widening,
PeterthePunter (previous thread) Everyone knows Bill Clinton has had an interesting love life, impeachment proceedings were even begun because of it, those for whom it is a big issue would never dream of voting for Hillary anyway!
But far better to fail than not to try, isn't it? Or would you rather leave the poor and jobless to rot in their sink estates?
Charles,
Do you not remember flobbie-gobs squeems about losing his child-benefit bennies? The geezer does not really care about poverty but just his self-interests (which is fine but not outwith his family).
He really is an exemplar of the Left. Pity may be required....
And the beauty of it is that Tories will be blamed, even if this guy supports Labour. That's the crude politics: sorry but there it is. The voter on the Clapham omnibus just sees a whole class of rich bar stewards fiddling their taxes. It's the rich what gets the pleasure, ain't it all a bleeding shame.
Ahh, the beauty of hypocrisy
Yes no one should call you one. As you stated a poster called you one the other day.
Less than 24 hours ago in fact.
I will continue to level that charge at the Labour Party so long as it attacks the Tories for having rich donors who avoid tax.
I'm sure I won't be alone.
Edit - if anyone wants to call me a hypocrite they can, but I'll certainly challenge them to back up their assertion.
That was a very interesting piece from HGM yesturday.
It was.
We are now seeing the Tories have a go with another major Labour weakness - on welfare, with the idea of taking benefits away from those who refuse help to recover from their illness. How does Miliband counterpunch on that?
Very similar to the Parisian attacks. First on a free speech issue, then an attack on a Jewish target (one Jew was killed, two more policemen on duty near the synagogue were injured).
The Middle East conflict being fought out in Europe, oh the wonders of immigration and diversity. At least I have little to fear.
And the beauty of it is that Tories will be blamed, even if this guy supports Labour. That's the crude politics: sorry but there it is. The voter on the Clapham omnibus just sees a whole class of rich bar stewards fiddling their taxes. It's the rich what gets the pleasure, ain't it all a bleeding shame.
Ahh, the beauty of hypocrisy
Yes no one should call you one. As you stated a poster called you one the other day.
Less than 24 hours ago in fact.
I will continue to level that charge at the Labour Party so long as it attacks the Tories for having rich donors who avoid tax.
I'm sure I won't be alone.
Edit - if anyone wants to call me a hypocrite they can, but I'll certainly challenge them to back up their assertion.
I am sure you will not.
I would also ask the business secretary who is not Labour or Tory.
Very similar to the Parisian attacks. First on a free speech issue, then an attack on a Jewish target (one Jew was killed, two more policemen on duty near the synagogue were injured).
The Middle East conflict being fought out in Europe, oh the wonders of immigration and diversity. At least I have little to fear.
I have Jewish ancestry and I'm in favour of free speech. Should I start taking self-defence classes?
And the beauty of it is that Tories will be blamed, even if this guy supports Labour. That's the crude politics: sorry but there it is. The voter on the Clapham omnibus just sees a whole class of rich bar stewards fiddling their taxes. It's the rich what gets the pleasure, ain't it all a bleeding shame.
Ahh, the beauty of hypocrisy
It has nothing to do with hypocrisy. If you want an equivalent issue going the other way: defence cuts. This government has reduced the army to not much more than the sas and a munitions warehouse in Yorkshire yet if Labour were stupid enough to campaign on it, they'd find most voters still associate Conservatives with strong armed forces. Philip Hammond is even touted as next Tory leader on this very thread.
This point has probably already been made, but surely Boris wins the member's vote with some ease if he reaches the final two. Furthermore, he is the two-time winner of the largest single election in British politics, the London Mayoralty. If the Tories do lose the 2015 election, it will have been 23 years since they last won a majority. Why turn away from a proven winner?
So the only question in my mind is whether he can win over enough Conservative MPs to get through to the member's vote. I do not have the first clue about that.
Louise Mencsh said Mr Johnson was too pro-EU to win over Conservative MPs.
They were happy enough to vote against holding an EU referendum in 2011, and vote in favour of powers passing to the EU in 2014 though.
Very similar to the Parisian attacks. First on a free speech issue, then an attack on a Jewish target (one Jew was killed, two more policemen on duty near the synagogue were injured).
The Middle East conflict being fought out in Europe, oh the wonders of immigration and diversity. At least I have little to fear.
I have Jewish ancestry and I'm in favour of free speech. Should I start taking self-defence classes?
This would be the very same IDS who has presided over the Universal Credit – one of the most expensive public project cockups for decades?
That's just not true, is it? It's significantly under-budget and the signs from the early trials are that it is significantly more effective at encouraging people back to work and makes them feel more supported to do so. I accept that its implementation has been delayed, which is not ideal. But it is one of the real strengths of this Government that it takes advice, and the advice was to implement it in stages to avoid potential problems with the roll-out. It is now on track to be rolled out over the next 12 months and will make a difference to the life chances of a great many of the poorest in society, while also minimising waste.
The contrast to Labour's NHS IT procurement debacle is enormous.
And what's Labour's position on universal credit? Well, according to Rachel Reeves Labour support it in principle, believe under the Tories it will take over 1,000 years to implement, which is too long, so their solution is to pause and then not spend any more money on a failing project. That, as the evident shows, is not failing.
On this and so many areas of government the coalition has a good record and Labour's response is shambolic and amateurish. And yet you mindlessly parrot it.
Cameron has shown himself to be incapable of attracting voters outside the core vote and is a political incompetent. The next Conservatives leader needs to be better able to connect with the provincial vote, lower mids and the wwc like Thatcher and Major did. None mentioned except Boris seem capable of doing so, although I have reservations about Boris. Perhaps a dark horse will emerge.
No UK government has yet succeeded in stopping that gap widening,
No government anywhere has. Hollande came to power promising to do exactly what ed is preaching and failed totally.
The money just leaves. And that leaves everybody poorer.
Hollande came to power promising a Miliband type agenda but then imposed an Osborne one.
No wonder he is failing.
Friday is a big day for Osborne. Borrowing figures come out - January's has the biggest slug of IT receipts due to self assessment payments. Originally the Treasury forecast had an - ahem - heroic assumption penciled in or these. Due to poor grade of 'jobs' being created there is potential for the forecast to be missed which has bad implications for the Tory message on the economy.
Very similar to the Parisian attacks. First on a free speech issue, then an attack on a Jewish target (one Jew was killed, two more policemen on duty near the synagogue were injured).
The Middle East conflict being fought out in Europe, oh the wonders of immigration and diversity. At least I have little to fear.
I have Jewish ancestry and I'm in favour of free speech. Should I start taking self-defence classes?
This point has probably already been made, but surely Boris wins the member's vote with some ease if he reaches the final two. Furthermore, he is the two-time winner of the largest single election in British politics, the London Mayoralty. If the Tories do lose the 2015 election, it will have been 23 years since they last won a majority. Why turn away from a proven winner?
So the only question in my mind is whether he can win over enough Conservative MPs to get through to the member's vote. I do not have the first clue about that.
Louise Mencsh said Mr Johnson was too pro-EU to win over Conservative MPs.
They were happy enough to vote against holding an EU referendum in 2011, and vote in favour of powers passing to the EU in 2014 though.
An EU referendum should be held after enough time has been given to negotiate changes. If the kippers really want to be out of the EU, rather than playing opportunistic politics, they should realise this. A referendum held now would produce an IN vote.
Worth noting that after a week of "championship quality tennis" Ed Miliband's approval rating has climbed three points to a mighty -47. One point lower than where he was two week ago. That may be priced in, but let's see whether people drag themselves out of bed for him in May.
Cracking interview of IDS on Marr. A first class minister, master of his brief, thoroughly grilled in an informative and challenging interview. The comparison to the tetchy and low quality Balls interview was stark.
This would be the very same IDS who has presided over the Universal Credit – one of the most expensive public project cockups for decades?
Being rolled out nationwide today.
But far better to fail than not to try, isn't it? Or would you rather leave the poor and jobless to rot in their sink estates?
He's a Labour supporter -of course he would rather that. What on earth would Labour do if all the poor people started making their own money?
It has nothing to do with hypocrisy. If you want an equivalent issue going the other way: defence cuts. This government has reduced the army to not much more than the sas and a munitions warehouse in Yorkshire yet if Labour were stupid enough to campaign on it, they'd find most voters still associate Conservatives with strong armed forces. Philip Hammond is even touted as next Tory leader on this very thread.
What do you think SkyNet-V does? Provide meteological information to Al-Beeb...?
Defence-spending has been reduced to facilitate bennies and Barnett. Spreadsheet-Phil has tried to rationalise: Whether SDSR fulfills that commitment is another question.
Milli-[MODERATED] is the spawn of Samuel. We have questions to address internally before we face the threats that are already apparent....
And the beauty of it is that Tories will be blamed, even if this guy supports Labour. That's the crude politics: sorry but there it is. The voter on the Clapham omnibus just sees a whole class of rich bar stewards fiddling their taxes. It's the rich what gets the pleasure, ain't it all a bleeding shame.
Ahh, the beauty of hypocrisy
It has nothing to do with hypocrisy. If you want an equivalent issue going the other way: defence cuts. This government has reduced the army to not much more than the sas and a munitions warehouse in Yorkshire yet if Labour were stupid enough to campaign on it, they'd find most voters still associate Conservatives with strong armed forces. Philip Hammond is even touted as next Tory leader on this very thread.
It's hypocrisy because weird ed is shouting about tax dodging Tory donors.
I haven't heard anyone shouting that Labour would cut the armed forces.
Consistently poor polling figures for the Tories over recent days is now impacting the betting markets with Sporting's GE Seats mid-spread down this morning from 281 to 279 seats.
People don;t mind how rich the rich are if they themselves are feeling well off, or if they can see the chance to feel well off down the line.
Over to you, Osborne.
I kind of agree with you on that but isn't the problem for the Tories that most people aren't feeling well off. To be honest, I have some sympathy with any government trying to spread the wealth around in a globalised economy where the top 1% keep persist in taking aa ever- larger share of the pie for themselves leaving the rest with less. They can get away with in a booming global economy but it is going to cause major problems in stagnant or poorly performing economies, which is why we are starting to see the rise of the political movements we are seeing in Greece and Spain. No UK government has yet succeeded in stopping that gap widening,
In the UK if you are hit by the Benefits Cap, you are part of that global 1%.
“He said to me: ‘Sayeeda, what is the point in being in a position of leadership if you don’t lead on issues that are so fundamental? This is so stomach churningly sick that you should have been out there condemning it as loudly as you could. Uniquely, you are in a position to show leadership on this.’ I thought to myself, he’s absolutely right."
Curious isn't it that anyone who investigated Rotherham - firstly Norfolk, then Jay and now Casey - immediately saw that the council was not 'fit for purpose'.
So what did Warsi do during her two years as Communities Minister ?
The trouble is that the tory propaganda machine was just going hell for leather hammering home the already suspected point that they are the global hyper rich' choice and that multinational businessmen don't like labour just before a load of fuss was kicked up about how much these types are avoiding tax. So whatever apologia and whataboutery that followed this strategic disaster is going to be weak and ineffectual. The right wing goebbels fraternity getting hoisted on their own petard, and not before time.
Skimming through the posts on here this morning it would appear that there is agreement about EdM being hypocritical re tax avoiders and that his followers support him....Strange people.
The entire party is hypocritical A property company run by Labour has paid no corporation tax for a decade. (Why should Labour run a property company?) Leading Labour donor Gerrard has avoided tax by depositing shares in a trust. The shares were in a property company (another) he owned with another labour donor. The Times says he was one of those involved in cash for honours as well. ''He was living as a tax exile in Switzerland after his retirement when he was nominated for a peerage. His name was withdrawn after revelations that he was among Labour supporters who had made secret loans to the party.'' I would suggest that making a 'secret' loan is a bit dodgy. This is before we get on the Bill Thomas and Dale Vince.
If is OK for Gerrard (and Bill and Dale) then its OK for everyone and no one is dodgy which was the central point of Milibands claim. And if they are dodgy then they are linked to all political parties. A pretty shambolic attack. In reality this is just a typical Miliband/Labour dog whistle to its own supporters. Nothing new and there would be nothing new in any future Labour govt. We can all guess what will happen.
This point has probably already been made, but surely Boris wins the member's vote with some ease if he reaches the final two. Furthermore, he is the two-time winner of the largest single election in British politics, the London Mayoralty. If the Tories do lose the 2015 election, it will have been 23 years since they last won a majority. Why turn away from a proven winner?
So the only question in my mind is whether he can win over enough Conservative MPs to get through to the member's vote. I do not have the first clue about that.
Louise Mencsh said Mr Johnson was too pro-EU to win over Conservative MPs.
They were happy enough to vote against holding an EU referendum in 2011, and vote in favour of powers passing to the EU in 2014 though.
An EU referendum should be held after enough time has been given to negotiate changes. If the kippers really want to be out of the EU, rather than playing opportunistic politics, they should realise this. A referendum held now would produce an IN vote.
As a Kipper I agree with this. They need to demonstrate that they have tried to renegotiate with the EU. Once it has failed, which I am sure it will, the case for leaving will be even stronger.
Mr. Richard, promoting Warsi to Cabinet was judging someone by the colour of their skin rather than the content of their character.
She warned of 'aggressive secularists' [or perhaps atheists] a few years ago. I don't think anyone's worried about the National Secular Society, somehow.
Consistently poor polling figures for the Tories over recent days is now impacting the betting markets with Sporting's GE Seats mid-spread down this morning from 281 to 279 seats.
I've said it before, i'll say it again, the next parliament is going to be awful for whoever wins it. Far worse than this one. The advantage for the Tories, is the inbuilt expectation that theyll do what it takes to hack at public spending. For Labour there'll be a lot of mouths, which normally get stuffed full of gold following a labour success, who are going to get very annoyed very quickly.
Consistently poor polling figures for the Tories over recent days is now impacting the betting markets with Sporting's GE Seats mid-spread down this morning from 281 to 279 seats.
Risk averse punters who prefer not to go anywhere near spread-betting can still take advantage of my suggested "Bet of the Week", by backing the Tories to win FEWER than 284.5 seats at odds of 10/11 (1.91 decimal) with those nice folk at bet365. DYOR
How about thatcher? You know, when we had higher income tax, nationalised rail and a hedge fund free nhs?
If I remember correctly taxation was 83% (actually maybe higher? in the 90s?) when Denis Healey was chancellor in 1976. The same year the UK went cap in hand to the IMF for a Greek/Argentina style financial bailout because we were bankrupt.
But hey, don;t let facts get in the way of your socialist fantasy.
Consistently poor polling figures for the Tories over recent days is now impacting the betting markets with Sporting's GE Seats mid-spread down this morning from 281 to 279 seats.
Oops sorry, those are the SELL prices, the mid-spread price is down from 284 to 282 seats.
Hollande came to power promising a Miliband type agenda but then imposed an Osborne one.
And your example of a government that imposed a 'miliband type' agenda is.....Venezuela? Argentina? Cuba? Anywhere? at any time?
More seriously, whilst isnt hard to agree all of those countries have their problems, I think we can say that the majority of the population of all those countries are better off than before Chavez, the Kirchners and Castro. It's all relative.
If Dave goes it would be because of defeat at the hands of Ed. We'd be looking at a Tory party in disarray. The fruitcakes. would peel off to UKIP and the rump would want nothing to do with the Bullingdon Boys or anyone who even sounded like them. They'd look very hard for a comprehensively educated woman in the mould of Maggie. As they tend to go for the Adams Family candidate (Cameron excluded) step forward Miss gravel voice herself Esther McVey
The Tory Party really doesn't care about the background of its leaders. It's Labour who rigs selections on the basis of personal characteristics. Boris is a proven winner, has a successful public persona and would eat Miliband for lunch.
Curious that Ed Balls says it's not down to him to know the tax details of Labour donors whilst Miliband clearly thinks the Tories should know about their donors. How does that work then?
How about thatcher? You know, when we had higher income tax, nationalised rail and a hedge fund free nhs?
If I remember correctly taxation was 83% (actually maybe higher? in the 90s?) when Denis Healey was chancellor in 1976. The same year the UK went cap in hand to the IMF for a Greek/Argentina style financial bailout because we were bankrupt.
But hey, don;t let facts get in the way of your socialist fantasy.
Except the bailout wasn't necessary, as everyone knows now, and miliband isn't suggesting an 83% tax rate is he? You're the one living in a fantasy land, and I'm afraid you and your ilk telling everyone else they are going to have to accept a feral global hyper rich taking an ever bigger slice of wealth and power simply isn't going to work for much longer. Sorry.
Mr. Richard, promoting Warsi to Cabinet was judging someone by the colour of their skin rather than the content of their character.
She warned of 'aggressive secularists' [or perhaps atheists] a few years ago. I don't think anyone's worried about the National Secular Society, somehow.
Warsi ticked three diversity boxes not one.
And the mistake was putting her in the HoL.
You can sack a minister and deselect an MP but a peerage is for life.
If Dave goes it would be because of defeat at the hands of Ed. We'd be looking at a Tory party in disarray. The fruitcakes. would peel off to UKIP and the rump would want nothing to do with the Bullingdon Boys or anyone who even sounded like them. They'd look very hard for a comprehensively educated woman in the mould of Maggie. As they tend to go for the Adams Family candidate (Cameron excluded) step forward Miss gravel voice herself Esther McVey
The Tory Party really doesn't care about the background of its leaders. It's Labour who rigs selections on the basis of personal characteristics. Boris is a proven winner, has a successful public persona and would eat Miliband for lunch.
He's another contender whose background works against him.Time for the Tories to move on and select someone "normal".
Curious that Ed Balls says it's not down to him to know the tax details of Labour donors whilst Miliband clearly thinks the Tories should know about their donors. How does that work then?
Worth noting that after a week of "championship quality tennis" Ed Miliband's approval rating has climbed three points to a mighty -47. One point lower than where he was two week ago. That may be priced in, but let's see whether people drag themselves out of bed for him in May.
Cracking interview of IDS on Marr. A first class minister, master of his brief, thoroughly grilled in an informative and challenging interview. The comparison to the tetchy and low quality Balls interview was stark.
This would be the very same IDS who has presided over the Universal Credit – one of the most expensive public project cockups for decades?
Mr Johnston at The Telegraph has now been won over:
Very similar to the Parisian attacks. First on a free speech issue, then an attack on a Jewish target (one Jew was killed, two more policemen on duty near the synagogue were injured).
The Middle East conflict being fought out in Europe, oh the wonders of immigration and diversity. At least I have little to fear.
I have Jewish ancestry and I'm in favour of free speech. Should I start taking self-defence classes?
Me too. But enough with the self-defence. We need to go on the offensive against these barbarians.
Very similar to the Parisian attacks. First on a free speech issue, then an attack on a Jewish target (one Jew was killed, two more policemen on duty near the synagogue were injured).
The Middle East conflict being fought out in Europe, oh the wonders of immigration and diversity. At least I have little to fear.
It's not the Middle East conflict. It's the conflict between civilization and barbarism.
Consistently poor polling figures for the Tories over recent days is now impacting the betting markets with Sporting's GE Seats mid-spread down this morning from 281 to 279 seats.
I've said it before, i'll say it again, the next parliament is going to be awful for whoever wins it. Far worse than this one. The advantage for the Tories, is the inbuilt expectation that theyll do what it takes to hack at public spending. For Labour there'll be a lot of mouths, which normally get stuffed full of gold following a labour success, who are going to get very annoyed very quickly.
There are two problems:
(A) the country needs hard, dull work to fix it. Labour's track record and their playing to the gallery suggests it will be a wasted 5 years
(B) in order to try to keep their left on side they are going to do all sorts of stupid things - like the mansion tax - that won't do any good in real terms, but will store up problems for the next government to fix
Why the heck does Stephen Kinnock want to spend 5 years messing about in a Welsh backwater, when he has a wife like that back home in Denmark?
He was living in Switzerland for much of the time his wife was Prime Minister of Denmark. There was a bit of a stink about it because it meant he was a tax exile and didn't pay high Danish taxes.
Still, I never realised Stephen Kinnock must have turned into a Tory. Everyone who avoids paying tax is a Tory, isn't that right?
People don;t mind how rich the rich are if they themselves are feeling well off, or if they can see the chance to feel well off down the line.
Over to you, Osborne.
I kind of agree with you on that but isn't the problem for the Tories that most people aren't feeling well off. To be honest, I have some sympathy with any government trying to spread the wealth around in a globalised economy where the top 1% keep persist in taking aa ever- larger share of the pie for themselves leaving the rest with less. They can get away with in a booming global economy but it is going to cause major problems in stagnant or poorly performing economies, which is why we are starting to see the rise of the political movements we are seeing in Greece and Spain. No UK government has yet succeeded in stopping that gap widening,
In the UK if you are hit by the Benefits Cap, you are part of that global 1%.
Technically accurate but the 1% is short-hand for the very wealthy and practically everyone understands that - ask the man on the Clapham Omnibus if they think your average nurse or plumber is in the 1% and I know what answer you would get, so I am not sure what the political value of your comment is to be honest
Consistently poor polling figures for the Tories over recent days is now impacting the betting markets with Sporting's GE Seats mid-spread down this morning from 281 to 279 seats.
I've said it before, i'll say it again, the next parliament is going to be awful for whoever wins it. Far worse than this one. The advantage for the Tories, is the inbuilt expectation that theyll do what it takes to hack at public spending. For Labour there'll be a lot of mouths, which normally get stuffed full of gold following a labour success, who are going to get very annoyed very quickly.
There are two problems:
(A) the country needs hard, dull work to fix it. Labour's track record and their playing to the gallery suggests it will be a wasted 5 years
(B) in order to try to keep their left on side they are going to do all sorts of stupid things - like the mansion tax - that won't do any good in real terms, but will store up problems for the next government to fix
I'm stuggling to see how another 5 years of Cameronism won't also be 5 years wasted.
As long as Osborne stays as CoE none of the significant reforms we need will get enacted.
And here's a list of Local Government Ministers during this government:
Grant Shapps 13/05/10 - 04/09/12 Mark Prist 04/09/12 - 07/10/13 Kris Hopkins 07/10/13 -
Did any of this trio take any action against Rotherham council ?
Hasn't Pickles forced the whole council to go up for reelection next time (therefore, by extension, Hopkins). But he had to wait for the official report to be published before he could take action.
It may be slower than you like, but to set aside an elected council like that is rightly difficult and slow
Having discovered that an eye-watering 1,780 people across the United Kingdom are claiming benefits for obesity-related reasons I am more convinced than ever that recently announced Tory plans to crackdown on the feral fat are in no way related to the fact we have a general election approaching and the Tories need to get some votes back from UKIP. This is high-minded stuff and will save the taxpayer literally thousands of pounds a year.
Comments
It will be Boris I assume.
Ed Balls' performance on Marr is the reason we Tories remain bouyant - Labour has no coherent message on the economy. And that has not yet been exposed to the voters. The more that Balls goes on making such a pitiful case, this close to the election, the more we think he really is holding nothing in reserve...
His troops are all in the battle field. Ours are still waiting, hidden in the corn fields.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31475803
Very similar to the Parisian attacks. First on a free speech issue, then an attack on a Jewish target (one Jew was killed, two more policemen on duty near the synagogue were injured).
'This would be the very same IDS who has presided over the Universal Credit – one of the most expensive public project cockups for decades?'
Peanuts compared with the £10 billion Labour pissed away on their failed NHS IT system.
Nadine Dorries appears to be a popular figure with the associations, who will she back?
twitter.com/NadineDorriesMP/status/563395480332541952
As for who would be a good LOTO choice, I think you dismiss the technocrats a bit too quickly. People have a weird affinity for bland technocrats (the lack of 'risk' of what a charismatic, quick witted leader might do I guess), and after the supposedly flashy Cameron who people just didn't believe, the party might well stump for a boring, sensible non-etonion to give them 'credibility' perhaps.
I'm guessing it will be someone relatively new - Cameron's approach will have been seen as a total failure, a bit unfairly, the party will be mired in vicious bickering (an outsider's perspective, but for much of this parliament the party seemed consumed with its internal squabbling and that was while they were in office!) and disbelief that they still haven't won a majority in so long even with Ed M as LOTO, and I think a crunch point may have been reached that leads to as much of a break with the current leadership as they can. Too soon or not, Javid probably comes out well in that, in that while he is a part of the current leadership with strong Osborne links to appear to the continuity people, he is much more of a fresh face than if Hammond, May or Boris were to take over.
And now, must be off for a Sunday walk and then off to see Kingsman - the trailer I saw for it was bloody awful, but I'm told it is actually quite good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflection_point
:happy-to-help:
And again, it will be a damn close run thing. Maybe by the day of battle the Prussians will again come to our aid - by opening up a Greek front?
And pay out all the lefties who are under water big time on their bets?
Over to you, Osborne.
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/business/money/fameandfortune/article1452430.ece
Tax evasion = what rich people do. Doubt it will cut through.
Hypocrite is an insult virtually everyone has used from time to time (even if they don't quite know what it means). And it's universally seen as a negative trait.
Hard to believe Rich Tories are arrogant.
But far better to fail than not to try, isn't it? Or would you rather leave the poor and jobless to rot in their sink estates?
It's rare for a specific individual to be picked out and directly accused of it by multiple sources.
The black swan event might be Greece. The idiots at the troika are allowing Syriza to maintian the fallacy that it is possible to vote yourself out of your debts.
If Mrs T (PBUH) were still in charge, she would probably be demanding that Greece be made an example of. And now.
As you stated a poster called you one the other day.
So the only question in my mind is whether he can win over enough Conservative MPs to get through to the member's vote. I do not have the first clue about that.
Do you not remember flobbie-gobs squeems about losing his child-benefit bennies? The geezer does not really care about poverty but just his self-interests (which is fine but not outwith his family).
He really is an exemplar of the Left. Pity may be required....
I will continue to level that charge at the Labour Party so long as it attacks the Tories for having rich donors who avoid tax.
I'm sure I won't be alone.
Edit - if anyone wants to call me a hypocrite they can, but I'll certainly challenge them to back up their assertion.
No government anywhere has. Hollande came to power promising to do exactly what ed is preaching and failed totally.
The money just leaves. And that leaves everybody poorer.
We are now seeing the Tories have a go with another major Labour weakness - on welfare, with the idea of taking benefits away from those who refuse help to recover from their illness. How does Miliband counterpunch on that?
I would also ask the business secretary who is not Labour or Tory.
However your focus is always on the red team.
They were happy enough to vote against holding an EU referendum in 2011, and vote in favour of powers passing to the EU in 2014 though.
The contrast to Labour's NHS IT procurement debacle is enormous.
And what's Labour's position on universal credit? Well, according to Rachel Reeves Labour support it in principle, believe under the Tories it will take over 1,000 years to implement, which is too long, so their solution is to pause and then not spend any more money on a failing project. That, as the evident shows, is not failing.
On this and so many areas of government the coalition has a good record and Labour's response is shambolic and amateurish. And yet you mindlessly parrot it.
No wonder he is failing.
Friday is a big day for Osborne. Borrowing figures come out - January's has the biggest slug of IT receipts due to self assessment payments. Originally the Treasury forecast had an - ahem - heroic assumption penciled in or these. Due to poor grade of 'jobs' being created there is potential for the forecast to be missed which has bad implications for the Tory message on the economy.
Hmmm,
So those great Labout investments:
Voyager,
Atlas (a.k.a Euro-turkey),
Airseeker,
Shadow,
Reaper,
&c.
And no value to defence?
What do you think SkyNet-V does? Provide meteological information to Al-Beeb...?
Defence-spending has been reduced to facilitate bennies and Barnett. Spreadsheet-Phil has tried to rationalise: Whether SDSR fulfills that commitment is another question.
Milli-[MODERATED] is the spawn of Samuel. We have questions to address internally before we face the threats that are already apparent....
I haven't heard anyone shouting that Labour would cut the armed forces.
https://twitter.com/sayeedawarsi
Has she forgotten the advice her father gave her:
“He said to me: ‘Sayeeda, what is the point in being in a position of leadership if you don’t lead on issues that are so fundamental? This is so stomach churningly sick that you should have been out there condemning it as loudly as you could. Uniquely, you are in a position to show leadership on this.’ I thought to myself, he’s absolutely right."
Curious isn't it that anyone who investigated Rotherham - firstly Norfolk, then Jay and now Casey - immediately saw that the council was not 'fit for purpose'.
So what did Warsi do during her two years as Communities Minister ?
Is anyone not curious about that ?
And your example of a government that imposed a 'miliband type' agenda is.....Venezuela? Argentina? Cuba? Anywhere? at any time?
A property company run by Labour has paid no corporation tax for a decade. (Why should Labour run a property company?)
Leading Labour donor Gerrard has avoided tax by depositing shares in a trust. The shares were in a property company (another) he owned with another labour donor. The Times says he was one of those involved in cash for honours as well. ''He was living as a tax exile in Switzerland after his retirement when he was nominated for a peerage. His name was withdrawn after revelations that he was among Labour supporters who had made secret loans to the party.'' I would suggest that making a 'secret' loan is a bit dodgy.
This is before we get on the Bill Thomas and Dale Vince.
If is OK for Gerrard (and Bill and Dale) then its OK for everyone and no one is dodgy which was the central point of Milibands claim. And if they are dodgy then they are linked to all political parties. A pretty shambolic attack. In reality this is just a typical Miliband/Labour dog whistle to its own supporters. Nothing new and there would be nothing new in any future Labour govt. We can all guess what will happen.
You know, when we had higher income tax, nationalised rail and a hedge fund free nhs?
She warned of 'aggressive secularists' [or perhaps atheists] a few years ago. I don't think anyone's worried about the National Secular Society, somehow.
DYOR
Grant Shapps 13/05/10 - 04/09/12
Mark Prist 04/09/12 - 07/10/13
Kris Hopkins 07/10/13 -
Did any of this trio take any action against Rotherham council ?
You know, when we had higher income tax, nationalised rail and a hedge fund free nhs?
If I remember correctly taxation was 83% (actually maybe higher? in the 90s?) when Denis Healey was chancellor in 1976. The same year the UK went cap in hand to the IMF for a Greek/Argentina style financial bailout because we were bankrupt.
But hey, don;t let facts get in the way of your socialist fantasy.
And the mistake was putting her in the HoL.
You can sack a minister and deselect an MP but a peerage is for life.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11401753/Against-all-odds-a-welfare-revolution-is-quietly-under-way.html
And this is the same chap who was previously slamming the project as a calamitous failure:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10252450/Prepare-to-add-HS2-and-Universal-Credit-to-our-depressing-list-of-fiascos.html
Hammond is the Conservative equivalent of Alan Johnson.
"Universal credit benefit rollout is '£600m under budget"
It is under budget because they wrote off huge amounts of money, then rolled it out in fewer places, and only for the simplest cases.
Headlines are fun.
(A) the country needs hard, dull work to fix it. Labour's track record and their playing to the gallery suggests it will be a wasted 5 years
(B) in order to try to keep their left on side they are going to do all sorts of stupid things - like the mansion tax - that won't do any good in real terms, but will store up problems for the next government to fix
Still, I never realised Stephen Kinnock must have turned into a Tory. Everyone who avoids paying tax is a Tory, isn't that right?
Apart from the polls.
Only 23% think he is any good, haul the other 77% in for re-education.
http://www.cityam.com/209438/general-election-2015-david-camerons-approval-rating-its-highest-four-years-poll
Epic Fail.
When does tax evasion stop being illegal for an individual or company?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-31477733
As long as Osborne stays as CoE none of the significant reforms we need will get enacted.
It may be slower than you like, but to set aside an elected council like that is rightly difficult and slow
All Osborn was interested in was cutting taxes on the super-rich.
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/02/15/tory-obesity-crackdown-would-hit-just-1-780-people