There is also an issue for UKIP that even if they got 30% of the vote in a PR system, all the other mainstream parties would conspire to lock them out of office, particularly if they are seen to be tool toxic. That would result in them never influencing anything.
A similar thing happens to new populist right-wing parties across Europe, the Swedish Democrats being just one example.
I don't think that's true at all.
I think in the event of an election that was 30 UKIP, 30 Conservative, 30 Labour, 10 LibDem, then a Conservative-UKIP coalition would be almost certain.
The issue is that junior coalition partners tend to get - and this is a technical term - "fucked". It happened the FPD in Germany, it's happening to the LibDems in the UK.
And it's why the "Five Star" movement in Italy refuses to get involved in any coalition.
The big question is how politics in the UK is to be organised if we have the leading party on (or below) 30% of the vote. Is barely more than one-in-four votes a mandate?
I do not see how the LDs were effed. They had a deputy PM in charge of various committees and 4 other cabinet posts and they were the ones who diluted government policy. They were given a referendum which they lost and made a mess of their half baked HoL reform. Maybe they should have with 24% of the vote or maybe not with just 60 seats, but they have peddled their wares. And now they promote them as disingenuously as they can.
I am not suggesting the Conservatives f***ed the LibDems, merely that junior coalition partners tend to suffer electorally. This is a pattern we've seen in Scotland, in Europe and in the UK.
The Liberals were never affected by being a junior coalition partner in Scotland.
Their electoral damage did not occur until they joined up with the Tories at Westminster, hammering them in Holyrood 2011. Their vote didn't change hugely in 2003 or 2007 after their spells in coalition (down a bit in 2007 but no more than anyone else and much less than Labour).
Yes their potential is 40% WITH A WHOLE SET OF POLICIES.
UKIP have none. Each policy they publish reduces their 30% max vote. Every. Single. One.
Maybe it wasn't shown North of the Border, but I am pretty sure UKIP launched their election platform a couple of days ago.
Even leaving that to one side you general point in cant, the kippers have been fighting scandals, bad press, idiotic councillers etc for months and their vote has hardly moved at all. The Kipper vote is the inchoate anger "mad as hell and not going to take it any more" vote, they don't care about policies.
BBC Breaking News @BBCBreaking 3m3 minutes ago UK inflation rate as measured by consumer prices index falls to 0.3% in January, from 0.5% the month before http://bbc.in/1zKtT5m
There is also an issue for UKIP that even if they got 30% of the vote in a PR system, all the other mainstream parties would conspire to lock them out of office, particularly if they are seen to be tool toxic. That would result in them never influencing anything.
A similar thing happens to new populist right-wing parties across Europe, the Swedish Democrats being just one example.
I don't think that's true. If the result of the election were, say, UKIP 30, Lab 26, Con 22, LD 8, SNP 4, Green 5, Others 5 (PR election, so more minor parties), I'm pretty sure you'd end up with a UKIP-Con coalition. It'd be quite difficult to find a viable realistic non-UKIP coalition on those numbers - a National Con/Lab/LD simply wouldn't happen to keep UKIP out; it'd need something much stronger to keep it together (and in any case be counter-productive as most further anti-government votes would then go to UKIP by default with so few opposition alternatives).
Even if UKIP scored 25% under PR, it'd be difficult to exclude them though that's about the level where it could be achieved. That said, I doubt the Tories would have many qualms about forming a coalition with UKIP if the numbers made it work; not least because chances are that the pressures of office would work very much against a party built on insurgency.
BBC Breaking News @BBCBreaking 3m3 minutes ago UK inflation rate as measured by consumer prices index falls to 0.3% in January, from 0.5% the month before http://bbc.in/1zKtT5m
I would have thought that leaflet will just encourage a lower turn out. Not exactly the most palatable of choices....
I hope young children don't see it. With those two mugs glaring at them, it could frighten them.
Remember, the average voter feels more hostile to UKIP than the average kipper feels towards David Cameron.
Still tugging your turkey over that. I think people will be more concerned about Cameron wanting to put kids on serf wages if they are unemployed personally.
Typical kipper, ignoring inconvenient facts in favour of idle speculation.
No a realistic Kipper who recognises that UKIP is little more than a passing thought for the vast majority of voters at this election who believe it or not are not obsessed over UKIP's polling detail as clearly you are. Whether they are hostile or not is of little relevance now because they are not going to vote UKIP in May anyway. However there are 30% or so who do not have any particular problem with UKIP and if UKIP could get two thirds of their votes unlikely as that seems that would be a massive achievement for them and more than they could have ever hoped for even two years ago.
So it doesn't really matter how much you bang on about it it doesn't matter a whole lot to UKIP today because they have more than enough potential voters to keep them busy. Now do be a good little obsessive and go and annoy somebody else because frankly such considerations are presently irrelevant (particularly as it was less than 10 years ago that the Tories faced similar issues and look how that has apparently changed according to that polling).
You don't seem to understand how politics works.
30% not objecting to a party without policies is woeful. Every single time you introduce a policy, that number goes down. At the moment UKIP have no policies, they can only lose potential.
A potential 30% is pretty good under our electoral system. The maximum potential vote for Conservatives and Labour is probably only 40%.
Yes their potential is 40% WITH A WHOLE SET OF POLICIES.
UKIP have none. Each policy they publish reduces their 30% max vote. Every. Single. One.
BBC Breaking News @BBCBreaking 3m3 minutes ago UK inflation rate as measured by consumer prices index falls to 0.3% in January, from 0.5% the month before http://bbc.in/1zKtT5m
What's RPI at?
Nobody cares anymore but "CPIH" 0.4% for reference.
"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's".[Matthew 22:21]
Surely the Church of England should adhere to Biblical guidance - sorry many of them today just ignore that.
Politics ought to have a moral dimension, and the Church should have something to say about that moral dimension, the problem is the Church's message is relentlessly left-wing.
Are public sector pensions not portable between local government units ?
Well, given that the council who someone finishes their career with is the one who's financially responsible for the pension, I would have thought not - but I could be wrong.
I did look her up on LinkedIn and she's been at Oxfordshire Council for 9 or 10 years, and was at Sutton (also as Chief Exec) before that.
Yes their potential is 40% WITH A WHOLE SET OF POLICIES.
UKIP have none. Each policy they publish reduces their 30% max vote. Every. Single. One.
Maybe it wasn't shown North of the Border, but I am pretty sure UKIP launched their election platform a couple of days ago.
Even leaving that to one side you general point in cant, the kippers have been fighting scandals, bad press, idiotic councillers etc for months and their vote has hardly moved at all. The Kipper vote is the inchoate anger "mad as hell and not going to take it any more" vote, they don't care about policies.
Not seen coverage of a UKIP manifesto on Daily Politics, This Week or BBC News 24. I would have expected to pick this up somewhere.
I don't think the Tories, or anyone else, has money to burn. The total budget for the conservatives 2015 election campaign will be roughly similar to what the Democrats would spend in - rather safe - new Jersey. On congressional races.
Granted it is the Guardian but this suggests that the Tories have well over double the funding they could spend during the campaign period. If its to be believed they could fully fund two election campaigns and still have £13 million spare. Money to burn Ok perhaps not but not far off and that's not to say additional funding wouldn't be made available if they knew they could spend it.
Mr. Antifrank, from the BBC article I linked to: "It is expected to back the concept of a living wage and urge political parties to avoid scapegoating groups such as immigrants and those on benefits."
Also:
"The letter - the first of its kind to be issued by the Church - is expected to say that the case for the Trident nuclear deterrent needs to be re-examined and more EU integration is needed."
It'd be more subtle for them to say people should vote for Abour-lay, not Onservative-cay. And UKIP-ay is the work of Satan, it would seem.
Priests involving themselves in electioneering is backward.
Not party political, in the sense that they'd want their parishioners to choose either Labour, the Greens, Respect, or some other left-winger. That's why I left the Church of England.
There was a good article in The Spectator about a year ago written by a CofE vicar who was a Conservative.
He wrote under a pseudonym, but was very clear that his fellow vicars and bishops considered him something of a pariah. He felt he had to keep it quiet.
Chris Bryant (aka Reverend Underpants) was a former Vicar.
BBC Breaking News @BBCBreaking 3m3 minutes ago UK inflation rate as measured by consumer prices index falls to 0.3% in January, from 0.5% the month before http://bbc.in/1zKtT5m
It was being suggested this morning on Today that March & April could see minor deflation, which would put more disposable income into people's pockets.
I would have thought that leaflet will just encourage a lower turn out. Not exactly the most palatable of choices....
I hope young children don't see it. With those two mugs glaring at them, it could frighten them.
Remember, the average voter feels more hostile to UKIP than the average kipper feels towards David Cameron.
Still tugging your turkey over that. I think people will be more concerned about Cameron wanting to put kids on serf wages if they are unemployed personally.
Typical kipper, ignoring inconvenient facts in favour of idle speculation.
No a realistic Kipper who recognises that UKIP is little more than a passing thought for the vast majority of voters at this election who believe it or not are not obsessed over UKIP's polling detail as clearly you are. Whether they are hostile or not is of little relevance now because they are not going to vote UKIP in May anyway. However there are 30% or so who do not have any particular problem with UKIP and if UKIP could get two thirds of their votes unlikely as that seems that would be a massive achievement for them and more than they could have ever hoped for even two years ago.
So it doesn't really matter how much you bang on about it it doesn't matter a whole lot to UKIP today because they have more than enough potential voters to keep them busy. Now do be a good little obsessive and go and annoy somebody else because frankly such considerations are presently irrelevant (particularly as it was less than 10 years ago that the Tories faced similar issues and look how that has apparently changed according to that polling).
You don't seem to understand how politics works.
30% not objecting to a party without policies is woeful. Every single time you introduce a policy, that number goes down. At the moment UKIP have no policies, they can only lose potential.
No policies? You mean all those old white thick poor men don't want to privatise the NHS and send all the immigrants home then and destroy our economy by leaving the EU to live in splendid isolation with unemployment breaking 5 million and not interacting with anyone else on the planet? And there I was thinking that all that malevolent propaganda from the establishment parties was true
I do so get bored linking this again and again and again for those who clearly live in their own sheltered world of partisan propaganda . They've been public for at least 6 months
BBC Breaking News @BBCBreaking 3m3 minutes ago UK inflation rate as measured by consumer prices index falls to 0.3% in January, from 0.5% the month before http://bbc.in/1zKtT5m
What's RPI at?
Nobody cares anymore but "CPIH" 0.4% for reference.
Tell that to our union. RPI still the basis for negotiations where I am. Anyone have the figure?
There is also an issue for UKIP that even if they got 30% of the vote in a PR system, all the other mainstream parties would conspire to lock them out of office, particularly if they are seen to be tool toxic. That would result in them never influencing anything.
A similar thing happens to new populist right-wing parties across Europe, the Swedish Democrats being just one example.
I don't think that's true. If the result of the election were, say, UKIP 30, Lab 26, Con 22, LD 8, SNP 4, Green 5, Others 5 (PR election, so more minor parties), I'm pretty sure you'd end up with a UKIP-Con coalition. It'd be quite difficult to find a viable realistic non-UKIP coalition on those numbers - a National Con/Lab/LD simply wouldn't happen to keep UKIP out; it'd need something much stronger to keep it together (and in any case be counter-productive as most further anti-government votes would then go to UKIP by default with so few opposition alternatives).
Even if UKIP scored 25% under PR, it'd be difficult to exclude them though that's about the level where it could be achieved. That said, I doubt the Tories would have many qualms about forming a coalition with UKIP if the numbers made it work; not least because chances are that the pressures of office would work very much against a party built on insurgency.
There will never be a Whole of UK proportional list election in the UK.
BBC Breaking News @BBCBreaking 3m3 minutes ago UK inflation rate as measured by consumer prices index falls to 0.3% in January, from 0.5% the month before http://bbc.in/1zKtT5m
It was being suggested this morning on Today that March & April could see minor deflation, which would put more disposable income into people's pockets.
There is also an issue for UKIP that even if they got 30% of the vote in a PR system, all the other mainstream parties would conspire to lock them out of office, particularly if they are seen to be tool toxic. That would result in them never influencing anything.
A similar thing happens to new populist right-wing parties across Europe, the Swedish Democrats being just one example.
I don't think that's true at all.
I think in the event of an election that was 30 UKIP, 30 Conservative, 30 Labour, 10 LibDem, then a Conservative-UKIP coalition would be almost certain.
The issue is that junior coalition partners tend to get - and this is a technical term - "fucked". It happened the FPD in Germany, it's happening to the LibDems in the UK.
And it's why the "Five Star" movement in Italy refuses to get involved in any coalition.
The big question is how politics in the UK is to be organised if we have the leading party on (or below) 30% of the vote. Is barely more than one-in-four votes a mandate?
I do not see how the LDs were effed. They had a deputy PM in charge of various committees and 4 other cabinet posts and they were the ones who diluted government policy. They were given a referendum which they lost and made a mess of their half baked HoL reform. Maybe they should have with 24% of the vote or maybe not with just 60 seats, but they have peddled their wares. And now they promote them as disingenuously as they can.
I am not suggesting the Conservatives f***ed the LibDems, merely that junior coalition partners tend to suffer electorally. This is a pattern we've seen in Scotland, in Europe and in the UK.
The Liberals were never affected by being a junior coalition partner in Scotland.
Their electoral damage did not occur until they joined up with the Tories at Westminster, hammering them in Holyrood 2011. Their vote didn't change hugely in 2003 or 2007 after their spells in coalition (down a bit in 2007 but no more than anyone else and much less than Labour).
It doesn't always happen immediately, particularly where there's a kind of synergy between the parties. Even so, when that is the case - as with the FDP - what tends to happen is that the party loses its sense of independent identity and suffers a gradual loss of support, rather than the opposite case (the Lib Dems in the UK), when it goes against its more natural ally and drops a load of supporters instantly.
Mr. Antifrank, moral leadership is not the same as electoral suggestions.
You don't get to play the game without sticking to the rules that govern everyone else on the pitch. If the bishops want to campaign, then let them stand, let them be candidates, let them knock on doors.
And if they're terribly concerned about poverty, let them pay their full taxes instead of enjoying the charitable tax breaks they currently indulge in. Charities have a duty [flouted often though it may be] to be politically neutral.
Not to mention it paves the way for other religious leaders to start preaching politics. Do we want a precedent set of religious leaders involving themselves in politics? Identity politics is a vile thing, and the Archsocialist should either become a politician or keep out of the election.
Personally I'm all in favour of disestablishing the church and removing tax breaks from religions unless they do wider good than just praying for our souls, and only to that extent.
But I don't see anything objectionable about this letter. It doesn't tell followers who to vote for, but how to think about who to vote for from a religious perspective.
I haven't seen the letter yet but did hear the Bishop/Nadine on R4 this morning.
She claimed that the letter said something along the lines of "unemployment hasn't risen as much as expected"
The Bishop countered that he "didn't want to get bogged down in statistics", and wasn't challenged further by the presenter on that point.
If it does say that it's a remarkable rewriting of the facts
BBC Breaking News @BBCBreaking 3m3 minutes ago UK inflation rate as measured by consumer prices index falls to 0.3% in January, from 0.5% the month before http://bbc.in/1zKtT5m
What's RPI at?
Nobody cares anymore but "CPIH" 0.4% for reference.
Tell that to our union. RPI still the basis for negotiations where I am. Anyone have the figure?
I don't think the ONS bothers anymore - but CPIH includes the housing costs that aren't in CPI.
There is also an issue for UKIP that even if they got 30% of the vote in a PR system, all the other mainstream parties would conspire to lock them out of office, particularly if they are seen to be tool toxic. That would result in them never influencing anything.
A similar thing happens to new populist right-wing parties across Europe, the Swedish Democrats being just one example.
I don't think that's true. If the result of the election were, say, UKIP 30, Lab 26, Con 22, LD 8, SNP 4, Green 5, Others 5 (PR election, so more minor parties), I'm pretty sure you'd end up with a UKIP-Con coalition. It'd be quite difficult to find a viable realistic non-UKIP coalition on those numbers - a National Con/Lab/LD simply wouldn't happen to keep UKIP out; it'd need something much stronger to keep it together (and in any case be counter-productive as most further anti-government votes would then go to UKIP by default with so few opposition alternatives).
Even if UKIP scored 25% under PR, it'd be difficult to exclude them though that's about the level where it could be achieved. That said, I doubt the Tories would have many qualms about forming a coalition with UKIP if the numbers made it work; not least because chances are that the pressures of office would work very much against a party built on insurgency.
We're seeing it now with party after party claiming they won't work with the Conservatives, despite the fact they will poll 30+% and lead on seats.
I grant you on those figures, it might be hard to stitch together an anti-UKIP coalition, but I'd still expect them to try. Particularly given that the alternative might be Farage as PM.
Mr. Antifrank, moral leadership is not the same as electoral suggestions.
You don't get to play the game without sticking to the rules that govern everyone else on the pitch. If the bishops want to campaign, then let them stand, let them be candidates, let them knock on doors.
And if they're terribly concerned about poverty, let them pay their full taxes instead of enjoying the charitable tax breaks they currently indulge in. Charities have a duty [flouted often though it may be] to be politically neutral.
Not to mention it paves the way for other religious leaders to start preaching politics. Do we want a precedent set of religious leaders involving themselves in politics? Identity politics is a vile thing, and the Archsocialist should either become a politician or keep out of the election.
Personally I'm all in favour of disestablishing the church and removing tax breaks from religions unless they do wider good than just praying for our souls, and only to that extent.
But I don't see anything objectionable about this letter. It doesn't tell followers who to vote for, but how to think about who to vote for from a religious perspective.
I haven't seen the letter yet but did hear the Bishop/Nadine on R4 this morning.
She claimed that the letter said something along the lines of "unemployment hasn't risen as much as suspected"
The Bishop countered that he "didn't want to get bogged down in statistics", and wasn't challenged further by the presenter on that point.
If it does say that it's a remarkable rewriting of the facts
The Church of England is the Labour Party at prayer.
Under first past the post winning seats is paramount not building up national vote share. The marginals matter – the rest don’t.
While that is true, there are a couple of other things to consider.
Firstly, demographic changes will move where the marginals are. If you're not competing more widely you will miss out when demographic changes benefit you in a seat you've abandoned.
Secondly, to be in the running in a marginal you have to be near enough in the first place. While UKIP [and to a lesser extent the Greens] may well be derided at this election for picking up lots of votes without winning seats, they are likely to come second in quite a lot of places, either creating new marginals, three-way marginals, or pushing one of the other parties out of contention in an existing marginal.
This poses a long-term threat for the other parties, because it reduces the number of seats that they have any chance of being competitive in and therefore makes it that much harder to win a majority.
BBC Breaking News @BBCBreaking 3m3 minutes ago UK inflation rate as measured by consumer prices index falls to 0.3% in January, from 0.5% the month before http://bbc.in/1zKtT5m
What's RPI at?
Nobody cares anymore but "CPIH" 0.4% for reference.
Tell that to our union. RPI still the basis for negotiations where I am. Anyone have the figure?
I don't think the ONS bothers anymore - but CPIH includes the housing costs that aren't in CPI.
RPI is the only statistic which there is a statutory obligation to publish.
There is also an issue for UKIP that even if they got 30% of the vote in a PR system, all the other mainstream parties would conspire to lock them out of office, particularly if they are seen to be tool toxic. That would result in them never influencing anything.
A similar thing happens to new populist right-wing parties across Europe, the Swedish Democrats being just one example.
I don't think that's true. If the result of the election were, say, UKIP 30, Lab 26, Con 22, LD 8, SNP 4, Green 5, Others 5 (PR election, so more minor parties), I'm pretty sure you'd end up with a UKIP-Con coalition. It'd be quite difficult to find a viable realistic non-UKIP coalition on those numbers - a National Con/Lab/LD simply wouldn't happen to keep UKIP out; it'd need something much stronger to keep it together (and in any case be counter-productive as most further anti-government votes would then go to UKIP by default with so few opposition alternatives).
Even if UKIP scored 25% under PR, it'd be difficult to exclude them though that's about the level where it could be achieved. That said, I doubt the Tories would have many qualms about forming a coalition with UKIP if the numbers made it work; not least because chances are that the pressures of office would work very much against a party built on insurgency.
We're seeing it now with party after party claiming they won't work with the Conservatives, despite the fact they will poll 30+% and lead on seats.
I grant you on those figures, it might be hard to stitch together an anti-UKIP coalition, but I'd still expect them to try. Particularly given that the alternative might be Farage as PM.
Given recent trends Kippers are heading for single figures. 30% is for the birds.
Mr. Antifrank, moral leadership is not the same as electoral suggestions.
You don't get to play the game without sticking to the rules that govern everyone else on the pitch. If the bishops want to campaign, then let them stand, let them be candidates, let them knock on doors.
And if they're terribly concerned about poverty, let them pay their full taxes instead of enjoying the charitable tax breaks they currently indulge in. Charities have a duty [flouted often though it may be] to be politically neutral.
Not to mention it paves the way for other religious leaders to start preaching politics. Do we want a precedent set of religious leaders involving themselves in politics? Identity politics is a vile thing, and the Archsocialist should either become a politician or keep out of the election.
Personally I'm all in favour of disestablishing the church and removing tax breaks from religions unless they do wider good than just praying for our souls, and only to that extent.
But I don't see anything objectionable about this letter. It doesn't tell followers who to vote for, but how to think about who to vote for from a religious perspective.
I haven't seen the letter yet but did hear the Bishop/Nadine on R4 this morning.
She claimed that the letter said something along the lines of "unemployment hasn't risen as much as suspected"
The Bishop countered that he "didn't want to get bogged down in statistics", and wasn't challenged further by the presenter on that point.
If it does say that it's a remarkable rewriting of the facts
Typical C of E. It's hard to take anything they say on poverty seriously anymore, whilst they sit on a massive pile of cash and investments.
There is also an issue for UKIP that even if they got 30% of the vote in a PR system, all the other mainstream parties would conspire to lock them out of office, particularly if they are seen to be tool toxic. That would result in them never influencing anything.
A similar thing happens to new populist right-wing parties across Europe, the Swedish Democrats being just one example.
I don't think that's true. If the result of the election were, say, UKIP 30, Lab 26, Con 22, LD 8, SNP 4, Green 5, Others 5 (PR election, so more minor parties), I'm pretty sure you'd end up with a UKIP-Con coalition. It'd be quite difficult to find a viable realistic non-UKIP coalition on those numbers - a National Con/Lab/LD simply wouldn't happen to keep UKIP out; it'd need something much stronger to keep it together (and in any case be counter-productive as most further anti-government votes would then go to UKIP by default with so few opposition alternatives).
Even if UKIP scored 25% under PR, it'd be difficult to exclude them though that's about the level where it could be achieved. That said, I doubt the Tories would have many qualms about forming a coalition with UKIP if the numbers made it work; not least because chances are that the pressures of office would work very much against a party built on insurgency.
We're seeing it now with party after party claiming they won't work with the Conservatives, despite the fact they will poll 30+% and lead on seats.
I grant you on those figures, it might be hard to stitch together an anti-UKIP coalition, but I'd still expect them to try. Particularly given that the alternative might be Farage as PM.
Given recent trends Kippers are heading for single figures. 30% is for the birds.
You're missing the point. I'm saying that even at their ceiling they would probably be shut out of power.
The way the other parties would justify it is the same way antifrank has: 30% like them, but the rest of the public dislike them. I don't think it's quite that simple but that's more than enough evidence for Con-Lab or Con-Lab-LD to attempt an anti-UKIP alliance off the back of it.
BBC Breaking News @BBCBreaking 3m3 minutes ago UK inflation rate as measured by consumer prices index falls to 0.3% in January, from 0.5% the month before http://bbc.in/1zKtT5m
What's RPI at?
Nobody cares anymore but "CPIH" 0.4% for reference.
Tell that to our union. RPI still the basis for negotiations where I am. Anyone have the figure?
I don't think the ONS bothers anymore - but CPIH includes the housing costs that aren't in CPI.
RPI is the only statistic which there is a statutory obligation to publish.
"The RPI 12-month rate for January 2015 stood at 1.1%, meaning that it was 0.6 percentage points higher than it would have been had it used formulae that meet international standards."
Yesterday we had posters banging on and on about how certain the public were to tactically vote against ukip because they hated them so much.... I said I doubted enough of the public had enough interest or understanding of the voting system to bother
Today's thread shows just a quarter of people know they even live in a seat where tactical voting might be worthwhile
Mr. Antifrank, moral leadership is not the same as electoral suggestions.
You don't get to play the game without sticking to the rules that govern everyone else on the pitch. If the bishops want to campaign, then let them stand, let them be candidates, let them knock on doors.
And if they're terribly concerned about poverty, let them pay their full taxes instead of enjoying the charitable tax breaks they currently indulge in. Charities have a duty [flouted often though it may be] to be politically neutral.
Not to mention it paves the way for other religious leaders to start preaching politics. Do we want a precedent set of religious leaders involving themselves in politics? Identity politics is a vile thing, and the Archsocialist should either become a politician or keep out of the election.
Personally I'm all in favour of disestablishing the church and removing tax breaks from religions unless they do wider good than just praying for our souls, and only to that extent.
But I don't see anything objectionable about this letter. It doesn't tell followers who to vote for, but how to think about who to vote for from a religious perspective.
I haven't seen the letter yet but did hear the Bishop/Nadine on R4 this morning.
She claimed that the letter said something along the lines of "unemployment hasn't risen as much as expected"
The Bishop countered that he "didn't want to get bogged down in statistics", and wasn't challenged further by the presenter on that point.
If it does say that it's a remarkable rewriting of the facts
Time for the Tory Party to spend today, Bashing the Bishops.
I would have thought that leaflet will just encourage a lower turn out. Not exactly the most palatable of choices....
I hope young children don't see it. With those two mugs glaring at them, it could frighten them.
Remember, the average voter feels more hostile to UKIP than the average kipper feels towards David Cameron.
How is hostility measured. A "do you like/dislike question" is a binary choice, it doesn't give you any indications of how intense the feeling is. Most voters don't have intense feelings about any politician, its just something on the news that momentarily annoys them before they get on with life.
It might be fair to say that *more* voters are hostile to UKIP than kippers are to Cameron, but I am not sure you can attribute any relative strength or passion to those feelings. The real picture is more likely to be "quite a lot of voters are marginally unimpressed by UKIP, slightly less UKIP member really didn't have much time for Cameron"
I'm a BoO Tory, about as un-Miliband as you can get, and I am not "hostile" to him, I think he's a bit of a dick, and would make a bad leader of the country, but hostile puts it way too strongly. If that's how I feel, most voters really wont give a cr@p.
What matters (in electoral terms) is what the voters think of UKIP in the places they're targeting. Voters in the UK as a whole don't think highly of the SNP and DUP, but that tells us nothing about how either party will perform in Scotland or Northern Ireland respectively.
Likewise, it's what the voters think of UKIP in Kent, Essex, Lincolnshire, South Yorkshire, Devon and Cornwall, that will determine how the party performs on May 7th.
Shropshire and Staffordshire look like the most UKIP-friendly places in England which don't have a coastline.
There is also an issue for UKIP that even if they got 30% of the vote in a PR system, all the other mainstream parties would conspire to lock them out of office, particularly if they are seen to be tool toxic. That would result in them never influencing anything.
A similar thing happens to new populist right-wing parties across Europe, the Swedish Democrats being just one example.
I don't think that's true. If the result of the election were, say, UKIP 30, Lab 26, Con 22, LD 8, SNP 4, Green 5, Others 5 (PR election, so more minor parties), I'm pretty sure you'd end up with a UKIP-Con coalition. It'd be quite difficult to find a viable realistic non-UKIP coalition on those numbers - a National Con/Lab/LD simply wouldn't happen to keep UKIP out; it'd need something much stronger to keep it together (and in any case be counter-productive as most further anti-government votes would then go to UKIP by default with so few opposition alternatives).
Even if UKIP scored 25% under PR, it'd be difficult to exclude them though that's about the level where it could be achieved. That said, I doubt the Tories would have many qualms about forming a coalition with UKIP if the numbers made it work; not least because chances are that the pressures of office would work very much against a party built on insurgency.
We're seeing it now with party after party claiming they won't work with the Conservatives, despite the fact they will poll 30+% and lead on seats.
I grant you on those figures, it might be hard to stitch together an anti-UKIP coalition, but I'd still expect them to try. Particularly given that the alternative might be Farage as PM.
Given recent trends Kippers are heading for single figures. 30% is for the birds.
The impression is of a political autistic, with extraordinarily little awareness of how he comes across or willingness to learn from his mistakes. That is a worrying trait in the man pitching to be Britain’s next leader.
There is also an issue for UKIP that even if they got 30% of the vote in a PR system, all the other mainstream parties would conspire to lock them out of office, particularly if they are seen to be tool toxic. That would result in them never influencing anything.
A similar thing happens to new populist right-wing parties across Europe, the Swedish Democrats being just one example.
I don't think that's true. If the result of the election were, say, UKIP 30, Lab 26, Con 22, LD 8, SNP 4, Green 5, Others 5 (PR election, so more minor parties), I'm pretty sure you'd end up with a UKIP-Con coalition. It'd be quite difficult to find a viable realistic non-UKIP coalition on those numbers - a National Con/Lab/LD simply wouldn't happen to keep UKIP out; it'd need something much stronger to keep it together (and in any case be counter-productive as most further anti-government votes would then go to UKIP by default with so few opposition alternatives).
Even if UKIP scored 25% under PR, it'd be difficult to exclude them though that's about the level where it could be achieved. That said, I doubt the Tories would have many qualms about forming a coalition with UKIP if the numbers made it work; not least because chances are that the pressures of office would work very much against a party built on insurgency.
We're seeing it now with party after party claiming they won't work with the Conservatives, despite the fact they will poll 30+% and lead on seats.
I grant you on those figures, it might be hard to stitch together an anti-UKIP coalition, but I'd still expect them to try. Particularly given that the alternative might be Farage as PM.
Given recent trends Kippers are heading for single figures. 30% is for the birds.
You're missing the point. I'm saying that even at their ceiling they would probably be shut out of power.
Why would they be?
Do you really think a grand coalition more likely than a Conservative-UKIP one?
There is also an issue for UKIP that even if they got 30% of the vote in a PR system, all the other mainstream parties would conspire to lock them out of office, particularly if they are seen to be tool toxic. That would result in them never influencing anything.
A similar thing happens to new populist right-wing parties across Europe, the Swedish Democrats being just one example.
I don't think that's true. If the result of the election were, say, UKIP 30, Lab 26, Con 22, LD 8, SNP 4, Green 5, Others 5 (PR election, so more minor parties), I'm pretty sure you'd end up with a UKIP-Con coalition. It'd be quite difficult to find a viable realistic non-UKIP coalition on those numbers - a National Con/Lab/LD simply wouldn't happen to keep UKIP out; it'd need something much stronger to keep it together (and in any case be counter-productive as most further anti-government votes would then go to UKIP by default with so few opposition alternatives).
Even if UKIP scored 25% under PR, it'd be difficult to exclude them though that's about the level where it could be achieved. That said, I doubt the Tories would have many qualms about forming a coalition with UKIP if the numbers made it work; not least because chances are that the pressures of office would work very much against a party built on insurgency.
We're seeing it now with party after party claiming they won't work with the Conservatives, despite the fact they will poll 30+% and lead on seats.
I grant you on those figures, it might be hard to stitch together an anti-UKIP coalition, but I'd still expect them to try. Particularly given that the alternative might be Farage as PM.
Given recent trends Kippers are heading for single figures. 30% is for the birds.
Evens ukip get double figures??
They polled 16% yesterday with gold standard Ashcroft - 8/1 seems a better price.
"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's".[Matthew 22:21]
Surely the Church of England should adhere to Biblical guidance - sorry many of them today just ignore that.
Further proof of Caesar's brilliance.
They put Caesar on a par with God. They'd only do that with the greatest ever military commander and strategist ever.
I'm fairly certain that the bible doesn't mention the poor man's Caesar, Alexander of Macedon or the truly inept Hannibal.
Ah, but the Caesar that Jesus referred to was Tiberius Caesar.
IIRC, Alexander does feature in one of Daniel's prophecies.
Thanks, I'll read Daniel's prophecies on the train tonight
Last week I was watching a film about Eisenhower and Churchill in the lead up to D-Day (starring Tom Selleck as Eisenhower), when Eisenhower made his proposal to be Supreme Allied Commander, Churchill said to him
"No man in human history has ever had this amount of power and control, not Caesar, not Alexander"
There is also an issue for UKIP that even if they got 30% of the vote in a PR system, all the other mainstream parties would conspire to lock them out of office, particularly if they are seen to be tool toxic. That would result in them never influencing anything.
A similar thing happens to new populist right-wing parties across Europe, the Swedish Democrats being just one example.
I don't think that's true. If the result of the election were, say, UKIP 30, Lab 26, Con 22, LD 8, SNP 4, Green 5, Others 5 (PR election, so more minor parties), I'm pretty sure you'd end up with a UKIP-Con coalition. It'd be quite difficult to find a viable realistic non-UKIP coalition on those numbers - a National Con/Lab/LD simply wouldn't happen to keep UKIP out; it'd need something much stronger to keep it together (and in any case be counter-productive as most further anti-government votes would then go to UKIP by default with so few opposition alternatives).
Even if UKIP scored 25% under PR, it'd be difficult to exclude them though that's about the level where it could be achieved. That said, I doubt the Tories would have many qualms about forming a coalition with UKIP if the numbers made it work; not least because chances are that the pressures of office would work very much against a party built on insurgency.
We're seeing it now with party after party claiming they won't work with the Conservatives, despite the fact they will poll 30+% and lead on seats.
I grant you on those figures, it might be hard to stitch together an anti-UKIP coalition, but I'd still expect them to try. Particularly given that the alternative might be Farage as PM.
Given recent trends Kippers are heading for single figures. 30% is for the birds.
Evens ukip get double figures??
They polled 16% yesterday with gold standard Ashcroft - 8/1 seems a better price.
I don't follow what you mean but I will back 8/1 they do or 8/1 they don't... Which is it you are offering?
There is also an issue for UKIP that even if they got 30% of the vote in a PR system, all the other mainstream parties would conspire to lock them out of office, particularly if they are seen to be tool toxic. That would result in them never influencing anything.
A similar thing happens to new populist right-wing parties across Europe, the Swedish Democrats being just one example.
I don't think that's true. If the result of the election were, say, UKIP 30, Lab 26, Con 22, LD 8, SNP 4, Green 5, Others 5 (PR election, so more minor parties), I'm pretty sure you'd end up with a UKIP-Con coalition. It'd be quite difficult to find a viable realistic non-UKIP coalition on those numbers - a National Con/Lab/LD simply wouldn't happen to keep UKIP out; it'd need something much stronger to keep it together (and in any case be counter-productive as most further anti-government votes would then go to UKIP by default with so few opposition alternatives).
Even if UKIP scored 25% under PR, it'd be difficult to exclude them though that's about the level where it could be achieved. That said, I doubt the Tories would have many qualms about forming a coalition with UKIP if the numbers made it work; not least because chances are that the pressures of office would work very much against a party built on insurgency.
We're seeing it now with party after party claiming they won't work with the Conservatives, despite the fact they will poll 30+% and lead on seats.
I grant you on those figures, it might be hard to stitch together an anti-UKIP coalition, but I'd still expect them to try. Particularly given that the alternative might be Farage as PM.
Given recent trends Kippers are heading for single figures. 30% is for the birds.
Evens ukip get double figures??
They polled 16% yesterday with gold standard Ashcroft - 8/1 seems a better price.
I don't follow what you mean but I will back 8/1 they do or 8/1 they don't... Which is it you are offering?
16% down to 9.99% seems a long shot. My £20 against your £160.
So how does Cameron square this with the minimum wage? There is no way the government can afford to pay them £154 per week surely? Won't charities and so forth stop paying employees if they think they can get unemployed serfs for virtually nothing?
I do not believe for a moment that a minority Tory government has a cat's chance of putting this through
As Iain Martin would say we need the detail!
Kippers banging on about the feckless keeping their benefits and reintroducing the bedroom tax. Must be a danger of the left vote being split between the 4 left wing parties ?
In principle I am in favour of a "workfare" approach, I don't see why people who are receiving benefits from society, so long as they have sufficient health, shouldn't contribute to society in some productive way rather than sitting on the sofa playing with their Xbox. However the scheme needs to be carefully thought out, otherwise employers will start sacking their paid gophers and floor sweepers, and replacing them with cheap people off benefits.
The trick is to use them for things which have social value, but which people probably wouldn't pay for.
So street sweeping is out, because councils would do that anyway. But picking up litter from the side of roads is a good example.
@PopulusPolls: New each Tuesday from Populus | Last week's Top Ten Most Noticed business stories #TTMN HSBC, Boots and tax dominate http://t.co/FWO6S9zdv6
Given recent trends Kippers are heading for single figures. 30% is for the birds.
We better hope like hell that Cameron doesn't screw the pooch on the 2017 Referendum then, if there is the slightest breath of controversy about how it is handled half the rest of the Conservative Party will move over to the kippers, then its game over.
There is also an issue for UKIP that even if they got 30% of the vote in a PR system, all the other mainstream parties would conspire to lock them out of office, particularly if they are seen to be tool toxic. That would result in them never influencing anything.
A similar thing happens to new populist right-wing parties across Europe, the Swedish Democrats being just one example.
I don't think that's true. If the result of the election were, say, UKIP 30, Lab 26, Con 22, LD 8, SNP 4, Green 5, Others 5 (PR election, so more minor parties), I'm pretty sure you'd end up with a UKIP-Con coalition. It'd be quite difficult to find a viable realistic non-UKIP coalition on those numbers - a National Con/Lab/LD simply wouldn't happen to keep UKIP out; it'd need something much stronger to keep it together (and in any case be counter-productive as most further anti-government votes would then go to UKIP by default with so few opposition alternatives).
Even if UKIP scored 25% under PR, it'd be difficult to exclude them though that's about the level where it could be achieved. That said, I doubt the Tories would have many qualms about forming a coalition with UKIP if the numbers made it work; not least because chances are that the pressures of office would work very much against a party built on insurgency.
We're seeing it now with party after party claiming they won't work with the Conservatives, despite the fact they will poll 30+% and lead on seats.
I grant you on those figures, it might be hard to stitch together an anti-UKIP coalition, but I'd still expect them to try. Particularly given that the alternative might be Farage as PM.
Given recent trends Kippers are heading for single figures. 30% is for the birds.
Evens ukip get double figures??
They polled 16% yesterday with gold standard Ashcroft - 8/1 seems a better price.
I don't follow what you mean but I will back 8/1 they do or 8/1 they don't... Which is it you are offering?
16% down to 9.99% seems a long shot. My £20 against your £160.
Haha don't be ridiculous I'm backingthe 8/1 you offered so it would be me who can lose £20 and you £160
I've already laid 4/6 to the PB shrewdies Im not going back in at 8/1!
Genuine question: what is this pension package? Is it a special, one-off payment of £423k into her pension scheme, or has the Mail simply totted up what is already in it? Does pb have any experts on making high-salary staff redundant?
I'd assume they will have taken her final salary rights and multiplied by 20x to give an approximate capital value. So £423,000 implies a £21,500 annual pension (for life) which suggests that she has earned 7/60ths of her final salary (i.e. she has worked for Oxford for 7 years)
Blimey, public sector pension schemes are generous!
No election literature here. Has Argyll and Bute has gone from four way marginal to a slam dunk for the SNP despite being the pro-Trident constituency?
BBC Breaking News @BBCBreaking 3m3 minutes ago UK inflation rate as measured by consumer prices index falls to 0.3% in January, from 0.5% the month before http://bbc.in/1zKtT5m
What's RPI at?
Nobody cares anymore but "CPIH" 0.4% for reference.
Tell that to our union. RPI still the basis for negotiations where I am. Anyone have the figure?
I don't think the ONS bothers anymore - but CPIH includes the housing costs that aren't in CPI.
RPI is the only statistic which there is a statutory obligation to publish.
Govt could be heading for trouble here though..Oil costs up over 35% since these figs were collated and that will feed through in March and April...Will lead to upward pressures on CPI
Genuine question: what is this pension package? Is it a special, one-off payment of £423k into her pension scheme, or has the Mail simply totted up what is already in it? Does pb have any experts on making high-salary staff redundant?
Her pension pot all depends upon what type of pension she is on. If it's a final salary, the value is an estimate of the pot size to pay her pension. If it's a defined benefit pension, it will have a value. It's made up of the council and her contributions over the years and the performance of the investment. It us completely wrong to position it as a payment for departure.
On final salary pensions , they normally calculate your pot as being 20 x your full pension amount plus any top up payments. You can take 25% of this value as a tax free lump sum and have a reduced pension. You cannot tell from what Mail say as to what reality is.
But you do know that the Mail will have put the worst possible construct on it, and therefore you can work back to an approximation of reality
Genuine question: what is this pension package? Is it a special, one-off payment of £423k into her pension scheme, or has the Mail simply totted up what is already in it? Does pb have any experts on making high-salary staff redundant?
I'd assume they will have taken her final salary rights and multiplied by 20x to give an approximate capital value. So £423,000 implies a £21,500 annual pension (for life) which suggests that she has earned 7/60ths of her final salary (i.e. she has worked for Oxford for 7 years)
Blimey, public sector pension schemes are generous!
Perhaps the most ironic aspect of public sector pensions is just how utterly regressive they are for such a bastion of left wing identification.
They are without doubt the most regressive measure anywhere in the Government accounts.
BBC Breaking News @BBCBreaking 3m3 minutes ago UK inflation rate as measured by consumer prices index falls to 0.3% in January, from 0.5% the month before http://bbc.in/1zKtT5m
What's RPI at?
Nobody cares anymore but "CPIH" 0.4% for reference.
Tell that to our union. RPI still the basis for negotiations where I am. Anyone have the figure?
I don't think the ONS bothers anymore - but CPIH includes the housing costs that aren't in CPI.
RPI is the only statistic which there is a statutory obligation to publish.
Govt could be heading for trouble here though..Oil costs up over 35% since these figs were collated and that will feed through in March and April...Will lead to upward pressures on CPI
Oil costs back at what they were in December...
So let's not pretend that oil is anything other than massively below its average level for the last four years...
Mr. Antifrank, moral leadership is not the same as electoral suggestions.
You don't get to play the game without sticking to the rules that govern everyone else on the pitch. If the bishops want to campaign, then let them stand, let them be candidates, let them knock on doors.
And if they're terribly concerned about poverty, let them pay their full taxes instead of enjoying the charitable tax breaks they currently indulge in. Charities have a duty [flouted often though it may be] to be politically neutral.
Not to mention it paves the way for other religious leaders to start preaching politics. Do we want a precedent set of religious leaders involving themselves in politics? Identity politics is a vile thing, and the Archsocialist should either become a politician or keep out of the election.
Personally I'm all in favour of disestablishing the church and removing tax breaks from religions unless they do wider good than just praying for our souls, and only to that extent.
But I don't see anything objectionable about this letter. It doesn't tell followers who to vote for, but how to think about who to vote for from a religious perspective.
I haven't seen the letter yet but did hear the Bishop/Nadine on R4 this morning.
She claimed that the letter said something along the lines of "unemployment hasn't risen as much as suspected"
The Bishop countered that he "didn't want to get bogged down in statistics", and wasn't challenged further by the presenter on that point.
If it does say that it's a remarkable rewriting of the facts
Typical C of E. It's hard to take anything they say on poverty seriously anymore, whilst they sit on a massive pile of cash and investments.
Would you rather they spent it all and then didn't pay pensions to vicars?
Mr. Antifrank, moral leadership is not the same as electoral suggestions.
You don't get to play the game without sticking to the rules that govern everyone else on the pitch. If the bishops want to campaign, then let them stand, let them be candidates, let them knock on doors.
And if they're terribly concerned about poverty, let them pay their full taxes instead of enjoying the charitable tax breaks they currently indulge in. Charities have a duty [flouted often though it may be] to be politically neutral.
Not to mention it paves the way for other religious leaders to start preaching politics. Do we want a precedent set of religious leaders involving themselves in politics? Identity politics is a vile thing, and the Archsocialist should either become a politician or keep out of the election.
Personally I'm all in favour of disestablishing the church and removing tax breaks from religions unless they do wider good than just praying for our souls, and only to that extent.
But I don't see anything objectionable about this letter. It doesn't tell followers who to vote for, but how to think about who to vote for from a religious perspective.
I haven't seen the letter yet but did hear the Bishop/Nadine on R4 this morning.
She claimed that the letter said something along the lines of "unemployment hasn't risen as much as expected"
The Bishop countered that he "didn't want to get bogged down in statistics", and wasn't challenged further by the presenter on that point.
If it does say that it's a remarkable rewriting of the facts
Churches are entitled to comment on the moral aspects of what is going in our society. But they need to be careful not to stray into party politics because there is no link between being moral / Christian / whatever and any one party. But they do need to be accurate with their facts and not be selective in order to avoid giving the impression that they are siding with one party over another.
There is a very fine line to be drawn here otherwise we get into the area - currently being tested in court - over imams in Tower Hamlets allegedly saying that it would be unislamic not to vote for Lutfur Rahman and we don't want to go down that path.
Equally parties are best advised not to over-react, welcome their contributions and debate politely rather than give the impression - as some of the dimmer Tories do - that they are furious at the idea that the church should say anything at all, especially when CoE bishops sit in the legislature.
BBC Breaking News @BBCBreaking 3m3 minutes ago UK inflation rate as measured by consumer prices index falls to 0.3% in January, from 0.5% the month before http://bbc.in/1zKtT5m
What's RPI at?
Nobody cares anymore but "CPIH" 0.4% for reference.
Tell that to our union. RPI still the basis for negotiations where I am. Anyone have the figure?
I don't think the ONS bothers anymore - but CPIH includes the housing costs that aren't in CPI.
RPI is the only statistic which there is a statutory obligation to publish.
"The RPI 12-month rate for January 2015 stood at 1.1%, meaning that it was 0.6 percentage points higher than it would have been had it used formulae that meet international standards."
So here is a theory I heard today concerning Greece.
Over the last few weeks some private indicators have become positive and the idea is that the EU/ECB will just wait it out by passing continuing resolutions and hope that the figures feed through into a real economic recovery and job creation. If it works that way then they will claim victory for the reform package and dare Tsipras to derail a tentative recovery by talking about leaving the Euro.
Given recent trends Kippers are heading for single figures. 30% is for the birds.
We better hope like hell that Cameron doesn't screw the pooch on the 2017 Referendum then, if there is the slightest breath of controversy about how it is handled half the rest of the Conservative Party will move over to the kippers, then its game over.
Which is exactly why he won't do it.
He doesn't want to (a) lose his job or (b) be remembered as the last leader of the Conservative Party
I'd assume they will have taken her final salary rights and multiplied by 20x to give an approximate capital value. So £423,000 implies a £21,500 annual pension (for life) which suggests that she has earned 7/60ths of her final salary (i.e. she has worked for Oxford for 7 years)
Blimey, public sector pension schemes are generous!
Yes, that 20-time multiplier, which is used to calculate the maximum pension value before you start getting taxed, massively underestimates the value of pensions in the public sector. The actual cost of buying an index-linked pension, for virtually everyone else, is something like 30 times the initial annual payment, depending on the exact details:
BBC Breaking News @BBCBreaking 3m3 minutes ago UK inflation rate as measured by consumer prices index falls to 0.3% in January, from 0.5% the month before http://bbc.in/1zKtT5m
What's RPI at?
Nobody cares anymore but "CPIH" 0.4% for reference.
Tell that to our union. RPI still the basis for negotiations where I am. Anyone have the figure?
I don't think the ONS bothers anymore - but CPIH includes the housing costs that aren't in CPI.
RPI is the only statistic which there is a statutory obligation to publish.
Govt could be heading for trouble here though..Oil costs up over 35% since these figs were collated and that will feed through in March and April...Will lead to upward pressures on CPI
Oil costs back at what they were in December...
So let's not pretend that oil is anything other than massively below its average level for the last four years...
No but RPI moves up and down therefore the next movement will be up... Get your cheap airfares now..
Mr. Antifrank, from the BBC article I linked to: "It is expected to back the concept of a living wage and urge political parties to avoid scapegoating groups such as immigrants and those on benefits."
Also:
"The letter - the first of its kind to be issued by the Church - is expected to say that the case for the Trident nuclear deterrent needs to be re-examined and more EU integration is needed."
It'd be more subtle for them to say people should vote for Abour-lay, not Onservative-cay. And UKIP-ay is the work of Satan, it would seem.
Priests involving themselves in electioneering is backward.
Not party political, in the sense that they'd want their parishioners to choose either Labour, the Greens, Respect, or some other left-winger. That's why I left the Church of England.
There was a good article in The Spectator about a year ago written by a CofE vicar who was a Conservative.
He wrote under a pseudonym, but was very clear that his fellow vicars and bishops considered him something of a pariah. He felt he had to keep it quiet.
Chris Bryant (aka Reverend Underpants) was a former Vicar.
Regarding Ed Balls and his receipts, you'd have to have a heart of stone not to laugh. The really amusing bit about it is that the essence of the story is a total fabrication:
It's only towards the end of the article that the Mail gets round to explaining that these weren't actually cash payments, but payments by cheque, so they don't actually show Balls being a hypocrite.
Well, well. Smearing by eliding two different things. Much like Ed's disgusting smear of Lord Fink. Labour can hardly complain.
Mr. Antifrank, moral leadership is not the same as electoral suggestions.
You don't get to play the game without sticking to the rules that govern everyone else on the pitch. If the bishops want to campaign, then let them stand, let them be candidates, let them knock on doors.
And if they're terribly concerned about poverty, let them pay their full taxes instead of enjoying the charitable tax breaks they currently indulge in. Charities have a duty [flouted often though it may be] to be politically neutral.
Not to mention it paves the way for other religious leaders to start preaching politics. Do we want a precedent set of religious leaders involving themselves in politics? Identity politics is a vile thing, and the Archsocialist should either become a politician or keep out of the election.
Personally I'm all in favour of disestablishing the church and removing tax breaks from religions unless they do wider good than just praying for our souls, and only to that extent.
But I don't see anything objectionable about this letter. It doesn't tell followers who to vote for, but how to think about who to vote for from a religious perspective.
I haven't seen the letter yet but did hear the Bishop/Nadine on R4 this morning.
She claimed that the letter said something along the lines of "unemployment hasn't risen as much as suspected"
The Bishop countered that he "didn't want to get bogged down in statistics", and wasn't challenged further by the presenter on that point.
If it does say that it's a remarkable rewriting of the facts
Typical C of E. It's hard to take anything they say on poverty seriously anymore, whilst they sit on a massive pile of cash and investments.
Would you rather they spent it all and then didn't pay pensions to vicars?
Except, it's not all held as investments for the pension fund is it?
Just looking at yesterday's 4 polls I see the common thing is Labour down except in Ashcroft where it stood still and the Tories fell.
And that after the Labour shills on here told us it was Labour's best week in years. I'd hate to see what their worst brings. Although, may not have to wait long for that....
Regarding Ed Balls and his receipts, you'd have to have a heart of stone not to laugh. The really amusing bit about it is that the essence of the story is a total fabrication:
It's only towards the end of the article that the Mail gets round to explaining that these weren't actually cash payments, but payments by cheque, so they don't actually show Balls being a hypocrite.
Well, well. Smearing by eliding two different things. Much like Ed's disgusting smear of Lord Fink. Labour can hardly complain.
All the whole tax/expenses story has done, IMO, has been to reinforce the view that people at the top, including MPs, don't pay the same tax as the rest of us (quite a lot less in fact) and can claim as expenses all sorts of stuff that the rest of us can't.
One law for them, one law for us.
O/T: quite the most worrying story I heard on last night's news was that IS were in Libya, in Sirte, barely 300 kms from the Italian coastline and that, at least according to the Egyptian politician who was being interviewed, very soon there would be boatloads of terrorists heading for Europe.
Given recent trends Kippers are heading for single figures. 30% is for the birds.
We better hope like hell that Cameron doesn't screw the pooch on the 2017 Referendum then, if there is the slightest breath of controversy about how it is handled half the rest of the Conservative Party will move over to the kippers, then its game over.
Thinking Tories won't want the referendum once they're staring it in the face, since it boils the question down to either "yes" or "no", whereas most Tory MPs advocate a vague but intermediate "meh". If the economy is good at that point UKIP will be past they're peak and not so scarey. On balance I think he'd do in-out, but it's not unthinkable that he'd weasel, and if he did it wouldn't be remotely as devastating as you're suggesting.
Given recent trends Kippers are heading for single figures. 30% is for the birds.
We better hope like hell that Cameron doesn't screw the pooch on the 2017 Referendum then, if there is the slightest breath of controversy about how it is handled half the rest of the Conservative Party will move over to the kippers, then its game over.
Thinking Tories won't want the referendum once they're staring it in the face, since it boils the question down to either "yes" or "no", whereas most Tory MPs advocate a vague but intermediate "meh". If the economy is good at that point UKIP will be past they're peak and not so scarey. On balance I think he'd do in-out, but it's not unthinkable that he'd weasel, and if he did it wouldn't be remotely as devastating as you're suggesting.
Dr Nabavi has been telling us that Cameron would rather cut off his testicles with a rusty knife than weasel on the EU referendum. Given Cast Iron Dave's track record for weaselling I would say that was the sound of hope triumphing over experience, but we shall see.
If we get the sort of ISIS terrorist action on the mainland that SeanT has been going on about I suspect the immigration issue will jump very rapidly up the agenda, and that can't be effectively tackled whilst in the EU, so the EU will become a cause celebre.
Regarding Ed Balls and his receipts, you'd have to have a heart of stone not to laugh. The really amusing bit about it is that the essence of the story is a total fabrication:
It's only towards the end of the article that the Mail gets round to explaining that these weren't actually cash payments, but payments by cheque, so they don't actually show Balls being a hypocrite.
Well, well. Smearing by eliding two different things. Much like Ed's disgusting smear of Lord Fink. Labour can hardly complain.
All the whole tax/expenses story has done, IMO, has been to reinforce the view that people at the top, including MPs, don't pay the same tax as the rest of us (quite a lot less in fact) and can claim as expenses all sorts of stuff that the rest of us can't.
One law for them, one law for us.
It's far worse than that. It would seem that they're not even required to prove that the expense they're claiming for is legitimate, there being no requirement to produce the same proof in the form of receipts as everyone else is expected to do.
@Richard_Nabavi Glad you noticed that the story about the window cleaner was most likely a pure smear. It could of course be that Ed B never collected the receipts, or that he paid the bill by direct debit, but whatever the truth, it has been buried by the negative headline. Smart politics by the paper.
I'd assume they will have taken her final salary rights and multiplied by 20x to give an approximate capital value. So £423,000 implies a £21,500 annual pension (for life) which suggests that she has earned 7/60ths of her final salary (i.e. she has worked for Oxford for 7 years)
Blimey, public sector pension schemes are generous!
Yes, that 20-time multiplier, which is used to calculate the maximum pension value before you start getting taxed, massively underestimates the value of pensions in the public sector. The actual cost of buying an index-linked pension, for virtually everyone else, is something like 30 times the initial annual payment, depending on the exact details:
Mr. Antifrank, moral leadership is not the same as electoral suggestions.
You don't get to play the game without sticking to the rules that govern everyone else on the pitch. If the bishops want to campaign, then let them stand, let them be candidates, let them knock on doors.
And if they're terribly concerned about poverty, let them pay their full taxes instead of enjoying the charitable tax breaks they currently indulge in. Charities have a duty [flouted often though it may be] to be politically neutral.
Not to mention it paves the way for other religious leaders to start preaching politics. Do we want a precedent set of religious leaders involving themselves in politics? Identity politics is a vile thing, and the Archsocialist should either become a politician or keep out of the election.
Personally I'm all in favour of disestablishing the church and removing tax breaks from religions unless they do wider good than just praying for our souls, and only to that extent.
But I don't see anything objectionable about this letter. It doesn't tell followers who to vote for, but how to think about who to vote for from a religious perspective.
I haven't seen the letter yet but did hear the Bishop/Nadine on R4 this morning.
She claimed that the letter said something along the lines of "unemployment hasn't risen as much as suspected"
The Bishop countered that he "didn't want to get bogged down in statistics", and wasn't challenged further by the presenter on that point.
If it does say that it's a remarkable rewriting of the facts
Typical C of E. It's hard to take anything they say on poverty seriously anymore, whilst they sit on a massive pile of cash and investments.
Would you rather they spent it all and then didn't pay pensions to vicars?
Except, it's not all held as investments for the pension fund is it?
It's not segregated, bu that's where the bulk of the investment income goes.
(I'm treasurer of our local church & my neighbour was First Commissioner of the Church of England, so I used to get on his case about it )
Dr Nabavi has been telling us that Cameron would rather cut off his testicles with a rusty knife than weasel on the EU referendum. Given Cast Iron Dave's track record for weaselling I would say that was the sound of hope triumphing over experience, but we shall see.
In the near-inconceivable scenario of him weaselling on it, the Conservative Party would be the ones wielding the rusty knife. The chances of the referendum not happening (if there's a Conservative majority) are zero.
@Richard_Nabavi Glad you noticed that the story about the window cleaner was most likely a pure smear. It could of course be that Ed B never collected the receipts, or that he paid the bill by direct debit, but whatever the truth, it has been buried by the negative headline. Smart politics by the paper.
Personally I don't think it's smart at all, I think it's disgraceful. But not as disgraceful as Ed Miliband's use of the same technique.
Dr Nabavi has been telling us that Cameron would rather cut off his testicles with a rusty knife than weasel on the EU referendum. Given Cast Iron Dave's track record for weaselling I would say that was the sound of hope triumphing over experience, but we shall see.
In the near-inconceivable scenario of him weaselling on it, the Conservative Party would be the ones wielding the rusty knife. The chances of the referendum not happening (if there's a Conservative majority) are zero.
Unfortunately the chances of a Conservative majority without some amazing black swan are pretty much zero as well.
@Richard_Nabavi Glad you noticed that the story about the window cleaner was most likely a pure smear. It could of course be that Ed B never collected the receipts, or that he paid the bill by direct debit, but whatever the truth, it has been buried by the negative headline. Smart politics by the paper.
Straight out of the Milliband book, I would suggest.
Dr Nabavi has been telling us that Cameron would rather cut off his testicles with a rusty knife than weasel on the EU referendum. Given Cast Iron Dave's track record for weaselling I would say that was the sound of hope triumphing over experience, but we shall see.
In the near-inconceivable scenario of him weaselling on it, the Conservative Party would be the ones wielding the rusty knife. The chances of the referendum not happening (if there's a Conservative majority) are zero.
Tosh.
In 2011 the parliamentary Conservative Party were told to vote against an EU referendum. They did.
In 2014 the parliamentary Conservative Party were told to vote to pass powers over Justice and Home Affairs to the EU. They did.
The majority of the parliamentary Conservative party is pro-EU, and their local associations support their actions.
Unfortunately the chances of a Conservative majority without some amazing black swan are pretty much zero as well.
Not according to the betting markets.
The more interesting conundrum is whether the referendum would go ahead if there's a Conservative-led government in a hung parliament. The answer is probably that it would, but obviously that couldn't be guaranteed if the other parties gang up to torpedo it. That's a question for them, though.
Dr Nabavi has been telling us that Cameron would rather cut off his testicles with a rusty knife than weasel on the EU referendum. Given Cast Iron Dave's track record for weaselling I would say that was the sound of hope triumphing over experience, but we shall see.
In the near-inconceivable scenario of him weaselling on it, the Conservative Party would be the ones wielding the rusty knife. The chances of the referendum not happening (if there's a Conservative majority) are zero.
Tosh.
In 2011 the parliamentary Conservative Party were told to vote against an EU referendum. They did.
In 2014 the parliamentary Conservative Party were told to vote to pass powers over Justice and Home Affairs to the EU. They did.
The majority of the parliamentary Conservative party is pro-EU, and their local associations support their actions.
Well, my offer of up to £1000 at Evens remains open to anyone credit worthy but stupid enough to agree with you. No takers so far, and I don't expect there will be any.
Looks like Tspiras has 81% approval with the Greek public for his current approach with the EU.
It seems like the EU is faced with a regime which is not only rather fruitcakey, but also appears at the moment to be exuding integrity, which is going down very well at home. Their understandable line appears to be that they were elected decisively (for a PR system) on a platform of no more austerity, so they cant exactly be expected to turn their back on their electorate in the first few weeks and sign up to exactly what they said they would not.
I rather admire their upfront approach to be honest, they are taking it down to the wire with tough negotiation, and are not prepared to be fobbed off with cosmetic changes. They might come away with nothing, but if it doesn't look like they are prepared to burn the EU to the ground to get what they want, they will definitely get nothing. What with the USA rowing in on their side and I beginning to get the suspicion that Varoufakis might come out the winner on this one. Then the material will really hit the rotating blades.
Regarding Ed Balls and his receipts, you'd have to have a heart of stone not to laugh. The really amusing bit about it is that the essence of the story is a total fabrication:
It's only towards the end of the article that the Mail gets round to explaining that these weren't actually cash payments, but payments by cheque, so they don't actually show Balls being a hypocrite.
Well, well. Smearing by eliding two different things. Much like Ed's disgusting smear of Lord Fink. Labour can hardly complain.
All the whole tax/expenses story has done, IMO, has been to reinforce the view that people at the top, including MPs, don't pay the same tax as the rest of us (quite a lot less in fact) and can claim as expenses all sorts of stuff that the rest of us can't.
One law for them, one law for us.
It's far worse than that. It would seem that they're not even required to prove that the expense they're claiming for is legitimate, there being no requirement to produce the same proof in the form of receipts as everyone else is expected to do.
Comments
Their electoral damage did not occur until they joined up with the Tories at Westminster, hammering them in Holyrood 2011. Their vote didn't change hugely in 2003 or 2007 after their spells in coalition (down a bit in 2007 but no more than anyone else and much less than Labour).
Surely the Church of England should adhere to Biblical guidance - sorry many of them today just ignore that.
Even leaving that to one side you general point in cant, the kippers have been fighting scandals, bad press, idiotic councillers etc for months and their vote has hardly moved at all. The Kipper vote is the inchoate anger "mad as hell and not going to take it any more" vote, they don't care about policies.
BBC Breaking News @BBCBreaking 3m3 minutes ago
UK inflation rate as measured by consumer prices index falls to 0.3% in January, from 0.5% the month before http://bbc.in/1zKtT5m
Even if UKIP scored 25% under PR, it'd be difficult to exclude them though that's about the level where it could be achieved. That said, I doubt the Tories would have many qualms about forming a coalition with UKIP if the numbers made it work; not least because chances are that the pressures of office would work very much against a party built on insurgency.
I did look her up on LinkedIn and she's been at Oxfordshire Council for 9 or 10 years, and was at Sutton (also as Chief Exec) before that.
That philosophy may explain why they are so profitable.
Does the Church of England have any standards ?
Food down 0.3%
I do so get bored linking this again and again and again for those who clearly live in their own sheltered world of partisan propaganda . They've been public for at least 6 months
Policies for people (over 90 of them):
http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people
Next!
Ever.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_393051.pdf
They put Caesar on a par with God. They'd only do that with the greatest ever military commander and strategist ever.
I'm fairly certain that the bible doesn't mention the poor man's Caesar, Alexander of Macedon or the truly inept Hannibal.
She claimed that the letter said something along the lines of "unemployment hasn't risen as much as expected"
The Bishop countered that he "didn't want to get bogged down in statistics", and wasn't challenged further by the presenter on that point.
If it does say that it's a remarkable rewriting of the facts
I grant you on those figures, it might be hard to stitch together an anti-UKIP coalition, but I'd still expect them to try. Particularly given that the alternative might be Farage as PM.
IIRC, Alexander does feature in one of Daniel's prophecies.
Firstly, demographic changes will move where the marginals are. If you're not competing more widely you will miss out when demographic changes benefit you in a seat you've abandoned.
Secondly, to be in the running in a marginal you have to be near enough in the first place. While UKIP [and to a lesser extent the Greens] may well be derided at this election for picking up lots of votes without winning seats, they are likely to come second in quite a lot of places, either creating new marginals, three-way marginals, or pushing one of the other parties out of contention in an existing marginal.
This poses a long-term threat for the other parties, because it reduces the number of seats that they have any chance of being competitive in and therefore makes it that much harder to win a majority.
The way the other parties would justify it is the same way antifrank has: 30% like them, but the rest of the public dislike them. I don't think it's quite that simple but that's more than enough evidence for Con-Lab or Con-Lab-LD to attempt an anti-UKIP alliance off the back of it.
Right, must work now.
Jesus said I'll say it again--it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!"
Time to sell some assets and give to the poor? Err no. Tax everyone else but us please.. seems to be the message...
Today's thread shows just a quarter of people know they even live in a seat where tactical voting might be worthwhile
On come, you were all thinking it.
There was this other bloke, a Gordon somebody, who was the same and that worked ok when he was in charge...oh wait.
Do you really think a grand coalition more likely than a Conservative-UKIP one?
Last week I was watching a film about Eisenhower and Churchill in the lead up to D-Day (starring Tom Selleck as Eisenhower), when Eisenhower made his proposal to be Supreme Allied Commander, Churchill said to him
"No man in human history has ever had this amount of power and control, not Caesar, not Alexander"
So street sweeping is out, because councils would do that anyway. But picking up litter from the side of roads is a good example.
@steve_hawkes: Labour's biggest donor Unite quietly removes line about how it "helps members build up savings in a tax efficient way" from its website
I've already laid 4/6 to the PB shrewdies Im not going back in at 8/1!
Er, he's in Brussels, giving live interviews on national TV...
I guess Labour aren't looking too hard.
Blimey, public sector pension schemes are generous!
They are without doubt the most regressive measure anywhere in the Government accounts.
So let's not pretend that oil is anything other than massively below its average level for the last four years...
There is a very fine line to be drawn here otherwise we get into the area - currently being tested in court - over imams in Tower Hamlets allegedly saying that it would be unislamic not to vote for Lutfur Rahman and we don't want to go down that path.
Equally parties are best advised not to over-react, welcome their contributions and debate politely rather than give the impression - as some of the dimmer Tories do - that they are furious at the idea that the church should say anything at all, especially when CoE bishops sit in the legislature.
Over the last few weeks some private indicators have become positive and the idea is that the EU/ECB will just wait it out by passing continuing resolutions and hope that the figures feed through into a real economic recovery and job creation. If it works that way then they will claim victory for the reform package and dare Tsipras to derail a tentative recovery by talking about leaving the Euro.
He doesn't want to (a) lose his job or (b) be remembered as the last leader of the Conservative Party
Noel Gallagher: Boris Johnson will be next PM and Labour are a waste of time
Noel Gallagher, the former Oasis frontman who supported Tony Blair, says he doesn't 'believe' anything Ed Miliband or the shadow cabinet say
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11417345/Noel-Gallagher-Boris-Johnson-will-be-next-PM-and-Labour-are-a-waste-of-time.html
https://www.hl.co.uk/pensions/annuities/annuity-best-buy-rates
Telegraph Politics (@TelePolitics)
17/02/2015 10:25
Noel Gallagher: Boris Johnson will be next PM and Labour are a waste of time tgr.ph/1CDru10
Get your cheap airfares now..
And I shall leave the comparison dangling......
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2956365/I-ve-cleaned-Ed-Balls-s-windows-17-years-s-never-asked-receipt-Shadow-Chancellor-accused-total-hypocrisy-following-claims.html
It's only towards the end of the article that the Mail gets round to explaining that these weren't actually cash payments, but payments by cheque, so they don't actually show Balls being a hypocrite.
Well, well. Smearing by eliding two different things. Much like Ed's disgusting smear of Lord Fink. Labour can hardly complain.
Signing a deal with the Sultan of Brunei at Chequers.......
@benatipsosmori: Out later - new FTSE500 bosses views on #ge2015. Expect hung parliament but want Cons majority! http://t.co/2uuMmBjHEC
One law for them, one law for us.
O/T: quite the most worrying story I heard on last night's news was that IS were in Libya, in Sirte, barely 300 kms from the Italian coastline and that, at least according to the Egyptian politician who was being interviewed, very soon there would be boatloads of terrorists heading for Europe.
Bravo. ; )
If we get the sort of ISIS terrorist action on the mainland that SeanT has been going on about I suspect the immigration issue will jump very rapidly up the agenda, and that can't be effectively tackled whilst in the EU, so the EU will become a cause celebre.
AntandDec vs Dr Eoin Clarke:
Clarke: 'Remember your roots Lads'
A&D: absolutely. they still have to earn my 'X' tho.
one-nill to Ant or Dec......
Glad you noticed that the story about the window cleaner was most likely a pure smear.
It could of course be that Ed B never collected the receipts, or that he paid the bill by direct debit, but whatever the truth, it has been buried by the negative headline.
Smart politics by the paper.
I still use 5% as my risk-free rate while I'm sure that any CAPM-psycho would beat me around the head for that
(I'm treasurer of our local church & my neighbour was First Commissioner of the Church of England, so I used to get on his case about it
5,6,7,8.....
He gives every appearance of going out of his way to lose as badly as possible
In 2011 the parliamentary Conservative Party were told to vote against an EU referendum. They did.
In 2014 the parliamentary Conservative Party were told to vote to pass powers over Justice and Home Affairs to the EU. They did.
The majority of the parliamentary Conservative party is pro-EU, and their local associations support their actions.
The more interesting conundrum is whether the referendum would go ahead if there's a Conservative-led government in a hung parliament. The answer is probably that it would, but obviously that couldn't be guaranteed if the other parties gang up to torpedo it. That's a question for them, though.
It seems like the EU is faced with a regime which is not only rather fruitcakey, but also appears at the moment to be exuding integrity, which is going down very well at home. Their understandable line appears to be that they were elected decisively (for a PR system) on a platform of no more austerity, so they cant exactly be expected to turn their back on their electorate in the first few weeks and sign up to exactly what they said they would not.
I rather admire their upfront approach to be honest, they are taking it down to the wire with tough negotiation, and are not prepared to be fobbed off with cosmetic changes. They might come away with nothing, but if it doesn't look like they are prepared to burn the EU to the ground to get what they want, they will definitely get nothing. What with the USA rowing in on their side and I beginning to get the suspicion that Varoufakis might come out the winner on this one. Then the material will really hit the rotating blades.