They have produced the fastest growing economy in Europe. They have been unbelievably successful in creating employment. They have reduced the size of the State markedly but in ways that relatively few people notice. They have substantially reduced the deficit. They have increased health spending in real terms. They have taken millions of the lower paid out of tax. They have increased taxes on the wealthy to compensate. .
Some of the statistics above are a little suspect. And as these don't seem to meet peoples real world experiences, the Tories aren't ahead in the polls. It is no good saying how good things are if people aren't feeling it, and some aren't.
England is a totally different place to 5 years ago. I dont accept that people are not experiencing the recovery. Just go to a town on a Saturday and look at the restaurants, jammed full, queues out the door. People have a lot more disposable income than 5 years ago and are spending it. They are just not giving the Government any credit for it.
Seriously that description is the complete reverse of the situation here in Sheffield (and across the North)..From 97 to 08 the feelgood factor was a reality not a catchphrase but now its completely different
Hardly surprising when average wages have been behind the inflation rate for virtually the entire period and public sector wages and working age benefits have all been held down below inflation and continue to be now
Where do you go out on a Saturday? Kensington and Chelsea where you bump into Rifkind et al throwing his 5k bungs about
Sheffield is booming. 2 hour to get served at TGIs on Friday.
I am simply numb at the otherworldliness of a place where people will wait 2 hours to get served at TGI Fridays.
I don't understand bingo or glue sniffing either.
When you have 90 mins between films, and you've got bugger all to do, it was either there, Bella Italia, Pizza Express and Frankie and Bennys
Everyone else I speak with (providers, advisers, clients) none of them expect Ed Miliband to be PM or Ed Balls as Chancellor.
I often say we need to plan 'what if' they get in and what it means for the tax planning we're doing or could do now... it's always 'you don't really think they will get back in do you, I can't see it'
Yes, I have had exactly the same reaction from lots of people.
So the Drooling Kippers "one in three voters might support us" turns into one in four and they STILL haven't got any policies into the public consciousness.
In the same poll 45% think they 'know a lot / fair bit' about UKIP's policies.
Other parties numbers are: Con +63% / -31% Lab +59% / -36%
UKIP +45% / -49% LD +37% / -57% Green +27% / -67%
EDIT "1 in 3 voters might vote UKIP" was from ComRes. I think YouGov have always been around 1 in 4.
"But what else can the Tories do? They've delivered on the economy and jobs, the NHS has failed to implode, the education system is still functioning OK etc, etc, etc. If the dear peepul want to choose someone else after all this then, I repeat, what can the Tories do?"
Point is that the majority of the "peepul" don't see that list of achievements as factual. They don't feel any benefits of this economic recovery, of jobs that are allegedly now all full time and paying wage increases faster than price increases. They see an NHS in crisis with ever bigger issues seeing a GP and things like elderly care being strangled (cf the story about the A&E crisis at Addenbrookes where one old lady was marooned on a ward as the care home and social care providers both of which had been privatised wouldn't touch her as she was unprofitable).
Just because some Tory minister stands up and says "here you are, the moon on a stick" doesn't mean that the moor or stick actually exist. The sad truth is that too many on the right believe their own spin and then get angry when people point out that reality looks very different.
The Tories are deluded, they think because they are richer that it applies to everyone , no sense of reality.
Slowly recovering after the trauma of yesterday.. it's going to take some time.
I actually spoke to someone last month who was looking forward to Labour getting back in - that's 1 person.
Everyone else I speak with (providers, advisers, clients) none of them expect Ed Miliband to be PM or Ed Balls as Chancellor.
I often say we need to plan 'what if' they get in and what it means for the tax planning we're doing or could do now... it's always 'you don't really think they will get back in do you, I can't see it'
I've got a thread for tomorrow that will bring a smile to your face
@TheScreamingEagles You always do a splendid job as a shill leader......or should that be "cheer"? #Confused.com
Well when the likes of Labourlist, Labour uncut, Lib Dem voice etc, all do articles based on my threads and agree with my observations, something tells me I'm hitting the right approach.
Hell even the odd UKIP candidate tells me threads are great.
Slowly recovering after the trauma of yesterday.. it's going to take some time.
I actually spoke to someone last month who was looking forward to Labour getting back in - that's 1 person.
Everyone else I speak with (providers, advisers, clients) none of them expect Ed Miliband to be PM or Ed Balls as Chancellor.
I often say we need to plan 'what if' they get in and what it means for the tax planning we're doing or could do now... it's always 'you don't really think they will get back in do you, I can't see it'
I saw someone comment earlier that they were disappointed that Kane did not perform on the big stage. This is not because I am a Chelsea fan but I disagree entirely, as an England fan he has gone up in my estimation after yesterday.
Chelsea set out to nullify the supply to him, mostly by curtailing Erikson and cutting the supply from the full backs, which they did superbly well. Not every team has four defenders that love defending and are brilliant at it, in fact the last one I can remember is Arsenal with Adams & Co.
Despite that Kane earned the free kick from which Erikson hit the bar with a jinking run before he was hacked down, then beat four players before getting a shot away. He put in Spurs best cross towards the end that Ivanovic managed to put behind, then had a last minute shot blocked by a trademark John Terry challenge, which shows that Kane never gave up.
Yesterday showed to me that Kane is the real deal.
So the Drooling Kippers "one in three voters might support us" turns into one in four and they STILL haven't got any policies into the public consciousness.
In the same poll 45% think they 'know a lot / fair bit' about UKIP's policies.
Other parties numbers are: Con +63% / -31% Lab +59% / -36%
UKIP +45% / -49% LD +37% / -57% Green +27% / -67%
EDIT "1 in 3 voters might vote UKIP" was from ComRes. I think YouGov have always been around 1 in 4.
I would be reasonably confident that if you were to ask that 45% they would answer "leave the EU and kick out the immigrants" and nothing else. That was my point. Every policy beyond that will further erode their potential share.
The Tories don't really need to convince people that things are great, just that they will get worse under Labour.
Problem is it wont, for a while, because they will give away all sorts of candy paid for with borrowed money for a couple of years. People always remember the great sex, never the infection they caught afterwards.
It's all the voters fault eh? Have you considered that we have a government that came in five years ago with a single minded economic focus on eliminating the deficit. A PM who said getting the job half done wasn't acceptable? It makes sense that voters would likely feel that the apparent good performance on jobs and growth of late is merely incidental. And that on their central objective they have failed. I see everyone is talking about a consumption boom. Certainly truth in that and there's not much incentive to save right now. Even if their spending like mad perhaps deep down people know things aren't that great?
Why continually misrepresent the truth. They said their aim was to eliminate the structural deficit. Further analysis by the OBR later showed that was bigger than first projected. Rather than ruin the economy by sticking to an out of date policy the govt extended the period by 2 years but at the same time added to it by planning to move into surplus not parity. The govt are on target for that. Arguably they are being too strict.
Consumption? No one seems to be talking about house prices any more do they?
Consumption is upwards of 70% of the economy. It is not a bad thing. There are various opinions out there, but some economists think that UK has not lost as much productive capacity as previously speculated, so if this output gap is significantly larger than the OBR assumes. That means that the economy can grow faster for longer without inflationary pressure.
Household debt according to the Lloyds economist Trevor Williams has fallen from 170% of disposable income to 140%. Lending levels are rising but are still long way from pre-crisis levels. We have not had a debt lead recovery. Households have been paying off debt. It is amazing but given the low cost of borrowing the reality is that consumers have not gone on a debt binge.
And one of the reasons we have a big current account deficit is because the UK’s investments overseas are generating less income than overseas investments in the UK. We are doing well the rest of the world is not. So what is painted as some sort of failure by the govt is a problem created by its (and our) success.
Slowly recovering after the trauma of yesterday.. it's going to take some time.
I actually spoke to someone last month who was looking forward to Labour getting back in - that's 1 person.
Everyone else I speak with (providers, advisers, clients) none of them expect Ed Miliband to be PM or Ed Balls as Chancellor.
I often say we need to plan 'what if' they get in and what it means for the tax planning we're doing or could do now... it's always 'you don't really think they will get back in do you, I can't see it'
You need to get out more. I sometimes have the opposite problem with this sort of doorstep response:
"Oh, you're sure to win. I think I'll vote Green, send a message to the new government."
So the Drooling Kippers "one in three voters might support us" turns into one in four and they STILL haven't got any policies into the public consciousness.
It was only last week that Yougov demonstrated that UKIP are the most trusted party on immigration and that finding has been repeated on numerous occasions in other polls elsewhere.
Also repeatedly they are the 2nd most trusted party on the EU. So that's at least 2 policies where they clearly have resonance with a good proportion of the electorate.
I do hope your MP's are as deranged, hysterical and prone to ranting as you. it will make the next Parliament so entertaining (in a John Prescott sought of way)!
Slowly recovering after the trauma of yesterday.. it's going to take some time.
I actually spoke to someone last month who was looking forward to Labour getting back in - that's 1 person.
Everyone else I speak with (providers, advisers, clients) none of them expect Ed Miliband to be PM or Ed Balls as Chancellor.
I often say we need to plan 'what if' they get in and what it means for the tax planning we're doing or could do now... it's always 'you don't really think they will get back in do you, I can't see it'
You need to get out more. I sometimes have the opposite problem with this sort of doorstep response:
"Oh, you're sure to win. I think I'll vote Green, send a message to the new government."
What was yesterday's trauma?
Scrapheap is an England supporting Spurs Fan.
Yesterday England were shellacked in the cricket, rugby, and Spurs lost a cup final.
Liverpool and Arsenal won also, which were further salt in the wounds.
@TheScreamingEagles Have you had an endorsement from the Pragmatic Communist Party though? The one true voice of sanity and reason! (except on days when a bar is open)
10 lost deposits, soured relations with the DUP and less chance of TV debates. Someone should inform UKIP just what a humdinger of a dreadful move this is.
So the Drooling Kippers "one in three voters might support us" turns into one in four and they STILL haven't got any policies into the public consciousness.
In the same poll 45% think they 'know a lot / fair bit' about UKIP's policies.
Other parties numbers are: Con +63% / -31% Lab +59% / -36%
UKIP +45% / -49% LD +37% / -57% Green +27% / -67%
EDIT "1 in 3 voters might vote UKIP" was from ComRes. I think YouGov have always been around 1 in 4.
I would be reasonably confident that if you were to ask that 45% they would answer "leave the EU and kick out the immigrants" and nothing else. That was my point. Every policy beyond that will further erode their potential share.
"kick out the immigrants" is not a UKIP policy.
I don't see why UKIP's policies (beyond EU & immigration) would be likely to drive away support rather than attract it.
I never at any time said that leaving the EU would give a BoP surplus. I simply pointed out that the idea that we were benefiting from EU membership in terms of BoP was a myth since the free market has resulted in a massive BoP deficit. Bar one year in the 1980s the last time we had a trade surplus with the countries of the EEC/EU was the year before we joined.
So when you said (yesterday) : -
"The balance of payments deficit we have with the EU of over £80 billion a year is a fact. That we would have a balance of payments surplus were it not for our trade with the EU is a fact."
you were being hacked?
Nope but you are clearly having problems with comprehension. What I said was factually correct. I did not at any time say that leaving the EU would get rid of that BoP deficit. That was an outright lie by yourself.
What I have repeated on here again and again is that membership of the EU has not been good for our trade balance. Indeed our trade balance with the EU countries has steadily worsened over the last decade but with the exception of one year has always been a deficit. The single market has helped the EU to sell into the UK far more than it has helped the UK sell into the EU.
By contrast our trade with the rest of the world is far stronger and is what we should be building on rather than being tied to a backward looking failing bloc like the EU.
Of course you will continue to misrepresent what I say just as make up numbers out of the air for trade, tariffs, food production and just about anything else.
Decent manufacturing figures today, only one worry about overseas demand. Our recovery is still pretty domestically biased so could be derailed quite easily should there be any shock to the system. We seriously need to increase trade with non-EU nations.
So the Drooling Kippers "one in three voters might support us" turns into one in four and they STILL haven't got any policies into the public consciousness.
It was only last week that Yougov demonstrated that UKIP are the most trusted party on immigration and that finding has been repeated on numerous occasions in other polls elsewhere.
Also repeatedly they are the 2nd most trusted party on the EU. So that's at least 2 policies where they clearly have resonance with a good proportion of the electorate.
I do hope your MP's are as deranged, hysterical and prone to ranting as you. it will make the next Parliament so entertaining (in a John Prescott sought of way)!
So the Drooling Kippers "one in three voters might support us" turns into one in four and they STILL haven't got any policies into the public consciousness.
It was only last week that Yougov demonstrated that UKIP are the most trusted party on immigration and that finding has been repeated on numerous occasions in other polls elsewhere.
Also repeatedly they are the 2nd most trusted party on the EU. So that's at least 2 policies where they clearly have resonance with a good proportion of the electorate.
I do hope your MP's are as deranged, hysterical and prone to ranting as you. it will make the next Parliament so entertaining (in a John Prescott sought of way)!
They can be as trusted as they want on immigration, the polls show that it is no longer a top issue for the electorate. Meanwhile UKIP are least trusted on the NHS and pretty much everything else.
Peak UKIP was six months ago now but you still live in that blithe state of denial.
If anyone UKIPpers on here has a direct link to Nige they should point out just how bad an idea standing NI candidates is. Ask them about the Tories experience in 2010.
10 lost deposits, soured relations with the DUP and less chance of TV debates. Someone should inform UKIP just what a humdinger of a dreadful move this is.
Why? UKIP already have a Northern Ireland assembly member.
Just because the Tories got shredded in 2010 doesn't mean UKIP shouldn't try to gain some sort of support over there. After all they are the UK Independence Party.
If anyone UKIPpers on here has a direct link to Nige they should point out just how bad an idea standing NI candidates is. Ask them about the Tories experience in 2010.
Logic and rational ideas don't tend to work with the deranged.
So the Drooling Kippers "one in three voters might support us" turns into one in four and they STILL haven't got any policies into the public consciousness.
It was only last week that Yougov demonstrated that UKIP are the most trusted party on immigration and that finding has been repeated on numerous occasions in other polls elsewhere.
Also repeatedly they are the 2nd most trusted party on the EU. So that's at least 2 policies where they clearly have resonance with a good proportion of the electorate.
I do hope your MP's are as deranged, hysterical and prone to ranting as you. it will make the next Parliament so entertaining (in a John Prescott sought of way)!
They can be as trusted as they want on immigration, the polls show that it is no longer a top issue for the electorate.
The 17 Feb YouGov has immigration as the 'most important issue facing the country' (50%), and the 5th most important issue facing 'you and your family' (20%)
So the Drooling Kippers "one in three voters might support us" turns into one in four and they STILL haven't got any policies into the public consciousness.
In the same poll 45% think they 'know a lot / fair bit' about UKIP's policies.
Other parties numbers are: Con +63% / -31% Lab +59% / -36%
UKIP +45% / -49% LD +37% / -57% Green +27% / -67%
EDIT "1 in 3 voters might vote UKIP" was from ComRes. I think YouGov have always been around 1 in 4.
I would be reasonably confident that if you were to ask that 45% they would answer "leave the EU and kick out the immigrants" and nothing else. That was my point. Every policy beyond that will further erode their potential share.
"kick out the immigrants" is not a UKIP policy.
I don't see why UKIP's policies (beyond EU & immigration) would be likely to drive away support rather than attract it.
I never at any time said that leaving the EU would give a BoP surplus. I simply pointed out that the idea that we were benefiting from EU membership in terms of BoP was a myth since the free market has resulted in a massive BoP deficit. Bar one year in the 1980s the last time we had a trade surplus with the countries of the EEC/EU was the year before we joined.
So when you said (yesterday) : -
"The balance of payments deficit we have with the EU of over £80 billion a year is a fact. That we would have a balance of payments surplus were it not for our trade with the EU is a fact."
you were being hacked?
Nope but you are clearly having problems with comprehension. What I said was factually correct. I did not at any time say that leaving the EU would get rid of that BoP deficit. That was an outright lie by yourself.
What I have repeated on here again and again is that membership of the EU has not been good for our trade balance. Indeed our trade balance with the EU countries has steadily worsened over the last decade but with the exception of one year has always been a deficit. The single market has helped the EU to sell into the UK far more than it has helped the UK sell into the EU.
By contrast our trade with the rest of the world is far stronger and is what we should be building on rather than being tied to a backward looking failing bloc like the EU.
Of course you will continue to misrepresent what I say just as make up numbers out of the air for trade, tariffs, food production and just about anything else.
Holy hell, you're still going to persist after your direct lie was caught?
You said "I never at any time said that leaving the EU would give a BoP surplus." Today.
You said "The balance of payments deficit we have with the EU of over £80 billion a year is a fact. That we would have a balance of payments surplus were it not for our trade with the EU is a fact." Yesterday.
There is no spin on that, there is no mis-interpretation. You directly lied and contradicted yourself.
10 lost deposits, soured relations with the DUP and less chance of TV debates. Someone should inform UKIP just what a humdinger of a dreadful move this is.
Why? UKIP already have a Northern Ireland assembly member.
Just because the Tories got shredded in 2010 doesn't mean UKIP shouldn't try to gain some sort of support over there. After all they are the UK Independence Party.
Why are you only running in 10 seats?
Scared of annoying your like minded friends in Sinn Fein?
So the Drooling Kippers "one in three voters might support us" turns into one in four and they STILL haven't got any policies into the public consciousness.
It was only last week that Yougov demonstrated that UKIP are the most trusted party on immigration and that finding has been repeated on numerous occasions in other polls elsewhere.
Also repeatedly they are the 2nd most trusted party on the EU. So that's at least 2 policies where they clearly have resonance with a good proportion of the electorate.
I do hope your MP's are as deranged, hysterical and prone to ranting as you. it will make the next Parliament so entertaining (in a John Prescott sought of way)!
They can be as trusted as they want on immigration, the polls show that it is no longer a top issue for the electorate.
The 17 Feb YouGov has immigration as the 'most important issue facing the country' (50%), and the 5th most important issue facing 'you and your family' (20%)
10 lost deposits, soured relations with the DUP and less chance of TV debates. Someone should inform UKIP just what a humdinger of a dreadful move this is.
Why? UKIP already have a Northern Ireland assembly member.
Just because the Tories got shredded in 2010 doesn't mean UKIP shouldn't try to gain some sort of support over there. After all they are the UK Independence Party.
The debates are a decent chance for Nigel to attack Dave's right flank whilst he has to hold the centre ground in order to 'win' the election.
If UKIP are standing in NI then the DUP simply have to be there. If the DUP are there then Sinn Fein have to be there too.
Seven was a dog's breakfast. Nine is impossible.
The last chance of the debates gone - for grandstanding In Northern Ireland and 10 (Maybe 9...) lost deposits. Voters who might vote UKIP in England/Wales will simply vote DUP in NI.
So the Drooling Kippers "one in three voters might support us" turns into one in four and they STILL haven't got any policies into the public consciousness.
In the same poll 45% think they 'know a lot / fair bit' about UKIP's policies.
Other parties numbers are: Con +63% / -31% Lab +59% / -36%
UKIP +45% / -49% LD +37% / -57% Green +27% / -67%
EDIT "1 in 3 voters might vote UKIP" was from ComRes. I think YouGov have always been around 1 in 4.
I would be reasonably confident that if you were to ask that 45% they would answer "leave the EU and kick out the immigrants" and nothing else. That was my point. Every policy beyond that will further erode their potential share.
"kick out the immigrants" is not a UKIP policy.
I don't see why UKIP's policies (beyond EU & immigration) would be likely to drive away support rather than attract it.
If anyone UKIPpers on here has a direct link to Nige they should point out just how bad an idea standing NI candidates is. Ask them about the Tories experience in 2010.
Logic and rational ideas don't tend to work with the deranged.
Interseting point, from someone who wants an elderly woman expropriated and deported from Scotland because he thinks her surname used to be Goethe.
So the Drooling Kippers "one in three voters might support us" turns into one in four and they STILL haven't got any policies into the public consciousness.
It was only last week that Yougov demonstrated that UKIP are the most trusted party on immigration and that finding has been repeated on numerous occasions in other polls elsewhere.
Also repeatedly they are the 2nd most trusted party on the EU. So that's at least 2 policies where they clearly have resonance with a good proportion of the electorate.
I do hope your MP's are as deranged, hysterical and prone to ranting as you. it will make the next Parliament so entertaining (in a John Prescott sought of way)!
That old Australian dinosaur Trevor Kavanagh goes for Cameron over immigration in today's paper. Must feel like being savaged by a dead sheep. Anyway more likely signals to Cameron that although the Sun won't ever endorse Ed, Dave can't rely any more on it fawning around his ankles like a soppy cat.
So the Drooling Kippers "one in three voters might support us" turns into one in four and they STILL haven't got any policies into the public consciousness.
It was only last week that Yougov demonstrated that UKIP are the most trusted party on immigration and that finding has been repeated on numerous occasions in other polls elsewhere.
Also repeatedly they are the 2nd most trusted party on the EU. So that's at least 2 policies where they clearly have resonance with a good proportion of the electorate.
I do hope your MP's are as deranged, hysterical and prone to ranting as you. it will make the next Parliament so entertaining (in a John Prescott sought of way)!
They can be as trusted as they want on immigration, the polls show that it is no longer a top issue for the electorate. Meanwhile UKIP are least trusted on the NHS and pretty much everything else.
Peak UKIP was six months ago now but you still live in that blithe state of denial.
So? Scottish Independence doesn't even register on the Mori Issues Index yet that doesn't stop people like you plaguing sites such as this with your purile ravings....
If anyone UKIPpers on here has a direct link to Nige they should point out just how bad an idea standing NI candidates is. Ask them about the Tories experience in 2010.
Logic and rational ideas don't tend to work with the deranged.
10 lost deposits, soured relations with the DUP and less chance of TV debates. Someone should inform UKIP just what a humdinger of a dreadful move this is.
Why? UKIP already have a Northern Ireland assembly member.
Just because the Tories got shredded in 2010 doesn't mean UKIP shouldn't try to gain some sort of support over there. After all they are the UK Independence Party.
UKIP won 3 council seats, and polled pretty well in the European elections in Northern Ireland. They want to win seats in the Assembly, so it makes sense for them to stand.
Holy hell, you're still going to persist after your direct lie was caught?
You said "I never at any time said that leaving the EU would give a BoP surplus." Today.
You said "The balance of payments deficit we have with the EU of over £80 billion a year is a fact. That we would have a balance of payments surplus were it not for our trade with the EU is a fact." Yesterday.
There is no spin on that, there is no mis-interpretation. You directly lied and contradicted yourself.
Can you not read or understand what you've written?
Leaving the EU is NOT THE SAME as stopping all trade with the EU. Richard never said we would stop all trade with the EU.
But IF we did stop all EU trade our BoP WOULD be £80bn better
So the Drooling Kippers "one in three voters might support us" turns into one in four and they STILL haven't got any policies into the public consciousness.
In the same poll 45% think they 'know a lot / fair bit' about UKIP's policies.
Other parties numbers are: Con +63% / -31% Lab +59% / -36%
UKIP +45% / -49% LD +37% / -57% Green +27% / -67%
EDIT "1 in 3 voters might vote UKIP" was from ComRes. I think YouGov have always been around 1 in 4.
I would be reasonably confident that if you were to ask that 45% they would answer "leave the EU and kick out the immigrants" and nothing else. That was my point. Every policy beyond that will further erode their potential share.
"kick out the immigrants" is not a UKIP policy.
I don't see why UKIP's policies (beyond EU & immigration) would be likely to drive away support rather than attract it.
I suspect, it is your activists and candidates that is likely drive away support.
Polling shows that UKIP are considered the most extreme, least fit to govern, and have candidates more likely to have racist/extreme views.
Media/political smear campaigns combined with foolish unguarded comments can easily sway voters. As a Tory you should understand that more than most. Labour has been doing it to you for 20 years or more with great success and still is.
Slowly recovering after the trauma of yesterday.. it's going to take some time.
I actually spoke to someone last month who was looking forward to Labour getting back in - that's 1 person.
Everyone else I speak with (providers, advisers, clients) none of them expect Ed Miliband to be PM or Ed Balls as Chancellor.
I often say we need to plan 'what if' they get in and what it means for the tax planning we're doing or could do now... it's always 'you don't really think they will get back in do you, I can't see it'
You need to get out more. I sometimes have the opposite problem with this sort of doorstep response:
"Oh, you're sure to win. I think I'll vote Green, send a message to the new government."
What was yesterday's trauma?
I bump into a fair number of Labour voters but the outstanding thing for a political nerd like me is that there is very little enthusiasm for any party.
In Leics I forecast no seat changes, and my top tip is low turnout nationally.
Slowly recovering after the trauma of yesterday.. it's going to take some time.
I actually spoke to someone last month who was looking forward to Labour getting back in - that's 1 person.
Everyone else I speak with (providers, advisers, clients) none of them expect Ed Miliband to be PM or Ed Balls as Chancellor.
I often say we need to plan 'what if' they get in and what it means for the tax planning we're doing or could do now... it's always 'you don't really think they will get back in do you, I can't see it'
You need to get out more. I sometimes have the opposite problem with this sort of doorstep response:
"Oh, you're sure to win. I think I'll vote Green, send a message to the new government."
Slowly recovering after the trauma of yesterday.. it's going to take some time.
I actually spoke to someone last month who was looking forward to Labour getting back in - that's 1 person.
Everyone else I speak with (providers, advisers, clients) none of them expect Ed Miliband to be PM or Ed Balls as Chancellor.
I often say we need to plan 'what if' they get in and what it means for the tax planning we're doing or could do now... it's always 'you don't really think they will get back in do you, I can't see it'
You need to get out more. I sometimes have the opposite problem with this sort of doorstep response:
"Oh, you're sure to win. I think I'll vote Green, send a message to the new government."
Nick, that's just voters telling you that you are a decent guy, but your party sucks and they could never, ever vote for Ed Miliband even if hell had frozen over.
Holy hell, you're still going to persist after your direct lie was caught?
You said "I never at any time said that leaving the EU would give a BoP surplus." Today.
You said "The balance of payments deficit we have with the EU of over £80 billion a year is a fact. That we would have a balance of payments surplus were it not for our trade with the EU is a fact." Yesterday.
There is no spin on that, there is no mis-interpretation. You directly lied and contradicted yourself.
Can you not read or understand what you've written?
Leaving the EU is NOT THE SAME as stopping all trade with the EU. Richard never said we would stop all trade with the EU.
But IF we did stop all EU trade our BoP WOULD be £80bn better
If your claiming an implied non-sequitur feel free. It doesn't make his ramblings any more coherent or relevant.
Also catching up on the tidal power proposals. Why the hell don't they build the Severn and Thames barrages instead? The money is similar but they would generate more power and have more "uptime" than the the 6 proposed lagoons.
So the Drooling Kippers "one in three voters might support us" turns into one in four and they STILL haven't got any policies into the public consciousness.
In the same poll 45% think they 'know a lot / fair bit' about UKIP's policies.
Other parties numbers are: Con +63% / -31% Lab +59% / -36%
UKIP +45% / -49% LD +37% / -57% Green +27% / -67%
EDIT "1 in 3 voters might vote UKIP" was from ComRes. I think YouGov have always been around 1 in 4.
I would be reasonably confident that if you were to ask that 45% they would answer "leave the EU and kick out the immigrants" and nothing else. That was my point. Every policy beyond that will further erode their potential share.
"kick out the immigrants" is not a UKIP policy.
I don't see why UKIP's policies (beyond EU & immigration) would be likely to drive away support rather than attract it.
I suspect, it is your activists and candidates that is likely drive away support.
Polling shows that UKIP are considered the most extreme, least fit to govern, and have candidates more likely to have racist/extreme views.
In the recent ComRes/ITV poll the anti-UKIP sentiment looked more like class prejudice than anything to do with UKIP's candidates.
Indeed after a couple of tame urban liberal academics have been poncing around the country for nearly two years peddling propaganda that UKIP voters are 'old white thick and poor'.
The level of sneering from the Torygraph and other Tory propaganda outlets (not to mention the usual urban liberal suspects) was stomach churning. It was clearly a dog whistle that these were people 'not like them'.
10 lost deposits, soured relations with the DUP and less chance of TV debates. Someone should inform UKIP just what a humdinger of a dreadful move this is.
Why? UKIP already have a Northern Ireland assembly member.
Just because the Tories got shredded in 2010 doesn't mean UKIP shouldn't try to gain some sort of support over there. After all they are the UK Independence Party.
Holy hell, you're still going to persist after your direct lie was caught?
You said "I never at any time said that leaving the EU would give a BoP surplus." Today.
You said "The balance of payments deficit we have with the EU of over £80 billion a year is a fact. That we would have a balance of payments surplus were it not for our trade with the EU is a fact." Yesterday.
There is no spin on that, there is no mis-interpretation. You directly lied and contradicted yourself.
Can you not read or understand what you've written?
Leaving the EU is NOT THE SAME as stopping all trade with the EU. Richard never said we would stop all trade with the EU.
But IF we did stop all EU trade our BoP WOULD be £80bn better
If your claiming an implied non-sequitur feel free. It doesn't make his ramblings any more coherent or relevant.
JJ cannot work out what he is called so you have to give him some leeway on the hard stuff
Julian Huppert on twitter re: the cycling debate today.
"Strong turnout for the #cyclingdebate with 140 people ready to hear 3 main parties outline their plans for cycling "
UKIP not showing up ?
I don't think they were invited.
"With the General Election fast approaching, the UK Cycling Alliance - which includes CTC - has invited cycling leads in political parties ... Lead transport spokespeople from the Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrat political parties will debate their manifesto points on cycling and its infrastructure at the first ever ‘Big Cycling Debate.' "
MaxPB The "lagoons" will only alter a part of the habitat, barrages like the one for the Severn would change the entire system. For further reading on the subject, refer yourself to some of the African dams that are silting up so fast that they will never be an economic proposition.
Holy hell, you're still going to persist after your direct lie was caught?
You said "I never at any time said that leaving the EU would give a BoP surplus." Today.
You said "The balance of payments deficit we have with the EU of over £80 billion a year is a fact. That we would have a balance of payments surplus were it not for our trade with the EU is a fact." Yesterday.
There is no spin on that, there is no mis-interpretation. You directly lied and contradicted yourself.
Can you not read or understand what you've written?
Leaving the EU is NOT THE SAME as stopping all trade with the EU. Richard never said we would stop all trade with the EU.
But IF we did stop all EU trade our BoP WOULD be £80bn better
If your[???] claiming an implied non-sequitur feel free. It doesn't make his ramblings any more coherent or relevant.
I'm saying that you're entirely misrepresenting the points that Richard has made.
Either wilfully, so you're a typically duplicitous Europhile, or just because you're a bit dim.
I thought the former, I'm now leaning towards the latter.
10 lost deposits, soured relations with the DUP and less chance of TV debates. Someone should inform UKIP just what a humdinger of a dreadful move this is.
Why? UKIP already have a Northern Ireland assembly member.
Just because the Tories got shredded in 2010 doesn't mean UKIP shouldn't try to gain some sort of support over there. After all they are the UK Independence Party.
Holy hell, you're still going to persist after your direct lie was caught?
You said "I never at any time said that leaving the EU would give a BoP surplus." Today.
You said "The balance of payments deficit we have with the EU of over £80 billion a year is a fact. That we would have a balance of payments surplus were it not for our trade with the EU is a fact." Yesterday.
There is no spin on that, there is no mis-interpretation. You directly lied and contradicted yourself.
Can you not read or understand what you've written?
Leaving the EU is NOT THE SAME as stopping all trade with the EU. Richard never said we would stop all trade with the EU.
But IF we did stop all EU trade our BoP WOULD be £80bn better
If your[???] claiming an implied non-sequitur feel free. It doesn't make his ramblings any more coherent or relevant.
I'm saying that you're entirely misrepresenting the points that Richard has made.
Either wilfully, so you're a typically duplicitous Europhile, or just because you're a bit dim.
I thought the former, I'm now leaning towards the latter.
Definitely the latter.
He doesn't realise that UKIP stands for United Kingdom Is Pedalling.
Holy hell, you're still going to persist after your direct lie was caught?
You said "I never at any time said that leaving the EU would give a BoP surplus." Today.
You said "The balance of payments deficit we have with the EU of over £80 billion a year is a fact. That we would have a balance of payments surplus were it not for our trade with the EU is a fact." Yesterday.
There is no spin on that, there is no mis-interpretation. You directly lied and contradicted yourself.
Can you not read or understand what you've written?
Leaving the EU is NOT THE SAME as stopping all trade with the EU. Richard never said we would stop all trade with the EU.
But IF we did stop all EU trade our BoP WOULD be £80bn better
If your claiming an implied non-sequitur feel free. It doesn't make his ramblings any more coherent or relevant.
JJ cannot work out what he is called so you have to give him some leeway on the hard stuff
You're the only simple haggis-for-brains that seems to struggle with my name.
(Actually all this does is confirm there are 3 left of centre parties and 2 Centre/ centre right)
I did wonder if LD voters having another minor party (Green) as their 2nd preference was significant. If it was the first step in moving LD>Green, another indicator in the LD vs Green polling battle.
Holy hell, you're still going to persist after your direct lie was caught?
You said "I never at any time said that leaving the EU would give a BoP surplus." Today.
You said "The balance of payments deficit we have with the EU of over £80 billion a year is a fact. That we would have a balance of payments surplus were it not for our trade with the EU is a fact." Yesterday.
There is no spin on that, there is no mis-interpretation. You directly lied and contradicted yourself.
Can you not read or understand what you've written?
Leaving the EU is NOT THE SAME as stopping all trade with the EU. Richard never said we would stop all trade with the EU.
But IF we did stop all EU trade our BoP WOULD be £80bn better
If your[???] claiming an implied non-sequitur feel free. It doesn't make his ramblings any more coherent or relevant.
I'm saying that you're entirely misrepresenting the points that Richard has made.
Either wilfully, so you're a typically duplicitous Europhile, or just because you're a bit dim.
I thought the former, I'm now leaning towards the latter.
No, I am stating the pretty obvious conclusion of your argument.
Either Tyndall is quoting the figure in support of his argument that the UK should leave the EU or he is introducing a non-sequitur to imply he has supporting facts when they are completely unrelated to his argument.
BTW, I'm not a Europhile, I'm pretty much 50:50 between EFTA and EU membership. There's good arguments for both providing strong benefits.
So the Drooling Kippers "one in three voters might support us" turns into one in four and they STILL haven't got any policies into the public consciousness.
In the same poll 45% think they 'know a lot / fair bit' about UKIP's policies.
Other parties numbers are: Con +63% / -31% Lab +59% / -36%
UKIP +45% / -49% LD +37% / -57% Green +27% / -67%
EDIT "1 in 3 voters might vote UKIP" was from ComRes. I think YouGov have always been around 1 in 4.
I would be reasonably confident that if you were to ask that 45% they would answer "leave the EU and kick out the immigrants" and nothing else. That was my point. Every policy beyond that will further erode their potential share.
"kick out the immigrants" is not a UKIP policy.
I don't see why UKIP's policies (beyond EU & immigration) would be likely to drive away support rather than attract it.
I suspect, it is your activists and candidates that is likely drive away support.
Polling shows that UKIP are considered the most extreme, least fit to govern, and have candidates more likely to have racist/extreme views.
In the recent ComRes/ITV poll the anti-UKIP sentiment looked more like class prejudice than anything to do with UKIP's candidates.
Indeed after a couple of tame urban liberal academics have been poncing around the country for nearly two years peddling propaganda that UKIP voters are 'old white thick and poor'.
The level of sneering from the Torygraph and other Tory propaganda outlets (not to mention the usual urban liberal suspects) was stomach churning. It was clearly a dog whistle that these were people 'not like them'.
10 lost deposits, soured relations with the DUP and less chance of TV debates. Someone should inform UKIP just what a humdinger of a dreadful move this is.
Why? UKIP already have a Northern Ireland assembly member.
Just because the Tories got shredded in 2010 doesn't mean UKIP shouldn't try to gain some sort of support over there. After all they are the UK Independence Party.
MaxPB The "lagoons" will only alter a part of the habitat, barrages like the one for the Severn would change the entire system. For further reading on the subject, refer yourself to some of the African dams that are silting up so fast that they will never be an economic proposition.
To extremist ideologues like MaxPB, its only worth doing if its insanely destructive to important ecological systems - it's not a bug, it's a feature.
Holy hell, you're still going to persist after your direct lie was caught?
You said "I never at any time said that leaving the EU would give a BoP surplus." Today.
You said "The balance of payments deficit we have with the EU of over £80 billion a year is a fact. That we would have a balance of payments surplus were it not for our trade with the EU is a fact." Yesterday.
There is no spin on that, there is no mis-interpretation. You directly lied and contradicted yourself.
But IF we did stop all EU trade our BoP WOULD be £80bn better
Technically true, but we'd also grind very quickly to a halt. That trade would be replaced by extra-EU trade, and I struggle to see why the balance on that trade would be anything but worse. Most of the world is poorer than the EU and we would struggle to sell stuff (either physical items or services) at the same rate.
Holy hell, you're still going to persist after your direct lie was caught?
You said "I never at any time said that leaving the EU would give a BoP surplus." Today.
You said "The balance of payments deficit we have with the EU of over £80 billion a year is a fact. That we would have a balance of payments surplus were it not for our trade with the EU is a fact." Yesterday.
There is no spin on that, there is no mis-interpretation. You directly lied and contradicted yourself.
Can you not read or understand what you've written?
Leaving the EU is NOT THE SAME as stopping all trade with the EU. Richard never said we would stop all trade with the EU.
But IF we did stop all EU trade our BoP WOULD be £80bn better
If your[???] claiming an implied non-sequitur feel free. It doesn't make his ramblings any more coherent or relevant.
I'm saying that you're entirely misrepresenting the points that Richard has made.
Either wilfully, so you're a typically duplicitous Europhile, or just because you're a bit dim.
I thought the former, I'm now leaning towards the latter.
No, I am stating the pretty obvious conclusion of your argument.
Either Tyndall is quoting the figure in support of his argument that the UK should leave the EU or he is introducing a non-sequitur to imply he has supporting facts when they are completely unrelated to his argument.
BTW, I'm not a Europhile, I'm pretty much 50:50 between EFTA and EU membership. There's good arguments for both providing strong benefits.
As far as I've seen, the only time the balance of trade with EU figure has been touted by anyone here is to support the contention that the rest of the EU won't tell us to eff off if we leave; we're worth far too much to them.
You mistranslated that into Richard saying "when we leave the EU our BoP will be £80bn surplus" - WHICH HE NEVER SAID!
MaxPB The "lagoons" will only alter a part of the habitat, barrages like the one for the Severn would change the entire system. For further reading on the subject, refer yourself to some of the African dams that are silting up so fast that they will never be an economic proposition.
That's because they don't dredge.
Even so, the economic case for the large Severn barrage has existed for a long time. Considering the Thames barrier needs to be replaced in the next 30 years planning for a barrage to be installed it would be good forwards thinking.
Also, while I'm not a huge fan of wind turbines, it also doesn't make sense why the lagoon walls aren't stacked with wind turbines, the electricity generation hardware is already there, the foundations will be deep enough as well and the electricity generated from them could be used to turn the turbines in reverse so it would allow for wind energy storage, something that would allow the power generated to be used on demand rather than as it is generated.
Overall these plans seem expensive, ill thought out and more about looking like we are doing something than actually doing something.
Julian Huppert on twitter re: the cycling debate today.
"Strong turnout for the #cyclingdebate with 140 people ready to hear 3 main parties outline their plans for cycling "
UKIP not showing up ?
A comment on the CTC link suggests OfCom's major/minor party ruling is not helping UKIP here.
"In organising the debate the UK Cycling Alliance has liaised extensively with the Electoral Commission to ensure that we adhere to the strict rules in the run up to a General Election and to ensure that we fulfill our aim for the event which is to put the main UK parties on the spot about what they will do to improve conditions for cycling if they get into government in May.
There are very strict Electoral Commission rules about which political parties should be invited to an election debate and by including one minor party we would have to include all others that have representation in the UK Parliament, potentially 11 plus parties, which would make an audience participative debate in the space of one our hour impossible to manage.
While we appreciate that "minor" parties should be included at the debate and have had one request so far, we are limited in how we can shape the event. Including one additional party alongside the three parties with the largest representations in Westminster alone isn’t an option.
However, we will be asking each party to send us their main points and will show this on our websites to ensure that voters from across the country are aware of party positions on active travel."
Holy hell, you're still going to persist after your direct lie was caught?
You said "I never at any time said that leaving the EU would give a BoP surplus." Today.
You said "The balance of payments deficit we have with the EU of over £80 billion a year is a fact. That we would have a balance of payments surplus were it not for our trade with the EU is a fact." Yesterday.
There is no spin on that, there is no mis-interpretation. You directly lied and contradicted yourself.
But IF we did stop all EU trade our BoP WOULD be £80bn better
Technically true, but we'd also grind very quickly to a halt. That trade would be replaced by extra-EU trade, and I struggle to see why the balance on that trade would be anything but worse. Most of the world is poorer than the EU and we would struggle to sell stuff (either physical items or services) at the same rate.
I'd imagine you're right but AFAIAA nobody is arguing we should stop all EU trade.
But @Dair seems to be claiming that RichardT is saying that we would or should.
'Most people would have said something like "I hope the evil bastard dies in agony."'
It reminds me of the Prescott retaliation to the egg. Most of the 'liberal' media assumed it was a disaster, but 85% of the population agreed with him.
have a word with Ukip, Sean. If they run this for all it's worth and highlight the posho views - it'll be worth about 2% on its own.
Holy hell, you're still going to persist after your direct lie was caught?
You said "I never at any time said that leaving the EU would give a BoP surplus." Today.
You said "The balance of payments deficit we have with the EU of over £80 billion a year is a fact. That we would have a balance of payments surplus were it not for our trade with the EU is a fact." Yesterday.
There is no spin on that, there is no mis-interpretation. You directly lied and contradicted yourself.
Can you not read or understand what you've written?
Leaving the EU is NOT THE SAME as stopping all trade with the EU. Richard never said we would stop all trade with the EU.
But IF we did stop all EU trade our BoP WOULD be £80bn better
If your[???] claiming an implied non-sequitur feel free. It doesn't make his ramblings any more coherent or relevant.
I'm saying that you're entirely misrepresenting the points that Richard has made.
Either wilfully, so you're a typically duplicitous Europhile, or just because you're a bit dim.
I thought the former, I'm now leaning towards the latter.
No, I am stating the pretty obvious conclusion of your argument.
Either Tyndall is quoting the figure in support of his argument that the UK should leave the EU or he is introducing a non-sequitur to imply he has supporting facts when they are completely unrelated to his argument.
BTW, I'm not a Europhile, I'm pretty much 50:50 between EFTA and EU membership. There's good arguments for both providing strong benefits.
As far as I've seen, the only time the balance of trade with EU figure has been touted by anyone here is to support the contention that the rest of the EU won't tell us to eff off if we leave; we're worth far too much to them.
You mistranslated that into Richard saying "when we leave the EU our BoP will be £80bn surplus" - WHICH HE NEVER SAID!
Do you really not understand the difference?
So you misunderstand what you claim I misunderstood when I understood what he actually wrote?
So the Drooling Kippers "one in three voters might support us" turns into one in four and they STILL haven't got any policies into the public consciousness.
In the same poll 45% think they 'know a lot / fair bit' about UKIP's policies.
EDIT "1 in 3 voters might vote UKIP" was from ComRes. I think YouGov have always been around 1 in 4.
I suspect, it is your activists and candidates that is likely drive away support.
Polling shows that UKIP are considered the most extreme, least fit to govern, and have candidates more likely to have racist/extreme views.
In the recent ComRes/ITV poll the anti-UKIP sentiment looked more like class prejudice than anything to do with UKIP's candidates.
Indeed after a couple of tame urban liberal academics have been poncing around the country for nearly two years peddling propaganda that UKIP voters are 'old white thick and poor'.
The level of sneering from the Torygraph and other Tory propaganda outlets (not to mention the usual urban liberal suspects) was stomach churning. It was clearly a dog whistle that these were people 'not like them'.
So you chose to ignore my other post about 'unguarded comments' so you could link that redundant observation anyway. I would have picked the original candidate for Clacton myself. I thought he did a particularly good job of showing himself up for no good purpose. You are not very good at this are you?
If you like I could link all the Tory stuff slagging off Cameron, the Labour stuff slagging off Miliband or the Libdem stuff slagging off Clegg if you like? However there are few things more verminous than urban liberal snobbery and their co-ordinated attacks on other parts of society. It is a disease that needs to be snuffed out!
Holy hell, you're still going to persist after your direct lie was caught?
You said "I never at any time said that leaving the EU would give a BoP surplus." Today.
You said "The balance of payments deficit we have with the EU of over £80 billion a year is a fact. That we would have a balance of payments surplus were it not for our trade with the EU is a fact." Yesterday.
There is no spin on that, there is no mis-interpretation. You directly lied and contradicted yourself.
Can you not read or understand what you've written?
Leaving the EU is NOT THE SAME as stopping all trade with the EU. Richard never said we would stop all trade with the EU.
But IF we did stop all EU trade our BoP WOULD be £80bn better
If your[???] claiming an implied non-sequitur feel free. It doesn't make his ramblings any more coherent or relevant.
I'm saying that you're entirely misrepresenting the points that Richard has made.
Either wilfully, so you're a typically duplicitous Europhile, or just because you're a bit dim.
I thought the former, I'm now leaning towards the latter.
No, I am stating the pretty obvious conclusion of your argument.
Either Tyndall is quoting the figure in support of his argument that the UK should leave the EU or he is introducing a non-sequitur to imply he has supporting facts when they are completely unrelated to his argument.
BTW, I'm not a Europhile, I'm pretty much 50:50 between EFTA and EU membership. There's good arguments for both providing strong benefits.
As far as I've seen, the only time the balance of trade with EU figure has been touted by anyone here is to support the contention that the rest of the EU won't tell us to eff off if we leave; we're worth far too much to them.
You mistranslated that into Richard saying "when we leave the EU our BoP will be £80bn surplus" - WHICH HE NEVER SAID!
Do you really not understand the difference?
Calm down dear, have a seat , take a pill or get a life.
Holy hell, you're still going to persist after your direct lie was caught?
You said "I never at any time said that leaving the EU would give a BoP surplus." Today.
You said "The balance of payments deficit we have with the EU of over £80 billion a year is a fact. That we would have a balance of payments surplus were it not for our trade with the EU is a fact." Yesterday.
There is no spin on that, there is no mis-interpretation. You directly lied and contradicted yourself.
But IF we did stop all EU trade our BoP WOULD be £80bn better
Technically true, but we'd also grind very quickly to a halt. That trade would be replaced by extra-EU trade, and I struggle to see why the balance on that trade would be anything but worse. Most of the world is poorer than the EU and we would struggle to sell stuff (either physical items or services) at the same rate.
I'd imagine you're right but AFAIAA nobody is arguing we should stop all EU trade.
But @Dair seems to be claiming that RichardT is saying that we would or should
To be honest I've lost track of who-said-what. As you imply, the EU bloc will be a massive trading partner to us irrespective of our membership.
I'm not giving up French wine or German cars, that's for sure. French cars and German wine, however...
[btw, what's your avatar/icon? didn't you used to have a hat?]
'Most people would have said something like "I hope the evil bastard dies in agony."'
It reminds me of the Prescott retaliation to the egg. Most of the 'liberal' media assumed it was a disaster, but 85% of the population agreed with him.
have a word with Ukip, Sean. If they run this for all it's worth and highlight the posho views - it'll be worth about 2% on its own.
What hope is there if Ukip have gone soft?
It was like the time David Blunkett was criticised for expressing satisfaction at the suicide of Harold Shipman.
Holy hell, you're still going to persist after your direct lie was caught?
You said "I never at any time said that leaving the EU would give a BoP surplus." Today.
You said "The balance of payments deficit we have with the EU of over £80 billion a year is a fact. That we would have a balance of payments surplus were it not for our trade with the EU is a fact." Yesterday.
There is no spin on that, there is no mis-interpretation. You directly lied and contradicted yourself.
Can you not read or understand what you've written?
Leaving the EU is NOT THE SAME as stopping all trade with the EU. Richard never said we would stop all trade with the EU.
But IF we did stop all EU trade our BoP WOULD be £80bn better
If your[???] claiming an implied non-sequitur feel free. It doesn't make his ramblings any more coherent or relevant.
I'm saying that you're entirely misrepresenting the points that Richard has made.
Either wilfully, so you're a typically duplicitous Europhile, or just because you're a bit dim.
I thought the former, I'm now leaning towards the latter.
No, I am stating the pretty obvious conclusion of your argument.
Either Tyndall is quoting the figure in support of his argument that the UK should leave the EU or he is introducing a non-sequitur to imply he has supporting facts when they are completely unrelated to his argument.
BTW, I'm not a Europhile, I'm pretty much 50:50 between EFTA and EU membership. There's good arguments for both providing strong benefits.
As far as I've seen, the only time the balance of trade with EU figure has been touted by anyone here is to support the contention that the rest of the EU won't tell us to eff off if we leave; we're worth far too much to them.
You mistranslated that into Richard saying "when we leave the EU our BoP will be £80bn surplus" - WHICH HE NEVER SAID!
Do you really not understand the difference?
So you misunderstand what you claim I misunderstood when I understood what he actually wrote?
Boggling.
If you understood him, why is he saying you didn't? Did he misunderstand what he said also?
'Most people would have said something like "I hope the evil bastard dies in agony."'
It reminds me of the Prescott retaliation to the egg. Most of the 'liberal' media assumed it was a disaster, but 85% of the population agreed with him.
have a word with Ukip, Sean. If they run this for all it's worth and highlight the posho views - it'll be worth about 2% on its own.
What hope is there if Ukip have gone soft?
It was like the time David Blunkett was criticised for expressing satisfaction at the suicide of Harold Shipman.
A comment about Harold Shipman also got me into trouble.
@MaxPB It's the law of unintended consequences, the lagoons will provide shelter for water birds that will attract them in under certain conditions. Wind turbines might not be the ideal thing to have, especially when you have no real idea of their flight paths.
Holy hell, you're still going to persist after your direct lie was caught?
You said "I never at any time said that leaving the EU would give a BoP surplus." Today.
You said "The balance of payments deficit we have with the EU of over £80 billion a year is a fact. That we would have a balance of payments surplus were it not for our trade with the EU is a fact." Yesterday.
There is no spin on that, there is no mis-interpretation. You directly lied and contradicted yourself.
Can you not read or understand what you've written?
Leaving the EU is NOT THE SAME as stopping all trade with the EU. Richard never said we would stop all trade with the EU.
But IF we did stop all EU trade our BoP WOULD be £80bn better
If your[???] claiming an implied non-sequitur feel free. It doesn't make his ramblings any more coherent or relevant.
I'm saying that you're entirely misrepresenting the points that Richard has made.
Either wilfully, so you're a typically duplicitous Europhile, or just because you're a bit dim.
I thought the former, I'm now leaning towards the latter.
No, I am stating the pretty obvious conclusion of your argument.
Either Tyndall is quoting the figure in support of his argument that the UK should leave the EU or he is introducing a non-sequitur to imply he has supporting facts when they are completely unrelated to his argument.
BTW, I'm not a Europhile, I'm pretty much 50:50 between EFTA and EU membership. There's good arguments for both providing strong benefits.
As far as I've seen, the only time the balance of trade with EU figure has been touted by anyone here is to support the contention that the rest of the EU won't tell us to eff off if we leave; we're worth far too much to them.
You mistranslated that into Richard saying "when we leave the EU our BoP will be £80bn surplus" - WHICH HE NEVER SAID!
Do you really not understand the difference?
So you misunderstand what you claim I misunderstood when I understood what he actually wrote?
Julian Huppert on twitter re: the cycling debate today.
"Strong turnout for the #cyclingdebate with 140 people ready to hear 3 main parties outline their plans for cycling "
UKIP not showing up ?
I don't think they were invited.
"With the General Election fast approaching, the UK Cycling Alliance - which includes CTC - has invited cycling leads in political parties ... Lead transport spokespeople from the Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrat political parties will debate their manifesto points on cycling and its infrastructure at the first ever ‘Big Cycling Debate.' "
Julian Huppert on twitter re: the cycling debate today.
"Strong turnout for the #cyclingdebate with 140 people ready to hear 3 main parties outline their plans for cycling "
UKIP not showing up ?
I don't think they were invited.
"With the General Election fast approaching, the UK Cycling Alliance - which includes CTC - has invited cycling leads in political parties ... Lead transport spokespeople from the Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrat political parties will debate their manifesto points on cycling and its infrastructure at the first ever ‘Big Cycling Debate.' "
@MaxPB It's the law of unintended consequences, the lagoons will provide shelter for water birds that will attract them in under certain conditions. Wind turbines might not be the ideal thing to have, especially when you have no real idea of their flight paths.
That has always been the argument against off shore turbines and we still spend billions subsidising them.
@MaxPB It's the law of unintended consequences, the lagoons will provide shelter for water birds that will attract them in under certain conditions. Wind turbines might not be the ideal thing to have, especially when you have no real idea of their flight paths.
But if they put large nets underneath then they could sell splatted warbler to the hungry masses and enhance their revenue stream. Morally, enticing birds in and then mincing 'em is not different to commerical fishing and we all love a bit of battered cod! You could make the roadway along the barrage top a bit like a pier and sell 'battered' cormorant and chips. Works for me!
Comments
They could be in for a very nasty shock.
Other parties numbers are:
Con +63% / -31%
Lab +59% / -36%
UKIP +45% / -49%
LD +37% / -57%
Green +27% / -67%
EDIT
"1 in 3 voters might vote UKIP" was from ComRes. I think YouGov have always been around 1 in 4.
You always do a splendid job as a shill leader......or should that be "cheer"?
#Confused.com
Hell even the odd UKIP candidate tells me threads are great.
Chelsea set out to nullify the supply to him, mostly by curtailing Erikson and cutting the supply from the full backs, which they did superbly well. Not every team has four defenders that love defending and are brilliant at it, in fact the last one I can remember is Arsenal with Adams & Co.
Despite that Kane earned the free kick from which Erikson hit the bar with a jinking run before he was hacked down, then beat four players before getting a shot away. He put in Spurs best cross towards the end that Ivanovic managed to put behind, then had a last minute shot blocked by a trademark John Terry challenge, which shows that Kane never gave up.
Yesterday showed to me that Kane is the real deal.
They said their aim was to eliminate the structural deficit. Further analysis by the OBR later showed that was bigger than first projected. Rather than ruin the economy by sticking to an out of date policy the govt extended the period by 2 years but at the same time added to it by planning to move into surplus not parity. The govt are on target for that. Arguably they are being too strict.
Consumption?
No one seems to be talking about house prices any more do they?
Consumption is upwards of 70% of the economy. It is not a bad thing.
There are various opinions out there, but some economists think that UK has not lost as much productive capacity as previously speculated, so if this output gap is significantly larger than the OBR assumes. That means that the economy can grow faster for longer without inflationary pressure.
Household debt according to the Lloyds economist Trevor Williams has fallen from 170% of disposable income to 140%. Lending levels are rising but are still long way from pre-crisis levels. We have not had a debt lead recovery. Households have been paying off debt. It is amazing but given the low cost of borrowing the reality is that consumers have not gone on a debt binge.
And one of the reasons we have a big current account deficit is because the UK’s investments overseas are generating less income than overseas investments in the UK. We are doing well the rest of the world is not. So what is painted as some sort of failure by the govt is a problem created by its (and our) success.
"Oh, you're sure to win. I think I'll vote Green, send a message to the new government."
What was yesterday's trauma?
Also repeatedly they are the 2nd most trusted party on the EU. So that's at least 2 policies where they clearly have resonance with a good proportion of the electorate.
I do hope your MP's are as deranged, hysterical and prone to ranting as you. it will make the next Parliament so entertaining (in a John Prescott sought of way)!
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/f4rr9eo24l/YG-Archive-Pol-Times-results-2502015-W.pdf
Yesterday England were shellacked in the cricket, rugby, and Spurs lost a cup final.
Liverpool and Arsenal won also, which were further salt in the wounds.
Have you had an endorsement from the Pragmatic Communist Party though?
The one true voice of sanity and reason! (except on days when a bar is open)
I don't see why UKIP's policies (beyond EU & immigration) would be likely to drive away support rather than attract it.
http://www.ukip.org/100_days_till_the_election_100_reasons_to_vote_ukip
What I have repeated on here again and again is that membership of the EU has not been good for our trade balance. Indeed our trade balance with the EU countries has steadily worsened over the last decade but with the exception of one year has always been a deficit. The single market has helped the EU to sell into the UK far more than it has helped the UK sell into the EU.
By contrast our trade with the rest of the world is far stronger and is what we should be building on rather than being tied to a backward looking failing bloc like the EU.
Of course you will continue to misrepresent what I say just as make up numbers out of the air for trade, tariffs, food production and just about anything else.
Peak UKIP was six months ago now but you still live in that blithe state of denial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_McNarry
Just because the Tories got shredded in 2010 doesn't mean UKIP shouldn't try to gain some sort of support over there. After all they are the UK Independence Party.
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/tdoeatmyoy/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-170215.pdf
Polling shows that UKIP are considered the most extreme, least fit to govern, and have candidates more likely to have racist/extreme views.
You said "I never at any time said that leaving the EU would give a BoP surplus." Today.
You said "The balance of payments deficit we have with the EU of over £80 billion a year is a fact. That we would have a balance of payments surplus were it not for our trade with the EU is a fact." Yesterday.
There is no spin on that, there is no mis-interpretation. You directly lied and contradicted yourself.
Scared of annoying your like minded friends in Sinn Fein?
Or not.
If UKIP are standing in NI then the DUP simply have to be there. If the DUP are there then Sinn Fein have to be there too.
Seven was a dog's breakfast. Nine is impossible.
The last chance of the debates gone - for grandstanding In Northern Ireland and 10 (Maybe 9...) lost deposits. Voters who might vote UKIP in England/Wales will simply vote DUP in NI.
The Conservative party have been the most disliked party repeatedly over two decades but that hasn't stopped them.
Guardian media blog on Neil's thoughts:
http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/mar/02/the-sun-no-longer-has-any-political-clout-says-andrew-neil
That old Australian dinosaur Trevor Kavanagh goes for Cameron over immigration in today's paper. Must feel like being savaged by a dead sheep. Anyway more likely signals to Cameron that although the Sun won't ever endorse Ed, Dave can't rely any more on it fawning around his ankles like a soppy cat.
We can't kick her out till you lot leave the EU anyway.
Leaving the EU is NOT THE SAME as stopping all trade with the EU. Richard never said we would stop all trade with the EU.
But IF we did stop all EU trade our BoP WOULD be £80bn better
In Leics I forecast no seat changes, and my top tip is low turnout nationally.
"Strong turnout for the #cyclingdebate with 140 people ready to hear 3 main parties outline their plans for cycling "
UKIP not showing up ?
"Richard Hilton tweeted: "Jihadi John 'contemplated suicide'. It's a shame he didn't. Don't understand media attempts to blame MI5 for his evil".
UKIP says neither the party nor Mr Hilton encourages suicide.
As soon as Mr Hilton realised his tweet might be misconstrued he took it down, a party spokesman added."
I suspect they're getting oversensitive now. Come on, Ukip, stick to your guns. Most of the population will agree with him.
OK, a minority of the LDs might disagree.
The level of sneering from the Torygraph and other Tory propaganda outlets (not to mention the usual urban liberal suspects) was stomach churning. It was clearly a dog whistle that these were people 'not like them'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newry_and_Mourne_District_Council
"With the General Election fast approaching, the UK Cycling Alliance - which includes CTC - has invited cycling leads in political parties ... Lead transport spokespeople from the Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrat political parties will debate their manifesto points on cycling and its infrastructure at the first ever ‘Big Cycling Debate.' "
http://www.ctc.org.uk/news/20150219-big-cycling-debate-–-chance-participate
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/uk-cycling-alliance-organise-first-big-cycling-debate-155543
I'll bet the Greens were miffed!
The "lagoons" will only alter a part of the habitat, barrages like the one for the Severn would change the entire system.
For further reading on the subject, refer yourself to some of the African dams that are silting up so fast that they will never be an economic proposition.
Either wilfully, so you're a typically duplicitous Europhile, or just because you're a bit dim.
I thought the former, I'm now leaning towards the latter.
http://ukipni.com/
He doesn't realise that UKIP stands for United Kingdom Is Pedalling.
Con voters prefer: Con, LD, UKIP, Green/Lab
Lab voters prefer: Lab, Green, LD/UKIP, Con
UKIP voters prefer: UKIP, Con, Lab, Green, LD
Green voters prefer: Green, Lab, LD, UKIP, Con
LD voters prefer: LD, Green, Lab, Con, UKIP
Scoring by rank
Green (4,2,4,1,2) = 13
LD (2,3,5,3,1) = 14
Lab (5,1,3,2,3) = 14
UKIP (3,3,1,4,5) = 16
Con (1,5,2,5,4) = 17
What chance Greens as largest party?
(Actually all this does is confirm there are 3 left of centre parties and 2 Centre/ centre right)
Most people would have said something like "I hope the evil bastard dies in agony."
Either Tyndall is quoting the figure in support of his argument that the UK should leave the EU or he is introducing a non-sequitur to imply he has supporting facts when they are completely unrelated to his argument.
BTW, I'm not a Europhile, I'm pretty much 50:50 between EFTA and EU membership. There's good arguments for both providing strong benefits.
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/ukip-parliamentary-candidate-leaves-over-chairman-s-criminal-record-1-6546275
One on Newry & Mourne
One on Carrickfergus
One on Craigavon
One on Belfast
One on North Down
I think the vast majority of people would agree with Hilton.
You mistranslated that into Richard saying "when we leave the EU our BoP will be £80bn surplus" - WHICH HE NEVER SAID!
Do you really not understand the difference?
Has convinced me to vote Tory and not Lib Dem in May.
@georgeeaton: Tim Farron tells me that Lib Dems will have to side with Labour if they win more seats but Tories win more votes. http://bit.ly/1AOuKHH
Even so, the economic case for the large Severn barrage has existed for a long time. Considering the Thames barrier needs to be replaced in the next 30 years planning for a barrage to be installed it would be good forwards thinking.
Also, while I'm not a huge fan of wind turbines, it also doesn't make sense why the lagoon walls aren't stacked with wind turbines, the electricity generation hardware is already there, the foundations will be deep enough as well and the electricity generated from them could be used to turn the turbines in reverse so it would allow for wind energy storage, something that would allow the power generated to be used on demand rather than as it is generated.
Overall these plans seem expensive, ill thought out and more about looking like we are doing something than actually doing something.
"In organising the debate the UK Cycling Alliance has liaised extensively with the Electoral Commission to ensure that we adhere to the strict rules in the run up to a General Election and to ensure that we fulfill our aim for the event which is to put the main UK parties on the spot about what they will do to improve conditions for cycling if they get into government in May.
There are very strict Electoral Commission rules about which political parties should be invited to an election debate and by including one minor party we would have to include all others that have representation in the UK Parliament, potentially 11 plus parties, which would make an audience participative debate in the space of one our hour impossible to manage.
While we appreciate that "minor" parties should be included at the debate and have had one request so far, we are limited in how we can shape the event. Including one additional party alongside the three parties with the largest representations in Westminster alone isn’t an option.
However, we will be asking each party to send us their main points and will show this on our websites to ensure that voters from across the country are aware of party positions on active travel."
http://www.ctc.org.uk/news/20150219-big-cycling-debate-–-chance-participate
But @Dair seems to be claiming that RichardT is saying that we would or should.
'Most people would have said something like "I hope the evil bastard dies in agony."'
It reminds me of the Prescott retaliation to the egg. Most of the 'liberal' media assumed it was a disaster, but 85% of the population agreed with him.
have a word with Ukip, Sean. If they run this for all it's worth and highlight the posho views - it'll be worth about 2% on its own.
What hope is there if Ukip have gone soft?
Boggling.
I'm not giving up French wine or German cars, that's for sure. French cars and German wine, however...
[btw, what's your avatar/icon? didn't you used to have a hat?]
Truly boggling..
It's the law of unintended consequences, the lagoons will provide shelter for water birds that will attract them in under certain conditions. Wind turbines might not be the ideal thing to have, especially when you have no real idea of their flight paths.
Us poshos, have a very hard life.
You don't know how difficult it is for us.
Especially us Liberal Metropolitan Posho Elites.
People sneer at us, we feel like an African African in Alabama under Jim Crow/George Wallace.
"Too late, your masked slipped, and we saw the true face."
Curses, I can see you're too clever for me.
My pic now is a crappy cartoon I drew of an unidentified person covered in a pile (or pyramid!) of peas, holding out a sign saying "peas be upon me"
According to this less than 20 MPs turned up last time......
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/recreational-cycling/11169000/MPs-wont-take-cyclists-seriously-until-they-pay-tax.html
Your only hope is if a Labour or Lib Dem in Rochester is willing to vote swap with me, to ensure the defeat of Mark Reckless.
I'm not at all sure that cycling should feature in the election debate on national transport policy. Shouldn't that be left to local gov't?