@MaxPB Our deficit due to the crisis was in a large part because economically it hit our financial sector, and our recovery is partly built on it returning. Remember Ozzies "rebalancing" of the economy? Remember the cries about consumer led growth and asset inflation? No, you probably don't, because you and Richard N. pretend not to notice a problem.
@Richard_Nabavi Of course you don't, now go crow about the employment figures, and don't worry your little Tory head about anything else. You fool no one but yourself.
??
It is obviously galling to see your natural client base getting jobs and having money and self-respect and stuff, but the cleverer lefties, like ed, have worked out that it's best to grit your teeth and fake enthusiasm at improvements in the employment figures.
I've just looked at the budget in more detail. I quite like the idea of removing child benefit from the 4th child. The money would be much better spent in helping with child minding for the first three. Apparently the carbon footprint of a British child is 66 times greater than most African ones.
Though I don't much like Cameron look what a monster the Israelis have just landed
The government that increased tuition fees gave a big tax cut to people with five-figures in savings. I think that tells you all you need to know about how much the government cares about young people.
And it's slightly baffling why the government thinks people should pay less tax on unearned income. Why don't the government think people should earn their money?
Even worse, these tax cuts are not remotely budgeted. The country cannot afford these huge tax cuts. The country has endured years of austerity to allow the Tory to bribe their traditional voters.
Of course, the right-wing press wouldn't dare mention the Tories utterly unaffordable tax policies, demonstrating the double standards, proprietor control and the bias of the press.
Before making comparisons with Europe remember that those Europeans aren't fortunate enough to have Mr Carney with his foot on the accelerator. Pity no-one's holding the steering wheel.
@Ishmael_X Productivity and exports, those are the signs of an economic recovery, without those, all you have is smoke and magic. I have no idea if any party will grasp the nettle, but Ozzie is still wandering about with a digit in his anus, and wondering what happened to the "normal" recovery he expected.
I am curious as to why SKY chose to send Samantha Simmonds to Bradford to take soundings from voters on the budget. I know the Tories once held one of the Bradford seats but surely not since 1997.
I am curious as to why SKY chose to send Samantha Simmonds to Bradford to take soundings from voters on the budget. I know the Tories once held one of the Bradford seats but surely not since 1997.
Interesting trivia: Bradford West was one of only two seats in the country which swung TOWARDS the Tories in 1997. The other was Bethnal Green & Bow.
I think Osborne has done a good job over the five years.
If we set aside the left/right politics of it all and accept that we live in a country addicted to debt with an electorate with unreasonable expectations of our public services (me included), then no Chancellor was ever going to eradicate the deficit in five years. It wasn't politically or electorally feasible; not without riots.
He inherited a disastrous set of numbers, I think everybody accepts that, regardless of who was to blame. Then the disaster which befell Greece and the EU within his first few months was probably more damaging (and scarier) than the government let on, so for a Chancellor running the economy it was a fraught task.
Obviously, Chancellor's aren't directly responsible for all the good things that happen just as they aren't to blame for all the bad things that happen, but they do get denigrated when things go wrong so they should get some plaudits as well.
The fact that employment has risen in larger numbers under Osborne than it has under any Chancellor for ages is pretty bloody special. And to create 2.3million private sector jobs in five years, under 'austerity' conditions, is also a great achievement. I think he also deserves credit for the general direction of travel and his efforts to put money back in people's pockets rather than want to spend it for them.
He's made mistakes as one would expect but given the dire circumstances he's done things well. His relationship with Danny Alexander and other Lib Dems has also been highly commendable - to maintain such mature relationships with so many ministers among two different governing parties, during such fraught times, is not to be sniffed at.
It is probably his last budget, but history will be kind to him, I think.
Before making comparisons with Europe remember that those Europeans aren't fortunate enough to have Mr Carney with his foot on the accelerator. Pity no-one's holding the steering wheel.
You do realise that Europe has just started QE, don't you.
Like the external factors of 2008 that were much more severe than any during 2010 to 2015
Yes, absolutely. The criticism of Labour is not, and never was, that they missed their 2007/8 forecasts.
The SANE criticism of Labour is/was not that. Less sane criticism is widely available from the internet message board of your choice.
But broadly I'm with Richard N on this one. For me, the most damning thing was the hubris - no more bust, ever, we've abolished it therefore we don't need to make pointless contingency for it anymore. It was as if Canute had decided he could master the tides.
Horrible Tory in Plymouth doing a vox pop. Poor old Ossie having someone like that selling him. He suggested two NHS workers got a proper paying job.
If you are in a job and you dont like the terms and conditions, surely you change jobs?? If its a profession like nursing, then maybe a different grade, or a different part of nursing. Im not sure what is controversial in that.
For me Osborne is not quite in the class of Nigel Lawson who not only managed the economy well but used the opportunities to drive tax reform and reshape the rest of the economy in a way which supported our underlying productivity and competitiveness.
Lawson did not inherit the calamity that Osborne did but I would like to have seen more underlying reform designed to improve the chances of UK plc making its in the world.
Having said that what he has achieved given his starting point and what has happened in the EZ on his watch he has worked miracles. I am probably in a minority in thinking that Ed Balls would not necessarily be the worst replacement but he has a boss who is a catastrophe in the making. I can only hope that the British public show more sense than the polls are indicating. I fear not and I think this budget does not have the capacity to grip the news agenda in the way the Tories needed.
For me Osborne is not quite in the class of Nigel Lawson who not only managed the economy well but used the opportunities to drive tax reform and reshape the rest of the economy in a way which supported our underlying productivity and competitiveness.
Lawson did not inherit the calamity that Osborne did but I would like to have seen more underlying reform designed to improve the chances of UK plc making its in the world.
Having said that what he has achieved given his starting point and what has happened in the EZ on his watch he has worked miracles. I am probably in a minority in thinking that Ed Balls would not necessarily be the worst replacement but he has a boss who is a catastrophe in the making. I can only hope that the British public show more sense than the polls are indicating. I fear not and I think this budget does not have the capacity to grip the news agenda in the way the Tories needed.
Osborne has bottled the chance of some big changes e.g. rolling up NI and IC. Pension have had some welcome reforms, but the credit for that has to go to Webb as much as anybody. Webb is one of the best ministers in the Coalition...just going about doing his job, doing what is right, rather than political gain...and because of that nobody will remember him.
Before making comparisons with Europe remember that those Europeans aren't fortunate enough to have Mr Carney with his foot on the accelerator. Pity no-one's holding the steering wheel.
You do realise that Europe has just started QE, don't you.
Heard there is a shortage of collateral. Off to a good start.
Just seen vidoe of Zlatan Ibrahimovic outburst at the ref after a recent game. Tri-lingual sweary rant...wonder how many British footballers could do that?
For me Osborne is not quite in the class of Nigel Lawson who not only managed the economy well but used the opportunities to drive tax reform and reshape the rest of the economy in a way which supported our underlying productivity and competitiveness.
Lawson did not inherit the calamity that Osborne did but I would like to have seen more underlying reform designed to improve the chances of UK plc making its in the world.
Having said that what he has achieved given his starting point and what has happened in the EZ on his watch he has worked miracles. I am probably in a minority in thinking that Ed Balls would not necessarily be the worst replacement but he has a boss who is a catastrophe in the making. I can only hope that the British public show more sense than the polls are indicating. I fear not and I think this budget does not have the capacity to grip the news agenda in the way the Tories needed.
Osborne has bottled the chance of some big changes e.g. rolling up NI and IC. Pension have had some welcome reforms, but the credit for that has to go to Webb as much as anybody. Webb is one of the best ministers in the Coalition...just going about doing his job, doing what is right, rather than political gain...and because of that nobody will remember him.
I agree Webb has been a star of the Coalition. In fairness it is also always easier to reform when you have money to play with and Osborne has never been in that position.
I think Osborne is at least an 8/10 arguably a 9. We could have done a lot, lot worse.
Proper grumpy Lefties on here tonight, seems the best Chancellor of modern times has forced them to face reality.
Who are the grumpy Lefties?
I am quite upbeat as Ed is crap gave his best performance I have seen from him in his budget response.
Don't see anything in the budget thats a game changer
I don't see anything that's a game changer, but keeping the media's focus on the economy is good for the Conservatives, in the same way that focusing on the NHS is good for Labour.
DavidL - It amazes me how so many Tories have a deluded blind spot about the 1980s. North sea oil revenues and a credit boom hid the fact that there was no serious improvement in the underlying British economy. It was put nicely to me recently - trade unions were scaled back in the belief that it work unleash the entrepeneurial zeal of British business. The trouble is on the whole corporate Britain doesn't have any entrepeneurial zeal. So all we ended up with was a load of rich bankers and expensive houses. What's so disapponting is how both Labour and the Lib Dems seem unable to challenge this ridiculous narrative and propose something different.
Proper grumpy Lefties on here tonight, seems the best Chancellor of modern times has forced them to face reality.
Who are the grumpy Lefties?
I am quite upbeat as Ed is crap gave his best performance I have seen from him in his budget response.
Don't see anything in the budget thats a game changer
I don't see anything that's a game changer, but keeping the media's focus on the economy is good for the Conservatives, in the same way that focusing on the NHS is good for Labour.
But has it? That is the real test of a pre-election budget. Does it keep the conversation where the party giving it wants it to be. I am not sure he has managed this.
Rumours of two dead rabbits in George's back garden continue make the rounds of the MSM. Believed to be the result of failed experiments of pulling rabbits out of hats. Police still looking for missing hats to close the case. George dressed in dark colours while making budget speech in honour of the rabbits. They died in a good cause, George is reported to have said.
Before making comparisons with Europe remember that those Europeans aren't fortunate enough to have Mr Carney with his foot on the accelerator. Pity no-one's holding the steering wheel.
You do realise that Europe has just started QE, don't you.
I've just looked at the budget in more detail. I quite like the idea of removing child benefit from the 4th child. The money would be much better spent in helping with child minding for the first three. Apparently the carbon footprint of a British child is 66 times greater than most African ones.
Why not let the recipient decide whether they would like to get a childminder? My family has never spent a penny on childminding and if we had a fourth kid we would still have no need for it. My wife homeschools the kids which means she (and they) rarely travel and we have no need for a car. If we were taking them to a childminder all the time so my wife could work we would all be travelling a lot more, government would have to pay for our kids' primary education and the family's carbon footprint would go through the roof.
I see we're something of a special case, but more generally as far as subsidising childcare is concerned, I don't really understand the rationale. It seems that those women (or would be childminding men) with professional careers will rarely give them up, so subsidising childcare doesn't impact their decisions. Meanwhile, the poor are influenced to take crap jobs (in supermarkets and so on) with little in the way of long term career gains and for very little personal financial gain at huge expense to the taxpayer (once you factor in working tax credit).
However, I suppose the childminding costs count towards GDP.......
Before making comparisons with Europe remember that those Europeans aren't fortunate enough to have Mr Carney with his foot on the accelerator. Pity no-one's holding the steering wheel.
You do realise that Europe has just started QE, don't you.
Just. A little late to arrive at the party.
A party where all the food has been eaten and all of the drink has been drank. All that is left is a wacking great bill which noone wants to pay.
DavidL - It amazes me how so many Tories have a deluded blind spot about the 1980s. North sea oil revenues and a credit boom hid the fact that there was no serious improvement in the underlying British economy. It was put nicely to me recently - trade unions were scaled back in the belief that it work unleash the entrepeneurial zeal of British business. The trouble is on the whole corporate Britain doesn't have any entrepeneurial zeal. So all we ended up with was a load of rich bankers and expensive houses. What's so disapponting is how both Labour and the Lib Dems seem unable to challenge this ridiculous narrative and propose something different.
Proper grumpy Lefties on here tonight, seems the best Chancellor of modern times has forced them to face reality.
Who are the grumpy Lefties?
I am quite upbeat as Ed is crap gave his best performance I have seen from him in his budget response.
Don't see anything in the budget thats a game changer
I don't see anything that's a game changer, but keeping the media's focus on the economy is good for the Conservatives, in the same way that focusing on the NHS is good for Labour.
I think the Conservatives are planning to make an extra spending pledge on the NHS to neutralise any Labour assault on that flank.
I have my fingers crossed for Defence too, but I'm not holding my breath. I doubt they'll commit to 2% target. Most likely they'll pledge not to cut army numbers below a certain level given how they suffered 2010-2015GE.
Premier League Champions being absolutely destroyed at 1-0 by Barca, should be 10-0 at half time
It is like watching a computer game the way Messi is nutmegging any player who comes close to him.
I might buy Fat Lady but 26 seems a couple of points too high, however I can see Barcelona running in at least one goal late on and would not surprise me to see a red card either.
DavidL - It amazes me how so many Tories have a deluded blind spot about the 1980s. North sea oil revenues and a credit boom hid the fact that there was no serious improvement in the underlying British economy. It was put nicely to me recently - trade unions were scaled back in the belief that it work unleash the entrepeneurial zeal of British business. The trouble is on the whole corporate Britain doesn't have any entrepeneurial zeal. So all we ended up with was a load of rich bankers and expensive houses. What's so disapponting is how both Labour and the Lib Dems seem unable to challenge this ridiculous narrative and propose something different.
Exactly.
I always find it ironic that the Right are so insistent on how you need to be "tough" on benefit-claimants so that they have the work ethic to try and make something of themselves rather than becoming dependent (with some justification imo), yet fail to apply that same logic to the super-rich. If those people at the top feel that they're always going to be completely secure with a huge pot of wealth to dip into no matter how much they screw up, what incentive is there for them to keep working hard and keep "creating wealth" themselves?
On topic its not a game changer and that in itself perhaps does change the game because it does away with the Tories last best chance of turning the election markedly their way. Without something that can catch the voter's imagination I doubt the Tories can control the narrative of the election. Safe but boring whilst keeping the troops in line doesn't win elections decisively. So if the government's parties can't or don't want to steal the show who will?
PS If Osborne has delivered his last budget what fool is going to take up the poisoned chalice of the public sector budget with all its predefined ring-fencing and pre-requisite cuts. Being a Tory Chancellor in the next three years will be no picnic and chances are they are on a hiding to nothing..
PPS Did anyone see that archaic pompous fat grey slug Clarke on Sky? Such total lack of awareness of the voters situation or voters awareness of the economic situation was embarrassing and effectively blaming them in advance for not voting in a majority Tory Government was insulting and demonstrative of the arrogance that still lays the Tories low.. They really need to confine him to Rushcliffe where he can do no damage or perhaps fill a few slug traps full of beer and leave the old sot to it..
We will know by Monday night. There were several problems with the budget show: 1. They raised the bar with the pre-budget leaks and passed under it. 2. It's a pre-election budget so people will be less inclined to believe it's contents than usual.
For me Osborne is not quite in the class of Nigel Lawson who not only managed the economy well but used the opportunities to drive tax reform and reshape the rest of the economy in a way which supported our underlying productivity and competitiveness.
Lawson did not inherit the calamity that Osborne did but I would like to have seen more underlying reform designed to improve the chances of UK plc making its in the world.
Having said that what he has achieved given his starting point and what has happened in the EZ on his watch he has worked miracles. I am probably in a minority in thinking that Ed Balls would not necessarily be the worst replacement but he has a boss who is a catastrophe in the making. I can only hope that the British public show more sense than the polls are indicating. I fear not and I think this budget does not have the capacity to grip the news agenda in the way the Tories needed.
I agree on Balls.
Marmite though he certainly is, I think he would probably make a decent Chancellor. I don't fear him the way I fear Miliband.
Despite the polls, despite the lack of enthusiasm for the Tories, despite the marginals heading Labour's way and despite all else, I still believe - with Miliband as leader - that the British people won't vote Labour in.
I've just looked at the budget in more detail. I quite like the idea of removing child benefit from the 4th child. The money would be much better spent in helping with child minding for the first three. Apparently the carbon footprint of a British child is 66 times greater than most African ones.
Though I don't much like Cameron look what a monster the Israelis have just landed
Personally I'd limit child benefit to the first child only.
It's quite clear George wanted to make IHT the centrepiece, balanced up by the raid on banks and corporate tax avoidance and investigations into the misuse of deed of variations/trust.
However, the Lib Dems refused and must have threatened to vote it down. Clearly Cameron/Osborne felt that fight was more trouble than it's worth, so gambled to leave it to the manifesto.
I've just looked at the budget in more detail. I quite like the idea of removing child benefit from the 4th child. The money would be much better spent in helping with child minding for the first three. Apparently the carbon footprint of a British child is 66 times greater than most African ones.
Though I don't much like Cameron look what a monster the Israelis have just landed
Personally I'd limit child benefit to the first child only.
I'm up for scrapping it altogether. Although, I could be persuaded for the first two children up to the age of 5 (where they start school) for those earning less than £50k.
For me Osborne is not quite in the class of Nigel Lawson who not only managed the economy well but used the opportunities to drive tax reform and reshape the rest of the economy in a way which supported our underlying productivity and competitiveness.
Lawson did not inherit the calamity that Osborne did but I would like to have seen more underlying reform designed to improve the chances of UK plc making its in the world.
Having said that what he has achieved given his starting point and what has happened in the EZ on his watch he has worked miracles. I am probably in a minority in thinking that Ed Balls would not necessarily be the worst replacement but he has a boss who is a catastrophe in the making. I can only hope that the British public show more sense than the polls are indicating. I fear not and I think this budget does not have the capacity to grip the news agenda in the way the Tories needed.
I agree on Balls.
Marmite though he certainly is, I think he would probably make a decent Chancellor. I don't fear him the way I fear Miliband.
Despite the polls, despite the lack of enthusiasm for the Tories, despite the marginals heading Labour's way and despite all else, I still believe - with Miliband as leader - that the British people won't vote Labour in.
I just can't see Miliband in Number 10.
Without him I think Labour would be a shoo in.
The problem with Balls is like Osborne and Brown, politics always wins over doing the right thing. Unlike say Alan Johnson, Balls knows his stuff, but he can't ever put politics aside. Therefore, I can't ever see him making tough decisions or if he does it will be spun with some measure that isn't necessary or causes other issues.
It's quite clear George wanted to make IHT the centrepiece, balanced up by the raid on banks and corporate tax avoidance and investigations into the misuse of deed of variations/trust.
However, the Lib Dems refused and must have threatened to vote it down. Clearly Cameron/Osborne felt that fight was more trouble than it's worth, so gambled to leave it to the manifesto.
But it did leave the main event pretty dull.
Equally I think they didn't want the main message of their economic achievements obscured by charges of 'tax cuts for Millionaires'. Today was about shooting Labour foxes not letting them loose in the henhouse.
For me Osborne is not quite in the class of Nigel Lawson who not only managed the economy well but used the opportunities to drive tax reform and reshape the rest of the economy in a way which supported our underlying productivity and competitiveness.
Lawson did not inherit the calamity that Osborne did but I would like to have seen more underlying reform designed to improve the chances of UK plc making its in the world.
Having said that what he has achieved given his starting point and what has happened in the EZ on his watch he has worked miracles. I am probably in a minority in thinking that Ed Balls would not necessarily be the worst replacement but he has a boss who is a catastrophe in the making. I can only hope that the British public show more sense than the polls are indicating. I fear not and I think this budget does not have the capacity to grip the news agenda in the way the Tories needed.
Agreed. Balls I'm sure knows deep down that all the mansion and bankers' taxes are blowing smoke. They are not going to raise anything remotely like enough to stop big cuts. Now he might raise a bit more by raising NI ( watch the job figures take a turn for the worse) and a few other twiddly bits but he's bright enough to know we're still a fair way from "fixed". His boss, however, can't see a market without wanting to intervene and "improve" it. It'll be the usual Labour law of unintended consequences on steroids.
EICIPM probably, but never forget the first three letters 'cos they're true I'm afraid.
Still I for one am immensely looking forward to the inimitable spectacle that will be Leanne Wood, the pride of Wales, in full flow advertising my part of the world, if the debates happen - I'm off down DFS this weekend as my sofa's not big enough to hide behind......
DavidL - It amazes me how so many Tories have a deluded blind spot about the 1980s. North sea oil revenues and a credit boom hid the fact that there was no serious improvement in the underlying British economy. It was put nicely to me recently - trade unions were scaled back in the belief that it work unleash the entrepeneurial zeal of British business. The trouble is on the whole corporate Britain doesn't have any entrepeneurial zeal. So all we ended up with was a load of rich bankers and expensive houses. What's so disapponting is how both Labour and the Lib Dems seem unable to challenge this ridiculous narrative and propose something different.
There is a little bit of truth in that.
There is. One reason Labour have not challenged this is that they depend on those bankers and their bonuses and the expensive houses for tax revenue. If the economy was rebalanced where would Labour get the money? They'd have to tax all sorts of groups not just the "Boo Hiss groups". And they're either too scared or not honest enough to say that.
It's ironic that the charge Labour make against the Tories: that they govern for their rich friends could be made against Labour: that they're not really willing to challenge the economic consensus because they need their money.
For me Osborne is not quite in the class of Nigel Lawson who not only managed the economy well but used the opportunities to drive tax reform and reshape the rest of the economy in a way which supported our underlying productivity and competitiveness.
Lawson did not inherit the calamity that Osborne did but I would like to have seen more underlying reform designed to improve the chances of UK plc making its in the world.
Having said that what he has achieved given his starting point and what has happened in the EZ on his watch he has worked miracles. I am probably in a minority in thinking that Ed Balls would not necessarily be the worst replacement but he has a boss who is a catastrophe in the making. I can only hope that the British public show more sense than the polls are indicating. I fear not and I think this budget does not have the capacity to grip the news agenda in the way the Tories needed.
I agree on Balls.
Marmite though he certainly is, I think he would probably make a decent Chancellor. I don't fear him the way I fear Miliband.
Despite the polls, despite the lack of enthusiasm for the Tories, despite the marginals heading Labour's way and despite all else, I still believe - with Miliband as leader - that the British people won't vote Labour in.
I just can't see Miliband in Number 10.
Without him I think Labour would be a shoo in.
"I just can't see Miliband in Number 10. Without him I think Labour would be a shoo in."
But you cannot divorce the two. The fact that Miliband is the leader is a demonstration of where Labour are right now, after the Blair/Brown years.
Following my question to Mike and TSE earlier I was amused to find I was polled tonight. Pollster ComRes Format-Telephone
Q1 My age profile Q 1A Constituency specific Q -I was asked to confirm that I live in Thanet S Q2 Asked if I was certain to vote scale 1-10 Q3 asked Party I voted for last time Q4 Who I will vote for in MY constituency -then named candidate followed by Party Q5 Certainty to vote
Q6 "Did I think DC had been a BAD PM" Q7 "Did I think EM would be a good PM Q8 Would a vote for UKIP let EM be PM-I asked if this applied to country as a whole or constituency- Country as a whole Q9 Who did I prefer as PM-DC or EM Q10 if not DC who next... listed ED NF NC (in that order)
END
A few points 1) questionnaire couldn't pronounce Conservative candidates name (Mackinlay) 2) I got chatting at the end of the survey and asked her how long poll had been running for-she said she had been phoning Thanet S for a week and that hopefully tonight was the last night 3) I asked how come it was taking so long-she said very hard to get people to agree to take part 4) I asked if she had carried out many other polls A: "quite a few" 5) How did this one compare -"nightmare ,glad it is nearly done!!"
I carried out Opinion Polls when a student at Uni and did some work on Opinion Polls-construction, methodology bias etc (run by Anthony King and Dave Saunders at Essex Univ)
I was genuinely shocked at the leading nature of the the PM question, the inability to name correctly a leading candidate (after a WEEK of polling) the woolly phrasing of the vote for UKIP question in a constituency specific poll only to find it related to country as a whole. the length of time taken to get enough respondents.
-overall I am not sure what to make of it other than i am even less confident to take the polls as anything other than a "guide"
It's quite clear George wanted to make IHT the centrepiece, balanced up by the raid on banks and corporate tax avoidance and investigations into the misuse of deed of variations/trust.
However, the Lib Dems refused and must have threatened to vote it down. Clearly Cameron/Osborne felt that fight was more trouble than it's worth, so gambled to leave it to the manifesto.
But it did leave the main event pretty dull.
Equally I think they didn't want the main message of their economic achievements obscured by charges of 'tax cuts for Millionaires'. Today was about shooting Labour foxes not letting them loose in the henhouse.
But I think Osborne's other measures covered that base.
I reckon they were negotiating very late on this (given how heavily it was trailed in the media as recently as 36 hours ago) but agreement failed to be reached at the final hurdle.
Each person has their own reason. I have an autistic son who will need looking after throughout his life. I had been hoping that my pension pot would generate enough to pay off the mortgage and leave a substantial pot which would pay for him for the rest of his life.
I am not saying the budget derails that. I will have to look elsewhere within legal means. I don't do any of those overseas stuff.
Each person has their own reason. I have an autistic son who will need looking after throughout his life. I had been hoping that my pension pot would generate enough to pay off the mortgage and leave a substantial pot which would pay for him for the rest of his life.
I am not saying the budget derails that. I will have to look elsewhere within legal means. I don't do any of those overseas stuff.
Of course you didn't like the pension changes.. Your ethos(Labour) values are NOT to allow people to make decisions about their own money.
Following my question to Mike and TSE earlier I was amused to find I was polled tonight. Pollster ComRes Format-Telephone
Q1 My age profile Q 1A Constituency specific Q -I was asked to confirm that I live in Thanet S Q2 Asked if I was certain to vote scale 1-10 Q3 asked Party I voted for last time Q4 Who I will vote for in MY constituency -then named candidate followed by Party Q5 Certainty to vote
Q6 "Did I think DC had been a BAD PM" Q7 "Did I think EM would be a good PM Q8 Would a vote for UKIP let EM be PM-I asked if this applied to country as a whole or constituency- Country as a whole Q9 Who did I prefer as PM-DC or EM Q10 if not DC who next... listed ED NF NC (in that order)
END
A few points 1) questionnaire couldn't pronounce Conservative candidates name (Mackinlay) 2) I got chatting at the end of the survey and asked her how long poll had been running for-she said she had been phoning Thanet S for a week and that hopefully tonight was the last night 3) I asked how come it was taking so long-she said very hard to get people to agree to take part 4) I asked if she had carried out many other polls A: "quite a few" 5) How did this one compare -"nightmare ,glad it is nearly done!!"
I carried out Opinion Polls when a student at Uni and did some work on Opinion Polls-construction, methodology bias etc (run by Anthony King and Dave Saunders at Essex Univ)
I was genuinely shocked at the leading nature of the the PM question, the inability to name correctly a leading candidate (after a WEEK of polling) the woolly phrasing of the vote for UKIP question in a constituency specific poll only to find it related to country as a whole. the length of time taken to get enough respondents.
-overall I am not sure what to make of it other than i am even less confident to take the polls as anything other than a "guide"
Happy to answer any questions if you have any.
Looks like it was a private polling for the Tories
Each person has their own reason. I have an autistic son who will need looking after throughout his life. I had been hoping that my pension pot would generate enough to pay off the mortgage and leave a substantial pot which would pay for him for the rest of his life.
I am not saying the budget derails that. I will have to look elsewhere within legal means. I don't do any of those overseas stuff.
Of course you didn't like the pension changes.. Your ethos(Labour) values are NOT to allow people to make decisions about their own money.
I'm no massive fan of Surby but read his reply for Pete's sake.
Each person has their own reason. I have an autistic son who will need looking after throughout his life. I had been hoping that my pension pot would generate enough to pay off the mortgage and leave a substantial pot which would pay for him for the rest of his life.
I am not saying the budget derails that. I will have to look elsewhere within legal means. I don't do any of those overseas stuff.
Scrapheap can point you in the direction of a Relevant Life policy, which I don't think counts towards the lifetime limit, might be suitable depending on circumstances
It's quite clear George wanted to make IHT the centrepiece, balanced up by the raid on banks and corporate tax avoidance and investigations into the misuse of deed of variations/trust.
However, the Lib Dems refused and must have threatened to vote it down. Clearly Cameron/Osborne felt that fight was more trouble than it's worth, so gambled to leave it to the manifesto.
But it did leave the main event pretty dull.
Equally I think they didn't want the main message of their economic achievements obscured by charges of 'tax cuts for Millionaires'. Today was about shooting Labour foxes not letting them loose in the henhouse.
But I think Osborne's other measures covered that base.
I reckon they were negotiating very late on this (given how heavily it was trailed in the media as recently as 36 hours ago) but agreement failed to be reached at the final hurdle.
\Perhaps but it wouldn't have stopped Labour going ape over it
Each person has their own reason. I have an autistic son who will need looking after throughout his life. I had been hoping that my pension pot would generate enough to pay off the mortgage and leave a substantial pot which would pay for him for the rest of his life.
I am not saying the budget derails that. I will have to look elsewhere within legal means. I don't do any of those overseas stuff.
Of course you didn't like the pension changes.. Your ethos(Labour) values are NOT to allow people to make decisions about their own money.
Which part of my post says that ? All of it is about me providing for my son.
Following my question to Mike and TSE earlier I was amused to find I was polled tonight. Pollster ComRes Format-Telephone
Q1 My age profile Q 1A Constituency specific Q -I was asked to confirm that I live in Thanet S Q2 Asked if I was certain to vote scale 1-10 Q3 asked Party I voted for last time Q4 Who I will vote for in MY constituency -then named candidate followed by Party Q5 Certainty to vote
Q6 "Did I think DC had been a BAD PM" Q7 "Did I think EM would be a good PM Q8 Would a vote for UKIP let EM be PM-I asked if this applied to country as a whole or constituency- Country as a whole Q9 Who did I prefer as PM-DC or EM Q10 if not DC who next... listed ED NF NC (in that order)
END
A few points 1) questionnaire couldn't pronounce Conservative candidates name (Mackinlay) 2) I got chatting at the end of the survey and asked her how long poll had been running for-she said she had been phoning Thanet S for a week and that hopefully tonight was the last night 3) I asked how come it was taking so long-she said very hard to get people to agree to take part 4) I asked if she had carried out many other polls A: "quite a few" 5) How did this one compare -"nightmare ,glad it is nearly done!!"
I carried out Opinion Polls when a student at Uni and did some work on Opinion Polls-construction, methodology bias etc (run by Anthony King and Dave Saunders at Essex Univ)
I was genuinely shocked at the leading nature of the the PM question, the inability to name correctly a leading candidate (after a WEEK of polling) the woolly phrasing of the vote for UKIP question in a constituency specific poll only to find it related to country as a whole. the length of time taken to get enough respondents.
-overall I am not sure what to make of it other than i am even less confident to take the polls as anything other than a "guide"
Happy to answer any questions if you have any.
Looks like it was a private polling for the Tories
Looks like utter garbage polling to me, you don't ask who you voted for last time before asking VI this time surely ?
Following my question to Mike and TSE earlier I was amused to find I was polled tonight. Pollster ComRes Format-Telephone
Q1 My age profile Q 1A Constituency specific Q -I was asked to confirm that I live in Thanet S Q2 Asked if I was certain to vote scale 1-10 Q3 asked Party I voted for last time Q4 Who I will vote for in MY constituency -then named candidate followed by Party Q5 Certainty to vote
Q6 "Did I think DC had been a BAD PM" Q7 "Did I think EM would be a good PM Q8 Would a vote for UKIP let EM be PM-I asked if this applied to country as a whole or constituency- Country as a whole Q9 Who did I prefer as PM-DC or EM Q10 if not DC who next... listed ED NF NC (in that order)
END
A few points 1) questionnaire couldn't pronounce Conservative candidates name (Mackinlay) 2) I got chatting at the end of the survey and asked her how long poll had been running for-she said she had been phoning Thanet S for a week and that hopefully tonight was the last night 3) I asked how come it was taking so long-she said very hard to get people to agree to take part 4) I asked if she had carried out many other polls A: "quite a few" 5) How did this one compare -"nightmare ,glad it is nearly done!!"
I carried out Opinion Polls when a student at Uni and did some work on Opinion Polls-construction, methodology bias etc (run by Anthony King and Dave Saunders at Essex Univ)
I was genuinely shocked at the leading nature of the the PM question, the inability to name correctly a leading candidate (after a WEEK of polling) the woolly phrasing of the vote for UKIP question in a constituency specific poll only to find it related to country as a whole. the length of time taken to get enough respondents.
-overall I am not sure what to make of it other than i am even less confident to take the polls as anything other than a "guide"
Happy to answer any questions if you have any.
Shy UKIP voters. Cant say I blame them as I imagine Hope Not Hate and various other loony left groups have descended on Thanet and are smearing UKIP.
Is there anything [ other than morals ] which prevent a political party targeting an opponent's supporter or a "don't know" voter with something like an "opinion poll" ?
By the way while I was away for 2 weeks I had the opportunity to airbrush my constituency polls file and crunch some numbers with the new constituency polls:
From a total of 157 constituency polls (80 Tory seats, 41 LD seats, 35 Labour and one Green), the Tories lose 45 seats and gain 9, Labour gain 52 seats and lose 17 (all of them scottish), the LD lose 20, UKIP gain 3 and the SNP gains 21.
In total the percentage changes of votes since the last election is CON -7%, LAB +0.5%, LD -12.5%, UKIP +13.5%, SNP/GRN +5%, that result is pretty much in line with the national polls with the noticeable exception that the LD retain far more votes at the expense of mostly the Tories.
Further more I broke down the constituency polls into regional swings. The Tory to Labour swing in Tory held seats is by region and size:
London: 6% E.Midlands: 6% S.W. England : 6% S.E. : 5.5% N.W. :5.5% W.Midlands: 4.5% Yorkshire: 4.5% East England: 4% Wales % Scotland: -5% N. England: Not enough polls.
The Tory to UKIP swing Tory held seats is by region and size:
London: 7.5% E.Midlands: 11.5% S.W. England : 11% S.E. : 16% N.W. :11% W.Midlands: 11% Yorkshire: 10.5% East England: 13.5% Wales :8% Scotland: 0% N. England: Not enough polls.
There were not any new constituency polls in LD seats so the numbers are the same with the Tories doing exceptionally badly in the S.E against them and Labour doing exceptionally good against the LD with double digit swings almost everywhere except the SE and the W.Midlands.
The new factor has been scotland with the SNP recording swings of 24% against Labour and 21% against the LD.
I also introduced a new element based again solely on the seats that have been polled, a 3.5% error margin in the constituency polls and established a best and worst case for each party.
CON Best case 293 seats. CON Worst case 242 seats.
LAB Best case 318 seats. LAB Worst case 246 seats.
SNP Best case 58 seats. SNP Worst case 21 seats.
LD Best case 41 seats. LD Worst case 15 seats.
UKIP Best case 17 seats. UKIP worst case 1 seat.
Also take into account that the Tories and LD cannot be both at the upper range since the are competing in some seats, hence the best case for the Coalition is CON 293, LD 26 seats and the worst case is CON 242, LD 33 seats.
Is there anything [ other than morals ] which prevent a political party targeting an opponent's supporter or a "don't know" voter with something like an "opinion poll" ?
I believe the DPA laws would require the polling company to state that they may share the information with other organisations.
Comments
Our deficit due to the crisis was in a large part because economically it hit our financial sector, and our recovery is partly built on it returning.
Remember Ozzies "rebalancing" of the economy? Remember the cries about consumer led growth and asset inflation?
No, you probably don't, because you and Richard N. pretend not to notice a problem.
It is obviously galling to see your natural client base getting jobs and having money and self-respect and stuff, but the cleverer lefties, like ed, have worked out that it's best to grit your teeth and fake enthusiasm at improvements in the employment figures.
Though I don't much like Cameron look what a monster the Israelis have just landed
And it's slightly baffling why the government thinks people should pay less tax on unearned income. Why don't the government think people should earn their money?
Even worse, these tax cuts are not remotely budgeted. The country cannot afford these huge tax cuts. The country has endured years of austerity to allow the Tory to bribe their traditional voters.
Of course, the right-wing press wouldn't dare mention the Tories utterly unaffordable tax policies, demonstrating the double standards, proprietor control and the bias of the press.
http://www.businessinsider.my/heres-the-coalition-governments-real-record-in-office-2015-3/#lkP7GiAqjJBcsAsw.97
Productivity and exports, those are the signs of an economic recovery, without those, all you have is smoke and magic.
I have no idea if any party will grasp the nettle, but Ozzie is still wandering about with a digit in his anus, and wondering what happened to the "normal" recovery he expected.
Tonight's YouGov Predicition
Con/Lab Tie
Avoid pork scratchings - the nearest legal thing to heroin (not that I've tried heroin).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/peoplesdaily/article-2999092/Is-world-s-toxic-snack-China-s-wildly-popular-Spicy-Sticks-accused-causing-festering-mouth-sores-diarrhoea-secret-investigation-reveals-filthy-factories-in.html
If we set aside the left/right politics of it all and accept that we live in a country addicted to debt with an electorate with unreasonable expectations of our public services (me included), then no Chancellor was ever going to eradicate the deficit in five years. It wasn't politically or electorally feasible; not without riots.
He inherited a disastrous set of numbers, I think everybody accepts that, regardless of who was to blame. Then the disaster which befell Greece and the EU within his first few months was probably more damaging (and scarier) than the government let on, so for a Chancellor running the economy it was a fraught task.
Obviously, Chancellor's aren't directly responsible for all the good things that happen just as they aren't to blame for all the bad things that happen, but they do get denigrated when things go wrong so they should get some plaudits as well.
The fact that employment has risen in larger numbers under Osborne than it has under any Chancellor for ages is pretty bloody special. And to create 2.3million private sector jobs in five years, under 'austerity' conditions, is also a great achievement. I think he also deserves credit for the general direction of travel and his efforts to put money back in people's pockets rather than want to spend it for them.
He's made mistakes as one would expect but given the dire circumstances he's done things well. His relationship with Danny Alexander and other Lib Dems has also been highly commendable - to maintain such mature relationships with so many ministers among two different governing parties, during such fraught times, is not to be sniffed at.
It is probably his last budget, but history will be kind to him, I think.
No tax cut for Blackpudding makers
Come on mods? why?!
the lefties really are grumpy..
I'm not overly chuffed (LTA is crap) but seeing they aren't happy, George must have done something right.
Nothing from Carswell for 7 hours now.
Is he ok?
But broadly I'm with Richard N on this one. For me, the most damning thing was the hubris - no more bust, ever, we've abolished it therefore we don't need to make pointless contingency for it anymore. It was as if Canute had decided he could master the tides.
I couldn't go as I was at Spandau Ballet!
some of us knew he was a fraud for many many years.
I am quite upbeat as Ed is crap gave his best performance I have seen from him in his budget response.
Don't see anything in the budget thats a game changer
Lawson did not inherit the calamity that Osborne did but I would like to have seen more underlying reform designed to improve the chances of UK plc making its in the world.
Having said that what he has achieved given his starting point and what has happened in the EZ on his watch he has worked miracles. I am probably in a minority in thinking that Ed Balls would not necessarily be the worst replacement but he has a boss who is a catastrophe in the making. I can only hope that the British public show more sense than the polls are indicating. I fear not and I think this budget does not have the capacity to grip the news agenda in the way the Tories needed.
We had a 2-0 lead from the first leg, scored first 3-0.... happy days.
Now losing 4-1 on the night, 4-3 overall.
I think Osborne is at least an 8/10 arguably a 9. We could have done a lot, lot worse.
I see we're something of a special case, but more generally as far as subsidising childcare is concerned, I don't really understand the rationale. It seems that those women (or would be childminding men) with professional careers will rarely give them up, so subsidising childcare doesn't impact their decisions. Meanwhile, the poor are influenced to take crap jobs (in supermarkets and so on) with little in the way of long term career gains and for very little personal financial gain at huge expense to the taxpayer (once you factor in working tax credit).
However, I suppose the childminding costs count towards GDP.......
I have my fingers crossed for Defence too, but I'm not holding my breath. I doubt they'll commit to 2% target. Most likely they'll pledge not to cut army numbers below a certain level given how they suffered 2010-2015GE.
A damp squib. I didn't like the pension changes.
I always find it ironic that the Right are so insistent on how you need to be "tough" on benefit-claimants so that they have the work ethic to try and make something of themselves rather than becoming dependent (with some justification imo), yet fail to apply that same logic to the super-rich. If those people at the top feel that they're always going to be completely secure with a huge pot of wealth to dip into no matter how much they screw up, what incentive is there for them to keep working hard and keep "creating wealth" themselves?
PS If Osborne has delivered his last budget what fool is going to take up the poisoned chalice of the public sector budget with all its predefined ring-fencing and pre-requisite cuts. Being a Tory Chancellor in the next three years will be no picnic and chances are they are on a hiding to nothing..
PPS Did anyone see that archaic pompous fat grey slug Clarke on Sky? Such total lack of awareness of the voters situation or voters awareness of the economic situation was embarrassing and effectively blaming them in advance for not voting in a majority Tory Government was insulting and demonstrative of the arrogance that still lays the Tories low.. They really need to confine him to Rushcliffe where he can do no damage or perhaps fill a few slug traps full of beer and leave the old sot to it..
There were several problems with the budget show:
1. They raised the bar with the pre-budget leaks and passed under it.
2. It's a pre-election budget so people will be less inclined to believe it's contents than usual.
Marmite though he certainly is, I think he would probably make a decent Chancellor. I don't fear him the way I fear Miliband.
Despite the polls, despite the lack of enthusiasm for the Tories, despite the marginals heading Labour's way and despite all else, I still believe - with Miliband as leader - that the British people won't vote Labour in.
I just can't see Miliband in Number 10.
Without him I think Labour would be a shoo in.
However, the Lib Dems refused and must have threatened to vote it down. Clearly Cameron/Osborne felt that fight was more trouble than it's worth, so gambled to leave it to the manifesto.
But it did leave the main event pretty dull.
Probably £8-10bn of savings there straight away.
EICIPM probably, but never forget the first three letters 'cos they're true I'm afraid.
Still I for one am immensely looking forward to the inimitable spectacle that will be Leanne Wood, the pride of Wales, in full flow advertising my part of the world, if the debates happen - I'm off down DFS this weekend as my sofa's not big enough to hide behind......
As a single person who contributes £60,000pa tax and NI I am fed up of subsidising other people's children!
It's ironic that the charge Labour make against the Tories: that they govern for their rich friends could be made against Labour: that they're not really willing to challenge the economic consensus because they need their money.
"I just can't see Miliband in Number 10. Without him I think Labour would be a shoo in."
But you cannot divorce the two. The fact that Miliband is the leader is a demonstration of where Labour are right now, after the Blair/Brown years.
They need more time to recharge and adapt.
For those of you betting on FARAGE to be an MP
Following my question to Mike and TSE earlier I was amused to find I was polled tonight.
Pollster ComRes
Format-Telephone
Q1 My age profile
Q 1A Constituency specific Q -I was asked to confirm that I live in Thanet S
Q2 Asked if I was certain to vote scale 1-10
Q3 asked Party I voted for last time
Q4 Who I will vote for in MY constituency -then named candidate followed by Party
Q5 Certainty to vote
Q6 "Did I think DC had been a BAD PM"
Q7 "Did I think EM would be a good PM
Q8 Would a vote for UKIP let EM be PM-I asked if this applied to country as a whole or constituency- Country as a whole
Q9 Who did I prefer as PM-DC or EM
Q10 if not DC who next... listed ED NF NC (in that order)
END
A few points
1) questionnaire couldn't pronounce Conservative candidates name (Mackinlay)
2) I got chatting at the end of the survey and asked her how long poll had been running for-she said she had been phoning Thanet S for a week and that hopefully tonight was the last night
3) I asked how come it was taking so long-she said very hard to get people to agree to take part
4) I asked if she had carried out many other polls A: "quite a few"
5) How did this one compare -"nightmare ,glad it is nearly done!!"
I carried out Opinion Polls when a student at Uni and did some work on Opinion Polls-construction, methodology bias etc (run by Anthony King and Dave Saunders at Essex Univ)
I was genuinely shocked at
the leading nature of the the PM question,
the inability to name correctly a leading candidate (after a WEEK of polling)
the woolly phrasing of the vote for UKIP question in a constituency specific poll only to find it related to country as a whole.
the length of time taken to get enough respondents.
-overall I am not sure what to make of it other than i am even less confident to take the polls as anything other than a "guide"
Happy to answer any questions if you have any.
I reckon they were negotiating very late on this (given how heavily it was trailed in the media as recently as 36 hours ago) but agreement failed to be reached at the final hurdle.
I am not saying the budget derails that. I will have to look elsewhere within legal means. I don't do any of those overseas stuff.
As for the rest - well...
Looks like it was a private polling for the Tories
But she couldn't even pronounce his name!!
If that is the case it doesn't bode well-and a loaded question as to him being a BAD PM
It didn't feel like a Tory one-but I could be wrong!
Did you see my reply earlier about Labour in Thanet S?
I hope you haven't got serious money on them?
If so, you need to bus some Labour supporters in and gee them up big style.
Looks like utter garbage polling to me, you don't ask who you voted for last time before asking VI this time surely ?
As for the rest - well...
Agreed but I made notes so I am sure that was the order they came in.
Cameron Bad/Miliband Good.
From a total of 157 constituency polls (80 Tory seats, 41 LD seats, 35 Labour and one Green), the Tories lose 45 seats and gain 9, Labour gain 52 seats and lose 17 (all of them scottish), the LD lose 20, UKIP gain 3 and the SNP gains 21.
In total the percentage changes of votes since the last election is CON -7%, LAB +0.5%, LD -12.5%, UKIP +13.5%, SNP/GRN +5%, that result is pretty much in line with the national polls with the noticeable exception that the LD retain far more votes at the expense of mostly the Tories.
Further more I broke down the constituency polls into regional swings.
The Tory to Labour swing in Tory held seats is by region and size:
London: 6%
E.Midlands: 6%
S.W. England : 6%
S.E. : 5.5%
N.W. :5.5%
W.Midlands: 4.5%
Yorkshire: 4.5%
East England: 4%
Wales
Scotland: -5%
N. England: Not enough polls.
The Tory to UKIP swing Tory held seats is by region and size:
London: 7.5%
E.Midlands: 11.5%
S.W. England : 11%
S.E. : 16%
N.W. :11%
W.Midlands: 11%
Yorkshire: 10.5%
East England: 13.5%
Wales :8%
Scotland: 0%
N. England: Not enough polls.
There were not any new constituency polls in LD seats so the numbers are the same with the Tories doing exceptionally badly in the S.E against them and Labour doing exceptionally good against the LD with double digit swings almost everywhere except the SE and the W.Midlands.
The new factor has been scotland with the SNP recording swings of 24% against Labour and 21% against the LD.
I also introduced a new element based again solely on the seats that have been polled, a 3.5% error margin in the constituency polls and established a best and worst case for each party.
CON Best case 293 seats.
CON Worst case 242 seats.
LAB Best case 318 seats.
LAB Worst case 246 seats.
SNP Best case 58 seats.
SNP Worst case 21 seats.
LD Best case 41 seats.
LD Worst case 15 seats.
UKIP Best case 17 seats.
UKIP worst case 1 seat.
Also take into account that the Tories and LD cannot be both at the upper range since the are competing in some seats, hence the best case for the Coalition is CON 293, LD 26 seats and the worst case is CON 242, LD 33 seats.
Greece and the Euro I suppose.
Which were already in crisis months before the 2010 general election.
As mentioned by George Osborne himself in January 2010:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8489984.stm
You wouldn't be so stupid as to try to rewrite history would you ?