" Speaking of tricky situations - Ed Miliband is in Scotland this morning. He'll no doubt be question on the Salmond remarks (jumped on by the right-wing press) that the SNP would try and get concessions to a Labour budget, and back Labour on a vote by vote basis. One things Salmond wants is for HS2 to start in Scotland, but using infrastructure projects as bartering chips seems like the opposite of good government. And it's worth noting - again - that the SNP worked with the Tories from 2007-2011 in the Scottish Parliament, and that between 2005 and 2010, SNP MPs voted with the Tories on 88% of Finance Bills.
I'm not saying they're Tartan Tories - but I am saying that the idea that they won't work with the Tories is fanciful. And Anthony Painter outlined an all too-plausible Tory/SNP deal this weekend. A new ICM poll this morning shows just how far Scottish Labour have fallen, with the SNP still holding a 16 point lead."
There is no chance whatsoever of the SNP propping up the Conservatives in Westminster.
- Sturgeon has explicitly ruled it out. - It would in a stroke alienate all the culturally anti-Tory voters they've just picked up from Labour. - It would run counter to all their current policy direction. - They'd take a load of flack for the austerity measures (they'd get this to an extent from propping up Labour but nothing like as much).
There is all the difference in the world between being a SNP government that does deals with the Tories and being an SNP minority party that does deals with a Tory government.
I'd agree with you in general re: propping up a government
However, I could see a one-time SuperMax/EVEL deal being acceptable to SNP voters: they get the best deal for themselves that they could possibly negotiate.
I could only see that deal being done (and it could be done) if the Conservatives are *already* in power, not as a means to put them there. If, say, the Tories end up with most seats and Labour or the Lib Dems act in such a way as the keep the Tories in power (which they might if they have an eye to pulling the government down at a time of their choosing), then it might well be a means of delivering a Queen's Speech.
If we want to make a trade treaty with an country outside the EU, we can't, we have to wait for endless negotiations with the EU to take place, and then follow the terms of that agreement with only minor input to them, rather than negotiating our own trade agreements
What a laughably facile "drawback". Is that really the best you can do?
Does it not occur to you that there might be countries who'd sign a free trade agreement with 27 countries in one go but who wouldn't bother doing so with just one?
Possibly they wouldn't bother with Tuvalu.
But the 5th (6th?) largest economy in the world is a rather different matter.
Like many journalists, I'm puzzled by Ed Miliband's decision to take part in the 16h April debate with Nigel Farage, Natalie Bennett, Leanne Wood and Nicola Sturgeon. I'd have thought that would be a format he'd want to avoid at all costs, especially at a critical time in the campaign.
It's a win-win.
They all get the chance to shout evil Tory and then Ed goes for the sympathy vote as Nicola orders him around.
Hmm, maybe. More likely they all get the chance to shout 'evil Tory cuts' (with Nige grinning in the background and looking avuncular), and then Natalie, Leanne and Nicola gang up on Ed pointing out that Labour would do much the same. Admittely Ms Bennett might make Ed look vaguely sensible but Nicola is a different kettle of fishwife altogether.
In a strange way Mr N you've stumbled on an interesting conundrum. If Nige just sits back and lets Ed take it, then Ed ends up arguing with three women - cue patronising git.
Clearly it suits the Tories to talk up Salmond controlling Miliband, just as it suits Labour to talk up the Tories raising VAT.
One has a basis in fact, the other is just a groundless Labour smear....
Groundless in the sense that the last two times the Tories won an election they put up VAT after saying that they wouldn't?
In the same way that every Labour government has left office with a high national debt than when it came to power, and worse unemployment.
I would expect the Tories to make such points strongly.
The difference is one is a generic "competence" argument, the other is a specific accusation that they are continuing to make despite denials: i.e. they are claiming that the Tories have a ultra secret plan and are lying to the electorate about it.
You mean the way they denied it in 1992 and 2010?
Presumably, on the same basis we can expect the Tories not to claim that Labour will do stuff they have specifically denied they will do.
The Tories said they had 'no plans'. Certainly disingenious, but not possible to prove it was a lie.
Not possible to prove, but come on, we're not stupid, it's a pretty safe guess they were planning it, no? (Labour likewise...)
Like many journalists, I'm puzzled by Ed Miliband's decision to take part in the 16h April debate with Nigel Farage, Natalie Bennett, Leanne Wood and Nicola Sturgeon. I'd have thought that would be a format he'd want to avoid at all costs, especially at a critical time in the campaign.
Self-awareness is not Ed's greatest strength. I guess he believes he can out-debate Bennett and Sturgeon, and so win a few votes back from the SNP and the Greens.
Doing something that isn't particularly self serving is quite a good trait in my eyes. Even if he doesn't do well, he can say he didn't duck the issue. He said he would debate anyone, anywhere and he is in all 4 debates, debating every other leader
The Tories said they had 'no plans'. Certainly disingenious, but not possible to prove it was a lie.
I don't see why it should have been disingenuous. We didn't have a Tory government, we had a coalition. The budget had to be agreed with our LibDem friends, and of course that changed the fiscal plans.
Like many journalists, I'm puzzled by Ed Miliband's decision to take part in the 16h April debate with Nigel Farage, Natalie Bennett, Leanne Wood and Nicola Sturgeon. I'd have thought that would be a format he'd want to avoid at all costs, especially at a critical time in the campaign.
Self-awareness is not Ed's greatest strength. I guess he believes he can out-debate Bennett and Sturgeon, and so win a few votes back from the SNP and the Greens.
Doing something that isn't particularly self serving is quite a good trait in my eyes. Even if he doesn't do well, he can say he didn't duck the issue. He said he would debate anyone, anywhere and he is in all 4 debates, debating every other leader
And it`s the only way he can carry on attacking Cameron on the debates.
Otherwise Cameron would turn around and say `You are not in the opposition debates either mate,why are you running scared?`
In a strange way Mr N you've stumbled on an interesting conundrum. If Nige just sits back and lets Ed take it, then Ed ends up arguing with three women - cue patronising git.
1. Household debt deleveraging appears to be over. Now stands at around 145% of income, and has been stable at that level for at least a year I think.
2. The OBR forecasts a large increase in household debt, to above the pre-crisis peak by 2020.
The second point is interesting, because the very first forecasts from the OBR in 2010 also involved UK GDP growth being driven by an increase in household debt, which did not come to pass, probably explaining quite a bit of the failure of Osborne's deficit reduction.
Thus the economic outlook for the UK appears to stand on a choice between increasing household debt, or increasing government debt. This is not a healthy situation.
But isn't it just the mathematical consequence of running a BOP deficit?
How about the radical thought of working and having a positive BOP ?
No ?
Osbornite.
I'm pro that. I just think it isn't an overnight job to rebuild scale manufacturing in the British economy.
Clearly it suits the Tories to talk up Salmond controlling Miliband, just as it suits Labour to talk up the Tories raising VAT.
One has a basis in fact, the other is just a groundless Labour smear....
Groundless in the sense that the last two times the Tories won an election they put up VAT after saying that they wouldn't?
In the same way that every Labour government has left office with a high national debt than when it came to power, and worse unemployment.
I would expect the Tories to make such points strongly.
The difference is one is a generic "competence" argument, the other is a specific accusation that they are continuing to make despite denials: i.e. they are claiming that the Tories have a ultra secret plan and are lying to the electorate about it.
You mean the way they denied it in 1992 and 2010?
Presumably, on the same basis we can expect the Tories not to claim that Labour will do stuff they have specifically denied they will do.
The Tories said they had 'no plans'. Certainly disingenious, but not possible to prove it was a lie.
Not possible to prove, but come on, we're not stupid, it's a pretty safe guess they were planning it, no? (Labour likewise...)
I'd imagine it was one of a number of scenarios that they war-gamed
edit: but the point is Labour is saying they "will increase VAT". That's an accusation with no basis in fact - precedent is not everything. Even the "death tax" line the Tories used last time was based in a malicious interpretation of a reasonably thoughtful position paper by Labour
1. Household debt deleveraging appears to be over. Now stands at around 145% of income, and has been stable at that level for at least a year I think.
2. The OBR forecasts a large increase in household debt, to above the pre-crisis peak by 2020.
The second point is interesting, because the very first forecasts from the OBR in 2010 also involved UK GDP growth being driven by an increase in household debt, which did not come to pass, probably explaining quite a bit of the failure of Osborne's deficit reduction.
Thus the economic outlook for the UK appears to stand on a choice between increasing household debt, or increasing government debt. This is not a healthy situation.
But isn't it just the mathematical consequence of running a BOP deficit?
How about the radical thought of working and having a positive BOP ?
No ?
Osbornite.
I'm pro that. I just think it isn't an overnight job to rebuild scale manufacturing in the British economy.
I agree Charles, you'd nearly think that we should have started in this Parliament on that basis.
If we want to make a trade treaty with an country outside the EU, we can't, we have to wait for endless negotiations with the EU to take place, and then follow the terms of that agreement with only minor input to them, rather than negotiating our own trade agreements
What a laughably facile "drawback". Is that really the best you can do?
Does it not occur to you that there might be countries who'd sign a free trade agreement with 27 countries in one go but who wouldn't bother doing so with just one?
When the "just one" is the world's sixth largest economy? Are you serious?
If we want to make a trade treaty with an country outside the EU, we can't, we have to wait for endless negotiations with the EU to take place, and then follow the terms of that agreement with only minor input to them, rather than negotiating our own trade agreements
What a laughably facile "drawback". Is that really the best you can do?
Does it not occur to you that there might be countries who'd sign a free trade agreement with 27 countries in one go but who wouldn't bother doing so with just one?
It's a wonder the USA does any trade with anyone.
You really are scraping the barrel.
Arrange these potential trading partners in order of economic significance:
1/ the UK 2/ the UK plus the rest of the EU 3/ the USA?
You are both arguing that if we and 26 other people all want to buy an item, and we could collectively negotiate a bulk price with the supplier for 27 of them, we are somehow disadvantaged by doing so, because we lose the opportunity to negotiate a worse price bilaterally for just one such item. The other 26 then go on and get the better deal we could have had.
It confirms the total and utter nuttiness of the UKIP worldview.
2/3 of the International Aid budget is going to large multilateral organisations such as the EU and UN where it doesn't get spent - but just sits there waiting a place to go. And we're borrowing to do this. FFS!
The Tories said they had 'no plans'. Certainly disingenious, but not possible to prove it was a lie.
I don't see why it should have been disingenuous. We didn't have a Tory government, we had a coalition. The budget had to be agreed with our LibDem friends, and of course that changed the fiscal plans.
Come off it, Osborne isn't a moron, he wasn't going to leave VAT at a prime number plus half when the government hasn't got enough money, everybody knows what a great tax VAT is and a tidy little increase will bring it to a sensible round number.
" Speaking of tricky situations - Ed Miliband is in Scotland this morning. He'll no doubt be question on the Salmond remarks (jumped on by the right-wing press) that the SNP would try and get concessions to a Labour budget, and back Labour on a vote by vote basis. One things Salmond wants is for HS2 to start in Scotland, but using infrastructure projects as bartering chips seems like the opposite of good government. And it's worth noting - again - that the SNP worked with the Tories from 2007-2011 in the Scottish Parliament, and that between 2005 and 2010, SNP MPs voted with the Tories on 88% of Finance Bills.
I'm not saying they're Tartan Tories - but I am saying that the idea that they won't work with the Tories is fanciful. And Anthony Painter outlined an all too-plausible Tory/SNP deal this weekend. A new ICM poll this morning shows just how far Scottish Labour have fallen, with the SNP still holding a 16 point lead."
There is no chance whatsoever of the SNP propping up the Conservatives in Westminster.
- Sturgeon has explicitly ruled it out. - It would in a stroke alienate all the culturally anti-Tory voters they've just picked up from Labour. - It would run counter to all their current policy direction. - They'd take a load of flack for the austerity measures (they'd get this to an extent from propping up Labour but nothing like as much).
There is all the difference in the world between being a SNP government that does deals with the Tories and being an SNP minority party that does deals with a Tory government.
I'd agree with you in general re: propping up a government
However, I could see a one-time SuperMax/EVEL deal being acceptable to SNP voters: they get the best deal for themselves that they could possibly negotiate.
I could only see that deal being done (and it could be done) if the Conservatives are *already* in power, not as a means to put them there. If, say, the Tories end up with most seats and Labour or the Lib Dems act in such a way as the keep the Tories in power (which they might if they have an eye to pulling the government down at a time of their choosing), then it might well be a means of delivering a Queen's Speech.
But if it is in the Queen's speech, with a commitment it would be the first piece of legislation, would the SNP vote against it?
James Cook (@JamesLiamCook) 23/03/2015 12:13 This covers all the outrage bases - Green Party Candidate in Sick Nazi Cancer Slur guyfawk.es/1GKnJrQ via @GuidoFawkes
Like many journalists, I'm puzzled by Ed Miliband's decision to take part in the 16h April debate with Nigel Farage, Natalie Bennett, Leanne Wood and Nicola Sturgeon. I'd have thought that would be a format he'd want to avoid at all costs, especially at a critical time in the campaign.
It's a win-win.
They all get the chance to shout evil Tory and then Ed goes for the sympathy vote as Nicola orders him around.
Hmm, maybe. More likely they all get the chance to shout 'evil Tory cuts' (with Nige grinning in the background and looking avuncular), and then Natalie, Leanne and Nicola gang up on Ed pointing out that Labour would do much the same. Admittedly Ms Bennett might make Ed look vaguely sensible but Nicola is a different kettle of fishwife altogether.
To be honest it will quickly degenerate into a slanging match which won't do anyone any good - except the person who isn't there.
Clearly it suits the Tories to talk up Salmond controlling Miliband, just as it suits Labour to talk up the Tories raising VAT.
One has a basis in fact, the other is just a groundless Labour smear....
Groundless in the sense that the last two times the Tories won an election they put up VAT after saying that they wouldn't?
In the same way that every Labour government has left office with a high national debt than when it came to power, and worse unemployment.
I would expect the Tories to make such points strongly.
The difference is one is a generic "competence" argument, the other is a specific accusation that they are continuing to make despite denials: i.e. they are claiming that the Tories have a ultra secret plan and are lying to the electorate about it.
You mean the way they denied it in 1992 and 2010?
Presumably, on the same basis we can expect the Tories not to claim that Labour will do stuff they have specifically denied they will do.
The Tories said they had 'no plans'. Certainly disingenious, but not possible to prove it was a lie.
Sure, but given what was said before these GEs and what happened afterwards, it's a legitimate line of attack. The alternative is that if Labour denies something, the Tories would just accept that too.
1. Household debt deleveraging appears to be over. Now stands at around 145% of income, and has been stable at that level for at least a year I think.
2. The OBR forecasts a large increase in household debt, to above the pre-crisis peak by 2020.
The second point is interesting, because the very first forecasts from the OBR in 2010 also involved UK GDP growth being driven by an increase in household debt, which did not come to pass, probably explaining quite a bit of the failure of Osborne's deficit reduction.
Thus the economic outlook for the UK appears to stand on a choice between increasing household debt, or increasing government debt. This is not a healthy situation.
But isn't it just the mathematical consequence of running a BOP deficit?
How about the radical thought of working and having a positive BOP ?
No ?
Osbornite.
I'm pro that. I just think it isn't an overnight job to rebuild scale manufacturing in the British economy.
I agree Charles, you'd nearly think that we should have started in this Parliament on that basis.
And we have started. Stable economy, plenty of allowances, reduced corporation tax, using the embassies to promote commercial interests. I wish they had been more aggressive on fracking, because that's potentially a huge contributor in due course.
Come off it, Osborne isn't a moron, he wasn't going to leave VAT at a prime number plus half when the government hasn't got enough money, everybody knows what a great tax VAT is and a tidy little increase will bring it to a sensible round number.
It's impossible to argue with a counter-factual, but that doesn't mean a counter-factual is an argument, still less evidence that Osborne was being economical with the truth.
Like many journalists, I'm puzzled by Ed Miliband's decision to take part in the 16h April debate with Nigel Farage, Natalie Bennett, Leanne Wood and Nicola Sturgeon. I'd have thought that would be a format he'd want to avoid at all costs, especially at a critical time in the campaign.
It's a win-win.
They all get the chance to shout evil Tory and then Ed goes for the sympathy vote as Nicola orders him around.
Hmm, maybe. More likely they all get the chance to shout 'evil Tory cuts' (with Nige grinning in the background and looking avuncular), and then Natalie, Leanne and Nicola gang up on Ed pointing out that Labour would do much the same. Admittedly Ms Bennett might make Ed look vaguely sensible but Nicola is a different kettle of fishwife altogether.
To be honest it will quickly degenerate into a slanging match which won't do anyone any good - except the person who isn't there.
The obvious attack line to use on Miliband is that he's a pushover who doesn't stick out for the deal he wants, and that this pampered little beneficiary of nepotism is going to be eaten alive by the likes of Angela Merkel never mind Vova Putin.
I agree Charles, you'd nearly think that we should have started in this Parliament on that basis.
Hang on, are you the same Alanbrooke who was pointing out over the weekend how successful our car manufacturing sector has been recently?
Yes I am. I'm also the Alanbrooke who'll tell you most of that work was done by the industry itself with the government looking on from the sidelines except for when there's a photo opportunity.
Now imagine where we'd be if we had a government which could get the hang of this supporting industry to grow.
Clearly it suits the Tories to talk up Salmond controlling Miliband, just as it suits Labour to talk up the Tories raising VAT.
One has a basis in fact, the other is just a groundless Labour smear....
Groundless in the sense that the last two times the Tories won an election they put up VAT after saying that they wouldn't?
In the same way that every Labour government has left office with a high national debt than when it came to power, and worse unemployment.
I would expect the Tories to make such points strongly.
The difference is one is a generic "competence" argument, the other is a specific accusation that they are continuing to make despite denials: i.e. they are claiming that the Tories have a ultra secret plan and are lying to the electorate about it.
You mean the way they denied it in 1992 and 2010?
Presumably, on the same basis we can expect the Tories not to claim that Labour will do stuff they have specifically denied they will do.
The Tories said they had 'no plans'. Certainly disingenious, but not possible to prove it was a lie.
Sure, but given what was said before these GEs and what happened afterwards, it's a legitimate line of attack. The alternative is that if Labour denies something, the Tories would just accept that too.
It's not, though. It's a false accusation.
They could reasonably challenge the Tories to say they won't, but that's not what they did.
And as @RichardNabavi pointed out, it was a tory pledge vs. a Coalition increase
Yes I am. I'm also the Alanbrooke who'll tell you most of that work was done by the industry itself with the government looking on from the sidelines except for when there's a photo opportunity.
Now imagine where we'd be if we had a government which could get the hang of this supporting industry to grow.
Ah, well that's where we disagree. I take the view that the government should look on from the sidelines and let the industry get on with it, having set a broadly pro-business tax environment. The facts seem to back me up...
Like many journalists, I'm puzzled by Ed Miliband's decision to take part in the 16h April debate with Nigel Farage, Natalie Bennett, Leanne Wood and Nicola Sturgeon. I'd have thought that would be a format he'd want to avoid at all costs, especially at a critical time in the campaign.
It's a win-win.
They all get the chance to shout evil Tory and then Ed goes for the sympathy vote as Nicola orders him around.
Hmm, maybe. More likely they all get the chance to shout 'evil Tory cuts' (with Nige grinning in the background and looking avuncular), and then Natalie, Leanne and Nicola gang up on Ed pointing out that Labour would do much the same. Admittedly Ms Bennett might make Ed look vaguely sensible but Nicola is a different kettle of fishwife altogether.
Not many people are likely to watch this one since it doesn't have anyone from the government and it's sandwiched between the proper ones. So the way to think about it is what the news clips are going to be like.
Ed Miliband gets to firm up the base if it's him against Farage. He would have a lot to fear from being shown up against the Greens, but Bennett isn't very good.
I can't comment on how it'll play in Scotland, where they'll presumably show the Scotland-related clips.
1. Household debt deleveraging appears to be over. Now stands at around 145% of income, and has been stable at that level for at least a year I think.
2. The OBR forecasts a large increase in household debt, to above the pre-crisis peak by 2020.
The second point is interesting, because the very first forecasts from the OBR in 2010 also involved UK GDP growth being driven by an increase in household debt, which did not come to pass, probably explaining quite a bit of the failure of Osborne's deficit reduction.
Thus the economic outlook for the UK appears to stand on a choice between increasing household debt, or increasing government debt. This is not a healthy situation.
But isn't it just the mathematical consequence of running a BOP deficit?
How about the radical thought of working and having a positive BOP ?
No ?
Osbornite.
I'm pro that. I just think it isn't an overnight job to rebuild scale manufacturing in the British economy.
I agree Charles, you'd nearly think that we should have started in this Parliament on that basis.
And we have started. Stable economy, plenty of allowances, reduced corporation tax, using the embassies to promote commercial interests. I wish they had been more aggressive on fracking, because that's potentially a huge contributor in due course.
As Mrs Charles has no doubt said " what ? that's it !?"
How about, sensible energy prices, reduced regulation, a BIS which secures major inverstments, a functioning banking sector, competitive capital allowances, some more import susbtitution, improved R&D allowances, a functioning education system.
2/3 of the International Aid budget is going to large multilateral organisations such as the EU and UN where it doesn't get spent - but just sits there waiting a place to go. And we're borrowing to do this. FFS!
On the positive side, it does make it easier to cut back...
I can see the point of aid, where it benefits Britain, or where it is helping the incredibly poor.
But just handing the money over the World Bank makes absolutely no sense.
Yes I am. I'm also the Alanbrooke who'll tell you most of that work was done by the industry itself with the government looking on from the sidelines except for when there's a photo opportunity.
Now imagine where we'd be if we had a government which could get the hang of this supporting industry to grow.
Ah, well that's where we disagree. I take the view that the government should look on from the sidelines and let the industry get on with it, having set a broadly pro-business tax environment. The facts seem to back me up...
Except obviously when it comes to the City which you will defend to the last taxpayer penny. Some are more equal than others.
" Speaking of tricky situations - Ed Miliband is in Scotland this morning. He'll no doubt be question on the Salmond remarks (jumped on by the right-wing press) that the SNP would try and get concessions to a Labour budget, and back Labour on a vote by vote basis. One things Salmond wants is for HS2 to start in Scotland, but using infrastructure projects as bartering chips seems like the opposite of good government. And it's worth noting - again - that the SNP worked with the Tories from 2007-2011 in the Scottish Parliament, and that between 2005 and 2010, SNP MPs voted with the Tories on 88% of Finance Bills.
I'm not saying they're Tartan Tories - but I am saying that the idea that they won't work with the Tories is fanciful. And Anthony Painter outlined an all too-plausible Tory/SNP deal this weekend. A new ICM poll this morning shows just how far Scottish Labour have fallen, with the SNP still holding a 16 point lead."
There is no chance whatsoever of the SNP propping up the Conservatives in Westminster.
- Sturgeon has explicitly ruled it out. - It would in a stroke alienate all the culturally anti-Tory voters they've just picked up from Labour. - It would run counter to all their current policy direction. - They'd take a load of flack for the austerity measures (they'd get this to an extent from propping up Labour but nothing like as much).
There is all the difference in the world between being a SNP government that does deals with the Tories and being an SNP minority party that does deals with a Tory government.
I'd agree with you in general re: propping up a government
However, I could see a one-time SuperMax/EVEL deal being acceptable to SNP voters: they get the best deal for themselves that they could possibly negotiate.
I could only see that deal being done (and it could be done) if the Conservatives are *already* in power, not as a means to put them there. If, say, the Tories end up with most seats and Labour or the Lib Dems act in such a way as the keep the Tories in power (which they might if they have an eye to pulling the government down at a time of their choosing), then it might well be a means of delivering a Queen's Speech.
But if it is in the Queen's speech, with a commitment it would be the first piece of legislation, would the SNP vote against it?
That depends on whether they're interested in doing more deals later on, when their behaviour regarding the first one will be a relevant factor in establishing whether another party will want to do a deal with them.
Except obviously when it comes to the City which you will defend to the last taxpayer penny. Some are more equal than others.
I'll argue the same, the government should let the City get on with it, having put in place a regulatory framework which addresses the risks of financial contagion, fraud, mis-selling and money-laundering. Obviously the industries are different, but the exact same principle applies.
Clearly it suits the Tories to talk up Salmond controlling Miliband, just as it suits Labour to talk up the Tories raising VAT.
One has a basis in fact, the other is just a groundless Labour smear....
Groundless in the sense that the last two times the Tories won an election they put up VAT after saying that they wouldn't?
In the same way that every Labour government has left office with a high national debt than when it came to power, and worse unemployment.
I would expect the Tories to make such points strongly.
The difference is one is a generic "competence" argument, the other is a specific accusation that they are continuing to make despite denials: i.e. they are claiming that the Tories have a ultra secret plan and are lying to the electorate about it.
You mean the way they denied it in 1992 and 2010?
Presumably, on the same basis we can expect the Tories not to claim that Labour will do stuff they have specifically denied they will do.
The Tories said they had 'no plans'. Certainly disingenious, but not possible to prove it was a lie.
Sure, but given what was said before these GEs and what happened afterwards, it's a legitimate line of attack. The alternative is that if Labour denies something, the Tories would just accept that too.
It's not, though. It's a false accusation.
They could reasonably challenge the Tories to say they won't, but that's not what they did.
And as @RichardNabavi pointed out, it was a tory pledge vs. a Coalition increase
How do you know it is a false accusation? Are you saying that as the Tories have denied it, it must be false? In which case, on the same basis you must agree that the Tories cannot run any attack lines relating to subjects on which Labour has issued denials.
I guess that Tories could run with the LDs made us put up VAT line. I am not sure how many folk would believe it, though.
arly think that we should have started in this Parliament on that basis.
And we have started. Stable economy, plenty of allowances, reduced corporation tax, using the embassies to promote commercial interests. I wish they had been more aggressive on fracking, because that's potentially a huge contributor in due course.
As Mrs Charles has no doubt said " what ? that's it !?"
How about, sensible energy prices, reduced regulation, a BIS which secures major inverstments, a functioning banking sector, competitive capital allowances, some more import susbtitution, improved R&D allowances, a functioning education system.
Just a thought.
- Sensible energy prices - fracking would have helped. They've also made some moves towards eliminating onshore wind subsidies. But tough when you have a fluffy running the relevant department
- Reduced regulation. Some has been done: not enough. Address your complaints to Mr. Vince Cable, Most Disappointing Cabinet Minister, LibDem Headquarters
- BIS which secures major investments: there was the Ford example in ?Liverpool that worked quite well
- Functioning banking sector: always a 10 year project. But if you know where to look it's ok. Have you called Handelsbanken yet?
- Competitive capital allowances: not my sector, so don't know. But they've been very goon on R&D allowances
- Import substitution: consumers, not governments, make that choice
- Functioning education system: Gove's reforms are a good step in the right direction, but never something that can be turned around in just 5 years
Mr Alanbrooke, your expectations are unreasonable. Remind me never to believe your business plan when you try to sell me a company
This report estimates that leaving the EU would cost Britain between £18 and 50 billion a year. A tighter range than yesterday's report from Open Europe.
I reckon we'll make £20billion a year more, feel free to re-tweet it.
You'll need to show your workings first.
I use the back of a big packet of Benson and Hedges.
Same as all the other "professional" forecasters you're quoting.
Ah, more blind dislike.
Oh don't be silly a/f these days you can hire anyone to say anything. Your constant quoting of sources from the FT saying exiting the EU will kill us tends to be a bit of obvious trolling, or possibly you have a blind dislike of any argument to the contrary. :-)
£18bn is less than we pay the EU on the average year in contributions.
We spend that much every four months on the interest on our national debt.
It amounts to about 2.5% of public spending.
It's substantially less than either main party is proposing to cut from public spending, per year, in the next parliament.
Its not even a little bit scary, and would be make up in very short time by new trade deals with the Commonwealth or other countries that we would be free to make deals with.
The numbers on Brexit will be more a case of DYOR before you vote.
An army of shills hiding behind professional respectability will be lined up to obfuscate the issue in both directions. It will be like Indyref without the exhaustive financial precision.
OLO. Alan , the financial precision re Indyref........... gave me a good laugh
Clearly it suits the Tories to talk up Salmond controlling Miliband, just as it suits Labour to talk up the Tories raising VAT.
One has a basis in fact, the other is just a groundless Labour smear....
Groundless in the sense that the last two times the Tories won an election they put up VAT after saying that they wouldn't?
In the same way that every Labour government has left office with a high national debt than when it came to power, and worse unemployment.
I would expect the Tories to make such points strongly.
The difference is one is a generic "competence" argument, the other is a specific accusation that they are continuing to make despite denials: i.e. they are claiming that the Tories have a ultra secret plan and are lying to the electorate about it.
You mean the way they denied it in 1992 and 2010?
Presumably, on the same basis we can expect the Tories not to claim that Labour will do stuff they have specifically denied they will do.
The Tories said they had 'no plans'. Certainly disingenious, but not possible to prove it was a lie.
Sure, but given what was said before these GEs and what happened afterwards, it's a legitimate line of attack. The alternative is that if Labour denies something, the Tories would just accept that too.
It's not, though. It's a false accusation.
They could reasonably challenge the Tories to say they won't, but that's not what they did.
And as @RichardNabavi pointed out, it was a tory pledge vs. a Coalition increase
How do you know it is a false accusation? Are you saying that as the Tories have denied it, it must be false? In which case, on the same basis you must agree that the Tories cannot run any attack lines relating to subjects on which Labour has issued denials.
I guess that Tories could run with the LDs made us put up VAT line. I am not sure how many folk would believe it, though.
I'm saying there's no evidence for it.
I could claim that Ed Miliband plans to charge mansion tax on housing starting from £1m.
Or that he will abolish Trident to do a deal with the SNP.
Both of which he has denied.
My view is that making shit up doesn't add much to political debate.
Like many journalists, I'm puzzled by Ed Miliband's decision to take part in the 16h April debate with Nigel Farage, Natalie Bennett, Leanne Wood and Nicola Sturgeon. I'd have thought that would be a format he'd want to avoid at all costs, especially at a critical time in the campaign.
It's a win-win.
They all get the chance to shout evil Tory and then Ed goes for the sympathy vote as Nicola orders him around.
Hmm, maybe. More likely they all get the chance to shout 'evil Tory cuts' (with Nige grinning in the background and looking avuncular), and then Natalie, Leanne and Nicola gang up on Ed pointing out that Labour would do much the same. Admittedly Ms Bennett might make Ed look vaguely sensible but Nicola is a different kettle of fishwife altogether.
Not many people are likely to watch this one since it doesn't have anyone from the government and it's sandwiched between the proper ones. So the way to think about it is what the news clips are going to be like.
Ed Miliband gets to firm up the base if it's him against Farage. He would have a lot to fear from being shown up against the Greens, but Bennett isn't very good.
I can't comment on how it'll play in Scotland, where they'll presumably show the Scotland-related clips.
This event would have been a non-event had Miliband not been there.
Now it will be a keenly watched one because it has a prospective Prime Minister in it.
My prediction is it will have more viewers than the Jeremy Paxman interview on the 26th.
Except obviously when it comes to the City which you will defend to the last taxpayer penny. Some are more equal than others.
I'll argue the same, the government should let the City get on with it, having put in place a regulatory framework which addresses the risks of financial contagion, fraud, mis-selling and money-laundering. Obviously the industries are different, but the exact same principle applies.
Hmm. Is this the same Richard Nabavi who said the only reason HMG should consider leaving the EU was if the City was endangered ?
I suppose we'll tell the other industries they should eat cake.
I guess that Tories could run with the LDs made us put up VAT line. I am not sure how many folk would believe it, though.
It's pretty obvious, isn't it? The LibDems were less keen on cutting spending than the Tories, so obviously taxes had to be raised more than Osborne would originally have wanted in order to get a deal with the LibDems. You can't pick one item from the Conservative pre-election plans in isolation, and then accuse them of lying when plans had to be adjusted as part of the coalition negotiations.
After all, we know that the presence of the LibDems had a big impact. Nick Clegg, no less, has told us so.
Oh dear, Theresa May has decided she has to "do something" against "extremism". I recognise she's talking about Islamic extremism but that's not the only "extremism" out there, is it ? What qualifies as extremism - not supporting the Conservatives or Theresa May perhaps ?
Now we're going to have a "positive campaign to boost British values" ? Presumably that'll be the Thought Police making sure everyone is thinking good, positive, Conservative British values (whatever they might be). Maybe they can recruit young people to monitor what people say and do to make sure they are properly doing British things.
Apparently there will be "banning orders" for groups who aren't quite extreme enough to be called extreme. That presumably means the Labour Party, Liberal Democrats, UKIP, the Greens, the National Trust, the Scouts, the RAC etc, etc.
This is just sickening authoritarianism - whatever happened to "liberal conservatism" ? I now hope the Tories are slung out if this is the kind of language they use and the kind of measures they want.
Another triumph for social services. The boy they wanted to stay in the NHS hospital and essential die quietly is now pronounced cancer free after receiving treatment everyone swore would do him no good, and after jailing his parents for trying to take him to the treatment that has apparently saved his life.
Clearly it suits the Tories to talk up Salmond controlling Miliband, just as it suits Labour to talk up the Tories raising VAT.
One has a basis in fact, the other is just a groundless Labour smear....
Groundless in the sense that the last two times the Tories won an election they put up VAT after saying that they wouldn't?
In the same way that every Labour government has left office with a high national debt than when it came to power, and worse unemployment.
I would expect the Tories to make such points strongly.
The difference is one is a generic "competence" argument, the other is a specific accusation that they are continuing to make despite denials: i.e. they are claiming that the Tories have a ultra secret plan and are lying to the electorate about it.
You mean the way they denied it in 1992 and 2010?
Presumably, on the same basis we can expect the Tories not to claim that Labour will do stuff they have specifically denied they will do.
The Tories said they had 'no plans'. Certainly disingenious, but not possible to prove it was a lie.
Sure, but given what was said before these GEs and what happened afterwards, it's a legitimate line of attack. The alternative is that if Labour denies something, the Tories would just accept that too.
It's not, though. It's a false accusation.
They could reasonably challenge the Tories to say they won't, but that's not what they did.
And as @RichardNabavi pointed out, it was a tory pledge vs. a Coalition increase
How do you know it is a false accusation? Are you saying that as the Tories have denied it, it must be false? In which case, on the same basis you must agree that the Tories cannot run any attack lines relating to subjects on which Labour has issued denials.
I guess that Tories could run with the LDs made us put up VAT line. I am not sure how many folk would believe it, though.
I'm saying there's no evidence for it.
I could claim that Ed Miliband plans to charge mansion tax on housing starting from £1m.
Or that he will abolish Trident to do a deal with the SNP.
Both of which he has denied.
My view is that making shit up doesn't add much to political debate.
I agree. But all parties do it. The Tories, for example, are claiming that a Labour government would be in Alex Salmond's pocket. Labour has denied this. Therefore, the Tories should stop making the claim, shouldn't they?
Hmm. Is this the same Richard Nabavi who said the only reason HMG should consider leaving the EU was if the City was endangered ?
I suppose we'll tell the other industries they should eat cake.
Depends how big the industries are. Car manufacturing is pretty big nowadays, and, yes, you are right in your implication: if we were to consider leaving the EU, the potential damage to car manufacturing would be an important consideration.
I guess that Tories could run with the LDs made us put up VAT line. I am not sure how many folk would believe it, though.
It's pretty obvious, isn't it? The LibDems were less keen on cutting spending than the Tories, so obviously taxes had to be raised more than Osborne would originally have wanted in order to get a deal with the LibDems. You can't pick one item from the Conservative pre-election plans in isolation, and then accuse them of lying when plans had to be adjusted as part of the coalition negotiations.
After all, we know that the presence of the LibDems had a big impact. Nick Clegg, no less, has told us so.
arly think that we should have started in this Parliament on that basis.
And we have started. Stable economy, plenty of allowances, reduced corporation tax, using the embassies to promote commercial interests. I wish they had been more aggressive on fracking, because that's potentially a huge contributor in due course.
As Mrs Charles has no doubt said " what ? that's it !?"
How about, sensible energy prices, reduced regulation, a BIS which secures major inverstments, a functioning banking sector, competitive capital allowances, some more import susbtitution, improved R&D allowances, a functioning education system.
Just a thought.
- Sensible energy prices - fracking would have helped. They've also made some moves towards eliminating onshore wind subsidies. But tough when you have a fluffy running the relevant department
- Reduced regulation. Some has been done: not enough. Address your complaints to Mr. Vince Cable, Most Disappointing Cabinet Minister, LibDem Headquarters
- BIS which secures major investments: there was the Ford example in ?Liverpool that worked quite well
- Functioning banking sector: always a 10 year project. But if you know where to look it's ok. Have you called Handelsbanken yet?
- Competitive capital allowances: not my sector, so don't know. But they've been very goon on R&D allowances
- Import substitution: consumers, not governments, make that choice
- Functioning education system: Gove's reforms are a good step in the right direction, but never something that can be turned around in just 5 years
Mr Alanbrooke, your expectations are unreasonable. Remind me never to believe your business plan when you try to sell me a company
Charles, where do I start. You just miss the scale of what we have to do and the longer we put it off the higher the climb.
As an aside I was pissing myself laughing at some dorky green professor on R4 who suddenly had worked out that pricing our businesses out of energy meant the work moved to places where they didn't give a shit about our environmental standards and caused even more pollution by opening up more coal power stations.
I'm surprised how so few are interested in the rather muted reaction to Osborne's budget. I didn't hear it but took a quick look on here after the event and it read like the Tories had struck gold. No wonder we're back to Nigel's spoilt lunch and Nicola's bra size.
Another triumph for social services. The boy they wanted to stay in the NHS hospital and essential die quietly is now pronounced cancer free after receiving treatment everyone swore would do him no good, and after jailing his parents for trying to take him to the treatment that has apparently saved his life.
Yes, best health service in the world
Saw a programme the other day questioning why the nhs send patients like this to the USA for this treatment when they deem it necessary rather than the CzEch rep where this boys life was saved at a fraction if the cost
Another triumph for social services. The boy they wanted to stay in the NHS hospital and essential die quietly is now pronounced cancer free after receiving treatment everyone swore would do him no good, and after jailing his parents for trying to take him to the treatment that has apparently saved his life.
Yes, best health service in the world
I have never said so. Its Mr BJO you want there and his fatuous report on how the NHS leads the world on filing cabinet usage and paper-clip consumption, and never mind the man behind the curtain trying to shred the patient outcomes (ie. not dying) figures.
What does that show? That they were considering how to reduce the deficit, and obviously raising VAT, income tax, NI, Corporation Tax, and Stamp Duty would all have been suggested as possible ways of increasing tax revenue. So what? That doesn't mean that their final plans, before the election, included all of those.
I agree. But all parties do it. The Tories, for example, are claiming that a Labour government would be in Alex Salmond's pocket. Labour has denied this. Therefore, the Tories should stop making the claim, shouldn't they?
The SNP claim is a reasonable construction of the fact that one likely outcome is Labour largest party, with Labour + SNP sufficient to achieve a majority.
Miliband has avoided ruling out a deal with the SNP on multiple occasions.
What does that show? That they were considering how to reduce the deficit, and obviously raising VAT, income tax, NI, Corporation Tax, and Stamp Duty would all have been suggested as possible ways of increasing tax revenue. So what?
It shows that they were considering doing exactly what they did after the election.
Sir Alan Beith (standing down, replacement Julie Pörksen) Duncan Hames Mike Hancock (expelled from party, replacement Gerald Vernon-Jackson) Sir Nick Harvey Michael Moore Viscount John Thurso
At risk (1/2 to evens)
Paul Burstow Andrew George John Hemming Julian Huppert Mark Hunter Charles Kennedy Stephen Lloyd Dan Rogerson Adrian Sanders Mike Thornton Mark Williams Roger Williams Stephen Williams
Safe (1/2 or shorter)
Norman Baker Tom Brake Vince Cable Alistair Carmichael Nick Clegg Edward Davey Tim Farron Don Foster (standing down, replacement Steve Bradley) Martin Horwood Simon Hughes Norman Lamb David Laws Greg Mulholland John Pugh Bob Russell Sir Andrew Stunell (standing down, replacement Lisa Smart) Steve Webb
I think Vince Cable and Simon Hughes might both lose their seats, but I'd be reasonably comfortable that Huppert will hold his . It's also possible that the Viscount's personal vote will get him over the edge.
If you want a complete flyer on the LibDems doing slightly better than expected, than can I suggest Bradford East?
I gather Lib Dems in Yorkshire are confident of holding all three seats - Hallam, Leeds NW and Bradford East.
If we want to make a trade treaty with an country outside the EU, we can't, we have to wait for endless negotiations with the EU to take place, and then follow the terms of that agreement with only minor input to them, rather than negotiating our own trade agreements
What a laughably facile "drawback". Is that really the best you can do?
Does it not occur to you that there might be countries who'd sign a free trade agreement with 27 countries in one go but who wouldn't bother doing so with just one?
When the "just one" is the world's sixth largest economy? Are you serious?
If we want to make a trade treaty with an country outside the EU, we can't, we have to wait for endless negotiations with the EU to take place, and then follow the terms of that agreement with only minor input to them, rather than negotiating our own trade agreements
What a laughably facile "drawback". Is that really the best you can do?
Does it not occur to you that there might be countries who'd sign a free trade agreement with 27 countries in one go but who wouldn't bother doing so with just one?
It's a wonder the USA does any trade with anyone.
You really are scraping the barrel.
Arrange these potential trading partners in order of economic significance:
1/ the UK 2/ the UK plus the rest of the EU 3/ the USA?
You are both arguing that if we and 26 other people all want to buy an item, and we could collectively negotiate a bulk price with the supplier for 27 of them, we are somehow disadvantaged by doing so, because we lose the opportunity to negotiate a worse price bilaterally for just one such item. The other 26 then go on and get the better deal we could have had.
It confirms the total and utter nuttiness of the UKIP worldview.
No it doesn't.
Arrange these trading partners in order of economic significance:
Another triumph for social services. The boy they wanted to stay in the NHS hospital and essential die quietly is now pronounced cancer free after receiving treatment everyone swore would do him no good, and after jailing his parents for trying to take him to the treatment that has apparently saved his life.
Yes, best health service in the world
I have never said so. Its Mr BJO you want there and his fatuous report on how the NHS leads the world on filing cabinet usage and paper-clip consumption, and never mind the man behind the curtain trying to shred the patient outcomes (ie. not dying) figures.
Was not pointing at you , just the hypocrisy we get all the time about how great it is despite the constant scandals re them killing patients.
Hmm. Is this the same Richard Nabavi who said the only reason HMG should consider leaving the EU was if the City was endangered ?
I suppose we'll tell the other industries they should eat cake.
Depends how big the industries are. Car manufacturing is pretty big nowadays, and, yes, you are right in your implication: if we were to consider leaving the EU, the potential damage to car manufacturing would be an important consideration.
imo car manufacturing would gain if we left the EU.
Car manufacturing is about the same size as it's been for the last 20 years.
I still don't see why the City should get more favours than any other sector, especially when it's been the biggest bust to date.
Clearly it suits the Tories to talk up Salmond controlling Miliband, just as it suits Labour to talk up the Tories raising VAT.
One has a basis in fact, the other is just a groundless Labour smear....
Groundless in the sense that the last two times the Tories won an election they put up VAT after saying that they wouldn't?
In the same way that every Labour government has left office with a high national debt than when it came to power, and worse unemployment.
I would expect the Tories to make such points strongly.
The difference is one is a generic "competence" argument, the other is a specific accusation that they are continuing to make despite denials: i.e. they are claiming that the Tories have a ultra secret plan and are lying to the electorate about it.
You mean the way they denied it in 1992 and 2010?
Presumably, on the same basis we can expect the Tories not to claim that Labour will do stuff they have specifically denied they will do.
The Tories said they had 'no plans'. Certainly disingenious, but not possible to prove it was a lie.
How do you know it is a false accusation? Are you saying that as the Tories have denied it, it must be false? In which case, on the same basis you must agree that the Tories cannot run any attack lines relating to subjects on which Labour has issued denials.
I guess that Tories could run with the LDs made us put up VAT line. I am not sure how many folk would believe it, though.
I'm saying there's no evidence for it.
I could claim that Ed Miliband plans to charge mansion tax on housing starting from £1m.
Or that he will abolish Trident to do a deal with the SNP.
Both of which he has denied.
My view is that making shit up doesn't add much to political debate.
We all knew the Conservatives would put up VAT if elected in 2010 . I posted it on here several times in the run up to the election . I was not omniscient , I had just listened to all the news coming from Westminster .
What does that show? That they were considering how to reduce the deficit, and obviously raising VAT, income tax, NI, Corporation Tax, and Stamp Duty would all have been suggested as possible ways of increasing tax revenue. So what?
It shows that they were considering doing exactly what they did after the election.
No, it shows that a journalist wrote an article speculating that a Conservative government might do something. We'll never know if the speculation was correct because we didn't have a Conservative government.
Oh dear, Theresa May has decided she has to "do something" against "extremism". I recognise she's talking about Islamic extremism but that's not the only "extremism" out there, is it ? What qualifies as extremism - not supporting the Conservatives or Theresa May perhaps ?
Now we're going to have a "positive campaign to boost British values" ? Presumably that'll be the Thought Police making sure everyone is thinking good, positive, Conservative British values (whatever they might be). Maybe they can recruit young people to monitor what people say and do to make sure they are properly doing British things.
Apparently there will be "banning orders" for groups who aren't quite extreme enough to be called extreme. That presumably means the Labour Party, Liberal Democrats, UKIP, the Greens, the National Trust, the Scouts, the RAC etc, etc.
This is just sickening authoritarianism - whatever happened to "liberal conservatism" ? I now hope the Tories are slung out if this is the kind of language they use and the kind of measures they want.
Labour would probably do the same in office. It's authoritarian liberalism.
The law should be clear (but is increasingly blurred). Inciting the commission of criminal offences should a crime (as it is). Expressing extreme political opinions should not be. Nor should it be criminalised through the back door, by making such expression civil offences, backed up by criminal sanctions.
I'm one of those strange creatures that stands up when someone comes in the room, turns off/mutes the TV/Radio or Whatever and offers my seat. New visitors get a handshake, all visitors get a formal welcome across the threshold.
"Another triumph for social services. The boy they wanted to stay in the NHS hospital and essential die quietly is now pronounced cancer free after receiving treatment everyone swore would do him no good, and after jailing his parents for trying to take him to the treatment that has apparently saved his life."
Another moronic comment from Indigo. . The chances of a cure for his tumour using the method in operation at Southampton Hospital was 78%. Why don't you restrict yourself of to talking about things you have some knowledge of.
What does that show? That they were considering how to reduce the deficit, and obviously raising VAT, income tax, NI, Corporation Tax, and Stamp Duty would all have been suggested as possible ways of increasing tax revenue. So what?
It shows that they were considering doing exactly what they did after the election.
No, it shows that a journalist wrote an article speculating that a Conservative government might do something. We'll never know if the speculation was correct because we didn't have a Conservative government.
Sorry Richard you are simply being disingenuous , simply fezz up for once and admit that your party misled the electorate in the run up to 2010 .
What does that show? That they were considering how to reduce the deficit, and obviously raising VAT, income tax, NI, Corporation Tax, and Stamp Duty would all have been suggested as possible ways of increasing tax revenue. So what?
It shows that they were considering doing exactly what they did after the election.
No, it shows that a journalist wrote an article speculating that a Conservative government might do something. We'll never know if the speculation was correct because we didn't have a Conservative government.
Sure. But we do know that Tory chancellors have raised VAT following the last two elections in which the Tories have ended up in government, despite the Tories denying they were planning to do it before those elections. It is perfectly legitimate for Labour to suggest that it will happen a third time - especially as the Tories have not been clear about where their planned cuts are going to fall during the next Parliament.
If it is not legitimate because the Tories have denied it, then it is not legitimate for the Tories to claim that Labour will do things that they have denied they will do.
Another triumph for social services. The boy they wanted to stay in the NHS hospital and essential die quietly is now pronounced cancer free after receiving treatment everyone swore would do him no good, and after jailing his parents for trying to take him to the treatment that has apparently saved his life.
Yes, best health service in the world
I have never said so. Its Mr BJO you want there and his fatuous report on how the NHS leads the world on filing cabinet usage and paper-clip consumption, and never mind the man behind the curtain trying to shred the patient outcomes (ie. not dying) figures.
Was not pointing at you , just the hypocrisy we get all the time about how great it is despite the constant scandals re them killing patients.
Yes, it's nonsense.
Any minute now someone will be along to tell us all how it's much more expensive in America and we can't afford to spend that much money. Because clearly the health provision in the other 190+ countries in the world have nothing to teach us. They can't help it, its a reflex action, rather like Labour trying to tell us how every government cut is going to cost the jobs of X teachers or Y nurses, because obviously those are the only professions the government employs.
"Another triumph for social services. The boy they wanted to stay in the NHS hospital and essential die quietly is now pronounced cancer free after receiving treatment everyone swore would do him no good, and after jailing his parents for trying to take him to the treatment that has apparently saved his life."
Another moronic comment from Indigo. . The chances of a cure for his tumour using the method in operation at Southampton Hospital was 78%. Why don't you restrict yourself of to talking about things you have some knowledge of.
Why don't you restrict yourself of to talking about things you have some knowledge of
shit Roger if we all took that advice threads would be about 2 posts long and last a week.
imo car manufacturing would gain if we left the EU.
Car manufacturing is about the same size as it's been for the last 20 years.
I still don't see why the City should get more favours than any other sector, especially when it's been the biggest bust to date.
It shouldn't get any 'favours', but it is our most important industry so clearly we have to be very wary of anything which would damage it.
I'd be surprised if car manufacturing wouldn't be damaged, and potentially quite severely, if we left the EU. Of course it would depend on exactly what trade deal we negotiated with our EU friends; no doubt we'd immediately sign straight back in to EU Type Approvals, and it wouldn't be hard to negotiate zero tariffs. But I'd be concerned at the medium-term risk all the same, given the very tight cross-border integration of the supply chain nowadays. I'd have thought non-tariff barriers would be the potential danger point.
Another triumph for social services. The boy they wanted to stay in the NHS hospital and essential die quietly is now pronounced cancer free after receiving treatment everyone swore would do him no good, and after jailing his parents for trying to take him to the treatment that has apparently saved his life.
Yes, best health service in the world
I have never said so. Its Mr BJO you want there and his fatuous report on how the NHS leads the world on filing cabinet usage and paper-clip consumption, and never mind the man behind the curtain trying to shred the patient outcomes (ie. not dying) figures.
Was not pointing at you , just the hypocrisy we get all the time about how great it is despite the constant scandals re them killing patients.
Yes, it's nonsense.
Any minute now someone will be along to tell us all how it's much more expensive in America and we can't afford to spend that much money. Because clearly the health provision in the other 190+ countries in the world have nothing to teach us. They can't help it, its a reflex action, rather like Labour trying to tell us how every government cut is going to cost the jobs of X teachers or Y nurses, because obviously those are the only professions the government employs.
We all knew the Conservatives would put up VAT if elected in 2010 . I posted it on here several times in the run up to the election . I was not omniscient , I had just listened to all the news coming from Westminster .
I assumed the same, because of the use of the phrase "no plans to do so", which is about as obvious as you "you might think so, I couldn't possibly comment".
But where is the evidence to back up the accusation? If the Tories had used the same phrase as last time, it would have been all over the press.
Comments
But the 5th (6th?) largest economy in the world is a rather different matter.
How big will the Tory victory be in 2020 or earlier if Ed gets in propped up by the Nats ?
400 seats possible ?
Otherwise Cameron would turn around and say `You are not in the opposition debates either mate,why are you running scared?`
Hasn`t been seen for days.
He is normally on TV atleast 3 times a day disrupting my meals.
Even if they are not, Bennett would be well advised to know what is going to be in it.
edit: but the point is Labour is saying they "will increase VAT". That's an accusation with no basis in fact - precedent is not everything. Even the "death tax" line the Tories used last time was based in a malicious interpretation of a reasonably thoughtful position paper by Labour
1/ the UK
2/ the UK plus the rest of the EU
3/ the USA?
You are both arguing that if we and 26 other people all want to buy an item, and we could collectively negotiate a bulk price with the supplier for 27 of them, we are somehow disadvantaged by doing so, because we lose the opportunity to negotiate a worse price bilaterally for just one such item. The other 26 then go on and get the better deal we could have had.
It confirms the total and utter nuttiness of the UKIP worldview.
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/international/its-always-the-same-with-these-bureaucratic-cash-targets/
2/3 of the International Aid budget is going to large multilateral organisations such as the EU and UN where it doesn't get spent - but just sits there waiting a place to go. And we're borrowing to do this. FFS!
The Stewart Hosie interview on Daily Politics was captioned "SNP Threat" for it's entirety. The BBC bias isn't even subtle now.
Don't let Sunil's mum know you watch TV at the table - she'll have your guts for garters
James Cook (@JamesLiamCook)
23/03/2015 12:13
This covers all the outrage bases - Green Party Candidate in Sick Nazi Cancer Slur guyfawk.es/1GKnJrQ via @GuidoFawkes
Now imagine where we'd be if we had a government which could get the hang of this supporting industry to grow.
They could reasonably challenge the Tories to say they won't, but that's not what they did.
And as @RichardNabavi pointed out, it was a tory pledge vs. a Coalition increase
Ed Miliband gets to firm up the base if it's him against Farage. He would have a lot to fear from being shown up against the Greens, but Bennett isn't very good.
I can't comment on how it'll play in Scotland, where they'll presumably show the Scotland-related clips.
How about, sensible energy prices, reduced regulation, a BIS which secures major inverstments, a functioning banking sector, competitive capital allowances, some more import susbtitution, improved R&D allowances, a functioning education system.
Just a thought.
I can see the point of aid, where it benefits Britain, or where it is helping the incredibly poor.
But just handing the money over the World Bank makes absolutely no sense.
As far as Cameron is concerned he should take absolutely nothing for granted and prepare for these debates like he's up against Abraham Lincoln.
The TV coverage annoyed me a bit about Afzal I must say, trying to make out Dudley North was a key seat for the Conservatives...
If they take Dudley North then it means UKIP has been smashed to smithereens and the Conservatives are looking at about 350+ seats.
Not a key seat for the Tories at all !
Some are more equal than others.
I guess that Tories could run with the LDs made us put up VAT line. I am not sure how many folk would believe it, though.
How about, sensible energy prices, reduced regulation, a BIS which secures major inverstments, a functioning banking sector, competitive capital allowances, some more import susbtitution, improved R&D allowances, a functioning education system.
Just a thought.
- Sensible energy prices - fracking would have helped. They've also made some moves towards eliminating onshore wind subsidies. But tough when you have a fluffy running the relevant department
- Reduced regulation. Some has been done: not enough. Address your complaints to Mr. Vince Cable, Most Disappointing Cabinet Minister, LibDem Headquarters
- BIS which secures major investments: there was the Ford example in ?Liverpool that worked quite well
- Functioning banking sector: always a 10 year project. But if you know where to look it's ok. Have you called Handelsbanken yet?
- Competitive capital allowances: not my sector, so don't know. But they've been very goon on R&D allowances
- Import substitution: consumers, not governments, make that choice
- Functioning education system: Gove's reforms are a good step in the right direction, but never something that can be turned around in just 5 years
Mr Alanbrooke, your expectations are unreasonable. Remind me never to believe your business plan when you try to sell me a company
I could claim that Ed Miliband plans to charge mansion tax on housing starting from £1m.
Or that he will abolish Trident to do a deal with the SNP.
Both of which he has denied.
My view is that making shit up doesn't add much to political debate.
Now it will be a keenly watched one because it has a prospective Prime Minister in it.
My prediction is it will have more viewers than the Jeremy Paxman interview on the 26th.
I suppose we'll tell the other industries they should eat cake.
'IF it happened...'
After all, we know that the presence of the LibDems had a big impact. Nick Clegg, no less, has told us so.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32013794
Oh dear, Theresa May has decided she has to "do something" against "extremism". I recognise she's talking about Islamic extremism but that's not the only "extremism" out there, is it ? What qualifies as extremism - not supporting the Conservatives or Theresa May perhaps ?
Now we're going to have a "positive campaign to boost British values" ? Presumably that'll be the Thought Police making sure everyone is thinking good, positive, Conservative British values (whatever they might be). Maybe they can recruit young people to monitor what people say and do to make sure they are properly doing British things.
Apparently there will be "banning orders" for groups who aren't quite extreme enough to be called extreme. That presumably means the Labour Party, Liberal Democrats, UKIP, the Greens, the National Trust, the Scouts, the RAC etc, etc.
This is just sickening authoritarianism - whatever happened to "liberal conservatism" ? I now hope the Tories are slung out if this is the kind of language they use and the kind of measures they want.
One has a basis in fact, the other is just a groundless Labour smear....
Groundless in the sense that the last two times the Tories won an election they put up VAT after saying that they wouldn't?
In the same way that every Labour government has left office with a high national debt than when it came to power, and worse unemployment.
I would expect the Tories to make such points strongly.
The difference is one is a generic "competence" argument, the other is a specific accusation that they are continuing to make despite denials: i.e. they are claiming that the Tories have a ultra secret plan and are lying to the electorate about it.
You mean the way they denied it in 1992 and 2010?
Presumably, on the same basis we can expect the Tories not to claim that Labour will do stuff they have specifically denied they will do.
The Tories said they had 'no plans'. Certainly disingenious, but not possible to prove it was a lie.
Sure, but given what was said before these GEs and what happened afterwards, it's a legitimate line of attack. The alternative is that if Labour denies something, the Tories would just accept that too.
It's not, though. It's a false accusation.
They could reasonably challenge the Tories to say they won't, but that's not what they did.
And as @RichardNabavi pointed out, it was a tory pledge vs. a Coalition increase
How do you know it is a false accusation? Are you saying that as the Tories have denied it, it must be false? In which case, on the same basis you must agree that the Tories cannot run any attack lines relating to subjects on which Labour has issued denials.
I guess that Tories could run with the LDs made us put up VAT line. I am not sure how many folk would believe it, though.
I'm saying there's no evidence for it.
I could claim that Ed Miliband plans to charge mansion tax on housing starting from £1m.
Or that he will abolish Trident to do a deal with the SNP.
Both of which he has denied.
My view is that making shit up doesn't add much to political debate.
I agree. But all parties do it. The Tories, for example, are claiming that a Labour government would be in Alex Salmond's pocket. Labour has denied this. Therefore, the Tories should stop making the claim, shouldn't they?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/5996163/Tories-study-plans-for-20-VAT.html
https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/579987463181086720
- Reduced regulation. Some has been done: not enough. Address your complaints to Mr. Vince Cable, Most Disappointing Cabinet Minister, LibDem Headquarters
- BIS which secures major investments: there was the Ford example in ?Liverpool that worked quite well
- Functioning banking sector: always a 10 year project. But if you know where to look it's ok. Have you called Handelsbanken yet?
- Competitive capital allowances: not my sector, so don't know. But they've been very goon on R&D allowances
- Import substitution: consumers, not governments, make that choice
- Functioning education system: Gove's reforms are a good step in the right direction, but never something that can be turned around in just 5 years
Mr Alanbrooke, your expectations are unreasonable. Remind me never to believe your business plan when you try to sell me a company
Charles, where do I start. You just miss the scale of what we have to do and the longer we put it off the higher the climb.
As an aside I was pissing myself laughing at some dorky green professor on R4 who suddenly had worked out that pricing our businesses out of energy meant the work moved to places where they didn't give a shit about our environmental standards and caused even more pollution by opening up more coal power stations.
Miliband has avoided ruling out a deal with the SNP on multiple occasions.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3007489/Ed-Miliband-f-ing-knob-costs-Labour-votes-country-blasts-one-MPs.html
Labour need more people like Danczuk.
Arrange these trading partners in order of economic significance:
1. Korea
2. UK
3. Mexico
Edit: Indigo got there first.
Car manufacturing is about the same size as it's been for the last 20 years.
I still don't see why the City should get more favours than any other sector, especially when it's been the biggest bust to date.
The law should be clear (but is increasingly blurred). Inciting the commission of criminal offences should a crime (as it is). Expressing extreme political opinions should not be. Nor should it be criminalised through the back door, by making such expression civil offences, backed up by criminal sanctions.
If any of them are vampires - I'm buggered.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/children/11489212/Brain-tumour-boy-Ashya-King-is-free-of-cancer-parents-say.html
"Another triumph for social services. The boy they wanted to stay in the NHS hospital and essential die quietly is now pronounced cancer free after receiving treatment everyone swore would do him no good, and after jailing his parents for trying to take him to the treatment that has apparently saved his life."
Another moronic comment from Indigo. . The chances of a cure for his tumour using the method in operation at Southampton Hospital was 78%. Why don't you restrict yourself of to talking about things you have some knowledge of.
If it is not legitimate because the Tories have denied it, then it is not legitimate for the Tories to claim that Labour will do things that they have denied they will do.
Any minute now someone will be along to tell us all how it's much more expensive in America and we can't afford to spend that much money. Because clearly the health provision in the other 190+ countries in the world have nothing to teach us. They can't help it, its a reflex action, rather like Labour trying to tell us how every government cut is going to cost the jobs of X teachers or Y nurses, because obviously those are the only professions the government employs.
shit Roger if we all took that advice threads would be about 2 posts long and last a week.
I'd be surprised if car manufacturing wouldn't be damaged, and potentially quite severely, if we left the EU. Of course it would depend on exactly what trade deal we negotiated with our EU friends; no doubt we'd immediately sign straight back in to EU Type Approvals, and it wouldn't be hard to negotiate zero tariffs. But I'd be concerned at the medium-term risk all the same, given the very tight cross-border integration of the supply chain nowadays. I'd have thought non-tariff barriers would be the potential danger point.
But where is the evidence to back up the accusation? If the Tories had used the same phrase as last time, it would have been all over the press.