Just seen that Lucy Powell interview with Andrew Neil - I don't want to be mean, but is she always that poor? She seems to try to pre-empt the standard questioner tactic of interrupting the politician to demand an answer (or a clearer answer) by countering and insisting she is answering it and to let her finish, before they even interrupt and even when they have been clear they will be getting on to the context she is so keen on (eg, they are asking about tax increases, and stated they will talk about all the prongs of the three prong approach, but she still gets petulant they want her to talk about tax increases and not the other prongs).
When I see things like that, I wonder how anyone can seriously claim any party has a monopoly or even more of a predisposition toward not answering questions and obfuscation tactics than another.
Given that employment is at a record high, how can Labour claim it will ‘increase the tax base’? God knows that the UK economy has its problems, but lack of workers (or the ‘tax base’ as she calls it) is not one of them. Increasing the tax base ‘has not happened under the Tories’, she said......The number of people working and paying tax has grown more under the Cameron than any recent Prime Minister
She also got into trouble on zero hour contracts - a third on them don't want more hours, 17% are students.....and the number of people on them hasn't increased.....so she resorted to 'in the real world'.....where 'facts' are replaced by 'truth'.....
Labour had better own this, rather than losing their nerve yet again and claiming they wouldn't borrow more / cut less than the Tories atall (which would lead to the inevitable question of "why vote Labour if they're not going to be different to the Tories?").
Fox Cameron will certainly want a hefty income after No 10 even if he does not go in for Blair-style globetrotting
Why? He and the missus are loaded anyway aren't they through their families?
True, but even when people are loaded that doesn't seem to reduce their desire to earn plenty more.
On PMs after office, with younger and younger PMs, I guess it'll become more and more of an issue. Being PM more of a resume thing thesedays perhaps, in an age of increasing global institutions. The EU loves former PMs to work for it I believe. Sends a nice subordinate message.
Given that employment is at a record high, how can Labour claim it will ‘increase the tax base’? God knows that the UK economy has its problems, but lack of workers (or the ‘tax base’ as she calls it) is not one of them. Increasing the tax base ‘has not happened under the Tories’, she said......The number of people working and paying tax has grown more under the Cameron than any recent Prime Minister
She also got into trouble on zero hour contracts - a third on them don't want more hours, 17% are students.....and the number of people on them hasn't increased.....so she resorted to 'in the real world'.....where 'facts' are replaced by 'truth'.....
Can we call her Lucy please? "Powell" infers a politician of immense logic & foresight
Interesting that the campaign is effectively 1 or 2 weeks longer than last time, depending on how you look at it. Brown went to the Palace on 6th April, Parliament dissolved on the 12th.
Punters might recall there was a move to the Opposition in the days running up to the firing of the starting gun, followed by a sharp move back to the Government immediately thereafter...
I've just taken the 19/1 on labour beating the tories and coming 2nd in clacton.
It's not likely, but not 19/1 either.
Who is doing odds on second places? Could be interesting....
It's the sporting index constituency markets.
2nd place settles at 10, so divide 10 by the buy price and you have your decimal odds.
Labour are 0-0.5 in clacton = 19/1 to come second (more likely than 5% IMO) & a free bet at 49/1 to win (much less likely than 2% IMO)
Thanks, though I haven't got an account with SI. I have betfair, WH, Ladbrokes and PP.
I would struggle to keep track of more. Who else has good politics markets. I only bet on politics and football, and eurovision of course.
bet365 is very competitive as regards footy (and tennis) betting - the owning family also own Stoke City F.C. Also right now their UNDER 287.5 seats for the Tories at odds of 10/11 is the most generous in that particular market: http://www.bet365.com/home/FlashGen4/WebConsoleApp.asp?lng=1&cb=1088177440
Just watched the interview where Lucy Powell put Andrew Neil in his place.
The best thing Ed did was to bring Lucy Powell into his office.
This no-nonsense woman probably saved Ed`s career when 3 months ago there was a clamour for his resignation after the New Statesman declared Labour couldn`t win with Ed.
It was obvious to anyone in Primary School that she wasn't answering Andrew Neil's questions and her numbers didn't stack up.
If she was honest and straightforward she would have said:
"Yes Andrew - your numbers are right - we do not propose any significant tax rises or any significant spending cuts. We will reduce the deficit through economic growth. The deficit is only £75bn this year (2015/16) - with economic growth alone we can probably reduce it by approx £10bn per year - so in Year 5 it will be down to approx £35bn - which we reckon is OK".
I know at least one regular Lab supporting poster on here who would be delighted with the above approach!
Who knows - maybe that's what they'll do! I wouldn't personally support that approach but maybe they'll follow this approach, muddle through, and it'll work out reasonably OK?
I agree. I think that would have been a better approach.
Given that employment is at a record high, how can Labour claim it will ‘increase the tax base’? God knows that the UK economy has its problems, but lack of workers (or the ‘tax base’ as she calls it) is not one of them. Increasing the tax base ‘has not happened under the Tories’, she said......The number of people working and paying tax has grown more under the Cameron than any recent Prime Minister
She also got into trouble on zero hour contracts - a third on them don't want more hours, 17% are students.....and the number of people on them hasn't increased.....so she resorted to 'in the real world'.....where 'facts' are replaced by 'truth'.....
Trouble with making a case over zero hours contracts is that when they are good they suit both sides. When they are bad they represent exploitation of weaker employees.
"Isn't Dan Hodges due to streak down Whitehall if UKIP poll double digits"
....and if Labour gets more seats apparently. It doesn't look like we've got much chance of Dan Hodges keeping his clothes on
Most seats? What was he thinking? Even if he thought and still thinks the Tories will win most seats, the odds on Lab most seats was surely too possible to risk.
I am going to have a bet on the Lib Dems being wiped out totally in Wales. They have nothing like the Northern Isles in Wales to keep their flag flying. I would like to see the Lib Dems wiped out in Scotland but it wont happen because they will cling on like limpets in the Northern Isles. I will have a fun bet on PC having 5 seats once the votes are counted.
I don't think Ceredigion's anywhere as safe as assumed.
I am going to have a bet on the Lib Dems being wiped out totally in Wales. They have nothing like the Northern Isles in Wales to keep their flag flying. I would like to see the Lib Dems wiped out in Scotland but it wont happen because they will cling on like limpets in the Northern Isles. I will have a fun bet on PC having 5 seats once the votes are counted.
I don't think Ceredigion's anywhere as safe as assumed.
I was considering a nibble on Plaid gaining that a while back, but the 2011 Welsh Assembly result put me off (there was actually a swing TO the Lib Dems in that seat, amid the carnage elsewhere).
I thought she was OK. Neil is very bullying like most old fashioned Tory interviewers. They're particularly bad with women. Her point that workers were working for so little they aren't earning enough to pay tax and by getting them to be paid more would increase the tax take struck me as a good if obvious point
Just watched the interview where Lucy Powell put Andrew Neil in his place.
The best thing Ed did was to bring Lucy Powell into his office.
This no-nonsense woman probably saved Ed`s career when 3 months ago there was a clamour for his resignation after the New Statesman declared Labour couldn`t win with Ed.
It was obvious to anyone in Primary School that she wasn't answering Andrew Neil's questions and her numbers didn't stack up.
If she was honest and straightforward she would have said:
"Yes Andrew - your numbers are right - we do not propose any significant tax rises or any significant spending cuts. We will reduce the deficit through economic growth. The deficit is only £75bn this year (2015/16) - with economic growth alone we can probably reduce it by approx £10bn per year - so in Year 5 it will be down to approx £35bn - which we reckon is OK".
I know at least one regular Lab supporting poster on here who would be delighted with the above approach!
Who knows - maybe that's what they'll do! I wouldn't personally support that approach but maybe they'll follow this approach, muddle through, and it'll work out reasonably OK?
I agree. I think that would have been a better approach.
Current expenditure £743b (incl £35b interest payments which is much less than most households as a %) Current income £667b. Deficit £76b.
If income grows at 2.5%pa, it will be £755b in 5 years time. If expenditure is held constant, it will be £743b in 5 years time - a £12b surplus.
If the NHS cost of £141b is allowed to grow at 2.5%pa it will be £159b in 5 years time, using up the surplus.
This is not an insuperable problem.
In all seriousness, I think this is what Lab is actually going to TRY and do. I emphasise TRY - it may work, it may won't.
All I would add to your numbers is that some other areas of expenditure surely also have to rise - ie Debt interest (as total debt in pounds will still be rising) and Pensions (due to both triple lock and more older people). I don't think either of those two areas can be avoided.
But they COULD still do it. Reducing the deficit by £10bn per year is not that much.
Given that employment is at a record high, how can Labour claim it will ‘increase the tax base’? God knows that the UK economy has its problems, but lack of workers (or the ‘tax base’ as she calls it) is not one of them. Increasing the tax base ‘has not happened under the Tories’, she said......The number of people working and paying tax has grown more under the Cameron than any recent Prime Minister
She also got into trouble on zero hour contracts - a third on them don't want more hours, 17% are students.....and the number of people on them hasn't increased.....so she resorted to 'in the real world'.....where 'facts' are replaced by 'truth'.....
Labour's entire approach seems to be based on the idea that the voters are a bit simple, especially theirs.
Revealing glimpse of the "socialist paradise" of Venezuela on BBC2 at the moment.
A trillion dollars of oil money in, all to show for it, a disaster zone. But its ok, you can fill your car 2 or 3 times a week for the whole year for a few $'s. Just if you need to wipe your ass, you won't be able to get any bog roll.
I thought she was OK. Neil is very bullying like most old fashioned Tory interviewers. They're particularly bad with women.
Neil can be a bit bullying, but she leaped into an attitude as though she was being bullied and how dare he before he even started to do so, which just made her look paranoid and rambling to me, and far more evasive and shifty as a result.
Great to see my betting on Betfair exchange LAB most seats now in profit. Should I cash out now or will it get better?
Mike- that is very unlike you angling for general advice on a market like this. I too am well in profit on this market- it would be much more suitable if I asked your advice on this- I have set myself a betting limit for 2015- all my money is presently tied, so I need to free some up to go for better value bets. BTW- I would be hugely disappointed if I didn't at least double my initial sum at the end of the election such are the possibilities with a close election.
Anyone who suggests that one way of seriously reducing the deficit is by trimming Ministerial salaries as Lucy Powell did today, and Ed Balls also mentioned recently, are deserving of abject ridicule. The resulting annual savings would equate to what is spent in the tiniest fraction of one nano-second.
Great to see my betting on Betfair exchange LAB most seats now in profit. Should I cash out now or will it get better?
Mike- that is very unlike you angling for general advice on a market like this. I too am well in profit on this market- it would be much more suitable if I asked your advice on this- I have set myself a betting limit for 2015- all my money is presently tied, so I need to free some up to go for better value bets. BTW- I would be hugely disappointed if I didn't at least double my initial sum at the end of the election such are the possibilities with a close election.
He might have been teasing us if he had an embargoed copy of the upcoming poll.
"I am going to have a bet on the Lib Dems being wiped out totally in Wales."
Funny the only real sense I've got about this election is that the Lib Dems are going to beat expectations by quite a bit.
Roger- as much you are pbCOM's voice of eloquent reason, your political predictions are notoriously poor (Oscars aside of course) I think your feeling here is quite wrong. I think the LD's are going to do really terribly, like less than 25 total seats terribly.
Just watched the interview where Lucy Powell put Andrew Neil in his place.
The best thing Ed did was to bring Lucy Powell into his office.
This no-nonsense woman probably saved Ed`s career when 3 months ago there was a clamour for his resignation after the New Statesman declared Labour couldn`t win with Ed.
It was obvious to anyone in Primary School that she wasn't answering Andrew Neil's questions and her numbers didn't stack up.
If she was honest and straightforward she would have said:
"Yes Andrew - your numbers are right - we do not propose any significant tax rises or any significant spending cuts. We will reduce the deficit through economic growth. The deficit is only £75bn this year (2015/16) - with economic growth alone we can probably reduce it by approx £10bn per year - so in Year 5 it will be down to approx £35bn - which we reckon is OK".
I know at least one regular Lab supporting poster on here who would be delighted with the above approach!
Who knows - maybe that's what they'll do! I wouldn't personally support that approach but maybe they'll follow this approach, muddle through, and it'll work out reasonably OK?
I agree. I think that would have been a better approach.
Current expenditure £743b (incl £35b interest payments which is much less than most households as a %) Current income £667b. Deficit £76b.
If income grows at 2.5%pa, it will be £755b in 5 years time. If expenditure is held constant, it will be £743b in 5 years time - a £12b surplus.
If the NHS cost of £141b is allowed to grow at 2.5%pa it will be £159b in 5 years time, using up the surplus.
This is not an insuperable problem.
In all seriousness, I think this is what Lab is actually going to TRY and do. I emphasise TRY - it may work, it may won't.
All I would add to your numbers is that some other areas of expenditure surely also have to rise - ie Debt interest (as total debt in pounds will still be rising) and Pensions (due to both triple lock and more older people). I don't think either of those two areas can be avoided.
But they COULD still do it. Reducing the deficit by £10bn per year is not that much.
Mike - we are in agreement including your point about the pension triple lock and debt interest .
Anyone who suggests that one way of seriously reducing the deficit is by trimming Ministerial salaries as Lucy Powell did today, and Ed Balls also mentioned recently, are deserving of abject ridicule. The resulting annual savings would equate to what is spent in the tiniest fraction of one nano-second.
It's that kind of policy making (taking us for fools) that really puts me off politics. Cameron's announcement yesterday about 24/7 health care by 2020 if The Tories win the election was simply mind boggingly, manipulatively, conniving and hamfisted too.
Hodges should man up. If you are going to make a career out of being a political shock jock you should admit when you get it horribly wrong.
Surely the key to being a political shock is to never admit when you get it horribly wrong, or at least don't let it affect your ability to make wild predictions in the same vein in future, and for some reason people don't seem to care how wrong you were. You're selling your views, not your prognostication abilities, even if you make the attempt, and admit you're wrong or not, you can still hold on to that niche.
Actually, when he gets away from the one note anti-Ed stuff, he seems able to make some decent points.
"I am going to have a bet on the Lib Dems being wiped out totally in Wales."
Funny the only real sense I've got about this election is that the Lib Dems are going to beat expectations by quite a bit.
I really do hope, Roger, that you are right.
Based on the "PB Absolute Theory of Rogerdamus" I fear the LibDems are doomed I tell ye .... Do yer hear me OldKingCole .... Doomed !!
Haha Rogerdamus- the great foreseer of all things. I love Roger's political predictions- they are as reliable as your ARSE as pbCOM's mainstay political bell weathers.
Hodges should man up. If you are going to make a career out of being a political shock jock you should admit when you get it horribly wrong.
He still hasn't come to terms with telling the world David Miliband had won the leadership election 24 hours before the result. Then again, he was due a job if he had won,so it was wishful thinking.
Anyone who suggests that one way of seriously reducing the deficit is by trimming Ministerial salaries as Lucy Powell did today, and Ed Balls also mentioned recently, are deserving of abject ridicule. The resulting annual savings would equate to what is spent in the tiniest fraction of one nano-second.
It's that kind of policy making (taking us for fools) that really puts me off politics. Cameron's announcement yesterday about 24/7 health care by 2020 if The Tories win the election was simply mind boggingly, manipulatively, conniving and hamfisted too.
"Cameron's announcement yesterday about 24/7 health care by 2020 ... was simply mind boggingly, manipulatively, conniving and hamfisted"
Being the 2105 Nick Clegg isn't something to aim for though, that would be a curse on her Party. Clegg performed worse than Kennedy as leader at a GE. Well worse in seats won.
Anyone who suggests that one way of seriously reducing the deficit is by trimming Ministerial salaries as Lucy Powell did today, and Ed Balls also mentioned recently, are deserving of abject ridicule. The resulting annual savings would equate to what is spent in the tiniest fraction of one nano-second.
It's that kind of policy making (taking us for fools) that really puts me off politics. Cameron's announcement yesterday about 24/7 health care by 2020 if The Tories win the election was simply mind boggingly, manipulatively, conniving and hamfisted too.
Not least because smaller DGHs would not have the staff to do so. If it is required, then it means either closure or a takeover by big city teaching hospital, with 7 days being delivered centrally for a population of a couple of million or more.
Being the 2105 Nick Clegg isn't something to aim for though, that would be a curse on her Party. Clegg performed worse than Kennedy as leader at a GE. Well worse in seats won.
Judging by your username, I suspect we are going to have some very interesting contributions from you re: Scotland!
Anyone who suggests that one way of seriously reducing the deficit is by trimming Ministerial salaries as Lucy Powell did today, and Ed Balls also mentioned recently, are deserving of abject ridicule. The resulting annual savings would equate to what is spent in the tiniest fraction of one nano-second.
It's that kind of policy making (taking us for fools) that really puts me off politics. Cameron's announcement yesterday about 24/7 health care by 2020 if The Tories win the election was simply mind boggingly, manipulatively, conniving and hamfisted too.
You realise that is what the NHS bods themselves have programmed in to their future vision for the NHS.
How they (or the Tories or Labour) would find the resources for that I have no idea. The Tories were simply trying to claim credit for doing something the NHS bosses has already said they aim to do regardless of who is in government.
I'll go for UKIP recovering to 13% with them. Conservative lead of 1.
The comment sounds at the sober emd of the "interesting" to "amazing" range, so I'd guess a lead for either side of 1.
Nick - The term "worth tuning in for", although an obvious tease, doesn't sound like the stuff of 1% leads. More like 3% if I had to hazard a guess, but I wouldn't like to predict in who's favour. Most probably Labour's judging by their 4% lead as reported by YouGov for The Sunday Times last night. This is the first such ComRes poll on a Sunday evening for the Mail - it would seem that these are likely to appear twice weekly from hereon.
"I am going to have a bet on the Lib Dems being wiped out totally in Wales."
Funny the only real sense I've got about this election is that the Lib Dems are going to beat expectations by quite a bit.
I really do hope, Roger, that you are right.
Based on the "PB Absolute Theory of Rogerdamus" I fear the LibDems are doomed I tell ye .... Do yer hear me OldKingCole .... Doomed !!
Haha Rogerdamus- the great foreseer of all things. I love Roger's political predictions- they are as reliable as your ARSE as pbCOM's mainstay political bell weathers.
While I hope Roger is right, I fear that he is not! I have much more confidence in Jack's ARSE!
I'll go for UKIP recovering to 13% with them. Conservative lead of 1.
The comment sounds at the sober emd of the "interesting" to "amazing" range, so I'd guess a lead for either side of 1.
Nick - The term "worth tuning in for", although an obvious tease, doesn't sound like the stuff of 1% leads. More like 3% if I had to hazard a guess, but I wouldn't like to predict in who's favour. Most probably Labour's judging by their 4% lead as reported by YouGov for The Sunday Times last night. This is the first such ComRes poll on a Sunday evening for the Mail - it would seem that these are likely to appear twice weekly from hereon.
It could be interesting in the context of the 4% poll, which nearly level pegging probably is. Still, I guess we're reading way too much into one tweet!
Anyone who suggests that one way of seriously reducing the deficit is by trimming Ministerial salaries as Lucy Powell did today, and Ed Balls also mentioned recently, are deserving of abject ridicule. The resulting annual savings would equate to what is spent in the tiniest fraction of one nano-second.
It's that kind of policy making (taking us for fools) that really puts me off politics. Cameron's announcement yesterday about 24/7 health care by 2020 if The Tories win the election was simply mind boggingly, manipulatively, conniving and hamfisted too.
Not least because smaller DGHs would not have the staff to do so. If it is required, then it means either closure or a takeover by big city teaching hospital, with 7 days being delivered centrally for a population of a couple of million or more.
It's not only the medical and nursing staff either. There ae whole load of other staff ..... pharmacy, laboratory staff ....... which will be needed
Anyone who suggests that one way of seriously reducing the deficit is by trimming Ministerial salaries as Lucy Powell did today, and Ed Balls also mentioned recently, are deserving of abject ridicule. The resulting annual savings would equate to what is spent in the tiniest fraction of one nano-second.
It's that kind of policy making (taking us for fools) that really puts me off politics. Cameron's announcement yesterday about 24/7 health care by 2020 if The Tories win the election was simply mind boggingly, manipulatively, conniving and hamfisted too.
Not least because smaller DGHs would not have the staff to do so. If it is required, then it means either closure or a takeover by big city teaching hospital, with 7 days being delivered centrally for a population of a couple of million or more.
fox- in my last job I had to force through changes to Medics contracts to make them accountable for 24 hour care (albeit on a limited rota), and I had the full force of god's wrath and fury poured on me from every conceivable angle. Happily I am out of dealing with all things NHS- but to suggest that we can provide 7 days a week care by 2020 is like suggesting that we will be able to colonise Mars by such date. In fact I think it would be an easier proposition to colonise Mars.
"I am going to have a bet on the Lib Dems being wiped out totally in Wales."
Funny the only real sense I've got about this election is that the Lib Dems are going to beat expectations by quite a bit.
I really do hope, Roger, that you are right.
Based on the "PB Absolute Theory of Rogerdamus" I fear the LibDems are doomed I tell ye .... Do yer hear me OldKingCole .... Doomed !!
Haha Rogerdamus- the great foreseer of all things. I love Roger's political predictions- they are as reliable as your ARSE as pbCOM's mainstay political bell weathers.
While I hope Roger is right, I fear that he is not! I have much more confidence in Jack's ARSE!
I fear both Jack and roger are too optimistic.
There is a lot of polling denial going on here re Lab seats, but also on LD retentions.
The LDs are polling single figures, with the lowest certainty to vote and most likely to change their minds.
Unless we have a repeat Cleggasm (not impossible on Thursday. Clegg is the most polished, and all that drama at school gives him a stage presence), we are looking at LDs in the teens of seats at best. I think the LD betting value is on the downside.
Aren't the Tories meant to be polling 4/5% ahead anyway according to the super computer calculations.
Another week down and another week closer to Ed being PM.
You could be right or with five and a half weeks to go you could just be counting chickens. For those of us who are old enough to remember the remarkable Major vs Kinnock outcome in 1992, I would advise the utmost caution.
Anyone who suggests that one way of seriously reducing the deficit is by trimming Ministerial salaries as Lucy Powell did today, and Ed Balls also mentioned recently, are deserving of abject ridicule. The resulting annual savings would equate to what is spent in the tiniest fraction of one nano-second.
It's that kind of policy making (taking us for fools) that really puts me off politics. Cameron's announcement yesterday about 24/7 health care by 2020 if The Tories win the election was simply mind boggingly, manipulatively, conniving and hamfisted too.
"Cameron's announcement yesterday about 24/7 health care by 2020 ... was simply mind boggingly, manipulatively, conniving and hamfisted"
Or if Labour had announced it ... brilliant.
I think I just said that I found Labour's tax ministerial proposals to be off putting to anyone with a modicum of intelligence and equated it to Cameron's NHS proposals.
"I am going to have a bet on the Lib Dems being wiped out totally in Wales."
Funny the only real sense I've got about this election is that the Lib Dems are going to beat expectations by quite a bit.
I really do hope, Roger, that you are right.
Based on the "PB Absolute Theory of Rogerdamus" I fear the LibDems are doomed I tell ye .... Do yer hear me OldKingCole .... Doomed !!
Haha Rogerdamus- the great foreseer of all things. I love Roger's political predictions- they are as reliable as your ARSE as pbCOM's mainstay political bell weathers.
While I hope Roger is right, I fear that he is not! I have much more confidence in Jack's ARSE!
I fear both Jack and roger are too optimistic.
How very dare you compare me to Roger.
I haven't so insulted since this morning when I was accused of being a "socialist"
Aren't the Tories meant to be polling 4/5% ahead anyway according to the super computer calculations.
Another week down and another week closer to Ed being PM.
You could be right or with five and a half weeks to go you could just be counting chickens. For those of us who are old enough to remember the remarkable Major vs Kinnock outcome in 1992, I would advise the utmost caution.
Aren't the Tories meant to be polling 4/5% ahead anyway according to the super computer calculations.
Another week down and another week closer to Ed being PM.
You could be right or with five and a half weeks to go you could just be counting chickens. For those of us who are old enough to remember the remarkable Major vs Kinnock outcome in 1992, I would advise the utmost caution.
Or even more recently Nitinyahu's contra poll victory last week.
Anyone who suggests that one way of seriously reducing the deficit is by trimming Ministerial salaries as Lucy Powell did today, and Ed Balls also mentioned recently, are deserving of abject ridicule. The resulting annual savings would equate to what is spent in the tiniest fraction of one nano-second.
It's that kind of policy making (taking us for fools) that really puts me off politics. Cameron's announcement yesterday about 24/7 health care by 2020 if The Tories win the election was simply mind boggingly, manipulatively, conniving and hamfisted too.
Not least because smaller DGHs would not have the staff to do so. If it is required, then it means either closure or a takeover by big city teaching hospital, with 7 days being delivered centrally for a population of a couple of million or more.
It's not only the medical and nursing staff either. There ae whole load of other staff ..... pharmacy, laboratory staff ....... which will be needed
I guess we'll probably end up with the medical equivalent of PCSO's - people who look and act like doctors & nurses, but work for minimum wage. They'll guide patients through a skype diagnosis with a real doctor sitting in Mumbai.
"I am going to have a bet on the Lib Dems being wiped out totally in Wales."
Funny the only real sense I've got about this election is that the Lib Dems are going to beat expectations by quite a bit.
I really do hope, Roger, that you are right.
Based on the "PB Absolute Theory of Rogerdamus" I fear the LibDems are doomed I tell ye .... Do yer hear me OldKingCole .... Doomed !!
Haha Rogerdamus- the great foreseer of all things. I love Roger's political predictions- they are as reliable as your ARSE as pbCOM's mainstay political bell weathers.
While I hope Roger is right, I fear that he is not! I have much more confidence in Jack's ARSE!
I fear both Jack and roger are too optimistic.
How very dare you compare me to Roger.
I haven't so insulted since this morning when I was accused of being a "socialist"
My apologies!; though I think your ARSE looks big in Yellow, much smaller in Tartan...
Anyone who suggests that one way of seriously reducing the deficit is by trimming Ministerial salaries as Lucy Powell did today, and Ed Balls also mentioned recently, are deserving of abject ridicule. The resulting annual savings would equate to what is spent in the tiniest fraction of one nano-second.
It's that kind of policy making (taking us for fools) that really puts me off politics. Cameron's announcement yesterday about 24/7 health care by 2020 if The Tories win the election was simply mind boggingly, manipulatively, conniving and hamfisted too.
"Cameron's announcement yesterday about 24/7 health care by 2020 ... was simply mind boggingly, manipulatively, conniving and hamfisted"
Or if Labour had announced it ... brilliant.
I think I just said that I found Labour's tax ministerial proposals to be off putting to anyone with a modicum of intelligence and equated it to Cameron's NHS proposals.
Sorry, I missed that.
Too much partisan BS cluttering my reading filter; makes me assume the worst.
OT For those who liked White Collar and Matt Bomer - I've just tripped across Chuck on Netflix, it's brilliant. I was hooked in the first 3 mins. James Bond meets Big Bang Theory.
Crickey have the unions defected :-) It is actually the bloke who owns Hull, and is extremely unpopular with the fans, because he wanted to change the name of the club.
With that statement, about porn in this instance, but really about not being sanctimonious in general, yet more evidence Danczuk doesn't really belong in Labour or the Conservatives, or at least not while being aligned with the front benches of either.
I like that the story warrants being written up by the 'Chief Political Correspondent'.
Locally I hear they think he is having a meltdown. An hour before he sold that story, he was still blaming his iphone. Despite his missus posting on twitter last night they watch it together.
OT For those who liked White Collar and Matt Bomer - I've just tripped across Chuck on Netflix, it's brilliant. I was hooked in the first 3 mins. James Bond meets Big Bang Theory.
Matt Bomer is not in it much however (presumably as he was doing White Collar at the time), people should be warned. I enjoyed it immensely for the first few seasons, but for some reason haven't watched it since it wrapped up. Maybe I should give it a rewatch. To Netflix!
Labour doners from business backgrounds complimenting Tories eh? Helps Labour's 'We're tough on business and they don't like that' narrative, and then after Labour win they'll probably be back to donate once again, so win win for Labour I guess.
Locally I hear they think he is having a meltdown. An hour before he sold that story, he was still blaming his iphone. Despite his missus posting on twitter last night they watch it together.
I know the local Labour party has no affinity for him, but I recon he's safe, what do you think?
Comments
When I see things like that, I wonder how anyone can seriously claim any party has a monopoly or even more of a predisposition toward not answering questions and obfuscation tactics than another.
Given that employment is at a record high, how can Labour claim it will ‘increase the tax base’? God knows that the UK economy has its problems, but lack of workers (or the ‘tax base’ as she calls it) is not one of them. Increasing the tax base ‘has not happened under the Tories’, she said......The number of people working and paying tax has grown more under the Cameron than any recent Prime Minister
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/03/lucy-powell-confirms-debt-addicted-labour-has-no-plans-to-balance-the-books/
She also got into trouble on zero hour contracts - a third on them don't want more hours, 17% are students.....and the number of people on them hasn't increased.....so she resorted to 'in the real world'.....where 'facts' are replaced by 'truth'.....
On PMs after office, with younger and younger PMs, I guess it'll become more and more of an issue. Being PM more of a resume thing thesedays perhaps, in an age of increasing global institutions. The EU loves former PMs to work for it I believe. Sends a nice subordinate message.
Punters might recall there was a move to the Opposition in the days running up to the firing of the starting gun, followed by a sharp move back to the Government immediately thereafter...
http://www.bet365.com/home/FlashGen4/WebConsoleApp.asp?lng=1&cb=1088177440
The numbers are in the red book page 5
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/416330/47881_Budget_2015_Web_Accessible.pdf
Current expenditure £743b (incl £35b interest payments which is much less than most households as a %)
Current income £667b.
Deficit £76b.
If income grows at 2.5%pa, it will be £755b in 5 years time.
If expenditure is held constant, it will be £743b in 5 years time - a £12b surplus.
If the NHS cost of £141b is allowed to grow at 2.5%pa it will be £159b in 5 years time, using up the surplus.
This is not an insuperable problem.
"Isn't Dan Hodges due to streak down Whitehall if UKIP poll double digits"
....and if Labour gets more seats apparently. It doesn't look like we've got much chance of Dan Hodges keeping his clothes on
"The Spectator scrutinises Powell's 'triumph':"
I thought she was OK. Neil is very bullying like most old fashioned Tory interviewers. They're particularly bad with women. Her point that workers were working for so little they aren't earning enough to pay tax and by getting them to be paid more would increase the tax take struck me as a good if obvious point
All I would add to your numbers is that some other areas of expenditure surely also have to rise - ie Debt interest (as total debt in pounds will still be rising) and Pensions (due to both triple lock and more older people). I don't think either of those two areas can be avoided.
But they COULD still do it. Reducing the deficit by £10bn per year is not that much.
A trillion dollars of oil money in, all to show for it, a disaster zone. But its ok, you can fill your car 2 or 3 times a week for the whole year for a few $'s. Just if you need to wipe your ass, you won't be able to get any bog roll.
"I am going to have a bet on the Lib Dems being wiped out totally in Wales."
Funny the only real sense I've got about this election is that the Lib Dems are going to beat expectations by quite a bit.
The resulting annual savings would equate to what is spent in the tiniest fraction of one nano-second.
130,000 seconds
He is screwed.
Actually, when he gets away from the one note anti-Ed stuff, he seems able to make some decent points.
"Cameron's announcement yesterday about 24/7 health care by 2020 ... was simply mind boggingly, manipulatively, conniving and hamfisted"
Or if Labour had announced it ... brilliant.
How they (or the Tories or Labour) would find the resources for that I have no idea. The Tories were simply trying to claim credit for doing something the NHS bosses has already said they aim to do regardless of who is in government.
This is the first such ComRes poll on a Sunday evening for the Mail - it would seem that these are likely to appear twice weekly from hereon.
Ed has fired up the base. That's going to most likely reflect in the polls.
Another week down and another week closer to Ed being PM.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32006329
Asda, Morrisons, etc, if Labour win on May 7th
There is a lot of polling denial going on here re Lab seats, but also on LD retentions.
The LDs are polling single figures, with the lowest certainty to vote and most likely to change their minds.
Unless we have a repeat Cleggasm (not impossible on Thursday. Clegg is the most polished, and all that drama at school gives him a stage presence), we are looking at LDs in the teens of seats at best. I think the LD betting value is on the downside.
I predict a small Hell, Yes! bounce = Lab lead of 3.
For those of us who are old enough to remember the remarkable Major vs Kinnock outcome in 1992, I would advise the utmost caution.
Must be an election on....
I haven't so insulted since this morning when I was accused of being a "socialist"
24 hour NHS. Kindof.
I don't want to see Labour too far ahead, need some of my Tory seat punts to hold
Sorry, I missed that.
Too much partisan BS cluttering my reading filter; makes me assume the worst.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11502944/I-watch-porn-says-Labour-MP-Simon-Danczuk.html
Rubbish: its obviously Stanley Baxter.
Get's an 8.3 on IMDb - imdb.com/title/tt0934814/
Asda, Morrisons, etc, if Labour win on May 7th
Champagne aisle nearest the bbc hq?
Miliband top donor backs the Tories
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/582282890014257153
With that statement, about porn in this instance, but really about not being sanctimonious in general, yet more evidence Danczuk doesn't really belong in Labour or the Conservatives, or at least not while being aligned with the front benches of either.
I like that the story warrants being written up by the 'Chief Political Correspondent'.
ROFL ..... Brilliant!
But apparently I can get some more free compost.