Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Lord Ashcroft becomes the third pollster in a row not to su

124

Comments

  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,913
    Cameron does live at No 10, as did Brown. So reasonable enough to give a speech from there.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @montie: Boris: Lab want to take us back to the 70s; Ukip to 50s; Greens to Bronze Age; the LibDems to any age when they got more than 5% in polls
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    GIN1138 said:

    RobD said:

    SMukesh said:

    Cameron making political speeches from outside Downing Street departing from tradition.

    I will be waiting to see how much lower he will sink before he loses in less than 6 weeks` time.

    Didn't Brown give a speech from Number 10 just after dissolution too?
    Yes.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2010/apr/06/general-election-2010-gordon-brown
    Labour PM makes political speech outside No 10 at dissolution = good

    Tory Pm makes political speech outside No 10 at dissolution = very bad and Smarky wonders how low this Tory can go

    Ha!
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,542

    DavidL - If you honestly believe Cameron and Osborne are centrists then it's no wonder so many of your fellow countrymen are disillusioned with life in the Union! Let us not forget that they unveiled the most ridiculous anti-government scorched earth austerity programme in 2010 that was almost beyond parody in its anti-keynesian idiocy. Luckily for us George did a partial u-turn as borrowing refused to come down and he even embraced a bit of stimulus to the housing market (completely the wrong sector of the UK economy to be stimuating but you could argue something was better than nothing). All the worst kind of Tory thinking - get government out the way, don't interfere in the market, unless it's housing, in which case it's all fine.

    At least the Thatcherites had the excuse in the 1980s that there were people like Milton Friedman preaching free market economics. What's Osborne's excuse?

    Simple: Free market economics works.

    This government has worked.

    Labour and Continental European socialism doesn't work. What's the excuse for that?
    Almost no serious economist would try and defend the whole free markey mantra any more. You think the UK has a stronger economy than socialist Germany or Sweden? Are you having a laugh? Our GDP per head is even $2000 behind France, a 'socialist' country with less debt better infrastructure and higher investment than ours. No amount of stupid right wing newspaper headlines can hide that reality.
    Economically, there's not much to choose between the UK, Germany, and Sweden, these days. Sweden is no longer a socialist outlier, having cut public spending very sharply over 20 years (socially, it's still way to the left of Germany and the UK).

    France is the outlier, economically, and its growth rate has been worse than that of the UK or Germany, over a generation.
  • weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    Scott_P said:

    @montie: Boris: Lab want to take us back to the 70s; Ukip to 50s; Greens to Bronze Age; the LibDems to any age when they got more than 5% in polls

    Someone stealing my lines!
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    Omnium said:

    Cameron does live at No 10, as did Brown. So reasonable enough to give a speech from there.

    Announcement of date also made by Thatcher from Downing Street in 1983, 1987: http://tinyurl.com/ollrfnj

    it seems to be entirely traditional.

    It used to be the PB tories who were wrong about everything...
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,929
    Sorry - 2nd reference is to the World Bank.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Scott_P said:

    @montie: Boris: Lab want to take us back to the 70s; Ukip to 50s; Greens to Bronze Age; the LibDems to any age when they got more than 5% in polls

    That's a quip that can do damage
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    edited March 2015
    Been considering this vote swop deal thing and it seems the left on here do not see any real issues.

    Ok this sounds to me a similar moral situation to that of tax avoidance. (Rather than the illegal tax evasion) it Ain't specifically illegal but gosh! avoidance is terribly immoral....... (According to the left anyway.)

    Oh ? I think I see some hypocriscy

  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,808
    Just to return to this mornings chemistry discussion briefly...

    St Albans polymath Nick Haeffner released a song about the periodic table 'the furious table' on his 1986 release The Great Indoors, on the legendary UK psych label Bam Caruso. You can find it on YouTube albeit the rip isn't great.

    The whole album is well worth a listen...
  • Chris_AChris_A Posts: 1,237
    The proclamation is much shorter these days as a consequence of the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAitDg2a9do compared with before https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3R3Igdme0I
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    Just to return to this mornings chemistry discussion briefly...

    St Albans polymath Nick Haeffner released a song about the periodic table 'the furious table' on his 1986 release The Great Indoors, on the legendary UK psych label Bam Caruso. You can find it on YouTube albeit the rip isn't great.

    The whole album is well worth a listen...

    @Kindainterestin: You're damn righ that's a periodic table http://t.co/Rb7fdqe9B4
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,653
    Moses_ said:

    Been considering this vote swop deal thing and it seems the left on here do not see any real issues.

    Ok this sounds to me a similar moral situation to that of tax avoidance. (Rather than the illegal tax evasion) it Ain't specifically illegal but gosh! avoidance is terribly immoral....... (According to the left anyway.)

    Oh ? I think I see some hypocriscy

    It would be hypocrisy if they saw it as immoral. If they don't see it as immoral, then it's just a difference of opinion.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,928
    Sean_F said:

    DavidL - If you honestly believe Cameron and Osborne are centrists then it's no wonder so many of your fellow countrymen are disillusioned with life in the Union! Let us not forget that they unveiled the most ridiculous anti-government scorched earth austerity programme in 2010 that was almost beyond parody in its anti-keynesian idiocy. Luckily for us George did a partial u-turn as borrowing refused to come down and he even embraced a bit of stimulus to the housing market (completely the wrong sector of the UK economy to be stimuating but you could argue something was better than nothing). All the worst kind of Tory thinking - get government out the way, don't interfere in the market, unless it's housing, in which case it's all fine.

    At least the Thatcherites had the excuse in the 1980s that there were people like Milton Friedman preaching free market economics. What's Osborne's excuse?

    Simple: Free market economics works.

    This government has worked.

    Labour and Continental European socialism doesn't work. What's the excuse for that?
    Almost no serious economist would try and defend the whole free markey mantra any more. You think the UK has a stronger economy than socialist Germany or Sweden? Are you having a laugh? Our GDP per head is even $2000 behind France, a 'socialist' country with less debt better infrastructure and higher investment than ours. No amount of stupid right wing newspaper headlines can hide that reality.
    Economically, there's not much to choose between the UK, Germany, and Sweden, these days. Sweden is no longer a socialist outlier, having cut public spending very sharply over 20 years (socially, it's still way to the left of Germany and the UK).

    France is the outlier, economically, and its growth rate has been worse than that of the UK or Germany, over a generation.
    On what basis is the UK comparable to Germany and Sweden? Germany of course has had to deal with the costs of reunification. We're more indebted, probably have poorer infrastructure and seem incapable of making the long term investments needed. All the usual warning signs about the British economy are flashing red at the moment - a huge trade deficit, cheap money, consumer based growth and terrible saving and investment. Sweden and Germany look much more solid. There really does seem to be a pig-headed refusal to admit that the Thatcher reforms achieved little beyond the enriching of a small elite as everyone else surrendered their security in the workplace for little in return.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,653
    The United States may well have more GDP per head than Europe, but what if a good deal of that is because it has more mega-prisons, unnecessary medical tests, psychiatrists and bailiffs?
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,913
    Tom Lehrer also did a good periodic table song.

    I think it'd make a fine exit exam from school in that you both understood and liked Mr Lehrer's ditty.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited March 2015
    OT I'm watching a 60s documentary and it references LSD a lot - I've never tried it - anyone here dropped it?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,542

    Sean_F said:

    DavidL - If you honestly believe Cameron and Osborne are centrists then it's no wonder so many of your fellow countrymen are disillusioned with life in the Union! Let us not forget that they unveiled the most ridiculous anti-government scorched earth austerity programme in 2010 that was almost beyond parody in its anti-keynesian idiocy. Luckily for us George did a partial u-turn as borrowing refused to come down and he even embraced a bit of stimulus to the housing market (completely the wrong sector of the UK economy to be stimuating but you could argue something was better than nothing). All the worst kind of Tory thinking - get government out the way, don't interfere in the market, unless it's housing, in which case it's all fine.

    At least the Thatcherites had the excuse in the 1980s that there were people like Milton Friedman preaching free market economics. What's Osborne's excuse?

    Simple: Free market economics works.

    This government has worked.

    Labour and Continental European socialism doesn't work. What's the excuse for that?
    Almost no serious economist would try and defend the whole free markey mantra any more. You think the UK has a stronger economy than socialist Germany or Sweden? Are you having a laugh? Our GDP per head is even $2000 behind France, a 'socialist' country with less debt better infrastructure and higher investment than ours. No amount of stupid right wing newspaper headlines can hide that reality.
    Economically, there's not much to choose between the UK, Germany, and Sweden, these days. Sweden is

    France is the outlier, economically, and its growth rate has been worse than that of the UK or Germany, over a generation.
    On what basis is the UK comparable to Germany and Sweden? Germany of course has had to deal with the costs of reunification. We're more indebted, probably have poorer infrastructure and seem incapable of making the long term investments needed. All the usual warning signs about the British economy are flashing red at the moment - a huge trade deficit, cheap money, consumer based growth and terrible saving and investment. Sweden and Germany look much more solid. There really does seem to be a pig-headed refusal to admit that the Thatcher reforms achieved little beyond the enriching of a small elite as everyone else surrendered their security in the workplace for little in return.
    Similar standards of living, similar levels of tax and public spending as a share of GDP.

    The Thatcher/Major period saw a big rise in living standards across the board, a big growth in manufacturing output, and a rise in home ownership. Post 2000, things have gone less well.

  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664

    Ishmael_X said:

    Mostly, the more - shall we say - "radicalised" PB Tories criticising Mike?

    I can't think of any less partisan issue, than wanting to see elections conducted according to the rules. This vote-swapping is sailing very close to the wind: it probably isn't bribery or personation under the RPA 1983, but it's close enough that no prudent solicitor would advise a client in advance that it was absolutely OK, crack on, no conceivable problem. It is certainly against the spirit of the law.
    RPA 1983, s. 113(5):
    A voter shall be guilty of bribery if before or during an election he directly or indirectly by himself or by any other person on his behalf receives, agrees, or contracts for any money, gift, loan or valuable consideration, office, place or employment for himself or for any other person for voting or agreeing to vote or for refraining or agreeing to refrain from voting.
    The question therefore is whether a promise to vote is capable of constituting valuable consideration. This is a strange statutory provision. Any contract in which one party promised to vote would be void on public policy grounds, ergo there would be a total failure of consideration. Yet valuable consideration must mean something here, and there is no a priori reason why mutual promises to vote or refrain from voting could not constitute detriment flowing from the promisee.
    I think that is a delicious point. The defence would in effect be "what I am doing is not illegal, because it is illegal", and it wouldn't work. There is a very serious possibility that what OGH proposes is a criminal offence.
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,067
    chestnut said:

    Does anyone happen to know the London 2010 breakdowns by London region?

    Tories are getting smashed to the east (bad numbers in Redbridge and havering?), but look very competitive in the rest from those Comres numbers.

    Again, the Lab vote is strong among the young (registered?).

    You serious about the Tories putting up a decent performance in London?

    They are going to get smashed here. In other parts of the country, the Tories may do ok but in London they will do very poorly as has happened in all elections through this Parliament.

    Expect the Tories to lose 7-10 London seats...
  • Plato said:

    OT I'm watching a 60s documentary and it references LSD a lot - I've never tried it - anyone here dropped it?

    A few times in the early 90's.
    Red robots and blue penguins were quite popular in the Barnet area.

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,542
    murali_s said:

    chestnut said:

    Does anyone happen to know the London 2010 breakdowns by London region?

    Tories are getting smashed to the east (bad numbers in Redbridge and havering?), but look very competitive in the rest from those Comres numbers.

    Again, the Lab vote is strong among the young (registered?).

    You serious about the Tories putting up a decent performance in London?

    They are going to get smashed here. In other parts of the country, the Tories may do ok but in London they will do very poorly as has happened in all elections through this Parliament.

    Expect the Tories to lose 7-10 London seats...
    That would mean losing seats like Battersea, or Southgate, which is very unlikely.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,959
    EPG Although Switzerland, Norway, Luxembourg etc all have higher gdp per capita than the US and for the moment at least the EU as a whole also has a higher gdp than the US
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506

    Just to return to this mornings chemistry discussion briefly...

    St Albans polymath Nick Haeffner released a song about the periodic table 'the furious table' on his 1986 release The Great Indoors, on the legendary UK psych label Bam Caruso. You can find it on YouTube albeit the rip isn't great.

    The whole album is well worth a listen...

    Videos about each of the elements in the periodic table can be found at

    http://www.periodicvideos.com/

    Provided by Nottingham University Chemistry Department
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    murali_s said:

    You serious about the Tories putting up a decent performance in London?

    They are going to get smashed here. In other parts of the country, the Tories may do ok but in London they will do very poorly as has happened in all elections through this Parliament.

    Expect the Tories to lose 7-10 London seats...

    Look at today's polling.

    Con's ahead in N London, very close in W and S London.

    E London is massively skewing the overall London numbers.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,913
    As I seem to be posting a lot this evening. (Sorry!)

    I thought I'd share a thought. And that thought is that the film Interstellar is simply great! I hadn't seen it at the cinema, and the Blu-ray arrived yesterday. Epically wonderful stuff! Even better it has a vague founding in possible reality.

    Something isn't right with physics, and the film seems to me the best advert ever made for those that are interested to take the challenge of working out stuff.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    edited March 2015
    Omnium said:

    Tom Lehrer also did a good periodic table song.

    I think it'd make a fine exit exam from school in that you both understood and liked Mr Lehrer's ditty.

    Notable for the final couplet:

    These are all the elements we know about at Harvard yet
    There may be many others but they haven't been discarvard yet.

    And this is good (HT Plato) www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUDDiWtFtEM
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,064
    HYUFD said:

    EPG Although Switzerland, Norway, Luxembourg etc all have higher gdp per capita than the US and for the moment at least the EU as a whole also has a higher gdp than the US

    It also has a much larger population. On a per capita basis the US is well ahead.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,723
    chestnut said:

    murali_s said:

    You serious about the Tories putting up a decent performance in London?

    They are going to get smashed here. In other parts of the country, the Tories may do ok but in London they will do very poorly as has happened in all elections through this Parliament.

    Expect the Tories to lose 7-10 London seats...

    Look at today's polling.

    Con's ahead in N London, very close in W and S London.

    E London is massively skewing the overall London numbers.
    East London also has very high population growth - which is going to lead to the Lab vote being less efficient.
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651
    edited March 2015
    I had a terrible vision that in the year 2015 I was reading a website in which people were seriously claiming either that socialist Germany (public spending 45% of GDP) shows the necessity of collectivisation and the nationalisation of all important industries, while the struggles of the UK, where the combined forces of austerity and Thatcherism have slashed public spending to a mere 48% of GDP, shows the failure of free market libertarianism and the Small State. And others arguing the converse: that Britain's triumph over our continental neighbours shows the benefits of slashing regulation and taxes and letting the economy rip. Presumably the most defining symbol of Maggie's ideological triumph is the fact that the British tax code is now a meagre 17,000 pages long.

    Then I realised I surely could not be observing such a debate in the present year, since it would be very, very silly. Meanwhile, Richard Cobden and John James Cowperthwaite turn in their graves.

    Serious question: if I were to argue for the introduction of the German healthcare system to the UK, would that make me a socialist hardliner intent on introducing more evil continental collectivism to the UK? Or would it make me practically neo-fascist Friedmanite, what with all the private health insurance and co-payments and a multi-ownership model for hospitals?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,959
    edited March 2015
    Sean F By 2017 Sweden is forecast to spend 46% of gdp, Germany 44% and the UK 39.17%, marginally less than the US on 39.39% and Canada on 40.54% and Japan on 40.32%. Finland will actually spend more than France, 53.84% to 52.71%. Of 35 IMF developed nations only Australia, Hong Kong, Ireland, S Korea, New Zealand, Singapore, the Slovak Republic, Switzerland and Taiwan will be spending less as a percentage of GDP than the UK
    http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/oct/16/government-spending-countries-gdp
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651
    Ishmael_X said:

    Omnium said:

    Tom Lehrer also did a good periodic table song.

    I think it'd make a fine exit exam from school in that you both understood and liked Mr Lehrer's ditty.

    Notable for the final couplet:

    These are all the elements we know about at Harvard yet
    There may be many others but they haven't been discarvard yet.

    And this is good (HT Plato) www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUDDiWtFtEM
    I feel I pedantically need to correct this, it's

    "These are the only ones of which the news has come to Harvard,
    And there may be many others, but they haven't been discarvard."

    (I only want to correct it because I didn't think the misquote did justice to the magnificence of the original!)
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @faisalislam: Are the LibDems really using the hashtag #Makeit15 ? Even I thought they'd get in the 20s.. #GE2015
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,378

    EPG said:

    EPG said:

    EPG said:

    As a Liverpool fan, I've not seen a league title victory in decades despite us regularly scoring lots of points - the fact that we scored 84 points but didn't get the title last season doesn't mean we should get some sort of proportional share of the title, we lost fair and square.

    Anyone who votes for candidates who come in second or below don't have their votes "not counted" or other nonsense. They lost, pure and simple. There are winners and there are losers in each constituency - no need to change the voting system to placate losers.

    But this is begging the question. The rules are fair because the second- and third-place candidates lost. Why did they lose? Because of the rules.
    They didn't lose because of the rules, they lost because less people voted for them.

    Its upto each individual to choose how to vote and each candidate to acquire the most votes. The rules are crystal clear up front.
    They lost because the rules of FPTP say second-place candidates can never get a seat, unlike other electoral systems. That doesn't mean the rules produce fair results as a yardstick for other systems, it just means the rules operate mechanistically as designed.
    They lost because they didn't win. Had they got enough votes they would have won and the other candidate would have lost. Blaming the rules is a folly, how about trying to win instead?
    That is more accurate - They lost because they didn't win. It's nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with the mechanics and the plumbing of the system, so let's don't say "no need to change the voting system to placate losers".
    If the argument made in favour of changing the system is that the losers lost then saying that it is by design and fair that losers lose makes that argument nul and void.

    Unless you care to explain why you think that we should be rewarding losers? Unless you are willing to do that then it's just stating the obvious.
    Labout managed to achieve that (rewarding losers) when it set up the Holyrood voting system.

  • Ishmael_X said:

    I think that is a delicious point. The defence would in effect be "what I am doing is not illegal, because it is illegal", and it wouldn't work. There is a very serious possibility that what OGH proposes is a criminal offence.

    Running your own illegality as a defence is indeed not usually the best idea. Of course, if it has moved from proposal to agreement with a second party, then other considerations may already apply. Bribery is a corrupt practice, and is therefore an offence contrary to s. 168(1) of 1983 Act. Where two persons have agreed to pursue a course of conduct which will necessarily involve the commission of a corrupt practice, they are jointly liable for conspiracy to commit a corrupt practice, contrary to the Criminal Law Act 1977, s. 1(1).
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    Plato said:

    OT I'm watching a 60s documentary and it references LSD a lot - I've never tried it - anyone here dropped it?

    Dunno can't remember

    ;-)

  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Ishmael_X said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    Mostly, the more - shall we say - "radicalised" PB Tories criticising Mike?

    I can't think of any less partisan issue, than wanting to see elections conducted according to the rules. This vote-swapping is sailing very close to the wind: it probably isn't bribery or personation under the RPA 1983, but it's close enough that no prudent solicitor would advise a client in advance that it was absolutely OK, crack on, no conceivable problem. It is certainly against the spirit of the law.
    RPA 1983, s. 113(5):
    A voter shall be guilty of bribery if before or during an election he directly or indirectly by himself or by any other person on his behalf receives, agrees, or contracts for any money, gift, loan or valuable consideration, office, place or employment for himself or for any other person for voting or agreeing to vote or for refraining or agreeing to refrain from voting.
    The question therefore is whether a promise to vote is capable of constituting valuable consideration. This is a strange statutory provision. Any contract in which one party promised to vote would be void on public policy grounds, ergo there would be a total failure of consideration. Yet valuable consideration must mean something here, and there is no a priori reason why mutual promises to vote or refrain from voting could not constitute detriment flowing from the promisee.
    I think that is a delicious point. The defence would in effect be "what I am doing is not illegal, because it is illegal", and it wouldn't work. There is a very serious possibility that what OGH proposes is a criminal offence.


    Rot! It could easily be demonstrated in court that a vote is intrinsically worthless [and worthless of all under FPTP].
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Last two phone polls have the Tories on 36%. That's an excellent position for them to be in at the start of the official campaign. Curses!
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034

    Sean_F said:

    DavidL - If you honestly believe Cameron and Osborne are centrists then it's no wonder so many of your fellow countrymen are disillusioned with life in the Union! Let us not forget that they unveiled the most ridiculous anti-government scorched earth austerity programme in 2010 that was almost beyond parody in its anti-keynesian idiocy. Luckily for us George did a partial u-turn as borrowing refused to come down and he even embraced a bit of stimulus to the housing market (completely the wrong sector of the UK economy to be stimuating but you could argue something was better than nothing). All the worst kind of Tory thinking - get government out the way, don't interfere in the market, unless it's housing, in which case it's all fine.

    At least the Thatcherites had the excuse in the 1980s that there were people like Milton Friedman preaching free market economics. What's Osborne's excuse?

    Simple: Free market economics works.

    This government has worked.

    Labour and Continental European socialism doesn't work. What's the excuse for that?
    Almost no serious economist would try and defend the whole free markey mantra any more. You think the UK has a stronger economy than socialist Germany or Sweden? Are you having a laugh? Our GDP per head is even $2000 behind France, a 'socialist' country with less debt better infrastructure and higher investment than ours. No amount of stupid right wing newspaper headlines can hide that reality.
    Economically, there's not much to choose between the UK, Germany, and Sweden, these days. Sweden is no longer a socialist outlier, having cut public spending very sharply over 20 years (socially, it's still way to the left of Germany and the UK).

    France is the outlier, economically, and its growth rate has been worse than that of the UK or Germany, over a generation.
    On what basis is the UK comparable to Germany and Sweden? Germany of course has had to deal with the costs of reunification. We're more indebted, probably have poorer infrastructure and seem incapable of making the long term investments needed. All the usual warning signs about the British economy are flashing red at the moment - a huge trade deficit, cheap money, consumer based growth and terrible saving and investment. Sweden and Germany look much more solid. There really does seem to be a pig-headed refusal to admit that the Thatcher reforms achieved little beyond the enriching of a small elite as everyone else surrendered their security in the workplace for little in return.
    Whatever the costs or benefits of Thatcherism, security in the workplace would have been lost regardless, to globalization regardless of who was in government.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,959
    Max PB The EU population is 504.6 million, the US population 318.9 million and the US is catching up. Of course as I said a few EU nations like Luxembourg and Norway have a higher gdp per capita than the US
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651
    MTimT said:



    Whatever the costs or benefits of Thatcherism, security in the workplace would have been lost regardless, to globalization regardless of who was in government.

    An excellent, rational, and fair observation.

    By the way, it's nice to see you commenting more regularly again! Did you make headway with the book about the lead-up to Iraq you mentioned you were researching yonks back?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Am I right in understanding that the Lord Ascroft "Whores drawers" poll is now the new Gold Standard for PB Tories?

  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,803

    MTimT said:



    Whatever the costs or benefits of Thatcherism, security in the workplace would have been lost regardless, to globalization regardless of who was in government.

    An excellent, rational, and fair observation.

    By the way, it's nice to see you commenting more regularly again! Did you make headway with the book about the lead-up to Iraq you mentioned you were researching yonks back?
    Its nice to see you commenting more regularly again MBE.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    edited March 2015
    8 most marginal seats poll on Wednesday, courtesy of Lord A.
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,808
    Interesting post from Buglife highlighting Owen Paterson's policy based evidence approach to neonicitinoids..


    https://www.buglife.org.uk/blog/matt-shardlow-ceo/pesticide-report-was-defras-dodgy-dossier
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    RodCrosby said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    Mostly, the more - shall we say - "radicalised" PB Tories criticising Mike?

    I can't think of any less partisan issue, than wanting to see elections conducted according to the rules. This vote-swapping is sailing very close to the wind: it probably isn't bribery or personation under the RPA 1983, but it's close enough that no prudent solicitor would advise a client in advance that it was absolutely OK, crack on, no conceivable problem. It is certainly against the spirit of the law.
    RPA 1983, s. 113(5):
    A voter shall be guilty of bribery if before or during an election he directly or indirectly by himself or by any other person on his behalf receives, agrees, or contracts for any money, gift, loan or valuable consideration, office, place or employment for himself or for any other person for voting or agreeing to vote or for refraining or agreeing to refrain from voting.
    The question therefore is whether a promise to vote is capable of constituting valuable consideration. This is a strange statutory provision. Any contract in which one party promised to vote would be void on public policy grounds, ergo there would be a total failure of consideration. Yet valuable consideration must mean something here, and there is no a priori reason why mutual promises to vote or refrain from voting could not constitute detriment flowing from the promisee.
    I think that is a delicious point. The defence would in effect be "what I am doing is not illegal, because it is illegal", and it wouldn't work. There is a very serious possibility that what OGH proposes is a criminal offence.
    Rot! It could easily be demonstrated in court that a vote is intrinsically worthless [and worthless of all under FPTP].
    Not rot. The principle is very, very well established that the court will not second-guess the parties to a contract as to the "intrinsic worth" of what they contracted for.
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651
    edited March 2015

    MTimT said:



    Whatever the costs or benefits of Thatcherism, security in the workplace would have been lost regardless, to globalization regardless of who was in government.

    An excellent, rational, and fair observation.

    By the way, it's nice to see you commenting more regularly again! Did you make headway with the book about the lead-up to Iraq you mentioned you were researching yonks back?
    Its nice to see you commenting more regularly again MBE.
    Cheers. Only passing by for the time being, unfortunately, I've got a stupid work schedule at the moment. Not that I'd want to denigrate my boss for imposing it, but such are the (largely theoretical) benefits of self-employment, being "your own boss" and "setting your own hours"....
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    Britain is to blame for illegal immigrant problems on the French side of the Channel because of its lack of commitment to the “European project”, the mayor of Calais has claimed.
    Natacha Bouchart accused the British government of “despising” the native population of Calais and said the UK should be forced to sign up to Europe’s open borders agreement.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11504061/Britain-to-blame-for-illegal-immigrant-crisis-says-Calais-mayor.html

    Apparently we are to blame for the French and others letting everyone in from Africa. She carefully forgets to remember that political asylum seekers must claim in the first safe country not pick and choose. Of course these are economic migrants and yours and the French Governments problem.

    You don't like it put up border controls like I always have to pass through when leaving the UK whenever I go anywhere on the continent. She talks about people entering from Europe but the people in Calais jumping lorries are not European. She is of course just too thick and stupid to see it or the cause and solutions to the problem.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,913
    I've always thought that the word criminal implies conviction. Whereas doing something illegal suggests a window for judgement. As such I think Mike's vote swap is possibly illegal but certainly not criminal.

  • ArtistArtist Posts: 1,893
    edited March 2015
    What seats will they be? Seats that he found a tie?

  • DairDair Posts: 6,108

    Why on earth is SLAB using Martin Freeman, an obviously English actor, to front their new PPB in Scotland? Him swearing/blaspheming in the PPB will go down like a lead balloon in large parts of rural Scotland.

    It almost seems to be a reaction to the SNP using Martin Compston - yet more Labour willy waving just like most of their campaign.

    Although to be fair, I suspect the real story was that Freeman offered, Labour accepted and it was cheaper to get him to read two lines of dialogue than to make a different PPB for Scotland.

    Although rehashing an English PPB for Scotland worked so well for the Liberals. One might think Labour have already given up. Maybe that was Miliband's plan all along.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    chestnut said:

    murali_s said:

    You serious about the Tories putting up a decent performance in London?

    They are going to get smashed here. In other parts of the country, the Tories may do ok but in London they will do very poorly as has happened in all elections through this Parliament.

    Expect the Tories to lose 7-10 London seats...

    Look at today's polling.

    Con's ahead in N London, very close in W and S London.

    E London is massively skewing the overall London numbers.
    Hence just outside E London being the place where Ukip are likely to do Best
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    Omnium said:

    I've always thought that the word criminal implies conviction. Whereas doing something illegal suggests a window for judgement. As such I think Mike's vote swap is possibly illegal but certainly not criminal.

    Interesting, but sadly what the law is, is not a matter of personal taste, unless you are Lord Denning.
  • felix said:
    Another ex Tory, UKIP have done so much to detoxify the Tory party.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    Omnium said:

    I've always thought that the word criminal implies conviction. Whereas doing something illegal suggests a window for judgement. As such I think Mike's vote swap is possibly illegal but certainly not criminal.

    A term which is equivalent to crime; or is sometimes used with a slight softening or glossing of the meaning, or as importing a possible question of the legal guilt of the deed.


    Law Dictionary: What is CRIMINAL ACT? definition of CRIMINAL ACT (Black's Law Dictionary)
  • Artist said:

    What seats will they be? Seats that he found a tie?

    He hasn't told me yet, when he does, I'll let you know
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    Indigo said:

    DavidL - If you honestly believe Cameron and Osborne are centrists then it's no wonder so many of your fellow countrymen are disillusioned with life in the Union! Let us not forget that they unveiled the most ridiculous anti-government scorched earth austerity programme in 2010 that was almost beyond parody in its anti-keynesian idiocy. Luckily for us George did a partial u-turn as borrowing refused to come down and he even embraced a bit of stimulus to the housing market (completely the wrong sector of the UK economy to be stimuating but you could argue something was better than nothing). All the worst kind of Tory thinking - get government out the way, don't interfere in the market, unless it's housing, in which case it's all fine.

    Wut ? Keynes advocated heavy spending stimulus in a downturn and cutting back and saving in the good times. The sort of pissing money up the wall in the good times both parties have been doing in the last decade probably has him spinning in his grave!

    If you think Osborne's feeble cutting back of less than 2% over a whole parliament is austerity, you have clearly lost touch with that well known right-wing monetarist Denis Healey who cut 4% from spending in one year in 1974, I realise him being Labour, and therefore making "cuddly cuts" is different.
    According to the IMF the underlying deficit reduction in Britain has been 6.6% of GDP, with 3.5% still to go.
    The definition of a tight fiscal policy is to cut spending and or raise taxes. The IFS points out that over the course of the parliament the coalition will have tightened by 7% of GDP, slightly less than the 7.9% it originally planned.
    You may or may not like this but that's what's happened.

  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,803
    murali_s said:

    chestnut said:

    Does anyone happen to know the London 2010 breakdowns by London region?

    Tories are getting smashed to the east (bad numbers in Redbridge and havering?), but look very competitive in the rest from those Comres numbers.

    Again, the Lab vote is strong among the young (registered?).

    You serious about the Tories putting up a decent performance in London?

    They are going to get smashed here. In other parts of the country, the Tories may do ok but in London they will do very poorly as has happened in all elections through this Parliament.

    Expect the Tories to lose 7-10 London seats...
    Which 7-10 are you predicting ?

    1) Hendon
    2) Enfield N
    3) Brentford
    4) Ealing Acton
    5) Harrow E
    6) Ilford N
    7) Croydon C
    8) Southgate
    9) Finchley
    10) Battersea

    I don't think Labour have any chance in Battersea or Finchley but I think they'll do better than expected in Ilford N and Southgate.


  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    'Not now Lord A, I'm with the bird!'
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,803

    Indigo said:

    DavidL - If you honestly believe Cameron and Osborne are centrists then it's no wonder so many of your fellow countrymen are disillusioned with life in the Union! Let us not forget that they unveiled the most ridiculous anti-government scorched earth austerity programme in 2010 that was almost beyond parody in its anti-keynesian idiocy. Luckily for us George did a partial u-turn as borrowing refused to come down and he even embraced a bit of stimulus to the housing market (completely the wrong sector of the UK economy to be stimuating but you could argue something was better than nothing). All the worst kind of Tory thinking - get government out the way, don't interfere in the market, unless it's housing, in which case it's all fine.

    Wut ? Keynes advocated heavy spending stimulus in a downturn and cutting back and saving in the good times. The sort of pissing money up the wall in the good times both parties have been doing in the last decade probably has him spinning in his grave!

    If you think Osborne's feeble cutting back of less than 2% over a whole parliament is austerity, you have clearly lost touch with that well known right-wing monetarist Denis Healey who cut 4% from spending in one year in 1974, I realise him being Labour, and therefore making "cuddly cuts" is different.
    According to the IMF the underlying deficit reduction in Britain has been 6.6% of GDP, with 3.5% still to go.
    The definition of a tight fiscal policy is to cut spending and or raise taxes. The IFS points out that over the course of the parliament the coalition will have tightened by 7% of GDP, slightly less than the 7.9% it originally planned.
    You may or may not like this but that's what's happened.

    This government has missed its borrowing targets by hundreds of billions.

    You may or may not like this but that's what's happened.
  • ArtistArtist Posts: 1,893

    Artist said:

    What seats will they be? Seats that he found a tie?

    He hasn't told me yet, when he does, I'll let you know

    A rough guess would be seats like Stockton South, Birmingham Yardley, Morecambe & Lunesdale and North Devon.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,587

    Indigo said:

    DavidL - If you honestly believe Cameron and Osborne are centrists then it's no wonder so many of your fellow countrymen are disillusioned with life in the Union! Let us not forget that they unveiled the most ridiculous anti-government scorched earth austerity programme in 2010 that was almost beyond parody in its anti-keynesian idiocy. Luckily for us George did a partial u-turn as borrowing refused to come down and he even embraced a bit of stimulus to the housing market (completely the wrong sector of the UK economy to be stimuating but you could argue something was better than nothing). All the worst kind of Tory thinking - get government out the way, don't interfere in the market, unless it's housing, in which case it's all fine.

    Wut ? Keynes advocated heavy spending stimulus in a downturn and cutting back and saving in the good times. The sort of pissing money up the wall in the good times both parties have been doing in the last decade probably has him spinning in his grave!

    If you think Osborne's feeble cutting back of less than 2% over a whole parliament is austerity, you have clearly lost touch with that well known right-wing monetarist Denis Healey who cut 4% from spending in one year in 1974, I realise him being Labour, and therefore making "cuddly cuts" is different.
    According to the IMF the underlying deficit reduction in Britain has been 6.6% of GDP, with 3.5% still to go.
    The definition of a tight fiscal policy is to cut spending and or raise taxes. The IFS points out that over the course of the parliament the coalition will have tightened by 7% of GDP, slightly less than the 7.9% it originally planned.
    You may or may not like this but that's what's happened.

    This government has missed its borrowing targets by hundreds of billions.

    You may or may not like this but that's what's happened.
    A failing to be sure, although given their opponents were not even promising to cut borrowing by the amount the Tories were, assuming I supported those targets it's not as though my vote would be about to transfer as a result.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Ishmael_X said:

    RodCrosby said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    Mostly, the more - shall we say - "radicalised" PB Tories criticising Mike?

    I can't think of any less partisan issue, than wanting to see elections conducted according to the rules. This vote-swapping is sailing very close to the wind: it probably isn't bribery or personation under the RPA 1983, but it's close enough that no prudent solicitor would advise a client in advance that it was absolutely OK, crack on, no conceivable problem. It is certainly against the spirit of the law.
    RPA 1983, s. 113(5):
    A voter shall be guilty of bribery if before or during an election he directly or indirectly by himself or by any other person on his behalf receives, agrees, or contracts for any money, gift, loan or valuable consideration, office, place or employment for himself or for any other person for voting or agreeing to vote or for refraining or agreeing to refrain from voting.
    The question therefore is whether a promise to vote is capable of constituting valuable consideration. This is a strange statutory provision. Any contract in which one party promised to vote would be void on public policy grounds, ergo there would be a total failure of consideration. Yet valuable consideration must mean something here, and there is no a priori reason why mutual promises to vote or refrain from voting could not constitute detriment flowing from the promisee.
    I think that is a delicious point. The defence would in effect be "what I am doing is not illegal, because it is illegal", and it wouldn't work. There is a very serious possibility that what OGH proposes is a criminal offence.
    Rot! It could easily be demonstrated in court that a vote is intrinsically worthless [and worthless of all under FPTP].
    Not rot. The principle is very, very well established that the court will not second-guess the parties to a contract as to the "intrinsic worth" of what they contracted for.


    It is clear the legislation is referring to things of monetary value. A vote is certainly worthless monetarily, and, I would argue, intrinsically worthless.

    Vote-swapping and pairing (without explicit monetary gain) is commonplace within the legislature itself. It would be bizarre for the Courts to decide a sovereign elector could not do the same.

    Democracy is a grubby business. It has been described, accurately, as "an advance auction of stolen goods." There should be a law against it...
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095

    Indigo said:

    DavidL - If you honestly believe Cameron and Osborne are centrists then it's no wonder so many of your fellow countrymen are disillusioned with life in the Union! Let us not forget that they unveiled the most ridiculous anti-government scorched earth austerity programme in 2010 that was almost beyond parody in its anti-keynesian idiocy. Luckily for us George did a partial u-turn as borrowing refused to come down and he even embraced a bit of stimulus to the housing market (completely the wrong sector of the UK economy to be stimuating but you could argue something was better than nothing). All the worst kind of Tory thinking - get government out the way, don't interfere in the market, unless it's housing, in which case it's all fine.

    Wut ? Keynes advocated heavy spending stimulus in a downturn and cutting back and saving in the good times. The sort of pissing money up the wall in the good times both parties have been doing in the last decade probably has him spinning in his grave!

    If you think Osborne's feeble cutting back of less than 2% over a whole parliament is austerity, you have clearly lost touch with that well known right-wing monetarist Denis Healey who cut 4% from spending in one year in 1974, I realise him being Labour, and therefore making "cuddly cuts" is different.
    According to the IMF the underlying deficit reduction in Britain has been 6.6% of GDP, with 3.5% still to go.
    The definition of a tight fiscal policy is to cut spending and or raise taxes. The IFS points out that over the course of the parliament the coalition will have tightened by 7% of GDP, slightly less than the 7.9% it originally planned.
    You may or may not like this but that's what's happened.

    This government has missed its borrowing targets by hundreds of billions.

    You may or may not like this but that's what's happened.
    but the responsibility for the debt is down to LABOUR.. Debt was always going to be huge after their mismanagement
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    edited March 2015
    Anyone seen this exhibition yet?

    Twitter.com/AshmoleanMuseum/status/581072588119678976/photo/1

    Gillray makes Steve Bell's stuff tame IMHO.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Roy Hodgson text me earlier, said he's starting Kane up front w Rooney in the hole tmrw.. When he tells me the starting XI I'll let you know
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,803
    kle4 said:

    Indigo said:

    DavidL - If you honestly believe Cameron and Osborne are centrists then it's no wonder so many of your fellow countrymen are disillusioned with life in the Union! Let us not forget that they unveiled the most ridiculous anti-government scorched earth austerity programme in 2010 that was almost beyond parody in its anti-keynesian idiocy. Luckily for us George did a partial u-turn as borrowing refused to come down and he even embraced a bit of stimulus to the housing market (completely the wrong sector of the UK economy to be stimuating but you could argue something was better than nothing). All the worst kind of Tory thinking - get government out the way, don't interfere in the market, unless it's housing, in which case it's all fine.

    Wut ? Keynes advocated heavy spending stimulus in a downturn and cutting back and saving in the good times. The sort of pissing money up the wall in the good times both parties have been doing in the last decade probably has him spinning in his grave!

    If you think Osborne's feeble cutting back of less than 2% over a whole parliament is austerity, you have clearly lost touch with that well known right-wing monetarist Denis Healey who cut 4% from spending in one year in 1974, I realise him being Labour, and therefore making "cuddly cuts" is different.
    According to the IMF the underlying deficit reduction in Britain has been 6.6% of GDP, with 3.5% still to go.
    The definition of a tight fiscal policy is to cut spending and or raise taxes. The IFS points out that over the course of the parliament the coalition will have tightened by 7% of GDP, slightly less than the 7.9% it originally planned.
    You may or may not like this but that's what's happened.

    This government has missed its borrowing targets by hundreds of billions.

    You may or may not like this but that's what's happened.
    A failing to be sure, although given their opponents were not even promising to cut borrowing by the amount the Tories were, assuming I supported those targets it's not as though my vote would be about to transfer as a result.
    All of the parties believe in the magic money tree.

    All of the parties believe in increasing spending on their pet projects.

    All of the parties believe in increasing spending which favours their supporters.

    All of the parties believe in cutting spending only when the losers are unpopular groups.

    All of the parties believe in stealing from Peter to pay Paul as long as Paul votes for them and Peter does not.


  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,043
    RodCrosby said:



    It is clear the legislation is referring to things of monetary value. A vote is certainly worthless monetarily, and, I would argue, intrinsically worthless.

    Vote-swapping and pairing (without explicit monetary gain) is commonplace within the legislature itself. It would be bizarre for the Courts to decide a sovereign elector could not do the same.

    Democracy is a grubby business. It has been described, accurately, as "an advance auction of stolen goods." There should be a law against it...

    Vote pairing in the Commons isn't exactly the same, since both votes are for the same thing. In OGH's case, he is trading his vote in his election, for someone else's vote in another election. The equivalent would be a Tory MP not voting against a Labour motion, in exchange for a Labour MP not voting against a different Tory motion. It's probably happened before, but far less common than vote pairing.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    I wonder if East Renfrewshire would be in this 8 or it will just be Tory/Lab?
  • Artist said:

    Artist said:

    What seats will they be? Seats that he found a tie?

    He hasn't told me yet, when he does, I'll let you know

    A rough guess would be seats like Stockton South, Birmingham Yardley, Morecambe & Lunesdale and North Devon.
    https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/582637174450995200
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    HYUFD said:

    Sean F By 2017 Sweden is forecast to spend 46% of gdp, Germany 44% and the UK 39.17%, marginally less than the US on 39.39% and Canada on 40.54% and Japan on 40.32%. Finland will actually spend more than France, 53.84% to 52.71%. Of 35 IMF developed nations only Australia, Hong Kong, Ireland, S Korea, New Zealand, Singapore, the Slovak Republic, Switzerland and Taiwan will be spending less as a percentage of GDP than the UK
    http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/oct/16/government-spending-countries-gdp

    Fantastic cherry picking.

    A post from 3 years ago using figures which have already been proven to be completely disconnected from reality...
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865

    Indigo said:

    DavidL - If you honestly believe Cameron and Osborne are centrists then it's no wonder so many of your fellow countrymen are disillusioned with life in the Union! Let us not forget that they unveiled the most ridiculous anti-government scorched earth austerity programme in 2010 that was almost beyond parody in its anti-keynesian idiocy. Luckily for us George did a partial u-turn as borrowing refused to come down and he even embraced a bit of stimulus to the housing market (completely the wrong sector of the UK economy to be stimuating but you could argue something was better than nothing). All the worst kind of Tory thinking - get government out the way, don't interfere in the market, unless it's housing, in which case it's all fine.

    Wut ? Keynes advocated heavy spending stimulus in a downturn and cutting back and saving in the good times. The sort of pissing money up the wall in the good times both parties have been doing in the last decade probably has him spinning in his grave!

    If you think Osborne's feeble cutting back of less than 2% over a whole parliament is austerity, you have clearly lost touch with that well known right-wing monetarist Denis Healey who cut 4% from spending in one year in 1974, I realise him being Labour, and therefore making "cuddly cuts" is different.
    According to the IMF the underlying deficit reduction in Britain has been 6.6% of GDP, with 3.5% still to go.
    The definition of a tight fiscal policy is to cut spending and or raise taxes. The IFS points out that over the course of the parliament the coalition will have tightened by 7% of GDP, slightly less than the 7.9% it originally planned.
    You may or may not like this but that's what's happened.

    This government has missed its borrowing targets by hundreds of billions.

    You may or may not like this but that's what's happened.
    In other words.....

    Coalition pooper scooping the shit the bear left in the woods
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,117

    Plato said:

    OT I'm watching a 60s documentary and it references LSD a lot - I've never tried it - anyone here dropped it?

    A few times in the early 90's.
    Red robots and blue penguins were quite popular in the Barnet area.

    Plato said:

    OT I'm watching a 60s documentary and it references LSD a lot - I've never tried it - anyone here dropped it?

    A few times in the early 90's.
    Red robots and blue penguins were quite popular in the Barnet area.

    Plato

    Life is all about experience I guess. I hope before my time is up I manage to make my way through pretty much the whole spectrum of life enhancing substances- then at least you can make an informed opinion on the merits or otherwise.
    Or you can be narrow minded, and be opinionated without knowledge.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,542

    felix said:
    Another ex Tory, UKIP have done so much to detoxify the Tory party.
    Yet Matthew Parris says the Conservatives "really piss people off" without understanding that his piece about Clacton is the sort of thing that pisses people off.

  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    SMukesh said:

    Cameron making political speeches from outside Downing Street departing from tradition.

    I will be waiting to see how much lower he will sink before he loses in less than 6 weeks` time.

    Do you really want us to remind you how low Labour sank?

    Makes anything this lot have done seem fairly tame really.
  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323
    tyson said:



    Plato said:

    OT I'm watching a 60s documentary and it references LSD a lot - I've never tried it - anyone here dropped it?

    A few times in the early 90's.
    Red robots and blue penguins were quite popular in the Barnet area.

    Plato

    Life is all about experience I guess. I hope before my time is up I manage to make my way through pretty much the whole spectrum of life enhancing substances- then at least you can make an informed opinion on the merits or otherwise.
    Or you can be narrow minded, and be opinionated without knowledge.

    One night on LSD is hardly going to qualify anyone to understand the risks of abuse.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,803

    Indigo said:

    DavidL - If you honestly believe Cameron and Osborne are centrists then it's no wonder so many of your fellow countrymen are disillusioned with life in the Union! Let us not forget that they unveiled the most ridiculous anti-government scorched earth austerity programme in 2010 that was almost beyond parody in its anti-keynesian idiocy. Luckily for us George did a partial u-turn as borrowing refused to come down and he even embraced a bit of stimulus to the housing market (completely the wrong sector of the UK economy to be stimuating but you could argue something was better than nothing). All the worst kind of Tory thinking - get government out the way, don't interfere in the market, unless it's housing, in which case it's all fine.

    Wut ? Keynes advocated heavy spending stimulus in a downturn and cutting back and saving in the good times. The sort of pissing money up the wall in the good times both parties have been doing in the last decade probably has him spinning in his grave!

    If you think Osborne's feeble cutting back of less than 2% over a whole parliament is austerity, you have clearly lost touch with that well known right-wing monetarist Denis Healey who cut 4% from spending in one year in 1974, I realise him being Labour, and therefore making "cuddly cuts" is different.
    According to the IMF the underlying deficit reduction in Britain has been 6.6% of GDP, with 3.5% still to go.
    The definition of a tight fiscal policy is to cut spending and or raise taxes. The IFS points out that over the course of the parliament the coalition will have tightened by 7% of GDP, slightly less than the 7.9% it originally planned.
    You may or may not like this but that's what's happened.

    This government has missed its borrowing targets by hundreds of billions.

    You may or may not like this but that's what's happened.
    but the responsibility for the debt is down to LABOUR.. Debt was always going to be huge after their mismanagement
    Certainly, the borrowing was always going to be huge **.

    But it has been / will be hundreds of billions more than Osborne said it would be.

    Those hundreds of billions mean we all be paying higher taxes for the rest of our lives to pay it back.

    ** It should be remembered that Cameron and Osborne were happy to promise to match Brown's spending and saw nothing wrong with Brown's economic strategy before autumn 2008 - remember their 'share the proceeds of growth' promise.
  • Sean_F said:

    felix said:
    Another ex Tory, UKIP have done so much to detoxify the Tory party.
    Yet Matthew Parris says the Conservatives "really piss people off" without understanding that his piece about Clacton is the sort of thing that pisses people off.

    Camilla Long's piece in the Sunday Times about Thanet South seems to have enraged the Kippers too

    http://www.ukip.org/ukip_leader_slams_tory_paper_attack_on_thanet
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    Floater said:

    SMukesh said:

    Cameron making political speeches from outside Downing Street departing from tradition.

    I will be waiting to see how much lower he will sink before he loses in less than 6 weeks` time.

    Do you really want us to remind you how low Labour sank?

    Makes anything this lot have done seem fairly tame really.
    SMukesh has retired hurt since it was pointed out that his "departure from tradition" has been standard procedure for (at least) decades.
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800
    isam said:

    Roy Hodgson text me earlier, said he's starting Kane up front w Rooney in the hole tmrw.. When he tells me the starting XI I'll let you know

    Haha, I thought along those lines when I saw that post.

    My initial thought was here we go, The Ego Has Landed.
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    Moses_ said:

    Plato said:

    OT I'm watching a 60s documentary and it references LSD a lot - I've never tried it - anyone here dropped it?

    Dunno can't remember

    ;-)

    I used it a lot until it decimalised me
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,972
    edited March 2015
    If I didn't know better, I'd say Lucy Powell was a Tory plant.

    What happened to Ed's positive, insult free campaign, is his wife going to have a go at Lucy?

    https://twitter.com/LucyPowellMP/status/582638440925302784

    EDIT: SPOOF ACCOUNT
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207

    Philip Thompson - why is France a basket case? They don't have their own currency but many of their fundamentals look stronger than the UK. As I say higher GDP per head, less debt, more saving and investment and better infrastructure.

    Oh dear - France is in big trouble to deny it quite silly.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,959
    Dair As far as I can see nothing in those figures has really changed from late 2012 in any of those nations concerned, can you point to any differences. Certainly the 39% target is not that far from Osborne's target with a 36% aim by 2018-19 and a surplus. The point remains by 2017 the UK will be spending less as a percentage of GDP than most developed nations in Japan, Europe and North America, with only Switzerland, Ireland, some East Asian nations and Australia and New Zealand spending less
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    LSD, like cannabis, has at least one thing going for it, a lethal overdose is all but impractical.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,803
    Sean_F said:

    felix said:
    Another ex Tory, UKIP have done so much to detoxify the Tory party.
    Yet Matthew Parris says the Conservatives "really piss people off" without understanding that his piece about Clacton is the sort of thing that pisses people off.

    I suspect Parris was merely revealing what he thought, and has always thought, of the sort of people who live in Clacton.

    I remember on one of those Thatcher retrospective programs of a few years ago Parris recounted how, when working in Thatcher's office in the 1970s, he and his chums referred to Thatcher as 'Hilda' behind her back.

    The reason being that they thought Hilda a more downmarket name than Margaret.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,043
    edited March 2015

    If I didn't know better, I'd say Lucy Powell was a Tory plant.

    What happened to Ed's positive, insult free campaign, is his wife going to have a go at Lucy?

    https://twitter.com/LucyPowellMP/status/582638440925302784

    Hacked, surely? Edit - ah, a spoof account. That'll teach me

    https://twitter.com/LucyPowellMP/status/582634755902038018
  • RobD said:

    If I didn't know better, I'd say Lucy Powell was a Tory plant.

    What happened to Ed's positive, insult free campaign, is his wife going to have a go at Lucy?

    https://twitter.com/LucyPowellMP/status/582638440925302784

    Hacked, surely? Edit - ah, a spoof account. That'll teach me

    https://twitter.com/LucyPowellMP/status/582634755902038018
    Teach me too.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    edited March 2015
    https://twitter.com/LucyPowellMP/status/582638110946787328

    Oh dear...unfunny spoof account...or she lent her phone to the Hobbits wife.

    :-)
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,117
    Moses_ said:

    Britain is to blame for illegal immigrant problems on the French side of the Channel because of its lack of commitment to the “European project”, the mayor of Calais has claimed.
    Natacha Bouchart accused the British government of “despising” the native population of Calais and said the UK should be forced to sign up to Europe’s open borders agreement.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11504061/Britain-to-blame-for-illegal-immigrant-crisis-says-Calais-mayor.html

    Apparently we are to blame for the French and others letting everyone in from Africa. She carefully forgets to remember that political asylum seekers must claim in the first safe country not pick and choose. Of course these are economic migrants and yours and the French Governments problem.

    You don't like it put up border controls like I always have to pass through when leaving the UK whenever I go anywhere on the continent. She talks about people entering from Europe but the people in Calais jumping lorries are not European. She is of course just too thick and stupid to see it or the cause and solutions to the problem.

    I have a number of friends- Senegalese in Florence. I speak to them regularly around my supermarket- they show me pictures of their families at home. They are young, hard working, friendly, intelligent, healthy and are trying do everything to their lives better. It is so sad that they have to resort often to life threatening means to improve their lives like jumping lorries. These people are an asset not an hindrance.
  • https://twitter.com/LucyPowellMP/status/582638110946787328

    Oh dear...think somebody has been hacked...or she lent her phone to the Hobbits wife.

    Is a spoof account,
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,464
    TGOHF said:
    This constant interfering in markets really concerns me about Ed ( housing rents, building land, energy et al). Sure the free market is not utterly perfect 100% of the time but it is the best option in many many circumstances and sticking an oar in can have worse consequences.

    This is one. Aside from the accountancy field day this 5% cap will unleash as others have said, and the now possible excepting of drugs, what if a company invents a world beating health widget which is cheaper and better than anything before but insists it will only sell it at 20% profit (however defined by Ed), Is the NHS going to be deprived of it for ideological reasons alone, saddling patients and the taxpayer with inferior and dearer options whilst the company cheerfully sells the widget to everyone else worldwide?
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,387
    edited March 2015
    Everybody ready for You [what?] Gov? :smiley:
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    edited March 2015


    Is a spoof account,

    Noticed...and edited post. Joys of twitter + spoof accounts that get retweeted + multi-tasking.

    Best MP spoof twitter? Boles?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,803
    Moses_ said:

    Indigo said:

    DavidL - If you honestly believe Cameron and Osborne are centrists then it's no wonder so many of your fellow countrymen are disillusioned with life in the Union! Let us not forget that they unveiled the most ridiculous anti-government scorched earth austerity programme in 2010 that was almost beyond parody in its anti-keynesian idiocy. Luckily for us George did a partial u-turn as borrowing refused to come down and he even embraced a bit of stimulus to the housing market (completely the wrong sector of the UK economy to be stimuating but you could argue something was better than nothing). All the worst kind of Tory thinking - get government out the way, don't interfere in the market, unless it's housing, in which case it's all fine.

    Wut ? Keynes advocated heavy spending stimulus in a downturn and cutting back and saving in the good times. The sort of pissing money up the wall in the good times both parties have been doing in the last decade probably has him spinning in his grave!

    If you think Osborne's feeble cutting back of less than 2% over a whole parliament is austerity, you have clearly lost touch with that well known right-wing monetarist Denis Healey who cut 4% from spending in one year in 1974, I realise him being Labour, and therefore making "cuddly cuts" is different.
    According to the IMF the underlying deficit reduction in Britain has been 6.6% of GDP, with 3.5% still to go.
    The definition of a tight fiscal policy is to cut spending and or raise taxes. The IFS points out that over the course of the parliament the coalition will have tightened by 7% of GDP, slightly less than the 7.9% it originally planned.
    You may or may not like this but that's what's happened.

    This government has missed its borrowing targets by hundreds of billions.

    You may or may not like this but that's what's happened.
    In other words.....

    Coalition pooper scooping the shit the bear left in the woods
    No, it means this government has missed its borrowing target by hundreds of billions.

    You may or may not like this but that's what's happened.
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 2,038
    Barnesian said:

    Indigo said:

    Barnesian said:

    Indigo said:


    Two people will vote in the constituencies in which they live having decided how best to deploy their votes. as is their right in our democracy.

    So you would be happy for the Conservative Party to start organising it in marginals where they are just behind Labour ?

    Anyone planning to write a vote sharing app ? VotR maybe ?
    The Conservative Party used to organise that overseas voters placed their vote in Tory marginals. An overseas voter only had to declare that they had some tenuous relationship with the constituency to be able to vote there, - like my mother used to shop there. I don't know whether this is still allowed.
    I am voting from overseas. I used to live in the marginal Swindon South, now I am proxy voting in the rock steady Tory Hereford & South Herefordshire, not sure that went to plan ;)
    Why are you doing that!
    Hereford used to be a Lib Dem seat, hence it is 'marginal'. But Jesse Norman seems safe.
  • tyson said:

    Plato said:

    OT I'm watching a 60s documentary and it references LSD a lot - I've never tried it - anyone here dropped it?

    A few times in the early 90's.
    Red robots and blue penguins were quite popular in the Barnet area.

    Plato said:

    OT I'm watching a 60s documentary and it references LSD a lot - I've never tried it - anyone here dropped it?

    A few times in the early 90's.
    Red robots and blue penguins were quite popular in the Barnet area.

    Plato

    Life is all about experience I guess. I hope before my time is up I manage to make my way through pretty much the whole spectrum of life enhancing substances- then at least you can make an informed opinion on the merits or otherwise.
    Or you can be narrow minded, and be opinionated without knowledge.
    Looking back on those days. I must say that LSD was one of the lesser enjoyable substances,
    I found that it dragged on and on and generally you needed to write off the following 24 hours.
    They were however very cheap in relation to disco biscuits which was the preferred party drug of the era.
    I recall one night sitting in South Mimms services on the way back from clubbing with a group of mate, we were convinced that the crescent pattern on the carpet was an army of marching hedgehogs coming for us.

This discussion has been closed.