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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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).
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].
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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"....
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.
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'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.
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.
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
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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
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.
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.
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...
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Comments
Tory Pm makes political speech outside No 10 at dissolution = very bad and Smarky wonders how low this Tory can go
Ha!
France is the outlier, economically, and its growth rate has been worse than that of the UK or Germany, over a generation.
it seems to be entirely traditional.
It used to be the PB tories who were wrong about everything...
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
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...
I think it'd make a fine exit exam from school in that you both understood and liked Mr Lehrer's ditty.
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.
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.
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...
Red robots and blue penguins were quite popular in the Barnet area.
http://www.periodicvideos.com/
Provided by Nottingham University Chemistry Department
Con's ahead in N London, very close in W and S London.
E London is massively skewing the overall London numbers.
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.
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
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?
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/oct/16/government-spending-countries-gdp
"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!)
;-)
Rot! It could easily be demonstrated in court that a vote is intrinsically worthless [and worthless of all under FPTP].
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?
https://www.buglife.org.uk/blog/matt-shardlow-ceo/pesticide-report-was-defras-dodgy-dossier
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.
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.
It'd be easier to list the ones who haven't quit!
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.
Law Dictionary: What is CRIMINAL ACT? definition of CRIMINAL ACT (Black's Law Dictionary)
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.
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.
You may or may not like this but that's what's happened.
A rough guess would be seats like Stockton South, Birmingham Yardley, Morecambe & Lunesdale and North Devon.
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...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-30/miliband-says-drugmakers-exempt-from-u-k-health-profit-cap-plan
Twitter.com/AshmoleanMuseum/status/581072588119678976/photo/1
Gillray makes Steve Bell's stuff tame IMHO.
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.
A post from 3 years ago using figures which have already been proven to be completely disconnected from reality...
Coalition pooper scooping the shit the bear left in the woods
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.
Makes anything this lot have done seem fairly tame really.
One night on LSD is hardly going to qualify anyone to understand the risks of abuse.
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.
http://www.ukip.org/ukip_leader_slams_tory_paper_attack_on_thanet
My initial thought was here we go, The Ego Has Landed.
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
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.
https://twitter.com/LucyPowellMP/status/582634755902038018
Oh dear...unfunny spoof account...or she lent her phone to the Hobbits wife.
:-)
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?
Best MP spoof twitter? Boles?
You may or may not like this but that's what's happened.
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.