Regular pbers have been spoiled over the years by the brilliant and infuriating trolls of tim, all day and every day. It is rather embarrassing when rank amateurs try to fill his shoes.
tim is losing the plot on his twitter account. not only are his comments libellous, he is back to Dave "pimping his kids".
What is his twitter account ?
Yeah, tim is one of the shrewdest political punters out there. If he's on twitter, i'm following him. What's his account name?
Very shrewd and very nasty.
Could dish it out but not take it, pathetic little bully boy.
To be fair to tim he received plenty of abuse in return.
It was only when details of his family were posted that he left.
Unless something is done to stop or limit the numbers of non-EU people buying up property in London as an investment, we will never sort the issue. Even a housing development near me - quite a nice one but essentially no more than tarted up bedsits (for all the marble and posh kitchen equipment, the bedrooms were tiny, the storage was limited and the kitchen was in the living room) - was marketed to Indians and Chinese at eye-watering prices.
Unless something changes I'm more likely to be able to leave home than my children.
Labour get 10 out of 10 for identifying the problem and about 0 out of 10 for not coming up with a solution.
Solutions to the housing crisis:-
1. Reduce immigration by leaving the EU, and thereby reduce demand.
2. Reduce credit and crash the economy, and crash house prices down.
3. Build on Green Fields (but these aren't in the right places).
4. Scream & wave arms about it and hope it resolves over time.
50,000 seems a bit pissy when to start matching supply and demand we probably need to be talking in seven figures. Only antifrank is being radical enough.
I missed the most radical bit of my plan, which solves another problem. Ensure that the quality of housing is adequate by moving Parliament into the area to be redeveloped area, and supply MPs with standard quality housing of the new builds.
There is an argument for relocating parliament, but out of London and I suggest on a modest scale in terms of its construction. Lots of functions of govt have been moved out of the south east (like, infamously, the HMCR to the North East. Given the desire to cut civil service numbers there could be a window to move significant parts of government. Some sort of happenstance movement does carry with it security issues and not just physical there is cyber as well.
I agree 50,000 is not matching demand but it shows the interest and intent. HS2 is designed to be a conduit out of London and the 'northern powerhouse' is just one example of development outside London. We have been playing this game since the 60's if not before, but despite its inevitable draw we need to move development out of London.
Only 6 points between Labour and SNP in this poll, the gap is closing, could be DKs or the Gordon effect. Interesting Channel 4 News tonight. People interviewed in Yorkshire were a million miles from the upbeat pizza flipping Osborne and could see very little to be optimistic in their own lives. They did not feel that there had been an upturn in their economic prospects.
You must save a fortune on lawnmower blades, what with all that AstroTurf.
I'm sorry but Roseree's post is 100% accurate.
For the Tories to pin 100% of their electoral hopes on the economy which at best is a neutral player is quite sad. Reminds me somewhat of Brown's hubristic boom and bust. The economy could easily be whacked off course with a Greek exit, or a major banking failure; and anyway we have to thank the influx of immigrants for keeping the economy afloat- bet the Tories don't mention this. But in the surreal world of the Tories everything economical is down to the great, Osborne, the Wizard of Toryland.
I can't for the life of me think of anything else the Tories can say- oh yes, we've brought chaos to the NHS with our bungled and costly reform ; or we've introduced an ideologically mind bogglingly reform of schools, or perhaps we helped get rid of Gaddafi and bring chaos to Libya, or they've led to badgers being butchered in vain.
Little wonder the Tories only want to speak about the economy.
Stuff and nonsense.
And that reminds me of one of my least favourite attack lines. When Tories introduce policy based on right of centre thinking it is all ideologically driven etc. etc. but naturally Labour don't have any left of centre ideology based policies.
Oh wait, they don't have any policies at all. My mistake.
The Labour party jettisoned ideology in the 90's, even before Blair. New Labour were managerialists- as too is Cameron. Gove and Lansley are market based ideologues- both of whom Cameron was quite wise to ditch.
Nothing wrong with a bit of ideology. Wish more of our politicians showed some.
If all they have is Oxbridge PPE type bland managerialism, then is it any wonder that turnout drops and they are increasingly seen as out of touch?
If anyone thinks labour could possibly win Battersea really are in fairyland. have they been to battersea recently? its Chelsea south of the river and very very wealthy
Labour won it in 2005. They need a 6% swing to win it back. This poll shows a 4.5% swing.
Labour probably won't win it. There is though a possibility that they will. Current odds from 9/4 to 3/1 hardly suggest that it's not in play. I won a bet on them gaining Hammersmith and Fulham in 2014 at odds within that range.
BTW- a very good match, England vs Italy. The Azzurri have got something of their old swagger back, and something that I agree with Nige about- Carrick is a necessary cog for the England midfield.
He just holds everything together, I think 'glue' is the current buzzword. He also passes crisply and mostly forward.
Unless something is done to stop or limit the numbers of non-EU people buying up property in London as an investment, we will never sort the issue. Even a housing development near me - quite a nice one but essentially no more than tarted up bedsits (for all the marble and posh kitchen equipment, the bedrooms were tiny, the storage was limited and the kitchen was in the living room) - was marketed to Indians and Chinese at eye-watering prices.
Unless something changes I'm more likely to be able to leave home than my children.
Labour get 10 out of 10 for identifying the problem and about 0 out of 10 for not coming up with a solution.
Solutions to the housing crisis:-
1. Reduce immigration by leaving the EU, and thereby reduce demand.
2. Reduce credit and crash the economy, and crash house prices down.
3. Build on Green Fields (but these aren't in the right places).
4. Scream & wave arms about it and hope it resolves over time.
50,000 seems a bit pissy when to start matching supply and demand we probably need to be talking in seven figures. Only antifrank is being radical enough.
I missed the most radical bit of my plan, which solves another problem. Ensure that the quality of housing is adequate by moving Parliament into the area to be redeveloped area, and supply MPs with standard quality housing of the new builds.
You could be even more radical by moving Parliament out of London.
Although being 'even more radical' is actually only the equivalent of copying USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.
None of the other English speaking democracies has the concentration of power that the UK has.
Only 6 points between Labour and SNP in this poll, the gap is closing, could be DKs or the Gordon effect. Interesting Channel 4 News tonight. People interviewed in Yorkshire were a million miles from the upbeat pizza flipping Osborne and could see very little to be optimistic in their own lives. They did not feel that there had been an upturn in their economic prospects.
You must save a fortune on lawnmower blades, what with all that AstroTurf.
I'm sorry but Roseree's post is 100% accurate.
For the Tories to pin 100% of their electoral hopes on the economy which at best is a neutral player is quite sad. Reminds me somewhat of Brown's hubristic boom and bust. The economy could easily be whacked off course with a Greek exit, or a major banking failure; and anyway we have to thank the influx of immigrants for keeping the economy afloat- bet the Tories don't mention this. But in the surreal world of the Tories everything economical is down to the great, Osborne, the Wizard of Toryland.
I can't for the life of me think of anything else the Tories can say- oh yes, we've brought chaos to the NHS with our bungled and costly reform ; or we've introduced an ideologically mind bogglingly reform of schools, or perhaps we helped get rid of Gaddafi and bring chaos to Libya, or they've led to badgers being butchered in vain.
Little wonder the Tories only want to speak about the economy.
Stuff and nonsense.
And that reminds me of one of my least favourite attack lines. When Tories introduce policy based on right of centre thinking it is all ideologically driven etc. etc. but naturally Labour don't have any left of centre ideology based policies.
Oh wait, they don't have any policies at all. My mistake.
The Labour party jettisoned ideology in the 90's, even before Blair. New Labour were managerialists- as too is Cameron. Gove and Lansley are market based ideologues- both of whom Cameron was quite wise to ditch.
Nothing wrong with a bit of ideology. Wish more of our politicians showed some.
If all they have is Oxbridge PPE type bland managerialism, then is it any wonder that turnout drops and they are increasingly seen as out of touch?
Indeed. Although to be successful then managerial ability is a necessity whereas ideology is an optional extra.
Unless something is done to stop or limit the numbers of non-EU people buying up property in London as an investment, we will never sort the issue. Even a housing development near me - quite a nice one but essentially no more than tarted up bedsits (for all the marble and posh kitchen equipment, the bedrooms were tiny, the storage was limited and the kitchen was in the living room) - was marketed to Indians and Chinese at eye-watering prices.
Unless something changes I'm more likely to be able to leave home than my children.
Labour get 10 out of 10 for identifying the problem and about 0 out of 10 for not coming up with a solution.
Solutions to the housing crisis:-
1. Reduce immigration by leaving the EU, and thereby reduce demand.
2. Reduce credit and crash the economy, and crash house prices down.
3. Build on Green Fields (but these aren't in the right places).
4. Scream & wave arms about it and hope it resolves over time.
50,000 seems a bit pissy when to start matching supply and demand we probably need to be talking in seven figures. Only antifrank is being radical enough.
I missed the most radical bit of my plan, which solves another problem. Ensure that the quality of housing is adequate by moving Parliament into the area to be redeveloped area, and supply MPs with standard quality housing of the new builds.
You could be even more radical by moving Parliament out of London.
Although being 'even more radical' is actually only the equivalent of copying USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.
None of the other English speaking democracies has the concentration of power that the UK has.
I've long favoured that. But where in England is as boring as Ottawa or Canberra? Telford, maybe?
Alternatively we could adopt the approach suggested by Gunter Grass in The Flounder for the United Nations, where he suggested locating the HQ in Calcutta so that the representatives could see the depths of the problems they had to solve. Stoke on Trent, maybe?
If anyone thinks labour could possibly win Battersea really are in fairyland. have they been to battersea recently? its Chelsea south of the river and very very wealthy
Labour won it in 2005. They need a 6% swing to win it back. This poll shows a 4.5% swing.
Labour probably won't win it. There is though a possibility that they will. Current odds from 9/4 to 3/1 hardly suggest that it's not in play. I won a bet on them gaining Hammersmith and Fulham in 2014 at odds within that range.
The CON MP there is very, very active in all the local communities and very well liked. Anyone seen odds on her increasing her majority ?
Does anyone know what polls we're expecting this evening?
Just YouGov
Thanks. I'll see if I can get the March PB Average piece written after it comes out then. It'd be good to have it as a baseline before all hell breaks loose (potentially) with the first debate. Or possibly not, but I am expecting a lot more movement than the Paxman interviews generated.
Unless something is done to stop or limit the numbers of non-EU people buying up property in London as an investment, we will never sort the issue. Even a housing development near me - quite a nice one but essentially no more than tarted up bedsits (for all the marble and posh kitchen equipment, the bedrooms were tiny, the storage was limited and the kitchen was in the living room) - was marketed to Indians and Chinese at eye-watering prices.
Unless something changes I'm more likely to be able to leave home than my children.
Labour get 10 out of 10 for identifying the problem and about 0 out of 10 for not coming up with a solution.
Solutions to the housing crisis:-
1. Reduce immigration by leaving the EU, and thereby reduce demand.
2. Reduce credit and crash the economy, and crash house prices down.
3. Build on Green Fields (but these aren't in the right places).
4. Scream & wave arms about it and hope it resolves over time.
50,000 seems a bit pissy when to start matching supply and demand we probably need to be talking in seven figures. Only antifrank is being radical enough.
I missed the most radical bit of my plan, which solves another problem. Ensure that the quality of housing is adequate by moving Parliament into the area to be redeveloped area, and supply MPs with standard quality housing of the new builds.
You could be even more radical by moving Parliament out of London.
Although being 'even more radical' is actually only the equivalent of copying USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.
None of the other English speaking democracies has the concentration of power that the UK has.
I've long favoured that. But where in England is as boring as Ottawa or Canberra? Telford, maybe?
Alternatively we could adopt the approach suggested by Gunther Grasse in The Flounder for the United Nations, where he suggested locating the HQ in Calcutta so that the representatives could see the depths of the problems they had to solve. Stoke on Trent, maybe?
Unless something is done to stop or limit the numbers of non-EU people buying up property in London as an investment, we will never sort the issue. Even a housing development near me - quite a nice one but essentially no more than tarted up bedsits (for all the marble and posh kitchen equipment, the bedrooms were tiny, the storage was limited and the kitchen was in the living room) - was marketed to Indians and Chinese at eye-watering prices.
Unless something changes I'm more likely to be able to leave home than my children.
Labour get 10 out of 10 for identifying the problem and about 0 out of 10 for not coming up with a solution.
Solutions to the housing crisis:-
1. Reduce immigration by leaving the EU, and thereby reduce demand.
2. Reduce credit and crash the economy, and crash house prices down.
3. Build on Green Fields (but these aren't in the right places).
4. Scream & wave arms about it and hope it resolves over time.
50,000 seems a bit pissy when to start matching supply and demand we probably need to be talking in seven figures. Only antifrank is being radical enough.
I missed the most radical bit of my plan, which solves another problem. Ensure that the quality of housing is adequate by moving Parliament into the area to be redeveloped area, and supply MPs with standard quality housing of the new builds.
You could be even more radical by moving Parliament out of London.
Although being 'even more radical' is actually only the equivalent of copying USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.
None of the other English speaking democracies has the concentration of power that the UK has.
I've long favoured that. But where in England is as boring as Ottawa or Canberra? Telford, maybe?
Alternatively we could adopt the approach suggested by Gunther Grasse in The Flounder for the United Nations, where he suggested locating the HQ in Calcutta so that the representatives could see the depths of the problems they had to solve. Stoke on Trent, maybe?
Stoke on Trent is home to the world's leading online gambling group. And Tristram Hunt. So there are still problems to solve.
Regular pbers have been spoiled over the years by the brilliant and infuriating trolls of tim, all day and every day. It is rather embarrassing when rank amateurs try to fill his shoes.
tim is losing the plot on his twitter account. not only are his comments libellous, he is back to Dave "pimping his kids".
What is his twitter account ?
Yeah, tim is one of the shrewdest political punters out there. If he's on twitter, i'm following him. What's his account name?
Very shrewd and very nasty.
Could dish it out but not take it, pathetic little bully boy.
To be fair to tim he received plenty of abuse in return.
It was only when details of his family were posted that he left.
Not true.. he flounced/left at one time for months.. He was brutal to Plato and others about using twitter and now uses it himself. He is just one little sh*t with no redeeming features. His obsession about Cameron and Osborne and their families should mean a straightjacket.
Unless something is done to stop or limit the numbers of non-EU people buying up property in London as an investment, we will never sort the issue. Even a housing development near me - quite a nice one but essentially no more than tarted up bedsits (for all the marble and posh kitchen equipment, the bedrooms were tiny, the storage was limited and the kitchen was in the living room) - was marketed to Indians and Chinese at eye-watering prices.
Unless something changes I'm more likely to be able to leave home than my children.
Labour get 10 out of 10 for identifying the problem and about 0 out of 10 for not coming up with a solution.
Solutions to the housing crisis:-
1. Reduce immigration by leaving the EU, and thereby reduce demand.
2. Reduce credit and crash the economy, and crash house prices down.
3. Build on Green Fields (but these aren't in the right places).
4. Scream & wave arms about it and hope it resolves over time.
50,000 seems a bit pissy when to start matching supply and demand we probably need to be talking in seven figures. Only antifrank is being radical enough.
I missed the most radical bit of my plan, which solves another problem. Ensure that the quality of housing is adequate by moving Parliament into the area to be redeveloped area, and supply MPs with standard quality housing of the new builds.
You could be even more radical by moving Parliament out of London.
Although being 'even more radical' is actually only the equivalent of copying USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.
None of the other English speaking democracies has the concentration of power that the UK has.
I've long favoured that. But where in England is as boring as Ottawa or Canberra? Telford, maybe?
Alternatively we could adopt the approach suggested by Gunter Grass in The Flounder for the United Nations, where he suggested locating the HQ in Calcutta so that the representatives could see the depths of the problems they had to solve. Stoke on Trent, maybe?
If anyone thinks labour could possibly win Battersea really are in fairyland. have they been to battersea recently? its Chelsea south of the river and very very wealthy
Labour won it in 2005. They need a 6% swing to win it back. This poll shows a 4.5% swing.
Labour probably won't win it. There is though a possibility that they will. Current odds from 9/4 to 3/1 hardly suggest that it's not in play. I won a bet on them gaining Hammersmith and Fulham in 2014 at odds within that range.
Jane Ellison will probably benefit from first time incumbency, and continued social change favours the Tories, here.
pathetic little bully boy for describing Tim seems to remind me of someone else we have on pbCOM.
On the economy, really no Govt can honestly claim too much credit these days, they just have to cross their fingers and hope it all falls well on their watch. But you can understand politicians taking credit for stuff quite beyond their control- the nature of the beast.
...
Nonsense. The measure of a government's economic competence is in creating the conditions for growth and job creation and government policy and attitude plays a massive part in that. Obviously, when international conditions are benign it's easier to manage than when they're not but do you think it was just chance that saw Greece become a casualty of the last recession rather than, say, Australia?
I'm not talking about Greece here. If Labour had won the last election in 2010, the economic fundamentals would have been the same. At some point the UK would have returned to growth because of our flexible, low wage, labour market, and high immigration. Labour, even attacking zero hours contracts now, doesn't present a threat to any of these.
If anyone deserves credit, it is Wilson, Callaghan and then Thatcher who changed the face of Britain by pushing to mixed market based solutions, and of course Heath for joining the EU.
After Thatcher, it has been about keeping to the script, and crossing one's fingers.
AntiFrank What about Wellington in New Zealand? Paris certainly is not that far off London in terms of concentration of power, nor are Tokyo and Rome and Moscow
Regular pbers have been spoiled over the years by the brilliant and infuriating trolls of tim, all day and every day. It is rather embarrassing when rank amateurs try to fill his shoes.
tim is losing the plot on his twitter account. not only are his comments libellous, he is back to Dave "pimping his kids".
What is his twitter account ?
Yeah, tim is one of the shrewdest political punters out there. If he's on twitter, i'm following him. What's his account name?
Very shrewd and very nasty.
Could dish it out but not take it, pathetic little bully boy.
To be fair to tim he received plenty of abuse in return.
It was only when details of his family were posted that he left.
Not true.. he flounced/left at one time for months.. He was brutal to Plato and others about using twitter and now uses it himself. He is just one little sh*t with no redeeming features. His obsession about Cameron and Osborne should mean a straightjacket.
I was always convinced tim was multiple people. He could be very pleasant and engaging (e.g. on issues like music) and a shrewd political analyst, but then other times he was unremittingly nasty and extremely repetitive to boot.
Unless something is done to stop or limit the numbers of non-EU people buying up property in London as an investment, we will never sort the issue. Even a housing development near me - quite a nice one but essentially no more than tarted up bedsits (for all the marble and posh kitchen equipment, the bedrooms were tiny, the storage was limited and the kitchen was in the living room) - was marketed to Indians and Chinese at eye-watering prices.
Unless something changes I'm more likely to be able to leave home than my children.
Labour get 10 out of 10 for identifying the problem and about 0 out of 10 for not coming up with a solution.
Solutions to the housing crisis:-
1. Reduce immigration by leaving the EU, and thereby reduce demand.
2. Reduce credit and crash the economy, and crash house prices down.
3. Build on Green Fields (but these aren't in the right places).
4. Scream & wave arms about it and hope it resolves over time.
50,000 seems a bit pissy when to start matching supply and demand we probably need to be talking in seven figures. Only antifrank is being radical enough.
I missed the most radical bit of my plan, which solves another problem. Ensure that the quality of housing is adequate by moving Parliament into the area to be redeveloped area, and supply MPs with standard quality housing of the new builds.
You could be even more radical by moving Parliament out of London.
Although being 'even more radical' is actually only the equivalent of copying USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.
None of the other English speaking democracies has the concentration of power that the UK has.
I've long favoured that. But where in England is as boring as Ottawa or Canberra? Telford, maybe?
Alternatively we could adopt the approach suggested by Gunther Grasse in The Flounder for the United Nations, where he suggested locating the HQ in Calcutta so that the representatives could see the depths of the problems they had to solve. Stoke on Trent, maybe?
I spent my secondary school, then teen years living in Telford. If I could liken the UK to a human body, Telford is an irritating skin tag hanging off the anus. It is a truly souless place. Betjamen got it wrong, Slough is fine by comparison.
Unless something is done to stop or limit the numbers of non-EU people buying up property in London as an investment, we will never sort the issue. Even a housing development near me - quite a nice one but essentially no more than tarted up bedsits (for all the marble and posh kitchen equipment, the bedrooms were tiny, the storage was limited and the kitchen was in the living room) - was marketed to Indians and Chinese at eye-watering prices.
Unless something changes I'm more likely to be able to leave home than my children.
Labour get 10 out of 10 for identifying the problem and about 0 out of 10 for not coming up with a solution.
Solutions to the housing crisis:-
1. Reduce immigration by leaving the EU, and thereby reduce demand.
2. Reduce credit and crash the economy, and crash house prices down.
3. Build on Green Fields (but these aren't in the right places).
4. Scream & wave arms about it and hope it resolves over time.
50,000 seems a bit pissy when to start matching supply and demand we probably need to be talking in seven figures. Only antifrank is being radical enough.
I missed the most radical bit of my plan, which solves another problem. Ensure that the quality of housing is adequate by moving Parliament into the area to be redeveloped area, and supply MPs with standard quality housing of the new builds.
You could be even more radical by moving Parliament out of London.
Although being 'even more radical' is actually only the equivalent of copying USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.
None of the other English speaking democracies has the concentration of power that the UK has.
I've long favoured that. But where in England is as boring as Ottawa or Canberra? Telford, maybe?
Alternatively we could adopt the approach suggested by Gunter Grass in The Flounder for the United Nations, where he suggested locating the HQ in Calcutta so that the representatives could see the depths of the problems they had to solve. Stoke on Trent, maybe?
Regular pbers have been spoiled over the years by the brilliant and infuriating trolls of tim, all day and every day. It is rather embarrassing when rank amateurs try to fill his shoes.
tim is losing the plot on his twitter account. not only are his comments libellous, he is back to Dave "pimping his kids".
What is his twitter account ?
Yeah, tim is one of the shrewdest political punters out there. If he's on twitter, i'm following him. What's his account name?
Very shrewd and very nasty.
Could dish it out but not take it, pathetic little bully boy.
To be fair to tim he received plenty of abuse in return.
It was only when details of his family were posted that he left.
Not true.. he flounced/left at one time for months.. He was brutal to Plato and others about using twitter and now uses it himself. He is just one little sh*t with no redeeming features. His obsession about Cameron and Osborne and their families should mean a straightjacket.
He was very good at saying very hurtful things that got under peoples' skin. He's no loss to the site.
Unless something is done to stop or limit the numbers of non-EU people buying up property in London as an investment, we will never sort the issue. Even a housing development near me - quite a nice one but essentially no more than tarted up bedsits (for all the marble and posh kitchen equipment, the bedrooms were tiny, the storage was limited and the kitchen was in the living room) - was marketed to Indians and Chinese at eye-watering prices.
Unless something changes I'm more likely to be able to leave home than my children.
Labour get 10 out of 10 for identifying the problem and about 0 out of 10 for not coming up with a solution.
Solutions to the housing crisis:-
1. Reduce immigration by leaving the EU, and thereby reduce demand.
2. Reduce credit and crash the economy, and crash house prices down.
3. Build on Green Fields (but these aren't in the right places).
4. Scream & wave arms about it and hope it resolves over time.
50,000 seems a bit pissy when to start matching supply and demand we probably need to be talking in seven figures. Only antifrank is being radical enough.
I missed the most radical bit of my plan, which solves another problem. Ensure that the quality of housing is adequate by moving Parliament into the area to be redeveloped area, and supply MPs with standard quality housing of the new builds.
You could be even more radical by moving Parliament out of London.
Although being 'even more radical' is actually only the equivalent of copying USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.
None of the other English speaking democracies has the concentration of power that the UK has.
I've long favoured that. But where in England is as boring as Ottawa or Canberra? Telford, maybe?
Alternatively we could adopt the approach suggested by Gunter Grass in The Flounder for the United Nations, where he suggested locating the HQ in Calcutta so that the representatives could see the depths of the problems they had to solve. Stoke on Trent, maybe?
TimT He may be ahead in Penn, but Hillary is ahead of Paul in Florida and Ohio according to Quinnipiac tonight, Jeb Bush does lead her in Florida, though she leads him in Ohio.
Quinnipiac Ohio
Hillary Clinton (D) 46% {48%} [46%] (49%) {51%} [50%] (47%) Rand Paul (R) 41% {36%} [42%] (41%) {38%} [40%] (44%)
Hillary Clinton (D) 45% {47%} [46%] (46%) {49%} [42%] (42%) Chris Christie (R) 39% {34%} [37%] (38%) {36%} [41%] (42%)
Hillary Clinton (D) 47% (47%) {50%} [48%] Marco Rubio (R) 38% (40%) {36%} [39%]
Hillary Clinton (D) 47% {47%} [48%] (48%) {51%} [50%] Jeb Bush (R) 38% {36%} [37%] (39%) {36%} [37%]
pathetic little bully boy for describing Tim seems to remind me of someone else we have on pbCOM.
On the economy, really no Govt can honestly claim too much credit these days, they just have to cross their fingers and hope it all falls well on their watch. But you can understand politicians taking credit for stuff quite beyond their control- the nature of the beast.
...
Nonsense. The measure of a government's economic competence is in creating the conditions for growth and job creation and government policy and attitude plays a massive part in that. Obviously, when international conditions are benign it's easier to manage than when they're not but do you think it was just chance that saw Greece become a casualty of the last recession rather than, say, Australia?
I'm not talking about Greece here. If Labour had won the last election in 2010, the economic fundamentals would have been the same. At some point the UK would have returned to growth because of our flexible, low wage, labour market, and high immigration. Labour, even attacking zero hours contracts now, doesn't present a threat to any of these.
If anyone deserves credit, it is Wilson, Callaghan and then Thatcher who changed the face of Britain by pushing to mixed market based solutions, and of course Heath for joining the EU.
After Thatcher, it has been about keeping to the script, and crossing one's fingers.
You might not be talking about Greece but I am. There is no way that a Brown / Balls team would have behaved like Cameron and Osborne, even in tandem with the Lib Dems. The whole of Labour's mantra in 2010-11 was about cutting too far too fast. They wanted to keep their foot hard on the pedal and that would have very much changed the fundamentals, not least in the markets the government would have been borrowing in (or trying to). If, rather than 2%, the rate had increased to 5, 6, 7 or more, the economy would very much not have returned to growth - though we wouldn't be talking about a London rental crisis, unless we meant for landlords.
Unless something is done to stop or limit the numbers of non-EU people buying up property in London as an investment, we will never sort the issue. Even a housing development near me - quite a nice one but essentially no more than tarted up bedsits (for all the marble and posh kitchen equipment, the bedrooms were tiny, the storage was limited and the kitchen was in the living room) - was marketed to Indians and Chinese at eye-watering prices.
Unless something changes I'm more likely to be able to leave home than my children.
Labour get 10 out of 10 for identifying the problem and about 0 out of 10 for not coming up with a solution.
Solutions to the housing crisis:-
1. Reduce immigration by leaving the EU, and thereby reduce demand.
2. Reduce credit and crash the economy, and crash house prices down.
3. Build on Green Fields (but these aren't in the right places).
4. Scream & wave arms about it and hope it resolves over time.
50,000 seems a bit pissy when to start matching supply and demand we probably need to be talking in seven figures. Only antifrank is being radical enough.
I missed the most radical bit of my plan, which solves another problem. Ensure that the quality of housing is adequate by moving Parliament into the area to be redeveloped area, and supply MPs with standard quality housing of the new builds.
You could be even more radical by moving Parliament out of London.
Although being 'even more radical' is actually only the equivalent of copying USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.
None of the other English speaking democracies has the concentration of power that the UK has.
Brazil, Nigeria ... the list goes on.
Build a new Parliament, move and sell the old one which is said to need £2 billion worth of repair work.
Incidentally, the reason Labour will do well in London is nothing to do with the mansion tax and everything to do with housing. It's the big issue in the Capital and the coalition's record and the Tory mayor's in providing affordable housing is lamentable.
Dunno, works both ways. It could be argued that this favours the Tories because it is driving Labour voters (except those in social housing) out of the area.
You do realise this concerns middle-class people with good jobs who simply cannot afford anywhere decent to live?
No govt - local or national will bring down rents in inner London., without destroying the market completely. Every successful capital city in the world has essentially the same problem. People who can't hack it move on and out. Twas ever thus.
If you really think the big increase happened in the last 10 years you're not old enough. I've lived through huge price rises in the 80's and then the 90's. Big successful cities which help to support huge hinterlands ( such as much of southern England) inevitably generate high property prices. London isn't even the world's wealthiest city on property prices. All that's happened is the mega-pricey centre has got bigger. My point is that trying to control it with rent controls will kill the rental market completely and strangle the city. for the moment it remains the golden goose for the economy so it'd be daft to do that.
I've lived through several property booms and crashes in the 80's and 90's like you. London has been supporting a hinterland in the South East for much longer than that. I bought my home during the last crash and for the first decade after I lived there the price scarcely moved.
To me, it feels like there has been a big shift in the last decade or so caused by a variety of factors: City money, immigration, London property being openly marketed and sold as an investment.
Agree with you re rent controls - they are not the solution. There needs to be a big increase in supply and, to an extent, controls on demand. We need nurses and teachers in the capital not rich Chinese salting their wealth away from their own government.
Wave after wave of City bonus money washing out across London from Mayfair and Chelsea during the late nineties and noughties, wreaked more havoc than foreign investors.
You could literally watch it spread from street to street as the light touch regulation kicked in, and the cash flowed. SW1 to SW3 to SW6 and all points North and South.
pathetic little bully boy for describing Tim seems to remind me of someone else we have on pbCOM.
On the economy, really no Govt can honestly claim too much credit these days, they just have to cross their fingers and hope it all falls well on their watch. But you can understand politicians taking credit for stuff quite beyond their control- the nature of the beast.
...
Nonsense. The measure of a government's economic competence is in creating the conditions for growth and job creation and government policy and attitude plays a massive part in that. Obviously, when international conditions are benign it's easier to manage than when they're not but do you think it was just chance that saw Greece become a casualty of the last recession rather than, say, Australia?
I agree, but we all know tyson is wheedling. The economy is doing well and all of a sudden its all down to luck.
Regular pbers have been spoiled over the years by the brilliant and infuriating trolls of tim, all day and every day. It is rather embarrassing when rank amateurs try to fill his shoes.
tim is losing the plot on his twitter account. not only are his comments libellous, he is back to Dave "pimping his kids".
What is his twitter account ?
Yeah, tim is one of the shrewdest political punters out there. If he's on twitter, i'm following him. What's his account name?
Very shrewd and very nasty.
Could dish it out but not take it, pathetic little bully boy.
To be fair to tim he received plenty of abuse in return.
It was only when details of his family were posted that he left.
That is an outrageous re-writing of history and the facts. He was a flouncing irredeemably unpleasant bellend who infested PB like a persistent dose of the clap
TimT He may be ahead in Penn, but Hillary is ahead of Paul in Florida and Ohio according to Quinnipiac tonight, Jeb Bush does lead her in Florida, though she leads him in Ohio.
Quinnipiac Ohio
Hillary Clinton (D) 46% {48%} [46%] (49%) {51%} [50%] (47%) Rand Paul (R) 41% {36%} [42%] (41%) {38%} [40%] (44%)
Hillary Clinton (D) 45% {47%} [46%] (46%) {49%} [42%] (42%) Chris Christie (R) 39% {34%} [37%] (38%) {36%} [41%] (42%)
Hillary Clinton (D) 47% (47%) {50%} [48%] Marco Rubio (R) 38% (40%) {36%} [39%]
Hillary Clinton (D) 47% {47%} [48%] (48%) {51%} [50%] Jeb Bush (R) 38% {36%} [37%] (39%) {36%} [37%]
Hillary Clinton (D) 49% {49%} (49%) Mike Huckabee (R) 39% {34%} (41%)
Hillary Clinton (D) 49% Scott Walker (R) 38%
I would not be encouraged by these numbers were I a Democrat. Given name recognition gaps and the direction of the Hillary vote, I'd be very worried and trying to find a way to change the narrative.
If the Libdems are on just 2% in these seats and not much higher in SNP held ones how high would they be in their own held seats? If they poll say 6% in Scotland in total they must be closer to 30% in those 11 seats overall, not sure how many seats, if any, outside of O and S. that they hope to keep. (Some of the Libdems seats have got smaller than average electorates which will skew the figures a bit)
BTW- a very good match, England vs Italy. The Azzurri have got something of their old swagger back, and something that I agree with Nige about- Carrick is a necessary cog for the England midfield.
He just holds everything together, I think 'glue' is the current buzzword. He also passes crisply and mostly forward.
Four Tottenham players on at the end?
I'm watching RaiUno in Italy- Pelle is getting a major exposure. He's a cool dude, and still looks tanned.
I think we can actually begin to get excited that England have the makings of a team that can go on to seriously contend at major tournaments- if they can tighten the defence (a big if mind). And that is something that I would never have thought myself saying
Unless something is done to stop or limit the numbers of non-EU people buying up property in London as an investment, we will never sort the issue. Even a housing development near me - quite a nice one but essentially no more than tarted up bedsits (for all the marble and posh kitchen equipment, the bedrooms were tiny, the storage was limited and the kitchen was in the living room) - was marketed to Indians and Chinese at eye-watering prices.
Unless something changes I'm more likely to be able to leave home than my children.
Labour get 10 out of 10 for identifying the problem and about 0 out of 10 for not coming up with a solution.
Solutions to the housing crisis:-
1. Reduce immigration by leaving the EU, and thereby reduce demand.
2. Reduce credit and crash the economy, and crash house prices down.
3. Build on Green Fields (but these aren't in the right places).
4. Scream & wave arms about it and hope it resolves over time.
50,000 seems a bit pissy when to start matching supply and demand we probably need to be talking in seven figures. Only antifrank is being radical enough.
I missed the most radical bit of my plan, which solves another problem. Ensure that the quality of housing is adequate by moving Parliament into the area to be redeveloped area, and supply MPs with standard quality housing of the new builds.
You could be even more radical by moving Parliament out of London.
Although being 'even more radical' is actually only the equivalent of copying USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.
None of the other English speaking democracies has the concentration of power that the UK has.
I've long favoured that. But where in England is as boring as Ottawa or Canberra? Telford, maybe?
Alternatively we could adopt the approach suggested by Gunter Grass in The Flounder for the United Nations, where he suggested locating the HQ in Calcutta so that the representatives could see the depths of the problems they had to solve. Stoke on Trent, maybe?
Middlesbrough
Spookily, I'd written Middlesbrough at first.
I think for top of the range shitholes Lancashire always beats the Yorkshire equivalents.
pathetic little bully boy for describing Tim seems to remind me of someone else we have on pbCOM.
On the economy, really no Govt can honestly claim too much credit these days, they just have to cross their fingers and hope it all falls well on their watch. But you can understand politicians taking credit for stuff quite beyond their control- the nature of the beast.
...
Nonsense. The measure of a government's economic competence is in creating the conditions for growth and job creation and government policy and attitude plays a massive part in that. Obviously, when international conditions are benign it's easier to manage than when they're not but do you think it was just chance that saw Greece become a casualty of the last recession rather than, say, Australia?
I agree, but we all know tyson is wheedling. The economy is doing well and all of a sudden its all down to luck.
I think the government has enjoyed a considerable slice of luck, with the economy. But, it deserves credit too. First Do No Harm is a reasonable principle, and it hasn't harmed the economy.
BTW- a very good match, England vs Italy. The Azzurri have got something of their old swagger back, and something that I agree with Nige about- Carrick is a necessary cog for the England midfield.
He just holds everything together, I think 'glue' is the current buzzword. He also passes crisply and mostly forward.
Four Tottenham players on at the end?
I'm watching RaiUno in Italy- Pelle is getting a major exposure. He's a cool dude, and still looks tanned.
I think we can actually begin to get excited that England have the makings of a team that can go on to seriously contend at major tournaments- if they can tighten the defence (a big if mind). And that is something that I would never have thought myself saying
Stones has to come in, he is very good, Jagielka was excellent tonight but Jones is terrible, and we suffer from full backs that cannot defend. Bertrand or Cresswell would be best at left back and Clyne seems OK. Cahill has been terrible for Chelsea this season.
Sad indictment that Terry is still the best English defender by a mile.
Apparently I'm the one of the only people in the UK who dislikes London but is happy for parliament to remain in London and at the Palace of Westminster, suitably renovated. A country of this size and one historically dominated by a primate city (the degree of that domination varying of course) doesn't need to follow the model of more decentralised states, not automatically. I'm not opposed to giving more power to local areas, moving government departments out of London or other ideas, but I don't see how it is the unqualified brilliant move which will solve so many problems with nodrawbacks that it is presented as.
I am sure people can provide a long list of reasons why it would be so great an idea, but with most things I go with my gut anyway, and at present I just don't see it as one of those issues which is so terrible it needs fixing, I could be wrong but there you go.
If the Libdems are on just 2% in these seats and not much higher in SNP held ones how high would they be in their own held seats? If they poll say 6% in Scotland in total they must be closer to 30% in those 11 seats overall, not sure how many seats, if any, outside of O and S. that they hope to keep. (Some of the Libdems seats have got smaller than average electorates which will skew the figures a bit)
Most Lib Dem seats are two horse races with the SNP. 45% on average beats 30% on average, even taking your hopeful view for them.
pathetic little bully boy for describing Tim seems to remind me of someone else we have on pbCOM.
On the economy, really no Govt can honestly claim too much credit these days, they just have to cross their fingers and hope it all falls well on their watch. But you can understand politicians taking credit for stuff quite beyond their control- the nature of the beast.
...
Nonsense. The measure of a government's economic competence is in creating the conditions for growth and job creation and government policy and attitude plays a massive part in that. Obviously, when international conditions are benign it's easier to manage than when they're not but do you think it was just chance that saw Greece become a casualty of the last recession rather than, say, Australia?
I agree, but we all know tyson is wheedling. The economy is doing well and all of a sudden its all down to luck.
I think the government has enjoyed a considerable slice of luck, with the economy. But, it deserves credit too. First Do No Harm is a reasonable principle, and it hasn't harmed the economy.
Its recreated the Gordon Brown economy.
Not surprising given that Cameron and Osborne saw nothing wrong with the Gordon Brown economy at the time.
And, of course, the Gordon Brown economy with its endless living beyond your means is always popular with the no shortage of people who want to live beyond their means.
@DavidHerdson-I do not want to get into a pat a tat tat economics discussion, but the markets have been completely unmoved by this election as they probably were by 2010. I think economic policy is pretty much dictated by global economic affairs, you don't obviously.
I think the one thing that would have an impact is the Euro referendum mind. I find the current economic debate waged by both sides stupid to be honest.
pathetic little bully boy for describing Tim seems to remind me of someone else we have on pbCOM.
On the economy, really no Govt can honestly claim too much credit these days, they just have to cross their fingers and hope it all falls well on their watch. But you can understand politicians taking credit for stuff quite beyond their control- the nature of the beast.
...
Nonsense. The measure of a government's economic competence is in creating the conditions for growth and job creation and government policy and attitude plays a massive part in that. Obviously, when international conditions are benign it's easier to manage than when they're not but do you think it was just chance that saw Greece become a casualty of the last recession rather than, say, Australia?
I agree, but we all know tyson is wheedling. The economy is doing well and all of a sudden its all down to luck.
I think the government has enjoyed a considerable slice of luck, with the economy. But, it deserves credit too. First Do No Harm is a reasonable principle, and it hasn't harmed the economy.
No harm apart from Plan A choking off the recovery and flatlining the economy, and then stimulating the housing market.
Nah just the bad ones. Just for companies that have regular people too. So companies with some of each will - put everyone in zero hours. Genius from the people who brought you fuel price freeze.
pathetic little bully boy for describing Tim seems to remind me of someone else we have on pbCOM.
On the economy, really no Govt can honestly claim too much credit these days, they just have to cross their fingers and hope it all falls well on their watch. But you can understand politicians taking credit for stuff quite beyond their control- the nature of the beast.
...
Nonsense. The measure of a government's economic competence is in creating the conditions for growth and job creation and government policy and attitude plays a massive part in that. Obviously, when international conditions are benign it's easier to manage than when they're not but do you think it was just chance that saw Greece become a casualty of the last recession rather than, say, Australia?
I agree, but we all know tyson is wheedling. The economy is doing well and all of a sudden its all down to luck.
I think the government has enjoyed a considerable slice of luck, with the economy. But, it deserves credit too. First Do No Harm is a reasonable principle, and it hasn't harmed the economy.
Its recreated the Gordon Brown economy.
Not surprising given that Cameron and Osborne saw nothing wrong with the Gordon Brown economy at the time.
And, of course, the Gordon Brown economy with its endless living beyond your means is always popular with the no shortage of people who want to live beyond their means.
You are so anti Govt you cannot see the wood for the trees.. The incoming Govt had the mother of all messes to sort out. Its not been as brutal as it might have been but at least its done a lot of what had to be done.
All very well to criticise from the side-lines....
Regular pbers have been spoiled over the years by the brilliant and infuriating trolls of tim, all day and every day. It is rather embarrassing when rank amateurs try to fill his shoes.
tim is losing the plot on his twitter account. not only are his comments libellous, he is back to Dave "pimping his kids".
What is his twitter account ?
Yeah, tim is one of the shrewdest political punters out there. If he's on twitter, i'm following him. What's his account name?
Very shrewd and very nasty.
Could dish it out but not take it, pathetic little bully boy.
To be fair to tim he received plenty of abuse in return.
It was only when details of his family were posted that he left.
That is an outrageous re-writing of history and the facts. He was a flouncing irredeemably unpleasant bellend who infested PB like a persistent dose of the clap
He was but the posting of details of his family wasn't right.
Although the exposure of the '17th century Cheshire manor house with wings' as a Birkenhead semi was amusing.
Unless something is done to stop or limit the numbers of non-EU people buying up property in London as an investment, we will never sort the issue. Even a housing development near me - quite a nice one but essentially no more than tarted up bedsits (for all the marble and posh kitchen equipment, the bedrooms were tiny, the storage was limited and the kitchen was in the living room) - was marketed to Indians and Chinese at eye-watering prices.
Unless something changes I'm more likely to be able to leave home than my children.
Labour get 10 out of 10 for identifying the problem and about 0 out of 10 for not coming up with a solution.
50,000 seems a bit pissy when to start matching supply and demand we probably need to be talking in seven figures. Only antifrank is being radical enough.
I missed the most radical bit of my plan, which solves another problem. Ensure that the quality of housing is adequate by moving Parliament into the area to be redeveloped area, and supply MPs with standard quality housing of the new builds.
You could be even more radical by moving Parliament out of London.
Although being 'even more radical' is actually only the equivalent of copying USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.
None of the other English speaking democracies has the concentration of power that the UK has.
Brazil, Nigeria ... the list goes on.
Build a new Parliament, move and sell the old one which is said to need £2 billion worth of repair work.
Does that really solve the problem ... 'The Palace is now a Grade I listed building and, with Westminster Abbey and St Margaret's Church, forms part of the Westminster UNESCO World Heritage Site.' A sentence which is code for 'costing a mint to run' The site will cost a mint no matter what. And it is a massive tourist draw.
The preliminary parliamentary study says that the cost of refurbishment is 'in excess of 40% of the insurance reinstatement value of the Palace (approximately £1.8bn)'. I take that to mean that to totally rebuild would be 1.8 billion and the refurbishment would be somewhat less that £0.9 billion.
TimT Why should they be worried? Historically the GOP should win the presidency after 8 years out of the White House, yet Hillary would still win a clear electoral college victory were the election held today. As for name recognition, Jeb Bush has almost as high name recognition as Hillary
Laura Kuenssberg retweeted Kamal Ahmed@bbckamal·2 mins2 minutes ago Starting to leak out - major business letter backing Conservatives in @Telegraph tomorrow. FTSE 100 CEOs are signatories
Laura Kuenssberg retweeted Kamal Ahmed@bbckamal·2 mins2 minutes ago Starting to leak out - major business letter backing Conservatives in @Telegraph tomorrow. FTSE 100 CEOs are signatories
I hear in other news...a bear has been photographed taking a dump in the woods.
Do these silly round robin letters actually do anything these days? It doesn't seem to go a weekend without some group or another have written an open letter to the Telegraph or the Guardian.
Major business leaders happy to back the Conservatives to be reported in the Telegraph? Which stage of an election cycle is that, is it ahead of schedule?
@PickardJE: A Labour government would introduce law to ban zero hours contracts for staff after 12 weeks in work: expect big business backlash.
Labour have lost business anyway, might as well kick 'em too...
This just about sums up the Tories' attitude. If big businesses don't want it, whatever the merits, it can't be considered. Why exactly are business owners' opinions more important than their employees' opinions?
This will go down well with trade union officials and the sort of far left socialist nutjobs who have flown to the SNP, but will it make the people who benefit from these contracts happy?
Laura Kuenssberg retweeted Kamal Ahmed@bbckamal·2 mins2 minutes ago Starting to leak out - major business letter backing Conservatives in @Telegraph tomorrow. FTSE 100 CEOs are signatories
I hear in other news...a bear has been photographed taking a dump in the woods.
Do these silly round robin letters actually do anything these days? It doesn't seem to go a weekend without some group or another have written an open letter to the Telegraph or the Guardian.
Ashcroft said the 2010 letter from big businesses backfired. People in his focus groups asked "why should we care what will make these already rich people even richer?"
Regular pbers have been spoiled over the years by the brilliant and infuriating trolls of tim, all day and every day. It is rather embarrassing when rank amateurs try to fill his shoes.
tim is losing the plot on his twitter account. not only are his comments libellous, he is back to Dave "pimping his kids".
What is his twitter account ?
Yeah, tim is one of the shrewdest political punters out there. If he's on twitter, i'm following him. What's his account name?
Very shrewd and very nasty.
Could dish it out but not take it, pathetic little bully boy.
To be fair to tim he received plenty of abuse in return.
It was only when details of his family were posted that he left.
That is an outrageous re-writing of history and the facts. He was a flouncing irredeemably unpleasant bellend who infested PB like a persistent dose of the clap
He was but the posting of details of his family wasn't right.
Although the exposure of the '17th century Cheshire manor house with wings' as a Birkenhead semi was amusing.
TimT Why should they be worried? Historically the GOP should win the presidency after 8 years out of the White House, yet Hillary would still win a clear electoral college victory were the election held today. As for name recognition, Jeb Bush has almost as high name recognition as Hillary
If the election were held today, the poll numbers would not be where they are currently because there would have been primaries and election campaigns already.
Why should the Dems be worried? If they lose the White House and the GOP hold the House (almost certain) and the Senate (very doable), then bye bye ObamaCare and pretty much all of Obama's legacy. Given the stage of the race, Hillary would need to be much further ahead at this point to be confident of winning (she will be tied to Obama's policies and the idea that voting for her is voting for another 8 years of Obama, and that will drag down her numbers). As it is, her personal numbers are already declining alarmingly, and now this?!
Although the Bush name is well known, none of the other potential contenders from either party has anything like the name recognition as Hillary, and none comes within a country mile of how well the electorate actually knows her political views in detail.
pathetic little bully boy for describing Tim seems to remind me of someone else we have on pbCOM.
On the economy, really no Govt can honestly claim too much credit these days, they just have to cross their fingers and hope it all falls well on their watch. But you can understand politicians taking credit for stuff quite beyond their control- the nature of the beast.
...
Nonsense. The measure of a government's economic competence is in creating the conditions for growth and job creation and government policy and attitude plays a massive part in that. Obviously, when international conditions are benign it's easier to manage than when they're not but do you think it was just chance that saw Greece become a casualty of the last recession rather than, say, Australia?
I agree, but we all know tyson is wheedling. The economy is doing well and all of a sudden its all down to luck.
I think the government has enjoyed a considerable slice of luck, with the economy. But, it deserves credit too. First Do No Harm is a reasonable principle, and it hasn't harmed the economy.
Its recreated the Gordon Brown economy.
Not surprising given that Cameron and Osborne saw nothing wrong with the Gordon Brown economy at the time.
And, of course, the Gordon Brown economy with its endless living beyond your means is always popular with the no shortage of people who want to live beyond their means.
You are so anti Govt you cannot see the wood for the trees.. The incoming Govt had the mother of all messes to sort out. Its not been as brutal as it might have been but at least its done a lot of what had to be done.
All very well to criticise from the side-lines....
You are so pro Govt that you cannot see the wood for trees.
Perhaps you think the UK having the highest current account deficit since records began or industrial production having fallen or stagnating productivity or taxpayer subsidised house prices or government borrowing being hundreds of billions higher than predicted as good things.
I don't and I will say so of whatever government presides over them.
Which is why I was complaining about how Brown was mismanaging the economy while Cameron and Osborne were promising to match his spending plans and complacently talking of 'sharing the proceeds of growth'.
I will say that Osborne's pension reforms are a good thing.
In comparison you have PB Tories who whined that EdM might reduce the maximum pension pot but who were all silent when Osborne did it three times.
pathetic little bully boy for describing Tim seems to remind me of someone else we have on pbCOM.
On the economy, really no Govt can honestly claim too much credit these days, they just have to cross their fingers and hope it all falls well on their watch. But you can understand politicians taking credit for stuff quite beyond their control- the nature of the beast.
...
Nonsense. The measure of a government's economic competence is in creating the conditions for growth and job creation and government policy and attitude plays a massive part in that. Obviously, when international conditions are benign it's easier to manage than when they're not but do you think it was just chance that saw Greece become a casualty of the last recession rather than, say, Australia?
I agree, but we all know tyson is wheedling. The economy is doing well and all of a sudden its all down to luck.
I think the government has enjoyed a considerable slice of luck, with the economy. But, it deserves credit too. First Do No Harm is a reasonable principle, and it hasn't harmed the economy.
No harm apart from Plan A choking off the recovery and flatlining the economy, and then stimulating the housing market.
Laura Kuenssberg retweeted Kamal Ahmed@bbckamal·2 mins2 minutes ago Starting to leak out - major business letter backing Conservatives in @Telegraph tomorrow. FTSE 100 CEOs are signatories
I hear in other news...a bear has been photographed taking a dump in the woods.
Do these silly round robin letters actually do anything these days? It doesn't seem to go a weekend without some group or another have written an open letter to the Telegraph or the Guardian.
Ashcroft said the 2010 letter from big businesses backfired. People in his focus groups asked "why should we care what will make these already rich people even richer?"
Indeed. If the perception of the country's CEOs was that they were great visionaries interested in bettering Britain it might matter. Given people think of them as a bunch of greedy fat cats I doubt it'll help.
Is banning (or restricting) zero hour contracts another of those policies that is economically silly? I wouldn't know, but it sounds like the sort of thing that will play very well, initially at least, either way.
@sean f What you win on the straights, you lose on the roundabouts. Osborne's been lucky, particularly by the price of oil at this time. But Labour were lucky through the naughties- and it bought them two additional easy terms. FWIW- the Tories deserved to win in 2010. Labour were tired. And they deserve a plurality now. It's not what I want, but it's pretty obvious.
Incidentally, the reason Labour will do well in London is nothing to do with the mansion tax and everything to do with housing. It's the big issue in the Capital and the coalition's record and the Tory mayor's in providing affordable housing is lamentable.
Dunno, works both ways. It could be argued that this favours the Tories because it is driving Labour voters (except those in social housing) out of the area.
Labour did nothing about housing, the coalition have done too little.
If tim were here he'd say the same.
What has happened to Tim? He is a big absence to the site isn't he?
no, the poison and bile far outweighed any good points
Is banning (or restricting) zero hour contracts another of those policies that is economically silly? I wouldn't know, but it sounds like the sort of thing that will play very well, initially at least, either way.
I fear the default response of the British people to any problem is 'the government should ban it' rather than 'the government should allow it'.
If the Libdems are on just 2% in these seats and not much higher in SNP held ones how high would they be in their own held seats? If they poll say 6% in Scotland in total they must be closer to 30% in those 11 seats overall, not sure how many seats, if any, outside of O and S. that they hope to keep. (Some of the Libdems seats have got smaller than average electorates which will skew the figures a bit)
Most Lib Dem seats are two horse races with the SNP. 45% on average beats 30% on average, even taking your hopeful view for them.
I know and the SNP vote is very consistent throughout Scotland. I was more trying to highlight how poor their chances were holding on to more than 1 seat. It does change for them if they start getting to 8% in Scotland and still on 2% in these SNP/Labour seats but that seems very unlikely
Comments
It was only when details of his family were posted that he left.
Some sort of happenstance movement does carry with it security issues and not just physical there is cyber as well.
I agree 50,000 is not matching demand but it shows the interest and intent. HS2 is designed to be a conduit out of London and the 'northern powerhouse' is just one example of development outside London.
We have been playing this game since the 60's if not before, but despite its inevitable draw we need to move development out of London.
If all they have is Oxbridge PPE type bland managerialism, then is it any wonder that turnout drops and they are increasingly seen as out of touch?
Labour probably won't win it. There is though a possibility that they will. Current odds from 9/4 to 3/1 hardly suggest that it's not in play. I won a bet on them gaining Hammersmith and Fulham in 2014 at odds within that range.
According to Betfair, such an occurrence was 800/1
Four Tottenham players on at the end?
2010 Lab lead under 30pts (19 seats):
SNP 43%
Lab 35%
Con 14%
2010 Lab Lead 30-40pts (11 seats):
SNP 39%
Lab 39%
Con 13%
2010 Lab Lead over 40pts (10 seats):
SNP 45%
Lab 39%
Con 10%
Basically, the SNP are getting whatever swing they need, most of the time.
Decided to stick my money on a more realistic bet of Con GAIN Bootle
Alternatively we could adopt the approach suggested by Gunter Grass in The Flounder for the United Nations, where he suggested locating the HQ in Calcutta so that the representatives could see the depths of the problems they had to solve. Stoke on Trent, maybe?
Do you shit gold
If anyone deserves credit, it is Wilson, Callaghan and then Thatcher who changed the face of Britain by pushing to mixed market based solutions, and of course Heath for joining the EU.
After Thatcher, it has been about keeping to the script, and crossing one's fingers.
It is a truly souless place.
Betjamen got it wrong, Slough is fine by comparison.
It was once voted most boring town in England.
Has excellent road and rail communications.
Pretty central.
Lots of cheap, flat land to build on.
And even a political connection.
Quinnipiac Ohio
Hillary Clinton (D) 46% {48%} [46%] (49%) {51%} [50%] (47%)
Rand Paul (R) 41% {36%} [42%] (41%) {38%} [40%] (44%)
Hillary Clinton (D) 45% {47%} [46%] (46%) {49%} [42%] (42%)
Chris Christie (R) 39% {34%} [37%] (38%) {36%} [41%] (42%)
Hillary Clinton (D) 47% (47%) {50%} [48%]
Marco Rubio (R) 38% (40%) {36%} [39%]
Hillary Clinton (D) 47% {47%} [48%] (48%) {51%} [50%]
Jeb Bush (R) 38% {36%} [37%] (39%) {36%} [37%]
Hillary Clinton (D) 48% (51%) {51%} [50%]
Ted Cruz (R) 38% (37%) {34%} [35%]
Hillary Clinton (D) 49% {49%} (49%)
Mike Huckabee (R) 39% {34%} (41%)
Hillary Clinton (D) 49%
Scott Walker (R) 38%
You could literally watch it spread from street to street as the light touch regulation kicked in, and the cash flowed. SW1 to SW3 to SW6 and all points North and South.
Jeb Bush (R) 45% (43%) {42%} [41%] (43%) {45%} [43%] (40%)
Hillary Clinton (D) 42% (44%) {49%} [49%] (49%) {47%} [50%] (51%)
Hillary Clinton (D) 46% (49%) {53%} [52%] (51%) {50%} [53%] (52%)
Marco Rubio (R) 44% (39%) {39%} [40%] (41%) {43%} [41%] (41%)
Hillary Clinton (D) 46% (50%) {53%} [55%] (53%) {51%}
Rand Paul (R) 43% (38%) {37%} [37%] (38%) {41%}
Hillary Clinton (D) 44% (51%) {54%} [52%] (51%) {45%}
Chris Christie (R) 39% (33%) {33%} [34%] (35%) {41%}
Hillary Clinton (D) 46%
Scott Walker (R) 40%
Hillary Clinton (D) 48% (51%) [53%]
Mike Huckabee (R) 40% (34%) [35%]
Hillary Clinton (D) 48% (57%) (54%) {52%}
Ted Cruz (R) 39% (31%) (34%) {36%}
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/2016-presidential-swing-state-polls/release-detail?ReleaseID=2180
He was a flouncing irredeemably unpleasant bellend who infested PB like a persistent dose of the clap
Ted Heath is the greatest ever Prime Minister for taking Middlesbrough out of Yorkshire.
I'll never forget the first time I visited Smoggieland.
All those cooling towers
If they poll say 6% in Scotland in total they must be closer to 30% in those 11 seats overall, not sure how many seats, if any, outside of O and S. that they hope to keep. (Some of the Libdems seats have got smaller than average electorates which will skew the figures a bit)
I think we can actually begin to get excited that England have the makings of a team that can go on to seriously contend at major tournaments- if they can tighten the defence (a big if mind). And that is something that I would never have thought myself saying
Sad indictment that Terry is still the best English defender by a mile.
I am sure people can provide a long list of reasons why it would be so great an idea, but with most things I go with my gut anyway, and at present I just don't see it as one of those issues which is so terrible it needs fixing, I could be wrong but there you go.
http://labourlist.org/2015/03/labour-unveils-significant-strengthening-of-zero-hours-contracts-crackdown/
Not surprising given that Cameron and Osborne saw nothing wrong with the Gordon Brown economy at the time.
And, of course, the Gordon Brown economy with its endless living beyond your means is always popular with the no shortage of people who want to live beyond their means.
I am sure it will get a huge thumbs up from the BBC / Guardian axis.
I think economic policy is pretty much dictated by global economic affairs, you don't obviously.
I think the one thing that would have an impact is the Euro referendum mind. I find the current economic debate waged by both sides stupid to be honest.
Fewer jobs, more on welfare. Well done Mili!
All very well to criticise from the side-lines....
Although the exposure of the '17th century Cheshire manor house with wings' as a Birkenhead semi was amusing.
Quick, get me a policy, any policy, something I can announce, even if it's bonkers...
The site will cost a mint no matter what. And it is a massive tourist draw.
The preliminary parliamentary study says that the cost of refurbishment is 'in excess of 40%
of the insurance reinstatement value of the Palace (approximately £1.8bn)'.
I take that to mean that to totally rebuild would be 1.8 billion and the refurbishment would be somewhat less that £0.9 billion.
Looks like it!! At least Kinnock had some idea!
He's al-rrrrriiiiiiight!!!!
Labour have lost business anyway, might as well kick 'em too...
Laura Kuenssberg retweeted
Kamal Ahmed@bbckamal·2 mins2 minutes ago
Starting to leak out - major business letter backing Conservatives in @Telegraph tomorrow. FTSE 100 CEOs are signatories
Do these silly round robin letters actually do anything these days? It doesn't seem to go a weekend without some group or another have written an open letter to the Telegraph or the Guardian.
2 days of Labour wooing business...
Why should the Dems be worried? If they lose the White House and the GOP hold the House (almost certain) and the Senate (very doable), then bye bye ObamaCare and pretty much all of Obama's legacy. Given the stage of the race, Hillary would need to be much further ahead at this point to be confident of winning (she will be tied to Obama's policies and the idea that voting for her is voting for another 8 years of Obama, and that will drag down her numbers). As it is, her personal numbers are already declining alarmingly, and now this?!
Although the Bush name is well known, none of the other potential contenders from either party has anything like the name recognition as Hillary, and none comes within a country mile of how well the electorate actually knows her political views in detail.
Perhaps you think the UK having the highest current account deficit since records began or industrial production having fallen or stagnating productivity or taxpayer subsidised house prices or government borrowing being hundreds of billions higher than predicted as good things.
I don't and I will say so of whatever government presides over them.
Which is why I was complaining about how Brown was mismanaging the economy while Cameron and Osborne were promising to match his spending plans and complacently talking of 'sharing the proceeds of growth'.
I will say that Osborne's pension reforms are a good thing.
In comparison you have PB Tories who whined that EdM might reduce the maximum pension pot but who were all silent when Osborne did it three times.
What you win on the straights, you lose on the roundabouts. Osborne's been lucky, particularly by the price of oil at this time. But Labour were lucky through the naughties- and it bought them two additional easy terms.
FWIW- the Tories deserved to win in 2010. Labour were tired. And they deserve a plurality now. It's not what I want, but it's pretty obvious.