@skynewsniall: On the battle-train this morning, our Tory handlers tell us they've intercepted a consignment of new Labour mugs... http://t.co/e2YNi3RDra
And that's working on the assumption of UNS. As even the poll shows the swing is not uniform. The SNP are getting goldilocks swing of just enough in every constituency according to Ashcroft.
Scotgoespop has been scathing on some Scottish Unionist (not NI) newspapers who have been reporting the poll as if a nationwide one and getting about half and half seats Scotland-wide. He has worked out the actual equivalent figures and they are pretty much the usual bog standard Labour massacre.
Mr. Observer, Labour can't have it both ways, claiming it's pro-business "Look at all these nice quotes we have" and then claim any business being pro-Conservative is somehow not valid and shouldn't be listened to.
They should definitely be listened to. And their records and actions examined.
My investments with the pru have done very well. I did not buy their funds or annuities though, I bouth the shares for my own ISA. They are now doing very well in the fast maturing far east markets. With no real welfare state and a rapidly ageing population China is the new frontier for private pensions.
Prudential have sold their 25% stake in Pruhealth to Discovery, the South African company whose concept it was originally.
That is the reason you are seeing Vitality Health plastered all over football grounds and other forms of advertising.
Mr. Observer, Labour can't have it both ways, claiming it's pro-business "Look at all these nice quotes we have" and then claim any business being pro-Conservative is somehow not valid and shouldn't be listened to.
They should definitely be listened to. And their records and actions examined.
My investments with the pru have done very well. I did not buy their funds or annuities though, I bouth the shares for my own ISA. They are now doing very well in the fast maturing far east markets. With no real welfare state and a rapidly ageing population China is the new frontier for private pensions.
China is too much of a risk for me. Things could change there very quickly for investors depending on what the Communist party leadership decides. I only invest in countries with an independent judiciary.
I'm getting increasingly perplexed by Mr Farage's non-sequiturs. Now he's sort of saying that too many immigrants are preventing kids playing football in the street...
Err.
And in doing so got his face on the front of most of the papers and on the telly whilst not really pissing off anyone that was likely to vote for him - job done.
@skynewsniall: On the battle-train this morning, our Tory handlers tell us they've intercepted a consignment of new Labour mugs... http://t.co/e2YNi3RDra
@skynewsniall: On the battle-train this morning, our Tory handlers tell us they've intercepted a consignment of new Labour mugs... http://t.co/e2YNi3RDra
"The more I listen to Ed, the more I think it's the latter."
No, he knows what he's doing. He thinks he can win this way and that's the be-all and end-all.
Being a control freak, he thinks that if everyone does (and thinks) what he knows is right, then all will be well. It's common in politics. All he needs are the levers of power.
Men from the Pru share huge £49m payout: Pensions firm accused of 'greed' after details of perks for senior executives are revealed days before shake-up
Mr Thiam who recently awarded himself an £11,000,000 bonus says
'VOTE TORY!! DONT ROCK THE BOAT'
I believe Mr Thiam has stepped down from the Pru to take on Credit Suisse's top job. Presumably soon not to be a taxpayer here. Shame. Good to see an Ivorian immigrant being such a success in a British business though.
@faisalislam: So three business organisations: CBI, EEF, IoD have also issued separate statements attacking the Labour move on zero hours contracts
Only 17% of ZHC are in private business anyway, the bulk of them are in public service and the charity sector, so another win with his supporters for Ed.
Labour talk about ZHCs as if they are a universally hated form of modern slavery. NOT TRUE. Many of those who use ZHCs love the flexibility. Students, jobbing actors, semi-retireds, etc - there are many classes of people who earn money, sometimes decent money, via a very loose and flexible arrangement that works for them. This is wholly to be encouraged. What does not work is for long term unemployed seeking full time work to be forced into exclusive contracts - which is precisely what the coalition has banned.
Could Ed please just STFU now on this subject?
Labour are either consciously playing on the public's misunderstanding of these things, or they don't really understand them themselves.
The more I listen to Ed, the more I think it's the latter.
He has got Hollande written all over him, and I'd guess that we'd see rising prices, rising taxes and rising unemployment within a year of him being elected.
Ed Miliband is playing to his 33% gallery. It may well prove a successful strategy. For sure he understands nothing whatever about the economy or business - but neither do his tribe. This is a GE campaign and all he needs to worry about is making the right noises to get his tribe into the voting booth - no matter how fucking inane they are. What we all need to worry about is that 33% is probably enough to see him and Eck running the country (down) .
An economy based in which a tiny minority are incentivised on their ability to freeze salaries, cut jobs and fleece customers is not a sustainable one. Not sure the Tories want to be seen as the party of Dudley and Thiam. For those of us who believe in the power of profit such figures are not great cheerleaders.
Men from the Pru share huge £49m payout: Pensions firm accused of 'greed' after details of perks for senior executives are revealed days before shake-up
Mr Thiam who recently awarded himself an £11,000,000 bonus says
'VOTE TORY!! DONT ROCK THE BOAT'
Judging by all the trolling on here the business letter hits the mark
@faisalislam: So three business organisations: CBI, EEF, IoD have also issued separate statements attacking the Labour move on zero hours contracts
Only 17% of ZHC are in private business anyway, the bulk of them are in public service and the charity sector, so another win with his supporters for Ed.
Would you count our privatised cleaning at the hospital as private or public sector? Either way it is exploitative.
The economy will eventually become the only theme that matters in this campaign. And when it comes to the economy, everything points to a landslide win for the Conservatives.
The backing of business and entrepreneurs today is just the start of a huge win for David Cameron and George Osborne. I'm still betting on a Conservative majority after the votes are counted next month. The British people aren't stupid. They aren to going to let the likes of Ed Miliband and Ed Balls loose with the economic prospects of the nation.
"I couldn't figure out why Martin Freeman wasn't on that list, do you know ? "
He's not an expoitative Tory bastard? Got any better ideas?
No, he's a left wing media luvvie that pontificates about how other people should spend their money and is hypocritical about private schools - can't think where I have heard that before.
You find ever more ingenious ways of finding Tory leads when the pollsters point the other way. Can you explain how Yougov managed to get this one so misleadingly wrong when all they needed to do was ask you?
You might be better advised asking how YG are finding Labour leads when Ashcroft, Comres, Opinium, TNS and ICM aren't.
Perhaps the make up of their panel, which exposed itself on Sunday, might provide an answer.
Mr. Observer, Labour can't have it both ways, claiming it's pro-business "Look at all these nice quotes we have" and then claim any business being pro-Conservative is somehow not valid and shouldn't be listened to.
They should definitely be listened to. And their records and actions examined.
The significant aspect here is the five leaders who previously supported Brown's Labour, but not Miliband's. Presumably because they think he's moved to far to the Left.
The economy will eventually become the only theme that matters in this campaign. And when it comes to the economy, everything points to a landslide win for the Conservatives.
The backing of business and entrepreneurs today is just the start of a huge win for David Cameron and George Osborne. I'm still betting on a Conservative majority after the votes are counted next month. The British people aren't stupid. They aren to going to let the likes of Ed Miliband and Ed Balls loose with the economic prospects of the nation.
All this was true in 2010, but the Tories didn't win a majority. What's changed?
@faisalislam: So three business organisations: CBI, EEF, IoD have also issued separate statements attacking the Labour move on zero hours contracts
Only 17% of ZHC are in private business anyway, the bulk of them are in public service and the charity sector, so another win with his supporters for Ed.
Would you count our privatised cleaning at the hospital as private or public sector? Either way it is exploitative.
And that's working on the assumption of UNS. As even the poll shows the swing is not uniform. The SNP are getting goldilocks swing of just enough in every constituency according to Ashcroft.
Scotgoespop has been scathing on some Scottish Unionist (not NI) newspapers who have been reporting the poll as if a nationwide one and getting about half and half seats Scotland-wide. He has worked out the actual equivalent figures and they are pretty much the usual bog standard Labour massacre.
Sometimes wonder how far through the campaign it will be before certain Labour figures wake up, smell the coffee, read the paper, and realise that the most aggressively anti-business agenda since the 1980s was not the best tack to take.....
Which Labour figures will start to distance themselves from campaign. Y. Cooper for one seems to have been very quiet....
An anti-business agenda is not necessarily unpopular.
True, but it is bloody stupid if you're trying to reassure wavering voters, and cling to business to do help you do this on a Monday but want them to be ignored on a Wednesday.
Something that public sector employees perhaps don't understand is that private sector employees really do listen to what their employers say about economic confidence - it suggests how secure their job it and whether they're likely to get a pay rise. The 103 leaders are said to employ half a million people. If any of those were wavering this morning, I suspect we'll see them in the 3,4 and 5% leads the Tories are likely to get in the coming weeks' polls.....
I very much doubt that he's the first Lib Dem MP to join Grindr.
I very much doubt he has joined!
I hope you're right. Imagine the scene: it's late at night and you're feeling frisky. You log onto your favourite app to see if daddy can find himself some lurrving. A few swipes later and you're definitely getting hopeful of a match. Then suddenly you're confronted by a man who is trying to sell the merits of the alternative vote and membership of the EU. It would be the ultimate passion killer. Britain's gay men deserve better.
The economy will eventually become the only theme that matters in this campaign. And when it comes to the economy, everything points to a landslide win for the Conservatives.
The backing of business and entrepreneurs today is just the start of a huge win for David Cameron and George Osborne. I'm still betting on a Conservative majority after the votes are counted next month. The British people aren't stupid. They aren to going to let the likes of Ed Miliband and Ed Balls loose with the economic prospects of the nation.
All this was true in 2010, but the Tories didn't win a majority. What's changed?
2 million more people have jobs now than then, and don't want to lose them.
On zero hours contracts: it depends. I don't see an issue where the Employer asks that you are always available, but only calls you in when needed, if, say, it's for Friday and Saturday nights for bar work from 6pm to midnight. And stands you down from 9pm if not needed.
There is more of a problem when they ask you to be free from Monday to Friday from 8am to 6pm for up to 45 hours work a week, and ban you from seeking other work that may conflict with that, *unless* you are retired, and are comfortable with that.
So it's horses for courses to me and knee jerk legislation will reduce flexibility. Reduced employment flexibility can so often mean fewer jobs, rather than better jobs.
All this was true in 2010, but the Tories didn't win a majority. What's changed?
The economy is what's changed. In 2010 they couldn't prove their ideas would work. In 2015 the numbers show their vision to turn our economy around is working and for the benefit of everyone.
I very much doubt that he's the first Lib Dem MP to join Grindr.
I very much doubt he has joined!
I hope you're right. Imagine the scene: it's late at night and you're feeling frisky. You log onto your favourite app to see if daddy can find himself some lurrving. A few swipes later and you're definitely getting hopeful of a match. Then suddenly you're confronted by a man who is trying to sell the merits of the alternative vote and membership of the EU. It would be the ultimate passion killer. Britain's gay men deserve better.
Seem to recall from ST YG polls that about one third of the VI have not been affected/not noticed the effects of 'cuts'/austerity. Would they be manly people employed by the public sector or on such pensions?
That's a daft question.
Public sector has had 5 years of pay freezes and huge hikes in pension contributions. A friend of mine who works for the Met bemoans the "Tory cuts" as they have absolutely directly and negatively affected him (and colleagues) and his standard of living.
But he mindlessly parrots Daily Mail gibberish and will still vote Tory in May.
The economy will eventually become the only theme that matters in this campaign. And when it comes to the economy, everything points to a landslide win for the Conservatives.
The backing of business and entrepreneurs today is just the start of a huge win for David Cameron and George Osborne. I'm still betting on a Conservative majority after the votes are counted next month. The British people aren't stupid. They aren to going to let the likes of Ed Miliband and Ed Balls loose with the economic prospects of the nation.
Why do PB Tories interpret every single election event as a 'huge win' or a 'game change'? This wont alter the polling one bit.
By the sounds of it even if the Tories were 20 points behind you'd be backing them for victory!
So it's horses for courses to me and knee jerk legislation will reduce flexibility. Reduced employment flexibility can so often mean fewer jobs, rather than better jobs.
This is Labour we are talking about, the party that believes in effect that if you ban agency workers, companies will immediately go out and hire the equivalent of full time staff to replace them. Rather than say turn down work because they don't want to be saddled with difficult to lay off staff they don't need.
The regulatory impact assessment for IR35 was hysterical, the reason they thought it would raise so much money was because it assumed that all the freelance IT consultants would immediately be taken on as full time employees, or the same salary.
All this was true in 2010, but the Tories didn't win a majority. What's changed?
The economy is what's changed. In 2010 they couldn't prove their ideas would work. In 2015 the numbers show their vision to turn our economy around is working and for the benefit of everyone.
The economy will eventually become the only theme that matters in this campaign. And when it comes to the economy, everything points to a landslide win for the Conservatives.
The backing of business and entrepreneurs today is just the start of a huge win for David Cameron and George Osborne. I'm still betting on a Conservative majority after the votes are counted next month. The British people aren't stupid. They aren to going to let the likes of Ed Miliband and Ed Balls loose with the economic prospects of the nation.
All this was true in 2010, but the Tories didn't win a majority. What's changed?
2 million more people have jobs now than then, and don't want to lose them.
Personally I find it hard to believe the current situation is more potent than the economic situation in 2010, when people were living the harms of a Labour government (as the Tories would have it).
Seem to recall from ST YG polls that about one third of the VI have not been affected/not noticed the effects of 'cuts'/austerity. Would they be manly people employed by the public sector or on such pensions?
Public sector has had 5 years of pay freezes and huge hikes in pension contributions. A friend of mine who works for the Met bemoans the "Tory cuts" as they have absolutely directly and negatively affected him (and colleagues) and his standard of living
I know this might come as a shock, that is true of most of the private sector as well. Welcome to living in the country with the lowest productivity in the G7 and getting worse. The obvious thing to do, is to raise pay, increase regulation, and thereby make it even worse, then look all surprised when people take their business elsewhere.
With regards to Trident, from that article I'm not sure I fully understand his position, He says he's against Trident, but wants a cruise missile system to deter against unilateral action and terrorist states.
So it sounds as thought he's for a nuclear deterrent, but against the current Trident delivery mechanism. Which is fair enough, but:
1) It may not reduce costs. The old plane-based systems were massively expensive. Technology's improved, but also got much more expensive; 2) It is a significant reduction in capability: there are vast areas of the globe that cruise missiles cannot reach, especially without risking interception; 3) Any such system would put our ability to retaliate in a large scale war at risk: the enemy would know where our nukes were and could easily take them out. That's hopefully not true for a sub-based deterrent.
But it is a logical position if you believe that there is a small threat that might need a nuclear response (e.g. North Korea, terrorists), but the risk of all-out nuclear war (traditionally against Russia) is remote.
The economy will eventually become the only theme that matters in this campaign. And when it comes to the economy, everything points to a landslide win for the Conservatives.
The backing of business and entrepreneurs today is just the start of a huge win for David Cameron and George Osborne. I'm still betting on a Conservative majority after the votes are counted next month. The British people aren't stupid. They aren to going to let the likes of Ed Miliband and Ed Balls loose with the economic prospects of the nation.
Why do PB Tories interpret every single election event as a 'huge win' or a 'game change'? This wont alter the polling one bit.
By the sounds of it even if the Tories were 20 points behind you'd be backing them for victory!
Its not just PB Tories, three or four days ago we had PB Lefties in paroxysms of joy about how the election was in the bag after Labour was ahead by 4% in one poll, apparently because their man had knocked it out the stadium at the TV not-debates or something.
Seem to recall from ST YG polls that about one third of the VI have not been affected/not noticed the effects of 'cuts'/austerity. Would they be manly people employed by the public sector or on such pensions?
Public sector has had 5 years of pay freezes and huge hikes in pension contributions. A friend of mine who works for the Met bemoans the "Tory cuts" as they have absolutely directly and negatively affected him (and colleagues) and his standard of living
I know this might come as a shock, that is true of most of the private sector as well. Welcome to living in the country with the lowest productivity in the G7 and getting worse. The obvious thing to do, is to raise pay, increase regulation, and thereby make it even worse, the look all surprised when people take their business elsewhere.
In large part, low productivity is the reverse of high employment. Less productive workers find it easier to get work here than in many other countries.
Seem to recall from ST YG polls that about one third of the VI have not been affected/not noticed the effects of 'cuts'/austerity. Would they be manly people employed by the public sector or on such pensions?
That's a daft question.
Public sector has had 5 years of pay freezes and huge hikes in pension contributions. A friend of mine who works for the Met bemoans the "Tory cuts" as they have absolutely directly and negatively affected him (and colleagues) and his standard of living.
But he mindlessly parrots Daily Mail gibberish and will still vote Tory in May.
Brown increased spending by 50% in real terms over 10 years. Real terms. 50%. 10 years. Given that the money ran out, why do you think there was a wage freeze?
Men from the Pru share huge £49m payout: Pensions firm accused of 'greed' after details of perks for senior executives are revealed days before shake-up
Mr Thiam who recently awarded himself an £11,000,000 bonus says
'VOTE TORY!! DONT ROCK THE BOAT'
Judging by all the trolling on here the business letter hits the mark
You would think they had never heard of Fred Goodwin or the Phoenix 4.
The economy will eventually become the only theme that matters in this campaign. And when it comes to the economy, everything points to a landslide win for the Conservatives.
The backing of business and entrepreneurs today is just the start of a huge win for David Cameron and George Osborne. I'm still betting on a Conservative majority after the votes are counted next month. The British people aren't stupid. They aren to going to let the likes of Ed Miliband and Ed Balls loose with the economic prospects of the nation.
Why do PB Tories interpret every single election event as a 'huge win' or a 'game change'? This wont alter the polling one bit.
By the sounds of it even if the Tories were 20 points behind you'd be backing them for victory!
We also have roseree, roger and smukesh who post nonsense on here for the other side ad infinitum.......some people call them PB Lefties
Seem to recall from ST YG polls that about one third of the VI have not been affected/not noticed the effects of 'cuts'/austerity. Would they be manly people employed by the public sector or on such pensions?
Public sector has had 5 years of pay freezes and huge hikes in pension contributions. A friend of mine who works for the Met bemoans the "Tory cuts" as they have absolutely directly and negatively affected him (and colleagues) and his standard of living
I know this might come as a shock, that is true of most of the private sector as well. Welcome to living in the country with the lowest productivity in the G7 and getting worse. The obvious thing to do, is to raise pay, increase regulation, and thereby make it even worse, the look all surprised when people take their business elsewhere.
In large part, low productivity is the reverse of high employment. Less productive workers find it easier to get work here than in many other countries.
Not sure the farmers in E Anglia and Lincolnshire will agree with you - as they employ a lot of immigrants to work in the fields as apparently the native Brits are too keen on early hours and hard work.
Seem to recall from ST YG polls that about one third of the VI have not been affected/not noticed the effects of 'cuts'/austerity. Would they be manly people employed by the public sector or on such pensions?
Public sector has had 5 years of pay freezes and huge hikes in pension contributions. A friend of mine who works for the Met bemoans the "Tory cuts" as they have absolutely directly and negatively affected him (and colleagues) and his standard of living
I know this might come as a shock, that is true of most of the private sector as well. Welcome to living in the country with the lowest productivity in the G7 and getting worse. The obvious thing to do, is to raise pay, increase regulation, and thereby make it even worse, the look all surprised when people take their business elsewhere.
In large part, low productivity is the reverse of high employment. Less productive workers find it easier to get work here than in many other countries.
Possibly, it still doesn't help. It costs a customer 19% more per worker for the same amount of product than the average for the G7, and almost 30% more compared to Germany, and lets not even consider most of Asia. Even per working week we do worse than Germany despite working on average considerably longer hours. It's not sustainable, customers and investors will take their money somewhere better value.
Men from the Pru share huge £49m payout: Pensions firm accused of 'greed' after details of perks for senior executives are revealed days before shake-up
Mr Thiam who recently awarded himself an £11,000,000 bonus says
1) It may not reduce costs. The old plane-based systems were massively expensive. Technology's improved, but also got much more expensive; 2) It is a significant reduction in capability: there are vast areas of the globe that cruise missiles cannot reach, especially without risking interception; 3) Any such system would put our ability to retaliate in a large scale war at risk: the enemy would know where our nukes were and could easily take them out. That's hopefully not true for a sub-based deterrent.
Not sure how much cheaper than a ICBM system they'd be, but cruise missiles can be sub launched can't they?
I expect Roger to decline any offers from WPP as Sir Martin has just given himself a whacking huge pay rise..if one has principles they must be carried out.. eh Rog.
Men from the Pru share huge £49m payout: Pensions firm accused of 'greed' after details of perks for senior executives are revealed days before shake-up
Mr Thiam who recently awarded himself an £11,000,000 bonus says
'VOTE TORY!! DONT ROCK THE BOAT'
LOL
Roger you're as boat rocky as Terry Wogan.
He didn't take a £11m bonus, he received a 36% pay rise to a total of £11m
Since PRU:LN stock has given a 30+% return in the last year I dare say his investors feel he is worth it.
Sorrells pay for 2014 expected to be in excess of 30 million and for 20215 to be over 40 million... I bet some of the runners on Rogers set could do with a bit of that.
I expect Roger to decline any offers from WPP as Sir Martin has just given himself a whacking huge pay rise..if one has principles they must be carried out.. eh Rog.
Roger has Marxist principles, we should respect them.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others. Groucho Marx
First quarter of 2015 see project approvals grow by 36%
1 April, 2015 | By Charlie Schouten
Planning approvals in the first three months of the year grew by more than a third compared with the same period in 2014, with non-residential projects leading the way.
Seem to recall from ST YG polls that about one third of the VI have not been affected/not noticed the effects of 'cuts'/austerity. Would they be manly people employed by the public sector or on such pensions?
That's a daft question.
Public sector has had 5 years of pay freezes and huge hikes in pension contributions. A friend of mine who works for the Met bemoans the "Tory cuts" as they have absolutely directly and negatively affected him (and colleagues) and his standard of living.
But he mindlessly parrots Daily Mail gibberish and will still vote Tory in May.
Brown increased spending by 50% in real terms over 10 years. Real terms. 50%. 10 years. Given that the money ran out, why do you think there was a wage freeze?
The country needed that investment after the Tories recklessly ran down public services. People easily forget what a terrible state the NHS was in in 1997.
If money "ran out", how come public servants were still being paid salaries even in the depths of the crisis and beyond?
Seem to recall from ST YG polls that about one third of the VI have not been affected/not noticed the effects of 'cuts'/austerity. Would they be manly people employed by the public sector or on such pensions?
Public sector has had 5 years of pay freezes and huge hikes in pension contributions. A friend of mine who works for the Met bemoans the "Tory cuts" as they have absolutely directly and negatively affected him (and colleagues) and his standard of living
I know this might come as a shock, that is true of most of the private sector as well. Welcome to living in the country with the lowest productivity in the G7 and getting worse. The obvious thing to do, is to raise pay, increase regulation, and thereby make it even worse, the look all surprised when people take their business elsewhere.
In large part, low productivity is the reverse of high employment. Less productive workers find it easier to get work here than in many other countries.
Not sure the farmers in E Anglia and Lincolnshire will agree with you - as they employ a lot of immigrants to work in the fields as apparently the native Brits are too keen on early hours and hard work.
We've had UKIP-supporting posters on here regret that British students can't be forced to do fruit-picking in the summer holidays.
1) It may not reduce costs. The old plane-based systems were massively expensive. Technology's improved, but also got much more expensive; 2) It is a significant reduction in capability: there are vast areas of the globe that cruise missiles cannot reach, especially without risking interception; 3) Any such system would put our ability to retaliate in a large scale war at risk: the enemy would know where our nukes were and could easily take them out. That's hopefully not true for a sub-based deterrent.
Not sure how much cheaper than a ICBM system they'd be, but cruise missiles can be sub launched can't they?
Yes, range is pretty feeble compared to an ICBM, about 2000km from our Astute Class, which means incapable of hitting a fair chunk of Russia as there isn't any water near enough, also since they only fly at 800kph or so it would take over 2hrs to get there, which might not be that helpful.
I expect Roger to decline any offers from WPP as Sir Martin has just given himself a whacking huge pay rise..if one has principles they must be carried out.. eh Rog.
Roger has Marxist principles, we should respect them.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others. Groucho Marx
My experience of Maxism in Russia and the former USSR is privileges and high rewards for the party leaders/members and their friends and supporters and the rest can fend for themselves. Of course Roger being on the inside track............
Seem to recall from ST YG polls that about one third of the VI have not been affected/not noticed the effects of 'cuts'/austerity. Would they be manly people employed by the public sector or on such pensions?
That's a daft question.
Public sector has had 5 years of pay freezes and huge hikes in pension contributions. A friend of mine who works for the Met bemoans the "Tory cuts" as they have absolutely directly and negatively affected him (and colleagues) and his standard of living.
But he mindlessly parrots Daily Mail gibberish and will still vote Tory in May.
Brown increased spending by 50% in real terms over 10 years. Real terms. 50%. 10 years. Given that the money ran out, why do you think there was a wage freeze?
The country needed that investment after the Tories recklessly ran down public services. People easily forget what a terrible state the NHS was in in 1997.
If money "ran out", how come public servants were still being paid salaries even in the depths of the crisis and beyond?
1) It may not reduce costs. The old plane-based systems were massively expensive. Technology's improved, but also got much more expensive; 2) It is a significant reduction in capability: there are vast areas of the globe that cruise missiles cannot reach, especially without risking interception; 3) Any such system would put our ability to retaliate in a large scale war at risk: the enemy would know where our nukes were and could easily take them out. That's hopefully not true for a sub-based deterrent.
Not sure how much cheaper than a ICBM system they'd be, but cruise missiles can be sub launched can't they?
Yep, they can. Perhaps we could give that role to our Astutes, but again that's not exactly a cheap option.
But the main problem with cruise missiles is that they're mainly subsonic and easy to intercept. There are supersonic ones, but we don't have them. We're developing a supersonic one with the French - the Perseus - but that's not been completed yet. They also have a piddling range over only a few hundred miles.
So we'd need a new generation of cruise missiles, which would not even start to replicate the advantages that ICBM's have.
We need to decide on the capability that is required, then look at the platforms that best match that capability. It might well be that Trident is it.
"I couldn't figure out why Martin Freeman wasn't on that list, do you know ? "
He's not an expoitative Tory bastard? Got any better ideas?
Are you saying it's ok to be an exploitative bastard just as long as you're not a Tory ?
Yes and those exploitative bar stewards are ok if they present a Labour advert whilst sending children to a fee paying school. Do as I say not as I do = Champagne socialists. After all no shame in letting your nearest and dearest go bankrupt and harm the folk you owe money to? http://order-order.com/2015/03/30/tax-dodge-shame-of-labour-election-star/#_@/zoy8R95S3xrT7w
Seem to recall from ST YG polls that about one third of the VI have not been affected/not noticed the effects of 'cuts'/austerity. Would they be manly people employed by the public sector or on such pensions?
Public sector has had 5 years of pay freezes and huge hikes in pension contributions. A friend of mine who works for the Met bemoans the "Tory cuts" as they have absolutely directly and negatively affected him (and colleagues) and his standard of living
I know this might come as a shock, that is true of most of the private sector as well. Welcome to living in the country with the lowest productivity in the G7 and getting worse. The obvious thing to do, is to raise pay, increase regulation, and thereby make it even worse, the look all surprised when people take their business elsewhere.
In large part, low productivity is the reverse of high employment. Less productive workers find it easier to get work here than in many other countries.
Not sure the farmers in E Anglia and Lincolnshire will agree with you - as they employ a lot of immigrants to work in the fields as apparently the native Brits are too keen on early hours and hard work.
We've had UKIP-supporting posters on here regret that British students can't be forced to do fruit-picking in the summer holidays.
lawyer despises manual work shock.
does sending the intern to get your skinny latte count ?
Seem to recall from ST YG polls that about one third of the VI have not been affected/not noticed the effects of 'cuts'/austerity. Would they be manly people employed by the public sector or on such pensions?
That's a daft question.
Public sector has had 5 years of pay freezes and huge hikes in pension contributions. A friend of mine who works for the Met bemoans the "Tory cuts" as they have absolutely directly and negatively affected him (and colleagues) and his standard of living.
But he mindlessly parrots Daily Mail gibberish and will still vote Tory in May.
Brown increased spending by 50% in real terms over 10 years. Real terms. 50%. 10 years. Given that the money ran out, why do you think there was a wage freeze?
The country needed that investment after the Tories recklessly ran down public services. People easily forget what a terrible state the NHS was in in 1997.
If money "ran out", how come public servants were still being paid salaries even in the depths of the crisis and beyond?
Seem to recall from ST YG polls that about one third of the VI have not been affected/not noticed the effects of 'cuts'/austerity. Would they be manly people employed by the public sector or on such pensions?
That's a daft question.
Public sector has had 5 years of pay freezes and huge hikes in pension contributions. A friend of mine who works for the Met bemoans the "Tory cuts" as they have absolutely directly and negatively affected him (and colleagues) and his standard of living.
But he mindlessly parrots Daily Mail gibberish and will still vote Tory in May.
Brown increased spending by 50% in real terms over 10 years. Real terms. 50%. 10 years. Given that the money ran out, why do you think there was a wage freeze?
The country needed that investment after the Tories recklessly ran down public services. People easily forget what a terrible state the NHS was in in 1997.
If money "ran out", how come public servants were still being paid salaries even in the depths of the crisis and beyond?
Because Gordon was borrowing 167,000,000,000 pounds a year to pay for it?
Plus all the PFI finance on all these nice new hospitals that now can't be paid for, because keeping the borrowing from adding to the total was more important than getting value for taxpayers' money...?
Last time the tories went to the country with a turnaround glowing economy, Labour won a landslide. Just saying like.
Even so, this business leaders letter is a blow for Labour. Every party will have good n' bad days and Labour just need to take this one on the chin. Its Milibands fault in part for seeming to lay into business.
Just suppose both mains are mid 30's it means either could win outright. Just wondering if theres a market up yet for cabinet positions in next government. Boris Johnson for Foreign Secretary? With the EU referendum coming up could be a perfect appointment for him & Cameron.
1) It may not reduce costs. The old plane-based systems were massively expensive. Technology's improved, but also got much more expensive; 2) It is a significant reduction in capability: there are vast areas of the globe that cruise missiles cannot reach, especially without risking interception; 3) Any such system would put our ability to retaliate in a large scale war at risk: the enemy would know where our nukes were and could easily take them out. That's hopefully not true for a sub-based deterrent.
Not sure how much cheaper than a ICBM system they'd be, but cruise missiles can be sub launched can't they?
Yep, they can. Perhaps we could give that role to our Astutes, but again that's not exactly a cheap option.
But the main problem with cruise missiles is that they're mainly subsonic and easy to intercept. There are supersonic ones, but we don't have them. We're developing a supersonic one with the French - the Perseus - but that's not been completed yet. They also have a piddling range over only a few hundred miles.
So we'd need a new generation of cruise missiles, which would not even start to replicate the advantages that ICBM's have.
We need to decide on the capability that is required, then look at the platforms that best match that capability. It might well be that Trident is it.
The problem with submarine launched cruise missiles, is that no nuclear armed adversary would be able to differentiate between a conventional or thermonuclear payload, and assuming the worst, would immediately retaliate with 'canned sunshine' without bothering to wait and see.
With regards to Trident, from that article I'm not sure I fully understand his position, He says he's against Trident, but wants a cruise missile system to deter against unilateral action and terrorist states.
So it sounds as thought he's for a nuclear deterrent, but against the current Trident delivery mechanism. Which is fair enough, but:
1) It may not reduce costs. The old plane-based systems were massively expensive. Technology's improved, but also got much more expensive; 2) It is a significant reduction in capability: there are vast areas of the globe that cruise missiles cannot reach, especially without risking interception; 3) Any such system would put our ability to retaliate in a large scale war at risk: the enemy would know where our nukes were and could easily take them out. That's hopefully not true for a sub-based deterrent.
But it is a logical position if you believe that there is a small threat that might need a nuclear response (e.g. North Korea, terrorists), but the risk of all-out nuclear war (traditionally against Russia) is remote.
The brave decision for Cameron to take would be to diversify the nuclear deterrent, as he was renewing it, to include a sub-strategic option (as in a tactical option, rather than just strategic retaliation)
Major abolished those in the mid-1990s, leaving us with just Trident, but when we face a wide range of threats, including rogue states, a multitude of options within the nuclear deterrent would increase the credibility of it and its deterrent effect.
1) It may not reduce costs. The old plane-based systems were massively expensive. Technology's improved, but also got much more expensive; 2) It is a significant reduction in capability: there are vast areas of the globe that cruise missiles cannot reach, especially without risking interception; 3) Any such system would put our ability to retaliate in a large scale war at risk: the enemy would know where our nukes were and could easily take them out. That's hopefully not true for a sub-based deterrent.
Not sure how much cheaper than a ICBM system they'd be, but cruise missiles can be sub launched can't they?
Yep, they can. Perhaps we could give that role to our Astutes, but again that's not exactly a cheap option.
But the main problem with cruise missiles is that they're mainly subsonic and easy to intercept. There are supersonic ones, but we don't have them. We're developing a supersonic one with the French - the Perseus - but that's not been completed yet. They also have a piddling range over only a few hundred miles.
So we'd need a new generation of cruise missiles, which would not even start to replicate the advantages that ICBM's have.
We need to decide on the capability that is required, then look at the platforms that best match that capability. It might well be that Trident is it.
The problem with submarine launched cruise missiles, is that no nuclear armed adversary would be able to differentiate between a conventional or thermonuclear payload, and assuming the worst, would immediately retaliate with 'canned sunshine' without bothering to wait and see.
An excellent point.
ISTR that there's an international requirement to announce all space launches in advance, as well as ICBM tests, to ensure that no-one takes them to be a nuclear attack. Probably particularly important in the case of Sea Launch. ;-)
@faisalislam: So three business organisations: CBI, EEF, IoD have also issued separate statements attacking the Labour move on zero hours contracts
Only 17% of ZHC are in private business anyway, the bulk of them are in public service and the charity sector, so another win with his supporters for Ed.
So if we round that up to 20%. Number of zero hour contracts = 600K (2% of workers) Number of ZHC that folk are happy = 50% (1% of workers) Since Labour say this is mainly a problem in the private sector = 20% Number of private sector ZHC where employees are unhappy = 600k x 50% x 20% = 60k. So we have a problem affecting 0.2% of workers or 2 in every 1,000 workers. This is a tiny tiny problem.
So it looks like the Labour high command are concentrating on a traditional core vote strategy to energise the base and get 33-34% voting for them. The Tory Telegraph letter will only help this. Whether there are 33-34% of the population willing to back this remains to be seen.
The Tories are looking to poll 35-36%- and will be pleased that the first week has been dominated by the economy.
The greatest threat to the Tories now is Farage. If he can pull a blinder in the debates and get some momentum going then we may see the Tories going to plan B. So far I think Plan A is working for them.
Diplomacy V is over. Draw victory for Austria and Italy.
Didn't do too badly as England, but stuttering progress against France stopped me building up a head of steam. Was an enjoyable game nevertheless, and I did better than last time (when I got crushed by the frogs).
Edited extra bit: Mr. Llama and Mr. Foxinsox did very well as Italy and Austria respectively, though I'm surprised Austria didn't go for the solo win.
With regards to Trident, from that article I'm not sure I fully understand his position, He says he's against Trident, but wants a cruise missile system to deter against unilateral action and terrorist states.
So it sounds as thought he's for a nuclear deterrent, but against the current Trident delivery mechanism. Which is fair enough, but:
1) It may not reduce costs. The old plane-based systems were massively expensive. Technology's improved, but also got much more expensive; 2) It is a significant reduction in capability: there are vast areas of the globe that cruise missiles cannot reach, especially without risking interception; 3) Any such system would put our ability to retaliate in a large scale war at risk: the enemy would know where our nukes were and could easily take them out. That's hopefully not true for a sub-based deterrent.
But it is a logical position if you believe that there is a small threat that might need a nuclear response (e.g. North Korea, terrorists), but the risk of all-out nuclear war (traditionally against Russia) is remote.
The brave decision for Cameron to take would be to diversify the nuclear deterrent, as he was renewing it, to include a sub-strategic option (as in a tactical option, rather than just strategic retaliation)
Major abolished those in the mid-1990s, leaving us with just Trident, but when we face a wide range of threats, including rogue states, a multitude of options within the nuclear deterrent would increase the credibility of it and its deterrent effect.
Hmmm. IANAE, but I thought Blair abolished the RAF's WE.177's? (Major did abolish the RN's).
In large part, low productivity is the reverse of high employment. Less productive workers find it easier to get work here than in many other countries.
I think that's part of the answer. This, like so much else, is a reverberation from the events of 1989-90 and all that has followed. Economics, foreign policy, attitudes to Europe, social policy - all have been shaped by the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of Communism in ways that few, with the possible exception of Margaret Thatcher, envisaged at the time.
In tandem with low productivity, we have low spend on technological innovation and r&d - why ? Because it is easier and cheaper to hire people from a pool of cheap labour provided by the fall of Communism to the east and the anarchy in the Middle East and North Africa which was another by-product.
Previous economic booms have been curtailed by labour capacity issues leading to shortages and wage and then price inflation. This hasn't happened yet because the pool of labour hasn't run out. Our failed interventionist policies in Libya and Iraq, which wouldn't have been possible had the USSR still existed, have toppled dictators but left instability which has prompted migration to the wealthier parts of Europe.
None of this is an argument for a restoration of the pre-1989 balance but 25 years on, those seminal events, as important as those of 1918-19 and 1944-45, have profoundly shaped the Britain we live in today and the policies of Government. In that regard, it doesn't much matter whether the Government is Conservative or Labour in all honesty.
Mr. Tyson, unsure a core vote approach works for Labour. Social conservatives (WWC) can go to UKIP, and Scotland seems like it's going to the SNP (although we'll see if turnout on the day matches the polling).
But then, that's why I think we'll have a horribly hung Parliament.
Comments
That is the reason you are seeing Vitality Health plastered all over football grounds and other forms of advertising.
"The more I listen to Ed, the more I think it's the latter."
No, he knows what he's doing. He thinks he can win this way and that's the be-all and end-all.
Being a control freak, he thinks that if everyone does (and thinks) what he knows is right, then all will be well. It's common in politics. All he needs are the levers of power.
"I couldn't figure out why Martin Freeman wasn't on that list, do you know ? "
He's not an expoitative Tory bastard? Got any better ideas?
The backing of business and entrepreneurs today is just the start of a huge win for David Cameron and George Osborne. I'm still betting on a Conservative majority after the votes are counted next month. The British people aren't stupid. They aren to going to let the likes of Ed Miliband and Ed Balls loose with the economic prospects of the nation.
Perhaps the make up of their panel, which exposed itself on Sunday, might provide an answer.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-23573442
Something that public sector employees perhaps don't understand is that private sector employees really do listen to what their employers say about economic confidence - it suggests how secure their job it and whether they're likely to get a pay rise. The 103 leaders are said to employ half a million people. If any of those were wavering this morning, I suspect we'll see them in the 3,4 and 5% leads the Tories are likely to get in the coming weeks' polls.....
There is more of a problem when they ask you to be free from Monday to Friday from 8am to 6pm for up to 45 hours work a week, and ban you from seeking other work that may conflict with that, *unless* you are retired, and are comfortable with that.
So it's horses for courses to me and knee jerk legislation will reduce flexibility. Reduced employment flexibility can so often mean fewer jobs, rather than better jobs.
Public sector has had 5 years of pay freezes and huge hikes in pension contributions. A friend of mine who works for the Met bemoans the "Tory cuts" as they have absolutely directly and negatively affected him (and colleagues) and his standard of living.
But he mindlessly parrots Daily Mail gibberish and will still vote Tory in May.
By the sounds of it even if the Tories were 20 points behind you'd be backing them for victory!
https://commonspace.scot/articles/891/exclusive-alex-salmond-set-for-speaker-of-house-of-commons-role-as-part-of-snp-deal
The regulatory impact assessment for IR35 was hysterical, the reason they thought it would raise so much money was because it assumed that all the freelance IT consultants would immediately be taken on as full time employees, or the same salary.
Labour should link that CEO letter to Shapps. Spiv central.
I was looking for the traditional April Fool story in the media this morning - I see the Telegraph have theirs on the front page.
So it sounds as thought he's for a nuclear deterrent, but against the current Trident delivery mechanism. Which is fair enough, but:
1) It may not reduce costs. The old plane-based systems were massively expensive. Technology's improved, but also got much more expensive;
2) It is a significant reduction in capability: there are vast areas of the globe that cruise missiles cannot reach, especially without risking interception;
3) Any such system would put our ability to retaliate in a large scale war at risk: the enemy would know where our nukes were and could easily take them out. That's hopefully not true for a sub-based deterrent.
But it is a logical position if you believe that there is a small threat that might need a nuclear response (e.g. North Korea, terrorists), but the risk of all-out nuclear war (traditionally against Russia) is remote.
Given that the money ran out, why do you think there was a wage freeze?
Roger you're as boat rocky as Terry Wogan.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11499438/Ed-Miliband-is-peddling-a-lie-about-his-volte-face-on-Syria.html
Since PRU:LN stock has given a 30+% return in the last year I dare say his investors feel he is worth it.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
Groucho Marx
Truly my cup runneth over.
1 April, 2015 | By Charlie Schouten
Planning approvals in the first three months of the year grew by more than a third compared with the same period in 2014, with non-residential projects leading the way.
http://www.cnplus.co.uk/8680756.article?WT.tsrc=email&WT.mc_id=Newsletter16
If money "ran out", how come public servants were still being paid salaries even in the depths of the crisis and beyond?
They got paid because we borrowed the money of course.
But the main problem with cruise missiles is that they're mainly subsonic and easy to intercept. There are supersonic ones, but we don't have them. We're developing a supersonic one with the French - the Perseus - but that's not been completed yet. They also have a piddling range over only a few hundred miles.
So we'd need a new generation of cruise missiles, which would not even start to replicate the advantages that ICBM's have.
We need to decide on the capability that is required, then look at the platforms that best match that capability. It might well be that Trident is it.
does sending the intern to get your skinny latte count ?
They can't all be ashamed to have him as party leader.
https://twitter.com/ScottyNational/status/583167971746541569
Plus all the PFI finance on all these nice new hospitals that now can't be paid for, because keeping the borrowing from adding to the total was more important than getting value for taxpayers' money...?
Even so, this business leaders letter is a blow for Labour. Every party will have good n' bad days and Labour just need to take this one on the chin. Its Milibands fault in part for seeming to lay into business.
Just suppose both mains are mid 30's it means either could win outright. Just wondering if theres a market up yet for cabinet positions in next government. Boris Johnson for Foreign Secretary? With the EU referendum coming up could be a perfect appointment for him & Cameron.
"lawyer despises manual work shock.
does sending the intern to get your skinny latte count ?"
That IS funny!!!
Major abolished those in the mid-1990s, leaving us with just Trident, but when we face a wide range of threats, including rogue states, a multitude of options within the nuclear deterrent would increase the credibility of it and its deterrent effect.
Guido to stand in Buckingham against Bercow
http://order-order.com/2015/04/01/guido4bucks-blogger-to-challenge-speaker-at-election
ISTR that there's an international requirement to announce all space launches in advance, as well as ICBM tests, to ensure that no-one takes them to be a nuclear attack. Probably particularly important in the case of Sea Launch. ;-)
Number of zero hour contracts = 600K (2% of workers)
Number of ZHC that folk are happy = 50% (1% of workers)
Since Labour say this is mainly a problem in the private sector = 20%
Number of private sector ZHC where employees are unhappy = 600k x 50% x 20% = 60k.
So we have a problem affecting 0.2% of workers or 2 in every 1,000 workers.
This is a tiny tiny problem.
The Tories are looking to poll 35-36%- and will be pleased that the first week has been dominated by the economy.
The greatest threat to the Tories now is Farage. If he can pull a blinder in the debates and get some momentum going then we may see the Tories going to plan B. So far I think Plan A is working for them.
Didn't do too badly as England, but stuttering progress against France stopped me building up a head of steam. Was an enjoyable game nevertheless, and I did better than last time (when I got crushed by the frogs).
Edited extra bit: Mr. Llama and Mr. Foxinsox did very well as Italy and Austria respectively, though I'm surprised Austria didn't go for the solo win.
Labour likewise.
In tandem with low productivity, we have low spend on technological innovation and r&d - why ? Because it is easier and cheaper to hire people from a pool of cheap labour provided by the fall of Communism to the east and the anarchy in the Middle East and North Africa which was another by-product.
Previous economic booms have been curtailed by labour capacity issues leading to shortages and wage and then price inflation. This hasn't happened yet because the pool of labour hasn't run out. Our failed interventionist policies in Libya and Iraq, which wouldn't have been possible had the USSR still existed, have toppled dictators but left instability which has prompted migration to the wealthier parts of Europe.
None of this is an argument for a restoration of the pre-1989 balance but 25 years on, those seminal events, as important as those of 1918-19 and 1944-45, have profoundly shaped the Britain we live in today and the policies of Government. In that regard, it doesn't much matter whether the Government is Conservative or Labour in all honesty.
But then, that's why I think we'll have a horribly hung Parliament.