I can certainly confirm from my own experience that all of Better Together's efforts were focussed on areas with sub optimal turnout and no effort was wasted on Tory areas which were expected and did turn out all by themselves.
Radical Independence Campaign. Predominantly hardcore left groupings. They were probably the largest group in terms of boots on the ground and nothing to do with the SNP (If they do vote SNP it will be through bared teeth).
Not in Dundee they weren't.
Actually in Dundee that's who you were seeing (predominantly). RIC were massive in Dundee. But from their comments on activity, I doubt they went near the type of areas you reside in
And as I have said I was not canvassing in the areas I live in either.
There were some left wing nutters for independence in the Town Centre from time to time and we did get wind of other groups who had been involved in getting people signed up on the register.
But the teams I saw out canvassing were all badged up SNP. As were the marches in the centre. As were the vans going around. As were the posters all over the place. As were the groups I met on the day working on GOTV. They are extremely well organised in Dundee and will walk my constituency of Dundee West as a result.
You had SNP badged campaigners? Never saw one in Glasgow, only Yes Scotland badged (I'm sure some of them had SNP lapel badges but never noticed any). RIC were mainly involved in the sign ups and used mass canvasses in areas they felt were "socially appropriate".
How effective this was is up to interpretation. RIC were most heavily involved in mass canvass sign ups in Glasgow and Dundee. They both have significantly lower turn outs than any other area of Scotland. that's indicative that it was successful in getting non-voters onto the register but a significant portion of them stayed as non-voters.
I am sorry but you weren't here and I was. I rarely saw Yes lapel badges in Dundee (posters certainly). They were all SNP lapel badges.
The non voters bit I agree with which is where I started about UKIP. Anyway really GTG now.
I find it very strange that Labour think it is a good idea to roll out Tony Blair to attack the Conservatives on EU issues. The two defining interactions of Blair on the EU were to give away half our rebate for nothing in return, and to attempt to take us into the doomed single currency. Again and again, he put the UK's national interest behind his own political ambitions to be European President. His article today is probably another effort to ingratiate himself with the Brussels elite to get a job in the European Union, after his tenure as Middle East peace envoy has ended with the most violent Middle East since the Second World War.
Worth noting Cameron's 'come home' daftness isn't a one-strong bow, as it were.
He's not only saying the rather obvious "if you're an ex-Tory, come back", he's also, more subtly, saying "if you're an ex-Labour voter, do stay where you are".
UKIP are not just SuperCons. They've taken a significant amount of support that may otherwise be Labour. That matters quite a bit.
Cameron's latest wheeze just looks a bit desperate.
Nonsense. It is boilerplate politics 101. Rally the anti Labour forces. Emphasise that this is about choosing a PM, not sending a message. Claim this is the most important choice ever. What do you expect him to say for goodness sake? It's an election.
If he had half a brain he would have started getting the lost Tories back on board two years ago. This is simply too little too late.
And what do I expect him to say ? "Come on centrists give me your votes" since that's where he's been pitching his tent. Why the hell he thinks the right should come on board for him is just puzzling.
Bell Curve 101.
Pitching your tent for 10% of the electorate won't win an election, that's why he needs to go for the centre. But then pointing out that the alternative to him is someone far to the left in Miliband and that those to the right should vote for him rather than let Miliband win is also sensible. This isn't a protest election, its a very close general election that will determine the government. Give it a kicking in local elections or polls maybe, but now is time for a real choice.
Worth noting Cameron's 'come home' daftness isn't a one-strong bow, as it were.
He's not only saying the rather obvious "if you're an ex-Tory, come back", he's also, more subtly, saying "if you're an ex-Labour voter, do stay where you are".
UKIP are not just SuperCons. They've taken a significant amount of support that may otherwise be Labour. That matters quite a bit.
Cameron's latest wheeze just looks a bit desperate.
Nonsense. It is boilerplate politics 101. Rally the anti Labour forces. Emphasise that this is about choosing a PM, not sending a message. Claim this is the most important choice ever. What do you expect him to say for goodness sake? It's an election.
If he had half a brain he would have started getting the lost Tories back on board two years ago. This is simply too little too late.
And what do I expect him to say ? "Come on centrists give me your votes" since that's where he's been pitching his tent. Why the hell he thinks the right should come on board for him is just puzzling.
Bell Curve 101.
Pitching your tent for 10% of the electorate won't win an election, that's why he needs to go for the centre. But then pointing out that the alternative to him is someone far to the left in Miliband and that those to the right should vote for him rather than let Miliband win is also sensible. This isn't a protest election, its a very close general election that will determine the government. Give it a kicking in local elections or polls maybe, but now is time for a real choice.
You should examine the axis on your bell curve.
The majority of the electorate want immigration reduced. The recent poll of the leaders' debate found >50% agreeing with Mr Farage's postion on HIV spending.
I think Ed on the campaign trail is more of a risk as he has to interact with real people. OTOH he has shown himself to be reasonably competent at debates in a TV studio where things are much more controlled.
In the first week I think Tory campaigning definitely had the edge (mainly because of Labour's bizarre focus on business) but any sense of momentum has been dissipated by the Easter break. It will be interesting to see who is better able to pick up the baton this week.
The Telegraph article may, obviously, be unreliable given it is in a paper which doesn't fact check. It says that Cons and Lib Dems did not refuse an invite which was what I believed from other sources.
That means Tory and Lib Dem policy cannot be challenged. It also means when, for example, Sturgeon makes a statement such as "we are against Austerity unlike X", X can ONLY be Labour, not Labour, Lib Dem and Tories.
I'm not sure how comfortable that will be for Miliband.
I don't think that is plausible. So there is a debate but we cannot talk about the government !What should they talk about then ? The weather ?
Well, it has been weird hasn't it? A sunny Easter weekend? Only under the tories. My memory of the Blair/Brown years was trying to roll eggs in sleet!
Worth noting Cameron's 'come home' daftness isn't a one-strong bow, as it were.
He's not only saying the rather obvious "if you're an ex-Tory, come back", he's also, more subtly, saying "if you're an ex-Labour voter, do stay where you are".
UKIP are not just SuperCons. They've taken a significant amount of support that may otherwise be Labour. That matters quite a bit.
Cameron's latest wheeze just looks a bit desperate.
Nonsense. It is boilerplate politics 101. Rally the anti Labour forces. Emphasise that this is about choosing a PM, not sending a message. Claim this is the most important choice ever. What do you expect him to say for goodness sake? It's an election.
If he had half a brain he would have started getting the lost Tories back on board two years ago. This is simply too little too late.
And what do I expect him to say ? "Come on centrists give me your votes" since that's where he's been pitching his tent. Why the hell he thinks the right should come on board for him is just puzzling.
Bell Curve 101.
Pitching your tent for 10% of the electorate won't win an election, that's why he needs to go for the centre. But then pointing out that the alternative to him is someone far to the left in Miliband and that those to the right should vote for him rather than let Miliband win is also sensible. This isn't a protest election, its a very close general election that will determine the government. Give it a kicking in local elections or polls maybe, but now is time for a real choice.
You should examine the axis on your bell curve.
The majority of the electorate want immigration reduced. The recent poll of the leaders' debate found >50% agreeing with Mr Farage's postion on HIV spending.
The electorate are inherently inconsistent, which is why politics is never settled. An affirmative answer to a question absolutely does not preclude the electorate also simultaneously holding the opposite opinion - as this famous Yes, Minister sketch demonstrated well decades ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA
There's a reason UKIP aren't polling 35-40% and its not that they're not right-wing enough. There's a reason Hague, IDS and Howard never became PM but Cameron did.
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN the contents of the latest ARSE with added APLOMB 2015 General Election and "JackW Dozen" Projections. (Changes From 4th April Projection) :
Con 312 (-1) .. Lab 246 (+2) .. LibDem 30 (NC) .. SNP 36 (NC) .. PC 2 .. NI 18 .. UKIP 3 (-1) .. Respect 1 .. Green 1 .. Ind 0 .. Speaker 1
Conservatives 14 seats short of a majority ......................................................................................
"JackW Dozen" - 13 seats that will shape the General Election result :
Bury North - Con Hold Pudsey - Likely Con Hold Broxtowe - TCTC Warwickshire North - Likely Con Hold Cambridge - LibDem Hold Ipswich - Con Hold Watford - TCTC Croydon Central - Con Hold Enfield North - TCTC Cornwall North - TCTC Great Yarmouth - Con Hold Vale of Glamorgan - Con Hold Ochil and South Perthshire - SNP Gain
Changes From 4 Apr - No Changes
TCTC - Too Close To Call - Less than 500 votes Likely Hold/Gain - 500 - 2500 votes Gain/Hold - Over 2500 .......................................................................................
ARSE is sponsored by Auchentennach Fine Pies (Est 1745)
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network ARSE - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors APLOMB - Auchentennach Pies Leading Outsales Mainland Britain
Worth noting Cameron's 'come home' daftness isn't a one-strong bow, as it were.
He's not only saying the rather obvious "if you're an ex-Tory, come back", he's also, more subtly, saying "if you're an ex-Labour voter, do stay where you are".
UKIP are not just SuperCons. They've taken a significant amount of support that may otherwise be Labour. That matters quite a bit.
Cameron's latest wheeze just looks a bit desperate.
Nonsense. It is boilerplate politics 101. Rally the anti Labour forces. Emphasise that this is about choosing a PM, not sending a message. Claim this is the most important choice ever. What do you expect him to say for goodness sake? It's an election.
If he had half a brain he would have started getting the lost Tories back on board two years ago. This is simply too little too late.
And what do I expect him to say ? "Come on centrists give me your votes" since that's where he's been pitching his tent. Why the hell he thinks the right should come on board for him is just puzzling.
Bell Curve 101.
Pitching your tent for 10% of the electorate won't win an election, that's why he needs to go for the centre. But then pointing out that the alternative to him is someone far to the left in Miliband and that those to the right should vote for him rather than let Miliband win is also sensible. This isn't a protest election, its a very close general election that will determine the government. Give it a kicking in local elections or polls maybe, but now is time for a real choice.
You should examine the axis on your bell curve.
The majority of the electorate want immigration reduced. The recent poll of the leaders' debate found >50% agreeing with Mr Farage's postion on HIV spending.
But did the question asked actually match Farage's statement?
I really don't want to go back to the times when AIDS sufferers were heavily stigmatised. It seems many UKIP supporters including at least one on here) do.
I think Ed on the campaign trail is more of a risk as he has to interact with real people. OTOH he has shown himself to be reasonably competent at debates in a TV studio where things are much more controlled.
In the first week I think Tory campaigning definitely had the edge (mainly because of Labour's bizarre focus on business) but any sense of momentum has been dissipated by the Easter break. It will be interesting to see who is better able to pick up the baton this week.
Does Ed really need a couple of weeks to prepare for the Challengers Debate? Or is it deliberate to keep his profile low?
It seems hard to believe doesn't it? Especially when we have seen how sterile and policy light the "debates" actually are. It is not as if he is going to have to explain the irrationality and inconsistency of his ZHC policy for example. At worst he will have to deal with a couple of less than polished soundbites suggesting his superficial and faintly ridiculous proposal was not nearly superficial or ridiculous enough.
This next debate should be all about Sturgeon against Miliband with 30 seats at stake. He did not interact with her at all when DC was there but that surely has to be his focus now. Maybe he is trying to learn something about Scotland. In which case one wonders if he has given it enough time.
Indeed one would have thought that the best preparation for the debate would be getting out and about on the stump, rather than hiding in the bunker.
It is a bit concerning that a potential PM requires so much time to prepare for a debate. You wonder how he would cope in the real multi tasking fast moving high pressure environment that can be the life of a leader.
It reeks of a lack of intellectual self confidence.
Worth noting Cameron's 'come home' daftness isn't a one-strong bow, as it were.
He's not only saying the rather obvious "if you're an ex-Tory, come back", he's also, more subtly, saying "if you're an ex-Labour voter, do stay where you are".
UKIP are not just SuperCons. They've taken a significant amount of support that may otherwise be Labour. That matters quite a bit.
Cameron's latest wheeze just looks a bit desperate.
Nonsense. It is boilerplate politics 101. Rally the anti Labour forces. Emphasise that this is about choosing a PM, not sending a message. Claim this is the most important choice ever. What do you expect him to say for goodness sake? It's an election.
If he had half a brain he would have started getting the lost Tories back on board two years ago. This is simply too little too late.
And what do I expect him to say ? "Come on centrists give me your votes" since that's where he's been pitching his tent. Why the hell he thinks the right should come on board for him is just puzzling.
Bell Curve 101.
Pitching your tent for 10% of the electorate won't win an election, that's why he needs to go for the centre. But then pointing out that the alternative to him is someone far to the left in Miliband and that those to the right should vote for him rather than let Miliband win is also sensible. This isn't a protest election, its a very close general election that will determine the government. Give it a kicking in local elections or polls maybe, but now is time for a real choice.
You should examine the axis on your bell curve.
The majority of the electorate want immigration reduced. The recent poll of the leaders' debate found >50% agreeing with Mr Farage's postion on HIV spending.
There's a reason UKIP aren't polling 35-40% and its not that they're not right-wing enough. There's a reason Hague, IDS and Howard never became PM but Cameron did.
The 29% that Labour won in 2010 was their lowest vote share since 1983. In 1983 the Conservatives won >40% of the vote, and 397 seats.
Worth noting Cameron's 'come home' daftness isn't a one-strong bow, as it were.
He's not only saying the rather obvious "if you're an ex-Tory, come back", he's also, more subtly, saying "if you're an ex-Labour voter, do stay where you are".
UKIP are not just SuperCons. They've taken a significant amount of support that may otherwise be Labour. That matters quite a bit.
Cameron's latest wheeze just looks a bit desperate.
Nonsense. It is boilerplate politics 101. Rally the anti Labour forces. Emphasise that this is about choosing a PM, not sending a message. Claim this is the most important choice ever. What do you expect him to say for goodness sake? It's an election.
If he had half a brain he would have started getting the lost Tories back on board two years ago. This is simply too little too late.
And what do I expect him to say ? "Come on centrists give me your votes" since that's where he's been pitching his tent. Why the hell he thinks the right should come on board for him is just puzzling.
Bell Curve 101.
Pitching your tent for 10% of the electorate won't win an election, that's why he needs to go for the centre. But then pointing out that the alternative to him is someone far to the left in Miliband and that those to the right should vote for him rather than let Miliband win is also sensible. This isn't a protest election, its a very close general election that will determine the government. Give it a kicking in local elections or polls maybe, but now is time for a real choice.
As someone who presumably that message is targeted at it makes me think less of him so I won't voting for him.
Worth noting Cameron's 'come home' daftness isn't a one-strong bow, as it were.
He's not only saying the rather obvious "if you're an ex-Tory, come back", he's also, more subtly, saying "if you're an ex-Labour voter, do stay where you are".
UKIP are not just SuperCons. They've taken a significant amount of support that may otherwise be Labour. That matters quite a bit.
Cameron's latest wheeze just looks a bit desperate.
Nonsense. It is boilerplate politics 101. Rally the anti Labour forces. Emphasise that this is about choosing a PM, not sending a message. Claim this is the most important choice ever. What do you expect him to say for goodness sake? It's an election.
If he had half a brain he would have started getting the lost Tories back on board two years ago. This is simply too little too late.
And what do I expect him to say ? "Come on centrists give me your votes" since that's where he's been pitching his tent. Why the hell he thinks the right should come on board for him is just puzzling.
Bell Curve 101.
Pitching your tent for 10% of the electorate won't win an election, that's why he needs to go for the centre. But then pointing out that the alternative to him is someone far to the left in Miliband and that those to the right should vote for him rather than let Miliband win is also sensible. This isn't a protest election, its a very close general election that will determine the government. Give it a kicking in local elections or polls maybe, but now is time for a real choice.
As someone who presumably that message is targeted at it makes me think less of him so I won't voting for him.
So you were going to vote for him before today? If not its no change.
Worth noting Cameron's 'come home' daftness isn't a one-strong bow, as it were.
He's not only saying the rather obvious "if you're an ex-Tory, come back", he's also, more subtly, saying "if you're an ex-Labour voter, do stay where you are".
UKIP are not just SuperCons. They've taken a significant amount of support that may otherwise be Labour. That matters quite a bit.
Cameron's latest wheeze just looks a bit desperate.
Nonsense. It is boilerplate politics 101. Rally the anti Labour forces. Emphasise that this is about choosing a PM, not sending a message. Claim this is the most important choice ever. What do you expect him to say for goodness sake? It's an election.
If he had half a brain he would have started getting the lost Tories back on board two years ago. This is simply too little too late.
And what do I expect him to say ? "Come on centrists give me your votes" since that's where he's been pitching his tent. Why the hell he thinks the right should come on board for him is just puzzling.
Bell Curve 101.
Pitching your tent for 10% of the electorate won't win an election, that's why he needs to go for the centre. But then pointing out that the alternative to him is someone far to the left in Miliband and that those to the right should vote for him rather than let Miliband win is also sensible. This isn't a protest election, its a very close general election that will determine the government. Give it a kicking in local elections or polls maybe, but now is time for a real choice.
You should examine the axis on your bell curve.
The majority of the electorate want immigration reduced. The recent poll of the leaders' debate found >50% agreeing with Mr Farage's postion on HIV spending.
There's a reason UKIP aren't polling 35-40% and its not that they're not right-wing enough. There's a reason Hague, IDS and Howard never became PM but Cameron did.
The 29% that Labour won in 2010 was their lowest vote share since 1983. In 1983 the Conservatives won >40% of the vote, and 397 seats.
Different era. Cameron also got elected on a very right wing platform of austerity cuts. How often do you reckon have opposition leaders become PM on an open platform of cutting spending?
Worth noting Cameron's 'come home' daftness isn't a one-strong bow, as it were.
He's not only saying the rather obvious "if you're an ex-Tory, come back", he's also, more subtly, saying "if you're an ex-Labour voter, do stay where you are".
UKIP are not just SuperCons. They've taken a significant amount of support that may otherwise be Labour. That matters quite a bit.
Cameron's latest wheeze just looks a bit desperate.
Nonsense. It is boilerplate politics 101. Rally the anti Labour forces. Emphasise that this is about choosing a PM, not sending a message. Claim this is the most important choice ever. What do you expect him to say for goodness sake? It's an election.
If he had half a brain he would have started getting the lost Tories back on board two years ago. This is simply too little too late.
And what do I expect him to say ? "Come on centrists give me your votes" since that's where he's been pitching his tent. Why the hell he thinks the right should come on board for him is just puzzling.
Bell Curve 101.
Pitching your tent for 10% of the electorate won't win an election, that's why he needs to go for the centre. But then pointing out that the alternative to him is someone far to the left in Miliband and that those to the right should vote for him rather than let Miliband win is also sensible. This isn't a protest election, its a very close general election that will determine the government. Give it a kicking in local elections or polls maybe, but now is time for a real choice.
As someone who presumably that message is targeted at it makes me think less of him so I won't voting for him.
So you were going to vote for him before today? If not its no change.
I voted for him last time and decided about 2 years back I won't be voting for him this time, I'll also be telling the other 4 voters in the house not to bother.
So you're right it's no change - but I though the point of the statement was to create such a change.
Morning all and for any of you interested, there is a Scottish leaders debate this evening on STV. I expect Nicola Sturgeon and Ruth Davidson to wipe the floor with Jim Murphy and Willie Rennie.
I'll be watching this - strong performances by Ruth and Nicola would be nice from a betting perspective indeed.
I think the fruitcakes comment is quite old, more than 5 years, and the ting tong comment was made by a UKIP MEP, not a Tory let alone Cameron himself.
I am aware of that, I was taking the p*ss out of TGOHF and Flightpath who have long held the view that insulting kippers was the way to get them to vote for the Conservative Party
Yet that can be turned around: some (although not all) Kippers on here take an inordinate joy in insulting the other parties, with the beraindead 'LibLabCom' meme and much worse.
Of course it can, but Farage isn't in the paper begging the Conservative to come home to keep that nasty Mr Miliband out. It just doesn't look good or competent rubbishing a group for four year and then deciding you might actually need them when the vote looks a bit tight, they will be entitled to conclude that if the vote was a bit less tight the rubbishing would have continued, and stay where they are.
It is conspicuously the case that in whole areas of policy, like pretty much everything except the economy, it would be hard to put a cigarette paper between the three main parties.
Different era. Cameron also got elected on a very right wing platform of austerity cuts. How often do you reckon have opposition leaders become PM on an open platform of cutting spending?
Are you suggesting that Mrs Thatcher in 1983 was perceived as less of a right winger than Mr Cameron in 2010?
The difference between Labour and Conservative budget proposals in 2010 was and is mostly rhetoric.
Do you think we should ignore the views of the public on every issue, or just on immigration? It is not just the "right wing" that want to reduce immigration, it is voters of left, right and centre. I personally think immigration has been beneficial for our country, but the political class can't continue to ignore the overwhelming majority of the public's views on an issue that they feel so strongly about. If we go on the way we're going, we'll continue to lose votes to UKIP in the long term. Before any election there will be a drift back to the main parties, but this will not make up for the gains they make mid-term. Labour and the Conservatives need to wake up on this.
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN the contents of the latest ARSE with added APLOMB 2015 General Election and "JackW Dozen" Projections. (Changes From 4th April Projection) :
Con 312 (-1) .. Lab 246 (+2) .. LibDem 30 (NC) .. SNP 36 (NC) .. PC 2 .. NI 18 .. UKIP 3 (-1) .. Respect 1 .. Green 1 .. Ind 0 .. Speaker 1
Conservatives 14 seats short of a majority ......................................................................................
"JackW Dozen" - 13 seats that will shape the General Election result :
Bury North - Con Hold Pudsey - Likely Con Hold Broxtowe - TCTC Warwickshire North - Likely Con Hold Cambridge - LibDem Hold Ipswich - Con Hold Watford - TCTC Croydon Central - Con Hold Enfield North - TCTC Cornwall North - TCTC Great Yarmouth - Con Hold Vale of Glamorgan - Con Hold Ochil and South Perthshire - SNP Gain
Changes From 4 Apr - No Changes
TCTC - Too Close To Call - Less than 500 votes Likely Hold/Gain - 500 - 2500 votes Gain/Hold - Over 2500 .......................................................................................
ARSE is sponsored by Auchentennach Fine Pies (Est 1745)
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network ARSE - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors APLOMB - Auchentennach Pies Leading Outsales Mainland Britain
Warwickshire North is an interesting one - but judging by the Nuneaton Ashcroft I'm struggling to see the Conservatives hold it.
I am sorry but you weren't here and I was. I rarely saw Yes lapel badges in Dundee (posters certainly). They were all SNP lapel badges.
Seems odd, why put off non/other party voters with an obvious party identification in a referendum campaign? There was obviously a very different Yes campaign in Dundee from the one in Glasgow.
I think the fruitcakes comment is quite old, more than 5 years, and the ting tong comment was made by a UKIP MEP, not a Tory let alone Cameron himself.
I am aware of that, I was taking the p*ss out of TGOHF and Flightpath who have long held the view that insulting kippers was the way to get them to vote for the Conservative Party
Yet that can be turned around: some (although not all) Kippers on here take an inordinate joy in insulting the other parties, with the beraindead 'LibLabCom' meme and much worse.
Of course it can, but Farage isn't in the paper begging the Conservative to come home to keep that nasty Mr Miliband out. It just doesn't look good or competent rubbishing a group for four year and then deciding you might actually need them when the vote looks a bit tight, they will be entitled to conclude that if the vote was a bit less tight the rubbishing would have continued, and stay where they are.
Farage cannot ask for them to 'come home', because they weren't with him on the first place. And he's also attempting a delicate balancing act between attracting Labour and Conservative voters.
There's a great deal to rubbish in UKIP policies; you cannot expect other parties to remain silent. After all, Farage is trying to attract Conservative and Labour voters, yet UKIP regularly rubbishes those parties.
Yet again, UKIP seem to want to be seen as being 'different', when in fact they're just the same.
I do not think that Nigel Farage said anything to give stigma to AIDS sufferers. All he said was that it was a very expensive course of treatment for AIDS and the UK taxpayer should not be paying mainly for foreign citizens in this area. I had previously raised an eyebrow when I head he was attacking AIDS sufferers, but when I heard his comments on the night, they sounded reasonable and I actually changed my mind.
This is the problem we have when attacking Farage. We can give a very negative impression of the man in our messaging, but he seems reasonable when people finally see him at length. As UKIP gains, this means that our strategy will get weaker and weaker. Our second approach seems to be "don't vote for a minor party", but this also is not going to work long term as UKIP grow and grow. The only way we can beat UKIP long term is to offer a policy package of what the public want that's better than the UKIP package. That seems to upset people who think the public are wrong on everything, but they need to accept we live in a democracy where the public is boss.
@stephenkb: Tails seem to be up in Labourworld. Talked to a usually gloomy source - they think they can win enough in England to do w/o the SNP.
Still on a high after all that chocolate over Easter. Awaiting the crash...!
In our constituency Labour seems to be putting in a lot more work than the Tories currently. We have had one very well produced, glossy brochure through the letterbox from the Blues, but everyone I know here has received personalised letters in the post both from the Labour candidate and from, believe it or not, EdM himself. The focus has been varied - local issues and national ones, the NHS, preserving council services, the chance to elect a woman for the first time in Warwick and Leamington etc. The Labour posters also seem to be up earlier in windows and on boards. I still expect Labour to lose, but it looks pretty clear that the party is motivated and the ground game is in good order. If that is true in other marginals it may reap some unexpected rewards.
Worth noting Cameron's 'come home' daftness isn't a one-strong bow, as it were.
He's not only saying the rather obvious "if you're an ex-Tory, come back", he's also, more subtly, saying "if you're an ex-Labour voter, do stay where you are".
UKIP are not just SuperCons. They've taken a significant amount of support that may otherwise be Labour. That matters quite a bit.
Cameron's latest wheeze just looks a bit desperate.
Nonsense. It is boilerplate politics 101. Rally the anti Labour forces. Emphasise that this is about choosing a PM, not sending a message. Claim this is the most important choice ever. What do you expect him to say for goodness sake? It's an election.
If he had half a brain he would have started getting the lost Tories back on board two years ago. This is simply too little too late.
And what do I expect him to say ? "Come on centrists give me your votes" since that's where he's been pitching his tent. Why the hell he thinks the right should come on board for him is just puzzling.
Bell Curve 101.
Pitching your tent for 10% of the electorate won't win an election, that's why he needs to go for the centre. But then pointing out that the alternative to him is someone far to the left in Miliband and that those to the right should vote for him rather than let Miliband win is also sensible. This isn't a protest election, its a very close general election that will determine the government. Give it a kicking in local elections or polls maybe, but now is time for a real choice.
You should examine the axis on your bell curve.
The majority of the electorate want immigration reduced. The recent poll of the leaders' debate found >50% agreeing with Mr Farage's postion on HIV spending.
But did the question asked actually match Farage's statement?
I really don't want to go back to the times when AIDS sufferers were heavily stigmatised. It seems many UKIP supporters including at least one on here) do.
That a rather pejorative way of saying lots of people shouldn't come to this country with long term chronic conditions and expect the British public to foot the bill indefinitely. This again is uncontroversial in many liberal democracies, but for some reason the UK feels the need to run up bills. Chronic condition suffers are suffering all over the world, what we are doing is salving our conscience by paying to treat the visible people, while ignoring the other 99%, hardly a strong moral position.
@stephenkb: Tails seem to be up in Labourworld. Talked to a usually gloomy source - they think they can win enough in England to do w/o the SNP.
Still on a high after all that chocolate over Easter. Awaiting the crash...!
In our constituency Labour seems to be putting in a lot more work than the Tories currently. We have had one very well produced, glossy brochure through the letterbox from the Blues, but everyone I know here has received personalised letters in the post both from the Labour candidate and from, believe it or not, EdM himself. The focus has been varied - local issues and national ones, the NHS, preserving council services, the chance to elect a woman for the first time in Warwick and Leamington etc. The Labour posters also seem to be up earlier in windows and on boards. I still expect Labour to lose, but it looks pretty clear that the party is motivated and the ground game is in good order. If that is true in other marginals it may reap some unexpected rewards.
In the next door consitituency our MP has sent one leaflet, canvassed no-one and presumably sloped off to heat his stables.
Worth noting Cameron's 'come home' daftness isn't a one-strong bow, as it were.
He's not only saying the rather obvious "if you're an ex-Tory, come back", he's also, more subtly, saying "if you're an ex-Labour voter, do stay where you are".
UKIP are not just SuperCons. They've taken a significant amount of support that may otherwise be Labour. That matters quite a bit.
Cameron's latest wheeze just looks a bit desperate.
Nonsense. It is boilerplate politics 101. Rally the anti Labour forces. Emphasise that this is about choosing a PM, not sending a message. Claim this is the most important choice ever. What do you expect him to say for goodness sake? It's an election.
If he had half a brain he would have started getting the lost Tories back on board two years ago. This is simply too little too late.
And what do I expect him to say ? "Come on centrists give me your votes" since that's where he's been pitching his tent. Why the hell he thinks the right should come on board for him is just puzzling.
Bell Curve 101.
Pitching your tent for 10% of the electorate won't win an election, that's why he needs to go for the centre. But then pointing out that the alternative to him is someone far to the left in Miliband and that those to the right should vote for him rather than let Miliband win is also sensible. This isn't a protest election, its a very close general election that will determine the government. Give it a kicking in local elections or polls maybe, but now is time for a real choice.
Its may be true that there are more voters in the middle, but it is also an area with much more competition, its where the LDs are, and where the middle class Labour voters are. The bell curve only makes sense if you are getting a large share of the bit in the middle rather than all the vote at the edges, it also assumes you dont have a large chunk at the edge while moving to the middle, neither in this case is a forgone conclusion. The other reason that Cameron "won" (for some values of "won") and IDS and Hague didn't are rather more likely to be the key, he wasn't fighting Blair, and Brown had conspicuously f*cked the economy by 2010.
@stephenkb: Tails seem to be up in Labourworld. Talked to a usually gloomy source - they think they can win enough in England to do w/o the SNP.
Still on a high after all that chocolate over Easter. Awaiting the crash...!
In our constituency Labour seems to be putting in a lot more work than the Tories currently. We have had one very well produced, glossy brochure through the letterbox from the Blues, but everyone I know here has received personalised letters in the post both from the Labour candidate and from, believe it or not, EdM himself. The focus has been varied - local issues and national ones, the NHS, preserving council services, the chance to elect a woman for the first time in Warwick and Leamington etc. The Labour posters also seem to be up earlier in windows and on boards. I still expect Labour to lose, but it looks pretty clear that the party is motivated and the ground game is in good order. If that is true in other marginals it may reap some unexpected rewards.
In the next door consitituency our MP has sent one leaflet, canvassed no-one and presumably sloped off to heat his stables.
Yes, it's strange. I have never lived in a marginal before. The attention is in very marked contrast to my previous times in safe labour and Tory seats.
Do you think we should ignore the views of the public on every issue, or just on immigration? It is not just the "right wing" that want to reduce immigration, it is voters of left, right and centre. I personally think immigration has been beneficial for our country, but the political class can't continue to ignore the overwhelming majority of the public's views on an issue that they feel so strongly about. If we go on the way we're going, we'll continue to lose votes to UKIP in the long term. Before any election there will be a drift back to the main parties, but this will not make up for the gains they make mid-term. Labour and the Conservatives need to wake up on this.
No I think that reasonable parties of government need to create a balanced package.
Yes the public may want to cut immigration but it's not a binary issue made in isolation. What related issues go with it. Immigration has risen in the last few years because the economy is strong attracting economic migrants who want a job. Do the public want a weak economy that puts off migrants? No.
It's easy to grasp at one straw without realising the rest of the interconnected edifice attached to it. Single issue parties can do that, for parties of government to act that way is irresponsible. The Conservatives have put together a package of proposals (some of which go to far for me) to manage migration.
I think the fruitcakes comment is quite old, more than 5 years, and the ting tong comment was made by a UKIP MEP, not a Tory let alone Cameron himself.
I am aware of that, I was taking the p*ss out of TGOHF and Flightpath who have long held the view that insulting kippers was the way to get them to vote for the Conservative Party
Yet that can be turned around: some (although not all) Kippers on here take an inordinate joy in insulting the other parties, with the beraindead 'LibLabCom' meme and much worse.
Of course it can, but Farage isn't in the paper begging the Conservative to come home to keep that nasty Mr Miliband out. It just doesn't look good or competent rubbishing a group for four year and then deciding you might actually need them when the vote looks a bit tight, they will be entitled to conclude that if the vote was a bit less tight the rubbishing would have continued, and stay where they are.
Farage cannot ask for them to 'come home', because they weren't with him on the first place. And he's also attempting a delicate balancing act between attracting Labour and Conservative voters.
There's a great deal to rubbish in UKIP policies; you cannot expect other parties to remain silent. After all, Farage is trying to attract Conservative and Labour voters, yet UKIP regularly rubbishes those parties.
Yet again, UKIP seem to want to be seen as being 'different', when in fact they're just the same.
UKIP no longer need to attract Labour supporters, Tony Blair is doing it for them.
Do you think we should ignore the views of the public on every issue, or just on immigration? It is not just the "right wing" that want to reduce immigration, it is voters of left, right and centre. I personally think immigration has been beneficial for our country, but the political class can't continue to ignore the overwhelming majority of the public's views on an issue that they feel so strongly about. If we go on the way we're going, we'll continue to lose votes to UKIP in the long term. Before any election there will be a drift back to the main parties, but this will not make up for the gains they make mid-term. Labour and the Conservatives need to wake up on this.
No I think that reasonable parties of government need to create a balanced package.
Yes the public may want to cut immigration but it's not a binary issue made in isolation. What related issues go with it. Immigration has risen in the last few years because the economy is strong attracting economic migrants who want a job. Do the public want a weak economy that puts off migrants? No.
It's easy to grasp at one straw without realising the rest of the interconnected edifice attached to it. Single issue parties can do that, for parties of government to act that way is irresponsible. The Conservatives have put together a package of proposals (some of which go to far for me) to manage migration.
That seems like a rather long winded way of saying that we should ignore what the public wants, albeit for the right reasons. Not sure that is going to be a vote winner in the long time, and especially not when the economic cycle turns down at the end of the year, or if there are any significant terrorist issues in the UK.
Treating foreigners for illnesses they brought with them when they immigrated should be paid for out of the foreign aid budget same as if they were still living abroad
Farage didn't stigmatise anyone, he just said we can make savings from the nhs budget and one way is to stop people that arrive to live here carrying disease that is expensive to treat.
Different era. Cameron also got elected on a very right wing platform of austerity cuts. How often do you reckon have opposition leaders become PM on an open platform of cutting spending?
Are you suggesting that Mrs Thatcher in 1983 was perceived as less of a right winger than Mr Cameron in 2010?
The difference between Labour and Conservative budget proposals in 2010 was and is mostly rhetoric.
No I'd say Foot was seen as more left wing and less of a potential Prime Minister than serving PM Gordon Brown. 29% in 2010 was a higher share of the two party vote than 29% in 1983.
It's not just rhetoric and that article is four years out of date. Hence why it mistakenly refers to disappearing growth prospects when the reality is the fastest growing major nation in the developed world - as opposed to continental style stagnation we'd have under Labour.
Do you think we should ignore the views of the public on every issue, or just on immigration? It is not just the "right wing" that want to reduce immigration, it is voters of left, right and centre. I personally think immigration has been beneficial for our country, but the political class can't continue to ignore the overwhelming majority of the public's views on an issue that they feel so strongly about. If we go on the way we're going, we'll continue to lose votes to UKIP in the long term. Before any election there will be a drift back to the main parties, but this will not make up for the gains they make mid-term. Labour and the Conservatives need to wake up on this.
No I think that reasonable parties of government need to create a balanced package.
Yes the public may want to cut immigration but it's not a binary issue made in isolation. What related issues go with it. Immigration has risen in the last few years because the economy is strong attracting economic migrants who want a job. Do the public want a weak economy that puts off migrants? No.
It's easy to grasp at one straw without realising the rest of the interconnected edifice attached to it. Single issue parties can do that, for parties of government to act that way is irresponsible. The Conservatives have put together a package of proposals (some of which go to far for me) to manage migration.
That seems like a rather long winded way of saying that we should ignore what the public wants, albeit for the right reasons. Not sure that is going to be a vote winner in the long time, and especially not when the economic cycle turns down at the end of the year, or if there are any significant terrorist issues in the UK.
No it's a long winded way of saying we should do what the public wants in as much as it's possible.
The public wants great services, high spending, low taxes, low interference, free from crime, police that don't interfere with themselves etc etc. Parties of government have to strike a balance.
Do you think we should ignore the views of the public on every issue, or just on immigration? It is not just the "right wing" that want to reduce immigration, it is voters of left, right and centre. I personally think immigration has been beneficial for our country, but the political class can't continue to ignore the overwhelming majority of the public's views on an issue that they feel so strongly about. If we go on the way we're going, we'll continue to lose votes to UKIP in the long term. Before any election there will be a drift back to the main parties, but this will not make up for the gains they make mid-term. Labour and the Conservatives need to wake up on this.
No I think that reasonable parties of government need to create a balanced package.
Yes the public may want to cut immigration but it's not a binary issue made in isolation. What related issues go with it. Immigration has risen in the last few years because the economy is strong attracting economic migrants who want a job. Do the public want a weak economy that puts off migrants? No.
It's easy to grasp at one straw without realising the rest of the interconnected edifice attached to it. Single issue parties can do that, for parties of government to act that way is irresponsible. The Conservatives have put together a package of proposals (some of which go to far for me) to manage migration.
LOL, the only thing they have managed is to raise it. "No ifs no buts we will reduce it to tens of thousands" ..............LOL
@stephenkb: Tails seem to be up in Labourworld. Talked to a usually gloomy source - they think they can win enough in England to do w/o the SNP.
Still on a high after all that chocolate over Easter. Awaiting the crash...!
In our constituency Labour seems to be putting in a lot more work than the Tories currently. We have had one very well produced, glossy brochure through the letterbox from the Blues, but everyone I know here has received personalised letters in the post both from the Labour candidate and from, believe it or not, EdM himself. The focus has been varied - local issues and national ones, the NHS, preserving council services, the chance to elect a woman for the first time in Warwick and Leamington etc. The Labour posters also seem to be up earlier in windows and on boards. I still expect Labour to lose, but it looks pretty clear that the party is motivated and the ground game is in good order. If that is true in other marginals it may reap some unexpected rewards.
In the next door consitituency our MP has sent one leaflet, canvassed no-one and presumably sloped off to heat his stables.
Yes, it's strange. I have never lived in a marginal before. The attention is in very marked contrast to my previous times in safe labour and Tory seats.
The Conservatives should hold Warwick and Leamington, but they'll have to match Labour for effort.
@stephenkb: Tails seem to be up in Labourworld. Talked to a usually gloomy source - they think they can win enough in England to do w/o the SNP.
Still on a high after all that chocolate over Easter. Awaiting the crash...!
In our constituency Labour seems to be putting in a lot more work than the Tories currently. We have had one very well produced, glossy brochure through the letterbox from the Blues, but everyone I know here has received personalised letters in the post both from the Labour candidate and from, believe it or not, EdM himself. The focus has been varied - local issues and national ones, the NHS, preserving council services, the chance to elect a woman for the first time in Warwick and Leamington etc. The Labour posters also seem to be up earlier in windows and on boards. I still expect Labour to lose, but it looks pretty clear that the party is motivated and the ground game is in good order. If that is true in other marginals it may reap some unexpected rewards.
Yes.Labour GOTV gaining speed.A lot of motivated volunteers this time in my constituency, especially young people perhaps motivated by tuition fees or just being anti-Tory
People making unsupported claims about the strength of economy, it's doing reasonably well but there are good reasons the governing party is only a few points ahead, not doing well on the individual level.
That a rather pejorative way of saying lots of people shouldn't come to this country with long term chronic conditions and expect the British public to foot the bill indefinitely. This again is uncontroversial in many liberal democracies, but for some reason the UK feels the need to run up bills. Chronic condition suffers are suffering all over the world, what we are doing is salving our conscience by paying to treat the visible people, while ignoring the other 99%, hardly a strong moral position.
No - someone said on here that AIDS sufferers should be stigmatised.
That's utterly wrong in my book, and was probably exactly what Farage wanted.
Full impact of epically disastrous Tory reorganisation being played out in the NHS.
The NHS will always be a never ending money pit. It's time we had a proper national debate about health, what we want from it, and how it can be funded.
@stephenkb: Tails seem to be up in Labourworld. Talked to a usually gloomy source - they think they can win enough in England to do w/o the SNP.
Still on a high after all that chocolate over Easter. Awaiting the crash...!
In our constituency Labour seems to be putting in a lot more work than the Tories currently. We have had one very well produced, glossy brochure through the letterbox from the Blues, but everyone I know here has received personalised letters in the post both from the Labour candidate and from, believe it or not, EdM himself. The focus has been varied - local issues and national ones, the NHS, preserving council services, the chance to elect a woman for the first time in Warwick and Leamington etc. The Labour posters also seem to be up earlier in windows and on boards. I still expect Labour to lose, but it looks pretty clear that the party is motivated and the ground game is in good order. If that is true in other marginals it may reap some unexpected rewards.
Yes.Labour GOTV gaining speed.A lot of motivated volunteers this time in my constituency, especially young people perhaps motivated by tuition fees or just being anti-Tory
Where is that out of interest ?
Are the young people going to bother to vote this time ?
That a rather pejorative way of saying lots of people shouldn't come to this country with long term chronic conditions and expect the British public to foot the bill indefinitely. This again is uncontroversial in many liberal democracies, but for some reason the UK feels the need to run up bills. Chronic condition suffers are suffering all over the world, what we are doing is salving our conscience by paying to treat the visible people, while ignoring the other 99%, hardly a strong moral position.
No - someone said on here that AIDS sufferers should be stigmatised.
That's utterly wrong in my book, and was probably exactly what Farage wanted.
Farage's comments on HIV and AIDS were utterly disgusting.
Mr. Slackbladder, agreed, though I can't see it happening.
There are several issues. Health inflation (ie the rising cost of treatment) is far above actual inflation. The ageing population is perhaps even more serious. And we have drug-resistant forms of disease developing.
There are multiple potential changes we could make [leaving aside abandoning the model altogether, which would be political suicide regardless of whether or not it's sensible]. We could charge people, at least partially, when they take a 'risky' activity (from smoking to mountain climbing, although the latter also has health benefits). Or when they receive treatment related to risky activity (lung cancer for smoking, broken leg after a fall for climbing), but that does raise the issue of what happens if someone cannot pay.
I suspect we'll adopt the approach taken by the EU towards the single currency, and muddle along until catastrophic collapse occurs.
I think the fruitcakes comment is quite old, more than 5 years, and the ting tong comment was made by a UKIP MEP, not a Tory let alone Cameron himself.
I am aware of that, I was taking the p*ss out of TGOHF and Flightpath who have long held the view that insulting kippers was the way to get them to vote for the Conservative Party
I'm not taking it personally Indigo - they laughed when "Peak Kipper" was observed in October - not sure they will laugh if Ed wins the election thanks to Kipper spoiler tactics - no referendum and 3 MPs - what a waste of time and effort.
Different era. Cameron also got elected on a very right wing platform of austerity cuts. How often do you reckon have opposition leaders become PM on an open platform of cutting spending?
Are you suggesting that Mrs Thatcher in 1983 was perceived as less of a right winger than Mr Cameron in 2010?
The difference between Labour and Conservative budget proposals in 2010 was and is mostly rhetoric.
No I'd say Foot was seen as more left wing and less of a potential Prime Minister than serving PM Gordon Brown. 29% in 2010 was a higher share of the two party vote than 29% in 1983.
It's not just rhetoric and that article is four years out of date. Hence why it mistakenly refers to disappearing growth prospects when the reality is the fastest growing major nation in the developed world - as opposed to continental style stagnation we'd have under Labour.
We'd have enjoyed more growth if it weren't for Osborne's flirtation with austerity. The economy was already growing again when Labour left office.
That a rather pejorative way of saying lots of people shouldn't come to this country with long term chronic conditions and expect the British public to foot the bill indefinitely. This again is uncontroversial in many liberal democracies, but for some reason the UK feels the need to run up bills. Chronic condition suffers are suffering all over the world, what we are doing is salving our conscience by paying to treat the visible people, while ignoring the other 99%, hardly a strong moral position.
No - someone said on here that AIDS sufferers should be stigmatised.
That's utterly wrong in my book, and was probably exactly what Farage wanted.
Farage's comments on HIV and AIDS were utterly disgusting.
Quote them & point out the utterly disgusting bits
The WWC supporters of UKIP are potential tory voters, rather than actual tory voters. They are mostly hard-working and genuine; many were supporters of Mrs Thatcher. I've never met a UKIP backer who was on benefits, or unemployed (except, obviously, on a pension).
They do not think socialism is the answer, especially not the variety expressed by Miliband.
DC does not appeal to this group, any more than he does to Farage.
The Smithson line 'DC is more attractive than his party' is correct as far as it goes. But such has been the trashing of the tory brand that any other likely leader would also be considerably more attractive than the tory brand name.
Full impact of epically disastrous Tory reorganisation being played out in the NHS.
The NHS will always be a never ending money pit. It's time we had a proper national debate about health, what we want from it, and how it can be funded.
Preferably without it being a political football.
Keeping Tory mitts off the tillers of power helps. The mad bureaucracy they have created is a big part of the driver behind extra costs.
I find it odd that UK political reporting is so shallow. People actually get paid to come up with rubbish like that bacon sandwich fluff.
While perceptions of individuals matter, Mr Miliband being weird, Mr Cameron snobbish etc, I don't think it moves many votes.
It surprises me that we don't see articles examining policy differences between the parties. Evaluations of the consequences of those differences, and the consequences of the absence of difference.
True, reporting is shallow. But perceptions are strong. On the Foot thing. Yes it was not a donkey jacket, but it looked like one and why would someone wear what looked like a donkey jacket at the cenotaph? Either you are stupid or could not care. Both pretty damning. Unfortunately for Foot he also looked as if he did not know where he was. And thats before you looked at Labours manifesto.
Didn't his wife choose it for him? I think even those who went for Foot at the time admit they were pretty unfair to a decent man, even if they still justify it politically.
The problem was that he turned up with his tie at half-mast and both his jacket and coat hanging open. Thus turned out, he would have looked a complete slob if he had been dressed from head to foot in dark pinstriped Gieves and Hawkes.
That, his William Hartnell hairstyle and the fact that he was standing next to the always-immaculate Margaret Thatcher sent a message that he was basically a polytechnic lecturer in peace studies - a bloody stupid impression for a former Young Communist unilateralist surrender monkey to convey at the Cenotaph.
I wonder if some day someone will write up the destruction of British industry by Soviet penetration in the 1960s and 1970s. A remarkable number of the trade union wreckers and their cheerleaders in the lefty press turned out to have taken Soviet money. CND officials were also remarkably often involved with Soviet fronts like the World Peace Council. It was even possible for it to be suggested that Harold Wilson was a KGB agent, and it wasn't obviously impossible.
It just seems very interesting that Britain should have its car industry wrecked but not France or Italy or Germany.
The last iteration of Stewphen Fisher's model gave the Tories 79% probability of most seats.
Election forecast seems to do the same.
Nevertheless Ed Mili's correct price with the Fisher model was 2.38.
We'll see this week if the Conservative momentum can be maintained...
Burnham is all over the media this morning, so it looks like NHS and stats batted back and forth today anyway. Not sure there is any ground to be made on NHS especially with Burnham fronting the campaign.
Killer Burnham is the Labournonce I'd most like to be their next leader. He's got almost as much blood on his hands as Blair, the preening incompetent.
That a rather pejorative way of saying lots of people shouldn't come to this country with long term chronic conditions and expect the British public to foot the bill indefinitely. This again is uncontroversial in many liberal democracies, but for some reason the UK feels the need to run up bills. Chronic condition suffers are suffering all over the world, what we are doing is salving our conscience by paying to treat the visible people, while ignoring the other 99%, hardly a strong moral position.
No - someone said on here that AIDS sufferers should be stigmatised.
That's utterly wrong in my book, and was probably exactly what Farage wanted.
Farage's comments on HIV and AIDS were utterly disgusting.
Quote them & point out the utterly disgusting bits
Signalling out one specific disease on health tourism when that illness already carries out a social stigma is utterly wrong. Farage knew what he was doing there.
That a rather pejorative way of saying lots of people shouldn't come to this country with long term chronic conditions and expect the British public to foot the bill indefinitely. This again is uncontroversial in many liberal democracies, but for some reason the UK feels the need to run up bills. Chronic condition suffers are suffering all over the world, what we are doing is salving our conscience by paying to treat the visible people, while ignoring the other 99%, hardly a strong moral position.
No - someone said on here that AIDS sufferers should be stigmatised.
That's utterly wrong in my book, and was probably exactly what Farage wanted.
They should be, lifestyle disease. It the disgusting attitudes of people like you that resulted in thousands of deaths of innocent people from infected blood transfusions.
That a rather pejorative way of saying lots of people shouldn't come to this country with long term chronic conditions and expect the British public to foot the bill indefinitely. This again is uncontroversial in many liberal democracies, but for some reason the UK feels the need to run up bills. Chronic condition suffers are suffering all over the world, what we are doing is salving our conscience by paying to treat the visible people, while ignoring the other 99%, hardly a strong moral position.
No - someone said on here that AIDS sufferers should be stigmatised.
That's utterly wrong in my book, and was probably exactly what Farage wanted.
UK is a real patsy , no other country in the world would accept people just turning up ill and give free treatment. No matter where you go you have to be able to prove you have insurance or pay up front etc. It is a disgrace that people here are being turned away for treatments due to lack of money and yet we will accept any Tom, Dick or Harry and do it for free.
Treating foreigners for illnesses they brought with them when they immigrated should be paid for out of the foreign aid budget same as if they were still living abroad
Farage didn't stigmatise anyone, he just said we can make savings from the nhs budget and one way is to stop people that arrive to live here carrying disease that is expensive to treat.
This for me shows how mistaken it seems to be to think of immigration as a humanitarian regime. Why should someone who is probably fairly high income in their country of origin gets £20,000 a year to pay for HIV drugs, when that same money could be spent giving out malaria treatment to thousands of people of truly impoverished people instead? There never seems to be any logic to public spending.
I think the fruitcakes comment is quite old, more than 5 years, and the ting tong comment was made by a UKIP MEP, not a Tory let alone Cameron himself.
I am aware of that, I was taking the p*ss out of TGOHF and Flightpath who have long held the view that insulting kippers was the way to get them to vote for the Conservative Party
I'm not taking it personally Indigo - they laughed when "Peak Kipper" was observed in October - not sure they will laugh if Ed wins the election thanks to Kipper spoiler tactics - no referendum and 3 MPs - what a waste of time and effort.
They also laughed when it was observed every other month you claimed it
I find it odd that UK political reporting is so shallow. People actually get paid to come up with rubbish like that bacon sandwich fluff.
While perceptions of individuals matter, Mr Miliband being weird, Mr Cameron snobbish etc, I don't think it moves many votes.
It surprises me that we don't see articles examining policy differences between the parties. Evaluations of the consequences of those differences, and the consequences of the absence of difference.
True, reporting is shallow. But perceptions are strong. On the Foot thing. Yes it was not a donkey jacket, but it looked like one and why would someone wear what looked like a donkey jacket at the cenotaph? Either you are stupid or could not care. Both pretty damning. Unfortunately for Foot he also looked as if he did not know where he was. And thats before you looked at Labours manifesto.
Didn't his wife choose it for him? I think even those who went for Foot at the time admit they were pretty unfair to a decent man, even if they still justify it politically.
The problem was that he turned up with his tie at half-mast and both his jacket and coat hanging open. Thus turned out, he would have looked a complete slob if he had been dressed from head to foot in dark pinstriped Gieves and Hawkes.
That, his William Hartnell hairstyle and the fact that he was standing next to the always-immaculate Margaret Thatcher sent a message that he was basically a polytechnic lecturer in peace studies - a bloody stupid impression for a former Young Communist unilateralist surrender monkey to convey at the Cenotaph.
I wonder if some day someone will write up the destruction of British industry by Soviet penetration in the 1960s and 1970s. A remarkable number of the trade union wreckers and their cheerleaders in the lefty press turned out to have taken Soviet money. CND officials were also remarkably often involved with Soviet fronts like the World Peace Council. It was even possible for it to be suggested that Harold Wilson was a KGB agent, and it wasn't obviously impossible.
It just seems very interesting that Britain should have its car industry wrecked but not France or Italy or Germany.
DOH, In those countries workers have rights and are listened to and take part, paid decent wages , have good conditions of service, etc.
Farage's comments about HIV are unpleasant but true (and I am not a supporter, and won't be voting UKIP, nor have I ever done so). The cost of care (including the rather expensive drugs) is approximately £10.000 per annum per person, and this goes on year after year. I know of one family locally from a third world African country who came here to escape poverty and starvation in whom mother and five young children are under NHS care locally. Whatever the rights and wrongs (and no right-minded person can blame the children for their plight) that is an awful lot of money. And when I last asked, there were actually 50 HIV positive patients from that single county living in our hospital's catchment area and receiving NHS treatment.
It is financially very difficult to sustain;my own grandparents came to the UK (prior to the 1905 Aliens Act) having left poverty and persecution. I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think that we should hide from the debate
I think the fruitcakes comment is quite old, more than 5 years, and the ting tong comment was made by a UKIP MEP, not a Tory let alone Cameron himself.
I am aware of that, I was taking the p*ss out of TGOHF and Flightpath who have long held the view that insulting kippers was the way to get them to vote for the Conservative Party
I'm not taking it personally Indigo - they laughed when "Peak Kipper" was observed in October - not sure they will laugh if Ed wins the election thanks to Kipper spoiler tactics - no referendum and 3 MPs - what a waste of time and effort.
They also laughed when it was observed every other month you claimed it
Well - Sunil's elbow has the ski slope evidence - the polls are pretty clear.
1,000 extra nurses for our NHS, funded by a mansion tax More powers for the Scottish Parliament including the final say on benefits Guarantee a job and training for all young people £1,600 for 18 and 19 year olds who don’t have an apprenticeship, go to college or university, to invest in themselves or start a business Raise the minimum wage to at least £8 an hour Guarantee the Barnett Formula to deliver billions of pounds more for our schools, hospitals and pensions Increase the bursaries for the poorest students by £1,000 No tuition fees for Scottish students Ban exploitative zero hour contracts End the need for food-banks with £175m to tackle the causes of poverty
Full impact of epically disastrous Tory reorganisation being played out in the NHS.
The NHS will always be a never ending money pit. It's time we had a proper national debate about health, what we want from it, and how it can be funded.
Preferably without it being a political football.
Keeping Tory mitts off the tillers of power helps. The mad bureaucracy they have created is a big part of the driver behind extra costs.
Eh? The health select committee report said the changes have made the NHS slightly more efficient and less bureaucratic. It was a bipartisan report with Labour MPs in agreement. They then went on to suppress it realising the damage it would do so only a few parts of it have leaked and it can't be used officially in campaign material. Looking at the raw figures there are definitely fewer manager and bureaucrat positions open that there were a few years ago.
I don't think the changes were worth the political capital the PM spent after promising no reorganisation but the evidence does at least indicate they are a net positive. Just like when a company restructures the initial cost is outweighed by the ongoing savings. A more efficient NHS will keep cost increases down and ensure that we continue to get good value for money.
Full impact of epically disastrous Tory reorganisation being played out in the NHS.
The NHS will always be a never ending money pit. It's time we had a proper national debate about health, what we want from it, and how it can be funded.
Preferably without it being a political football.
Keeping Tory mitts off the tillers of power helps. The mad bureaucracy they have created is a big part of the driver behind extra costs.
@stephenkb: Tails seem to be up in Labourworld. Talked to a usually gloomy source - they think they can win enough in England to do w/o the SNP.
Still on a high after all that chocolate over Easter. Awaiting the crash...!
In our constituency Labour seems to be putting in a lot more work than the Tories currently. We have had one very well produced, glossy brochure through the letterbox from the Blues, but everyone I know here has received personalised letters in the post both from the Labour candidate and from, believe it or not, EdM himself. The focus has been varied - local issues and national ones, the NHS, preserving council services, the chance to elect a woman for the first time in Warwick and Leamington etc. The Labour posters also seem to be up earlier in windows and on boards. I still expect Labour to lose, but it looks pretty clear that the party is motivated and the ground game is in good order. If that is true in other marginals it may reap some unexpected rewards.
In the next door consitituency our MP has sent one leaflet, canvassed no-one and presumably sloped off to heat his stables.
Yes, it's strange. I have never lived in a marginal before. The attention is in very marked contrast to my previous times in safe labour and Tory seats.
The Conservatives should hold Warwick and Leamington, but they'll have to match Labour for effort.
I agree - it should be a Tory hold. Maybe they are just holding fire at the moment. If they are taking it for granted they are being very foolish. I guess the actual campaign starts today, though.
1,000 extra nurses for our NHS, funded by a mansion tax More powers for the Scottish Parliament including the final say on benefits Guarantee a job and training for all young people £1,600 for 18 and 19 year olds who don’t have an apprenticeship, go to college or university, to invest in themselves or start a business Raise the minimum wage to at least £8 an hour Guarantee the Barnett Formula to deliver billions of pounds more for our schools, hospitals and pensions Increase the bursaries for the poorest students by £1,000 No tuition fees for Scottish students Ban exploitative zero hour contracts End the need for food-banks with £175m to tackle the causes of poverty
1,000 extra nurses for our NHS, funded by a mansion tax More powers for the Scottish Parliament including the final say on benefits Guarantee a job and training for all young people £1,600 for 18 and 19 year olds who don’t have an apprenticeship, go to college or university, to invest in themselves or start a business Raise the minimum wage to at least £8 an hour Guarantee the Barnett Formula to deliver billions of pounds more for our schools, hospitals and pensions Increase the bursaries for the poorest students by £1,000 No tuition fees for Scottish students Ban exploitative zero hour contracts End the need for food-banks with £175m to tackle the causes of poverty
Treating foreigners for illnesses they brought with them when they immigrated should be paid for out of the foreign aid budget same as if they were still living abroad
Farage didn't stigmatise anyone, he just said we can make savings from the nhs budget and one way is to stop people that arrive to live here carrying disease that is expensive to treat.
This for me shows how mistaken it seems to be to think of immigration as a humanitarian regime. Why should someone who is probably fairly high income in their country of origin gets £20,000 a year to pay for HIV drugs, when that same money could be spent giving out malaria treatment to thousands of people of truly impoverished people instead? There never seems to be any logic to public spending.
There is no logic to it they just want to bash someone who is taking votes from the established parties
Who cares what disease it is? If someone has a disease that is expensive to treat, why would you want them to immigrate to your country unless they have private health cover? We already give billions of pounds to help treat disease in foreign countries
1,000 extra nurses for our NHS, funded by a mansion tax More powers for the Scottish Parliament including the final say on benefits Guarantee a job and training for all young people £1,600 for 18 and 19 year olds who don’t have an apprenticeship, go to college or university, to invest in themselves or start a business Raise the minimum wage to at least £8 an hour Guarantee the Barnett Formula to deliver billions of pounds more for our schools, hospitals and pensions Increase the bursaries for the poorest students by £1,000 No tuition fees for Scottish students Ban exploitative zero hour contracts End the need for food-banks with £175m to tackle the causes of poverty
I think the fruitcakes comment is quite old, more than 5 years, and the ting tong comment was made by a UKIP MEP, not a Tory let alone Cameron himself.
I am aware of that, I was taking the p*ss out of TGOHF and Flightpath who have long held the view that insulting kippers was the way to get them to vote for the Conservative Party
I'm not taking it personally Indigo - they laughed when "Peak Kipper" was observed in October - not sure they will laugh if Ed wins the election thanks to Kipper spoiler tactics - no referendum and 3 MPs - what a waste of time and effort.
They also laughed when it was observed every other month you claimed it
Well - Sunil's elbow has the ski slope evidence - the polls are pretty clear.
Down about a point?
I'm not disagreeing that Ukip aren't as high as they were, just chuckling that you genuinely think you called it
My issue with Cameron's pitch is that it is not backed up by his record in office.
Take immigration. Net migration from 2010 is around 1.1 million. From 2005 to 2009, the much lambasted Labour administration(Open Door Immigration Policy!), added 1.2 million.
That a rather pejorative way of saying lots of people shouldn't come to this country with long term chronic conditions and expect the British public to foot the bill indefinitely. This again is uncontroversial in many liberal democracies, but for some reason the UK feels the need to run up bills. Chronic condition suffers are suffering all over the world, what we are doing is salving our conscience by paying to treat the visible people, while ignoring the other 99%, hardly a strong moral position.
No - someone said on here that AIDS sufferers should be stigmatised.
That's utterly wrong in my book, and was probably exactly what Farage wanted.
UK is a real patsy , no other country in the world would accept people just turning up ill and give free treatment. No matter where you go you have to be able to prove you have insurance or pay up front etc. It is a disgrace that people here are being turned away for treatments due to lack of money and yet we will accept any Tom, Dick or Harry and do it for free.
Malcolm - totally agree. We need to wake up and also charge people for self-inflicted illness like obesity and smoking.
1,000 extra nurses for our NHS, funded by a mansion tax More powers for the Scottish Parliament including the final say on benefits Guarantee a job and training for all young people £1,600 for 18 and 19 year olds who don’t have an apprenticeship, go to college or university, to invest in themselves or start a business Raise the minimum wage to at least £8 an hour Guarantee the Barnett Formula to deliver billions of pounds more for our schools, hospitals and pensions Increase the bursaries for the poorest students by £1,000 No tuition fees for Scottish students Ban exploitative zero hour contracts End the need for food-banks with £175m to tackle the causes of poverty
Just what we expect from you turnip head, it is Labour who are promoting it and them that cannot stand on their own feet. Back under your rock its daylight.
Do you think we should ignore the views of the public on every issue, or just on immigration? It is not just the "right wing" that want to reduce immigration, it is voters of left, right and centre. I personally think immigration has been beneficial for our country, but the political class can't continue to ignore the overwhelming majority of the public's views on an issue that they feel so strongly about. If we go on the way we're going, we'll continue to lose votes to UKIP in the long term. Before any election there will be a drift back to the main parties, but this will not make up for the gains they make mid-term. Labour and the Conservatives need to wake up on this.
Anecdotally, I was canvassing a Green/Labour waverer yesterday. She said her difficulty with main party rhetoric on immigration wasn't some of the detailed policy. Sure, obviously some sort of immigration controls will exist, so saying "We will control immigration", whether on mugs or anything else, didn't bother her per se. What she disliked what the sense that the mainstream parties were striking a hardline tone in order to appease UKIP voters, and that made her fear that either Labour or Tory governments would make unpleasant decisions in practice, e.g. expelling vulnerable refugees. She would prefer a few specific policies on immigration control coupled with a strong defence of immigrants in principle. She thought Miliband and Cameron had both had a shot at that, but to win her vote she'd like a bit more warmth.
Comversely I find that quite a few UKIP voters aren't really anti-immigrant per se (I met one who said she was a racist and proud of it, but it's very rare) - what they dislike is their impression that it's all chaotic, and they're not really convinced that the points system actually works. They aren't much interested in rhetoric, believing that they've heard it all before and nothing was done: they'd settle for some specific measures (the benefits one is the one that they feel partly persuasive) and wouldn't mind some general immigrant-friendly comments to go with them. So there probably is an element of consensus even between apparent polar opposites (though people sometimes try to seem more reasonable than they really are - it's not just politicians who do that!).
The principal dancer at the English National Ballet says many of today's pupils lack the discipline to succeed.
Tamara Rojo told Radio Times magazine that children were often praised for quick results rather than hard work.
"We live in a society that rewards fast success based on little talent or commitment, which is transient and a dangerous place to be," she said.
"Do we want to promote instant success and instant failure, or do we want to promote self-esteem and hard work?"
The Spanish dancer, who is also the artistic director of the ballet company, began classes at the age of five, and joined her first ballet company aged 11.
She said her success was based upon persistence and hard work.
"I never had natural flexibility or the physical abilities that some people had.
"I had a strong technique and was hard-working - I trained for six hours, six days a week from the age of 11 - and that made up for the things I didn't naturally have.
Will any of our politicians be brave enough to deliver such a message? I think not because it does not win votes, but such an ethos would have been the example and belief of many of their grandparents and great-grandparents.
Do you think we should ignore the views of the public on every issue, or just on immigration? It is not just the "right wing" that want to reduce immigration, it is voters of left, right and centre. I personally think immigration has been beneficial for our country, but the political class can't continue to ignore the overwhelming majority of the public's views on an issue that they feel so strongly about. If we go on the way we're going, we'll continue to lose votes to UKIP in the long term. Before any election there will be a drift back to the main parties, but this will not make up for the gains they make mid-term. Labour and the Conservatives need to wake up on this.
No I think that reasonable parties of government need to create a balanced package.
Yes the public may want to cut immigration but it's not a binary issue made in isolation. What related issues go with it. Immigration has risen in the last few years because the economy is strong attracting economic migrants who want a job. Do the public want a weak economy that puts off migrants? No.
It's easy to grasp at one straw without realising the rest of the interconnected edifice attached to it. Single issue parties can do that, for parties of government to act that way is irresponsible. The Conservatives have put together a package of proposals (some of which go to far for me) to manage migration.
That seems like a rather long winded way of saying that we should ignore what the public wants, albeit for the right reasons. Not sure that is going to be a vote winner in the long time, and especially not when the economic cycle turns down at the end of the year, or if there are any significant terrorist issues in the UK.
No it's a long winded way of saying we should do what the public wants in as much as it's possible.
The public wants great services, high spending, low taxes, low interference, free from crime, police that don't interfere with themselves etc etc. Parties of government have to strike a balance.
Possibly, but the party of government gets to pick which bits it feels are more important to the voters, which in many ways could be taken to mean the bits which are more in keeping their their own metropolitan elite sensibilities.
Do you think we should ignore the views of the public on every issue, or just on immigration? It is not just the "right wing" that want to reduce immigration, it is voters of left, right and centre. I personally think immigration has been beneficial for our country, but the political class can't continue to ignore the overwhelming majority of the public's views on an issue that they feel so strongly about. If we go on the way we're going, we'll continue to lose votes to UKIP in the long term. Before any election there will be a drift back to the main parties, but this will not make up for the gains they make mid-term. Labour and the Conservatives need to wake up on this.
Anecdotally, I was canvassing a Green/Labour waverer yesterday. She said her difficulty with main party rhetoric on immigration wasn't some of the detailed policy. Sure, obviously some sort of immigration controls will exist, so saying "We will control immigration", whether on mugs or anything else, didn't bother her per se. What she disliked what the sense that the mainstream parties were striking a hardline tone in order to appease UKIP voters, and that made her fear that either Labour or Tory governments would make unpleasant decisions in practice, e.g. expelling vulnerable refugees. She would prefer a few specific policies on immigration control coupled with a strong defence of immigrants in principle. She thought Miliband and Cameron had both had a shot at that, but to win her vote she'd like a bit more warmth.
Comversely I find that quite a few UKIP voters aren't really anti-immigrant per se (I met one who said she was a racist and proud of it, but it's very rare) - what they dislike is their impression that it's all chaotic, and they're not really convinced that the points system actually works. They aren't much interested in rhetoric, believing that they've heard it all before and nothing was done: they'd settle for some specific measures (the benefits one is the one that they feel partly persuasive) and wouldn't mind some general immigrant-friendly comments to go with them. So there probably is an element of consensus even between apparent polar opposites (though people sometimes try to seem more reasonable than they really are - it's not just politicians who do that!).
People know to hide their opinions from the Stasi.
Full impact of epically disastrous Tory reorganisation being played out in the NHS.
The NHS will always be a never ending money pit. It's time we had a proper national debate about health, what we want from it, and how it can be funded.
Preferably without it being a political football.
Keeping Tory mitts off the tillers of power helps. The mad bureaucracy they have created is a big part of the driver behind extra costs.
Eh? The health select committee report said the changes have made the NHS slightly more efficient and less bureaucratic. It was a bipartisan report with Labour MPs in agreement. They then went on to suppress it realising the damage it would do so only a few parts of it have leaked and it can't be used officially in campaign material. Looking at the raw figures there are definitely fewer manager and bureaucrat positions open that there were a few years ago.
I don't think the changes were worth the political capital the PM spent after promising no reorganisation but the evidence does at least indicate they are a net positive. Just like when a company restructures the initial cost is outweighed by the ongoing savings. A more efficient NHS will keep cost increases down and ensure that we continue to get good value for money.
Health foundation research gets to the point:
The research, carried out by the Health Foundation, an independent think-tank, shows that despite an inflation-protected budget, hospital productivity tumbled from 2012 as the NHS prepared for, then implemented, a contentious structural shake-up that stripped out layers of management and handed budget control to clinicians.
So Lansley's monstrous Act reduced productivity - but not in a good way, where more inputs push up outcomes over the medium term as happened under Labour.
No, the Tories manage to divert resources instead into maintaining their idiotic internal market rather than treating patients.
OGH critiques PM for something he didn't say.....what's Cameron supposed to say? 'You voted for us in the past, don't bother voting for us now'? or how about 'You're worried about immigration/the EU, so vote for the party that will help Labour (party of uncontrolled immigration and no EU referendum) get in by stopping us'?
My issue with Cameron's pitch is that it is not backed up by his record in office.
Take immigration. Net migration from 2010 is around 1.1 million. From 2005 to 2009, the much lambasted Labour administration(Open Door Immigration Policy!), added 1.2 million.
I don't see that he's made much of a difference.
The first period was during a recession, the second during a recovery?
1,000 extra nurses for our NHS, funded by a mansion tax More powers for the Scottish Parliament including the final say on benefits Guarantee a job and training for all young people £1,600 for 18 and 19 year olds who don’t have an apprenticeship, go to college or university, to invest in themselves or start a business Raise the minimum wage to at least £8 an hour Guarantee the Barnett Formula to deliver billions of pounds more for our schools, hospitals and pensions Increase the bursaries for the poorest students by £1,000 No tuition fees for Scottish students Ban exploitative zero hour contracts End the need for food-banks with £175m to tackle the causes of poverty
1,000 extra nurses for our NHS, funded by a mansion tax ON BIG ENGLISH HOUSES More powers for the Scottish Parliament including the final say on benefits = THE ENGLISH IN THEM BIG HOUSES WILL BE TAPPED UP TO GIVE YOU SOME MORE BENNIES Guarantee a job and training for all young people IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR, EXTRACTING MONEY FROM ENGLAND £1,600 for 18 and 19 year olds who don’t have an apprenticeship, go to college or university, to invest in themselves or start a business OR TO SPEND ON HEROIN Raise the minimum wage to at least £8 an hour THEM ENGLISH IN THE BIG HOUSES WILL BE TAPPED UP SOME MORE Guarantee the Barnett Formula to deliver billions of pounds more for our schools, hospitals and pensions TO MAKE SURE YOU HAVE IT BETTER THAN ENGLAND! Increase the bursaries for the poorest students by £1,000 EVERYONE IS SCOTLAND IS POORER THAN ENGLAND, SO THAT MEANS ALL OF YOU! No tuition fees for Scottish students HEE HEE HEE Ban exploitative zero hour contracts NOW TURNED INTO JOBS FOR LIFE FOR THE BOYS End the need for food-banks with £175m to tackle the causes of poverty A DEEP-FAT FRYER FOR ALL!
1,000 extra nurses for our NHS, funded by a mansion tax More powers for the Scottish Parliament including the final say on benefits Guarantee a job and training for all young people £1,600 for 18 and 19 year olds who don’t have an apprenticeship, go to college or university, to invest in themselves or start a business Raise the minimum wage to at least £8 an hour Guarantee the Barnett Formula to deliver billions of pounds more for our schools, hospitals and pensions Increase the bursaries for the poorest students by £1,000 No tuition fees for Scottish students Ban exploitative zero hour contracts End the need for food-banks with £175m to tackle the causes of poverty
Comments
The non voters bit I agree with which is where I started about UKIP. Anyway really GTG now.
Pitching your tent for 10% of the electorate won't win an election, that's why he needs to go for the centre. But then pointing out that the alternative to him is someone far to the left in Miliband and that those to the right should vote for him rather than let Miliband win is also sensible. This isn't a protest election, its a very close general election that will determine the government. Give it a kicking in local elections or polls maybe, but now is time for a real choice.
The majority of the electorate want immigration reduced. The recent poll of the leaders' debate found >50% agreeing with Mr Farage's postion on HIV spending.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA
There's a reason UKIP aren't polling 35-40% and its not that they're not right-wing enough. There's a reason Hague, IDS and Howard never became PM but Cameron did.
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN the contents of the latest ARSE with added APLOMB 2015 General Election and "JackW Dozen" Projections. (Changes From 4th April Projection) :
Con 312 (-1) .. Lab 246 (+2) .. LibDem 30 (NC) .. SNP 36 (NC) .. PC 2 .. NI 18 .. UKIP 3 (-1) .. Respect 1 .. Green 1 .. Ind 0 .. Speaker 1
Conservatives 14 seats short of a majority
......................................................................................
"JackW Dozen" - 13 seats that will shape the General Election result :
Bury North - Con Hold
Pudsey - Likely Con Hold
Broxtowe - TCTC
Warwickshire North - Likely Con Hold
Cambridge - LibDem Hold
Ipswich - Con Hold
Watford - TCTC
Croydon Central - Con Hold
Enfield North - TCTC
Cornwall North - TCTC
Great Yarmouth - Con Hold
Vale of Glamorgan - Con Hold
Ochil and South Perthshire - SNP Gain
Changes From 4 Apr - No Changes
TCTC - Too Close To Call - Less than 500 votes
Likely Hold/Gain - 500 - 2500 votes
Gain/Hold - Over 2500
.......................................................................................
ARSE is sponsored by Auchentennach Fine Pies (Est 1745)
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division
JNN - Jacobite News Network
ARSE - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors
APLOMB - Auchentennach Pies Leading Outsales Mainland Britain
I really don't want to go back to the times when AIDS sufferers were heavily stigmatised. It seems many UKIP supporters including at least one on here) do.
It reeks of a lack of intellectual self confidence.
So you're right it's no change - but I though the point of the statement was to create such a change.
It is conspicuously the case that in whole areas of policy, like pretty much everything except the economy, it would be hard to put a cigarette paper between the three main parties.
The difference between Labour and Conservative budget proposals in 2010 was and is mostly rhetoric.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2011/11/wrestling-over-cuts/
Do you think we should ignore the views of the public on every issue, or just on immigration? It is not just the "right wing" that want to reduce immigration, it is voters of left, right and centre. I personally think immigration has been beneficial for our country, but the political class can't continue to ignore the overwhelming majority of the public's views on an issue that they feel so strongly about. If we go on the way we're going, we'll continue to lose votes to UKIP in the long term. Before any election there will be a drift back to the main parties, but this will not make up for the gains they make mid-term. Labour and the Conservatives need to wake up on this.
There's a great deal to rubbish in UKIP policies; you cannot expect other parties to remain silent. After all, Farage is trying to attract Conservative and Labour voters, yet UKIP regularly rubbishes those parties.
Yet again, UKIP seem to want to be seen as being 'different', when in fact they're just the same.
I do not think that Nigel Farage said anything to give stigma to AIDS sufferers. All he said was that it was a very expensive course of treatment for AIDS and the UK taxpayer should not be paying mainly for foreign citizens in this area. I had previously raised an eyebrow when I head he was attacking AIDS sufferers, but when I heard his comments on the night, they sounded reasonable and I actually changed my mind.
This is the problem we have when attacking Farage. We can give a very negative impression of the man in our messaging, but he seems reasonable when people finally see him at length. As UKIP gains, this means that our strategy will get weaker and weaker. Our second approach seems to be "don't vote for a minor party", but this also is not going to work long term as UKIP grow and grow. The only way we can beat UKIP long term is to offer a policy package of what the public want that's better than the UKIP package. That seems to upset people who think the public are wrong on everything, but they need to accept we live in a democracy where the public is boss.
Yes the public may want to cut immigration but it's not a binary issue made in isolation. What related issues go with it. Immigration has risen in the last few years because the economy is strong attracting economic migrants who want a job. Do the public want a weak economy that puts off migrants? No.
It's easy to grasp at one straw without realising the rest of the interconnected edifice attached to it. Single issue parties can do that, for parties of government to act that way is irresponsible. The Conservatives have put together a package of proposals (some of which go to far for me) to manage migration.
Farage didn't stigmatise anyone, he just said we can make savings from the nhs budget and one way is to stop people that arrive to live here carrying disease that is expensive to treat.
I have written to the SNP in the past to ask if they would consider standing candidates in England but they didn't reply.
It's not just rhetoric and that article is four years out of date. Hence why it mistakenly refers to disappearing growth prospects when the reality is the fastest growing major nation in the developed world - as opposed to continental style stagnation we'd have under Labour.
Damning.
Full impact of epically disastrous Tory reorganisation being played out in the NHS.
The public wants great services, high spending, low taxes, low interference, free from crime, police that don't interfere with themselves etc etc. Parties of government have to strike a balance.
especially young people perhaps motivated by tuition fees or just being anti-Tory
That's utterly wrong in my book, and was probably exactly what Farage wanted.
Damning.
Full impact of epically disastrous Tory reorganisation being played out in the NHS.
The NHS will always be a never ending money pit. It's time we had a proper national debate about health, what we want from it, and how it can be funded.
Preferably without it being a political football.
Are the young people going to bother to vote this time ?
There are several issues. Health inflation (ie the rising cost of treatment) is far above actual inflation. The ageing population is perhaps even more serious. And we have drug-resistant forms of disease developing.
There are multiple potential changes we could make [leaving aside abandoning the model altogether, which would be political suicide regardless of whether or not it's sensible]. We could charge people, at least partially, when they take a 'risky' activity (from smoking to mountain climbing, although the latter also has health benefits). Or when they receive treatment related to risky activity (lung cancer for smoking, broken leg after a fall for climbing), but that does raise the issue of what happens if someone cannot pay.
I suspect we'll adopt the approach taken by the EU towards the single currency, and muddle along until catastrophic collapse occurs.
They do not think socialism is the answer, especially not the variety expressed by Miliband.
DC does not appeal to this group, any more than he does to Farage.
The Smithson line 'DC is more attractive than his party' is correct as far as it goes. But such has been the trashing of the tory brand that any other likely leader would also be considerably more attractive than the tory brand name.
Farage's comment in the debate seemed to me both foghorn politics and an uncomfortable truth at the same time.
You can't have Ed Miliband - he's hiding from you.
Instead, you can have Tony Blair.
Labour - full of win!
Preferably without it being a political football.
Keeping Tory mitts off the tillers of power helps. The mad bureaucracy they have created is a big part of the driver behind extra costs.
That, his William Hartnell hairstyle and the fact that he was standing next to the always-immaculate Margaret Thatcher sent a message that he was basically a polytechnic lecturer in peace studies - a bloody stupid impression for a former Young Communist unilateralist surrender monkey to convey at the Cenotaph.
I wonder if some day someone will write up the destruction of British industry by Soviet penetration in the 1960s and 1970s. A remarkable number of the trade union wreckers and their cheerleaders in the lefty press turned out to have taken Soviet money. CND officials were also remarkably often involved with Soviet fronts like the World Peace Council. It was even possible for it to be suggested that Harold Wilson was a KGB agent, and it wasn't obviously impossible.
It just seems very interesting that Britain should have its car industry wrecked but not France or Italy or Germany.
'We'd have enjoyed more growth if it weren't for Osborne's flirtation with austerity. The economy was already growing again when Labour left office.'
Yes, based on an election spending spree and zero cuts..
http://populus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Cameron-PM-Polling.pdf
It is financially very difficult to sustain;my own grandparents came to the UK (prior to the 1905 Aliens Act) having left poverty and persecution. I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think that we should hide from the debate
SLAB's 10 point pledge card:
1,000 extra nurses for our NHS, funded by a mansion tax
More powers for the Scottish Parliament including the final say on benefits
Guarantee a job and training for all young people
£1,600 for 18 and 19 year olds who don’t have an apprenticeship, go to college or university, to invest in themselves or start a business
Raise the minimum wage to at least £8 an hour
Guarantee the Barnett Formula to deliver billions of pounds more for our schools, hospitals and pensions
Increase the bursaries for the poorest students by £1,000
No tuition fees for Scottish students
Ban exploitative zero hour contracts
End the need for food-banks with £175m to tackle the causes of poverty
http://labourlist.org/2015/04/scottish-labour-launches-election-pledge-card/
Eh? The health select committee report said the changes have made the NHS slightly more efficient and less bureaucratic. It was a bipartisan report with Labour MPs in agreement. They then went on to suppress it realising the damage it would do so only a few parts of it have leaked and it can't be used officially in campaign material. Looking at the raw figures there are definitely fewer manager and bureaucrat positions open that there were a few years ago.
I don't think the changes were worth the political capital the PM spent after promising no reorganisation but the evidence does at least indicate they are a net positive. Just like when a company restructures the initial cost is outweighed by the ongoing savings. A more efficient NHS will keep cost increases down and ensure that we continue to get good value for money.
It's official!
There were no bureaucrats in the NHS before 2010!
Scotland incapable of standing on it's own feet.
@nicholaswatt: I am sure @tonyblairoffice will do the minimum to ensure he is not blamed for @UKLabour defeat @George_Osborne says
No magic wand being waved by him I'm afraid.
Just a very late in the day realisation his cuts had flatlined the economy so he didn't double down after 2012.
The comment on the Darling-Salmond debate was 'Two old men seeing who could promise to spend the most money they didn't have.'
Who cares what disease it is? If someone has a disease that is expensive to treat, why would you want them to immigrate to your country unless they have private health cover? We already give billions of pounds to help treat disease in foreign countries
I'm not disagreeing that Ukip aren't as high as they were, just chuckling that you genuinely think you called it
Take immigration. Net migration from 2010 is around 1.1 million. From 2005 to 2009, the much lambasted Labour administration(Open Door Immigration Policy!), added 1.2 million.
I don't see that he's made much of a difference.
Comversely I find that quite a few UKIP voters aren't really anti-immigrant per se (I met one who said she was a racist and proud of it, but it's very rare) - what they dislike is their impression that it's all chaotic, and they're not really convinced that the points system actually works. They aren't much interested in rhetoric, believing that they've heard it all before and nothing was done: they'd settle for some specific measures (the benefits one is the one that they feel partly persuasive) and wouldn't mind some general immigrant-friendly comments to go with them. So there probably is an element of consensus even between apparent polar opposites (though people sometimes try to seem more reasonable than they really are - it's not just politicians who do that!).
Tamara Rojo told Radio Times magazine that children were often praised for quick results rather than hard work.
"We live in a society that rewards fast success based on little talent or commitment, which is transient and a dangerous place to be," she said.
"Do we want to promote instant success and instant failure, or do we want to promote self-esteem and hard work?"
The Spanish dancer, who is also the artistic director of the ballet company, began classes at the age of five, and joined her first ballet company aged 11.
She said her success was based upon persistence and hard work.
"I never had natural flexibility or the physical abilities that some people had.
"I had a strong technique and was hard-working - I trained for six hours, six days a week from the age of 11 - and that made up for the things I didn't naturally have.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-32195063
Will any of our politicians be brave enough to deliver such a message? I think not because it does not win votes, but such an ethos would have been the example and belief of many of their grandparents and great-grandparents.
I don't think the changes were worth the political capital the PM spent after promising no reorganisation but the evidence does at least indicate they are a net positive. Just like when a company restructures the initial cost is outweighed by the ongoing savings. A more efficient NHS will keep cost increases down and ensure that we continue to get good value for money.
Health foundation research gets to the point: So Lansley's monstrous Act reduced productivity - but not in a good way, where more inputs push up outcomes over the medium term as happened under Labour.
No, the Tories manage to divert resources instead into maintaining their idiotic internal market rather than treating patients.
But apart from that.....
Bloody hell.
I can see that one motivating quite alot of 19-20 year olds (Current 19 yr olds won't benefit) to vote SNP tbh !
Output per capita and Productivity completely flat for record lengths of time.
The UK currently with a deficit as % of GDP higher than France (supposedly a basket case) and double that of the austerity eschewing US?