Do Labour even realise what they've done? They've now blown up one of their main attack lines for getting reluctant Labour voters to the polls: "just think of the damage the Tories will do to public services with reckless cuts".
Totally disagree. Labour has been saying the same thing for a few years: cuts do have to be made but they can be made better, they can be made over a long time frame and they do not have to be driven by ideology. That may or may not be bollocks, but it fits exactly with what has been said today.
A reckless cut does not have to be the same as a cut - and most voters recognise that. Labour's issue is much more about whether they sound credible than whether they are alienating a large swathe of voters who might go out and back an end to austerity but would prefer a Tory government to make cuts than a Labour one.
Tory cuts = Reckless, Bad.
Labour cuts = Gentle, Good.
This is getting ridiculous.
It's more: the Tories cut because they believe in a small state and so will always look to reduce its role; Labour cuts only because it has to and will always look to cut as little as possible. That seems to me to be a perfectly credible philosophical difference - albeit one that both parties choose to wrap up in highly emotive language.
Or any mention of the story in yesterday's chip paper re the mere £7.5bn anti-avoidance measures.
Douglas Carswell seems a bit cranky on twitter, because Rob Ford finds it odd that Farage has come to Clacton today.
I'm finding it terribly amusing.
you can be so childish...
Rob Ford (Britain)@robfordmancs Clacton is UKIP's only (probably) safe seat. Seems a bit of a waste of a vital campaign day for Farage to hang around there.
Nick Barlow@nickjbarlow·45m45 minutes ago @robfordmancs but if he didn't go, wouldn't press ask 'why aren't you helping Carswell?'
Do Labour even realise what they've done? They've now blown up one of their main attack lines for getting reluctant Labour voters to the polls: "just think of the damage the Tories will do to public services with reckless cuts".
Totally disagree. Labour has been saying the same thing for a few years: cuts do have to be made but they can be made better, they can be made over a long time frame and they do not have to be driven by ideology. That may or may not be bollocks, but it fits exactly with what has been said today.
A reckless cut does not have to be the same as a cut - and most voters recognise that. Labour's issue is much more about whether they sound credible than whether they are alienating a large swathe of voters who might go out and back an end to austerity but would prefer a Tory government to make cuts than a Labour one.
Tory cuts = Reckless, Bad.
Labour cuts = Gentle, Good.
This is getting ridiculous.
TSE might put it slightly differently: Tory cutting out of Reckless = very good.
Do Labour even realise what they've done? They've now blown up one of their main attack lines for getting reluctant Labour voters to the polls: "just think of the damage the Tories will do to public services with reckless cuts".
Totally disagree. Labour has been saying the same thing for a few years: cuts do have to be made but they can be made better, they can be made over a long time frame and they do not have to be driven by ideology. That may or may not be bollocks, but it fits exactly with what has been said today.
A reckless cut does not have to be the same as a cut - and most voters recognise that. Labour's issue is much more about whether they sound credible than whether they are alienating a large swathe of voters who might go out and back an end to austerity but would prefer a Tory government to make cuts than a Labour one.
Can you please give us a list of the cuts that the coalition has made over the last five years that the Labour Party supported and did not oppose or vote against?
Why on earth would Labour support cuts made by the Coalition? A better question would be: what cuts has Labour proposed? That's the credibility issue right there, not whether they have back government cuts.
I don't have a problem with a reformed 2nd chamber, but why can't there be called Lord-Lieutenants or LMP (Lord member of parliament) ?
Thought the same about the "Supreme Court". Borne of a complete lack of self-confidence in British culture and history and an inferiority complex when it comes to the Americans.
I'm not surprised that there is such a lack of self-confidence when even our own esteemed Nick Palmer can write a sentence such as this (FPT):-
"I think that guest speakers do the job better than study of historical thinkers - what Tom Paine or Voltaire or Marx thought in a very different context seems a bit irrelevant...."
That is one of the silliest statements I've seen an intelligent man write. All these people struggled with the same dilemmas as we do now and understanding how they thought about those dilemmas and tried to resolve them has much to teach us. Any good teacher should be able to make this interesting, as indeed my own history teachers and lecturers at university did.
To take the area I work in, I would make a study of economic history essential for those in finance. Understanding the cycles of greed and stupidity and hubris which have accompanied every madcap scheme and boom/bust since (at least) the Tulip Mania might give them a better perspective on fancy risk management algorithms.
I think Ed has made an error of advertising Labour cuts today. The reason Labour have recovered in the poll over the last couple of weeks is because they seemed to have become an anti-cuts/austerity party trying to maximise the turnout of their 35%. The mere mention of cuts has always driven this group into the arms of other parties.
Strategically poor from Labour to mention cuts today. It should have been a few numbers and statistics in an appendix for a few financial journalists to get worked up about.
'What are you going to say about the deficit, anything?'
'Erm no not yet'
'But don't you have to say something?'
'We don't really think so'
'But if you don't say something then for the next five years the Conservatives will slam you for borrowing'
'Erm, we're not planning on it, our economic plan will be better'
'But don't you think you'll have to say something, sometime?'
'Erm...'
About four and a half years ago this is roughly the conversation I had with a colleague and one of Ed Miliband's team. The other reporter and I were shall we say, rather surprised that this was the position the new Labour leadership had decided to take.
They had strongly held beliefs that their economic arguments were better and didn't want to be pushed into apologising or acknowledging mistakes they hadn't made.
Their conviction was that there was no need for Labour to make a bold statement on borrowing. Although there were many (including David Miliband) who believed the opposite and warned that the party had to be clearer about mistakes it might have made and indeed how they planned to pay off the national debt and worried, that the Tories would have too easy a time in the absence of Labour tackling the issue head on.
Fast forward to April 2015, and Labour's big manifesto idea is to lock themselves into a promise on borrowing. The whys and wherefores of the particular position will be debated endlessly.
But the political calculation to sell a tough message, at the last minute, may struggle to convince.
Or any mention of the story in yesterday's chip paper re the mere £7.5bn anti-avoidance measures.
Douglas Carswell seems a bit cranky on twitter, because Rob Ford finds it odd that Farage has come to Clacton today.
I'm finding it terribly amusing.
you can be so childish...
Rob Ford (Britain)@robfordmancs Clacton is UKIP's only (probably) safe seat. Seems a bit of a waste of a vital campaign day for Farage to hang around there.
Nick Barlow@nickjbarlow·45m45 minutes ago @robfordmancs but if he didn't go, wouldn't press ask 'why aren't you helping Carswell?'
» show previous quotes Cyclefree said: Teaching British history and the arguments of political thinkers and writers like Locke, Hobbes, Mill, Wilkes, Paine, Burke and Orwell would do far more.
Not sure Wilkes or Paine are good examples - neither were exactly perfectly behaved and Paine in particular had a bit of a penchant for violence and terrorism. Locke, Mill (and Bentham) were both very arrogant, but neither said anything new or meaningful. Burke might be a better example - but at the same time, he was prone to angry outbursts that might not exactly encourage rational thought.
As for Enlightenment values - I teach the French Revolution and Soviet Russia. They are both based on those values and they are both damning indictments of the logical results of them. As a result the idea of teaching 'values' leaves me fairly uneasy.
What I would rather see is a commitment to uphold and promote the value of democracy and the rule of law. I'm happy to go with that because it's (a) simple to understand and (b) allows for some flexibility as the law changes.
In response to ydoethur:
I wasn't suggesting teaching them as exemplars of moral behaviour but I do think that to understand why we think the way we do we need to understand what people in our past have said, why they said it and how those ideas have developed and been taken up by others.
Re Enlightenment ideasI think the Russian revolution is an example of a reaction to Western liberalism rather than being based on its concepts. I would say the same about the French revolution as well. France is one country where the concept of liberalism as we understand it here is not really understood at all.
Personally I think the ideas that developed from the time of the Civil War onwards and in the 18th century (based on earlier ideas of course) and which were taken up, in part, by the American revolutionaries are tremendously interesting and, IMO, essential to an understanding of British history and politics, as well as European and other history, and where we are today.
Tom Paine's "Rights of Man" is a great political book. Well worth reading as it has aged well.
Agree wholeheartedly. There was a very good programme on Paine by Melvyn Bragg a few months back.
I think Ed has made an error of advertising Labour cuts today. The reason Labour have recovered in the poll over the last couple of weeks is because they seemed to have become an anti-cuts/austerity party trying to maximise the turnout of their 35%. The mere mention of cuts has always driven this group into the arms of other parties.
Strategically poor from Labour to mention cuts today. It should have been a few numbers and statistics in an appendix for a few financial journalists to get worked up about.
It's that old question: should the Tories try to fight on the NHS, or minimise the issue? Labour very much softpeddling on law and order, for example. Choose the game to your own advantage or play theirs and win by doing OK?
Do Labour even realise what they've done? They've now blown up one of their main attack lines for getting reluctant Labour voters to the polls: "just think of the damage the Tories will do to public services with reckless cuts".
Totally disagree. Labour has been saying the same thing for a few years: cuts do have to be made but they can be made better, they can be made over a long time frame and they do not have to be driven by ideology. That may or may not be bollocks, but it fits exactly with what has been said today.
A reckless cut does not have to be the same as a cut - and most voters recognise that. Labour's issue is much more about whether they sound credible than whether they are alienating a large swathe of voters who might go out and back an end to austerity but would prefer a Tory government to make cuts than a Labour one.
Tory cuts = Reckless, Bad.
Labour cuts = Gentle, Good.
This is getting ridiculous.
TSE might put it slightly differently: Tory cutting out of Reckless = very good.
I might do a variation of the chant I heard back in 2011 in Manchester.
"The Tories, put the "n" in cuts"
I had to listen to that for 4 hours as the soap dodgers, workshy SWP protested outside.
I wasn't allowed to throw soap, drink champagne or burn £50 notes at them.
Douglas Carswell retweeted The Gazette @TheGazette 1h1 hour ago Farage and Carswell visit Clacton hinge factory in search for swing vote! http://dlvr.it/9Mv5ym
I don't have a problem with a reformed 2nd chamber, but why can't there be called Lord-Lieutenants or LMP (Lord member of parliament) ?
"Imperial Senate" like in Star Wars!
Actually in an alternate history timeline, could have been set up in 1931 by the Statute of Westminster. Then George Lucas could have used that August Body as the inspiration for the "Imperial Senate" in the Star Wars universe!
Do Labour even realise what they've done? They've now blown up one of their main attack lines for getting reluctant Labour voters to the polls: "just think of the damage the Tories will do to public services with reckless cuts".
Totally disagree. Labour has been saying the same thing for a few years: cuts do have to be made but they can be made better, they can be made over a long time frame and they do not have to be driven by ideology. That may or may not be bollocks, but it fits exactly with what has been said today.
A reckless cut does not have to be the same as a cut - and most voters recognise that. Labour's issue is much more about whether they sound credible than whether they are alienating a large swathe of voters who might go out and back an end to austerity but would prefer a Tory government to make cuts than a Labour one.
Can you please give us a list of the cuts that the coalition has made over the last five years that the Labour Party supported and did not oppose or vote against?
Why on earth would Labour support cuts made by the Coalition? A better question would be: what cuts has Labour proposed? That's the credibility issue right there, not whether they have back government cuts.
So you can't list any, and nor can you list any cuts they've proposed either.
You rightly point out the credibility issue: Labour say cuts have to be made whilst opposing all and every cut the coalition has been made, and proposing none of their own.
I don't have a problem with a reformed 2nd chamber, but why can't there be called Lord-Lieutenants or LMP (Lord member of parliament) ?
"Imperial Senate" like in Star Wars!
Actually in an alternate history timeline, could have been set up in 1931 by the Statute of Westminster. Then George Lucas could have used that August Body as the inspiration for the "Imperial Senate" in the Star Wars universe!
I can almost see SPQB now, where DC pretends he doesn't know what it stands for.
Or any mention of the story in yesterday's chip paper re the mere £7.5bn anti-avoidance measures.
Douglas Carswell seems a bit cranky on twitter, because Rob Ford finds it odd that Farage has come to Clacton today.
I'm finding it terribly amusing.
you can be so childish...
Rob Ford (Britain)@robfordmancs Clacton is UKIP's only (probably) safe seat. Seems a bit of a waste of a vital campaign day for Farage to hang around there.
Nick Barlow@nickjbarlow·45m45 minutes ago @robfordmancs but if he didn't go, wouldn't press ask 'why aren't you helping Carswell?'
Or any mention of the story in yesterday's chip paper re the mere £7.5bn anti-avoidance measures.
Douglas Carswell seems a bit cranky on twitter, because Rob Ford finds it odd that Farage has come to Clacton today.
I'm finding it terribly amusing.
you can be so childish...
Rob Ford (Britain)@robfordmancs Clacton is UKIP's only (probably) safe seat. Seems a bit of a waste of a vital campaign day for Farage to hang around there.
Nick Barlow@nickjbarlow·45m45 minutes ago @robfordmancs but if he didn't go, wouldn't press ask 'why aren't you helping Carswell?'
I was tempted to reply to Carswell with the message "U OK hun?"
Anyone get the sense his defection hasn't turned out quite the way he wanted?
Not just you.
I suppose that was inevitable if you have to keep on meeting Kipper activists on a daily basis.
On the one hand Carswell does frequently look out of place. On the other hand, he's a smart chap, and have worked that out before. Unless he was relying on his own influence by this stage to move UKIP towards him.
I don't have a problem with a reformed 2nd chamber, but why can't there be called Lord-Lieutenants or LMP (Lord member of parliament) ?
"Imperial Senate" like in Star Wars!
Actually in an alternate history timeline, could have been set up in 1931 by the Statute of Westminster. Then George Lucas could have used that August Body as the inspiration for the "Imperial Senate" in the Star Wars universe!
Following on from another Dave's comments about the terms of the Tory defectors, I expect that today is Nigel Farage's contractual obligation day in Clacton. It now looks superfluous, but I'm sure it didn't in August.
Do Labour even realise what they've done? They've now blown up one of their main attack lines for getting reluctant Labour voters to the polls: "just think of the damage the Tories will do to public services with reckless cuts".
Totally disagree. Labour has been saying the same thing for a few years: cuts do have to be made but they can be made better, they can be made over a long time frame and they do not have to be driven by ideology. That may or may not be bollocks, but it fits exactly with what has been said today.
A reckless cut does not have to be the same as a cut - and most voters recognise that. Labour's issue is much more about whether they sound credible than whether they are alienating a large swathe of voters who might go out and back an end to austerity but would prefer a Tory government to make cuts than a Labour one.
Tory cuts = Reckless, Bad.
Labour cuts = Gentle, Good.
This is getting ridiculous.
It's more: the Tories cut because they believe in a small state and so will always look to reduce its role; Labour cuts only because it has to and will always look to cut as little as possible. That seems to me to be a perfectly credible philosophical difference - albeit one that both parties choose to wrap up in highly emotive language.
Perfectly true: that is the philosophical difference, except that the Tories have not been making the case for a smaller state at all. They've been making the case for a strong economy to pay for the big state. The argument has been about how to run the economy and finance the state not about what the state should do and be.
I think Ed has made an error of advertising Labour cuts today. The reason Labour have recovered in the poll over the last couple of weeks is because they seemed to have become an anti-cuts/austerity party trying to maximise the turnout of their 35%. The mere mention of cuts has always driven this group into the arms of other parties.
Strategically poor from Labour to mention cuts today. It should have been a few numbers and statistics in an appendix for a few financial journalists to get worked up about.
It's that old question: should the Tories try to fight on the NHS, or minimise the issue? Labour very much softpeddling on law and order, for example. Choose the game to your own advantage or play theirs and win by doing OK?
Yes, well we saw how poor the polling is for the Tories on the NHS despite the £8bn pledge. I think that pledge is mostly about disarming Labour's line on it rather than trying to win on the NHS. The advantage of money spending pledges is that they rarely drive voters away, if anything spending more on the NHS is definitely a vote winner. If Labour start an arms race on who is going to cut what it will be very stupid as it is a fight they can't win, and if they try and win they will lose lots of support among the anti-austerity crowd.
I really think there are no votes for Labour in fiscal rectitude and every time they bring it up it just reminds people that Labour are not to be trusted on the economy. The numbers are there for them to win without it. Their 35% don't care about a stronger economy, they want a society with fewer rich people and higher taxes for ordinary people similar to Scandinavia.
I don't have a problem with a reformed 2nd chamber, but why can't there be called Lord-Lieutenants or LMP (Lord member of parliament) ?
"Imperial Senate" like in Star Wars!
Actually in an alternate history timeline, could have been set up in 1931 by the Statute of Westminster. Then George Lucas could have used that August Body as the inspiration for the "Imperial Senate" in the Star Wars universe!
I can almost see SPQB now, where DC pretends he doesn't know what it stands for.
Do Labour even realise what they've done? They've now blown up one of their main attack lines for getting reluctant Labour voters to the polls: "just think of the damage the Tories will do to public services with reckless cuts".
Totally disagree. Labour has been saying the same thing for a few years: cuts do have to be made but they can be made better, they can be made over a long time frame and they do not have to be driven by ideology. That may or may not be bollocks, but it fits exactly with what has been said today.
A reckless cut does not have to be the same as a cut - and most voters recognise that. Labour's issue is much more about whether they sound credible than whether they are alienating a large swathe of voters who might go out and back an end to austerity but would prefer a Tory government to make cuts than a Labour one.
Tory cuts = Reckless, Bad.
Labour cuts = Gentle, Good.
This is getting ridiculous.
TSE might put it slightly differently: Tory cutting out of Reckless = very good.
I might do a variation of the chant I heard back in 2011 in Manchester.
"The Tories, put the "n" in cuts"
I had to listen to that for 4 hours as the soap dodgers, workshy SWP protested outside.
I wasn't allowed to throw soap, drink champagne or burn £50 notes at them.
It's amazing how some people truly think the Tories are evil and that gives them licence to play out their most base instincts and behaviours on them.
I was at Manchester in 2009 and walked out of a late night event with a friend at the main hotel. We got a mouth full of abuse and insults from some bearded student Lefties nearby. I smiled at them, but my friend politely engaged one of them in conversation, whilst a few of the other students looked on sheepishly.
When I got taking to one of them it turned out he mainly hated the Tories because of what his Dad and family had said about them, and his friends had never challenged. I wanted to explore that further but the policeman came over and moved them on before asking us if we wanted to make any complaint.
Or any mention of the story in yesterday's chip paper re the mere £7.5bn anti-avoidance measures.
Douglas Carswell seems a bit cranky on twitter, because Rob Ford finds it odd that Farage has come to Clacton today.
I'm finding it terribly amusing.
you can be so childish...
Rob Ford (Britain)@robfordmancs Clacton is UKIP's only (probably) safe seat. Seems a bit of a waste of a vital campaign day for Farage to hang around there.
Nick Barlow@nickjbarlow·45m45 minutes ago @robfordmancs but if he didn't go, wouldn't press ask 'why aren't you helping Carswell?'
I was tempted to reply to Carswell with the message "U OK hun?"
Anyone get the sense his defection hasn't turned out quite the way he wanted?
Not just you.
I suppose that was inevitable if you have to keep on meeting Kipper activists on a daily basis.
On the one hand Carswell does frequently look out of place. On the other hand, he's a smart chap, and have worked that out before. Unless he was relying on his own influence by this stage to move UKIP towards him.
I think, he's found UKIP, like all parties have their internal contradictions.
'What are you going to say about the deficit, anything?'
'Erm no not yet'
'But don't you have to say something?'
'We don't really think so'
'But if you don't say something then for the next five years the Conservatives will slam you for borrowing'
'Erm, we're not planning on it, our economic plan will be better'
'But don't you think you'll have to say something, sometime?'
'Erm...'
About four and a half years ago this is roughly the conversation I had with a colleague and one of Ed Miliband's team. The other reporter and I were shall we say, rather surprised that this was the position the new Labour leadership had decided to take.
They had strongly held beliefs that their economic arguments were better and didn't want to be pushed into apologising or acknowledging mistakes they hadn't made.
Their conviction was that there was no need for Labour to make a bold statement on borrowing. Although there were many (including David Miliband) who believed the opposite and warned that the party had to be clearer about mistakes it might have made and indeed how they planned to pay off the national debt and worried, that the Tories would have too easy a time in the absence of Labour tackling the issue head on.
Fast forward to April 2015, and Labour's big manifesto idea is to lock themselves into a promise on borrowing. The whys and wherefores of the particular position will be debated endlessly.
But the political calculation to sell a tough message, at the last minute, may struggle to convince.
Do Labour even realise what they've done? They've now blown up one of their main attack lines for getting reluctant Labour voters to the polls: "just think of the damage the Tories will do to public services with reckless cuts".
Totally disagree. Labour has been saying the same thing for a few years: cuts do have to be made but they can be made better, they can be made over a long time frame and they do not have to be driven by ideology. That may or may not be bollocks, but it fits exactly with what has been said today.
A reckless cut does not have to be the same as a cut - and most voters recognise that. Labour's issue is much more about whether they sound credible than whether they are alienating a large swathe of voters who might go out and back an end to austerity but would prefer a Tory government to make cuts than a Labour one.
Tory cuts = Reckless, Bad.
Labour cuts = Gentle, Good.
This is getting ridiculous.
TSE might put it slightly differently: Tory cutting out of Reckless = very good.
I might do a variation of the chant I heard back in 2011 in Manchester.
"The Tories, put the "n" in cuts"
I had to listen to that for 4 hours as the soap dodgers, workshy SWP protested outside.
I wasn't allowed to throw soap, drink champagne or burn £50 notes at them.
It's amazing how some people truly think the Tories are evil and that gives them licence to play out their most base instincts and behaviours on them.
I was at Manchester in 2009 and walked out of a late night event with a friend at the main hotel. We got a mouth full of abuse and insults from some bearded student Lefties nearby. I smiled at them, but my friend politely engaged one of them in conversation, whilst a few of the other students looked on sheepishly.
When I got taking to one of them it turned out he mainly hated the Tories because of what his Dad and family had said about them, and his friends had never challenged. I wanted to explore that further but the policeman came over and moved them on before asking us if we wanted to make any complaint.
We didn't.
I've always found the SWP types funny. I shatter all their preconceptions.
I nearly incited a riot with them a few years ago.
They wanted me to sign a petition that wanted Tony Blair charged for lying/war crimes over Iraq.
I said, I'd gladly sign it, Blair lied to me, I was promised cheaper oil if we invaded Iraq.
I don't have a problem with a reformed 2nd chamber, but why can't there be called Lord-Lieutenants or LMP (Lord member of parliament) ?
"Imperial Senate" like in Star Wars!
Actually in an alternate history timeline, could have been set up in 1931 by the Statute of Westminster. Then George Lucas could have used that August Body as the inspiration for the "Imperial Senate" in the Star Wars universe!
I can almost see SPQB now, where DC pretends he doesn't know what it stands for.
No real conclusion. Both possible explanations seem unlikely, but one must be the truth.
Or any mention of the story in yesterday's chip paper re the mere £7.5bn anti-avoidance measures.
Douglas Carswell seems a bit cranky on twitter, because Rob Ford finds it odd that Farage has come to Clacton today.
I'm finding it terribly amusing.
you can be so childish...
Rob Ford (Britain)@robfordmancs Clacton is UKIP's only (probably) safe seat. Seems a bit of a waste of a vital campaign day for Farage to hang around there.
Nick Barlow@nickjbarlow·45m45 minutes ago @robfordmancs but if he didn't go, wouldn't press ask 'why aren't you helping Carswell?'
I was tempted to reply to Carswell with the message "U OK hun?"
Anyone get the sense his defection hasn't turned out quite the way he wanted?
Not just you.
I suppose that was inevitable if you have to keep on meeting Kipper activists on a daily basis.
On the one hand Carswell does frequently look out of place. On the other hand, he's a smart chap, and have worked that out before. Unless he was relying on his own influence by this stage to move UKIP towards him.
I think, he's found UKIP, like all parties have their internal contradictions.
That might frustrate him.
He's the new John Marek, he will be off to the English Democrats next
@steve_hawkes: Institute of Economic Affairs: "Labour manifesto lacks seriousness on deficit reduction." "Politicians need to be honest about their plans."
"David Cameron has staged his first on-camera walkabout of the campaign - and was urged to avoid “name calling” tactics against Ed Miliband.
The prime minister took to the streets of Alnwick, in the Berwick-upon-Tweed constituency, in a bid to woo voters, where one woman told him: “I don’t like the name calling in politics ... Be a good boy.”
Cameron bought some sausages at Turnbull’s butchers in the town and chatted with shoppers during the 15 minute stroll.
But he was also serenaded by a man with a ukulele who sang that he should “fuck off back to Eton”.
Looks like he's deploying the Major '92 strategy.
He'll be cracking out the soapbox and eyeing up Edwina Currie next!
Do Labour even realise what they've done? They've now blown up one of their main attack lines for getting reluctant Labour voters to the polls: "just think of the damage the Tories will do to public services with reckless cuts".
Totally disagree. Labour has been saying the same thing for a few years: cuts do have to be made but they can be made better, they can be made over a long time frame and they do not have to be driven by ideology. That may or may not be bollocks, but it fits exactly with what has been said today.
A reckless cut does not have to be the same as a cut - and most voters recognise that. Labour's issue is much more about whether they sound credible than whether they are alienating a large swathe of voters who might go out and back an end to austerity but would prefer a Tory government to make cuts than a Labour one.
Tory cuts = Reckless, Bad.
Labour cuts = Gentle, Good.
This is getting ridiculous.
It's more: the Tories cut because they believe in a small state and so will always look to reduce its role; Labour cuts only because it has to and will always look to cut as little as possible. That seems to me to be a perfectly credible philosophical difference - albeit one that both parties choose to wrap up in highly emotive language.
Perfectly true: that is the philosophical difference, except that the Tories have not been making the case for a smaller state at all. They've been making the case for a strong economy to pay for the big state. The argument has been about how to run the economy and finance the state not about what the state should do and be.
Bang on the money. And that, fundamentally, is the Cameron project problem: they haven't moved the values and principles argument away from Labour's turf, and onto their own, which has meant they are permanently on the defensive, whilst voters feel they secretly have a different agenda anyway. And therefore don't trust them.
Or any mention of the story in yesterday's chip paper re the mere £7.5bn anti-avoidance measures.
Douglas Carswell seems a bit cranky on twitter, because Rob Ford finds it odd that Farage has come to Clacton today.
I'm finding it terribly amusing.
you can be so childish...
Rob Ford (Britain)@robfordmancs Clacton is UKIP's only (probably) safe seat. Seems a bit of a waste of a vital campaign day for Farage to hang around there.
Nick Barlow@nickjbarlow·45m45 minutes ago @robfordmancs but if he didn't go, wouldn't press ask 'why aren't you helping Carswell?'
I was tempted to reply to Carswell with the message "U OK hun?"
Anyone get the sense his defection hasn't turned out quite the way he wanted?
Not just you.
I suppose that was inevitable if you have to keep on meeting Kipper activists on a daily basis.
On the one hand Carswell does frequently look out of place. On the other hand, he's a smart chap, and have worked that out before. Unless he was relying on his own influence by this stage to move UKIP towards him.
I think, he's found UKIP, like all parties have their internal contradictions.
That might frustrate him.
He's the new John Marek, he will be off to the English Democrats next
Do Labour even realise what they've done? They've now blown up one of their main attack lines for getting reluctant Labour voters to the polls: "just think of the damage the Tories will do to public services with reckless cuts".
Totally disagree. Labour has been saying the same thing for a few years: cuts do have to be made but they can be made better, they can be made over a long time frame and they do not have to be driven by ideology. That may or may not be bollocks, but it fits exactly with what has been said today.
A reckless cut does not have to be the same as a cut - and most voters recognise that. Labour's issue is much more about whether they sound credible than whether they are alienating a large swathe of voters who might go out and back an end to austerity but would prefer a Tory government to make cuts than a Labour one.
Tory cuts = Reckless, Bad.
Labour cuts = Gentle, Good.
This is getting ridiculous.
It's more: the Tories cut because they believe in a small state and so will always look to reduce its role; Labour cuts only because it has to and will always look to cut as little as possible. That seems to me to be a perfectly credible philosophical difference - albeit one that both parties choose to wrap up in highly emotive language.
Perfectly true: that is the philosophical difference, except that the Tories have not been making the case for a smaller state at all. They've been making the case for a strong economy to pay for the big state. The argument has been about how to run the economy and finance the state not about what the state should do and be.
Bang on the money. And that, fundamentally, is the Cameron project problem: they haven't moved the values and principles argument away from Labour's turf, and onto their own, which has meant they are permanently on the defensive, whilst voters feel they secretly have a different agenda anyway. And therefore don't trust them.
They've moved the agenda away from Brown's "all spending is good" to "only spending what you can afford is good". That's a major change for a nation addicted to the credit card.
"David Cameron has staged his first on-camera walkabout of the campaign - and was urged to avoid “name calling” tactics against Ed Miliband.
The prime minister took to the streets of Alnwick, in the Berwick-upon-Tweed constituency, in a bid to woo voters, where one woman told him: “I don’t like the name calling in politics ... Be a good boy.”
Cameron bought some sausages at Turnbull’s butchers in the town and chatted with shoppers during the 15 minute stroll.
But he was also serenaded by a man with a ukulele who sang that he should “fuck off back to Eton”.
Looks like he's deploying the Major '92 strategy.
He'll be cracking out the soapbox and eyeing up Edwina Currie next!
It's what he should have done weeks ago. Inevitably, as there was for Major, there will be organised opposition (containing a few partisan idiots) to each and every one of his visits, made much easier now by social media.
But most undecided people who are genuinely curious will be polite, engage and ask him something if they want to, or smile politely, stay silent and avoid him if they don't like him.
Do Labour even realise what they've done? They've now blown up one of their main attack lines for getting reluctant Labour voters to the polls: "just think of the damage the Tories will do to public services with reckless cuts".
Totally disagree. Labour has been saying the same thing for a few years: cuts do have to be made but they can be made better, they can be made over a long time frame and they do not have to be driven by ideology. That may or may not be bollocks, but it fits exactly with what has been said today.
A reckless cut does not have to be the same as a cut - and most voters recognise that. Labour's issue is much more about whether they sound credible than whether they are alienating a large swathe of voters who might go out and back an end to austerity but would prefer a Tory government to make cuts than a Labour one.
Tory cuts = Reckless, Bad.
Labour cuts = Gentle, Good.
This is getting ridiculous.
TSE might put it slightly differently: Tory cutting out of Reckless = very good.
I might do a variation of the chant I heard back in 2011 in Manchester.
"The Tories, put the "n" in cuts"
I had to listen to that for 4 hours as the soap dodgers, workshy SWP protested outside.
I wasn't allowed to throw soap, drink champagne or burn £50 notes at them.
It's amazing how some people truly think the Tories are evil and that gives them licence to play out their most base instincts and behaviours on them.
I was at Manchester in 2009 and walked out of a late night event with a friend at the main hotel. We got a mouth full of abuse and insults from some bearded student Lefties nearby. I smiled at them, but my friend politely engaged one of them in conversation, whilst a few of the other students looked on sheepishly.
When I got taking to one of them it turned out he mainly hated the Tories because of what his Dad and family had said about them, and his friends had never challenged. I wanted to explore that further but the policeman came over and moved them on before asking us if we wanted to make any complaint.
We didn't.
I've always found the SWP types funny. I shatter all their preconceptions.
I nearly incited a riot with them a few years ago.
They wanted me to sign a petition that wanted Tony Blair charged for lying/war crimes over Iraq.
I said, I'd gladly sign it, Blair lied to me, I was promised cheaper oil if we invaded Iraq.
On topic, I have a bet lurking somewhere on the House of Lords being reformed before 2020. So I like this proposal.
More generally, the manifesto seems to show Ed Balls very much in the ascendant in the Labour party at present. He now looks irreplaceable in the finance role should Labour win the election. You can get 11/8 with both Ladbrokes and Paddy Power on him being next Chancellor, which is substantially better than the evens that you can get on Ed Miliband being next Prime Minister. I think the difference is well worth the additional risk and I'm on.
I don't have a problem with a reformed 2nd chamber, but why can't there be called Lord-Lieutenants or LMP (Lord member of parliament) ?
"Imperial Senate" like in Star Wars!
Actually in an alternate history timeline, could have been set up in 1931 by the Statute of Westminster. Then George Lucas could have used that August Body as the inspiration for the "Imperial Senate" in the Star Wars universe!
I think the only other time I can remember him being anything other than Luke Skywalker was when he voiced The Joker in one of the recent-ish Batman cartoons.
Do Labour even realise what they've done? They've now blown up one of their main attack lines for getting reluctant Labour voters to the polls: "just think of the damage the Tories will do to public services with reckless cuts".
Tory cuts = Reckless, Bad.
Labour cuts = Gentle, Good.
This is getting ridiculous.
TSE might put it slightly differently: Tory cutting out of Reckless = very good.
I might do a variation of the chant I heard back in 2011 in Manchester.
"The Tories, put the "n" in cuts"
I had to listen to that for 4 hours as the soap dodgers, workshy SWP protested outside.
I wasn't allowed to throw soap, drink champagne or burn £50 notes at them.
It's amazing how some people truly think the Tories are evil and that gives them licence to play out their most base instincts and behaviours on them.
I was at Manchester in 2009 and walked out of a late night event with a friend at the main hotel. We got a mouth full of abuse and insults from some bearded student Lefties nearby. I smiled at them, but my friend politely engaged one of them in conversation, whilst a few of the other students looked on sheepishly.
When I got taking to one of them it turned out he mainly hated the Tories because of what his Dad and family had said about them, and his friends had never challenged. I wanted to explore that further but the policeman came over and moved them on before asking us if we wanted to make any complaint.
We didn't.
I've always found the SWP types funny. I shatter all their preconceptions.
I nearly incited a riot with them a few years ago.
They wanted me to sign a petition that wanted Tony Blair charged for lying/war crimes over Iraq.
I said, I'd gladly sign it, Blair lied to me, I was promised cheaper oil if we invaded Iraq.
Whe the children were younger we used to take them for swimming lessons at the ULU pool. There used to be students protesting outside about Iraq and one of them approached my husband asking him to sign a petition about removing UK/US troops from Iraq.
"Quite right" my husband said.
The student beamed at him.
"Move them to Iran", he went on.
He moved pretty smartly into the building at that point!
On topic, I have a bet lurking somewhere on the House of Lords being reformed before 2020. So I like this proposal.
More generally, the manifesto seems to show Ed Balls very much in the ascendant in the Labour party at present. He now looks irreplaceable in the finance role should Labour win the election. You can get 11/8 with both Ladbrokes and Paddy Power on him being next Chancellor, which is substantially better than the evens that you can get on Ed Miliband being next Prime Minister. I think the difference is well worth the additional risk and I'm on.
And just think of all the PB threads that will be dominated by electoral reform.
Senate is a really interesting idea. Especially if it limits itself to just 100 representatives.
It would keep MPs and Parliament generally very busy with something of vital importance to themselves at a time when the government is unlikely to be able to indulge itself in grand schemes that actually make any difference to anyone in the real world.
Or any mention of the story in yesterday's chip paper re the mere £7.5bn anti-avoidance measures.
Douglas Carswell seems a bit cranky on twitter, because Rob Ford finds it odd that Farage has come to Clacton today.
I'm finding it terribly amusing.
you can be so childish...
Rob Ford (Britain)@robfordmancs Clacton is UKIP's only (probably) safe seat. Seems a bit of a waste of a vital campaign day for Farage to hang around there.
Nick Barlow@nickjbarlow·45m45 minutes ago @robfordmancs but if he didn't go, wouldn't press ask 'why aren't you helping Carswell?'
I was tempted to reply to Carswell with the message "U OK hun?"
Anyone get the sense his defection hasn't turned out quite the way he wanted?
Not just you.
I suppose that was inevitable if you have to keep on meeting Kipper activists on a daily basis.
On the one hand Carswell does frequently look out of place. On the other hand, he's a smart chap, and have worked that out before. Unless he was relying on his own influence by this stage to move UKIP towards him.
I think, he's found UKIP, like all parties have their internal contradictions.
That might frustrate him.
Carswell's problem is that he is an egomaniac with little idea how to turn that to his advantage - so he has a lot of ability which will never be realised because he finds it impossible to believe his ideas aren't the best way ever conceived by anybody in the history of mankind - no party can contain him and he will sit as an independent from May 8th until he decides to leave parliament
Or any mention of the story in yesterday's chip paper re the mere £7.5bn anti-avoidance measures.
Douglas Carswell seems a bit cranky on twitter, because Rob Ford finds it odd that Farage has come to Clacton today.
I'm finding it terribly amusing.
you can be so childish...
Rob Ford (Britain)@robfordmancs Clacton is UKIP's only (probably) safe seat. Seems a bit of a waste of a vital campaign day for Farage to hang around there.
Nick Barlow@nickjbarlow·45m45 minutes ago @robfordmancs but if he didn't go, wouldn't press ask 'why aren't you helping Carswell?'
I was tempted to reply to Carswell with the message "U OK hun?"
Anyone get the sense his defection hasn't turned out quite the way he wanted?
Not just you.
I suppose that was inevitable if you have to keep on meeting Kipper activists on a daily basis.
On the one hand Carswell does frequently look out of place. On the other hand, he's a smart chap, and have worked that out before. Unless he was relying on his own influence by this stage to move UKIP towards him.
I think, he's found UKIP, like all parties have their internal contradictions.
That might frustrate him.
He's the new John Marek, he will be off to the English Democrats next
No dear girl, John Marek, Lab MP then independent AM then leader of Forward Wales and now a Conservative!
Here's where I diverge from @Casino_Royale the journey is a long one and frustrated shortcuts don't work in the Land of Reputation Management. It takes years and trying to do it on the cheap ends in failure. I did this job for decades and despair at how little the job is understood. If it was simple, everyone would do it every few months. Think about it.
Do Labour even realise what they've done? ey've now blown up one of their main attack lines for getting reluctant Labour voters to the polls: "just think of the damage the Tories will do to public services with reckless cuts".
Totally disagree. Labour has been saying the same thing for a few years: cuts do have to be made but they can be made better, they can be made over a long time frame and they do not have to be driven by ideology. That may or may not be bollocks, but it fits exactly with what has been said today.
A reckless cut does not have to be the same as a cut - and most voters recognise that. Labour's issue is much more about whether they sound credible than whether they are alienating a large swathe of voters who might go out and back an end to austerity but would prefer a Tory government to make cuts than a Labour one.
Tory cuts = Reckless, Bad.
Labour cuts = Gentle, Good.
This is getting ridiculous.
It's more: the Tories cut because they believe in a small state and so will always look to reduce its role; Labour cuts only because it has to and will always look to cut as little as possible. That seems to me to be a perfectly credible philosophical difference - albeit one that both parties choose to wrap up in highly emotive language.
Perfectly true: that is the philosophical difference, except that the Tories have not been making the case for a smaller state at all. They've been making the case for a strong economy to pay for the big state. The argument has been about how to run the economy and finance the state not about what the state should do and be.
Bang on the money. And that, fundamentally, is the Cameron project problem: they haven't moved the values and principles argument away from Labour's turf, and onto their own, which has meant they are permanently on the defensive, whilst voters feel they secretly have a different agenda anyway. And therefore don't trust them.
They've moved the agenda away from Brown's "all spending is good" to "only spending what you can afford is good". That's a major change for a nation addicted to the credit card.
I think Ed has made an error of advertising Labour cuts today. The reason Labour have recovered in the poll over the last couple of weeks is because they seemed to have become an anti-cuts/austerity party trying to maximise the turnout of their 35%. The mere mention of cuts has always driven this group into the arms of other parties.
The SNP will certainly seize it - it does look like they are giving up on Scotland - Jim no cuts Murphy hung out to dry......
That polling is astonishingly good for the Conservatives. But even gold standards can have outliers.
It is the third ICM poll in a row with the Conservatives at or above 36%. And UKIP's share is a very low (even by ICM's standards) 7%. Presumably these are connected.
This election is going to make or break some pollsters' reputations.
"Boon said the sample chosen looks “demographically sound”, but acknowledges there are signs in the raw data that this sample “could be a just touch too Tory”. In particular, there are more 2010 Conservative voters than ICM would ordinarily expect, and also more voters from the professional occupational grade."
That polling is astonishingly good for the Conservatives. But even gold standards can have outliers.
It is the third ICM poll in a row with the Conservatives at or above 36%. And UKIP's share is a very low (even by ICM's standards) 7%. Presumably these are connected.
This election is going to make or break some pollsters' reputations.
Good. It should reduce the "groupthink" tendency more frequent polling is bringing.
The survey gives Cameron a remarkably strong net personal rating of +18, with 52% of voters rating him as doing a good job, and only 34% suggesting he is doing badly. This is by some way the prime minister’s strongest showing with ICM since his honeymoon, in August 2010, since when he has mostly been scoring in modestly negative territory. For example, Cameron’s net score was -3 last November.
Cameron’s personal rating remains comfortably ahead of Ed Miliband’s. The Labour leader recovers a touch from a net -42 last November, but still languishes on -30. Cameron’s standing is also streets ahead of that of all the other political leaders: Clegg is on -20; Nigel Farage on –16; Natalie Bennett of the Greens on –6. Only Nicola Sturgeon of the Scottish National party (SNP) scores positively, with a net +12.
Voter preferences On the economy, too, if the survey is right, the Conservatives are walking away with the argument. Cameron and George Osborne, the chancellor, are the more “trusted team to run the economy properly” for 44% of voters, compared to just 17% who would rather trust Miliband and the shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, and 39% who said they would trust neither team.
I can also vouch for Bob Sykes. He and I were just about the only PB rightwingers who correctly called the last GE result: a NOM Tory government.
However I think he is entirely wrong about the Sturgeon/Salmond Ed Miliband Tory breastkerchief attack meme (phew, got there in the end) - it is one of the rare Tory elections tactics which is working. Read the press and Labour are clearly worried by this assault, and have found that it resonates with voters, hence statements like Umunna's today, re Jim Murphy.
This GE is still winnable for Cameron (tho I doubt he'll succeed), if he focuses on a simple message. Labour will crash the bus again, as Sturgeon tries to grab the steering wheel. They will also crash the property market, nationwide.
Hammer that home. Daily.
It's an important message but it needs proper focus, to the right crowd.
It seems like the Tories think they've found something to win them the election. It might play well in some seats but I don't think Pendle is really one of them.
I'd hammer home that a vote for UKIP means more Labour MPS = Ed in No 10 and no referendum. I don't particularly support the Tory approach on the EU but I do want a Tory Govt and the strength of UKIP is the single biggest impediment to that happening, by a country mile.
hmm YG / ICM difference getting difficult to make sense of but Dave will enjoy being on 39% in a poll the Guardian might find space for in G2 between ads for holiday cottages in the Dordogne
Bang on the money. And that, fundamentally, is the Cameron project problem: they haven't moved the values and principles argument away from Labour's turf, and onto their own, which has meant they are permanently on the defensive, whilst voters feel they secretly have a different agenda anyway. And therefore don't trust them.
Absolutely right. The Conservatives have failed to make the argument for capitalism and wealth creation. They have not successfully shown that wealth creation is a key part of this nation and that we should welcome high net worth individuals and entrepreneurs into the country so we can create jobs.
The issue boils down to the fact that the Tories are in favour of job creation, but will not stand up for the job creators and act like it all happens by magic. Labour being anti-wealth is a return to old Labour values but the Tories haven't given a credible argument in favour of wealth creation.
That polling is astonishingly good for the Conservatives. But even gold standards can have outliers.
It is the third ICM poll in a row with the Conservatives at or above 36%. And UKIP's share is a very low (even by ICM's standards) 7%. Presumably these are connected.
This election is going to make or break some pollsters' reputations.
6 weeks before last years Euros ICM had Labour on 36% and UKIP in 3rd on 20% 4 weeks later they had the Conservatives in the lead
Comments
"I think that guest speakers do the job better than study of historical thinkers - what Tom Paine or Voltaire or Marx thought in a very different context seems a bit irrelevant...."
That is one of the silliest statements I've seen an intelligent man write. All these people struggled with the same dilemmas as we do now and understanding how they thought about those dilemmas and tried to resolve them has much to teach us. Any good teacher should be able to make this interesting, as indeed my own history teachers and lecturers at university did.
To take the area I work in, I would make a study of economic history essential for those in finance. Understanding the cycles of greed and stupidity and hubris which have accompanied every madcap scheme and boom/bust since (at least) the Tulip Mania might give them a better perspective on fancy risk management algorithms.
Strategically poor from Labour to mention cuts today. It should have been a few numbers and statistics in an appendix for a few financial journalists to get worked up about.
Freeing up seats for the unconverted!
"The Tories, put the "n" in cuts"
I had to listen to that for 4 hours as the soap dodgers, workshy SWP protested outside.
I wasn't allowed to throw soap, drink champagne or burn £50 notes at them.
Douglas Carswell retweeted
The Gazette @TheGazette 1h1 hour ago
Farage and Carswell visit Clacton hinge factory in search for swing vote! http://dlvr.it/9Mv5ym
Actually in an alternate history timeline, could have been set up in 1931 by the Statute of Westminster. Then George Lucas could have used that August Body as the inspiration for the "Imperial Senate" in the Star Wars universe!
http://t.co/0oGmFvQWdR
You rightly point out the credibility issue: Labour say cuts have to be made whilst opposing all and every cut the coalition has been made, and proposing none of their own.
It's ludicrous.
I suppose that was inevitable if you have to keep on meeting Kipper activists on a daily basis.
He knows how f*cked Labour are in Scotland and just about the only constituency this manifesto might go down well in is err
His own xD
I really think there are no votes for Labour in fiscal rectitude and every time they bring it up it just reminds people that Labour are not to be trusted on the economy. The numbers are there for them to win without it. Their 35% don't care about a stronger economy, they want a society with fewer rich people and higher taxes for ordinary people similar to Scandinavia.
I was at Manchester in 2009 and walked out of a late night event with a friend at the main hotel. We got a mouth full of abuse and insults from some bearded student Lefties nearby. I smiled at them, but my friend politely engaged one of them in conversation, whilst a few of the other students looked on sheepishly.
When I got taking to one of them it turned out he mainly hated the Tories because of what his Dad and family had said about them, and his friends had never challenged. I wanted to explore that further but the policeman came over and moved them on before asking us if we wanted to make any complaint.
We didn't.
That might frustrate him.
I nearly incited a riot with them a few years ago.
They wanted me to sign a petition that wanted Tony Blair charged for lying/war crimes over Iraq.
I said, I'd gladly sign it, Blair lied to me, I was promised cheaper oil if we invaded Iraq.
The prime minister took to the streets of Alnwick, in the Berwick-upon-Tweed constituency, in a bid to woo voters, where one woman told him: “I don’t like the name calling in politics ... Be a good boy.”
Cameron bought some sausages at Turnbull’s butchers in the town and chatted with shoppers during the 15 minute stroll.
But he was also serenaded by a man with a ukulele who sang that he should “fuck off back to Eton”.
Looks like he's deploying the Major '92 strategy.
He'll be cracking out the soapbox and eyeing up Edwina Currie next!
Before 4 pm would be ideal
But most undecided people who are genuinely curious will be polite, engage and ask him something if they want to, or smile politely, stay silent and avoid him if they don't like him.
More generally, the manifesto seems to show Ed Balls very much in the ascendant in the Labour party at present. He now looks irreplaceable in the finance role should Labour win the election. You can get 11/8 with both Ladbrokes and Paddy Power on him being next Chancellor, which is substantially better than the evens that you can get on Ed Miliband being next Prime Minister. I think the difference is well worth the additional risk and I'm on.
"Quite right" my husband said.
The student beamed at him.
"Move them to Iran", he went on.
He moved pretty smartly into the building at that point!
Win win
Poll takes Tories to 39% ahead of Labour on 33%, as Lib Dem support stays at 8% and Ukip drops back two points to tie with Greens on 7%
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/13/conservatives-six-point-lead-guardian-icm-poll-labour
trouble is, they are also not too keen on actually turning out to vote. Especially in a system where you have to register first.
It's a fabulous idea.
Sits back with popcorn.
At this rate UKIP might undershoot my bet on 5% to 10%
- Jim no cuts Murphy hung out to dry......
Even before adjusting for Scotland
39% looks toppish to say the least for the tories, no?
When is the last time they have been on 39%??
It is the third ICM poll in a row with the Conservatives at or above 36%. And UKIP's share is a very low (even by ICM's standards) 7%. Presumably these are connected.
This election is going to make or break some pollsters' reputations.
Greens for third? Go Natalie!
Labour just had a week-end (12th April) lead of 1.2% in ELBOW!
"Boon said the sample chosen looks “demographically sound”, but acknowledges there are signs in the raw data that this sample “could be a just touch too Tory”. In particular, there are more 2010 Conservative voters than ICM would ordinarily expect, and also more voters from the professional occupational grade."
I think it's something of an outlier, but it should help steady Conservative nerves.
Good. It should reduce the "groupthink" tendency more frequent polling is bringing.
The survey gives Cameron a remarkably strong net personal rating of +18, with 52% of voters rating him as doing a good job, and only 34% suggesting he is doing badly. This is by some way the prime minister’s strongest showing with ICM since his honeymoon, in August 2010, since when he has mostly been scoring in modestly negative territory. For example, Cameron’s net score was -3 last November.
Cameron’s personal rating remains comfortably ahead of Ed Miliband’s. The Labour leader recovers a touch from a net -42 last November, but still languishes on -30. Cameron’s standing is also streets ahead of that of all the other political leaders: Clegg is on -20; Nigel Farage on –16; Natalie Bennett of the Greens on –6. Only Nicola Sturgeon of the Scottish National party (SNP) scores positively, with a net +12.
Voter preferences
On the economy, too, if the survey is right, the Conservatives are walking away with the argument. Cameron and George Osborne, the chancellor, are the more “trusted team to run the economy properly” for 44% of voters, compared to just 17% who would rather trust Miliband and the shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, and 39% who said they would trust neither team.
It seems like the Tories think they've found something to win them the election. It might play well in some seats but I don't think Pendle is really one of them.
I'd hammer home that a vote for UKIP means more Labour MPS = Ed in No 10 and no referendum. I don't particularly support the Tory approach on the EU but I do want a Tory Govt and the strength of UKIP is the single biggest impediment to that happening, by a country mile.
The issue boils down to the fact that the Tories are in favour of job creation, but will not stand up for the job creators and act like it all happens by magic. Labour being anti-wealth is a return to old Labour values but the Tories haven't given a credible argument in favour of wealth creation.
Lab lead 14th Dec = 0.9
Lab lead Xmas week = 2.6
Lab lead 11th Jan = 1.1
4 weeks later they had the Conservatives in the lead
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2014_(United_Kingdom)