One of the biggest political mistakes of his lifetime he said was Harold Macmillan saying "You've never had it so good". because when voters thought about it and realized what he'd said was correct they voted in a Labour government
A classic Roger comment, showing an impressive disdain for the facts!
That's a lot of people for a political programme and then there are all the news clips and the radio.......I'm surprised. Makes Dave's decision even more ill thought out
Only saw the edited highlights of the debate on the news, but heard the last half hour on 5Live in the car. The Ed/Nicola slanging match was the only high point for the Tories methinks, and what I saw and heard reinforced my view that Cameron made a HUGE strategic mistake allowing this debate to happen without his presence. Who on earth at CCHQ thought it sensible, 3 weeks before a GE, to allow all the opposition parties bar one to have 90 minutes of prime time BBC1 to attack you personally as a coward too frit to turn up and to attack your record without any right of reply?
What a stupid election-losing cretin that man is.
Of course Ed and the others put the boot in. Why wouldn't they. Fair play to them.
EdM looks more and more prime ministerial as every day passes in this campaign, he hasn't put a foot wrong. Whereas Dave just coasts along, hardly bothering.
I'm warming to Ed. There's something in my make-up that, politics of it aside, wants Ed to win just for doing a good job, being human, and socking it to his detractors. And wants Dave to vanish into obscurity pronto, for turning out to be one of the biggest disappointments, wet blankets and let-downs in living memory.
Agree with that There was a “Half hour with Ed Milliband” or something before the debates, where he came across as very human and pleasant. He’s having a “Good War”! My wife and I, reflecting on the debates etc over the breakfast table, both felt the same.
That said, Mrs S, not very "into" politics but soft-left in approach (and a teacher!), cannot believe Labour elected Miliband, thinks he's weird and is appalled at the prospect of Nicola Sturgeon (whom she cannot abide) wielding the balance of power, did acknowledge to me last night as we watched the BBC Ten together, appalled, that holding her nose and voting Tory might be the only option.
I doubt she will (she may vote Green which may be nearly as good as voting Tory in our Lab with small majority constituency), but it was interesting to see a left-leaner actually contemplating a Tory vote knowing that EdM is (she feels) incapable of winning a majority and the prospect of him sharing power with the SNP repellent; if Labour was romping ahead in the polls and Ed looked more up to the job, there wouldn't be any internal quandary in her mind at all.
As a matter of interest, what is affecting her views about Ms S? It can hardly be the lady herself as she has hardly been allowed to speak for herself in the media until very recently.
[Edit: assuming you live south of the border.]
She is Scottish and we are not supposed to be able to influence democracy in the UK.
Unemployment rising again in Scotland - up 9k - SNP socialism in action.
A little taste the SNP-Labour government - coming nationwide..
Unemployment in Scotland rose by 9,000 in the three months to February and now stands at 167,000, according to official statistics. It was the second rise in a row, following an increase of 6,000 in the previous set of figures.
Data from the Office for National Statistics also showed UK unemployment falling by 76,000 to 1.84 million. The unemployment rate in Scotland is now 6%, compared with 5.6% for the UK as a whole.
Here in deepest blue Wealden I've now seen one large UKIP poster, plus quite a lot of Conservative posters. No others as yet.
This is quite a contrast with previous elections. In the past there were a lot of LibDem posters around (although a safe Conservative seat, the LibDems used to put in a respectable performance here and had quite a lot of local councillors until recently). More surprising perhaps is the lack of UKIP posters - there were quite a lot for for the Euro elections, but so far at least not this time round.
Mr. G, it's a perfectly valid view to consider a party committed to destroying the United Kingdom should not form part of the government of the United Kingdom.
"I do think we may be nearing the point when the Tories/Conservatives have to admit that their brand is effectively Ratnered and they have to launch an entirely new party under an entirely new name..."
They could call themselves 'New Conservatives' but wouldn't that be an oxymoron?
They thought of that in 2003 as well. Indeed, they also thought about it in 1965, 1935, 1886, 1849 and 1834.
Merely changing a name doesn't make any meaningful positive difference to the way things are perceived (sometimes it can work negatively - e.g. calling Labour 'Socialist' in the 1950s). What the Tories need to do is stop campaigning on things that look helpful for the rich, and start ONLY talking about those things that benefit others (e.g. higher tax thresholds, greater chance of employment).
And they need to do that for 20 years without respite to make it as hard as possible for Labour, who after all buy into exactly the same fiscal structure as the Tories, to hypocritically claim that the Tories are on the side of the rich and Labour are on the side of the poor.
I'm not suggesting a new party would be the end point. It would just be the beginning.
I agree entirely about a change of policy and outlook too....
The leopard can't change its spots. The Tory party is generally for the well off. The coalition was better for the lower paid because of the LibDem influence. The raising of the threshold for income tax was down to the LibDems, the lowering of the 50% band was a Tory policy. Changing the names of the parties won't fool anyone. One way to create new parties for the UK would be to switch from FPTP to STV, within a decade there will have been realignment. FPTP is what is stopping people voting for their real first choice and it's ensuring the continuation of the main parties (which in themselves are coalitions) because it's difficult to get re-elected outside of the main parties.
Wow thats a p-poor audience share. Don't suppose the 4.3m watched the whole thing either.
So i guess cameron got it right.
This election hasn't caught fire. Ive hardly seen a single billboard or poster, no-one i knows talking about it. its boring most everyone else apart from a few of us on here.
Will it ignite? Or don't people care? Must admit I've wondered if i can be bothered to vote & I like politics.
4.3 million - Farage, Miliband and Sturgeon will be well pleased with that.
Danny Alexander sounded furious that Clegg wasn't in it this morning on the radio.
Nowhere has the disappointment been more acute than in Eduction, all the promise of Gove that there would be huge change, I have three teenagers and I see no improvement, quite the opposite.
As I said, at least Gove tried, but he got the diagnosis wrong. He thought it was about poor teaching and low standards. The real problem was about prescriptive content, an overload of work and an inspection regime too often staffed by duff teachers (Woodhead, Gilbert in particular were ejected from the classroom with great rapidity because they were no good).
The key problem in the state sector is and always has been that class sizes are much too large for the education that we are expected to offer. The ideal class size is around 16-20. In the state sector, the average size is around 28, and there are examples in the inner cities of classes well over 30 (e.g. in Bristol I had a class size of 34). A smaller class relieves the pressure on marking and paperwork, it makes control of the class easier, reducing indiscipline and lack of focus, and it allows more time with individual children.
However, does anyone see this being proposed to sort out our problems?
Somebody will doubtless quote China or France. Yes, they get good exam results with larger classes. However, the teachers turn up and talk, the children sit and listen. If they step out of line, they will be severely punished and they know it. Not sure that's quite the sort of class I want to teach - I had a spell of lecturing and it can be quite dull. It also tends to inhibit cognitive development and while effective in say, maths, usually inhibits creative and original thinking in languages (as for the liberal arts...).
"I do think we may be nearing the point when the Tories/Conservatives have to admit that their brand is effectively Ratnered and they have to launch an entirely new party under an entirely new name..."
They could call themselves 'New Conservatives' but wouldn't that be an oxymoron?
They thought of that in 2003 as well. Indeed, they also thought about it in 1965, 1935, 1886, 1849 and 1834.
Merely changing a name doesn't make any meaningful positive difference to the way things are perceived (sometimes it can work negatively - e.g. calling Labour 'Socialist' in the 1950s). What the Tories need to do is stop campaigning on things that look helpful for the rich, and start ONLY talking about those things that benefit others (e.g. higher tax thresholds, greater chance of employment).
And they need to do that for 20 years without respite to make it as hard as possible for Labour, who after all buy into exactly the same fiscal structure as the Tories, to hypocritically claim that the Tories are on the side of the rich and Labour are on the side of the poor.
I think the problem for the Tories is more fundamental and material than that. I watched the recent Conservative party election broadcast and the bit that stuck out for me was when they were talking about people being rewarded for hard work, with the visuals of workers packaging at a factory in the background.
You can make an argument that in the 80s this was the case. Normal people were able to buy a house and drive cars who weren't able to do so in earlier decades. University education was subsidised so that people from modest backgrounds could join the growing professional class. Real wages for most people were rising.
This simply is not the case now. Home ownership is in long-term decline. Distance travelled by car is also declining. Going to University now means taking on a massive pile of debt, and an almost permanent extra 9% on your income tax. The economy has added lots of jobs over the last few years because wages have fallen behind inflation, and the government has had to increase the personal allowance rapidly to ameliorate that squeeze.
The message that "if you work hard you will get ahead" doesn't have the ring of truth about it that it might have had in the 80s. Too many people are working hard to stand still, to pay off the mortgage of the buy-to-let investor they rent their home from, to make a return for the hedge fund that has bought out their employer and to put money into the pockets oil-rich despots.
When this campaign started the immovable object was that Ed couldn't be a Prime Minister.
Dave of all people should understand the value of a USP so why he threw his away with an anti austerity manifesto and engineered one for Ed is baffling
Jeez Roger. That big black thing in your photo- did it fly into your house?
BTW- very good post. I cannot even quite believe that the election is this tight- everything is in the Tories favour. They should be romping home as you said. Something has gone wrong somewhere with their strategy.
The fact that they are not romping home suggests that a large minority of the electorate do not care or do not believe that Labour wrecked the economy, and do not care or do not believe that they always wreck the economy, and therefore do not care or do not believe that they will do so again.
That is an extraordinary achievement by Labour, it has to be said.
It is as though 35% of the electorate believed either that buses aren't dangerous and it is safe to chuck yourself under one; or that they know they're dangerous, but expect to be pushing other people under the bus.
Sometimes I can't quite believe the country I live in, but perhaps I should be less surprised by this. Scotland is 85% socialist, run-down, badly educated, unhealthy, arse-wipingly poor and has an ongoing diaspora of its best and brightest; despite which its voters seem agreed that the solution is more of the same and blame the English.
I wonder what it would take to drop Labour's vote below 29%? Food riots? A programme of genocide?
Maybe most people just understand that the financial crisis in 2008 was an international one that hit all economies regardless of their political make-up. Not everybody buys into the Mail's view of the world.
If they understand it that way, they do not understand it. The global financial crisis was Labour's fault. They dismantled a reasonably effective regulatory regime, and replaced it with one so incompetent that everybody wanted to set up in London, which was constructively unregulated.
In response to this loss of business, the US weakened its own regulatory structure to keep the US financial industry competitive. The rest is history.
Labour always finds a way to wreck something we never realised could even be wrecked. We expect filthy hospitals and bad schools of Labour, but probably nobody in the 1960s thought the car industry could be completely wrecked and certainly nobody in 1997 was expecting pensions to be wrecked. One wonders what, exactly, Labour will wreck next. There will be some sort of tax attack on homes and savings, clearly.
Desmond's £1.3 million is great news for UKIP, although I daresay they would have preferred it six months or a year ago, when it could have been used well in this election. (*)
I am more intrigued about what effect this will have on the circulation of his newspapers. Will more people turn to the Express or Star because of this support?
(*) Is it true that £300k of this was given at the end of last year?
Mr. Thompson, whilst a valid point, the news afterwards was full of broadcasters banging on endlessly about the debate, and the papers will, I imagine, have a fair bit about it as well.
Its not to say that a debate watched by 4 million will have no impact - that exceeds I'm sure the numbers who watch PMQ's live - but that the numbers suggested raise serious question marks over the integrity of the polls. Especially on secondary questions.
If Panelbase suggest 26 million will either "definitely" or "probably" watch the debate, but only 4 million do then either: A: Panelbase responders are liars B: Panelbase methodology is broken C: Panelbase responders are unrepresentative.
Either way it's concerning. I suspect a mix of A and C personally.
Only saw the edited highlights of the debate on the news, but heard the last half hour on 5Live in the car. The Ed/Nicola slanging match was the only high point for the Tories methinks, and what I saw and heard reinforced my view that Cameron made a HUGE strategic mistake allowing this debate to happen without his presence. Who on earth at CCHQ thought it sensible, 3 weeks before a GE, to allow all the opposition parties bar one to have 90 minutes of prime time BBC1 to attack you personally as a coward too frit to turn up and to attack your record without any right of reply?
What a stupid election-losing cretin that man is.
Of course Ed and the others put the boot in. Why wouldn't they. Fair play to them.
EdM looks more and more prime ministerial as every day passes in this campaign, he hasn't put a foot wrong. Whereas Dave just coasts along, hardly bothering.
I'm warming to Ed. There's something in my make-up that, politics of it aside, wants Ed to win just for doing a good job, being human, and socking it to his detractors. And wants Dave to vanish into obscurity pronto, for turning out to be one of the biggest disappointments, wet blankets and let-downs in living memory.
I never thought Ed was as bad as people claimed but I too have been more impressed than I thought I would be by his sheer doggedness, if nothing else.
Cameron should have debated. If you want power; if you think you have the right way forward for a country you should be out there day in day our arguing your case, however hard it might be. You can't imagine Thatcher turning away from a debate. I was never so impressed by her as in the debate in Parliament on the day she resigned.
I have very strong reservations about whether Labour as they are currently are the right party to be forming the mrct government but - Hobson's choice this - if it's a choice between a Labour majority or Labour having to share power with the SNP, PC or, God help us, Galloway, I'd prefer the former.
Topping The English just don't trust it when things are going well. One of the biggest political mistakes of his lifetime he said was Harold Macmillan saying "You've never had it so good". because when voters thought about it and realized what he'd said was correct they voted in a Labour government
"To put it another way: 24.6m people were watching TV last night. 20.3m of them chose not to watch the BBC debate."
Another way of looking at it is that it was watched by 1 in 5 voters or twice as many people as are likely to vote Lib Dem
Keep trying roger. 1. did 4.3m watch the whole thing? 2. how many of those were definitely decided voters [prob most] and, 3. killer stat, you are way out. 30m voted in 2010 so your 4.3m even if all watched and even if all weren't decided isn't 1 in 5 buddy.
Labour. Always wrong. Why would you take the risk?
Labour have been wrong about every aspect of the recession and yet seem to be getting away with their lies. the tories need to be screaming 24 HOURS TO SAVE THE ECONOMY on the eve of polling
That is virtually full employment and no inflation at all. I feel a dose of MacMillan coming on. The electorate are ungrateful bastards, they really are.
She is Scottish and we are not supposed to be able to influence democracy in the UK.
I don't think anybody objects to Scotland having a say in the running of the UK, MalcolmG. What does concern a number of people is the idea that one party dedicated only to furthering the interests of 15% of the population would have effective veto over 100% of the decisions of the government, including on those matters that would not directly affect Scotland. They believe that the SNP would use this leverage to ensure e.g. a better financial package for Scotland at England's expense, or changes to the English NHS that would be irrelevant in Scotland.
Where Sturgeon may have made an error in the earlier debate is not reiterating that the SNP would abstain in votes on devolved matters. Or did she do so and I missed it?
That is virtually full employment and no inflation at all. I feel a dose of MacMillan coming on. The electorate are ungrateful bastards, they really are.
Under the SNP , unemployment is going the opposite direction - why does Ed want to team up with a job destroying party ?
Wow thats a p-poor audience share. Don't suppose the 4.3m watched the whole thing either.
So i guess cameron got it right.
This election hasn't caught fire. Ive hardly seen a single billboard or poster, no-one i knows talking about it. its boring most everyone else apart from a few of us on here.
Will it ignite? Or don't people care? Must admit I've wondered if i can be bothered to vote & I like politics.
4.3 million - Farage, Miliband and Sturgeon will be well pleased with that.
Danny Alexander sounded furious that Clegg wasn't in it this morning on the radio.
nah its an awful share.
Remember too that the bbc then gave William Hague a free run of nearly 10 minutes prime time uninterrupted to set out tory policy which was gobsmacking - that they did it, not the policies.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the electoral bias should be better. Part of it is down to a relative failure of Labour voters to turn out in safe Labour seats compared to Tories. But with a Blue PM rather than a red one, they'll be more motivated.
Topping The English just don't trust it when things are going well. One of the biggest political mistakes of his lifetime he said was Harold Macmillan saying "You've never had it so good". because when voters thought about it and realized what he'd said was correct they voted in a Labour government
If the Conservatives do end up losing they should perhaps look back and consider they were not bold enough. Their main failing has to be the inability to rid the deficit, in reality they have tinkered around the edges of Public Sector cuts, barely even scraping the surface in dealing with the huge inefficiency and bloated ineffective management structures.
Economically this government has a lot to shout about, also they have kept the taxes most of us hate paying down unlike Labour. Labour though seem so much more effective getting their message across, whether it be Bedroom Tax, or Tax Cuts for Millionaires, they get their slogans out to make full advantage.
Personally as an average earner I fully expect to be hit badly in the pocket with a Miliband led government, as will most people the Tories though don't get that message out, they really should have done and starting now may be too late
The problems have been inbuilt for the Tories. They have been held back by the LDs who have been trying to protect their public sector vote and hold the party together.
Also the messaging has been easier for Labour. They say tax cuts for millionaires the Tories say tax optimization as modelled by treasury. They say bedroom tax the Tories say providing incentives to occupy the correct sized property in order to meet needs of those on waiting lists.
The economic turnaround seems to have happened too late. People just don't feel better off yet.
Finally the mood is still anti politics. So banker bashing is in vogue. So is talking down posh people in general. Personally I don't think it matters where you studied everyone should be treated equally even Etonians. I don't think Cameron is in touch because he is a politician and I think the same of Clegg and Miliband. Interestingly I think the strength of Ukip lies there. When I see farage in a pub he looks like it is home turf, whereas the others look like photo op seekers.
I'd prefer a Labour minority by a mile over a Labour majority.
A Labour Majority is likely to mean 5 years of misery whereas a minority collapses down around it's ears shortly after the next Holyrood elections. A Labour minority is far more likely to bring in a big Tory majority than a Labour majority where I can see Labour cementing in for about the next 20 years.
A Labour majority would be terrible for the country.
A big burly rugby playing guy I know with a great big black bushy beard has managed to get past passport control whilst off to a stag do using his girlfriends passport in error!!!!!
That person must really have been paying attention!
That's a lot of people for a political programme and then there are all the news clips and the radio.......I'm surprised. Makes Dave's decision even more ill thought out
No its not. That is basically just a tad more than a normal weekly QT gets. When Farage and Russell Brand had a ding dong on QT it was nearer 5 million.
The news clips / newspaper coverage is something that QT doesn't get.
A big burly rugby playing guy I know with a great big black bushy beard has managed to get past passport control whilst off to a stag do using his girlfriends passport in error!!!!!
That person must really have been paying attention!
What can we take from all this so far? Probably nothing. Nothings happened and nothings happening. My hunch is that the polls this weekend will show 1. an uptick in tory support 2. an uptick in Milibands personal rating
but not to any great extent. No game changers yet & i guess from that you have to say the real winners are the tories in that last night could've been a disaster. cunning cunning cameron.
Mr. HYUFD, and it would've dominated the election campaign.
There's been more discussion of the manifestos this time around because there hasn't been 3-4 solid weeks of the broadcast media having repeated crises over how terribly exciting the run-up to the debates, the debates and the post-debate analyses are.
Mr. Pulpstar, depends how a minority goes. Labour could **** up English devolution very seriously either way.
Amazingly good employment numbers..highest on record..
Hardly as important as a debate is it ?
All these great economic figures just highlight's further two points:
1. How terrible Cameron, Osborne and Lynton Crosby are at politics.
2. How toxic the Tory brand must still be with the electorate.
This is an election that the Tories should be walking. Historians will look back in 50 years time and wonder how it was that the Conservatives blew it (like they blew 2010).
I do think we may be nearing the point when the Tories/Conservatives have to admit that their brand is effectively Ratnered and they have to launch an entirely new party under an entirely new name...
I think Boris as leader, with Ed leading a rapidly unpopular weak government should obviate the need for a Tory re-brand.
That's above expectations, a great figure for a political debate. That's probably better than what the normal BBC1 programming would have got in that slot last night.
Add in the millions who saw the news clips, all getting to see more of this Ed chap and a load of politicians toxifying the Tory brand further without reply, and that's another huge tactical mistake by Team Dave.
I'm actually getting quite excited about seeing the back of him this year.
DavidL 5.6% unemployment is certainly not full employment, even if it is an improvement from 2008-2010
Quite a few back in 2004 argued it was... basically because they could see no reason why a boom market had capped out. But even now employment is higher and the old economically inactive fiddle is lower. If it were the same we'd be at no more than 5% (an educated guess)
Mr. G, it's a perfectly valid view to consider a party committed to destroying the United Kingdom should not form part of the government of the United Kingdom.
MD, so you do not believe in democracy then, anyone that disagrees should be disenfranchised I presume. Hmmmmmmmmmmm, Better Together my arse.
A big burly rugby playing guy I know with a great big black bushy beard has managed to get past passport control whilst off to a stag do using his girlfriends passport in error!!!!!
That person must really have been paying attention!
A big burly rugby playing guy I know with a great big black bushy beard has managed to get past passport control whilst off to a stag do using his girlfriends passport in error!!!!!
That person must really have been paying attention!
Not if the girlfriend is also big, burly and...well.....
Mr. G, a party with a vested interest in causing internal conflict in the United Kingdom by promoting separation and division between its constituent parts (mostly Scotland and England) is not suited to govern the United Kingdom.
The SNP cannot say it wants what is best for the United Kingdom because it wants the United Kingdom to end, and has something to gain by causing discord within the country.
I disagree with other parties, but none of those seeks to break up the union.
So, the debate was watched by less than 10% of the electorate.
Let's brace ourselves for polls where 70% of respondents claim to have watched the whole thing.
lmao!!!
terrible audience share for bbc 1 prime time. bet nearly everyone was a decided voter too.
this has been a terrible election so far but then the parliament was pretty boring. Fixed terms good for democracy? makes you wonder doesn't it? Or has the world just moved on from politics? We create our memes, our lives, our decisions from social media these days not from berks in westminster, brussels or strassbourg.
This is hilarious, when the deal of programs came out people were mocking Cameron with predictions of 9 million plus for the audience share. Yesterday Panelbase was getting quoted which was predicting 11 million definitely and 15 million probably watching it.
Now 4 million is a great audience share? On primetime BBC following Eastenders?
When this campaign started the immovable object was that Ed couldn't be a Prime Minister.
Dave of all people should understand the value of a USP so why he threw his away with an anti austerity manifesto and engineered one for Ed is baffling
Jeez Roger. That big black thing in your photo- did it fly into your house?
BTW- very good post. I cannot even quite believe that the election is this tight- everything is in the Tories favour. They should be romping home as you said. Something has gone wrong somewhere with their strategy.
The fact that they are not romping home suggests that a large minority of the electorate do not care or do not believe that Labour wrecked the economy, and do not care or do not believe that they always wreck the economy, and therefore do not care or do not believe that they will do so again.
That is an extraordinary achievement by Labour, it has to be said.
It is as though 35% of the electorate believed either that buses aren't dangerous and it is safe to chuck yourself under one; or that they know they're dangerous, but expect to be pushing other people under the bus.
Sometimes I can't quite believe the country I live in, but perhaps I should be less surprised by this. Scotland is 85% socialist, run-down, badly educated, unhealthy, arse-wipingly poor and has an ongoing diaspora of its best and brightest; despite which its voters seem agreed that the solution is more of the same and blame the English.
I wonder what it would take to drop Labour's vote below 29%? Food riots? A programme of genocide?
Maybe most people just understand that the financial crisis in 2008 was an international one that hit all economies regardless of their political make-up. Not everybody buys into the Mail's view of the world.
If they understand it that way, they do not understand it. The global financial crisis was Labour's fault. They dismantled a reasonably effective regulatory regime, and replaced it with one so incompetent that everybody wanted to set up in London, which was constructively unregulated.
In response to this loss of business, the US weakened its own regulatory structure to keep the US financial industry competitive. The rest is history.
Labour always finds a way to wreck something we never realised could even be wrecked. We expect filthy hospitals and bad schools of Labour, but probably nobody in the 1960s thought the car industry could be completely wrecked and certainly nobody in 1997 was expecting pensions to be wrecked. One wonders what, exactly, Labour will wreck next. There will be some sort of tax attack on homes and savings, clearly.
Thanks again to antifrank for his write-up on the constituency odds.
A thought on the Newton Abbot constituency. We still haven't received any election literature from the Conservatives, which is on the face of it very surprising for a seat with a majority less than 1,000, while having several leaflets from the Lib Dems in second place.
We do live in a ward held by a Lib Dem councillor on Teignbridge council who is also facing the voters this year (as the leaflets make clear), so it's possible that the result of the general election in this constituency is seen so far as a foregone conclusion that the Tories are putting the effort in elsewhere, and the effort from the Lib Dems is focussed on holding their councillors so that they have a base from which to rebuild in the next Parliament.
She is Scottish and we are not supposed to be able to influence democracy in the UK.
I don't think anybody objects to Scotland having a say in the running of the UK, MalcolmG. What does concern a number of people is the idea that one party dedicated only to furthering the interests of 15% of the population would have effective veto over 100% of the decisions of the government, including on those matters that would not directly affect Scotland. They believe that the SNP would use this leverage to ensure e.g. a better financial package for Scotland at England's expense, or changes to the English NHS that would be irrelevant in Scotland.
Where Sturgeon may have made an error in the earlier debate is not reiterating that the SNP would abstain in votes on devolved matters. Or did she do so and I missed it?
Considering England have had the power to trash the 15% of people in Scotland for 300 hundred years it is a bit rich to come up with your argument. Now that their rigged system is falling apart they want to change the rules. It just shows up what liars these people are after all the crap during the referendum about "Better Together " , "pooling and sharing" etc. Now when it looks like they are not getting it all their own way and some democracy may be involved they start throwing their toys out of the pram. Happy to throw us some crumbs as long as we don't get so uppity as to expect to actually be able to make decisions.
This is hilarious, when the deal of programs came out people were mocking Cameron with predictions of 9 million plus for the audience share. Yesterday Panelbase was getting quoted which was predicting 11 million definitely and 15 million probably watching it.
Now 4 million is a great audience share? On primetime BBC following Eastenders?
I watched 10 minutes then had to turn off - the format and level of debate was so rehearsed and false it was virtually unwatchable.
Wow thats a p-poor audience share. Don't suppose the 4.3m watched the whole thing either.
So i guess cameron got it right.
This election hasn't caught fire. Ive hardly seen a single billboard or poster, no-one i knows talking about it. its boring most everyone else apart from a few of us on here.
Will it ignite? Or don't people care? Must admit I've wondered if i can be bothered to vote & I like politics.
I'm not surprised at the lack of enthusiasm. Essentially the choice is between a Labour led Government which will increase taxes or a Tory led Government which will cut public services. Plus with a hung parliament looking nailed on, none of the manifestos are worth the paper they are written on.
If the election heads towards it's EXPECTED (By that I mean midpoint of odds, models, opinion polls) , SNP might decide they're having too much fun at Westminster to push for Indy Ref 2
Amazingly good employment numbers..highest on record..
Hardly as important as a debate is it ?
All these great economic figures just highlight's further two points:
1. How terrible Cameron, Osborne and Lynton Crosby are at politics.
2. How toxic the Tory brand must still be with the electorate.
This is an election that the Tories should be walking. Historians will look back in 50 years time and wonder how it was that the Conservatives blew it (like they blew 2010).
I do think we may be nearing the point when the Tories/Conservatives have to admit that their brand is effectively Ratnered and they have to launch an entirely new party under an entirely new name...
I think Boris as leader, with Ed leading a rapidly unpopular weak government should obviate the need for a Tory re-brand.
Possibly, temporarily. But I think Lord Ashcroft found that even Boris struggles in many parts of the country (Midlands, Northern England, Scotland, etc...)
An interesting point was made down thread that students appear more open to Conservative arguments than they was 20 years ago.
It may be that, to be blunt, "the right" has just got to wait for enough people with memories of the 80's and early 90's to die...
She is Scottish and we are not supposed to be able to influence democracy in the UK.
I don't think anybody objects to Scotland having a say in the running of the UK, MalcolmG. What does concern a number of people is the idea that one party dedicated only to furthering the interests of 15% of the population would have effective veto over 100% of the decisions of the government, including on those matters that would not directly affect Scotland. They believe that the SNP would use this leverage to ensure e.g. a better financial package for Scotland at England's expense, or changes to the English NHS that would be irrelevant in Scotland.
Where Sturgeon may have made an error in the earlier debate is not reiterating that the SNP would abstain in votes on devolved matters. Or did she do so and I missed it?
Considering England have had the power to trash the 15% of people in Scotland for 300 hundred years it is a bit rich to come up with your argument. Now that their rigged system is falling apart they want to change the rules. It just shows up what liars these people are after all the crap during the referendum about "Better Together " , "pooling and sharing" etc. Now when it looks like they are not getting it all their own way and some democracy may be involved they start throwing their toys out of the pram. Happy to throw us some crumbs as long as we don't get so uppity as to expect to actually be able to make decisions.
Scotland seems to be doing a good job on it's own malc - the SNP have managed to reverse falling unemployment in Scotland quite spectacularly as it continues to fall in the rest of the Uk. Best hope Ed wins in May so rUk can join the misery in time for 2016.
Thanks again to antifrank for his write-up on the constituency odds.
A thought on the Newton Abbot constituency. We still haven't received any election literature from the Conservatives, which is on the face of it very surprising for a seat with a majority less than 1,000, while having several leaflets from the Lib Dems in second place.
We do live in a ward held by a Lib Dem councillor on Teignbridge council who is also facing the voters this year (as the leaflets make clear), so it's possible that the result of the general election in this constituency is seen so far as a foregone conclusion that the Tories are putting the effort in elsewhere, and the effort from the Lib Dems is focussed on holding their councillors so that they have a base from which to rebuild in the next Parliament.
All the anecdotal stuff does seem to point towards underwhelming effort being put in by parties against the yellow peril where they are challengers.
Not Torbay mind, this formed part of the calculation to take the 9-4 on Kevin when the markets opened
That is virtually full employment and no inflation at all. I feel a dose of MacMillan coming on. The electorate are ungrateful bastards, they really are.
We hear much, notably in the comments below the line at newspaper websites, about the greed, dishonesty, short-termism and venality of politicians, but frankly it pales beside the greed, dishonesty, short-termism and venality of the electorate.
Considering England have had the power to trash the 15% of people in Scotland for 300 hundred years it is a bit rich to come up with your argument. Now that their rigged system is falling apart they want to change the rules. It just shows up what liars these people are after all the crap during the referendum about "Better Together " , "pooling and sharing" etc. Now when it looks like they are not getting it all their own way and some democracy may be involved they start throwing their toys out of the pram. Happy to throw us some crumbs as long as we don't get so uppity as to expect to actually be able to make decisions.
Have a quick think about how much influence Scotland had over England for much of those 300 years. I think you'll find it was considerable - certainly far higher than the proportion of its population would normally have given it. Work out how many Prime Ministers, Cabinet Ministers, top businessmen, top academics, even lawyers and doctors were Scottish (the old joke is that 'every English seaside town had a Scottish doctor'). Whereas what the SNP seem to want is not so much a partnership as a deliberate wrecking move.
If you had been talking about Ireland, or even Wales, maybe I'd agree. But not Scotland.
Patrick's election / 2015 prediction: 1. Ed is crap is PM - propped up by the SNP 2. The long overdue market event comes along. (not because of 1 above but not helped by it!). 'Sell in May and go away'. 3. Equities collapse, bond markets collapse, Eurozone and other banks go under. 2008 all over again only worse. 4. Sovereign defaults. The 'Oh Shit' moment that years of 'extend and pretend' has been postponing is here. 5. Depression / global GDP retrenchment. 6. Fiat currencies all looking a bit worthless. Paper assets are worth paper. 7. Tax revenues collapse and jobs destroyed en masse. 8. Japan, the Eurozone GIPSIs, France, and many others become technically insolvent. EU crisis of epic proportions. They have no ammunition left to fire at this. 9. EICIPM faces some horrific choices - actually not choices but forced decisions. The UK's ability to borrow is gone along with everyone else's. And you thought 2010-2015 was 'austerity' as spending increased every year from a high base. 10. Huge economic imbalances built up over decades unwind themselves. Debts are wiped - and also credits. 11. Wallace is our PM in the moment of our greateset need.
So, the debate was watched by less than 10% of the electorate.
Let's brace ourselves for polls where 70% of respondents claim to have watched the whole thing.
lmao!!!
terrible audience share for bbc 1 prime time. bet nearly everyone was a decided voter too.
this has been a terrible election so far but then the parliament was pretty boring. Fixed terms good for democracy? makes you wonder doesn't it? Or has the world just moved on from politics? We create our memes, our lives, our decisions from social media these days not from berks in westminster, brussels or strassbourg.
I believe that the public cares more about politics when things have gone wrong, in the same way that concern about the economy rises during recessions. When everything is going smoothly then their own lives (or that of celebrities) is more interesting than politics.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union we've lost the great post-war political division. Interest spiked somewhat in 2010 as we were at the precipice of disaster. The coalition has done a great job of pulling us back from the edge, but that means a resumption of general boredom with politics too.
Maybe most people just understand that the financial crisis in 2008 was an international one that hit all economies regardless of their political make-up. Not everybody buys into the Mail's view of the world.
Our financial crisis was building up long before 2008 with £1 out of every £4 being borrowed money. All the financial crisis of 2008 did was to make people admit that such a stupid strategy was untenable.
The 2008 crisis is long gone, the enormous, eye-watering debt accrued by Labour pre-2008 is still with us.
One might say it is still with us because the Tories have failed to do anything about in 5 years despite all the rhetoric about impending armaggedon in 2010. One could be excused for thinking that all the terrible things we were told would ensue if we didn't reduce the debt was Tory posturing - it hasn't reduced and we are still here and the Tories now seem to be promising to spend money in all directions in the run up to May.
Amazingly good employment numbers..highest on record..
Hardly as important as a debate is it ?
All these great economic figures just highlight's further two points:
1. How terrible Cameron, Osborne and Lynton Crosby are at politics.
2. How toxic the Tory brand must still be with the electorate.
This is an election that the Tories should be walking. Historians will look back in 50 years time and wonder how it was that the Conservatives blew it (like they blew 2010).
I do think we may be nearing the point when the Tories/Conservatives have to admit that their brand is effectively Ratnered and they have to launch an entirely new party under an entirely new name...
I think Boris as leader, with Ed leading a rapidly unpopular weak government should obviate the need for a Tory re-brand.
An interesting point was made down thread that students appear more open to Conservative arguments than they was 20 years ago. .
weird this but thats what i get from them too. lots of anti-miliband stuff which surprises me a lot
Considering England have had the power to trash the 15% of people in Scotland for 300 hundred years it is a bit rich to come up with your argument.
Excuse me? It was the scots who asked for the Act of Union after the Darien scheme bankrupted their economy. If you want to leave then why not have a referendum and see what the result is?
Patrick's election / 2015 prediction: 1. Ed is crap is PM - propped up by the SNP 2. The long overdue market event comes along. (not because of 1 above but not helped by it!). 'Sell in May and go away'. 3. Equities collapse, bond markets collapse, Eurozone and other banks go under. 2008 all over again only worse. 4. Sovereign defaults. The 'Oh Shit' moment that years of 'extend and pretend' has been postponing is here. 5. Depression / global GDP retrenchment. 6. Fiat currencies all looking a bit worthless. Paper assets are worth paper. 7. Tax revenues collapse and jobs destroyed en masse. 8. Japan, the Eurozone GIPSIs, France, and many others become technically insolvent. EU crisis of epic proportions. They have no ammunition left to fire at this. 9. EICIPM faces some horrific choices - actually not choices but forced decisions. The UK's ability to borrow is gone along with everyone else's. And you thought 2010-2015 was 'austerity' as spending increased every year from a high base. 10. Huge economic imbalances built up over decades unwind themselves. Debts are wiped - and also credits. 11. Wallace is our PM in the moment of our greateset need.
Maybe most people just understand that the financial crisis in 2008 was an international one that hit all economies regardless of their political make-up. Not everybody buys into the Mail's view of the world.
Our financial crisis was building up long before 2008 with £1 out of every £4 being borrowed money. All the financial crisis of 2008 did was to make people admit that such a stupid strategy was untenable.
The 2008 crisis is long gone, the enormous, eye-watering debt accrued by Labour pre-2008 is still with us.
One might say it is still with us because the Tories have failed to do anything about in 5 years despite all the rhetoric about impending armaggedon in 2010. One could be excused for thinking that all the terrible things we were told would ensue if we didn't reduce the debt was Tory posturing - it hasn't reduced and we are still here and the Tories now seem to be promising to spend money in all directions in the run up to May.
Representative democracy, among other things, is a system for maximising public debt. Until someone - here or anywhere else - can show me (show, not just say) a safer place for my savings than gilts, gilts are where they'll be.
Because safety is the prime concern of most individual savers, who, like me, are pensioners.
Victoria Derbyshire show today had TEN guests (members of public with expressed VI), one from each party and a couple undecideds. Only one was from Scotland (the only SNP supporter).
Panel - 8 Sturgeon, 1 tie Sturgeon.Miliband (the Labour person), 1 Farage (the Kipper).
The Survation fantasy poll was ridiculous but I'm sure it doesn't help all those that lost money knowing they backed the right horse but lost on a technicality. BTW, Survation added "ignoring party preferences who did Best" as a later question. Sturgeon stormed it.
Nowhere has the disappointment been more acute than in Eduction, all the promise of Gove that there would be huge change, I have three teenagers and I see no improvement, quite the opposite.
As I said, at least Gove tried, but he got the diagnosis wrong. He thought it was about poor teaching and low standards. The real problem was about prescriptive content, an overload of work and an inspection regime too often staffed by duff teachers (Woodhead, Gilbert in particular were ejected from the classroom with great rapidity because they were no good).
The key problem in the state sector is and always has been that class sizes are much too large for the education that we are expected to offer. The ideal class size is around 16-20. In the state sector, the average size is around 28, and there are examples in the inner cities of classes well over 30 (e.g. in Bristol I had a class size of 34). A smaller class relieves the pressure on marking and paperwork, it makes control of the class easier, reducing indiscipline and lack of focus, and it allows more time with individual children.
However, does anyone see this being proposed to sort out our problems?
Somebody will doubtless quote China or France. Yes, they get good exam results with larger classes. However, the teachers turn up and talk, the children sit and listen. If they step out of line, they will be severely punished and they know it. Not sure that's quite the sort of class I want to teach - I had a spell of lecturing and it can be quite dull. It also tends to inhibit cognitive development and while effective in say, maths, usually inhibits creative and original thinking in languages (as for the liberal arts...).
Agree on the class sizes, smaller class sizes has to be a way forwards. Poor teaching and low standards is though a major problem, especially in early years, inspection regime easily got around if the school leadership has the desire, or ability to do that. Many schools that are rated good or outstanding are actually poor, our local comp is one of them.
Gove talked a good game but in the end the status quo remained, not much has changed and his much needed changes to GCSE'S and A'Levels will be watered down in the end.
Amazingly good employment numbers..highest on record..
Hardly as important as a debate is it ?
All these great economic figures just highlight's further two points:
1. How terrible Cameron, Osborne and Lynton Crosby are at politics.
2. How toxic the Tory brand must still be with the electorate.
This is an election that the Tories should be walking. Historians will look back in 50 years time and wonder how it was that the Conservatives blew it (like they blew 2010).
I do think we may be nearing the point when the Tories/Conservatives have to admit that their brand is effectively Ratnered and they have to launch an entirely new party under an entirely new name...
Bit early for post mortems ?
Well, even if they struggle to some sort of minority government, that will be nowhere near as good as they should be doing given the circumstances.
There is something very inherently wrong with the way the electorate and the Conservative Party connect and we're now into the third decade of this...
At some point, someone in the Tories will have to bite the bullet and confront what's going wrong.
Disbanding the party and starting again is probably something that should have happened after 1997.... They did get close with the "nasty party" stuff but didn't follow it through to it's natural conclusion.
Wouldn't all existing Conservatives simply decamp to the new party? Changing a name is one thing, but how would substantive change come about and what would it need to be in your view?
Considering England have had the power to trash the 15% of people in Scotland for 300 hundred years it is a bit rich to come up with your argument.
Excuse me? It was the scots who asked for the Act of Union after the Darien scheme bankrupted their economy. If you want to leave then why not have a referendum and see what the result is?
A nationwide referendum, and not just Scotland. Seems fair.
Maybe most people just understand that the financial crisis in 2008 was an international one that hit all economies regardless of their political make-up. Not everybody buys into the Mail's view of the world.
Our financial crisis was building up long before 2008 with £1 out of every £4 being borrowed money. All the financial crisis of 2008 did was to make people admit that such a stupid strategy was untenable.
The 2008 crisis is long gone, the enormous, eye-watering debt accrued by Labour pre-2008 is still with us.
One might say it is still with us because the Tories have failed to do anything about in 5 years despite all the rhetoric about impending armaggedon in 2010. One could be excused for thinking that all the terrible things we were told would ensue if we didn't reduce the debt was Tory posturing - it hasn't reduced and we are still here and the Tories now seem to be promising to spend money in all directions in the run up to May.
Not this canard again. Yes the deficit has been reduced, not just once but every year.
The debt can't be reduced unless the deficit is eliminated, but that isn't plausible overnight when you're spending 4 pounds for every 3 raised.
Agree on the class sizes, smaller class sizes has to be a way forwards. Poor teaching and low standards is though a major problem, especially in early years.
Has it occurred to you the two might be linked? 40% of teachers quit teaching within five years because it is impossible to maintain a work-life balance. Who leaves? The best ones. Because the bad ones (a) don't care about getting it right anyway and (b) can't get other jobs (except possibly in OFSTED).
With regard to GCSEs and A-levels, I'm worried that they are being rushed in. The new GCSE spec for RE (which I also teach) is due for examination in 2018, yet I have just been told that it won't be approved and available until October. Small problem - I teach the RE GCSE over three years. So do around 20% of other schools. So it seems not unreasonable to expect chaos this September. (The history GCSE has been released in draft over the last few weeks - in my view it's cutting it fine, but at least it's there). In many ways the content is an improvement - however, delivering the new history A-level is going to be fiendishly difficult without access to a university library, or JSTOR at the very least.
And don't forget, Hunt has promised to cancel the A-level changes next month if Labour win...so we've got real uncertainty over that (which is very expensive as well as annoying).
WRT age cohorts, this morning's Yougov poll has 50% of 40-59 year olds supporting either the Conservatives or UKIP, so it's not a particularly left wing age cohort.
If Major and Mandy both come out extremely prominently in the last week, that's GSM to the Tories.
I think politicians grow more credible with age. Look at Hague. It seems like as UK politicians get older, they become less interested in the trappings of power which is a great shame.
A re-run of the 2001 election would be interesting now- Blair and Brown versus Hague and Portillo (as they are now), both teams with the years under their belt, without being tarnished by power and being more grounded human beings. That ambition that fires 30 something males leads to their political careers being over by the time they are in their early 50's- it'll be the same for Cameron, Osborne, Clegg and Miliband- and I guess all of them will be better people when they are in their 50's, and better still when they reach their 60's. The cult of youth and ambition- it deprives the country of these talented people when they are older and wiser. Hague leaving the HoC is a great loss for politics.
Victoria Derbyshire show today had TEN guests (members of public with expressed VI), one from each party and a couple undecideds. Only one was from Scotland (the only SNP supporter).
Panel - 8 Sturgeon, 1 tie Sturgeon.Miliband (the Labour person), 1 Farage (the Kipper).
The Survation fantasy poll was ridiculous but I'm sure it doesn't help all those that lost money knowing they backed the right horse but lost on a technicality. BTW, Survation added "ignoring party preferences who did Best" as a later question. Sturgeon stormed it.
It's fairly obvious from most of the polling that Ed's improved approval rating is largely pre-existing Labour voters who are glad he hasn't spilt a bottle of ketchup down the front of his shirt on TV.
I can only see that helping Labour insofar as they may get some people out to vote who were inclined to abstain.
Only saw the edited highlights of the debate on the news, but heard the last half hour on 5Live in the car. The Ed/Nicola slanging match was the only high point for the Tories methinks, and what I saw and heard reinforced my view that Cameron made a HUGE strategic mistake allowing this debate to happen without his presence. Who on earth at CCHQ thought it sensible, 3 weeks before a GE, to allow all the opposition parties bar one to have 90 minutes of prime time BBC1 to attack you personally as a coward too frit to turn up and to attack your record without any right of reply?
What a stupid election-losing cretin that man is.
Of course Ed and the others put the boot in. Why wouldn't they. Fair play to them.
EdM looks more and more prime ministerial as every day passes in this campaign, he hasn't put a foot wrong. Whereas Dave just coasts along, hardly bothering.
I'm warming to Ed. There's something in my make-up that, politics of it aside, wants Ed to win just for doing a good job, being human, and socking it to his detractors. And wants Dave to vanish into obscurity pronto, for turning out to be one of the biggest disappointments, wet blankets and let-downs in living memory.
I never thought Ed was as bad as people claimed but I too have been more impressed than I thought I would be by his sheer doggedness, if nothing else.
Cameron should have debated. If you want power; if you think you have the right way forward for a country you should be out there day in day our arguing your case, however hard it might be. You can't imagine Thatcher turning away from a debate. I was never so impressed by her as in the debate in Parliament on the day she resigned.
I have very strong reservations about whether Labour as they are currently are the right party to be forming the mrct government but - Hobson's choice this - if it's a choice between a Labour majority or Labour having to share power with the SNP, PC or, God help us, Galloway, I'd prefer the former.
Thatcher wasn't an empty vessel and knew what she was about. Cameron is neither, so whilst he can deliver a prepared setpiece with panache and confidence, he's in no position to be a good debater.
PT On a literal basis if anyone is not in a job and claiming benefits then there is not full employment, even if I accept for statistical purposes a rate of 3% may be close to it
Dair The only semi scientific poll of the few that bothered to watch had Miliband narrowly ahead, not that it will make virtually any difference to voting intention anyway
PT On a literal basis if anyone is not in a job and claiming benefits then there is not full employment, even if I accept for statistical purposes a rate of 3% may be close to it
Economic definitions of full employment exclude "frictional" unemployment. Frictional unemployment is impossible to avoid and it'd be bad for the system if it never happened (it means people would be trapped in the wrong jobs).
On a literal basis that could be interpreted as meaning no long-term unemployed though and that is unlikely to ever happen.
asjohnstone Depends, young people are more socially liberal on issues like gay marriage and slightly more on immigration, they don't believe in too generous benefits or high taxes, but they still support the NHS and investment in key public services
Pushed out quite a few miles this week driving around the rural backwaters between Marlborough, Chippenham and the New Forest area. Would normally expect to see several posters in fields abutting the roads but just as in town, these have simply not materialised for this election. – Most noticeable is the lack of yellow diamonds, make of that what you will.
PT On a literal basis if anyone is not in a job and claiming benefits then there is not full employment, even if I accept for statistical purposes a rate of 3% may be close to it
How would someone like me count in the figures? Someone who has chucked in their job, however temporarily, and is not currently seeking work. Am I classed as jobless or economically inactive?
GIN1138 The last time the Tories won majorities was in the 80s and early 90s
This is a rather meaningless statistic. The last time the Tories won an election was the last election and the last time they had the PM was ... right now. There have only been 4 elections since "the early 90s" and the Tories won one of those.
That is virtually full employment and no inflation at all. I feel a dose of MacMillan coming on. The electorate are ungrateful bastards, they really are.
Under the SNP , unemployment is going the opposite direction - why does Ed want to team up with a job destroying party ?
Scottish unemployment is rising because there is a significant reduction in employment in the north sea. Much of this is hidden because most people that work there are contractors not employees and their contracts are simply not renewed.
It is yet another threat that Scotland would be vulnerable to if Sturgeon gets her full fiscal autonomy as her price for letting Ed pretend he is in power for a while.
PT On a literal basis if anyone is not in a job and claiming benefits then there is not full employment, even if I accept for statistical purposes a rate of 3% may be close to it
How would someone like me count in the figures? Someone who has chucked in their job, however temporarily, and is not currently seeking work. Am I classed as jobless or economically inactive?
(and no, lazy is not an acceptable answer) ;-)
Economically inactive.
Only those looking for a job are unemployed. If you'd only just chucked in your job and are currently looking for a new one and confidently expect to get one soon you'd fall under "frictional" unemployment.
Frictional unemployment, that is people between jobs was historically thought to be about 5%. There are a lot of reasons for thinking it might be somewhat higher now. 5.6% is pretty much full employment as I said.
Of course many of those would like better jobs, more secure jobs and longer hours than they have at the moment. But it is an amazing record, it really is.
I didn't watch the debate but Farage moaning about the audience won't do him any harm. There is a feeling of resentment in Ukip about being lectured to by others.
The Guardian video about Boston shows the problem well. If your school class sizes have been increased and English has become a minority language in them, you might well take umbrage about being called a racist and lectured to by a middle class know-it-all whose kids go to a nice fee-paying school with small class sizes.
In some, there is an element of racism but not all. These are white European immigrants who have come en-mass to a small rural area. The farmers are pleased, the food factory owners are pleased and those who lose out are dismissed as fruitcakes and loons.
Farage did say something sensible. He pointed out that it was a result of market forces. Loads of workers for the jobs available. Ed's wibble on immigration is to let them all come and somehow distort the market to encourage local workers.
Childish and unworkable as I'm sure he knows. Lithuanian workers want work more than British workers because they have poorer welfare benefits back in Lithuania. Ed will never suggest dropping welfare benefits for the immigrants, and he shouldn't, but demonising the locals for what seems perfectly logical actions because it doesn't fit with his preconceptions, is spiteful.
I worked on the land virtually every school holiday from age thirteen to university age because there as no option. I can't blame others for having options. .
That is virtually full employment and no inflation at all. I feel a dose of MacMillan coming on. The electorate are ungrateful bastards, they really are.
Under the SNP , unemployment is going the opposite direction - why does Ed want to team up with a job destroying party ?
Scottish unemployment is rising because there is a significant reduction in employment in the north sea. Much of this is hidden because most people that work there are contractors not employees and their contracts are simply not renewed.
It is yet another threat that Scotland would be vulnerable to if Sturgeon gets her full fiscal autonomy as her price for letting Ed pretend he is in power for a while.
Not just that - socialist tinkering taking its toll
"The lowering of the legal drink-drive limit in Scotland has affected business in the hospitality sector, according to a new report.
The Bank of Scotland said restaurants and bars were seeing "a changing pattern of spending" because of the new law, which came into force in December.
The comments came in the bank's latest survey of Scottish purchasing managers. Its PMI report indicated a slight fall in overall service sector activity last month.
In February, purchasing consortium Beacon published a survey of hospitality sector customers that suggested Scottish businesses saw bar sales drop by up to 60% in the two months after the introduction of the new limit."
Comments
"4.3m watched the debate last night"
That's a lot of people for a political programme and then there are all the news clips and the radio.......I'm surprised. Makes Dave's decision even more ill thought out
A little taste the SNP-Labour government - coming nationwide..
Unemployment in Scotland rose by 9,000 in the three months to February and now stands at 167,000, according to official statistics.
It was the second rise in a row, following an increase of 6,000 in the previous set of figures.
Data from the Office for National Statistics also showed UK unemployment falling by 76,000 to 1.84 million.
The unemployment rate in Scotland is now 6%, compared with 5.6% for the UK as a whole.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-32348656
http://www.suttonguardian.co.uk/news/12893354.Lib_Dem_linked_church_received_more_than_quarter_of_a_million_pounds_from_company_hoping_to_build_South_London_Incinerator/?cmpid=cmt.
Lib Dem councillor suspended because of telling all basically..
http://www.suttonguardian.co.uk/news/12894449.Lib_Dem_who_opposed_Sutton_Council_s_incinerator_plan_suspended/
What do you think Mr Senior?
This is quite a contrast with previous elections. In the past there were a lot of LibDem posters around (although a safe Conservative seat, the LibDems used to put in a respectable performance here and had quite a lot of local councillors until recently). More surprising perhaps is the lack of UKIP posters - there were quite a lot for for the Euro elections, but so far at least not this time round.
"To put it another way: 24.6m people were watching TV last night. 20.3m of them chose not to watch the BBC debate."
Another way of looking at it is that it was watched by 1 in 5 voters or twice as many people as are likely to vote Lib Dem
Changing the names of the parties won't fool anyone. One way to create new parties for the UK would be to switch from FPTP to STV, within a decade there will have been realignment. FPTP is what is stopping people voting for their real first choice and it's ensuring the continuation of the main parties (which in themselves are coalitions) because it's difficult to get re-elected outside of the main parties.
Danny Alexander sounded furious that Clegg wasn't in it this morning on the radio.
The key problem in the state sector is and always has been that class sizes are much too large for the education that we are expected to offer. The ideal class size is around 16-20. In the state sector, the average size is around 28, and there are examples in the inner cities of classes well over 30 (e.g. in Bristol I had a class size of 34). A smaller class relieves the pressure on marking and paperwork, it makes control of the class easier, reducing indiscipline and lack of focus, and it allows more time with individual children.
However, does anyone see this being proposed to sort out our problems?
Somebody will doubtless quote China or France. Yes, they get good exam results with larger classes. However, the teachers turn up and talk, the children sit and listen. If they step out of line, they will be severely punished and they know it. Not sure that's quite the sort of class I want to teach - I had a spell of lecturing and it can be quite dull. It also tends to inhibit cognitive development and while effective in say, maths, usually inhibits creative and original thinking in languages (as for the liberal arts...).
You can make an argument that in the 80s this was the case. Normal people were able to buy a house and drive cars who weren't able to do so in earlier decades. University education was subsidised so that people from modest backgrounds could join the growing professional class. Real wages for most people were rising.
This simply is not the case now. Home ownership is in long-term decline. Distance travelled by car is also declining. Going to University now means taking on a massive pile of debt, and an almost permanent extra 9% on your income tax. The economy has added lots of jobs over the last few years because wages have fallen behind inflation, and the government has had to increase the personal allowance rapidly to ameliorate that squeeze.
The message that "if you work hard you will get ahead" doesn't have the ring of truth about it that it might have had in the 80s. Too many people are working hard to stand still, to pay off the mortgage of the buy-to-let investor they rent their home from, to make a return for the hedge fund that has bought out their employer and to put money into the pockets oil-rich despots.
In response to this loss of business, the US weakened its own regulatory structure to keep the US financial industry competitive. The rest is history.
Labour always finds a way to wreck something we never realised could even be wrecked. We expect filthy hospitals and bad schools of Labour, but probably nobody in the 1960s thought the car industry could be completely wrecked and certainly nobody in 1997 was expecting pensions to be wrecked. One wonders what, exactly, Labour will wreck next. There will be some sort of tax attack on homes and savings, clearly.
I am more intrigued about what effect this will have on the circulation of his newspapers. Will more people turn to the Express or Star because of this support?
(*) Is it true that £300k of this was given at the end of last year?
If Panelbase suggest 26 million will either "definitely" or "probably" watch the debate, but only 4 million do then either:
A: Panelbase responders are liars
B: Panelbase methodology is broken
C: Panelbase responders are unrepresentative.
Either way it's concerning. I suspect a mix of A and C personally.
Cameron should have debated. If you want power; if you think you have the right way forward for a country you should be out there day in day our arguing your case, however hard it might be. You can't imagine Thatcher turning away from a debate. I was never so impressed by her as in the debate in Parliament on the day she resigned.
I have very strong reservations about whether Labour as they are currently are the right party to be forming the mrct government but - Hobson's choice this - if it's a choice between a Labour majority or Labour having to share power with the SNP, PC or, God help us, Galloway, I'd prefer the former.
Except the Conservatives went on to win, with an increased majority.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/20/newsid_3728000/3728225.stm
Terrible viewing share for prime time bbc 1.
Dross.
Where Sturgeon may have made an error in the earlier debate is not reiterating that the SNP would abstain in votes on devolved matters. Or did she do so and I missed it?
Remember too that the bbc then gave William Hague a free run of nearly 10 minutes prime time uninterrupted to set out tory policy which was gobsmacking - that they did it, not the policies.
... start test ... George Osborne has been the best chancellor ever ... end test ...
If you have passed that test, then welcome, new poster!
If you have failed that test, then welcome back, Tim!
Also the messaging has been easier for Labour. They say tax cuts for millionaires the Tories say tax optimization as modelled by treasury. They say bedroom tax the Tories say providing incentives to occupy the correct sized property in order to meet needs of those on waiting lists.
The economic turnaround seems to have happened too late. People just don't feel better off yet.
Finally the mood is still anti politics. So banker bashing is in vogue. So is talking down posh people in general. Personally I don't think it matters where you studied everyone should be treated equally even Etonians. I don't think Cameron is in touch because he is a politician and I think the same of Clegg and Miliband. Interestingly I think the strength of Ukip lies there. When I see farage in a pub he looks like it is home turf, whereas the others look like photo op seekers.
A Labour Majority is likely to mean 5 years of misery whereas a minority collapses down around it's ears shortly after the next Holyrood elections. A Labour minority is far more likely to bring in a big Tory majority than a Labour majority where I can see Labour cementing in for about the next 20 years.
A Labour majority would be terrible for the country.
A big burly rugby playing guy I know with a great big black bushy beard has managed to get past passport control whilst off to a stag do using his girlfriends passport in error!!!!!
That person must really have been paying attention!
The news clips / newspaper coverage is something that QT doesn't get.
but not to any great extent. No game changers yet & i guess from that you have to say the real winners are the tories in that last night could've been a disaster. cunning cunning cameron.
Forecast Election Day Seats
Con : 323
Lab : 280
LD : 20
Con largest party, but short of a majority by 3
There's been more discussion of the manifestos this time around because there hasn't been 3-4 solid weeks of the broadcast media having repeated crises over how terribly exciting the run-up to the debates, the debates and the post-debate analyses are.
Mr. Pulpstar, depends how a minority goes. Labour could **** up English devolution very seriously either way.
Add in the millions who saw the news clips, all getting to see more of this Ed chap and a load of politicians toxifying the Tory brand further without reply, and that's another huge tactical mistake by Team Dave.
I'm actually getting quite excited about seeing the back of him this year.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CCxlFfmWEAEWMQt.jpg
Let's brace ourselves for polls where 70% of respondents claim to have watched the whole thing.
EDIT: I actually thought you meant Mike Hancock there, which would have been all too appropriate...
" Roger- come to the Victoria at Beeston (Broxtowe) on the 5th May for a pre election night."
I'll see if I can do that
The SNP cannot say it wants what is best for the United Kingdom because it wants the United Kingdom to end, and has something to gain by causing discord within the country.
I disagree with other parties, but none of those seeks to break up the union.
You have to wonder if we have sacrificed productivity in the name of full employment? Sometimes a bit of churn in the labour market isn't a bad thing.
terrible audience share for bbc 1 prime time. bet nearly everyone was a decided voter too.
this has been a terrible election so far but then the parliament was pretty boring. Fixed terms good for democracy? makes you wonder doesn't it? Or has the world just moved on from politics? We create our memes, our lives, our decisions from social media these days not from berks in westminster, brussels or strassbourg.
Now 4 million is a great audience share? On primetime BBC following Eastenders?
A thought on the Newton Abbot constituency. We still haven't received any election literature from the Conservatives, which is on the face of it very surprising for a seat with a majority less than 1,000, while having several leaflets from the Lib Dems in second place.
We do live in a ward held by a Lib Dem councillor on Teignbridge council who is also facing the voters this year (as the leaflets make clear), so it's possible that the result of the general election in this constituency is seen so far as a foregone conclusion that the Tories are putting the effort in elsewhere, and the effort from the Lib Dems is focussed on holding their councillors so that they have a base from which to rebuild in the next Parliament.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CCyPhBeWIAA2Vcq.jpg
An interesting point was made down thread that students appear more open to Conservative arguments than they was 20 years ago.
It may be that, to be blunt, "the right" has just got to wait for enough people with memories of the 80's and early 90's to die...
Not Torbay mind, this formed part of the calculation to take the 9-4 on Kevin when the markets opened
When I studied Economics at uni figures between 3-5% were the norm for discussing "full" employment.
If you had been talking about Ireland, or even Wales, maybe I'd agree. But not Scotland.
1. Ed is crap is PM - propped up by the SNP
2. The long overdue market event comes along. (not because of 1 above but not helped by it!). 'Sell in May and go away'.
3. Equities collapse, bond markets collapse, Eurozone and other banks go under. 2008 all over again only worse.
4. Sovereign defaults. The 'Oh Shit' moment that years of 'extend and pretend' has been postponing is here.
5. Depression / global GDP retrenchment.
6. Fiat currencies all looking a bit worthless. Paper assets are worth paper.
7. Tax revenues collapse and jobs destroyed en masse.
8. Japan, the Eurozone GIPSIs, France, and many others become technically insolvent. EU crisis of epic proportions. They have no ammunition left to fire at this.
9. EICIPM faces some horrific choices - actually not choices but forced decisions. The UK's ability to borrow is gone along with everyone else's. And you thought 2010-2015 was 'austerity' as spending increased every year from a high base.
10. Huge economic imbalances built up over decades unwind themselves. Debts are wiped - and also credits.
11. Wallace is our PM in the moment of our greateset need.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union we've lost the great post-war political division. Interest spiked somewhat in 2010 as we were at the precipice of disaster. The coalition has done a great job of pulling us back from the edge, but that means a resumption of general boredom with politics too.
Because safety is the prime concern of most individual savers, who, like me, are pensioners.
Panel - 8 Sturgeon, 1 tie Sturgeon.Miliband (the Labour person), 1 Farage (the Kipper).
The Survation fantasy poll was ridiculous but I'm sure it doesn't help all those that lost money knowing they backed the right horse but lost on a technicality. BTW, Survation added "ignoring party preferences who did Best" as a later question. Sturgeon stormed it.
Gove talked a good game but in the end the status quo remained, not much has changed and his much needed changes to GCSE'S and A'Levels will be watered down in the end.
The debt can't be reduced unless the deficit is eliminated, but that isn't plausible overnight when you're spending 4 pounds for every 3 raised.
With regard to GCSEs and A-levels, I'm worried that they are being rushed in. The new GCSE spec for RE (which I also teach) is due for examination in 2018, yet I have just been told that it won't be approved and available until October. Small problem - I teach the RE GCSE over three years. So do around 20% of other schools. So it seems not unreasonable to expect chaos this September. (The history GCSE has been released in draft over the last few weeks - in my view it's cutting it fine, but at least it's there). In many ways the content is an improvement - however, delivering the new history A-level is going to be fiendishly difficult without access to a university library, or JSTOR at the very least.
And don't forget, Hunt has promised to cancel the A-level changes next month if Labour win...so we've got real uncertainty over that (which is very expensive as well as annoying).
I think politicians grow more credible with age. Look at Hague. It seems like as UK politicians get older, they become less interested in the trappings of power which is a great shame.
A re-run of the 2001 election would be interesting now- Blair and Brown versus Hague and Portillo (as they are now), both teams with the years under their belt, without being tarnished by power and being more grounded human beings.
That ambition that fires 30 something males leads to their political careers being over by the time they are in their early 50's- it'll be the same for Cameron, Osborne, Clegg and Miliband- and I guess all of them will be better people when they are in their 50's, and better still when they reach their 60's.
The cult of youth and ambition- it deprives the country of these talented people when they are older and wiser. Hague leaving the HoC is a great loss for politics.
Spot on!
I can only see that helping Labour insofar as they may get some people out to vote who were inclined to abstain.
http://www.populus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/OmFT-Poll.pdf
Page 6 tells the tale of Ed.
8% think he's done much better than expected. The demographics most inclined to have this view are C2DE, public sector workers, Labour VI.
Those saying 'A bit better' are hardly providing a ringing endorsement given Ed's personal baseline.
On a literal basis that could be interpreted as meaning no long-term unemployed though and that is unlikely to ever happen.
Campaign poster update for South Wiltshire:
Pushed out quite a few miles this week driving around the rural backwaters between Marlborough, Chippenham and the New Forest area. Would normally expect to see several posters in fields abutting the roads but just as in town, these have simply not materialised for this election. – Most noticeable is the lack of yellow diamonds, make of that what you will.
(and no, lazy is not an acceptable answer) ;-)
It is yet another threat that Scotland would be vulnerable to if Sturgeon gets her full fiscal autonomy as her price for letting Ed pretend he is in power for a while.
Only those looking for a job are unemployed. If you'd only just chucked in your job and are currently looking for a new one and confidently expect to get one soon you'd fall under "frictional" unemployment.
Of course many of those would like better jobs, more secure jobs and longer hours than they have at the moment. But it is an amazing record, it really is.
The Guardian video about Boston shows the problem well. If your school class sizes have been increased and English has become a minority language in them, you might well take umbrage about being called a racist and lectured to by a middle class know-it-all whose kids go to a nice fee-paying school with small class sizes.
In some, there is an element of racism but not all. These are white European immigrants who have come en-mass to a small rural area. The farmers are pleased, the food factory owners are pleased and those who lose out are dismissed as fruitcakes and loons.
Farage did say something sensible. He pointed out that it was a result of market forces. Loads of workers for the jobs available. Ed's wibble on immigration is to let them all come and somehow distort the market to encourage local workers.
Childish and unworkable as I'm sure he knows. Lithuanian workers want work more than British workers because they have poorer welfare benefits back in Lithuania. Ed will never suggest dropping welfare benefits for the immigrants, and he shouldn't, but demonising the locals for what seems perfectly logical actions because it doesn't fit with his preconceptions, is spiteful.
I worked on the land virtually every school holiday from age thirteen to university age because there as no option. I can't blame others for having options.
.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-32248834
"The lowering of the legal drink-drive limit in Scotland has affected business in the hospitality sector, according to a new report.
The Bank of Scotland said restaurants and bars were seeing "a changing pattern of spending" because of the new law, which came into force in December.
The comments came in the bank's latest survey of Scottish purchasing managers.
Its PMI report indicated a slight fall in overall service sector activity last month.
In February, purchasing consortium Beacon published a survey of hospitality sector customers that suggested Scottish businesses saw bar sales drop by up to 60% in the two months after the introduction of the new limit."