I think it's unlikely many of that 10,000 will vote UKIP. A combination of Tory tacticals and returning 2010 non-voters is what may do the job. Frankly, Labour deserves a kicking in its safe, working class English bastions, just as it does in Scotland. The only trouble is in England it will deliver right wing MPs that despise trade unions, social solidarity, the welfare state, the NHS and so on.
"The only trouble is in England it will deliver right wing MPs that despise trade unions, social solidarity, the welfare state, the NHS and so on."
You are being stupid. As has been happening too much recently.
1) 'Despise trade unions'. You may note that there is a certain amount of antipathy the other way. And where is the evidence for your contention that the new MPs will 'despise' unions?
2) 'Despise social solidarity'. Please clarify what you mean.
3) 'Despise the welfare state'. I can't say I've come across anyone who 'despises' the welfare state; they may think that some of the spending is barmy and wasteful, but that's a very different matter. But the whole welfare state is a necessary result of failure: it would be great if it was not needed. However we do not live in an ideal world. You should note that criticism of something does not equate to 'despising' it.
4) 'Despise the NHS'. Really? Again, criticism does not equate to despising it. However I find it interesting that the a supporter of the party of Burnham, Stafford and Furness says this: you could equally say that Labour despises patients as much as it loves the NHS.
It is becoming clear why you have turned your back on your McBride-inspired undertaking not to vote Labour. You are indeed taking on his mantle.
Yaaaawwwwwnnnnnnn.
How many ways do you have to say that you think I am a venal hypocrite? Really, your obsession with me is rather strange.
For instance: chemistry might be allocated 15 seats. If there are three main chemistry bodies, then each can choose five people to represent their science. Their length of terms are set by the bodies (e.g. life, or year-long terms, or somewhere in between). However the HoL as a whole can throw out someone for misdemeanours, in which case the organisation has to choose someone new.
For instance, the Institute of Civil Engineers could have an allocation of five members; they may choose to elect a person each year to serve five-year terms, and may choose them to represent different sub-disciplines: e.g. water management, tunnelling, bridges, groundworks etc. Chemistry might choose by different criteria.
I'd also allow such experts to take part in, and even chair, select committees.
Corporatism. The last person to try that was Benito Mussolini. Sorry, but the only people who need to be represented are voters.
I know what you mean, but of debate in there on more than one occasion.
But how much of tha
I think the fact it's not elected is important in the independence it exercises, its lack of partisan behaviour and, correspondingly, the limitations that puts on its power. I fear that would be at risk in a wholly elected chamber. There is a precedent for expertise: we have Law Lords and bishops, whom I both think make an interesting contribution. I might settle for a mix of party peers and appointed experts.
I absolutely detest the word Senate, and throwing almost 1,000 years of history down the drain, by the way. We are not a republic.
I would call any revised body the House of Lords. Why not? Even if elected, we already have appointed lords with no aristocratic connections, why not just call those elected in Lords rather than Senators.
Yup, anything could be called the House of Lords. In my Direct Democracy plan you just switch divisions to online voting then ennoble everyone on the electoral register.
Apparently on Marr Ed Miliband just ruled out a confidence and supply with the SNP, which seems relevant to Next PM etc. I suppose that doesn't prevent them from voting for him for PM etc, it just prevents him from officially agreeing with them about what he'd have to do for them to vote for him?
There's been a bit of movement on the next pm markets on Betfair this morning, but yeah he's said nothing new at all. I saw articles about this on Guardian, Telegraph, BBC, etc. days ago. He will be next PM if Labour+SNP is a big enough total. I've been backing him to be PM this morning with odds on the drift.
The drift out to 1.8x is going back below 1.7 soon enough. This looks like an easy trade to me.
Apparently on Marr Ed Miliband just ruled out a confidence and supply with the SNP, which seems relevant to Next PM etc. I suppose that doesn't prevent them from voting for him for PM etc, it just prevents him from officially agreeing with them about what he'd have to do for them to vote for him?
Aldi's are pish-poor: Hence they are prevelant in down-trodden areas. They offer a service but not one an average person would wish to undertake given resources.
Sommerfield used to be pretty good: And then the Co-Op snorted it. The Co-Op ain't bad but I would only go to buy specials.
Tescos is the biz for me. Decent food at a decent price. If only their bakery stayed open longer.
Waitrose and M&S have, limited, high-quality food. Sadly beyond my current budget.
Iceland: Cannot be beaten in cost and quality. Need to buy bigger freezer...!
I find Waitrose is not too bad if shopping for one. It is easier to buy things in small quantities/loose than in other supermarkets so I have less waste. And they are not limited, I can do a full shop in my local (high street, medium-sized) Waitrose which I certainly cannot do in my local equivalently-sized Sainsbury's. Some things are a stupid price, I just don't buy them. I then do a lot of my top-up shopping in Lidl which happens to be convenient for work and sells interesting continental stuff and some things at very keen prices, for example fresh salad stuff. Their smoked salmon is a bargain.
Corporatism. The last person to try that was Benito Mussolini. Sorry, but the only people who need to be represented are voters.
I know what you mean, but I think it's broadly ok for a reforming and redrafting chamber. And no more.
I've lost count of the times an awfully thought through piece of Commons legislation has been sensibly amended by the Lords, or rejected for reconsideration, as they have the knowledge, patience and common sense to know it won't work.
They seem more able to arbitrate dispassionately across party lines on complex issues. I've been impressed by the quality of debate in there on more than one occasion.
I
There is a dearth of scientists, engineers and medics in parliament. We do have Law Lords, who I think make an interesting contribution.
The last thing I want is another body of tired career politicians.
So you would replace it by an undemocratic model where we make an a priori decision that some citizens are more worthy of representation than others. Why should trade unions be represented but not unorganised employees like me (and we are a majority)? etc etc.
Actually I have realised I probably would be represented under the Jessop model as I am still a member of the CIPD. But I wouldn't want them anywhere near Parliament.
It maybe doesn't occur to you that if we put these people in Parliament to (mostly) represent their professions they will vote out of self-interest. Exactly the same reason why my namesake wished to exclude lawyers from Parliament.
I am arguing from the perspective of making the House of Lords an effective revising chamber for the long term. We already have a democratic body in the Commons. The powers of the Lords are highly limited. I think the existing balance of powers works rather well.
The contribution they make is to highlight the facts and points under debate resulting from draft legislation. No one body of interests would have anything like a majority in the Lords to fix it their interests and, if they did, the Commons could reject their amendments and override them.
I agree unorganised employees, like yourself, should also be represented, incidentally. Small businesses, tradesman and shopkeepers should also have a strong voice.
Aldi's are pish-poor: Hence they are prevelant in down-trodden areas. They offer a service but not one an average person would wish to undertake given resources.
Sommerfield used to be pretty good: And then the Co-Op snorted it. The Co-Op ain't bad but I would only go to buy specials.
Tescos is the biz for me. Decent food at a decent price. If only their bakery stayed open longer.
Waitrose and M&S have, limited, high-quality food. Sadly beyond my current budget.
Iceland: Cannot be beaten in cost and quality. Need to buy bigger freezer...!
I find Waitrose is not too bad if shopping for one. It is easier to buy things in small quantities/loose than in other supermarkets so I have less waste. And they are not limited, I can do a full shop in my local (high street, medium-sized) Waitrose which I certainly cannot do in my local equivalently-sized Sainsbury's. Some things are a stupid price, I just don't buy them. I then do a lot of my top-up shopping in Lidl which happens to be convenient for work and sells interesting continental stuff and some things at very keen prices, for example fresh salad stuff. Their smoked salmon is a bargain.
Now the Queen can't dissolve Parliament we have moved closer to being a republic. Commonwealth would be a better word, it encompasses Australia (a monarchy), some states of the USA (republics) and our own first attempt at non-monarchical government. And means much the same thing (res publica = the public realm = the common weal(th))
You are clutching at straws. Just sit back and wait for the Ed Miliband minority government to come in. In the HoC will be 1 to 3 UKIP MPs. Oh, and no referendum on Europe because there were not enough Conservative MPs elected. That is what the polls are saying will happen.
Even assuming the Conservatives had a very good election and won 300-310 seats, it is open to doubt whether a Bill authorising a referendum on EU membership would carry. The Tories would have to rely on the DUP and a dwindling number of backbench Labour Eurosceptics to get it through. The rest of the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Scots would oppose en bloc. Unless they were prepared to devote the whole of a session to the Bill, it is difficult to see how it would pass.
I've just realised that Europe explains Cameron's oddly lacklustre, unhungry approach to this election. Deep down he wants to lose (but not catastrophically) so he will not have to enact his referendum promise.
He's a smart guy. He knows that the referendum will be chaotic and possibly disastrous, splitting the party in two, alienating donors, angering the City, and ruining his own reputation as he has to sell a bogus "reform package" to a skeptical electorate, to get them to vote IN (which is what he clearly wants).
Just a nightmare. Who would want all that for two or three years, dominating everything he does?
How much better to go down as that decent affable PM who ran a modestly competent government, unfairly defeated by scheming socialists who ruined everything, yet again.
If he loses he might be regarded quite fondly. If he wins he has to eat crow.
It isn't just Europe, it's all sorts of other chickens coming home to roost.
Wishful thinking and hallucinations on the part of kippers.
I think it's unlikely many of that 10,000 will vote UKIP. A combination of Tory tacticals and returning 2010 non-voters is what may do the job. Frankly, Labour deserves a kicking in its safe, working class English bastions, just as it does in Scotland. The only trouble is in England it will deliver right wing MPs that despise trade unions, social solidarity, the welfare state, the NHS and so on.
"The only trouble is in England it will deliver right wing MPs that despise trade unions, social solidarity, the welfare state, the NHS and so on."
You are being stupid. As has been happening too much recently.
1) 'Despise trade unions'. You may note that there is a certain amount of antipathy the other way. And where is the evidence for your contention that the new MPs will 'despise' unions?
2) 'Despise social solidarity'. Please clarify what you mean.
3) 'Despise the welfare state'. I can't say I've come across anyone who 'despises' the welfare state; they may think that some of the spending is barmy and wasteful, but that's a very different matter. But the whole welfare state is a necessary result of failure: it would be great if it was not needed. However we do not live in an ideal world. You should note that criticism of something does not equate to 'despising' it.
4) 'Despise the NHS'. Really? Again, criticism does not equate to despising it. However I find it interesting that the a supporter of the party of Burnham, Stafford and Furness says this: you could equally say that Labour despises patients as much as it loves the NHS.
It is becoming clear why you have turned your back on your McBride-inspired undertaking not to vote Labour. You are indeed taking on his mantle.
Yaaaawwwwwnnnnnnn.
How many ways do you have to say that you think I am a venal hypocrite? Really, your obsession with me is rather strange.
I'm not obsessed with you at all. As for 'venal hypocrite': you seem to be rather keen on labelling yourself with nasty terms. I'm starting to wonder if that's because you believe they're true.
It'd be nice if you actually addressed the points, but I've given up on that.
It's not a case of representation; it's a case of getting people in place who can hopefully do a good job at examining and amending HoC legislation. Besides, most people will belong to several groups of the above.
What evidence is there that say a doctor would be any better at scrutinising a Health Bill than the average MP? The simple fact is that there is none. If the people want more doctors, scientists or former prisoners in Parliament, they can always elect them. What is absurd is dividing up a House of Parliament into little more than a congress of favoured vested interests on the specious ground that it would lead to better scrutiny of legislation. If you wanted a chamber to perform that task, then fill it with lawyers.
Voters want to talk about education and the environment so the Tories are going to talk exclusively about the economy they cocked up which will only remind the electorate of the mess Labour will inherit.Ed will look at the figures and find the Tories have left the economy in a worse state than Greece. Also,Clegg has confirmed a LibDem vote is a Tory vote as the Tories are the only game in town for him.Ignore the LibDem-Con marginals,they are both on the same side and will be again.Clegg would sell his soul for a ministerial car.
It's not a case of representation; it's a case of getting people in place who can hopefully do a good job at examining and amending HoC legislation. Besides, most people will belong to several groups of the above.
What evidence is there that say a doctor would be any better at scrutinising a Health Bill than the average MP? The simple fact is that there is none. If the people want more doctors, scientists or former prisoners in Parliament, they can always elect them. What is absurd is dividing up a House of Parliament into little more than a congress of favoured vested interests on the specious ground that it would lead to better scrutiny of legislation. If you wanted a chamber to perform that task, then fill it with lawyers.
Lawyers? I think you need to get a little better at trolling. ;-)
For instance: chemistry might be allocated 15 seats. If there are three main chemistry bodies, then each can choose five people to represent their science. Their length of terms are set by the bodies (e.g. life, or year-long terms, or somewhere in between). However the HoL as a whole can throw out someone for misdemeanours, in which case the organisation has to choose someone new.
I'd also allow such experts to take part in, and even chair, select committees.
Corporatism. The last person to try that was Benito Mussolini. Sorry, but the only people who need to be represented are voters.
I know what you mean, but I think it's broadly ok for a reforming and redrafting chamber. And no more.
They seem more able to arbitrate dispassionately across party lines on complex issues. I've been impressed by the quality of debate in there on more than one occasion.
But how much of that is down to the Lords' career backgrounds and how much to the nature of the Lords itself? After all, most Lords - and an even greater proportion of active Lords - are party appointments.
Surely the reason for thoughtful amendment is that it operates in a less partisan way (not least because the media focus isn't on it)? A chamber filled with politicians but with no party having anything like a majority would be likely to produce a similar outcome. (Ironically, had an elected Senate been in place since 2000, the present government would have probably had a majority, at least to begin with - one good reason for keeping the voting systems for the two chambers distinct).
I think the fact it's not elected is important in the independence it exercises, its lack of partisan behaviour and, correspondingly, the limitations that puts on its power. I fear that would be at risk in a wholly elected chamber. There is a precedent for expertise: we have Law Lords and bishops, whom I both think make an interesting contribution. I might settle for a mix of party peers and appointed experts.
I absolutely detest the word Senate, and throwing almost 1,000 years of history down the drain, by the way. We are not a republic.
Imperial Senate
We can turn the clock back to 1931 and an alternate history "Statute of Westminster" could have set up a directly elected legislature for all British Empire Dominions, Colonies, Dependencies and Territories! Ergo, the "Imperial Senate"!
And then in an alternate history 1977, that august body could have been the inspiration for its namesake in George Lucas's "Star Wars"
Just as a re-cap I think we are looking at something like:
Tory 285 Anti-Tory 320 Non-aligned 40
EICIPM. The DUP plus the Lib Dems might just get Cameron over the line but the majority would be paper thin. An anti-Tory majority seems far more credible.
Anecdote. "Lefty" friend who has recently become quite ukippy in his attitudes (Islam, Guardianistas, etc) told me he was still voting Labour, despite his contempt for most of the party's policies and attitudes.
I asked him why. He was basically unable to explain, despite being highly intelligent. He just mumbled something about the Tories and the NHS, but had no evidence to back it up.
This is one reason why I reckon Labour will scrape a plurality, despite the fact they crashed the country just five years ago. Tribal loyalties persist. And we haven't learned our lessons. This is 1974, not 1979. We need another term of terrible socialist incompetence before we finally Get Real.
Under FPTP, if you believe that a Tory government is the worst outcome then the only logical thing to do is to vote Labour in places where Labour can win. That's not being tribal, it's being practical. I wish there was a practical, left of centre alternative to the current Labour party - it is short on ideas, on over-arching philosophy and on leadership - but there isn't. Hopefully, this will be the last GE fought under FPTP. The SNP result in Scotland, and its massive over-representation, and the UKIP result in England, and its massive under-representation, might just create enough pressure for change. Though probably not. Sadly, Turkeys do not vote for Christmas.
As a 'mature' voter (who is interested in politics 365 days of the year) I despair that EdM should be anywhere near shouting distance of No10. He got a much easier ride on Marr than David Cameron last week. Marr looked quite edgy, perhaps Labour have been turning the thumb-screws. I was not impressed with Boris Johnson either, he is suffering from his years of 'buffoonery' and no matter how serious he intends to be, always comes out with some ridiculous remark. There is no doubt he is a highly intelligent man but an incredibly poor speaker. He stops mid-sentence to think of some classical Greek figure and then gets interrupted and loses the flow of the sentence, thus allowing the interviewer to jump in. Perhaps he needs some 'media training.' I find it hard to believe he didn't know he was going to be ambushed at the end of Marr but seemed totally unprepared for it. He is not the 'star striker' they seem to think he is.
Voters want to talk about education and the environment so the Tories are going to talk exclusively about the economy they cocked up which will only remind the electorate of the mess Labour will inherit.Ed will look at the figures and find the Tories have left the economy in a worse state than Greece. Also,Clegg has confirmed a LibDem vote is a Tory vote as the Tories are the only game in town for him.Ignore the LibDem-Con marginals,they are both on the same side and will be again.Clegg would sell his soul for a ministerial car.
SNP-Lab and LD-Con marginals aren't important for next PM I reckon.
Lib-Lab worth 1/2 as much as Con-Lab. DCT and Berwickshire Roxburgh the most important marginals in Scotland in terms of PM.
Just as a re-cap I think we are looking at something like:
Tory 285 Anti-Tory 320 Non-aligned 40
EICIPM. The DUP plus the Lib Dems might just get Cameron over the line but the majority would be paper thin. An anti-Tory majority seems far more credible.
The Lib Dems will incline to helping to form the most stable government, whichever major party this might involve.
After 25 days, what do I know about the Tory party from their campaign?
They don't like the SNP. They might flog off social housing in a Thatcher lite kind of way. Possibly a few extra quid here and there to garner some votes.
Er, that's it.
You missed out the blindingly obvious and most important thing: that they have been governing well (with support from our LibDem friends) and want to be given the chance to continue to do so, in the interests of the whole country.
What is absurd is dividing up a House of Parliament into little more than a congress of favoured vested interests on the specious ground that it would lead to better scrutiny of legislation. If you wanted a chamber to perform that task, then fill it with lawyers.
LOL. We already did. In what way are they not a vested interest|?
'In the midst of the most fraudulent General Election I have ever experienced, a clear and honest voice speaks, and is drowned by a tornado of lies.
After 40 years in the trade of journalism, I think I know what news is. And when Norman Tebbit, the fiercest and roughest anti-socialist street-fighter of the Thatcher years, suggests that Tories in Scotland vote Labour, that is news.
This is what he said: ‘From the Tories’ point of view we are not going to come home with a vast number of seats from Scotland. We know that. So the choice is, would we rather have a Scot Nat or Labour? I think, on balance, probably a Labour MP would be a more reasonable thing to have.’
Asked if he was advising Tory supporters to vote Labour where it is contesting seats with the SNP, he said: ‘I hesitate to say that. But it is logical from where I stand.’ Of course it is. Anyone who seriously wants to keep Scotland in the UK must seek to stop the rise of the SNP, not to fuel and encourage it.
(snip)
And Lord Tebbit’s amazing intervention doesn’t fit the script. In fact, it utterly destroys the official version, that this is a contest between a fiscally responsible, unionist Tory Party and a mad Trotskyist Labour Party in hock to the SNP and some trade union maniacs.
In fact, it’s the most amazing development in politics since another former Tory giant, Enoch Powell, urged his supporters to vote Labour in February 1974 and snarled ‘Judas was paid! I am making a sacrifice!’, in response to cries of ‘Judas!’
Yet it’s barely been mentioned, because it’s easier for commentators to ignore it than to explain it, and admit that their whole version of events is wrong. But it is.'
That man is so stupid it almost defies belief. Where to start?
Well, a lot of Conservatives in Scotland are considering tactical voting, more than ever before. It does not mean that we do not think Ed is anything other than incompetent, facile and inept. It simply means it is at the core of Conservatism to put the country first. And that is exactly what Tebbit is saying. As you would expect.
If he thinks this is a revelation he really needs to get out more.
Super rich bad: Rich good Eton bad: Minor public school good It's interesting where you draw the line and build the barricade, Roger.
Usually just after where you stand personally...
To be fair to the Tories, they have delivered for all of us top rate taxpayers, haven't they? Markets booming, property prices soaring, top rate tax cut, dividend tax rate cut and so on. There's never been a better time to be well off.
I disagree: asset price inflation is never good for people who are still looking to build their asset portfolio for utility rather than financial reasons (e.g. buying a bigger house to live in). But it is an inevitable consequence of QE. I personally believe (hope!) that the current valuations will not be sustained in future.
The top rate is still higher than it was under Labour. It's an indication of the direction of travel, nothing more. The people who have really benefited under this government are those that have benefited from the substantial increases in the personal allowance.
Not really. They have seen many of their tax credits cut or frozen, while the VAT rise has had a much bigger effect than it has on folk further up the income scale. I think if us top rate taxpayers were being honest we'd say we have done extremely well over recent years and it is thanks to the government. In the unlikely event of Labour getting in things would become tougher.
Not if you look at the IFS stats. The top decile has done worse, then (i think) the bottom decile. Then second top, then 2/3 bottom. Most of the middle are +/- where they were. This is all fiscal policy.
Obviously asset price inflation benefits those with assets who don't intend to buy more assets in future.
Charles, I own two houses in London. One , whose mortgage runs out in 3 months.
I am also well paid compared to the average person. I don't know which percentile but certainly in the top 2-3 percentile.
In the last few years, thanks to Tory policies, my asset values [ wealth ] increase annually has been higher than my income.
If people can earn more money sitting on actual wealth rather than working, then something is wrong badly !
You missed out the blindingly obvious and most important thing: that they have been governing well (with support from our LibDem friends) and want to be given the chance to continue to do so, in the interests of the whole country.
Except that the Conservatives want to do it all by themselves, without being restrained by the Liberal Democrats. And then they could implement all the proper Tory policies that the Lib Dems prevented them from doing.
So not altogether "in the interests of the whole country", Richard.
@Josias - I do truly believe I am a venal hypocrite in your eyes. All your posts to me make your view clear. Given that, why should I bother to convince you otherwise? You think what you think and nothing I say will change your mind. For the same reason, it is pointless to engage with you in any meaningful way. It is just a waste of my time when I could be exchanging views with more interesting posters.
That said, UKIP's leadership and financial support base is to the right of the Tory leadership, and is avowedly Thatcherite. At various times it has spoken out against the NHS, the welfare state and trade unions. To me, it makes no sense for any Old Labour supporter to vote for UKIP as the party is opposed to just about everything Old Labour stood for.
Apparently on Marr Ed Miliband just ruled out a confidence and supply with the SNP, which seems relevant to Next PM etc. I suppose that doesn't prevent them from voting for him for PM etc, it just prevents him from officially agreeing with them about what he'd have to do for them to vote for him?
Yes. A formal confidence and supply agreement would be tantamount to coalition. It would remove all the perceived advantages to the smaller party of not being in coalition. It also rules out all other parties participating on equal, unless they can get together in a tripartite pact; this matters when Lab cannot command a majority with only one other party, which still looks possible. Confidence and supply is irrationally popular because it looks like a halfway house: the stability of coalition, the principled distinctiveness of independence. Of course, like most utopias, it wouldn't happen that way.
'In the midst of the most fraudulent General Election I have ever experienced, a clear and honest voice speaks, and is drowned by a tornado of lies.
After 40 years in the trade of journalism, I think I know what news is. And when Norman Tebbit, the fiercest and roughest anti-socialist street-fighter of the Thatcher years, suggests that Tories in Scotland vote Labour, that is news.
This is what he said: ‘From the Tories’ point of view we are not going to come home with a vast number of seats from Scotland. We know that. So the choice is, would we rather have a Scot Nat or Labour? I think, on balance, probably a Labour MP would be a more reasonable thing to have.’
Asked if he was advising Tory supporters to vote Labour where it is contesting seats with the SNP, he said: ‘I hesitate to say that. But it is logical from where I stand.’ Of course it is. Anyone who seriously wants to keep Scotland in the UK must seek to stop the rise of the SNP, not to fuel and encourage it.
(snip)
And Lord Tebbit’s amazing intervention doesn’t fit the script. In fact, it utterly destroys the official version, that this is a contest between a fiscally responsible, unionist Tory Party and a mad Trotskyist Labour Party in hock to the SNP and some trade union maniacs.
In fact, it’s the most amazing development in politics since another former Tory giant, Enoch Powell, urged his supporters to vote Labour in February 1974 and snarled ‘Judas was paid! I am making a sacrifice!’, in response to cries of ‘Judas!’
Yet it’s barely been mentioned, because it’s easier for commentators to ignore it than to explain it, and admit that their whole version of events is wrong. But it is.'
That man is so stupid it almost defies belief. Where to start?
Well, a lot of Conservatives in Scotland are considering tactical voting, more than ever before. It does not mean that we do not think Ed is anything other than incompetent, facile and inept. It simply means it is at the core of Conservatism to put the country first. And that is exactly what Tebbit is saying. As you would expect.
If he thinks this is a revelation he really needs to get out more.
Rifkind said more or less the same thing on Sky News a couple of days ago.
When asked "Are you calling on Tories to vote Labour in Scotland?", he responded, IIRC, "Let's just say, I would be disappointed if many Labour and LibDem members lost their seats to the SNP..."
Not if you look at the IFS stats. The top decile has done worse, then (i think) the bottom decile. Then second top, then 2/3 bottom. Most of the middle are +/- where they were. This is all fiscal policy.
Obviously asset price inflation benefits those with assets who don't intend to buy more assets in future.
Charles, I own two houses in London. One , whose mortgage runs out in 3 months.
I am also well paid compared to the average person. I don't know which percentile but certainly in the top 2-3 percentile.
In the last few years, thanks to Tory policies, my asset values [ wealth ] increase annually has been higher than my income.
If people can earn more money sitting on actual wealth rather than working, then something is wrong badly !
The reason for your wealth gain is simple - QE.
Whilst this policy was implemented by a supposedly independent central bank it was done so with the wholesale backing of the, then Labour government.
Don't congratulate the tories for you wealth advancement, the plaudits are due to Mervyn King and Gordon Brown.
'In the midst of the most fraudulent General Election I have ever experienced, a clear and honest voice speaks, and is drowned by a tornado of lies.
After 40 years in the trade of journalism, I think I know what news is. And when Norman Tebbit, the fiercest and roughest anti-socialist street-fighter of the Thatcher years, suggests that Tories in Scotland vote Labour, that is news.
This is what he said: ‘From the Tories’ point of view we are not going to come home with a vast number of seats from Scotland. We know that. So the choice is, would we rather have a Scot Nat or Labour? I think, on balance, probably a Labour MP would be a more reasonable thing to have.’
Asked if he was advising Tory supporters to vote Labour where it is contesting seats with the SNP, he said: ‘I hesitate to say that. But it is logical from where I stand.’ Of course it is. Anyone who seriously wants to keep Scotland in the UK must seek to stop the rise of the SNP, not to fuel and encourage it.
(snip)
And Lord Tebbit’s amazing intervention doesn’t fit the script. In fact, it utterly destroys the official version, that this is a contest between a fiscally responsible, unionist Tory Party and a mad Trotskyist Labour Party in hock to the SNP and some trade union maniacs.
In fact, it’s the most amazing development in politics since another former Tory giant, Enoch Powell, urged his supporters to vote Labour in February 1974 and snarled ‘Judas was paid! I am making a sacrifice!’, in response to cries of ‘Judas!’
Yet it’s barely been mentioned, because it’s easier for commentators to ignore it than to explain it, and admit that their whole version of events is wrong. But it is.'
That man is so stupid it almost defies belief. Where to start?
Well, a lot of Conservatives in Scotland are considering tactical voting, more than ever before. It does not mean that we do not think Ed is anything other than incompetent, facile and inept. It simply means it is at the core of Conservatism to put the country first. And that is exactly what Tebbit is saying. As you would expect.
If he thinks this is a revelation he really needs to get out more.
Rifkind said more or less the same thing on Sky News a couple of days ago.
When asked "Are you calling on Tories to vote Labour in Scotland?", he responded, IIRC, "Let's just say, I would be disappointed if many Labour and LibDem members lost their seats to the SNP..."
We are the Conservative and Unionist party. Its on the tin.
@Josias - I do truly believe I am a venal hypocrite in your eyes. All your posts to me make your view clear. Given that, why should I bother to convince you otherwise? You think what you think and nothing I say will change your mind. For the same reason, it is pointless to engage with you in any meaningful way. It is just a waste of my time when I could be exchanging views with more interesting posters.
That said, UKIP's leadership and financial support base is to the right of the Tory leadership, and is avowedly Thatcherite. At various times it has spoken out against the NHS, the welfare state and trade unions. To me, it makes no sense for any Old Labour supporter to vote for UKIP as the party is opposed to just about everything Old Labour stood for.
And with that, I will leave you to it.
You can believe what you like, it doesn't make it true.
What you have had recently in my mind is a rather gaping credibility deficit. You said you would not vote Labour with Balls in the shadow cabinet because of McBride, and accepted plaudits for those comments. Then the election comes along and you say you are voting Labour. And the reason appears to be nothing more than an intense dislike (hatred?) of the Conservatives.
That seems utterly inconsistent to me.
(Also note I replied to one of your posts saying it was excellent just the other day. You seem to discount that from your thinking.)
Just as a re-cap I think we are looking at something like:
Tory 285 Anti-Tory 320 Non-aligned 40
EICIPM. The DUP plus the Lib Dems might just get Cameron over the line but the majority would be paper thin. An anti-Tory majority seems far more credible.
The Lib Dems will incline to helping to form the most stable government, whichever major party this might involve.
I think the LDs will regroup in opposition to lick their wounds. I certainly do not want us in any coalition or C and S arrangement.
Maybe yiou can answer the question I asked downthread. Why does the SNP's favourite webbsite 'Wings over Scotland' use a logo based on the Waffen SS? It's not that I mind just that every time I read one of your or Scotslass's posts I start humming the Horst-Wessel
Kindly remind me never to go shooting with you, should I ever show the urge, as you can't tell the difference between a Lion Rampant and an eagle.
The US Navy emblem is actually much closer to the NSDAP (not Waffen SS) eagle, so you might want to direct your queries there first.
As for @Dr_Spyn 's query re black kilts - you will no doubt know that it is SLAB which is infamous for introducing them to wider knowledge, on the person of Mr McConnell (prop., ret. hurt) in NYC. Though that was more a sartorial statement than a political one, unless it was intended to be a Caledonian version of Cool Britannia:
Just as a re-cap I think we are looking at something like:
Tory 285 Anti-Tory 320 Non-aligned 40
EICIPM. The DUP plus the Lib Dems might just get Cameron over the line but the majority would be paper thin. An anti-Tory majority seems far more credible.
Cameron's line would only need to be strong enough for long enough to get EV4EL etc through parliament.
Then you can write off the SNP, Plaid, NI etc etc.
Mr. Floater, I'd be surprised if the Con+UKIP vote were lower than Labour's.
UKIP will get a large rise in votes. The problem for the Conservatives is that the Lib Dems had around 8k last time. Nowhere near enough to win, and that'll dissipate, largely to Labour.Even if UKIP take little from the Conservatives and a lot from Labour, it'll be difficult, I think, for the Conservatives to make up for all the ex-Lib Dems going Balls' way.
Apparently on Marr Ed Miliband just ruled out a confidence and supply with the SNP, which seems relevant to Next PM etc. I suppose that doesn't prevent them from voting for him for PM etc, it just prevents him from officially agreeing with them about what he'd have to do for them to vote for him?
Yes. A formal confidence and supply agreement would be tantamount to coalition. It would remove all the perceived advantages to the smaller party of not being in coalition. It also rules out all other parties participating on equal, unless they can get together in a tripartite pact; this matters when Lab cannot command a majority with only one other party, which still looks possible. Confidence and supply is irrationally popular because it looks like a halfway house: the stability of coalition, the principled distinctiveness of independence. Of course, like most utopias, it wouldn't happen that way.
Unless the LDs get enough seats to revive the Coalition it is looking increasingly likely that we will have another GE sooner rather than later. One possible scenario in a situation where the Tories win most seats but cannot command the House is that Labour does not put itself forward as an alternative government and we go back to the polls in October. Clearly, Labour not working with the SNP would kill off a major Tory attack line for the second campaign and may also focus some Scottish minds, though that is unlikely as the SNP look to be set for the duration up there.
LOL. We already did. In what way are they not a vested interest|?
Of course lawyers are a vested interest and a particularly dangerous and oligopolistic one at that. I am not proposing creating a House of Parliament full of them, merely pointing out where the logic of the perverse argument for a House of experts adept at scrutinising legislation takes one.
Just as a re-cap I think we are looking at something like:
Tory 285 Anti-Tory 320 Non-aligned 40
EICIPM. The DUP plus the Lib Dems might just get Cameron over the line but the majority would be paper thin. An anti-Tory majority seems far more credible.
Cameron's line would only need to be strong enough for long enough to get EV4EL etc through parliament.
Then you can write off the SNP, Plaid, NI etc etc.
Would the DUP back EV4EL? And Clegg's FT piece seemed dismissive.
Just as a re-cap I think we are looking at something like:
Tory 285 Anti-Tory 320 Non-aligned 40
EICIPM. The DUP plus the Lib Dems might just get Cameron over the line but the majority would be paper thin. An anti-Tory majority seems far more credible.
The Lib Dems will incline to helping to form the most stable government, whichever major party this might involve.
I think the LDs will regroup in opposition to lick their wounds. I certainly do not want us in any coalition or C and S arrangement.
If all the parties statements are to be believed there's not likely to be many options for forming a stable coalition. Even C&S looks tricky. Of course there's always the Grand Coalition with agreed and limited aims for a defined (shortish) period. There's an article about a Grand Coalition in today's Sunday Times.
You missed out the blindingly obvious and most important thing: that they have been governing well (with support from our LibDem friends) and want to be given the chance to continue to do so, in the interests of the whole country.
Except that the Conservatives want to do it all by themselves, without being restrained by the Liberal Democrats. And then they could implement all the proper Tory policies that the Lib Dems prevented them from doing.
So not altogether "in the interests of the whole country", Richard.
Except that those policies, other than on Europe, look very similar to Orange Booker policies which is why economic policy has been a very easy area for the Coalition.
Both think that deficit reduction is critical. Both think it is very important that our debt ratio falls before the next crisis. Both want to reduce tax on the lower paid and incentivise work. Both think wealth creation is the key to sustainable public services. Both are signed up to reducing the burden of regulation where it is safe to do so. Both are committed to continuing the real term increases in health spending. Both think localism and out of London regeneration is key to our future growth. Both think it is important to get multinationals who make money here to pay more. Both are conscious of the need to have a business environment that is internationally competitive.
Their differences are questions of degree. The Lib Dems want slightly more tax increases and fewer real term cuts. The differences are exaggerated for election purposes with the modern Brownite trait of multiplying the difference over a number of years to make it sound like a substantial number. In reality a Tory government will probably end up closer to where the Lib Dems are now.
The Lib Dems have given stability and useful cover to Cameron allowing him to ignore the lunatics to his right. That is a much bigger problem for a small tory majority/ minority than any changes of policy planned by those in charge.
Watch Salmond on Sky to see how to conduct an interview.
Invites people to start laughing at the Tories desperate campaign - Prime Ministers who can't remember their football teams and Home Secretaries who babble on about an abdication type crisis.
Praises his successor to the skies contrasting Nicola speaking to thousands of women in the streets of Galsgow with Brown lecturing a handful of Labour time servers.
Suggests that the real result of the Tories anti-Scottish campaign will be Pandas 2 Tories 0.
If someone of Salmond's quality were leading the Labour campaign in the UK the Tories would be history in this election.
Assuming Cameron leads the largest party and Miliband has no formal or even public informal arrangements with the SNP how would Labour get any chance at forming a government until every Tory lead option is seen to be unworkable?
Being in government helps you control much of the political weather. If you're in number 10, you are in charge.
DavidL - Yep, I think you are right. Having pretended to represent something different in 2010 Clegg turned out to be just another politician who accepts the Thatcher settlement.
ELBOW for week-ending 26th April 2015 - a record bumper week with 17 separate polls total sample 20,360.
Lab 33.6 (-0.4) Con 33.1 (-0.5) UKIP 13.8 (+0.3) LD 8.2 (+0.2) Green 5.3 (+0.2)
Lab lead 0.6 (+0.1)
Two main parties each down somewhat, all three smaller parties up a touch. Greens have a mini-surge it seems. UKIP stabilising a touch under 14%. Lab lead maintained.
But wait! There's more! This week, just for a bit of fun, compiled data for YouGov only and Non-YouGov-only going back to August (see the version of the Labur lead chart with three lines plotted).
YouGov only this week:
Lab 34.4 (-0.3) Con 33.0 (-0.2) UKIP 13.2 (-0.3) LD 7.8 (-0.1) Green 5.7 (+0.5)
Lab lead 1.4 (-0.1)
Non-YouGov this week:
Con 33.1 (-0.9) Lab 32.6 (-0.6) UKIP 14.6 (1.0) LD 8.7 (+0.5) Green 4.8 (-0.3)
CON lead 0.5 (-0.3)
Graphs to follow this afternoon (inc. the triple Lab lead plot!)
We're just watching the London Marathon. What an amazing bunch of men and women; both the elite athletes and the amateurs raising money for charity.
Inspiring.
I'm ignoring the childish not speaking to certain people on here nonsense... Don't believe in petty censorship, you can agree disagree ignore whatever
Was just thinking the same re the marathon. I ran 7k in 35 mins on Friday and was absolutely mullered afterwards. Just saw the leaders here ran the 25th mile in 4:33, astonishing really
Looking at the list of target seats for Conservatives, is it at all feasible that they may gain any seats from Labour?
Possibles, without doing a huge amount of research.
West Midlands seats might be in play because they had a smaller swing from LAB to CON in 2010, than elsewhere and might be less UKIP effect.
Dudley North Telford Walsall North BIrmingham Edgbaston Walsall South
South West, due to general resurgence there
Southampton Itchen Plymouth Moor View Exeter
Others
Vale of Clwyd Newcastle Under Lyme Chorley.
I wouldn't be too surprised to see one of these fall blue on election night.
Any other suggestions.
I've heard some talk regarding Halifax.
Even in 1964, gaining over 60 seats on a 3% swing, Labour still managed to lose four to the Tories.
Two of the four were in the West Midlands - one was Smethwick - special circumstances. Many have put the Eton and Slough result in the same category of racialist backlash. The one in rural Norfolk was lost with the decline of the agricultural labourer workforce that had kept it as a marginal seat after the war.
I agree a CON/LD coalition is probably better for country than a small CON majority or CON minority.
Problem is, it is really difficult to see 326 (or 323) seats being blue and yellow. Unless there is a shift or the polls are correct right at the end of the tory favored outlier spectrum.
Or the registration thing has a much bigger effect than anyone bargained for.
Watch Salmond on Sky to see how to conduct an interview.
Invites people to start laughing at the Tories desperate campaign - Prime Ministers who can't remember their football teams and Home Secretaries who babble on about an abdication type crisis.
Praises his successor to the skies contrasting Nicola speaking to thousands of women in the streets of Galsgow with Brown lecturing a handful of Labour time servers.
Suggests that the real result of the Tories anti-Scottish campaign will be Pandas 2 Tories 0.
If someone of Salmond's quality were leading the Labour campaign in the UK the Tories would be history in this election.
Just as a re-cap I think we are looking at something like:
Tory 285 Anti-Tory 320 Non-aligned 40
EICIPM. The DUP plus the Lib Dems might just get Cameron over the line but the majority would be paper thin. An anti-Tory majority seems far more credible.
Cameron's line would only need to be strong enough for long enough to get EV4EL etc through parliament.
Then you can write off the SNP, Plaid, NI etc etc.
The problem with you is that you think the rest of the world thinks like you.
Why on earth do you think the Lib Dems will support you on EV4EL ? Are they Tories' bitch ?
ELBOW for week-ending 26th April 2015 - a record bumper week with 17 separate polls total sample 20,360.
Lab 33.6 (-0.4) Con 33.1 (-0.5) UKIP 13.8 (+0.3) LD 8.2 (+0.2) Green 5.3 (+0.2)
Lab lead 0.6 (+0.1)
Two main parties each down somewhat, all three smaller parties up a touch. Greens have a mini-surge it seems. UKIP stabilising a touch under 14%. Lab lead maintained.
But wait! There's more! This week, just for a bit of fun, compiled data for YouGov only and Non-YouGov-only going back to August (see the version of the Labur lead chart with three lines plotted).
YouGov only this week:
Lab 34.4 (-0.3) Con 33.0 (-0.2) UKIP 13.2 (-0.3) LD 7.8 (-0.1) Green 5.7 (+0.5)
Lab lead 1.4 (-0.1)
Non-YouGov this week:
Con 33.1 (-0.9) Lab 32.6 (-0.6) UKIP 14.6 (1.0) LD 8.7 (+0.5) Green 4.8 (-0.3)
CON lead 0.5 (-0.3)
Graphs to follow this afternoon (inc. the triple Lab lead plot!)
Can we have an elbow excluding You Gov and Populus - both seem to be suffering from similarly stale sampling.
You missed out the blindingly obvious and most important thing: that they have been governing well (with support from our LibDem friends) and want to be given the chance to continue to do so, in the interests of the whole country.
Except that the Conservatives want to do it all by themselves, without being restrained by the Liberal Democrats. And then they could implement all the proper Tory policies that the Lib Dems prevented them from doing.
So not altogether "in the interests of the whole country", Richard.
Except that those policies, other than on Europe, look very similar to Orange Booker policies which is why economic policy has been a very easy area for the Coalition.
Both think that deficit reduction is critical. Both think it is very important that our debt ratio falls before the next crisis. Both want to reduce tax on the lower paid and incentivise work. Both think wealth creation is the key to sustainable public services. Both are signed up to reducing the burden of regulation where it is safe to do so. Both are committed to continuing the real term increases in health spending. Both think localism and out of London regeneration is key to our future growth. Both think it is important to get multinationals who make money here to pay more. Both are conscious of the need to have a business environment that is internationally competitive.
Their differences are questions of degree. The Lib Dems want slightly more tax increases and fewer real term cuts. The differences are exaggerated for election purposes with the modern Brownite trait of multiplying the difference over a number of years to make it sound like a substantial number. In reality a Tory government will probably end up closer to where the Lib Dems are now.
The Lib Dems have given stability and useful cover to Cameron allowing him to ignore the lunatics to his right. That is a much bigger problem for a small tory majority/ minority than any changes of policy planned by those in charge.
One of the things in the national picture that is making me consider voting Lib Dem locally is their attitude towards tax and spending. Personally (and I know many differ) I would not mind paying more tax if it was spent more effectively. This latter clause is the big economic problem Labour has had, and my fears that the Lib Dems would be the same have been somewhat quashed by their reasonable behaviour in government.
If they were to raise a little more in tax, I'm confident they'd spent it more effectively than Labour. The idea of slightly reduced austerity and slight tax rises, spent better, is appealing.
DavidL - Yep, I think you are right. Having pretended to represent something different in 2010 Clegg turned out to be just another politician who accepts the Thatcher settlement.
As did New Labour of course. Not sure about Ed though. He seems determined to revisit mistakes of the past.
Would the DUP back EV4EL? And Clegg's FT piece seemed dismissive.
I don't know, but once the balance of power becomes a stark reality it will focus a lot of minds.
I suspect that turning the issue into party or country is likely to generate the same feelings in England as it has in Scotland and create a similar drift to English nationalism.
Mr. Floater, I'd be surprised if the Con+UKIP vote were lower than Labour's.
UKIP will get a large rise in votes. The problem for the Conservatives is that the Lib Dems had around 8k last time. Nowhere near enough to win, and that'll dissipate, largely to Labour.Even if UKIP take little from the Conservatives and a lot from Labour, it'll be difficult, I think, for the Conservatives to make up for all the ex-Lib Dems going Balls' way.
You missed out the blindingly obvious and most important thing: that they have been governing well (with support from our LibDem friends) and want to be given the chance to continue to do so, in the interests of the whole country.
Except that the Conservatives want to do it all by themselves, without being restrained by the Liberal Democrats. And then they could implement all the proper Tory policies that the Lib Dems prevented them from doing.
So not altogether "in the interests of the whole country", Richard.
Except that those policies, other than on Europe, look very similar to Orange Booker policies which is why economic policy has been a very easy area for the Coalition.
Both think that deficit reduction is critical. Both think it is very important that our debt ratio falls before the next crisis. Both want to reduce tax on the lower paid and incentivise work. Both think wealth creation is the key to sustainable public services. Both are signed up to reducing the burden of regulation where it is safe to do so. Both are committed to continuing the real term increases in health spending. Both think localism and out of London regeneration is key to our future growth. Both think it is important to get multinationals who make money here to pay more. Both are conscious of the need to have a business environment that is internationally competitive.
Their differences are questions of degree. The Lib Dems want slightly more tax increases and fewer real term cuts. The differences are exaggerated for election purposes with the modern Brownite trait of multiplying the difference over a number of years to make it sound like a substantial number. In reality a Tory government will probably end up closer to where the Lib Dems are now.
The Lib Dems have given stability and useful cover to Cameron allowing him to ignore the lunatics to his right. That is a much bigger problem for a small tory majority/ minority than any changes of policy planned by those in charge.
Yes, and as a result a grateful nation is decimating them and sending them to the knackers yard.
Would the DUP back EV4EL? And Clegg's FT piece seemed dismissive.
I don't know, but once the balance of power becomes a stark reality it will focus a lot of minds.
I suspect that turning the issue into party or country is likely to generate the same feelings in England as it has in Scotland and create a similar drift to English nationalism.
Will England have an in-out referendum before Scotland?
We're just watching the London Marathon. What an amazing bunch of men and women; both the elite athletes and the amateurs raising money for charity.
Inspiring.
I'm ignoring the childish not speaking to certain people on here nonsense... Don't believe in petty censorship, you can agree disagree ignore whatever
Was just thinking the same re the marathon. I ran 7k in 35 mins on Friday and was absolutely mullered afterwards. Just saw the leaders here ran the 25th mile in 4:33, astonishing really
The point when the leaders start to pick up their pace towards the end is when my jaw starts to drop. I can just about imagine hanging in there and stumbling along on sheer willpower. But sprinting? Incredible.
We're just watching the London Marathon. What an amazing bunch of men and women; both the elite athletes and the amateurs raising money for charity.
Inspiring.
I'm ignoring the childish not speaking to certain people on here nonsense... Don't believe in petty censorship, you can agree disagree ignore whatever
Was just thinking the same re the marathon. I ran 7k in 35 mins on Friday and was absolutely mullered afterwards. Just saw the leaders here ran the 25th mile in 4:33, astonishing really
It was a gentleman's agreement to stop annoying people with our constant arguing. It seemed to work quite well from my perspective, and was probably to the site's benefit.
But it's good to be in agreement on something. Hope you are well and in fine fettle, btw.
You missed out the blindingly obvious and most important thing: that they have been governing well (with support from our LibDem friends) and want to be given the chance to continue to do so, in the interests of the whole country.
Except that the Conservatives want to do it all by themselves, without being restrained by the Liberal Democrats. And then they could implement all the proper Tory policies that the Lib Dems prevented them from doing.
So not altogether "in the interests of the whole country", Richard.
Except that those policies, other than on Europe, look very similar to Orange Booker policies which is why economic policy has been a very easy area for the Coalition.
Both think that deficit reduction is critical. Both think it is very important that our debt ratio falls before the next crisis. Both want to reduce tax on the lower paid and incentivise work. Both think wealth creation is the key to sustainable public services. Both are signed up to reducing the burden of regulation where it is safe to do so. Both are committed to continuing the real term increases in health spending. Both think localism and out of London regeneration is key to our future growth. Both think it is important to get multinationals who make money here to pay more. Both are conscious of the need to have a business environment that is internationally competitive.
Their differences are questions of degree. The Lib Dems want slightly more tax increases and fewer real term cuts. The differences are exaggerated for election purposes with the modern Brownite trait of multiplying the difference over a number of years to make it sound like a substantial number. In reality a Tory government will probably end up closer to where the Lib Dems are now.
The Lib Dems have given stability and useful cover to Cameron allowing him to ignore the lunatics to his right. That is a much bigger problem for a small tory majority/ minority than any changes of policy planned by those in charge.
Yes, and as a result a grateful nation is decimating them and sending them to the knackers yard.
No one ever said life was fair. Or if they did they were wrong.
Assuming Cameron leads the largest party and Miliband has no formal or even public informal arrangements with the SNP how would Labour get any chance at forming a government until every Tory lead option is seen to be unworkable?
Being in government helps you control much of the political weather. If you're in number 10, you are in charge.
A weakened Tories could decide their best tactical option would be to install an even weaker Miliband, and let the fun begin with the SNP...
You missed out the blindingly obvious and most important thing: that they have been governing well (with support from our LibDem friends) and want to be given the chance to continue to do so, in the interests of the whole country.
Except that the Conservatives want to do it all by themselves, without being restrained by the Liberal Democrats. And then they could implement all the proper Tory policies that the Lib Dems prevented them from doing.
So not altogether "in the interests of the whole country", Richard.
Except that those policies, other than on Europe, look very similar to Orange Booker policies which is why economic policy has been a very easy area for the Coalition.
Both think that deficit reduction is critical. Both think it is very important that our debt ratio falls before the next crisis. Both want to reduce tax on the lower paid and incentivise work. Both think wealth creation is the key to sustainable public services. Both are signed up to reducing the burden of regulation where it is safe to do so. Both are committed to continuing the real term increases in health spending. Both think localism and out of London regeneration is key to our future growth. Both think it is important to get multinationals who make money here to pay more. Both are conscious of the need to have a business environment that is internationally competitive.
Their differences are questions of degree. The Lib Dems want slightly more tax increases and fewer real term cuts. The differences are exaggerated for election purposes with the modern Brownite trait of multiplying the difference over a number of years to make it sound like a substantial number. In reality a Tory government will probably end up closer to where the Lib Dems are now.
The Lib Dems have given stability and useful cover to Cameron allowing him to ignore the lunatics to his right. That is a much bigger problem for a small tory majority/ minority than any changes of policy planned by those in charge.
One of the things in the national picture that is making me consider voting Lib Dem locally is their attitude towards tax and spending. Personally (and I know many differ) I would not mind paying more tax if it was spent more effectively. This latter clause is the big economic problem Labour has had, and my fears that the Lib Dems would be the same have been somewhat quashed by their reasonable behaviour in government.
If they were to raise a little more in tax, I'm confident they'd spent it more effectively than Labour. The idea of slightly reduced austerity and slight tax rises, spent better, is appealing.
I agree but then I have always been a pretty wet kind of Tory.
Assuming Cameron leads the largest party and Miliband has no formal or even public informal arrangements with the SNP how would Labour get any chance at forming a government until every Tory lead option is seen to be unworkable?
Being in government helps you control much of the political weather. If you're in number 10, you are in charge.
A weakened Tories could decide their best tactical option would be to install an even weaker Miliband, and let the fun begin with the SNP...
Assuming Cameron leads the largest party and Miliband has no formal or even public informal arrangements with the SNP how would Labour get any chance at forming a government until every Tory lead option is seen to be unworkable?
Being in government helps you control much of the political weather. If you're in number 10, you are in charge.
A weakened Tories could decide their best tactical option would be to install an even weaker Miliband, and let the fun begin with the SNP...
Abolish bedroom tax Raise taxes on rich Cap energy prices Unfreeze public sector wages Call election on a ticket of 'don't take us back to the bad old days'
the Lib Dems might be largely irrelevant in the next government.
To small to help the tories not needed to help an SNP backed Labour
Probably actually aids their long term electoral prospects.
Possibly. Being able to pick and choose, or pick neither, puts a lot of pressure on a party that will be licking its wounds and needing to figure out how to regroup, but if they can essentially just sit things out? Very nice.
the Lib Dems might be largely irrelevant in the next government.
To small to help the tories not needed to help an SNP backed Labour
Probably actually aids their long term electoral prospects.
Possibly. Being able to pick and choose, or pick neither, puts a lot of pressure on a party that will be licking its wounds and needing to figure out how to regroup, but if they can essentially just sit things out? Very nice.
Isn't there a risk, surely, that the LD's fade into irrelevance by 2020?
We're just watching the London Marathon. What an amazing bunch of men and women; both the elite athletes and the amateurs raising money for charity.
Inspiring.
I'm ignoring the childish not speaking to certain people on here nonsense... Don't believe in petty censorship, you can agree disagree ignore whatever
Was just thinking the same re the marathon. I ran 7k in 35 mins on Friday and was absolutely mullered afterwards. Just saw the leaders here ran the 25th mile in 4:33, astonishing really
The point when the leaders start to pick up their pace towards the end is when my jaw starts to drop. I can just about imagine hanging in there and stumbling along on sheer willpower. But sprinting? Incredible.
A friend and I always joke that it would have been fun to tap Roger Bannisters shoulder after he ran the first sub 4 min mile and say
'Btw Rog, people will be knocking 15 seconds off that in 40 years'
He'd probably say 'f off I doubt anyone will ever do it again!'
@krishgm: Ukip's @SuzanneEvans1 tells #c4news they could vote with Labour to make Ed Miliband PM and the parties agree on various ideas
@krishgm: Also @SuzanneEvans1 says Ukip will not try to block Ed Miliband in the way SNP will vote to block David Cameron
Clever tactic aimed at WWC votes in the North and also in Eastern England. Does she have Farage's permission ?
They won't like an evolution to a French style contest between alliances. That would lead to them being interchangeable with the Tories. They want to play both sides like the Liberal Democrats used to
You missed out the blindingly obvious and most important thing: that they have been governing well (with support from our LibDem friends) and want to be given the chance to continue to do so, in the interests of the whole country.
Except that the Conservatives want to do it all by themselves, without being restrained by the Liberal Democrats. And then they could implement all the proper Tory policies that the Lib Dems prevented them from doing.
So not altogether "in the interests of the whole country", Richard.
Except that those policies, other than on Europe, look very similar to Orange Booker policies which is why economic policy has been a very easy area for the Coalition.
Both think that deficit reduction is critical. Both think it is very important that our debt ratio falls before the next crisis. Both want to reduce tax on the lower paid and incentivise work. Both think wealth creation is the key to sustainable public services. Both are signed up to reducing the burden of regulation where it is safe to do so. Both are committed to continuing the real term increases in health spending. Both think localism and out of London regeneration is key to our future growth. Both think it is important to get multinationals who make money here to pay more. Both are conscious of the need to have a business environment that is internationally competitive.
Their differences are questions of degree. The Lib Dems want slightly more tax increases and fewer real term cuts. The differences are exaggerated for election purposes with the modern Brownite trait of multiplying the difference over a number of years to make it sound like a substantial number. In reality a Tory government will probably end up closer to where the Lib Dems are now.
The Lib Dems have given stability and useful cover to Cameron allowing him to ignore the lunatics to his right. That is a much bigger problem for a small tory majority/ minority than any changes of policy planned by those in charge.
Yes, and as a result a grateful nation is decimating them and sending them to the knackers yard.
Sadly, yes. The very thing the Lib Dems had been pinning their hopes on for years - coalition - has grievously damaged them. But despite this they have generally acted in a professional manner, with few splits from the coalition agenda. Especially when compared to the 2005-10 Labour party.
As an aside, remember the people predicting back in 2010/1/2 that the coalition would end soon, or not last until 2015?
Re labours rent control policy does anyone think it will become a reality. Rents will be freely negotiated at the beginning of the tenancy between landlord and tenant with some reference to the previous rent and then any rent rise for the max three years will be restricted to inflation. Apparently it will not come in until 2017 and will be policed by the local authority.
Any landlord who neglects the property maintenance will lose tax relief this to be policed by HMRC.
It is so obvious that landlords will calculate their initial rents at a much higher level to allow for this restriction and then at the end of three years will raise rents again. As there is no possibility of there being anything but large rental demand the landlords will have no problem in attracting tenants paying the higher rent. Furthermore it is probable that a lot of tenancies will be allowed to lapse before the regulation comes into force to enable the landlord to negotiate a completely new tenancy contract to protect their interest
The idea that local authorities will have the time and staffing to maintain a new landlord register and that HMRC will be able to investigate landlords re their tax relief is ridiculous.
Another sound bite policy from Ed Miliband who has no knowledge of markets and more worryingly no interest in understanding them
ELBOW for week-ending 26th April 2015 - a record bumper week with 17 separate polls total sample 20,360.
Lab 33.6 (-0.4) Con 33.1 (-0.5) UKIP 13.8 (+0.3) LD 8.2 (+0.2) Green 5.3 (+0.2)
Lab lead 0.6 (+0.1)
Two main parties each down somewhat, all three smaller parties up a touch. Greens have a mini-surge it seems. UKIP stabilising a touch under 14%. Lab lead maintained.
But wait! There's more! This week, just for a bit of fun, compiled data for YouGov only and Non-YouGov-only going back to August (see the version of the Labur lead chart with three lines plotted).
YouGov only this week:
Lab 34.4 (-0.3) Con 33.0 (-0.2) UKIP 13.2 (-0.3) LD 7.8 (-0.1) Green 5.7 (+0.5)
Lab lead 1.4 (-0.1)
Non-YouGov this week:
Con 33.1 (-0.9) Lab 32.6 (-0.6) UKIP 14.6 (1.0) LD 8.7 (+0.5) Green 4.8 (-0.3)
CON lead 0.5 (-0.3)
Graphs to follow this afternoon (inc. the triple Lab lead plot!)
The Greens are denying Labour , at least, 3%. The difference between an overall majority and a minority government.
You missed out the blindingly obvious and most important thing: that they have been governing well (with support from our LibDem friends) and want to be given the chance to continue to do so, in the interests of the whole country.
Except that the Conservatives want to do it all by themselves, without being restrained by the Liberal Democrats. And then they could implement all the proper Tory policies that the Lib Dems prevented them from doing.
So not altogether "in the interests of the whole country", Richard.
Except that those policies, other than on Europe, look very similar to Orange Booker policies which is why economic policy has been a very easy area for the Coalition.
Both think that deficit reduction is critical. Both think it is very important that our debt ratio falls before the next crisis. Both want to reduce tax on the lower paid and incentivise work. Both think wealth creation is the key to sustainable public services. Both are signed up to reducing the burden of regulation where it is safe to do so. Both are committed to continuing the real term increases in health spending. Both think localism and out of London regeneration is key to our future growth. Both think it is important to get multinationals who make money here to pay more. Both are conscious of the need to have a business environment that is internationally competitive.
Their differences are questions of degree. The Lib Dems want slightly more tax increases and fewer real term cuts. The differences are exaggerated for election purposes with the modern Brownite trait of multiplying the difference over a number of years to make it sound like a substantial number. In reality a Tory government will probably end up closer to where the Lib Dems are now.
The Lib Dems have given stability and useful cover to Cameron allowing him to ignore the lunatics to his right. That is a much bigger problem for a small tory majority/ minority than any changes of policy planned by those in charge.
Yes, and as a result a grateful nation is decimating them and sending them to the knackers yard.
Sadly, yes. The very thing the Lib Dems had been pinning their hopes on for years - coalition - has grievously damaged them. But despite this they have generally acted in a professional manner, with few splits from the coalition agenda. Especially when compared to the 2005-10 Labour party.
As an aside, remember the people predicting back in 2010/1/2 that the coalition would end soon, or not last until 2015?
My prediction is that the coalition will be looked up as a golden age in just a few months.
the Lib Dems might be largely irrelevant in the next government.
To small to help the tories not needed to help an SNP backed Labour
Probably actually aids their long term electoral prospects.
Possibly. Being able to pick and choose, or pick neither, puts a lot of pressure on a party that will be licking its wounds and needing to figure out how to regroup, but if they can essentially just sit things out? Very nice.
Isn't there a risk, surely, that the LD's fade into irrelevance by 2020?
Of course. My suspicion is the LDs would be happy with a Lab-SNP government, in the hope that they can recover support as those two lose some popularity as a natural consequence of being in government, while simultaneously tacking left and repudiating Clegg and his ilk to reassure people they are proper lefties again. It could work, but as you say maybe it'll just mean they don't recover and also don't have influence - but what else leads to the possibility of a recovery?
ELBOW for week-ending 26th April 2015 - a record bumper week with 17 separate polls total sample 20,360.
Lab 33.6 (-0.4) Con 33.1 (-0.5) UKIP 13.8 (+0.3) LD 8.2 (+0.2) Green 5.3 (+0.2)
Lab lead 0.6 (+0.1)
Two main parties each down somewhat, all three smaller parties up a touch. Greens have a mini-surge it seems. UKIP stabilising a touch under 14%. Lab lead maintained.
But wait! There's more! This week, just for a bit of fun, compiled data for YouGov only and Non-YouGov-only going back to August (see the version of the Labur lead chart with three lines plotted).
YouGov only this week:
Lab 34.4 (-0.3) Con 33.0 (-0.2) UKIP 13.2 (-0.3) LD 7.8 (-0.1) Green 5.7 (+0.5)
Lab lead 1.4 (-0.1)
Non-YouGov this week:
Con 33.1 (-0.9) Lab 32.6 (-0.6) UKIP 14.6 (1.0) LD 8.7 (+0.5) Green 4.8 (-0.3)
CON lead 0.5 (-0.3)
Graphs to follow this afternoon (inc. the triple Lab lead plot!)
The Greens are denying Labour , at least, 3%. The difference between an overall majority and a minority government.
Nah. They are being well squeezed in the marginal seats.look at the Ashcroft release from Friday
Wait... No, you're right. In Thurrock they are absent but in most seats they could make all the difference
Re labours rent control policy does anyone think it will become a reality. Rents will be freely negotiated at the beginning of the tenancy between landlord and tenant with some reference to the previous rent and then any rent rise for the max three years will be restricted to inflation. Apparently it will not come in until 2017 and will be policed by the local authority.
Any landlord who neglects the property maintenance will lose tax relief this to be policed by HMRC.
It is so obvious that landlords will calculate their initial rents at a much higher level to allow for this restriction and then at the end of three years will raise rents again. As there is no possibility of there being anything but large rental demand the landlords will have no problem in attracting tenants paying the higher rent. Furthermore it is probable that a lot of tenancies will be allowed to lapse before the regulation comes into force to enable the landlord to negotiate a completely new tenancy contract to protect their interest
The idea that local authorities will have the time and staffing to maintain a new landlord register and that HMRC will be able to investigate landlords re their tax relief is ridiculous.
Another sound bite policy from Ed Miliband who has no knowledge of markets and more worryingly no interest in understanding them
If it has no real effect, then maybe Ed Miliband is a smarter politician than you give him credit for.
Re labours rent control policy does anyone think it will become a reality. Rents will be freely negotiated at the beginning of the tenancy between landlord and tenant with some reference to the previous rent and then any rent rise for the max three years will be restricted to inflation. Apparently it will not come in until 2017 and will be policed by the local authority.
Any landlord who neglects the property maintenance will lose tax relief this to be policed by HMRC.
It is so obvious that landlords will calculate their initial rents at a much higher level to allow for this restriction and then at the end of three years will raise rents again. As there is no possibility of there being anything but large rental demand the landlords will have no problem in attracting tenants paying the higher rent. Furthermore it is probable that a lot of tenancies will be allowed to lapse before the regulation comes into force to enable the landlord to negotiate a completely new tenancy contract to protect their interest
The idea that local authorities will have the time and staffing to maintain a new landlord register and that HMRC will be able to investigate landlords re their tax relief is ridiculous.
Another sound bite policy from Ed Miliband who has no knowledge of markets and more worryingly no interest in understanding them
If it has no real effect, then maybe Ed Miliband is a smarter politician than you give him credit for.
The effect will be to raise rents for all new tenancies
the Lib Dems might be largely irrelevant in the next government.
To small to help the tories not needed to help an SNP backed Labour
Probably actually aids their long term electoral prospects.
Possibly. Being able to pick and choose, or pick neither, puts a lot of pressure on a party that will be licking its wounds and needing to figure out how to regroup, but if they can essentially just sit things out? Very nice.
Isn't there a risk, surely, that the LD's fade into irrelevance by 2020?
Of course. My suspicion is the LDs would be happy with a Lab-SNP government, in the hope that they can recover support as those two lose some popularity as a natural consequence of being in government, while simultaneously tacking left and repudiating Clegg and his ilk to reassure people they are proper lefties again. It could work, but as you say maybe it'll just mean they don't recover and also don't have influence - but what else leads to the possibility of a recovery?
There is an article by Iain Macwhirter in the Sunday Herald arguing that it is more likely we will see a Labour-LD coalition (Mr M gets to be PM, the LDs keep their ministerial cars and start detoxing away from the Tories) while the SNP quietly support on a case by case basis without any agreement but are still seen to intervene in key issues. [Edit: my summary.] There is some sense in this as it maximises the benefits and reduces the downsides for each party.
Comments
How many ways do you have to say that you think I am a venal hypocrite? Really, your obsession with me is rather strange.
The drift out to 1.8x is going back below 1.7 soon enough. This looks like an easy trade to me.
The contribution they make is to highlight the facts and points under debate resulting from draft legislation. No one body of interests would have anything like a majority in the Lords to fix it their interests and, if they did, the Commons could reject their amendments and override them.
I agree unorganised employees, like yourself, should also be represented, incidentally. Small businesses, tradesman and shopkeepers should also have a strong voice.
See you later.
It'd be nice if you actually addressed the points, but I've given up on that.
Also,Clegg has confirmed a LibDem vote is a Tory vote as the Tories are the only game in town for him.Ignore the LibDem-Con marginals,they are both on the same side and will be again.Clegg would sell his soul for a ministerial car.
We can turn the clock back to 1931 and an alternate history "Statute of Westminster" could have set up a directly elected legislature for all British Empire Dominions, Colonies, Dependencies and Territories! Ergo, the "Imperial Senate"!
And then in an alternate history 1977, that august body could have been the inspiration for its namesake in George Lucas's "Star Wars"
Tory 285
Anti-Tory 320
Non-aligned 40
EICIPM. The DUP plus the Lib Dems might just get Cameron over the line but the majority would be paper thin. An anti-Tory majority seems far more credible.
I was not impressed with Boris Johnson either, he is suffering from his years of 'buffoonery' and no matter how serious he intends to be, always comes out with some ridiculous remark.
There is no doubt he is a highly intelligent man but an incredibly poor speaker. He stops mid-sentence to think of some classical Greek figure and then gets interrupted and loses the flow of the sentence, thus allowing the interviewer to jump in. Perhaps he needs some 'media training.'
I find it hard to believe he didn't know he was going to be ambushed at the end of Marr but seemed totally unprepared for it. He is not the 'star striker' they seem to think he is.
Lib-Lab worth 1/2 as much as Con-Lab. DCT and Berwickshire Roxburgh the most important marginals in Scotland in terms of PM.
Well, a lot of Conservatives in Scotland are considering tactical voting, more than ever before. It does not mean that we do not think Ed is anything other than incompetent, facile and inept. It simply means it is at the core of Conservatism to put the country first. And that is exactly what Tebbit is saying. As you would expect.
If he thinks this is a revelation he really needs to get out more.
I am also well paid compared to the average person. I don't know which percentile but certainly in the top 2-3 percentile.
In the last few years, thanks to Tory policies, my asset values [ wealth ] increase annually has been higher than my income.
If people can earn more money sitting on actual wealth rather than working, then something is wrong badly !
Possibles, without doing a huge amount of research.
West Midlands seats might be in play because they had a smaller swing from LAB to CON in 2010, than elsewhere and might be less UKIP effect.
Dudley North
Telford
Walsall North
BIrmingham Edgbaston
Walsall South
South West, due to general resurgence there
Southampton Itchen
Plymouth Moor View
Exeter
Others
Vale of Clwyd
Newcastle Under Lyme
Chorley.
I wouldn't be too surprised to see one of these fall blue on election night.
Any other suggestions.
So not altogether "in the interests of the whole country", Richard.
That said, UKIP's leadership and financial support base is to the right of the Tory leadership, and is avowedly Thatcherite. At various times it has spoken out against the NHS, the welfare state and trade unions. To me, it makes no sense for any Old Labour supporter to vote for UKIP as the party is opposed to just about everything Old Labour stood for.
And with that, I will leave you to it.
When asked "Are you calling on Tories to vote Labour in Scotland?", he responded, IIRC, "Let's just say, I would be disappointed if many Labour and LibDem members lost their seats to the SNP..."
Not if you look at the IFS stats. The top decile has done worse, then (i think) the bottom decile. Then second top, then 2/3 bottom. Most of the middle are +/- where they were. This is all fiscal policy.
Obviously asset price inflation benefits those with assets who don't intend to buy more assets in future.
Charles, I own two houses in London. One , whose mortgage runs out in 3 months.
I am also well paid compared to the average person. I don't know which percentile but certainly in the top 2-3 percentile.
In the last few years, thanks to Tory policies, my asset values [ wealth ] increase annually has been higher than my income.
If people can earn more money sitting on actual wealth rather than working, then something is wrong badly !
The reason for your wealth gain is simple - QE.
Whilst this policy was implemented by a supposedly independent central bank it was done so with the wholesale backing of the, then Labour government.
Don't congratulate the tories for you wealth advancement, the plaudits are due to Mervyn King and Gordon Brown.
It's an interesting bet - I'm not sure how i'd price it up though.
Maybe 1/2 yes vs. 6/4 no? Or perhaps a little shorter in the conservatives' favour.
@shadsy ?
What you have had recently in my mind is a rather gaping credibility deficit. You said you would not vote Labour with Balls in the shadow cabinet because of McBride, and accepted plaudits for those comments. Then the election comes along and you say you are voting Labour. And the reason appears to be nothing more than an intense dislike (hatred?) of the Conservatives.
That seems utterly inconsistent to me.
(Also note I replied to one of your posts saying it was excellent just the other day. You seem to discount that from your thinking.)
I suspect there is a decent chance of CON+UKIP being higher than LAB
Then you can write off the SNP, Plaid, NI etc etc.
UKIP will get a large rise in votes. The problem for the Conservatives is that the Lib Dems had around 8k last time. Nowhere near enough to win, and that'll dissipate, largely to Labour.Even if UKIP take little from the Conservatives and a lot from Labour, it'll be difficult, I think, for the Conservatives to make up for all the ex-Lib Dems going Balls' way.
Even in 1964, gaining over 60 seats on a 3% swing, Labour still managed to lose four to the Tories.
To small to help the tories
not needed to help an SNP backed Labour
Probably actually aids their long term electoral prospects.
And to score 2 or more at 8/1unibet
Of course there's always the Grand Coalition with agreed and limited aims for a defined (shortish) period. There's an article about a Grand Coalition in today's Sunday Times.
Both think that deficit reduction is critical.
Both think it is very important that our debt ratio falls before the next crisis.
Both want to reduce tax on the lower paid and incentivise work.
Both think wealth creation is the key to sustainable public services.
Both are signed up to reducing the burden of regulation where it is safe to do so.
Both are committed to continuing the real term increases in health spending.
Both think localism and out of London regeneration is key to our future growth.
Both think it is important to get multinationals who make money here to pay more.
Both are conscious of the need to have a business environment that is internationally competitive.
Their differences are questions of degree. The Lib Dems want slightly more tax increases and fewer real term cuts. The differences are exaggerated for election purposes with the modern Brownite trait of multiplying the difference over a number of years to make it sound like a substantial number. In reality a Tory government will probably end up closer to where the Lib Dems are now.
The Lib Dems have given stability and useful cover to Cameron allowing him to ignore the lunatics to his right. That is a much bigger problem for a small tory majority/ minority than any changes of policy planned by those in charge.
We're just watching the London Marathon. What an amazing bunch of men and women; both the elite athletes and the amateurs raising money for charity.
Inspiring.
Invites people to start laughing at the Tories desperate campaign - Prime Ministers who can't remember their football teams and Home Secretaries who babble on about an abdication type crisis.
Praises his successor to the skies contrasting Nicola speaking to thousands of women in the streets of Galsgow with Brown lecturing a handful of Labour time servers.
Suggests that the real result of the Tories anti-Scottish campaign will be Pandas 2 Tories 0.
If someone of Salmond's quality were leading the Labour campaign in the UK the Tories would be history in this election.
Being in government helps you control much of the political weather. If you're in number 10, you are in charge.
Lab 33.6 (-0.4)
Con 33.1 (-0.5)
UKIP 13.8 (+0.3)
LD 8.2 (+0.2)
Green 5.3 (+0.2)
Lab lead 0.6 (+0.1)
Two main parties each down somewhat, all three smaller parties up a touch. Greens have a mini-surge it seems. UKIP stabilising a touch under 14%. Lab lead maintained.
But wait! There's more! This week, just for a bit of fun, compiled data for YouGov only and Non-YouGov-only going back to August (see the version of the Labur lead chart with three lines plotted).
YouGov only this week:
Lab 34.4 (-0.3)
Con 33.0 (-0.2)
UKIP 13.2 (-0.3)
LD 7.8 (-0.1)
Green 5.7 (+0.5)
Lab lead 1.4 (-0.1)
Non-YouGov this week:
Con 33.1 (-0.9)
Lab 32.6 (-0.6)
UKIP 14.6 (1.0)
LD 8.7 (+0.5)
Green 4.8 (-0.3)
CON lead 0.5 (-0.3)
Graphs to follow this afternoon (inc. the triple Lab lead plot!)
Was just thinking the same re the marathon. I ran 7k in 35 mins on Friday and was absolutely mullered afterwards. Just saw the leaders here ran the 25th mile in 4:33, astonishing really
Problem is, it is really difficult to see 326 (or 323) seats being blue and yellow. Unless there is a shift or the polls are correct right at the end of the tory favored outlier spectrum.
Or the registration thing has a much bigger effect than anyone bargained for.
Why on earth do you think the Lib Dems will support you on EV4EL ? Are they Tories' bitch ?
If they were to raise a little more in tax, I'm confident they'd spent it more effectively than Labour. The idea of slightly reduced austerity and slight tax rises, spent better, is appealing.
@krishgm: Also @SuzanneEvans1 says Ukip will not try to block Ed Miliband in the way SNP will vote to block David Cameron
I suspect that turning the issue into party or country is likely to generate the same feelings in England as it has in Scotland and create a similar drift to English nationalism.
But it's good to be in agreement on something. Hope you are well and in fine fettle, btw.
But the plot of Labour leads in YG and non-YG is "interesting" so don't worry!
Raise taxes on rich
Cap energy prices
Unfreeze public sector wages
Call election on a ticket of 'don't take us back to the bad old days'
I think one of the problems the Guardian reading class can't grasp is the rest of the world doesn't think like them.
'Btw Rog, people will be knocking 15 seconds off that in 40 years'
He'd probably say 'f off I doubt anyone will ever do it again!'
As an aside, remember the people predicting back in 2010/1/2 that the coalition would end soon, or not last until 2015?
Any landlord who neglects the property maintenance will lose tax relief this to be policed by HMRC.
It is so obvious that landlords will calculate their initial rents at a much higher level to allow for this restriction and then at the end of three years will raise rents again. As there is no possibility of there being anything but large rental demand the landlords will have no problem in attracting tenants paying the higher rent. Furthermore it is probable that a lot of tenancies will be allowed to lapse before the regulation comes into force to enable the landlord to negotiate a completely new tenancy contract to protect their interest
The idea that local authorities will have the time and staffing to maintain a new landlord register and that HMRC will be able to investigate landlords re their tax relief is ridiculous.
Another sound bite policy from Ed Miliband who has no knowledge of markets and more worryingly no interest in understanding them
Wait... No, you're right. In Thurrock they are absent but in most seats they could make all the difference
No surprise what Labour's response was to the Admiral's forecast.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/the-big-threat-to-the-union-the-tories.1430044789
If they go into a Labour government and immediately say everything we did for 5 years was bad, that will not 'detox' them